Because I think RvR is best done in coordinated, tactical groups of 8-12 players not zerg rushes of hundreds/thousands.
I've been there, done that - for far, far too long.
Small to medium size group play is ALWAYS more engaging.
I disagree. To survive and thrive in a huge multiplayer mass comeback one needs skill and a good amount of intelligence.
I've seen players that excel at 1 vs. 1 combat, or small scale combat, that are outright useless in huge battles. Mostly cause they treat a mass battle the same way as they treat a small scale battle, they cant compensate for the new environment and adapt to the new situation.
For me it is the larger, the better. But hey, There are loads of games for those that prefer 8-12 group battles aka "instanced battlegrounds". Just not my cup of tea.
1 vs. 1 is fun, but 50 vs. 50 is way more fun, and really requires way more of the player.
The real fun is when 50 take down 100. Though that can only happen if the 100 are of Much lower skill than 100. Basicly mass fighting are only fun if you got skills when you are outnumbered. To most i wouldnt recommend such fighting, it aint fun if you dont excel.
I am well aware of that. Did you hear what the dev said? "We won't have the best lighting, and our environments will be a little sparse. Our characters will not be the most detailed". He said it himself.
Which is absolutely fine with me. I don't care about shadows and alot of environment details. I'd much rather it run smoothly with hundreds of people battling it out than for it to be pretty and them have it be like GW2...ugh...
If it's comparible to DAOC graphics or heck, even Ultima Online, I'd be fine with that.
HEY GUYS dont worry the game is called Camelot Unchained...
Hey uh..yea COULD i have some Unchained hold the Camelot because who needs depth really or just STUFF in general in their game. Another Darkfall, Dark/Light. I was thinking about pledging for this game but after seeing that ill think ill wait.
Because I think RvR is best done in coordinated, tactical groups of 8-12 players not zerg rushes of hundreds/thousands.
I've been there, done that - for far, far too long.
Small to medium size group play is ALWAYS more engaging.
I disagree. To survive and thrive in a huge multiplayer mass comeback one needs skill and a good amount of intelligence.
I've seen players that excel at 1 vs. 1 combat, or small scale combat, that are outright useless in huge battles. Mostly cause they treat a mass battle the same way as they treat a small scale battle, they cant compensate for the new environment and adapt to the new situation.
For me it is the larger, the better. But hey, There are loads of games for those that prefer 8-12 group battles aka "instanced battlegrounds". Just not my cup of tea.
1 vs. 1 is fun, but 50 vs. 50 is way more fun, and really requires way more of the player.
The real fun is when 50 take down 100. Though that can only happen if the 100 are of Much lower skill than 100. Basicly mass fighting are only fun if you got skills when you are outnumbered. To most i wouldnt recommend such fighting, it aint fun if you dont excel.
How does a 50 vs 50 battle require more of the player compared to a smaller group? Individual contributions get lost when you have that many people. And if your PC isn't great, all the skill in the world won't help you if your FPS is crap.
Once you get a PvP group to more than say 10-12 players, all coordination and tactial play just breaks down.
You clearly never played DF then..
I have been in sieges with 100s of people on both sides and the leaders have kept people in check via voice chat and so on.. of coruse if there is no one there in charge then it breaks down..
Once again, probably not the game for you then. Personally, I'd prefer slightly lesser quality graphics with better gameplay. I mean, it's not like it's going to be 2d or some shit.. it's still going to look decent at least.
As far as I have seen we have no idea what it is going to look like. This video certainly does not inspire confidence.
You are correct, we haven't seen what it's going to look like yet. However, I don't understand why you think this video is a bad sign. They aren't saying anything that hasn't been known for a long time now. They have always said they are going to value gameplay and performance over top of the line graphics. If you thought otherwise, maybe you should have read up on the project a bit more.
You are correct, we haven't seen what it's going to look like yet. However, I don't understand why you think this video is a bad sign. They aren't saying anything that hasn't been known for a long time now. They have always said they are going to value gameplay and performance over top of the line graphics. If you thought otherwise, maybe you should have read up on the project a bit more.
I think its a bad sign because with this sort of promotion they are trying to get you to do things like hand them money. Trying so hard throughout the video to lower expectations is not only poor marketing, but virtually always a bad sign.
That depends how you look at it. To me, it's raising expectations because I prefer gameplay and performance. Would you rather them lie to our face and tell us it's going to be the best graphics ever, plus perform well with a million people on screen? If they told me this game was going to be what they have said it will be AND look like crysis 3 or something, THEN it would be a bad sign because there's no way they'd deliver.
Originally posted by collekt That depends how you look at it. To me, it's raising expectations because I prefer gameplay and performance. Would you rather them lie to our face and tell us it's going to be the best graphics ever, plus perform well with a million people on screen? If they told me this game was going to be what they have said it will be AND look like crysis 3 or something, THEN it would be a bad sign because there's no way they'd deliver.
Thats the things though, there is plenty of room for both. Every Friday night I see several hundred on screen in Ps2 with solid to good graphical fidelity and more than acceptable performance. This is what I do not understand from you hardcore nuts who would rather throw out platitudes like "well its just not for you" or "its about gameplay not graphics". You can have acceptable numbers of both.
You're also assuming the worst, that it's going to look like complete dog shit. That's probably not the case. We aren't talking about dropping the graphics down to a minecraft level or anything. However, if you're a real "graphics nut" then it probably isn't for you. And that's not just me being a "hardcore nut" that's just how it is. Obviously I think you should wait until we actually see the game before you pass judgement. However, if graphics are your top priority then you shouldn't feel the need to keep coming here and talking about the bleak outcome because they might not be top of the line. That isn't what this game is about.
Planetside 2 looks like crap even on highest settings.... calling that solid to good shows where your bar lies... not anywhere near crysis graphics. The lighting is meh, the textures are awful and don't get me started on the terrain/buildings. The game is still fun though
But, maybe CU's graphics are on the planetside 2 scale, which IMO is enough. As long as I can visually see what happens and don't need to read a f*ng combat log.
There's this thing called fog of war. War is supposed to be chaotic, not tactical. I don't know where people think this game is supposed to be some tactical shooter like CoD or BF with graphics better than Crysis 3...I hate to tell you, but graphics aren't anything. If you have a game that looks 100% realistic and it scares the crap out of you, because the machines can now look like us, but in that game all you can do is walk in a circle...well that's not a good game is it? graphics are on the low priority of alot of games...Fun is and always should be number one. If you're not having fun, then why are you playing the game anyways?
Apprently it's to hard for a lot of you to comprehend, but this is a huge concern for a lot of people who are looking for this kind of game. What they are trying to demonstrate here is that they have the tech to support huge battles. A lot of DAOC vet's went to GW2 and were dissapointed because these large battles had "culling" and varying amounts of lag. They are putting that crowd who demands large, hitchless battles, to ease. Or... at least trying to.
Pretty awesome tech demo. To the people claiming it is not real gameplay and thus is lame, etc.:
The point of this tehc demo is not to show off actual gameplay or models; the point is to prove they can render hundreds or thousands of models moving independently at once, without the graphics system of a PC grinding to a halt. This has been an issue in many MMORPGs that try to do large-scale PvP (see Guild Wars 2 for a recent example).
Basically, they are showing us they have the technology to do what they claim. They need the funding to now make it happen. I chipped in, hopefully others do, too.
Pretty awesome tech demo. To the people claiming it is not real gameplay and thus is lame, etc.:
The point of this tehc demo is not to show off actual gameplay or models; the point is to prove they can render hundreds or thousands of models moving independently at once, without the graphics system of a PC grinding to a halt. This has been an issue in many MMORPGs that try to do large-scale PvP (see Guild Wars 2 for a recent example).
Basically, they are showing us they have the technology to do what they claim. They need the funding to now make it happen. I chipped in, hopefully others do, too.
Whilst it's nice they are finally showing something other than words,I don't think people are saying what yout hink they are saying.
What most people are saying is this:
Plenty of other engines are capable of doing what was done in the tech demo if it's only NPC models and if they drop graphical fidelity to a very low level.Doing what was shown is much harder with player controlled characters with differing gear styles and levels and every degree of graphical fidelity you go up it becomes exponentially even more difficult.
For all we know with a reasonable amount of visual eye candy and palyer characters wandering about the nubmer could drop to 2 or it could be 200 or 1000 there is no way to tell from waht was shown.
Comments
I disagree. To survive and thrive in a huge multiplayer mass comeback one needs skill and a good amount of intelligence.
I've seen players that excel at 1 vs. 1 combat, or small scale combat, that are outright useless in huge battles. Mostly cause they treat a mass battle the same way as they treat a small scale battle, they cant compensate for the new environment and adapt to the new situation.
For me it is the larger, the better. But hey, There are loads of games for those that prefer 8-12 group battles aka "instanced battlegrounds". Just not my cup of tea.
1 vs. 1 is fun, but 50 vs. 50 is way more fun, and really requires way more of the player.
The real fun is when 50 take down 100. Though that can only happen if the 100 are of Much lower skill than 100. Basicly mass fighting are only fun if you got skills when you are outnumbered. To most i wouldnt recommend such fighting, it aint fun if you dont excel.
Which is absolutely fine with me. I don't care about shadows and alot of environment details. I'd much rather it run smoothly with hundreds of people battling it out than for it to be pretty and them have it be like GW2...ugh...
If it's comparible to DAOC graphics or heck, even Ultima Online, I'd be fine with that.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
HEY GUYS dont worry the game is called Camelot Unchained...
Hey uh..yea COULD i have some Unchained hold the Camelot because who needs depth really or just STUFF in general in their game. Another Darkfall, Dark/Light. I was thinking about pledging for this game but after seeing that ill think ill wait.
How does a 50 vs 50 battle require more of the player compared to a smaller group? Individual contributions get lost when you have that many people. And if your PC isn't great, all the skill in the world won't help you if your FPS is crap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2L_N0ncBiA
it is possible to have large scale battles like this ...long time ago
You clearly never played DF then..
I have been in sieges with 100s of people on both sides and the leaders have kept people in check via voice chat and so on.. of coruse if there is no one there in charge then it breaks down..
As far as I have seen we have no idea what it is going to look like. This video certainly does not inspire confidence.
You are correct, we haven't seen what it's going to look like yet. However, I don't understand why you think this video is a bad sign. They aren't saying anything that hasn't been known for a long time now. They have always said they are going to value gameplay and performance over top of the line graphics. If you thought otherwise, maybe you should have read up on the project a bit more.I think its a bad sign because with this sort of promotion they are trying to get you to do things like hand them money. Trying so hard throughout the video to lower expectations is not only poor marketing, but virtually always a bad sign.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Thats the things though, there is plenty of room for both. Every Friday night I see several hundred on screen in Ps2 with solid to good graphical fidelity and more than acceptable performance. This is what I do not understand from you hardcore nuts who would rather throw out platitudes like "well its just not for you" or "its about gameplay not graphics". You can have acceptable numbers of both.
http://chroniclesofthenerds.com/nerdfight/
Y U NO FLIP TABLE?!?!?!
Planetside 2 looks like crap even on highest settings.... calling that solid to good shows where your bar lies... not anywhere near crysis graphics. The lighting is meh, the textures are awful and don't get me started on the terrain/buildings. The game is still fun though
But, maybe CU's graphics are on the planetside 2 scale, which IMO is enough. As long as I can visually see what happens and don't need to read a f*ng combat log.
^Kuppa, from here forth you will be known as angry bird
That angry bird does look a lot like me.
hehehe bring on the gifs!!
5 million people on screen at the same time would be a bit much hehe
"You are all going to poop yourselves." BillMurphy
"Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."
Pretty awesome tech demo. To the people claiming it is not real gameplay and thus is lame, etc.:
The point of this tehc demo is not to show off actual gameplay or models; the point is to prove they can render hundreds or thousands of models moving independently at once, without the graphics system of a PC grinding to a halt. This has been an issue in many MMORPGs that try to do large-scale PvP (see Guild Wars 2 for a recent example).
Basically, they are showing us they have the technology to do what they claim. They need the funding to now make it happen. I chipped in, hopefully others do, too.
Whilst it's nice they are finally showing something other than words,I don't think people are saying what yout hink they are saying.
What most people are saying is this:
Plenty of other engines are capable of doing what was done in the tech demo if it's only NPC models and if they drop graphical fidelity to a very low level.Doing what was shown is much harder with player controlled characters with differing gear styles and levels and every degree of graphical fidelity you go up it becomes exponentially even more difficult.
For all we know with a reasonable amount of visual eye candy and palyer characters wandering about the nubmer could drop to 2 or it could be 200 or 1000 there is no way to tell from waht was shown.