Good point, but I think Nathan is more qualified to make the final decision than I am. The best we can do is give our opinions and let the man do his job. He already said that he'd talk more about it on the Twitch, which is what the entire community wants. I don't understand the purpose of arguing about previous plans.
That's called desperation my friend. They're trying to find faults in their plans even if it has to do with ages old plans that have MOST LIKELY been changed at this point.
30 vs 30 is maximum and doesn't happen that often and if it does it's almost unplayable for lots of ppl. And if you can't see the difference between max 60 players and 100 you really need to consult your oculist. The new customers should see the true article.
The "True" article that was 5 months ago? Man you make me laugh. How is it true? How do you know? Do YOU work in the company? Also insulting my eyes will get you nowhere when I obviously see what's the issue here and you don't. "if it does it's almost unplayable for lots of ppl" It's called lack of optimization and oh alpha. And yes 50vs50 it's one of those promised plans that has been remove... WAIT no it hasn't it was just changed so they can still please that playerbase. More is actually coming afterwards in post-launch as far as I remember I'll leave this comment from Sumshine here too. There is really no point in further arguing about this topic. Time will tell and we wait for another livestream where we will get all the answers to this.
It's every respectable company's duty to provide true information about their product to the customers and keep them updated in case of any changes. The info we are talking about is not true, 100 players battles are not available 'until then', period. The 'post launch land' is growing with every minute and the launch one shrinking so far. This is what is bothering lots of us, otherwise this thread wouldn't exist.
I'll be perfectly happy with Nathan's original concept of 2 to 3 outposts and a Fortress per zone. That's open world enough for me. That's basically the same type concept I saw in practice in Warhammer Online's Open Realm Versus Realm(ORVR) game play. You could move on foot or mounts between zones, or hit up a flight master. There were the Battlefield objectives that had to be secured before u could attack the main keep. Each BO had an effect on the defenders at the keep or in the zone. Same basic concept as Nathan descepribed months ago, secure 2/3 outposts before u can attack the Fortress.
But you can't say that info from 5 months ago is true if you don't even know or work in the company. As I said time will tell. I understand everyone's concerns about the release land shrinking and post-launch growing but we are getting most things for release that we were promised (Aside from open world as that was majorly Miguel's launch promise and things like 100 player battles etc...!) so unless they start pumping out content like CRAZY on post-launch, there will be a problem. But until then I feel like we should just sit down and wait until something starts smelling fishy. It's still the Publisher's fault that theey have to push all theese things. You're forgetting that. They are pushing them to release in summer and they don't have enough time. You can say it's developer's cause they can't work fast enough but that isn't exactly easy to do when you're making a game.
Yes I can, I don't see 100 players battles like it was advertised, it's simple (not even mentioning the rest of the missing content). The open world or even quasi open was one of the most interesting selling points of EC, now it's gone. I am aware of this but it wasn't me who was signing the deal with the publisher, right?
Well it's not fully gone. Just have to say that. As for the contract with the publisher, everyone makes mistakes. Nathan is no exception. At least it isn't SquareEnix or EA or any other silly company like Sega.
