Persistent World?

[effectivefire321]

Doing a few missions in the same spot would save space but would start to get boring i think. and replayability is almost always an issue in fps's so huxleys biggest thing is gonna be its multi-player probably. from what i hear the maps are supposed to be pretty big, so with updates, that should keep those of us drooling for originality busy for awhile. along with what naggs was saying the unreal tournament-like mission based objectives for multiplayer would be a major plus if it isnt just some thing like halo 2's "occaisional flip the switch" in multiplayer.

[grim22x7]

What are we talking about?!? Battlefields or missions? Missions are going to be instanced I'm fairly certain I remember reading that in the updated impressions on GameSpot. The battlefields, the PVP arenas that can have the 100v100 battles, are what the OP was talking about, I thought. The level of instan-ity of those fields should be nill. They should always be up and be persistent. Whether or not they have any effect on the story or world is up for debate as no information has been released on that subject.

[Grind]

Yea hopefully the PvP battles are always up and raging (I assume they will be). As for playing the same missions over and over. I'm sure they will have a good amount of missions to play in the first place, so it won't just be like ok first day I did 10 missions and now theres nothing to do.

And then even after that theres still the whole players can create missions thing, which we all have no idea what that could lead to.

Also even after the missions are done, keep in mind this is still an FPS, and I'm sure that any FPS we have played, we have done the same maps COUNTLESS times and they were still fun. These maps will be even bigger, and have bigger battles in them, so I'm not worried at all with getting bored with the maps or the missions. I would be happy just jumping in and fighting, forget the missions just go fight and kill.

What I was wondering about the persistant world (I know i'm not the OP but I still have questions lol) was if there will be a persistant world map. Like if I'm in a battle and I win, will there be an overall world map that shows my faction as controlling that territory and then we move onto the next one, with the ability to take control of the entire world map.

Apparently the winning of battles will effect base defenses and lighting in the city, as well as gather resources (any info on what the resources do?). But I think it would be even better if we had a world map that we could eventually take over and try to hold or something.

[zeekgenateer]

Speaking of which if the Alternatives won everything would they do a server restart and give bonuses to the winning side? Or loosing side? I'm thinking a restart after total victory and a week. Then the best players get bonuses, and everyone keeps their character.

[naggs]

dont be silly, it wont be possible for one side to 'win'

[Grind]

I'm not suggesting one side to be able to technically call "Victory!" but I would still want to see a world map.

One side can't really "win" anyway, because you can't fight in the factions main cities, so you obviosly couldn't take them over. I'd like like to see the persistant world map just to see the progress my faction has. If we happen to be controlling all of the territories and we even surround the other factions capital city, it doesn't really do anything, it's just kind of emberassing for them that we can hold all that huge amount of area. I'd like to see it on a world map is all :D Fighting for territories has always sounded fun to me for some reason.

The only victory I could see them putting into the game (at first anyway) is for one faction to reach a certain amount of resources or something and then they get to kind of progress in their overall progress to comming out ahead in the war (a progress that would probably never end). Neither side really loses anything but it would be nice to be fighting for something other than numbers that don't really mean anything.

As of now I have no idea what the resources do, and if my base looses some of it's defenses and my city lights go out, thats really cool and all but really doesn't give me the "oh man we lost, now we are in for it".

[Tulustan]

Originally Posted by naggs

dont be silly, it wont be possible for one side to 'win'

Why not Chromehounds had a persistant world, some one always won. Then they would reset the map let you switch sides or stay on that side then the next round would go on. If chromehounds can do this with out a monthly fee how hard will it be for huxley? (There were no bonuses given to the country who won)

[Grind]

wasn't it confirmed that there is going to be a monthly fee? at least for PC?

I'd be fine if they let one side "win". I just don't know what they are actually going to do. Since they haven't said anything about fighting to actually win the war, and conquere all the land, I'm just assuming there will different ways to kind of "win".

I read that when you win, you get more resources and those improve your standard of living somehow, it didn't say how or why but apparently they have something planned out.

[naggs]

i hope they dont give the side thats winning an advantage in combat. thats just going to lead to more winning.

besides, you cant have a "persistant" world if it resets everytime someone wins. people wouldnt like that. there are tons of servers in WoW where the hord consistantly kicks the *Censored Word**Censored Word**Censored Word**Censored Word* out of alliance (or vice versa) but they would never reset the server

they always put something in the game to allow the team thats behind come back. sometimes its something as simple like the farther you push them back the faster reinforcements come to the front. like their supply lines are shorter if they are fighting a few miles from their city but you have to cross a whole continent.

but there is a reason why no side can win in any persitant MMO, you cant piss off half the players and not loose money and you really cant restart everyone back on lvl 1. they all do it the same for a reason.

[Grind]

I doubt they would give the winning faction any sort of bonus that would make them win more. That would never happen.

Mostly I would think it would just balance out by itself. The more areas you control, the harder it is to defend them all at once. At some point the other side will be able to take back some areas.

The only problem I could see happening, would be the overpopulation of a certain race. This obviosly happens in WoW, some servers are 5:1 and worse in the favor of alliance and some are the opposite, being in favor of the horde.

However I don't think overpopulation would be much of a problem if the battles can only have 100 people in them anyway. So the maps would always stay pretty balanced, accept for when theres only like 10 people fighting on one side and the battle is full for the other faction. 10 vs 100 pobably wouldn't do so well. As to how they are going to try and keep a balance on that, I don't know.

If it got really bad, they could always just close off a certain race on whatever server had the overpopulation. This way the game would always be balanced. Then again that would take away from the game a little bit if you wanted to be the other race (of course you could then just pick another server).


But again, I really doubt they would give like fighting bonuses or something to the faction that was winning, that would just be silly. The losing faction would already have an advantage, with less land to defend that leaves more people to go attack. And I'm guessing in the battlefield, the more you get pushed back, the closer you are to a main base where you might spawn. So if the enemy is knocking on your doorstep, you only have to walk two steps to answer it, while if they die, they have to run all the way back from their base to get back to the fighting.

Maybe something like that. I don't know. There are ways to balance it

[naggs]

if the population is not balanced, they could offer a larger starting amount of money for the smaller team. would get more starting people on that team but if you were starting because you had friends on the winning team you could still do that. thats how i would do it.

[Grind]

That would be nice, because I know a good number of people who like to start games together so they can all progress together and all that. So a nice money bonus or something would probably work to get people to join by themselves or persuade their friends to join the same faction and balance things out.

Some people don't really care what team they play on, they just want to be with their friends. Hopefully they'll have something

[grim22x7]

you guys play MMO's at all? you don't start with money you earn it. there's not going to be server resets and they wont close off a certain race to balance the numbers. What thay will do is close the server if there is too many people on. This means that if 3000 alt log in and 2000 saps then odds are saps aren't gonna win that night. but the next night the saps will say we can't let that happen again so they'll log in on first and in numbers. I think you guys are overreacting a little bit.

[Zipknob]

We dont know how many important battlefields there will be. Maybe you only need 500 players from each side to fill up the significant ones, and all the rest of the players wait in queue or PvE or do small hardly meaningful PvP. Hopefully the numbers are a bit higher than that, and more than a couple battles are pertinent at any given time.

Wonder if controlling cities gives you more PvE ground to use... I mean, thats a lot of territory to be useless.

[Grind]

Originally Posted by grim22x7

you guys play MMO's at all? you don't start with money you earn it. there's not going to be server resets and they wont close off a certain race to balance the numbers. What thay will do is close the server if there is too many people on. This means that if 3000 alt log in and 2000 saps then odds are saps aren't gonna win that night. but the next night the saps will say we can't let that happen again so they'll log in on first and in numbers. I think you guys are overreacting a little bit.

Lol we're not freaking out, just talking about stuff (it's all we can really do since we have hardly any real info about the game). Yes I do play MMO's, and I know that people don't evenly space out on their own. If a bunch more people decided to make an alt, then there would be 3000 alts on one night and 2000 saps. Then the next night, there would still be 3000 alts and 2000 saps. When a certain faction is over populated, they they usually have more players on all the time and they get the advantage. It's not like you can just say, "hey guys we need everyone to get on right now!" and actually expect 3000 people to say "OK HERE WE COME!"

If you played any MMO where you could organize 3000 peopl, let me know which one it was because i'd love to see it.

And obviosly you don't usually get money when you start playing (No I don't think this is like CS if you are trying to call me a noob who only plays CS all day). What we were saying is maybe, if certain factions were over populated, the other faction would get some sort of starting bonus to help balance out the numbers. Nothing insane (once again, no were not freaking out) just a little starter or something.

One faction having the advantage of more numbers all the time can really limit a game. I'm not in anyway saying this will happen in the game, just saying I hope they have something to help prevent it.

[Flasher702]

It's *zoned* and persistent (there might be instances too, we're not sure, but the world is persistent, they've said so explicitly, repeatedly). You will likely be able to hop into almost any zone almost anytime you want and there may or may not be other people there. They haven't given any indication that it's going to be like DnD online (where characters are the only thing that is persistent and all the NPCs are unchanging and all combat is instanced). And it's definitely not Battlefield with a lobby. The safe cities will probably feel a little bit sterile and boring but they are supposed to be affected by the balance of power between the factions. There should be a plethora of options for getting your PvP and group PvE on "in the wild". I'm sure there will also be plenty of content that is non-persistent and is either instanced or just respawns to accommodate the quest lines they've written.