What massively multiplayer features would you like to see?

cameltosis

I'll start with some explanations so you can understand the question. You don't have to agree with these explanations, but for the purpose of this topic please try to understand them so that your responses make sense.

To be multiplayer, the players need to be able to interact synchronously, which means they interact with each other at the same time. PvP, raids, sparring, racing etc are all multiplayer features. Something like an auction house isn't, because players interact with it separately from each other: they are not playing together, hence not multiplayer.

To be massively multiplayer, the number of players involved needs to be "massively" bigger than than average multiplayer online games, i.e. massively bigger than 128.

For the purposes of this thread, please also assume that the tech (networking, processing and graphics) is able to handle it. I know most engines currently cannot handle it, but they'll get there eventually and CSE are attempting it right now with the unchained engine.

Like I said, I don't need / want you to agree with these assertions of mine, I'm just laying them out there so that this thread can make some sort of sense and that we're all talking about the same thing. I'm day dreaming about large scale features, and want to know what large scale features you may have dreamt up!

So, what massively multiplayer features (i.e. gameplay involving more than 128 players) would you like to see? What do you think the challenges would be to making such a feature fun?

I'll start with a few ideas:

1) Battlefield 500+

Really simple: take the battlefield games, but increase the number of players to massively multiplayer numbers. Map sizes would need to be increased, but you could have 500 v 500 matches and have some really large scale fights. If the engine could handle it, it'd be great to "recreate" some actual battles. Like, imagine the D-Day landings, if the numbers could get there, we could actually recreate it.

One of the things that'd need to happen to make this more interesting, and not just a zerg, would be better in-game communications and organising abilities, perhaps using something similar to what actual militaries use. Squads could only communicate internally, but a squad leader could communicate with their commander. I think there would also need to be some mechanics so that someone, a commander, could actually issue orders to squads. So, if the commander wanted a squad to assault a bunker, they could set that as the objective for the squad (and the objective would appear onscreen for that squad) and could also set the respawn point for that squad.

2) Fantasy Battlefield

Basically, the same as the above suggestion, just with a fantasy theme. I'd prefer deep, tab-target style combat mechanic, but as this is a match-based game and not part of an RPG, I can handle action combat. I've been playing WAR RoR recently and really enjoying the scenarios in that game, so this suggestion is basically the same thing, just with more players.

I'd like to see better player collision, and following from that something like squad formations, in order to prevent this becoming a zerg. So, a squad leader could set a formation (line, square, wedge etc) and the squad members can choose to join that formation or not. If they join, they lose control of individual movement, but gain bonuses in other areas (better defences and protection against cc).

Not sure what I'd do for comms in such a game. In a battlefield game, it makes sense to make voice comms that can reach everyone, but in a fantasy game it kinda seems immersion breaking. Maybe there could be specific roles for commander and messenger runners so that commands can be issued? Like, the messenger is the only one who can ride a mount or something.

3) Epic Destruction Derby / Mad Max

Looking for some epicly mad, large scale vehicular carnage! Take a long course (min 10 minutes), add 200 players and let them go mad!

Main thing that I'd change, compared to most racing games, would be making the courses really open world. Nothing but a long start line, wide open world and some checkpoints / chokepoints along the way.

Or, just a really big bowl for everyone to go nuts in :-) I think this would end up being a little like a battle royale, but with cars.

4) Large Scale Raids

Rather than competitive (like the above examples), this would be a co-operative feature. Take an army of players and let them assault something big, like a castle. There would need to be multiple objectives that meant all those players weren't in the same place - maybe 40 assault the front gate, whilst 160 scale the walls. Once over the walls, those 160 split up, some secure the barracks, some secure the stables, others head to help with the gate.

Again, the key to making this fun is communications / planning. Maybe the raid leader can setup a plan in advance of the raid starting, so that once everyone is in the raid, their group is automatically given a spawn point and objectives based on the leader's plan. Nobody wants to stand around at the start of such a large raid and listen to one person give instructions to hundreds of others. It just wouldn't work. So, best to give the leader the tools they need in advance to make things go smoothly. Would also need to rethink how bosses work. If you make the bosses cool, so that everyone wants to fight, then you'll end up with a zerg. If you stick with tanks, then having a boss tanked by one person, but with 159 others attacking, it'd just seem real weird. So, in a large scale PvE encounter, I feel like a "boss" should be a final counter attack by the enemy, a wave of 200 enemies with some mini-bosses thrown in.

Over to you guys. I'm particularly interested to hear any ideas about large scale crafting or roleplaying as these are things I don't really participate in often and so haven't spent much time thinking about. With crafting, the best I can imagine would be something like building a castle, but needing lots of players to do it. Maybe you need 10 people to work a hoist together to lift some of the bigger stones? Roleplaying, I love reading about things like Weatherstock in LotRO, but I'd like to hear what sort of mechanics the game could provide to make those things better.

Ancient_Exile

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

ChildoftheShadows

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

We had 400+ player battles in darkfall and it was chaotic. Fun! But chaotic. So I do agree that 200 and under is good.

Ancient_Exile

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

We had 400+ player battles in darkfall and it was chaotic. Fun! But chaotic. So I do agree that 200 and under is good.

You could have massive battles without the need for 1k players.  By having player characters with 1-5 NPCs under their command.

Iselin

MMOs need to set themselves apart from other genres by leveraging the one thing that is unique to them, massively multiplayer, instead of just tacking on single player story lines or FPS lobby scenarios.

Large scale events with potentially 100s of participants that can all work toward a common goal whether formally "grouped" or not, is what they need more of.

Those can be quick or long term events, PvE or PvP events - they just need to allow a massive number of players to work toward and take part in affecting the outcome.

It'd also be great if those outcomes could dynamically change the world for everyone in that world instead of just being repeatable loops.

kjempff

Well I don't agree with your premise that massively means a lot (128) of players doing the same content/battle/whatever at the same time and place. But I will play along and come with a suggestion to what I think massive battles should do to make it interesting.

Each player should feel like they matter. If you are fireball hurling wizard number 31 in a massive battle, you are detached from feeling you are contributing. Therefore I suggest a large battle to have subgoals and subcomponents that requires smaller groups of players to co-op to complete. Meaning 10 players go conquer and hold this place while 10 players do something else and so on, but if all 100 players go the same place they will not be able to succeed. Aka co-op on a grand scale, or well tactical combat. But within these smaller units the players should have co-op as well, with roles supporting eachother to win.

In fact (and this goes against your idea of massive battles), I think a massive battle should be effort over time and not a massive battlefield with 1000 players hitting eachother. Rather it should be like a event with many steps, where people can contribute their part, and take part of the victory even if they are not there for the entire event. Such an event might take hours or days. 
Obviously this clashes a bit with the pvp crowd for whom this idea of massive battles obviously are invented. But if these massive battles were not about spanking as many other players as possible to feel like a winner, but instead about the event/conflict in the world, this would include other play styles (and make that game a mmorpg instead of a gankbox).

So yeah tldr; basically I am saying I don't want those massive battles. I want to split it into multiple tactical macro battles within a massive battle setting, to make players feel they have a direct impact.

cameltosis

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

Well, because if it's less than 128 players then it's not massively multiplayer. It's just normal multiplayer.

But, don't get bogged down in that side of the arguement. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter at all, what im interested in is what events / features you would like to be a part of that involve a massive amount of players.

If that doesn't interest you at all, if you don't want to play with that many other people, that's fine.

Wizardry

Well obviously this topic is narrowed down to strictly a PVP topic because your not interacting with a ton of players in a PVE setting.


So in that case it still doesn't come down to weather or not I WANT to play with a lot of people,that is not the issue at all.
The issue i would have is the same for ANY game and ANY amount of players,is the game good or fun to play,does adding 50 150 or 5500 make the game any more fun to play?

So then even if i saw some cool ideas and i am like GREAT,count me in,i would still have to hope there is a developer on this planet that can do a good job of implementation.

I do pay attention to the gaming industry VERY closely and know what i have seen so far from games that cater to the MULTIPLAYER.All they do is flag players for pvp and nothing more.When i say nothing ,i mean nothing that took any effort,like the typical idea we see are CONTROL points>>>LAZY implementation.Ladders,ranks that is it,1-2 days worth of work.

So even if we or gamer's in general come up with loads of cool ideas,no developer is going to do it,they want to sell us games they can make real fast and implement a cash shop,so "seasons pass" "sell outfits",this is where the developers effort goes into,the  $$$ side of it.

ftr...There is a current example of what i do like to see>>>The New World is going to do it.The problem is they are not going to do it very well,poorly in fact.Imagine a Siege where 99% of the guild is offline,sounds like FUN right?NOPE.

Iselin

Wizardry said:

Well obviously this topic is narrowed down to strictly a PVP topic because your not interacting with a ton of players in a PVE setting.

Rift, GW2 and even Asheron's Call (Shadow invasions) would like to have a word with you.

Amathe

The server needs a decent population of hundreds of players, not every encounter occuring on the server at any given moment.

ChildoftheShadows

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

We had 400+ player battles in darkfall and it was chaotic. Fun! But chaotic. So I do agree that 200 and under is good.

You could have massive battles without the need for 1k players.  By having player characters with 1-5 NPCs under their command.

The end result is the same though, it's still a chaotic mess. I personally prefer small to medium engagements. The sieges we're still fun and in an open MMO like that it can't be prevented which imo is a good thing, but thankfully they were also a more rare activity. 

cameltosis

I understand that large scale battles (or large scale anything) can end up being very chaotic. As mentioned, been playing WAR RoR recently and the zerg is real, despite player collisions and deep combat mechanics that aim to avoid it.

Is there anything you could think of to reduce the chaos?

For example, in either PvE or PvP, would the introduction of friendly fire result in players being more careful, caring about formations etc? Or do you think we'd just all end up killing ourselves over and over?

Or, perhaps there could be some sort of training / hierarchy type thing involved: you have to prove yourself in small scale encounters before being allowed into medium size, then prove yourself there before being allowed into massively multiplayer encounters? (I know, this is kinda dumb, it'd just piss people off).

And @Wizardry, I clearly gave a PvE example in my OP, so I'm open to features from any playstyle you can imagine. I will also agree with you that the scale of the fight doesn't have any direct influence on what you are doing moment-to-moment, the underlying gameplay still needs to be fun. But, assuming the gameplay is fun, can you imagine anything where adding more players would make it better?

ChildoftheShadows

cameltosis said:

I understand that large scale battles (or large scale anything) can end up being very chaotic. As mentioned, been playing WAR RoR recently and the zerg is real, despite player collisions and deep combat mechanics that aim to avoid it.

Is there anything you could think of to reduce the chaos?

For example, in either PvE or PvP, would the introduction of friendly fire result in players being more careful, caring about formations etc? Or do you think we'd just all end up killing ourselves over and over?

Or, perhaps there could be some sort of training / hierarchy type thing involved: you have to prove yourself in small scale encounters before being allowed into medium size, then prove yourself there before being allowed into massively multiplayer encounters? (I know, this is kinda dumb, it'd just piss people off).

Darkfall has friendly fire. It's actually a physics based combat so for example you have to aim higher at range with a bow or some spells, you have to be close for melee and you have to aim everything and I can say that having friendly fire actually makes the chaos even harder to manage, but could be argued makes things more interesting. Which for me it did, but that's neither here nor there.

Also, like @tzervo mentioned it come with a price. When you have friendly fire you must account for friendly kills in some fashion like in DF you lost alignment if you killed a friendly. So what happens if you only hit on the last shot and got the death blow on accident? You lose alignment. What happens if you do 99.99% of damage and someone else finished the friendly off? They lose alignment, not you. There are ways to mitigate this, but it can be a cavernous hole leading to other issues :P

I like friendly fire, but things need to be taken into consideration and if the only reason to add it would be for some kind of forced organization I think it's opening a can of worms you don't need.

Now, what I interpreted @Iselin was talking about wouldn't require all 1000 players to be in the same area at the same time.  You could have events of just about any kind that require the interaction of "massively" amounts of players, but they can do so in their time with their group or even participate solo potentially. I think a discrete example of this is Eve Online's crafting, market, and overall items in the game. All items with the exception of very few, are created by players and it takes an MMO scale of players to actually run that economy.

cameltosis

Iselin said:

MMOs need to set themselves apart from other genres by leveraging the one thing that is unique to them, massively multiplayer, instead of just tacking on single player story lines or FPS lobby scenarios.

Large scale events with potentially 100s of participants that can all work toward a common goal whether formally "grouped" or not, is what they need more of.

Those can be quick or long term events, PvE or PvP events - they just need to allow a massive number of players to work toward and take part in affecting the outcome.

It'd also be great if those outcomes could dynamically change the world for everyone in that world instead of just being repeatable loops.

I agree with this a lot.

In my opinion, being "massively multiplayer" is the only unique selling point of the genre. Everything else can be found elsewhere. Yet, I also have found that its pretty much totally ignored by the devs, hence this thread for exploring ideas.

Camelot Unchained is actually aiming for a way of organising large numbers of players that I find intriguing. No idea if it'll work or not, but Im glad they're trying. You can read directly in the beta 1 doc, but I'll outline the basics here:

Players can form warbands of variable size. Players can name these warbands and set who their members are. So, "Iselin's Slayers" might be you and 10 friends, and the warband will take on that name so long as most people in the warband are genuine members.

Battlegroups are groups of warbands. So, if you were the leader of a battlegroup and you spot Iselin's Slayers wandering about, you could invite that warband directly. The warband maintains it's name and internal structure, but becomes part of the larger battlegroup's structure.

In this way, warbands maintain their identity and structure (so, u won't have a random shoved in your group if u don't want) and the battlegroup can still organise properly. The aim is to put no upper limit on the size of the battlegroup - if you want every single member of your faction in the same battlegroup, you can do.

The leader then has a slightly easier job. Instead of shouting "group 1, go here" (with everyone thinking they're in group 1, because their squad always shows first in the ui), the leader can just say "Iselin's Slayers, flank to the east" or "Camel's Cock's, you're wall fodder, charge!".

The things I really like about this approach are:

• Drop in / drop out mentality - its easy to invite the whole group into a battlegroup, or for them to leave it. When organising large numbers of people, you want it to be as easy as possible.
  
• Group identity - humans are very clique-y. So, I like leaning into that idea and being able to give my group of friends a name and identity, beyond whatever identity I have from my guild.
  
• Battlegroup leadership is then focused on giving instructions to large numbers of players, rather than having to dick about with group structures or having to communicate through /tells to other raid leaders. Everyone can be in the same group.

As mentioned, no idea whether this will work out or not, but I like the fact that CSE are putting in the time and thought around managing large numbers of players.

ChildoftheShadows

cameltosis said:

Iselin said:

MMOs need to set themselves apart from other genres by leveraging the one thing that is unique to them, massively multiplayer, instead of just tacking on single player story lines or FPS lobby scenarios.

Large scale events with potentially 100s of participants that can all work toward a common goal whether formally "grouped" or not, is what they need more of.

Those can be quick or long term events, PvE or PvP events - they just need to allow a massive number of players to work toward and take part in affecting the outcome.

It'd also be great if those outcomes could dynamically change the world for everyone in that world instead of just being repeatable loops.

I agree with this a lot.

In my opinion, being "massively multiplayer" is the only unique selling point of the genre. Everything else can be found elsewhere. Yet, I also have found that its pretty much totally ignored by the devs, hence this thread for exploring ideas.

Camelot Unchained is actually aiming for a way of organising large numbers of players that I find intriguing. No idea if it'll work or not, but Im glad they're trying. You can read directly in the beta 1 doc, but I'll outline the basics here:

Players can form warbands of variable size. Players can name these warbands and set who their members are. So, "Iselin's Slayers" might be you and 10 friends, and the warband will take on that name so long as most people in the warband are genuine members.

Battlegroups are groups of warbands. So, if you were the leader of a battlegroup and you spot Iselin's Slayers wandering about, you could invite that warband directly. The warband maintains it's name and internal structure, but becomes part of the larger battlegroup's structure.

In this way, warbands maintain their identity and structure (so, u won't have a random shoved in your group if u don't want) and the battlegroup can still organise properly. The aim is to put no upper limit on the size of the battlegroup - if you want every single member of your faction in the same battlegroup, you can do.

The leader then has a slightly easier job. Instead of shouting "group 1, go here" (with everyone thinking they're in group 1, because their squad always shows first in the ui), the leader can just say "Iselin's Slayers, flank to the east" or "Camel's Cock's, you're wall fodder, charge!".

The things I really like about this approach are:

• Drop in / drop out mentality - its easy to invite the whole group into a battlegroup, or for them to leave it. When organising large numbers of people, you want it to be as easy as possible.
  
• Group identity - humans are very clique-y. So, I like leaning into that idea and being able to give my group of friends a name and identity, beyond whatever identity I have from my guild.
  
• Battlegroup leadership is then focused on giving instructions to large numbers of players, rather than having to dick about with group structures or having to communicate through /tells to other raid leaders. Everyone can be in the same group.

As mentioned, no idea whether this will work out or not, but I like the fact that CSE are putting in the time and thought around managing large numbers of players.

This doesn't sound like anything new to me. Just groups and raid groups. For a PVP example, again going to Eve Online, they named them squads and fleets. It's been so long there could be more to it, but the general premise is the same. 

It definitely improves the visibility and communication of your own teams and groups, but in PVP you're looking at double that number (potentially) and if Eve didn't have the overview where you can view a filtered list of all ships within the area so you can focus solely on targets it would still be a complete mess :P

For PVE  it does help for sure to have the group separations and raids tying them all together.

For my personal taste it would depend largely on how the game controls were made. Eve works exceptionally well for 1000+ people fighting in the same area because you yourself don't need to have an actual view of the targets. Just using the overview to target, circly, move toward/away, etc makes it simpler to deal with.

I've also been in the group in the back of the line, holding the base or whatever, and I can tell you it's rather boring watching and waiting for the front line :P

Anyway, sorry if I sound so negative on the idea of massively multiplayer activities because I'm not trying to be. I would love to see some that didn't require the "massively" part to be in the same spot at the same time maybe.

Unfortunately I don't think I have anything productive to provide right now though so I'll stop

Caffynated

cameltosis said:

1) Battlefield 500+

Really simple: take the battlefield games, but increase the number of players to massively multiplayer numbers. Map sizes would need to be increased, but you could have 500 v 500 matches and have some really large scale fights. If the engine could handle it, it'd be great to "recreate" some actual battles. Like, imagine the D-Day landings, if the numbers could get there, we could actually recreate it.

One of the things that'd need to happen to make this more interesting, and not just a zerg, would be better in-game communications and organising abilities, perhaps using something similar to what actual militaries use. Squads could only communicate internally, but a squad leader could communicate with their commander. I think there would also need to be some mechanics so that someone, a commander, could actually issue orders to squads. So, if the commander wanted a squad to assault a bunker, they could set that as the objective for the squad (and the objective would appear onscreen for that squad) and could also set the respawn point for that squad.

War of Rights lets you have some pretty big battles. I've never seen 500+, but here's a server with 200 players on it.

This is one of the more chaotic battles I've seen, which is something you might expect when numbers get too big and you start putting together units from different player outfits.

Kyleran

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

Why? Because I really want epic fights like the "Battle for Helm's Deep.'



Who doesn't want to be part of charges such as this? Sissies maybe.   

Let this be the hour when we draw swords together!

Kyleran

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

We had 400+ player battles in darkfall and it was chaotic. Fun! But chaotic. So I do agree that 200 and under is good.

You could have massive battles without the need for 1k players.  By having player characters with 1-5 NPCs under their command.

Great call, 1000 human players controlling 5 avatars each, 5K vs 5K battles, sign me up.

Kyleran

Iselin said:

Wizardry said:

Well obviously this topic is narrowed down to strictly a PVP topic because your not interacting with a ton of players in a PVE setting.

Rift, GW2 and even Asheron's Call (Shadow invasions) would like to have a word with you.

Definitely an idea I'd like to see explored more, I really wish Tabula Rasa had succeeded, I loved the idea of the player base banding together against invading alien hordes or slavering undead.  (World War Z I'm thinking)

bronzephishy

Would be nice to see huge battles if there was tech that could handle 500 vs 500 but if we did get that tech all you would get is this.....

1000 player battle royal! Yea that’s right...1000 players all parachute from a flying object and see who can be the last one standing while the map shrinks! 

Ancient_Exile

cameltosis said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

Well, because if it's less than 128 players then it's not massively multiplayer. It's just normal multiplayer.

But, don't get bogged down in that side of the arguement. Whether you agree or not doesn't matter at all, what im interested in is what events / features you would like to be a part of that involve a massive amount of players.

If that doesn't interest you at all, if you don't want to play with that many other people, that's fine.

It might be interesting to participate in a large battle with hundreds of players occasionally, whether PVP or PVE.  But it would get old rather quickly if such battles had no effect on a persistent game world.

Keep in mind that it should take far fewer soldiers to defend a castle than it takes to successfully assault one.  Which is why prolonged sieges, with the intention of starving out the defenders, were often employed instead.

Ancient_Exile

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

We had 400+ player battles in darkfall and it was chaotic. Fun! But chaotic. So I do agree that 200 and under is good.

You could have massive battles without the need for 1k players.  By having player characters with 1-5 NPCs under their command.

The end result is the same though, it's still a chaotic mess. I personally prefer small to medium engagements. The sieges we're still fun and in an open MMO like that it can't be prevented which imo is a good thing, but thankfully they were also a more rare activity. 

Large scale battles should be more rare than skirmishes.  Perhaps one way to make the battles less chaotic would be to develop a system which encouraged players to obey superiors (higher ranking officers) and stay in formation. 

ChildoftheShadows

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

ChildoftheShadows said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

We had 400+ player battles in darkfall and it was chaotic. Fun! But chaotic. So I do agree that 200 and under is good.

You could have massive battles without the need for 1k players.  By having player characters with 1-5 NPCs under their command.

The end result is the same though, it's still a chaotic mess. I personally prefer small to medium engagements. The sieges we're still fun and in an open MMO like that it can't be prevented which imo is a good thing, but thankfully they were also a more rare activity. 

Large scale battles should be more rare than skirmishes.  Perhaps one way to make the battles less chaotic would be to develop a system which encouraged players to obey superiors (higher ranking officers) and stay in formation. 

They do, it's called winning 
Sieges were much more rare because they cost a lot to do so there's that.

Ancient_Exile

tzervo said:

cameltosis said:

For example, in either PvE or PvP, would the introduction of friendly fire result in players being more careful, caring about formations etc? Or do you think we'd just all end up killing ourselves over and over?

Friendly fire is a double-edged sword. It is interesting. It has little to no effect to reducing chaos. It also opens up a door to griefing, sabotaging, frustration due to stupidity of our allies (because obviously it is never us being stupid ). See for example Planetside and Foxhole.

Spreading meaningful objectives like @kjempff suggested is a good way of spreading out people and reducing chaos. But it's not a panacea. There will always be the main front of the two zergs.

Without collision detection and friendly fire, it is much more difficult for a smaller force to defeat a larger one by employing better strategies and tactics.

Ancient_Exile

Iselin said:

MMOs need to set themselves apart from other genres by leveraging the one thing that is unique to them, massively multiplayer, instead of just tacking on single player story lines or FPS lobby scenarios.

Large scale events with potentially 100s of participants that can all work toward a common goal whether formally "grouped" or not, is what they need more of.

Those can be quick or long term events, PvE or PvP events - they just need to allow a massive number of players to work toward and take part in affecting the outcome.

It'd also be great if those outcomes could dynamically change the world for everyone in that world instead of just being repeatable loops.

Yes, there are many ways to have a large number of players involved in working towards a common goal (or competing with each other) without necessitating that they are all participating in a singular event at the same time.

Ancient_Exile

Kyleran said:

Ancient_Exile said:

Why does a massively multi-player event need to involve more than 128 players?

Why? Because I really want epic fights like the "Battle for Helm's Deep.'



Who doesn't want to be part of charges such as this? Sissies maybe.   

Let this be the hour when we draw swords together!

I was just wondering why it wouldn't be considered massive if less than 128+ players were involved.