Do We Want 1000 X 1000?

Wargfoot

In a recent post, a regular contributor here (1) mentioned in a recent post the initial goals of CU's engine, that being, to host 1000 x 1000 player battles.  I've been thinking about this a little bit - does anyone really want that?

You certainly couldn't get that many people on screen and you're somewhat limited in how many people you can interact with anyways.

I'm not sure the dynamics of a 100 x 100 battle would feel any different than a 1000 x 1000 battle.   In either case, you're either going to be part of a large overwhelming gank squad or the victim of the same.

So I'm left wondering, are developers chasing something here (like NFTS, blockchain) that players wouldn't even enjoy?


NOTES
-----------------------
1: To honor privacy concerns, I won't mention Kyleran by name.

Wargfoot

CON:
Part of what I adore about smaller battles is grudge kills.   I spent quite a bit of time in LOTRO hunting specific players - which would be immeasurably harder to find if the enemy had 1000 men on the field.   Knowing the enemy can make the battle fun.

Quizzical

What players do want is the ability for a game to smoothly handle however many players happen to be in an area without the game becoming unplayable.  The more that the game can handle, the less likely it is to become a problem.

Wargfoot

Quizzical said:

What players do want is the ability for a game to smoothly handle however many players happen to be in an area without the game becoming unplayable.  The more that the game can handle, the less likely it is to become a problem.

I think they do that with instances, etc.
Smooth gameplay is obviously desirable.


I'm just wondering if developers are putting a great deal of effort (and making sacrifices in other areas of gameplay) for a feature nobody really wants.

Slapshot1188

In DAoC we had hundreds at the same siege. And often multiple sieges at once.  I’m not locked ? on the thousand but I hope we can get hundreds on each side comfortably 

Wargfoot

Slapshot1188 said:

In DAoC we had hundreds at the same siege. And often multiple sieges at once.  I’m not locked ? on the thousand but I hope we can get hundreds on each side comfortably 

I can respect that, I'm just not sure what it brings.


Like emotionally it sounds cool, but it seems like in reality you'd just experience the fight in your local area - and others, at best, would only have the potential to interrupt it.

Slapshot1188

Wargfoot said:

Slapshot1188 said:

In DAoC we had hundreds at the same siege. And often multiple sieges at once.  I’m not locked ? on the thousand but I hope we can get hundreds on each side comfortably 

I can respect that, I'm just not sure what it brings.


Like emotionally it sounds cool, but it seems like in reality you'd just experience the fight in your local area - and others, at best, would only have the potential to interrupt it.

It brings the potential for a higher level of communication and organization.  Attack from multiple sides.  Sally forth from the gate.  Setup siege weapons.  

And it gives some of the less skilled a chance to join the "zerg".  Even if you suck at PvP.. go out there and fight for Realm Pride!    The challenge is also allowing smaller groups to play a role.  

cameltosis

Wargfoot said:

In a recent post, a regular contributor here (1) mentioned in a recent post the initial goals of CU's engine, that being, to host 1000 x 1000 player battles.  I've been thinking about this a little bit - does anyone really want that?

You certainly couldn't get that many people on screen and you're somewhat limited in how many people you can interact with anyways.

I'm not sure the dynamics of a 100 x 100 battle would feel any different than a 1000 x 1000 battle.   In either case, you're either going to be part of a large overwhelming gank squad or the victim of the same.

So I'm left wondering, are developers chasing something here (like NFTS, blockchain) that players wouldn't even enjoy?

In the interest of accuracy, CU's original goal was to have 500 player battles that ran smoothly, not 1000v1000. Their stress tests showed the engine can currently support ~1500 players in terms of network capacity, but that's a long way from a full game supporting 1500 players.

But, yes, I want it! I want it badly!

I am impressed by "big things". Big engines, big tanks, big boats, big buildings. Increasing the scale of things is something I find fascinating, so increasing the scale of the multiplayer component of a game is something I want to see and experience.

Additionally, being "massively multiplayer" is the only unique selling point of the genre, yet it's largely ignored as a feature. So, I very much want to see developers lean into it and make the most of it.

Also, bear in mind that 500+ player battles are not a new thing. Mark Jacobs already achieved this in both DAoC and WAR where it was enjoyed by many gamers. There is a proven market for large scale multiplayer.

cameltosis

Wargfoot said:

Slapshot1188 said:

In DAoC we had hundreds at the same siege. And often multiple sieges at once.  I’m not locked ? on the thousand but I hope we can get hundreds on each side comfortably 

I can respect that, I'm just not sure what it brings.


Like emotionally it sounds cool, but it seems like in reality you'd just experience the fight in your local area - and others, at best, would only have the potential to interrupt it.

Its hard to put into words what increasing the scale of the multiplayer adds to the game, but I'll try and give some examples:

1) Sense of Community

Simply being involved in a large group event makes you feel part of something. Successful leaders can earn a reputation, successful enemies become targets  etc. Its the same sort of thing you get from events like Weatherstock in LotRO.....except it happens every day, not just once a year.

2) Supports more playstyles and more variety

If the only PvP is balanced instances, then there is usually only one way to play. You have the same objectives, achieved the same way, over and over again. The gameplay might be more focused and balanced, but it gets repetitive real quick.

If the PvP has no player caps (i.e. open pvp), there is both more variety in terms of what type of PvP occurs, but players have access to more playstyles. You can be a big leader, join the zerg, leech off the zerg, small group roam or solo roam. You can fight in the main fight, or go looking for smaller fights, or go to a different zone and contribute there. More choice is good.

3) Large Scale Tactics

Organising and being successful at a large scale is a whole different skillset than being successful at a small scale. Group psychology is something i find interesting, and so I love seeing it in a game! I still play WAR, and I still get a kick of running at an enemy warband solo and seeing them scatter! I play a big black orc, so i look physically imposing, and it scares the shit out of the average RDPS or healer! Not that i can actually kill anything mind you, but a well timed charge by me can change the course of a fight. Its just an extra layer to the game that otherwise wouldn't exist.

4) More interesting scenery

When you scale up the player numbers, you also need to scale up the battleground. This tends to involve not just more interesting scenery, but also just different priorities for the layout.

Now, in terms of what buttons you press and when, sure, small scale vs large scale isn't much different. You'll still be using the same rotations, using the same heals for your teammates etc. But, it really does change your overall motivations and tactics in the fight. The ebb and flow of a large battle is soooo different to small scale stuff. A small scale fight might be done in 1 or 2 minutes, but a large scale battle might last hours with much back and forth.

Nanfoodle

This is not 1000 people in one place fighting 1000 players. It's the stress they need for a 3 faction war take place all over the map. 300 people fighting over a relic and 15 fights of 20 v 20 fighting over keeps. DAoC type PvP needs the ability to hold large scale when it happens and the ability to hold many small wars all over the map. In ESO I think the largest fight I have seen in about 400 people and it was just unplayable but in DAoC hay day, it was 100% playable and happened. 

Wargfoot

YOU PeopLE DO'NT KNOWwhat yOU WANT!
YOUREALL aTOOLS OF BIG BUSiNESS AND HATE GAMES.

YES<HATE....BOARD IS FULL OF HATE.  BOOMERS!

*cough*

That should help pick up things a bit.
In all seriousness, thanks for the well thought out replies.

Not really what I'm looking for in a game, but its cool that people want that.

Wargfoot

Nanfoodle said:

This is not 1000 people in one place fighting 1000 players. It's the stress they need for a 3 faction war take place all over the map. 300 people fighting over a relic and 15 fights of 20 v 20 fighting over keeps. DAoC type PvP needs the ability to hold large scale when it happens and the ability to hold many small wars all over the map. In ESO I think the largest fight I have seen in about 400 people and it was just unplayable but in DAoC hay day, it was 100% playable and happened. 

AT the risk of derailing the thread - I even played DAoC, but was never clear why it shut down.

kitarad

It didn't shut down. People moved to other games and it got smaller. DAoC is still going on today.

Nanfoodle

Wargfoot said:

Nanfoodle said:

This is not 1000 people in one place fighting 1000 players. It's the stress they need for a 3 faction war take place all over the map. 300 people fighting over a relic and 15 fights of 20 v 20 fighting over keeps. DAoC type PvP needs the ability to hold large scale when it happens and the ability to hold many small wars all over the map. In ESO I think the largest fight I have seen in about 400 people and it was just unplayable but in DAoC hay day, it was 100% playable and happened. 

AT the risk of derailing the thread - I even played DAoC, but was never clear why it shut down.

Never said it shut down. You can still play the game. I have gone back many times over the years to play my Minstrel. But it has been a min since I have played.

Edit: Main reason people want a new DAoC is because the game really has not been updated to modern standards like WoW did over the years. DAoC is kind of stuck in time. 

madazz

Who says 1000 vs 1000 has to be a standard battle? Yeah it might be everyone together on one battlefield, one instance concurrently. But maybe it doesn't have to be as simple as say DAOC. Maybe there are more elements to winning the battle. Increasing player count (and I assume stability) will open up more opportunities.

BRING IT ON!

Apraxis

In DAoC we got Relic battles with over 700 players at one relic keep, mostly a dia show. Was still fun at it's time, but would have been a lot more fun if you could actually play it and fight against each other. 

mekhere

Wargfoot said:

In a recent post, a regular contributor here (1) mentioned in a recent post the initial goals of CU's engine, that being, to host 1000 x 1000 player battles.  I've been thinking about this a little bit - does anyone really want that?

You certainly couldn't get that many people on screen and you're somewhat limited in how many people you can interact with anyways.

I'm not sure the dynamics of a 100 x 100 battle would feel any different than a 1000 x 1000 battle.   In either case, you're either going to be part of a large overwhelming gank squad or the victim of the same.

So I'm left wondering, are developers chasing something here (like NFTS, blockchain) that players wouldn't even enjoy?


NOTES
-----------------------
1: To honor privacy concerns, I won't mention Kyleran by name.

This is how Mythic strategically chose 1000x1000x1000 realm war scenarios on paper: (satire)

1st scenario:
They want 1000x1000x1000 players. The original DAOC had 500x500x500 realm fights. If we add more people to each side, there will be less greifing, crowd control abuse, and overpowered pets causing players to rage quit. The RvR will essentially never die.

2nd scenario:
How do they get 3000+ people to join a war effort? Considering Mythic has used all the beta money to build a crypto mining factory, they can offer in game crypto or NFT's to keep that many people playing every single day. Maybe even offer daily monetary RvR prizes and monetize influencers to play the game online and recruit players.

3rd scenario:
If they take EQ, Warhammer, Rift, Minecraft and DAOC and combine them all to make a new game, no one will ever leave Camelot. They can expand into a virtual metaverse with an altered reality. Attach it to the treadmill game remote and we can take CU into virtual reality.

4th scenario:
AI is currently on the backburner. They need to mine more money. 

You can't say they wouldn't enjoy blockchain rewards for just playing a game. This is the current water cooler small talk concerning City State Games. People are concerned if their investments were worth it to fund the desires of a what seems to be a dark mage hording coins in the basement of his mom's house. 

Theocritus

So you mean 1000 bots vs 1000 bots vs 1000 bots?

mekhere

Theocritus said:

So you mean 1000 bots vs 1000 bots vs 1000 bots?

You can't get away with bots anymore. Especially if there running AI to check for bots. I did get a good laugh out of it though.   

Angrakhan

So I think CityState's focus on 1kv1k is ultimately Mark Jacobs trying to atone for his sins with WAR which was supposed to bring exactly that with their gigantic city sieges but completely fell flat on it's face do to technology limitations.

Side bar I think he's also atoning for the fact he made a 2-faction game out of the Warhammer IP which is at its core a multi-faction game. Always has been, always will be. It should have been Humanity vs Chaos vs Green skins which would have actually made sense in the Warhammer lore. I just think he ran out of time because that would have meant an entire other faction worth of PvE content they didn't have time to create. This soapbox, however, has nothing to do with 1k vs 1k battles.

Personally I would like to see it because to date my most memorable moments in pvp were from DAoC. I'd love to revisit that experience in a modern engine which was designed to handle it. ESO was supposed to deliver this, but has to date been unable to solve the technical hurtles to prevent it from becoming a slide show above 50v50 or so

mekhere

I miss DAOC too. I still have hope AI will pump out a DAOC that rival the original. 

Scot

A few hundred is a good start but how often do we even see that? But to truly justify Massively 1000 v 1000 is a minimum. Do they all have to be able to see each other? No, but able to feel the effects of distant battles in the same zone would reasonable. That pillar of smoke in the distance, that temporary buff as a landmark gets taken you cannot see would be great. The larger the numbers the greater the danger of zergs, but with enough structure like multiple keeps, waypoints and so on you can break up the zerg.

Finally NFT's and blockchain are not gameplay, I did think those an odd choice of designers chasing something players would not enjoy. How about "cosy" and "kidified" instead?

Sovrath

Wargfoot said:

In a recent post, a regular contributor here (1) mentioned in a recent post the initial goals of CU's engine, that being, to host 1000 x 1000 player battles.  I've been thinking about this a little bit - does anyone really want that?

You certainly couldn't get that many people on screen and you're somewhat limited in how many people you can interact with anyways.

I'm not sure the dynamics of a 100 x 100 battle would feel any different than a 1000 x 1000 battle.   In either case, you're either going to be part of a large overwhelming gank squad or the victim of the same.

So I'm left wondering, are developers chasing something here (like NFTS, blockchain) that players wouldn't even enjoy?


NOTES
-----------------------
1: To honor privacy concerns, I won't mention Kyleran by name.

I was once in a Lineage 2 siege that had to be about that much. It was epic. So yeah, bring it on.

Grymmoire

1000x1000 seige; Commander on the battelement: "Archer, shoot that guy standing on my flowers!"

cameltosis

Just a quick reminder: Camelot Unchained's original goal is 500 player battles.

Thats 500 total, not 500v500v500.

Not that I can find evidence of that promise on their website anymore, all hard numbers seem to have disappeared.....

Geeky

I'm fine with seeing 50 people on my screen.  I sure as heck don't want to see 2000.  I'm good with phasing and seeing only the 50 or so nearest people to me.  Completely fine with that.