Not trying to defend wvw here since it's really not an aspect I enjoy of GW2 .. however.
Wasn't a common complaint on darkfall uw that you run around.. and around.. and around.. until you finally find someone to fight?
I don't think bigger areas mean better pvp.
I guess you are right but I still massive maps/worlds, small maps make the game's pvp feel like a battleground event, I like the feeling of world even if I don't see someone for a week I could care less.
The larger the better IMO, I am willing to give up 1 tarabyte of harddrive for a world that is so dam massive that it would take me 1 week in real life hours to cross lol, I play MMO's to be apart of a living world, large immersive and rich with lore.
I guess the best way to put it coming from a old school MMO player is I don't like to play video games I to live in vurtual worlds.
reply to OP topic: trom the video you posted I counted about 15 Eternal Battlegrounds inside Cyrodiil so I am happy : )
It took him ~3 Minutes with a slow horse in ESO to reach the distance between both Towers and ~3 Minutes just running and swimming crossing the whole Eternal Battleground.
As someone who has played both, I'd say the approx size of Cyrodiil is roughly that of all 4 boderlands from GW2's WvW COMBINED. (This does not include the newly added 5th map)
As for travel times, it's really difficult to say. I've ran across Cyrodiil, and I've ran though GW2's maps as well. Unfortunatey both games have fairly significant speed boosts that distort this number. Swiftness makes a HUGE difference with run speed in GW2, and gets compounded by classes with blink / leap / dash abilities. With ESO the basic horse is pretty pathetic. With certain builds you can outrun most people on horses currently. (This does not include people w/ the 42k horses)
That said, Cyrodiil and the borderlands are close to the same size in reality. The primary difference is that Cyrodiil is much more seamless than the Borderlands (you don't have to hop maps to invade enemy territory), and it also has a lot more stuff crammed into the overall zone (pvp dungeons / quests / etc.)
Definitely prefer Cyrodiil to GW2's WvW. Feels much more epic on multiple levels.
It looks like that all 4 WvW maps in GW2 are still around half of the Cyrodiil map size, more or less:
Here is a visual comparison with the single Eternal Battleground
I'm actually surprised just how much bigger ESO is and what surprised me more was how much better ESO looked to me as well since I thought GW2 look pretty darn good.
I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
There is only 1 server for the entire game. You can't have a million players in one zone. Each instance is capped at about 2000 players. Each player has to choose their "home instance". This is the instance where you can earn alliance points. You can guest in other instances but not earn this credit.
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
There is only 1 server for the entire game. You can't have a million players in one zone. Each instance is capped at about 2000 players. Each player has to choose their "home instance". This is the instance where you can earn alliance points. You can guest in other instances but not earn this credit.
That's good enough, I only didn't want it feeling like some COD match.
I hope people actually that are comparing penis sizes, realistically should count the number of mountains in that land mass on eso that you have no access to and cannot go over it. I mean yea I can walk 1000 meters from point a to b, but what about all the unused and wasteful room which serves no purpose other than to take time to get to the next point.
I guess people just like to look at a map and go oooo it takes me 1 hours to get across this map and not notice why it takes that amount of time.
The Elder Scrolls where you could go on any mountain pretty much if you like and now here we are in 2014 all that is just for show.
As for the graphics... theres a lot of things to dislike about GW2, but the graphics are actually pretty good (especially some slight SweetFX adjustments). ESO has very good graphics as well. Not sure where anybody gets the idea that ESO has vastly superior graphics. You may like the art style more, but don't confuse it with having good/bad graphics.
People confuse graphics and art style all the time.
Graphics is a catchall phrase, get over it.
If that were the case, there'd be no need for any of the other words used to describe a game's look. Aesthetics being the primary word that's been omitted thus far in this discussion. To extend the point even further, if what you suggest is true, half the words in a thesaurus would be worthless. You'd be able to substitute any word for any of its thesaurus matches and retain the exact same meaning. That's just not the case, however. Each word has a nuanced meaning for a reason: because the ideas we intend to express are complex and demand a complex language.
Graphics is not an all-encompassing word when referring to the look of a video game. If you attempt use it that way, prepare to encounter misunderstandings and needless debates because others will certainly using the word very differently than you.
Or people could get used to the term "graphics" and get over it that it means "the look of the game". It never has mean art style. Art style and that argument have always been added by individuals not understanding the term "graphics".
The term simply means how a game looks to them as compared to other games. Most understand that they are judging vs other games of the same art style or genre. People that decide it means "art style" or "aesthetics" are the ones thinking too much about it.
using the term "the look of the game" is just as problematic as using "graphics" for a catch-all wording. What PART of the "look of the game"? We don't know if hes talking about art style, shading, etc.
" you: "Hey doctor I got hurt on my leg". Doc: "Where on you're leg?" You: I don't know man, MY LEG! Doc: "Sorry cant help you."
The point is if you are talking to yourself its fine, but when speaking/typing to "others" you need to be more specific so they can UNDERSTAND you. Socialize much?
Thanks for proving my point.
The look of any game is opinion....so acting like the term "graphics" means anything but what you see is anything BUT opinion....is asshattery
When describing a game... just saying "the graphics seem bad/good" has always been ok. Until recently. Now we have to write a thesis on the subject so as not to be bombarded here.
Sorry...you are in the minority. It's one aspect...one opinion...which amounts to just that.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
No, but it has a really good PvP zone (I hate zones), that with a few more elements could have a world feel.
Last beta I visited some of the grey marked "ruins" on the ingame map. At these areas you will find quests and npc´s and guess what you will find there aswell hehe.
Yeah, small scale pvp with 2-3 players or just 1v1. Often sneaky and dangerous opponents which send you to hell during the time you are questing. And oh boy is the penalty harsh but actually good, was a long way to walk back.
Yeah, I can see the inner keep areas really developing into towns. Towns set up around guild auction houses. Just need a few more things to make it feel like home.
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
It is instanced. But, each instance is almost as big as a WoW server. There meant to hold about 1,000 players per faction at any one time. I'm told they can handle more, but they would like to keep it around that number to limit server issues.
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
It is instanced. But, each instance is almost as big as a WoW server. There meant to hold about 1,000 players per faction at any one time. I'm told they can handle more, but they would like to keep it around that number to limit server issues.
2000 is the exact number.
Rubber duck is incapable of hate.
" The extinction of Rubber Ducks will bring forth the end of our days. "
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
I mean, it's "instanced"...but it's a gigantic zone. The whole point of this thread was to illustrate how big it is.
It essentially functions as it's own open world PvP zone since there are quests, dungeons, exploration objectives (skyshards, lorebooks, etc.) and hopefully **FINGERS CROSSED** there will be something like DAoC's Darkness Falls in the center of the map.
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
Though it is instanced, calling it a battleground shows you really need to educate yourself more on what they are offering, just how huge it is, how many people are in the instance, how much of a humongous amount of content they are offering within that area for both PVP and PVE, and that technically it's the smart decision. So much for you to learn. Reading does a mind good.
Originally posted by Eir_S Too bad the character models are so bland, if you're going to compare them. Me? I hate when a game has beautiful locales (ESO's are in my opinion much richer than GW2's) and your avatar has mediocre animations. I'm eagerly awaiting ESO's release, but I don't think the character graphics are the game's stand-out feature. Not at all.
I don't think the models or animations are a selling point, and they do leave something to be desired. I think it's a trade off, I've never found a game that is "perfect" for everyone, and in ESO's case, I'm certainly willing to accept the models and animations because of the excellent PvP experience, but that's just me....
They specifically call out that the character models and textured are specifically designed in a way which allows hundreds to be on screen at the same time. I've seen this myself and I have to give cudos. To me it's worth it to have lower texture models and animations to accomplish this. Not only are these the biggest battles I've seen in an MMO, they have the best server performance, and still manage to look better than anything else which has come close.
Black Desert and it has real action combat not tab targeting made to look like action combat.
Originally posted by Eir_S Too bad the character models are so bland, if you're going to compare them. Me? I hate when a game has beautiful locales (ESO's are in my opinion much richer than GW2's) and your avatar has mediocre animations. I'm eagerly awaiting ESO's release, but I don't think the character graphics are the game's stand-out feature. Not at all.
I don't think the models or animations are a selling point, and they do leave something to be desired. I think it's a trade off, I've never found a game that is "perfect" for everyone, and in ESO's case, I'm certainly willing to accept the models and animations because of the excellent PvP experience, but that's just me....
They specifically call out that the character models and textured are specifically designed in a way which allows hundreds to be on screen at the same time. I've seen this myself and I have to give cudos. To me it's worth it to have lower texture models and animations to accomplish this. Not only are these the biggest battles I've seen in an MMO, they have the best server performance, and still manage to look better than anything else which has come close.
Black Desert and it has real action combat not tab targeting made to look like action combat.
Ah yes... the perfect MMO that's always coming around the corner... good luck with that
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
Though it is instanced, calling it a battleground shows you really need to educate yourself more on what they are offering, just how huge it is, how many people are in the instance, how much of a humongous amount of content they are offering within that area for both PVP and PVE, and that technically it's the smart decision. So much for you to learn. Reading does a mind good.
No matter how you try to sugar coat it cyrodiil is instanced falls into the battleground catagory. Is not like black desert which has large scale pvp 600 vs 600 in the non instanaced world.
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
Though it is instanced, calling it a battleground shows you really need to educate yourself more on what they are offering, just how huge it is, how many people are in the instance, how much of a humongous amount of content they are offering within that area for both PVP and PVE, and that technically it's the smart decision. So much for you to learn. Reading does a mind good.
No matter how you try to sugar coat it cyrodiil is instanced falls into the battleground catagory. Is not like black desert which has large scale pvp 600 vs 600 in the non instanaced world.
Yes. They're using alien technology...Vulcan I think.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Originally posted by darkheart84 I heard Cyrodiil is instanced, is this true? I really hope not...the idea of there being some kind of frontier is far better than having some instanced battleground. Something like the war zone that existed in DAoC, or the wilderness back in the old days of runescape when I was a teen.
Though it is instanced, calling it a battleground shows you really need to educate yourself more on what they are offering, just how huge it is, how many people are in the instance, how much of a humongous amount of content they are offering within that area for both PVP and PVE, and that technically it's the smart decision. So much for you to learn. Reading does a mind good.
No matter how you try to sugar coat it cyrodiil is instanced falls into the battleground catagory. Is not like black desert which has large scale pvp 600 vs 600 in the non instanaced world.
Technically every game world is an instance. So when does it stop being "just" a battleground? Obviously that is up to a debate but once you have one map as big as Cyrodill, a map that lets you be there 24/7 and offers enaugh content in both PvP and PvE to live there and evolve your toon with very little limits (in TESO I guess everyone has to go hunt skyshards and leave Cyrodill at some point), we can safely conclude that it actually is more on the side of open world than it is battleground.
Well it's nice to see a huge map but it suffers from level design, Guild Wars 2 map was way more detailed and changed up while ESO stayed mostly the same.
As for the graphics... theres a lot of things to dislike about GW2, but the graphics are actually pretty good (especially some slight SweetFX adjustments). ESO has very good graphics as well. Not sure where anybody gets the idea that ESO has vastly superior graphics. You may like the art style more, but don't confuse it with having good/bad graphics.
People confuse graphics and art style all the time.
Graphics is a catchall phrase, get over it.
If that were the case, there'd be no need for any of the other words used to describe a game's look. Aesthetics being the primary word that's been omitted thus far in this discussion. To extend the point even further, if what you suggest is true, half the words in a thesaurus would be worthless. You'd be able to substitute any word for any of its thesaurus matches and retain the exact same meaning. That's just not the case, however. Each word has a nuanced meaning for a reason: because the ideas we intend to express are complex and demand a complex language.
Graphics is not an all-encompassing word when referring to the look of a video game. If you attempt use it that way, prepare to encounter misunderstandings and needless debates because others will certainly using the word very differently than you.
Or people could get used to the term "graphics" and get over it that it means "the look of the game". It never has mean art style. Art style and that argument have always been added by individuals not understanding the term "graphics".
The term simply means how a game looks to them as compared to other games. Most understand that they are judging vs other games of the same art style or genre. People that decide it means "art style" or "aesthetics" are the ones thinking too much about it.
using the term "the look of the game" is just as problematic as using "graphics" for a catch-all wording. What PART of the "look of the game"? We don't know if hes talking about art style, shading, etc.
" you: "Hey doctor I got hurt on my leg". Doc: "Where on you're leg?" You: I don't know man, MY LEG! Doc: "Sorry cant help you."
The point is if you are talking to yourself its fine, but when speaking/typing to "others" you need to be more specific so they can UNDERSTAND you. Socialize much?
That's exactly it. I love your analogy, btw.
The thing is, all these words exist for a reason. They each describe something a bit different. The distinctions between the terms aesthetics, art style, and graphics have all developed for a reason - so we can be more clear about what part of a game's look we're referring to when we share our opinions on it or compare it to other games.
The words do mean different things. You, Gestankfaust, can try to revolutionize or reinvent the word "graphics" to mean something more broad or simple than it actually does all you want. Not only is that counterproductive in that less precise terms can only cause confusion and miscommunication, but it also just won't work, as these words already have established accepted definitions. You need to "get over it" and use the words according to their actual definitions, or else, like we've been saying, be prepared to be needlessly misunderstood.
I don't think anyone ever had any doubt it was bigger than WVW. My fear is that the map is so big, but doesn't have enough side objectives to keeps.
This was my issue with GW2. Too little supply camps, too many towers/keeps, which created tunnel vision zergs. An icon shows up saying there's a battle, and everyone rushes.
A large map should be used to take advantage of small scale warfate tactics. Supply convoies, tower ambushes, etc. All leading up to the bigger keep sieges.
There's apperantly 18 keeps in total in Cyrodill but i can't find how many lumber camps, mines, Scrolls, etc. Does anyone have a number. Are there more side objectives than there are keeps?
It took him ~3 Minutes with a slow horse in ESO to reach the distance between both Towers and ~3 Minutes just running and swimming crossing the whole Eternal Battleground.
As someone who has played both, I'd say the approx size of Cyrodiil is roughly that of all 4 boderlands from GW2's WvW COMBINED. (This does not include the newly added 5th map)
As for travel times, it's really difficult to say. I've ran across Cyrodiil, and I've ran though GW2's maps as well. Unfortunatey both games have fairly significant speed boosts that distort this number. Swiftness makes a HUGE difference with run speed in GW2, and gets compounded by classes with blink / leap / dash abilities. With ESO the basic horse is pretty pathetic. With certain builds you can outrun most people on horses currently. (This does not include people w/ the 42k horses)
That said, Cyrodiil and the borderlands are close to the same size in reality. The primary difference is that Cyrodiil is much more seamless than the Borderlands (you don't have to hop maps to invade enemy territory), and it also has a lot more stuff crammed into the overall zone (pvp dungeons / quests / etc.)
Definitely prefer Cyrodiil to GW2's WvW. Feels much more epic on multiple levels.
It looks like that all 4 WvW maps in GW2 are still around half of the Cyrodiil map size, more or less:
Here is a visual comparison with the single Eternal Battleground
Problem is, you really can't make comparisons like this when it comes to 3d. Which is why most devs compare size via travel time. You can have 2 files that are physically the exact same size within a 3d program, but have their relative scaling handled differently inside the actual game. Like I said, Cyrodiil might be a bit larger than all 4 maps, but I definitely wouldn't say it's twice as big. It might seem like it, but movement in ESO is generally slower than it is in GW2. The movement you gain from speed boosts in GW2 is roughly twice as fast as what you get in ESO while mounted. So that's where a lot of the discrepancy is most likely coming from.
As for the graphics... theres a lot of things to dislike about GW2, but the graphics are actually pretty good (especially some slight SweetFX adjustments). ESO has very good graphics as well. Not sure where anybody gets the idea that ESO has vastly superior graphics. You may like the art style more, but don't confuse it with having good/bad graphics.
People confuse graphics and art style all the time.
Graphics is a catchall phrase, get over it.
If that were the case, there'd be no need for any of the other words used to describe a game's look. Aesthetics being the primary word that's been omitted thus far in this discussion. To extend the point even further, if what you suggest is true, half the words in a thesaurus would be worthless. You'd be able to substitute any word for any of its thesaurus matches and retain the exact same meaning. That's just not the case, however. Each word has a nuanced meaning for a reason: because the ideas we intend to express are complex and demand a complex language.
Graphics is not an all-encompassing word when referring to the look of a video game. If you attempt use it that way, prepare to encounter misunderstandings and needless debates because others will certainly using the word very differently than you.
Or people could get used to the term "graphics" and get over it that it means "the look of the game". It never has mean art style. Art style and that argument have always been added by individuals not understanding the term "graphics".
The term simply means how a game looks to them as compared to other games. Most understand that they are judging vs other games of the same art style or genre. People that decide it means "art style" or "aesthetics" are the ones thinking too much about it.
using the term "the look of the game" is just as problematic as using "graphics" for a catch-all wording. What PART of the "look of the game"? We don't know if hes talking about art style, shading, etc.
" you: "Hey doctor I got hurt on my leg". Doc: "Where on you're leg?" You: I don't know man, MY LEG! Doc: "Sorry cant help you."
The point is if you are talking to yourself its fine, but when speaking/typing to "others" you need to be more specific so they can UNDERSTAND you. Socialize much?
That's exactly it. I love your analogy, btw.
The thing is, all these words exist for a reason. They each describe something a bit different. The distinctions between the terms aesthetics, art style, and graphics have all developed for a reason - so we can be more clear about what part of a game's look we're referring to when we share our opinions on it or compare it to other games.
The words do mean different things. You, Gestankfaust, can try to revolutionize or reinvent the word "graphics" to mean something more broad or simple than it actually does all you want. Not only is that counterproductive in that less precise terms can only cause confusion and miscommunication, but it also just won't work, as these words already have established accepted definitions. You need to "get over it" and use the words according to their actual definitions, or else, like we've been saying, be prepared to be needlessly misunderstood.
Yeah, just because we're on the internet it doesn't mean we get to start lazily grouping things into one to mean whatever we want and expect everybody to play along. What is so hard about it? Example: I actually think the graphics (slightly) & animations more in GW2, but I prefer the art-style of a game like ESO. Now that has zero effect on my love of this game over GW2, but just to let I like or dislike the graphics flop out my mouth and expect people to know what I mean when there are clear ways to define said statement is lazy. I know my generation has been raised on the internet, but come on now :P.
But just back to the actual topic of the thread - the size of the map and that it seemingly allows for more tactial play vs GW2 is what is really drawing me in. My limited experience saw what should provide more choke points, punishment of over-extending, because you can only waypoint if you are at another waypoint and there is a link to where you want to go. Whereas GW2 I can bring my blob all the way to Overlook in EBG from the Lowlands, and if the keep is called for under attack I just get ooc and waypoint back to spawn (or worse if keep has waypoint, drop in at the end of attack timer).
Comments
I guess you are right but I still massive maps/worlds, small maps make the game's pvp feel like a battleground event, I like the feeling of world even if I don't see someone for a week I could care less.
The larger the better IMO, I am willing to give up 1 tarabyte of harddrive for a world that is so dam massive that it would take me 1 week in real life hours to cross lol, I play MMO's to be apart of a living world, large immersive and rich with lore.
I guess the best way to put it coming from a old school MMO player is I don't like to play video games I to live in vurtual worlds.
reply to OP topic: trom the video you posted I counted about 15 Eternal Battlegrounds inside Cyrodiil so I am happy : )
It looks like that all 4 WvW maps in GW2 are still around half of the Cyrodiil map size, more or less:
Here is a visual comparison with the single Eternal Battleground
There Is Always Hope!
There is only 1 server for the entire game. You can't have a million players in one zone. Each instance is capped at about 2000 players. Each player has to choose their "home instance". This is the instance where you can earn alliance points. You can guest in other instances but not earn this credit.
That's good enough, I only didn't want it feeling like some COD match.
I hope people actually that are comparing penis sizes, realistically should count the number of mountains in that land mass on eso that you have no access to and cannot go over it. I mean yea I can walk 1000 meters from point a to b, but what about all the unused and wasteful room which serves no purpose other than to take time to get to the next point.
I guess people just like to look at a map and go oooo it takes me 1 hours to get across this map and not notice why it takes that amount of time.
The Elder Scrolls where you could go on any mountain pretty much if you like and now here we are in 2014 all that is just for show.
Thanks for proving my point.
The look of any game is opinion....so acting like the term "graphics" means anything but what you see is anything BUT opinion....is asshattery
When describing a game... just saying "the graphics seem bad/good" has always been ok. Until recently. Now we have to write a thesis on the subject so as not to be bombarded here.
Sorry...you are in the minority. It's one aspect...one opinion...which amounts to just that.
"This may hurt a little, but it's something you'll get used to. Relax....."
Yeah, I can see the inner keep areas really developing into towns. Towns set up around guild auction houses. Just need a few more things to make it feel like home.
It is instanced. But, each instance is almost as big as a WoW server. There meant to hold about 1,000 players per faction at any one time. I'm told they can handle more, but they would like to keep it around that number to limit server issues.
2000 is the exact number.
Rubber duck is incapable of hate.
" The extinction of Rubber Ducks will bring forth the end of our days. "
I mean, it's "instanced"...but it's a gigantic zone. The whole point of this thread was to illustrate how big it is.
It essentially functions as it's own open world PvP zone since there are quests, dungeons, exploration objectives (skyshards, lorebooks, etc.) and hopefully **FINGERS CROSSED** there will be something like DAoC's Darkness Falls in the center of the map.
Though it is instanced, calling it a battleground shows you really need to educate yourself more on what they are offering, just how huge it is, how many people are in the instance, how much of a humongous amount of content they are offering within that area for both PVP and PVE, and that technically it's the smart decision. So much for you to learn. Reading does a mind good.
There Is Always Hope!
Black Desert and it has real action combat not tab targeting made to look like action combat.
Ah yes... the perfect MMO that's always coming around the corner... good luck with that
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Really? And what proof do you have to bring to the table other than your statement? Do you have specifics?
Acolytes Gaming (forums.acolytesgaming.com)
Sheep or Shepard- Make up your own damn mind.
It is true, the older you get, the less patience you have for those who watch a Youtube video and from that believe they know it all.
No matter how you try to sugar coat it cyrodiil is instanced falls into the battleground catagory. Is not like black desert which has large scale pvp 600 vs 600 in the non instanaced world.
Yes. They're using alien technology...Vulcan I think.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Technically every game world is an instance. So when does it stop being "just" a battleground? Obviously that is up to a debate but once you have one map as big as Cyrodill, a map that lets you be there 24/7 and offers enaugh content in both PvP and PvE to live there and evolve your toon with very little limits (in TESO I guess everyone has to go hunt skyshards and leave Cyrodill at some point), we can safely conclude that it actually is more on the side of open world than it is battleground.
That's exactly it. I love your analogy, btw.
The thing is, all these words exist for a reason. They each describe something a bit different. The distinctions between the terms aesthetics, art style, and graphics have all developed for a reason - so we can be more clear about what part of a game's look we're referring to when we share our opinions on it or compare it to other games.
The words do mean different things. You, Gestankfaust, can try to revolutionize or reinvent the word "graphics" to mean something more broad or simple than it actually does all you want. Not only is that counterproductive in that less precise terms can only cause confusion and miscommunication, but it also just won't work, as these words already have established accepted definitions. You need to "get over it" and use the words according to their actual definitions, or else, like we've been saying, be prepared to be needlessly misunderstood.
I don't think anyone ever had any doubt it was bigger than WVW. My fear is that the map is so big, but doesn't have enough side objectives to keeps.
This was my issue with GW2. Too little supply camps, too many towers/keeps, which created tunnel vision zergs. An icon shows up saying there's a battle, and everyone rushes.
A large map should be used to take advantage of small scale warfate tactics. Supply convoies, tower ambushes, etc. All leading up to the bigger keep sieges.
There's apperantly 18 keeps in total in Cyrodill but i can't find how many lumber camps, mines, Scrolls, etc. Does anyone have a number. Are there more side objectives than there are keeps?
Problem is, you really can't make comparisons like this when it comes to 3d. Which is why most devs compare size via travel time. You can have 2 files that are physically the exact same size within a 3d program, but have their relative scaling handled differently inside the actual game. Like I said, Cyrodiil might be a bit larger than all 4 maps, but I definitely wouldn't say it's twice as big. It might seem like it, but movement in ESO is generally slower than it is in GW2. The movement you gain from speed boosts in GW2 is roughly twice as fast as what you get in ESO while mounted. So that's where a lot of the discrepancy is most likely coming from.
Yeah, just because we're on the internet it doesn't mean we get to start lazily grouping things into one to mean whatever we want and expect everybody to play along. What is so hard about it? Example: I actually think the graphics (slightly) & animations more in GW2, but I prefer the art-style of a game like ESO. Now that has zero effect on my love of this game over GW2, but just to let I like or dislike the graphics flop out my mouth and expect people to know what I mean when there are clear ways to define said statement is lazy. I know my generation has been raised on the internet, but come on now :P.
But just back to the actual topic of the thread - the size of the map and that it seemingly allows for more tactial play vs GW2 is what is really drawing me in. My limited experience saw what should provide more choke points, punishment of over-extending, because you can only waypoint if you are at another waypoint and there is a link to where you want to go. Whereas GW2 I can bring my blob all the way to Overlook in EBG from the Lowlands, and if the keep is called for under attack I just get ooc and waypoint back to spawn (or worse if keep has waypoint, drop in at the end of attack timer).