So the question is this, how much MMO is it really gonna be?
Will there be server with thousands of players on each like traditional MMOs or is it a semi MMO like Conan exiles?
Well your "traditional" early UO and EQ1 server only had "about a thousand players" whilst DAoC had about 3300 - but split into 3 realms with a common PvP area. Since the FAQs suggest 1,000 does that make New World a traditional mmo?
From what I have seen it will require hundreds of players to hold any sort of interest. Once population wains, as they always do it probably wont be worth playing.
Thats why these grand and epic offerings ultimately fail because the population of players who are even willing to play them is already spread too thin and they are also all jaded and cynical comparing every new game with some romanticized memory of some crap game form 20 years ago.
If a game isnt SWG or EQ or whatever other game no one played but everyone claims was the best game ever then it quickly fades from fancy.
With no actual content to speak of this game has little to no chance to be relevant for more than 3 weeks.
Previous Alpha tester here. This is a whole new game. Gone is the world PvP to now be replaced by instanced 50 vs 50 battles. They have added a whole bunch of quests and missions, which it didn't have before. The other thing they changed is settlements. You can't place your own buildings anymore. It's a pre-fab setup settlement that can't be changed, which also sucks. Personally, not a fan of the direction it's now going in. PvP was a central focus of the game. Taking that out changes so many other aspects of the game, that it really isn't the same game. They were also just experimenting with magic at the end of the last alpha phase, so would be really interested to see how that got developed. Before, it was all about the gauntlets. Who knows what direction that took.
I will say though that the PvE aspects of the game were amazing, and yes the alpha game played better than many released games I've played. So, there is still a lot to like about this game, but it seems like they literally gutted the original game and made it more appealing to the mass audience, instead of PvP centric players.
Everytime I here you can combine a little bit from each tree to truly create your unique class I awalys think yah if you don't mind max your build will be garbage . I hope New world somehow over comes this issue that plagues mmorpg's in the past
The one interesting thing that is being discussed is collision. Player collision is in place, so even though the PvP has to be consensual, other players could circle another player and make it impossible for them to move. So, in essence players can still grief other players.
Without PvP this game will get real boring real fast. Once all of the PvE content has been completed, what then?
It uses Easy Anti-Cheat (EAC). So they're doing client side anti-cheat. They could be doing anti-cheat on both client and server, but it makes me wonder if they're offloading anticheat to the client to get that silky smooth performance. It reminds me of a Korean MMO that got roasted here a couple of years ago for using client side cheat.
So at best they're adding a resource overhead with EAC but they're doing server side too so cheating will be much harder. Orrr, they're doing what every other MMO dev does in this situation and play smoke and mirrors with performance and cheating.
Who knows, but it's something to keep an eye on.
They'll be using there own AWS Cloud technology using components such as Elastic Beanstalk etc. That's how they maintain performance. Their servers will just grow and multiply automatically to cope with the demand. The 50 aside battles are probably to do with other reasons than performance (balanced teams, early limitation until the game matures etc). The range of techs they've developed in AWS is quite amazing and I guess this game will comprehensively use them.
I think this game will sadly be DOA after a month. Amazon jumped on the BR bandwagon hoping it would be the new best thing for long term so they tried to seperate themselves by doing a "massive" pvp game and I think the urge is gone for many people. Fortnite and overwatch are the games people jump back and fourth with when they get the urge again. I honestly think Mortal Online 2 will probably do better then this game because it has a small fanbase already but I wont be playing either.
So the question is this, how much MMO is it really gonna be?
Will there be server with thousands of players on each like traditional MMOs or is it a semi MMO like Conan exiles?
Sorry - I did ask this question and I guess I forgot to include the answer with all of the other info I covered. Currently servers are around 1000 people with only official servers at launch.
Just a heads up that you can register for a chance at Closed Beta Access on their main website. Otherwise you'll have to Pre-order for access. + We'll be able to stream and make content for it.
So the question is this, how much MMO is it really gonna be?
Will there be server with thousands of players on each like traditional MMOs or is it a semi MMO like Conan exiles?
Sorry - I did ask this question and I guess I forgot to include the answer with all of the other info I covered. Currently servers are around 1000 people with only official servers at launch.
I feel for this type game, this is a great number. Being a former Darkfall/DFUW players, a game with open world Pvp, depending on the size of the map, this sounds like a solid number per server to shoot for. Enough to find fights easily, but not over crowded. We will have to see how big the map is first of course. But from my understanding, its rather large. Large enough to leave room for distance between settlements aka guilds and such, but not too far to travel over to another area and begin war.
Don't be fooled. I played the alpha and all it was; was a survival game in the same vein as Ark, Rust, Conan exiles. Anyone that tells you its an mmorpg is just flat out lying to you. We'll see if it changed to that direction, but with the small development window I highly doubt it.
Many of the game mechanics were terrible as well. Combat was just spamming weapon lunge and being able to drop your camp and respawn litterally anywhere because the cool down was non existent. No way in hell will this game be ready next year as a survival game let alone a mmorpg.
Once again this is a game like Fallout 76 NOT a mmorpg.
When New World was announced, I had some serious reservations. First and foremost, I didn't think it would be an actual MMO, as in massively multiplayer. Having been in the alpha, I was very pleased to be wrong about this. New World is genuinely massively multiplayer, both in terms of the number of people on the server and the number of people that can take part in battles. Assuming nothing has changed from Alpha that is.....
On the other hand, I won't be playing it once it launches.
New World is a survival game. Don't kid yourselves, it is not an RPG, though it certainly has some RPG elements in it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, and I am pleased to see a new MMO outside of the RPG genre. There aren't many of them, certainly hardly any AAA, so it is a really good thing that the feature of being massively multiplayer is being brought to another genre. But, I personally don't enjoy survival games.
The combat....uggh. I'm not a fan of action combat, the way it is implemented in almost all games results in very shallow combat. It may be faster, it may be more "visceral", but mentally it's really easy and boring. The actual implementation during alpha also felt quite clunky to me, but that may have just been lack of practice on my part, or it may have been bugs. I don't know, but for whatever reason, my time during alpha was very disappointing on the combat front.
Progression is vertical. /facepalm. I don't understand why developers never seem to learn that vertical progression in a PvP game specifically, or a multiplayer game more generally, never works! Yet, New World is going this route. This means all new players will just get spanked by vets every single time. this will cut off the supply of new players, reducing retention and eventually killing the game. Just such a dumb decision. Either that, or new players will have to avoid PvP for weeks whilst they level up and grind away. Considering PvP is the big focus of the game, asking new players to ignore it seems stupid.
Finally (and I may be wrong on this point, please feel free to correct me), the game seems heavily group and guild focused. I don't have a problem with that in principle, I'm primarily a group-focused player and I love being part of an active guild. But, in New World it seems like the best features (building a fort and big pvp battles) are only possible as part of a big guild. If you happen to find yourself solo, either because that's your preference, or maybe your guild are offline, or perhaps you just need a bit of quiet time, then you are denied the best features of the game. WAR was similar to this - you were either in an organised raid, or you were having a bad time.
Still, I look forwards to seeing more details, and potentially joining another testing session. I still haven't really seen what the big, dramatic new features that Amazon talked about actually are. So, its possible the things I'm objecting to have been changed over the last few months.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
When New World was announced, I had some serious reservations. First and foremost, I didn't think it would be an actual MMO, as in massively multiplayer. Having been in the alpha, I was very pleased to be wrong about this. New World is genuinely massively multiplayer, both in terms of the number of people on the server and the number of people that can take part in battles. Assuming nothing has changed from Alpha that is.....
On the other hand, I won't be playing it once it launches.
New World is a survival game. Don't kid yourselves, it is not an RPG, though it certainly has some RPG elements in it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, and I am pleased to see a new MMO outside of the RPG genre. There aren't many of them, certainly hardly any AAA, so it is a really good thing that the feature of being massively multiplayer is being brought to another genre. But, I personally don't enjoy survival games.
The combat....uggh. I'm not a fan of action combat, the way it is implemented in almost all games results in very shallow combat. It may be faster, it may be more "visceral", but mentally it's really easy and boring. The actual implementation during alpha also felt quite clunky to me, but that may have just been lack of practice on my part, or it may have been bugs. I don't know, but for whatever reason, my time during alpha was very disappointing on the combat front.
Progression is vertical. /facepalm. I don't understand why developers never seem to learn that vertical progression in a PvP game specifically, or a multiplayer game more generally, never works! Yet, New World is going this route. This means all new players will just get spanked by vets every single time. this will cut off the supply of new players, reducing retention and eventually killing the game. Just such a dumb decision. Either that, or new players will have to avoid PvP for weeks whilst they level up and grind away. Considering PvP is the big focus of the game, asking new players to ignore it seems stupid.
Finally (and I may be wrong on this point, please feel free to correct me), the game seems heavily group and guild focused. I don't have a problem with that in principle, I'm primarily a group-focused player and I love being part of an active guild. But, in New World it seems like the best features (building a fort and big pvp battles) are only possible as part of a big guild. If you happen to find yourself solo, either because that's your preference, or maybe your guild are offline, or perhaps you just need a bit of quiet time, then you are denied the best features of the game. WAR was similar to this - you were either in an organised raid, or you were having a bad time.
Still, I look forwards to seeing more details, and potentially joining another testing session. I still haven't really seen what the big, dramatic new features that Amazon talked about actually are. So, its possible the things I'm objecting to have been changed over the last few months.
One of the feelings I can't shake when I was talking to them to prep for this is that it sounds very much like a survival MMO game like we've seen in Conan, ARK, and (shudder) Atlas. But it sounds like they took the feedback from their Alpha players seriously and are really leaning heavily on creating systems and content to make it feel more like an MMO versus a traditional survival experience.
I'm looking forward to seeing more. And Amazon is adamant that this is an "Open World MMO." When I brought up Survival twice in my conversations with them it seemed as though that descriptor wasn't one they were going to use with their game. And I hope it's true. We don't need another ARK or Conan. I'm hoping that, if those are an influence, Amazon takes the best parts about those games and creates a wholly unique feeling experience here.
Its a survival game! Its just a BR game! Its not a PvP game anymore! Its a PvE game! There will be PvP. There won't be PvP. There will just be PvP instanced battles. There is nothing to do in the game! They have added lots to do in the game. Its all going to be just PvE quests .........
Its amazing how so many people can read the same press / info release and superimpose their idea of what the game is - everyone did read the press / info releases yes?
As it stands I still wouldn't want to say - with 100% confidence - what the game will be at launch.
"we’re so excited to reveal a bit more of it today." - which suggests that not everything is done but also means that we don't yet know.
With the tease being:
"Players want to have a lot of options - between crafting, exploring, fighting different enemies, group content. We built out a lot of that to really match the expectations of the MMO player base.
The story of discovering what happened to Aeternum and learning more about Azoth are just two parts to what players have to look forward to when exploring and completing quests and missions in New World."
" learning about different people who have come to the island before you, other explorers in search of Azoth." Other people who are not dead!
And no we don't know how the story it will play out - its an alternate reality.
Personally, when playing Alpha I found it very similar to Shadowbane. The gameplay was very similar in that you levelled by killing mobs, that's it. No quests to run around and turn in, but simple kill the mob until it doesn't give xp and then move on to higher level mobs.
In response to Cameltosis, a lot has changed in the game. Mainly, PvP is gone from the game in the sense that we knew it playing Alpha. Also, you can't build your own settlements anymore, it's a pre-fab that is dropped down.
I ran with a very large company during Alpha. I found the combat to be a heck of a lot of fun, especially doing PvP. For me, it was simply a matter of timing and positioning regarding combat.
Now they are taking a sandbox game and turning it into a themepark game which stinks. The reddit thread on New World has a number of Alpha players in there saying that they won't be back because of the changes to PvP.
Unless they added a whole PvE game on top of what was in Alpha, then people will burn through said PvE content fast and get bored quick.
Technically, PvP focused games have far less content than PvE games. Fighting other players over the same territory and same resources is great, but how is that any different than grinding a dungeon and killing the same bosses? It's not. Both PvP and PvE suffer from repititis.
Again, this game was a lot like Shadowbane. The PvP was constant. You'd be out gathering resources and have to keep an eye out. There was a northern area that many players liked to farm that was a constant source of PvP. Much of the gameplay was focused around the PvP. I don't I ever heard a single person playing Alpha say they were bored or felt the game was repetitive.
So, now that PvP is gone, there is much less to do in the game. When Alpha was out, there were no missions or quests, its was all about PvP. So, unless they added a whole lot of content, like a whole game's worth, then yes people will get bored fast.
When they went to shut down the Alpha server, no one wanted to see it go. We were all having way too much fun.
When New World was announced, I had some serious reservations. First and foremost, I didn't think it would be an actual MMO, as in massively multiplayer. Having been in the alpha, I was very pleased to be wrong about this. New World is genuinely massively multiplayer, both in terms of the number of people on the server and the number of people that can take part in battles. Assuming nothing has changed from Alpha that is.....
On the other hand, I won't be playing it once it launches.
New World is a survival game. Don't kid yourselves, it is not an RPG, though it certainly has some RPG elements in it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, and I am pleased to see a new MMO outside of the RPG genre. There aren't many of them, certainly hardly any AAA, so it is a really good thing that the feature of being massively multiplayer is being brought to another genre. But, I personally don't enjoy survival games.
The combat....uggh. I'm not a fan of action combat, the way it is implemented in almost all games results in very shallow combat. It may be faster, it may be more "visceral", but mentally it's really easy and boring. The actual implementation during alpha also felt quite clunky to me, but that may have just been lack of practice on my part, or it may have been bugs. I don't know, but for whatever reason, my time during alpha was very disappointing on the combat front.
Progression is vertical. /facepalm. I don't understand why developers never seem to learn that vertical progression in a PvP game specifically, or a multiplayer game more generally, never works! Yet, New World is going this route. This means all new players will just get spanked by vets every single time. this will cut off the supply of new players, reducing retention and eventually killing the game. Just such a dumb decision. Either that, or new players will have to avoid PvP for weeks whilst they level up and grind away. Considering PvP is the big focus of the game, asking new players to ignore it seems stupid.
Finally (and I may be wrong on this point, please feel free to correct me), the game seems heavily group and guild focused. I don't have a problem with that in principle, I'm primarily a group-focused player and I love being part of an active guild. But, in New World it seems like the best features (building a fort and big pvp battles) are only possible as part of a big guild. If you happen to find yourself solo, either because that's your preference, or maybe your guild are offline, or perhaps you just need a bit of quiet time, then you are denied the best features of the game. WAR was similar to this - you were either in an organised raid, or you were having a bad time.
Still, I look forwards to seeing more details, and potentially joining another testing session. I still haven't really seen what the big, dramatic new features that Amazon talked about actually are. So, its possible the things I'm objecting to have been changed over the last few months.
One of the feelings I can't shake when I was talking to them to prep for this is that it sounds very much like a survival MMO game like we've seen in Conan, ARK, and (shudder) Atlas. But it sounds like they took the feedback from their Alpha players seriously and are really leaning heavily on creating systems and content to make it feel more like an MMO versus a traditional survival experience.
I'm looking forward to seeing more. And Amazon is adamant that this is an "Open World MMO." When I brought up Survival twice in my conversations with them it seemed as though that descriptor wasn't one they were going to use with their game. And I hope it's true. We don't need another ARK or Conan. I'm hoping that, if those are an influence, Amazon takes the best parts about those games and creates a wholly unique feeling experience here.
Time will definitely tell though!
As far as I'm aware, Conan and ARK are not MMOs. From a quick Google, Conan had a player cap of 40, ARK had a player cap of 70 (on official servers anyway). I'm not certain about Atlas as haven't really heard much about it, but Google seems to tell me it has a player cap of 150.
None of those numbers are massively multiplayer. Atlas is slightly larger than average, but not massively larger.
So, New World will still stand out as unique, being the first MMO survival game that im aware of. Amazon calling it an Open World MMO is correct, it is an open world and it does (so far) appear to be massively multiplayer.
But yeh, still a survival game, not an RPG.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
When New World was announced, I had some serious reservations. First and foremost, I didn't think it would be an actual MMO, as in massively multiplayer. Having been in the alpha, I was very pleased to be wrong about this. New World is genuinely massively multiplayer, both in terms of the number of people on the server and the number of people that can take part in battles. Assuming nothing has changed from Alpha that is.....
On the other hand, I won't be playing it once it launches.
New World is a survival game. Don't kid yourselves, it is not an RPG, though it certainly has some RPG elements in it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, and I am pleased to see a new MMO outside of the RPG genre. There aren't many of them, certainly hardly any AAA, so it is a really good thing that the feature of being massively multiplayer is being brought to another genre. But, I personally don't enjoy survival games.
The combat....uggh. I'm not a fan of action combat, the way it is implemented in almost all games results in very shallow combat. It may be faster, it may be more "visceral", but mentally it's really easy and boring. The actual implementation during alpha also felt quite clunky to me, but that may have just been lack of practice on my part, or it may have been bugs. I don't know, but for whatever reason, my time during alpha was very disappointing on the combat front.
Progression is vertical. /facepalm. I don't understand why developers never seem to learn that vertical progression in a PvP game specifically, or a multiplayer game more generally, never works! Yet, New World is going this route. This means all new players will just get spanked by vets every single time. this will cut off the supply of new players, reducing retention and eventually killing the game. Just such a dumb decision. Either that, or new players will have to avoid PvP for weeks whilst they level up and grind away. Considering PvP is the big focus of the game, asking new players to ignore it seems stupid.
Finally (and I may be wrong on this point, please feel free to correct me), the game seems heavily group and guild focused. I don't have a problem with that in principle, I'm primarily a group-focused player and I love being part of an active guild. But, in New World it seems like the best features (building a fort and big pvp battles) are only possible as part of a big guild. If you happen to find yourself solo, either because that's your preference, or maybe your guild are offline, or perhaps you just need a bit of quiet time, then you are denied the best features of the game. WAR was similar to this - you were either in an organised raid, or you were having a bad time.
Still, I look forwards to seeing more details, and potentially joining another testing session. I still haven't really seen what the big, dramatic new features that Amazon talked about actually are. So, its possible the things I'm objecting to have been changed over the last few months.
One of the feelings I can't shake when I was talking to them to prep for this is that it sounds very much like a survival MMO game like we've seen in Conan, ARK, and (shudder) Atlas. But it sounds like they took the feedback from their Alpha players seriously and are really leaning heavily on creating systems and content to make it feel more like an MMO versus a traditional survival experience.
I'm looking forward to seeing more. And Amazon is adamant that this is an "Open World MMO." When I brought up Survival twice in my conversations with them it seemed as though that descriptor wasn't one they were going to use with their game. And I hope it's true. We don't need another ARK or Conan. I'm hoping that, if those are an influence, Amazon takes the best parts about those games and creates a wholly unique feeling experience here.
Time will definitely tell though!
As far as I'm aware, Conan and ARK are not MMOs. From a quick Google, Conan had a player cap of 40, ARK had a player cap of 70 (on official servers anyway). I'm not certain about Atlas as haven't really heard much about it, but Google seems to tell me it has a player cap of 150.
None of those numbers are massively multiplayer. Atlas is slightly larger than average, but not massively larger.
So, New World will still stand out as unique, being the first MMO survival game that im aware of. Amazon calling it an Open World MMO is correct, it is an open world and it does (so far) appear to be massively multiplayer.
But yeh, still a survival game, not an RPG.
If Atlas can't do it then I doubt New World can. Atlas had 150 players per square instance and I suspect New world will do something similar. One of the only fps combat mmorpgs I can think of that truely had no limits(it lagged) was Darkfall online, but they did have some instances via dungeons. I don't consider any survival game a mmorpg, sure they can utilize some mechanics and ideas, but player count is not the sole deciding factor on why a game is a mmorpg or not. Each mmorpg follows certain mechanically inclined principals that define the genre and its very hard to accurately describe the culmination of them all, but you can tell the difference because rust/ark/dayz/escape/atlas all feel similar with their unique differences and Darkfall/Shadowbane/WoW/DAOC may differ alot but have core aspects that define it.
They should only restrict pvp in certain zones/areas unless war declaration is established imho.
In response to Cameltosis, a lot has changed in the game. Mainly, PvP is gone from the game in the sense that we knew it playing Alpha. Also, you can't build your own settlements anymore, it's a pre-fab that is dropped down.
I ran with a very large company during Alpha. I found the combat to be a heck of a lot of fun, especially doing PvP. For me, it was simply a matter of timing and positioning regarding combat.
Now they are taking a sandbox game and turning it into a themepark game which stinks. The reddit thread on New World has a number of Alpha players in there saying that they won't be back because of the changes to PvP.
Unless they added a whole PvE game on top of what was in Alpha, then people will burn through said PvE content fast and get bored quick.
Thanks very much for this insight.
I'm not really sure what to make of it! Getting together with friends and building your own settlement / fort / outpost seemed like one of the biggest draws to this game, so to remove that and replace it with pre-fab buildings seems like a turn for the worse.
Admittedly, the game that was originally announced sounded very different to what we played in Alpha. The original announcement was all about the PvE, exploring the world with friends to take down supernatural creatures whilst we build up settlements and develop trade routes and rivalries. That game sounded great. But the alpha was just about grinding resources and xp until you were strong enough to PvP.
In your opinion, have these changes since alpha brought the game back towards the original announcement of the game? or do they just feel like panicky changes to please PvE players?
Also, during Alpha, the goal was 250v250 company battles, i.e. large scale. This latest announcement says it now aims at just 100 player battles, 80% less than advertised during alpha. I never got far enough in alpha to witness big battles but spoke to a few others who said they were in large scale (200+) battles but couldn't confirm if they ever hit 500 players. I was wondering what your experience of the scale of the multiplayer was and what you expect at launch?
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
If Atlas can't do it then I doubt New World can. Atlas had 150 players per square instance and I suspect New world will do something similar. One of the only fps combat mmorpgs I can think of that truely had no limits(it lagged) was Darkfall online, but they did have some instances via dungeons. I don't consider any survival game a mmorpg, sure they can utilize some mechanics and ideas, but player count is not the sole deciding factor on why a game is a mmorpg or not. Each mmorpg follows certain mechanically inclined principals that define the genre and its very hard to accurately describe the culmination of them all, but you can tell the difference because rust/ark/dayz/escape/atlas all feel similar with their unique differences and Darkfall/Shadowbane/WoW/DAOC may differ alot but have core aspects that define it.
They should only restrict pvp in certain zones/areas unless war declaration is established imho.
I played a lot of Darkfall. I played in multiple sieges with easily 400 players in the same area battling. I initially had lag, then upraded my PC, and the fights were fine after that. Little lag with the right settings and a decent PC.
If Darkfall, a smaller, low budget game, can pull off large scale battles, I am pretty sure its something that can be done, and I would not doubt New Worlds ability to do so if they choose to go that route.
Comments
Well your "traditional" early UO and EQ1 server only had "about a thousand players" whilst DAoC had about 3300 - but split into 3 realms with a common PvP area. Since the FAQs suggest 1,000 does that make New World a traditional mmo?
Or does traditional mean "something later"?
Thats why these grand and epic offerings ultimately fail because the population of players who are even willing to play them is already spread too thin and they are also all jaded and cynical comparing every new game with some romanticized memory of some crap game form 20 years ago.
If a game isnt SWG or EQ or whatever other game no one played but everyone claims was the best game ever then it quickly fades from fancy.
With no actual content to speak of this game has little to no chance to be relevant for more than 3 weeks.
I will say though that the PvE aspects of the game were amazing, and yes the alpha game played better than many released games I've played. So, there is still a lot to like about this game, but it seems like they literally gutted the original game and made it more appealing to the mass audience, instead of PvP centric players.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2019-12-12-we-talk-to-amazon-about-its-new-world-mmo-and-problematic-associations
https://www.reddit.com/r/New_World_MMO/
The one interesting thing that is being discussed is collision. Player collision is in place, so even though the PvP has to be consensual, other players could circle another player and make it impossible for them to move. So, in essence players can still grief other players.
Without PvP this game will get real boring real fast. Once all of the PvE content has been completed, what then?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
They'll be using there own AWS Cloud technology using components such as Elastic Beanstalk etc. That's how they maintain performance. Their servers will just grow and multiply automatically to cope with the demand. The 50 aside battles are probably to do with other reasons than performance (balanced teams, early limitation until the game matures etc). The range of techs they've developed in AWS is quite amazing and I guess this game will comprehensively use them.
I don't know too much about it and I don't want to know too much about it.
So fingers in ears and la la la la la la la
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Many of the game mechanics were terrible as well. Combat was just spamming weapon lunge and being able to drop your camp and respawn litterally anywhere because the cool down was non existent. No way in hell will this game be ready next year as a survival game let alone a mmorpg.
Once again this is a game like Fallout 76 NOT a mmorpg.
MurderHerd
When New World was announced, I had some serious reservations. First and foremost, I didn't think it would be an actual MMO, as in massively multiplayer. Having been in the alpha, I was very pleased to be wrong about this. New World is genuinely massively multiplayer, both in terms of the number of people on the server and the number of people that can take part in battles. Assuming nothing has changed from Alpha that is.....
On the other hand, I won't be playing it once it launches.
New World is a survival game. Don't kid yourselves, it is not an RPG, though it certainly has some RPG elements in it. This isnt necessarily a bad thing, and I am pleased to see a new MMO outside of the RPG genre. There aren't many of them, certainly hardly any AAA, so it is a really good thing that the feature of being massively multiplayer is being brought to another genre. But, I personally don't enjoy survival games.
The combat....uggh. I'm not a fan of action combat, the way it is implemented in almost all games results in very shallow combat. It may be faster, it may be more "visceral", but mentally it's really easy and boring. The actual implementation during alpha also felt quite clunky to me, but that may have just been lack of practice on my part, or it may have been bugs. I don't know, but for whatever reason, my time during alpha was very disappointing on the combat front.
Progression is vertical. /facepalm. I don't understand why developers never seem to learn that vertical progression in a PvP game specifically, or a multiplayer game more generally, never works! Yet, New World is going this route. This means all new players will just get spanked by vets every single time. this will cut off the supply of new players, reducing retention and eventually killing the game. Just such a dumb decision. Either that, or new players will have to avoid PvP for weeks whilst they level up and grind away. Considering PvP is the big focus of the game, asking new players to ignore it seems stupid.
Finally (and I may be wrong on this point, please feel free to correct me), the game seems heavily group and guild focused. I don't have a problem with that in principle, I'm primarily a group-focused player and I love being part of an active guild. But, in New World it seems like the best features (building a fort and big pvp battles) are only possible as part of a big guild. If you happen to find yourself solo, either because that's your preference, or maybe your guild are offline, or perhaps you just need a bit of quiet time, then you are denied the best features of the game. WAR was similar to this - you were either in an organised raid, or you were having a bad time.
Still, I look forwards to seeing more details, and potentially joining another testing session. I still haven't really seen what the big, dramatic new features that Amazon talked about actually are. So, its possible the things I'm objecting to have been changed over the last few months.
I'm looking forward to seeing more. And Amazon is adamant that this is an "Open World MMO." When I brought up Survival twice in my conversations with them it seemed as though that descriptor wasn't one they were going to use with their game. And I hope it's true. We don't need another ARK or Conan. I'm hoping that, if those are an influence, Amazon takes the best parts about those games and creates a wholly unique feeling experience here.
Time will definitely tell though!
Its amazing how so many people can read the same press / info release and superimpose their idea of what the game is - everyone did read the press / info releases yes?
As it stands I still wouldn't want to say - with 100% confidence - what the game will be at launch.
"we’re so excited to reveal a bit more of it today." - which suggests that not everything is done but also means that we don't yet know.
With the tease being:
"Players want to have a lot of options - between crafting, exploring, fighting different enemies, group content. We built out a lot of that to really match the expectations of the MMO player base.
The story of discovering what happened to Aeternum and learning more about Azoth are just two parts to what players have to look forward to when exploring and completing quests and missions in New World."
" learning about different people who have come to the island before you, other explorers in search of Azoth." Other people who are not dead!
And no we don't know how the story it will play out - its an alternate reality.
In response to Cameltosis, a lot has changed in the game. Mainly, PvP is gone from the game in the sense that we knew it playing Alpha. Also, you can't build your own settlements anymore, it's a pre-fab that is dropped down.
I ran with a very large company during Alpha. I found the combat to be a heck of a lot of fun, especially doing PvP. For me, it was simply a matter of timing and positioning regarding combat.
Now they are taking a sandbox game and turning it into a themepark game which stinks. The reddit thread on New World has a number of Alpha players in there saying that they won't be back because of the changes to PvP.
Unless they added a whole PvE game on top of what was in Alpha, then people will burn through said PvE content fast and get bored quick.
Again, this game was a lot like Shadowbane. The PvP was constant. You'd be out gathering resources and have to keep an eye out. There was a northern area that many players liked to farm that was a constant source of PvP. Much of the gameplay was focused around the PvP. I don't I ever heard a single person playing Alpha say they were bored or felt the game was repetitive.
So, now that PvP is gone, there is much less to do in the game. When Alpha was out, there were no missions or quests, its was all about PvP. So, unless they added a whole lot of content, like a whole game's worth, then yes people will get bored fast.
When they went to shut down the Alpha server, no one wanted to see it go. We were all having way too much fun.
They should only restrict pvp in certain zones/areas unless war declaration is established imho.
MurderHerd
If Darkfall, a smaller, low budget game, can pull off large scale battles, I am pretty sure its something that can be done, and I would not doubt New Worlds ability to do so if they choose to go that route.