Is SOE trying to force the game into a predictable pattern? - Page 2

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 01:41 AM

I don't think these continental struggles are going to be anywhere near as stalemated as people are leading on.

Under ideal conditions with perfect population balance and perfect distribution and no double teaming, yeah sure. But that will never happen. Populations won't be even across the empires, and the distribution across the continents for each empire will vary heavily. And of course you will see double teaming , especially if things are relatively evenly matched. Anything to get a territorial edge.

VioletZero · 2012-03-28, 01:53 AM

Looking at the sanctuary design, I can see the designer wheels turning. They want to make it so that one faction doesn't fall behind for too long. So obviously, the closer you get to a sanctuary, the harder it is going to get. And even if things do get really close, they're going to make it very easy to fight them back.

They're trying to avoid any domination of a sort. Because it's not fun to be on the other end. At least that's what is going through their head.

This is the stalemate people are talking about. Because whenever one faction makes significant progress, the design is intended to make it a lot easier to retake lost land. And the big picture wont matter because all that will matter is the battle on hand and the hex you're fighting for.

And this is an MMO. The big picture SHOULD matter as much if not MORE than the smaller picture. If you want smaller picture, play a different FPS because that area of FPS gaming has been aced many times already.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-28, 02:18 AM

So... what? You don't want a feedback mechanism that prevents empires from being rolled into the dirt?

The fight has always been completely pointless. Its impossible to win, and we've known it since day one of PS. Hell, its the tagline. For land, for power, forever.

The condition they need to avoid is the same fights over and over and over, i.e. revisiting Cyssorside. The overall fight will, and should, be endlessly stalemated. The best you can hope for is a very, very temporary domination due to luck, NAP with another empire that actually lasts, and the zerg listening for once, before being pushed back, because as you said, it really sucks to lose. And with the way resources work, a constant resource advantage is as bad as a constant population advantage.

Shade Millith · 2012-03-28, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

It's sad that we are losing so many of the MMO elements, such as freeform inventory's, animations and possibly even looting... However i am still optimistic that these guys are serious about reinventing the genre that they basically created.

Those aren't MMO elements. This is just streamlining. Which, I think is fine. Less time with needless micromanagement you know?

You call it Streamlining the game.

I call it Dumbing Down the game.

Skittles · 2012-03-28, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by Shade Millith

You call it Streamlining the game.

I call it Dumbing Down the game.

No, no, no.. This is what WE want...ask anyone around here or on the dev team. We asked for this. Its in the manifests and board minutes. Christ we might hurt ourselves if given the opportunity to figure our own shit out how best we should use it.

You obviously were off that day when all this was discussed.

VioletZero · 2012-03-28, 02:39 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

So... what? You don't want a feedback mechanism that prevents empires from being rolled into the dirt?

The fight has always been completely pointless. Its impossible to win, and we've known it since day one of PS. Hell, its the tagline. For land, for power, forever.

The condition they need to avoid is the same fights over and over and over, i.e. revisiting Cyssorside. The overall fight will, and should, be endlessly stalemated. The best you can hope for is a very, very temporary domination due to luck, NAP with another empire that actually lasts, and the zerg listening for once, before being pushed back, because as you said, it really sucks to lose. And with the way resources work, a constant resource advantage is as bad as a constant population advantage.

I'm not asking for a win condition. I'm asking for wiggle room for the environment to change beyond original predictions. And get unique scenarios that forces certain factions to put their heads together.

I would love to see one faction controlling whole continents. I would want a greater sense of purpose and not just fighting for its own sake. I would love to have the thought in the back of my head of "If we lose this hex, we may lose the continent."

What this game is headed towards is precisely the same things happening every day. Certain factions will always be in certain corners of the map. It's impossible to capture all territory and sanctuaries will ensure that they will always retake the land.

Sirisian · 2012-03-28, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

I'm not asking for a win condition. I'm asking for wiggle room for the environment to change beyond original predictions. And get unique scenarios that forces certain factions to put their heads together.

There's been suggestions like this. You basically want to get players fighting outside the bases. I linked this in another thread which is like a resource game mode that could randomly happen.

The second part of this post details some more ways to add complexity by allowing small base pieces to be deployed for cover.

Also regarding factions taking parts of the map and making things stale Malorn solved this a long time ago. I hope the devs were listening.

VioletZero · 2012-03-28, 02:51 AM

Mixing things up shouldn't be done through randomness. The unpredictability should be the result of player action.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-28, 02:52 AM

Is SOE trying to force the game into a predictable pattern?

Yes. I'd say so.

I believe they're making sure the initial release is high density madness so that when they bring out extra continents and expansions and more shop items everybody will have learned the ropes and will know what they're doing, plus it's going to generate a lot of buzz.

If they release a million servers with 18-20 continents it'll just be thousands of BF3 missions scattered all over the billion square miles of virtual space and nobody wants that.

Start off with a nice, easy to understand battlefields that you don't have to study too hard to learn where all the backdoors and sneaky places are (We're talking about 12-16 year old audience remember) and then gradually increase from there.

Sirisian · 2012-03-28, 03:02 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Mixing things up shouldn't be done through randomness. The unpredictability should be the result of player action.

Player action to random occurrences. To be fair the base rotation could be a known periodic event explained away by saying they used warpgate energy to protect the bases which causes the bases to rotate when the moon makes a revolution. It's magic... er science fiction!

So not random. Which apparently makes it more acceptable.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-28, 03:05 AM

There's 6 possible configurations for each foothold. Makes sense to rotate through them in a sequence.

Could simply claim the warpgates are unstable if you want a more immersive explanation.

VioletZero · 2012-03-28, 03:32 AM

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Player action to random occurrences. To be fair the base rotation could be a known periodic event explained away by saying they used warpgate energy to protect the bases which causes the bases to rotate when the moon makes a revolution. It's magic... er science fiction!

So not random. Which apparently makes it more acceptable.

Well, every server should be ever changing and players should ultimately dictate how the world changes around them based on their actions, successes and failures.

This is the strength of MMOs and the reason you put it all in a persistent world in the first place.

Brusi · 2012-03-28, 03:51 AM

I like where you are coming from.

Somehow i feel that from a devs perspective, creating a successful and profitable game probably requires a level of predictability.

A game like UO where you can call a GM for assistance, then ambush and murder him is the kind of sandbox MMO that we all dream about, but it can also swing the entire other direction and become a nightmare.

Hopefully the continent and resource system they have planned is robust enough to handle creativity, without limiting it.

VioletZero · 2012-03-28, 03:57 AM

Five years down the line, I want our servers to have rich history full of epic outfit campaigns, feuds and memorable battles.

You can't have that if you micromanage the player behavior and outcomes.

Skittles · 2012-03-28, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by VioletZero

Five years down the line, I want our servers to have rich history full of epic outfit campaigns, feuds and memorable battles.

You can't have that if you micromanage the player behavior and outcomes.

Five years from now you're going to playing against AI or with it. Its been discussed already.

Enjoy!!