What if: the seamless world. - Page 2

Baneblade · 2011-02-14, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by I SandRock

What would really be the point of it being seamless then?
Just more travel time rather than teleport to a warpgate on the continent?

The idea is nice because it becomes a more realistic thing, but I'm not sure if gameplay-wise it'll add more flavor and perhaps even detract from it. It's also very risky to just try it out. If it doesn't work, it could cost a lot of production time, money, resources etc.

It adds to strategy, logistics, and overall flow of the various theaters of war. It doesn't feel like there are seperate fights, but one interconnected war.

I SandRock · 2011-02-15, 04:14 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

It adds to strategy, logistics, and overall flow of the various theaters of war. It doesn't feel like there are seperate fights, but one interconnected war.

That's only if it was truly seamless, I was replying to the semi-seamless suggestion where it is one world but you can only access the different zones through the water which acts as a loading time basically. You don't have any added strategy, logistics or overall flow of various theaters of war any more than you already have in that scenario.

See my earlier comments why I'm not that fond of the actual seamless idea

Baneblade · 2011-02-15, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by I SandRock

That's only if it was truly seamless, I was replying to the semi-seamless suggestion where it is one world but you can only access the different zones through the water which acts as a loading time basically. You don't have any added strategy, logistics or overall flow of various theaters of war any more than you already have in that scenario.

See my earlier comments why I'm not that fond of the actual seamless idea

What else would continents be connected by?

DviddLeff · 2011-02-15, 12:23 PM

Check out this article on travel times:

http://www.mmorpg.com/showFeature.cf...n-Meaning.html

I like the idea of a seamless world; it gives rise to amphibious assaults from unexpected directions. But overly long travel times are a chore for those players who do not have hours to spend in game, so as long as the continents are relatively close together I do not mind.

It shouldn't take more than 10 minutes to form up with your outfit where ever they are in the game world if you choose the fastest mode of transport.

I SandRock · 2011-02-15, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

What else would continents be connected by?

You're losing the focus on the overall discussion and are only giving arguments to my individual replies which basically means we're now talking about semantics while the point is gameplay.

I don't care if continents are connected by molten lava, water or melted cheese, it's the implications it has for gameplay that I find important. You said your seamless world idea wouldn't function as a fully seamless world (where you could fly anywhere you wanted anytime you wanted etc.) but it would give the idea of being seamless by all being on the same planet and having invisible loading times (travelling through the sea) but still functioning as individual zones like we are used to.

I don't see the point to that. And if you are talking about an entirely seamless world in it's full sense, then I gave my opinion on that in one of my first replies. Which basically said I'm not sure whether I'm opposed to the idea or not but I don't really see it offer that much more benefit than the current system and probably an even amount of negative gameplay effects, combined with the risk of trying this new method out and failing I'd have to (personally) say no.

Valverde · 2011-02-15, 03:50 PM

LMAO; Semantics you got to love there general comedy.

Hamma · 2011-02-15, 05:54 PM

melted cheese

Excellent. This I can support!

SwanOrAPanda · 2011-02-15, 07:00 PM

Just want to clarify that EVE does not allow 4,000 people to fight without lag in a zone at once.

I think the max recorded in Jita (one of the major business hubs in EVE) was 2023 players, but there's hardly ever fighting there. If they all were fighting at once it would cause extreme amounts of lag.

Right now the devs say the capacity is 800 with fighting going on. Honestly, at that point it probably lags a lot, and if there's a battle of 300 or more the devs have to rearrange resources so that the zone the fighting is in won't lag.

The reason players in other areas don't lag is because each zone is seperated. The world in EVE isn't seamless.

So yeah...

BlazingSun · 2011-02-15, 07:32 PM

I remember when I thought I could fly to Solsar from the Sanctuary with my Moskito. "Powerlink is getting weaker!" - "What?" - *huarrr* dead.

Hamma · 2011-02-15, 08:47 PM

At one point very early on that was broken and you would fly until you hit an invisible wall.

Baneblade · 2011-02-15, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by I SandRock

You're losing the focus on the overall discussion and are only giving arguments to my individual replies which basically means we're now talking about semantics while the point is gameplay.

I said that as far as gameplay is concerned, there would be a seamless world. The difference would be purely technical.

I don't care if continents are connected by molten lava, water or melted cheese, it's the implications it has for gameplay that I find important.

Explained this already.

You said your seamless world idea wouldn't function as a fully seamless world

Actually, I said that is exactly how it would function. The point is that it would not technically be seamless, just appear that way.

but it would give the idea of being seamless by all being on the same planet and having invisible loading times (travelling through the sea) but still functioning as individual zones like we are used to.

Right, which is where I lose you...

I don't see the point to that.

I don't see the point to having multiple continents, primary color armies, and sanctuaries. But that doesn't mean there isn't a point for someone else.

Which basically said I'm not sure whether I'm opposed to the idea or not but I don't really see it offer that much more benefit than the current system and probably an even amount of negative gameplay effects, combined with the risk of trying this new method out and failing I'd have to (personally) say no.

And I said that it would change the game in awesome ways, but I never said any of them would be important or relevant to you.

Not everyone is the same, but declining to improve something when improving it does nothing to you negatively is the pinnacle of passive aggressive selfishness.

I SandRock · 2011-02-16, 05:10 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I said that as far as gameplay is concerned, there would be a seamless world. The difference would be purely technical.

Explained this already.

Actually, I said that is exactly how it would function. The point is that it would not technically be seamless, just appear that way.

Right, which is where I lose you...

I don't see the point to having multiple continents, primary color armies, and sanctuaries. But that doesn't mean there isn't a point for someone else.

And I said that it would change the game in awesome ways, but I never said any of them would be important or relevant to you.

Not everyone is the same, but declining to improve something when improving it does nothing to you negatively is the pinnacle of passive aggressive selfishness.

You missed the bit where I put (personally) in bold. I was afraid you'd take it personal, which it isn't.

I see upsides and downsides to a seamless world, where in the end it tips to the "don't do it" side. But that is my personal opinion, I fully respect and endorse people having their own opinions. And I fully agree that if it is the majority's consensus and SOE sees possibility and viability in it then it should be tried out. But if I were Mr. JSmed I'd.. personally.. say no

Oh and the bit you lost me is based on your quote here:

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

Which to me seemed to suggest there was no difference between how the system functions now (individual isolated zones) as it would in your suggestion except there is no loading screen, you travel across water while the zone loads.

CutterJohn · 2011-02-16, 06:05 AM

I could see having a zone boundary you can cross in the middle of the ocean. I don't see how you can get around the need for a queue or population limits. Much as 800 man battles would be fun, it just isn't going to happen.

So.. middle of the ocean. Zone wall. You enter it, poof away and enter the queue, then enter the next zone pretty much where you left the last one at, and be on your way. I could deal with that, and would open up some interesting gameplay.

Sifer2 · 2011-02-16, 06:15 AM

Hitting a zone wall in the ocean an being refused entry due to pop cap would actually be less immersing than the gate not working though. Unless it was like you could pick any nearby continent to travel to.

otomotopia · 2011-02-16, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Hitting a zone wall in the ocean an being refused entry due to pop cap would actually be less immersing than the gate not working though. Unless it was like you could pick any nearby continent to travel to.

It'd be awesome to travel to the battle in a massive formation though ^_^