One world, no loading screens

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

That sounds like a bad game. I'm glad I didn't play it. Especially as the gal pilot. That just sounds awful.

The word is 'gritty'. I don't mean in the hygienic sense. You needed to rely on other people, the game wasn't about one man armies. And war is war.

And 5 minutes? Sure, if you had aircav. Everyone else would either be much longer, or infinite, since most land vehicles can't cross water. I predict mossie would be the most popular cert by far in that game.

Assuming Aircraft are still far too cheap in cert points, yes. As for vehicles not being able to cross water, well that is life. Deliverers ftw.

I have always thought Aircraft in general and Air Cav is particular were far too easy on the cert points. I think doubling all of them is a good idea.

If you are advocating flying/floating across the oceans as an alternate means of travel instead of warpgates, thats fine.

Clearly I am not. Warpgates add too much predictability and throttle the flow of battle too much.

[Nephilimuk]

It would be nice but even single shard games like EVE have nodes and travel between those nodes is not seemless depending on the server loads.

It will be interesting to see if they have European, US and Asian servers or keep it on one server to maximise the number of players. I think I would would like to see single shard but the mechanics of delivering a consistant experience to all players would be an absolute nightmare. Also SOE would not be in contol of many of the variables so are likely to get there fingers burnt

[basti]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

That sounds like a bad game. I'm glad I didn't play it. Especially as the gal pilot. That just sounds awful.

And 5 minutes? Sure, if you had aircav. Everyone else would either be much longer, or infinite, since most land vehicles can't cross water. I predict mossie would be the most popular cert by far in that game.

If you are advocating flying/floating across the oceans as an alternate means of travel instead of warpgates, thats fine.

Its called Hart...

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Nephilimuk

It would be nice but even single shard games like EVE have nodes and travel between those nodes is not seemless depending on the server loads.

It will be interesting to see if they have European, US and Asian servers or keep it on one server to maximise the number of players. I think I would would like to see single shard but the mechanics of delivering a consistant experience to all players would be an absolute nightmare. Also SOE would not be in contol of many of the variables so are likely to get there fingers burnt

EvE didn't have to be the way it is. It could have implemented loading screen less travel between nodes easily. Like I said, it is more what you show the client not necessarily what is actually happening.

[Hamma]

Hah wow Sobekus it's amazing how easy it is to forgot those things. The world before broadcast warp gates and long harts.. the good old days I loved those times.

[Rbstr]

It was better w/ the long times and static gates IMO, too.

[Bags]

I prefer a game with obvious distinctions to continents and less "wtf" inducing zone limitations.

If I'm going to be locked out of a zone regardless if it's one world or 10 instances, I'd much rather be stuck at warpgate than at an invisible line. The latter just feels so immersion shattering.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Bags

I prefer a game with obvious distinctions to continents and less "wtf" inducing zone limitations.

If I'm going to be locked out of a zone regardless if it's one world or 10 instances, I'd much rather be stuck at warpgate than at an invisible line. The latter just feels so immersion shattering.

There is no reason to have zone limitations really. At least not the way it is currently done. THAT is immersion breaking in ANY form it takes.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

There is no reason to have zone limitations really. At least not the way it is currently done. THAT is immersion breaking in ANY form it takes.

How is being stuck at an invisible line any better?

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Bags

How is being stuck at an invisible line any better?

I'm not saying it is, I'm saying that it isn't necessary in any form. The idea of population limiting is archaic and should be server based if it exists at all.

[Bags]

Population limiting isn't archaic; it's necessary to ensure playable performance.

[DviddLeff]

Yeah, when they didn't have the locks you had the continents crashing; back in beta we had much higher limits if I remember right, but performance was shitty when too many people were on the same continent.

[lostabyss]

if it was one big world with 10 continents, then perhaps some kind of naval warfare could be possible. have aircraft carriers in the middle of the ocean as additional spawn points where groups could gear up then organize their gal drops or aircav. and then of course surrounded by a few battle ships with AA machine guns and anti-ship cannons. maybe even act as offshore artillery?
these could either be capturable like bases, be an outfit thing, or just like any other support vehicle. simply a maneuverable support facility that could assist multiple continents as long as they are within their waters.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Bags

Population limiting isn't archaic; it's necessary to ensure playable performance.

The server is the choke point in PS, but it doesn't have to be. We could have battles with as high as ten times as many as a poplocked continent has now with no real loss of performance.

[Nephilimuk]

I agree the threshold for a pop lock used to be much higher then was lowered. I think this was because it was used a benchmark on the overall health of the game. No poplock = shitty so people would unsub and not come back.