Originally posted by Odaman And pretty much mandatory for any CD to work.... yet people scream CD is a must have it adds strategy, and then turn around and comdemn the mechanics that are used to balance it.
Oda, I agree. I'm kinda on the fence about CD. It needs to be done REALLY well if it's going to work. That means:
-Account for impenetrable blockage of chokepoints.
-Account for getting trapped in the zerg.
-Account for the possible slide-show-lag-fest at sieges.
On the other hand, without CD the game will have to:
-Account for LoS exploits like "running through," jumping, spinning and lag-casting.
-Account for an inevitable "war of numbers" at sieges.
-Try desparately to balance the CC that will be used to address the first two problems.
In the end, it's really a tough call.
Here's my take on some of your points:
Account for impenetrable blockage of chokepoints.
If it's impenetrable, that means it is very well and actively defended, stop attacking the enemy at their strongest point or reassess and take the fight somewhere else.
Account for getting trapped in the zerg.
Outflanking, encircling and trapping the enemy by having overwhelming numbers is part of the reason you try to have a large force in play, the counter to this are chokepoints and fortified positions, in open fields; the large force will always have the advantage if they play to their advantage wisely.
Account for the possible slide-show-lag-fest at sieges.
That kind of applies to everything in the game, so it's a rather redundant stipulation in regards to collision detection.
It's really not a tough sell at all.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Because being in those scenarios in real life is fun ... just like its fun in a game ... NOT
Games supposed to be fun, not just emulate real life... try again.
Don't you see? Smart tactics would be encouraged because being mired down in such an engagement would not always be a foregone conclusion.
Why attack one point?
Why not have several prongs of the attack thus splitting up the defenders and placing strain upon their efforts?
If you literally can't get to a location becuase of the crowd, maybe some thought should be put toward other objectives or flanking maneuvers, etc.
A whole new way of thinking tactically emerges when some sense of gravity and, yes, reality, are given to a situation.
I consider the more considerations players have to choose from the better, it creates a less flat experience and diversifies all the branches of player's decision tree.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Because being in those scenarios in real life is fun ... just like its fun in a game ... NOT
Games supposed to be fun, not just emulate real life... try again.
Don't you see? Smart tactics would be encouraged because being mired down in such an engagement would not always be a foregone conclusion.
Why attack one point?
Why not have several prongs of the attack thus splitting up the defenders and placing strain upon their efforts?
If you literally can't get to a location becuase of the crowd, maybe some thought should be put toward other objectives or flanking maneuvers, etc.
A whole new way of thinking tactically emerges when some sense of gravity and, yes, reality, are given to a situation.
I consider the more considerations players have to choose from the better, it creates a less flat experience and diversifies all the branches of player's decision tree.
[mod edit]
Second of all you didn't understand a single thing I said... being in cramped places in real life when trying to go or see something is the most frustrating thing, why IN THE WORLD would you want to introduce that into a game where the WHOLE POINT of the game is to have fun.
What you seem to not grasp from reading any and all of your posts is that tactics and strategy is not contigent on having CD in the game. There are plenty of tactical decisions and team work required to take or defend a keep with CD and without CD, but this argument is futile until you understand that. Clearly you think you need CD to develop strategy.
I consider the less fun I have playing my character in a MMORPG the more it flattens the experience, I will not have fun bumping my way around people in a buggy environment.
Because being in those scenarios in real life is fun ... just like its fun in a game ... NOT
Games supposed to be fun, not just emulate real life... try again.
Don't you see? Smart tactics would be encouraged because being mired down in such an engagement would not always be a foregone conclusion.
Why attack one point?
Why not have several prongs of the attack thus splitting up the defenders and placing strain upon their efforts?
If you literally can't get to a location becuase of the crowd, maybe some thought should be put toward other objectives or flanking maneuvers, etc.
A whole new way of thinking tactically emerges when some sense of gravity and, yes, reality, are given to a situation.
I consider the more considerations players have to choose from the better, it creates a less flat experience and diversifies all the branches of player's decision tree.
[mod edit]
Second of all you didn't understand a single thing I said... being in cramped places in real life when trying to go or see something is the most frustrating thing, why IN THE WORLD would you want to introduce that into a game where the WHOLE POINT of the game is to have fun.
What you seem to not grasp from reading any and all of your posts is that tactics and strategy is not contigent on having CD in the game. There are plenty of tactical decisions and team work required to take or defend a keep with CD and without CD, but this argument is futile until you understand that. Clearly you think you need CD to develop strategy.
I consider the less fun I have playing my character in a MMORPG the more it flattens the experience, I will not have fun bumping my way around people in a buggy environment.
The WHOLE POINT of an MMO is not just to have fun as you would define it. Fun is different to every person. Some people would think it fun to have realistic collision detection (me). A lot of people get more fun from competition than a game that ignores any ingenuity in its design and just plays like WOW or any other cookie cutter MMO.
No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!
I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.
Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!
I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.
Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.
+1 to this.
I should add that any really good RvR game needs to reward smart tactics AND smart strategy.
Smart strategy should include logistics, the way you setup your crafting systems in the realm, the way your realm works together in planning out where to strike, where to feint, and perhaps where to retreat for maximizing the strategic value of the resources in each area.
Then you have the tactics, which wins battles. Ideally with fewer losses in terms of material and personnel than the enemy even if you bring a smaller force.
Every good army needs good strategic commanders and great tactical leaders.
I was right.. this post is going to hit over 20 pages of completely pointless discussion that has turned into a flamewar!
+1 to me
No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!
I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.
Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.
How would you ever have any evidence to say CD will solve this: "it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops." ???
I don't even know what you are refering to by "Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small."
Are you saying no CD doesn't have smart tactics large or small?
I was right.. this post is going to hit over 20 pages of completely pointless discussion that has turned into a flamewar!
+1 to me
No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!
I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.
Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.
How would you ever have any evidence to say CD will solve this: "it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops." ???
I don't even know what you are refering to by "Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small."
Are you saying no CD doesn't have smart tactics large or small?
If you want something more than just button mashing and the predominance of large groups of players steamrolling smaller groups, you have to allow for some real and concrete factors to play out. Otherwise, all encounters will play out the same predictable way everytime.
One such factor is force multipliers such as fortified positions that can be relatively easy to defend against a larger force. Another factor is having chokepoints or bottleneck areas that can be held to slow or stop the movement of a larger enemy force.
Collision detection means that every player has a value just by holding their ground, they can't be ignored simply by walking through them. Objectives can actually be guarded in a more tangible manner and not just be about one group of button mashers fighting another group of button mashers.
If a keep is heavily defended, it would be very costly to try to capture it, this is how it should be. This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game.
You fight the enemy where they are their weakest and you should get rewarded for doing so.
But sometimes you will just have to deal a situation.
For example, take two players who are defending a narrow chokepoint. They will delay a larger group, the larger group will have to deal with the two defenders and not just pass through them.
Additionally, it is entirely conceivable that 10 defending players could effectively hold that narrow pass because the space would only allow a small number of the opposing force to actually engage the defenders.
But, consider that the narrow space also allows for the very effective use of AoE to counter balance things for both sides.
Without CD, just run through the two or ten defenders and truck on.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
I was right.. this post is going to hit over 20 pages of completely pointless discussion that has turned into a flamewar!
+1 to me
No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!
I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.
Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.
How would you ever have any evidence to say CD will solve this: "it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops." ???
I don't even know what you are refering to by "Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small."
Are you saying no CD doesn't have smart tactics large or small?
If you want something more than just button mashing and the predominance of large groups of players steamrolling smaller groups, you have to allow for some real and concrete factors to play out. Otherwise, all encounters will play out the same predictable way everytime.
One such factor is force multipliers such as fortified positions that can be relatively easy to defend against a larger force. Another factor is having chokepoints or bottleneck areas that can be held to slow or stop the movement of a larger enemy force.
Collision detection means that every player has a value just by holding their ground, they can't be ignored simply by walking through them. Objectives can actually be guarded in a more tangible manner and not just be about one group of button mashers fighting another group of button mashers.
If a keep is heavily defended, it would be very costly to try to capture it, this is how it should be. This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game.
You fight the enemy where they are their weakest and you should get rewarded for doing so.
But sometimes you will just have to deal a situation.
For example, take two players who are defending a narrow chokepoint. They will delay a larger group, the larger group will have to deal with the two defenders and not just pass through them.
Additionally, it is entirely conceivable that 10 defending players could effectively hold that narrow pass because the space would only allow a small number of the opposing force to actually engage the defenders.
But, consider that the narrow space also allows for the very effective use of AoE to counter balance things for both sides.
Without CD, just run through the two or ten defenders and truck on.
It is an interesting few examples you put forward, none of which are however proven to be accurate.
I have played games without CD where everything you have described has happened, weird eh?
For example based on the MMO that has driven the creation of this game ( yes daoc sorry nerds i know its not daoc2 ) I have witnessed many keeps be defended by smaller forces, what allowed it? They were able to aoe them down which wouldn't have been possible with CD.
I think being able to rush the lord room or court yard created much more chaotic / random fight battles, which in the end after winning OR LOSING it had that epic feel to it!
I don't think you played daoc so this is futile as you won't understand anything i'm saying, but go play it and you will have to come up with other excuses as per why CD is more "tactical" lol ... Not everything plays out in a game as you see it in your mind.
As for "This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game." I think you're refering to having to basically /release and revive a far distance away right?
Because he has stated he likes Speed based classes so I hope you're not refering to that. Just clerifying.
It is an interesting few examples you put forward, none of which are however proven to be accurate.
I have played games without CD where everything you have described has happened, weird eh?
For example based on the MMO that has driven the creation of this game ( yes daoc sorry nerds i know its not daoc2 ) I have witnessed many keeps be defended by smaller forces, what allowed it? They were able to aoe them down which wouldn't have been possible with CD.
I think being able to rush the lord room or court yard created much more chaotic / random fight battles, which in the end after winning OR LOSING it had that epic feel to it!
I don't think you played daoc so this is futile as you won't understand anything i'm saying, but go play it and you will have to come up with other excuses as per why CD is more "tactical" lol ... Not everything plays out in a game as you see it in your mind.
As for "This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game." I think you're refering to having to basically /release and revive a far distance away right?
Because he has stated he likes Speed based classes so I hope you're not refering to that. Just clerifying.
Never said it couldn't happen without CD only that it happens far more rarely and involves more button mashing and the foregone conclusion (with very few exceptions) is that the bigger group always wins.
The exceptions prove the rule.
Smaller forces can defend a Keep rather well because Keeps are force multipliers, as I mentioned.
CD enhances this further by allowing the same situation but using players as walls instead of just the in-game structures.
This means you can have serious contentious and dynamic conflicts nearly everywhere in the game and not just in a Keep or Castle. In open areas a larger force will have the advantage because they can surround the smaller, in a Keep or chokepoint, smaller groups will have a big boost becuase the larger group has no real space to apply their greater power.
Steam rolling gets boring rather quickly for all parties involved. I played DAoC for two years before ToA, I know very well how the was, CD would have added far more depth. The best fights are made around the last stands and the turning of the tide against an opposing force. You could do all that in DAoC but you had to use LOS tricks in order to make it happen.
(Fast travel isn't speed class related, it's instant portaling, etc.)
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.
Originally posted by Malevil Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.
WAR's server performance fails weren't due to having collsion detection even though people want to conflate the two things.
Not having enemy player renders so you can see them but still being blocked by them is very annoying, but CD isn't to blame for that problem.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Originally posted by Malevil Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.
Considering how much lower their budget will be for this game as opposed to warhammer... I seriously doubt it.
Originally posted by Malevil Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.
WAR's server performance fails weren't due to having collsion detection even though people want to conflate the two things.
Not having enemy player renders so you can see them but still being blocked by them is very annoying, but CD isn't to blame for that problem.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have no idea what caused the performance issues in war. CD alone, no I seriously doubt it, but saying it had nothing to do with it is bullshit.
Originally posted by Malevil Ppl saying that collision detection is required will be first to come to forums and QQ about server performance. It was great in WAR when servers worked, unplayble when there were too much ppl. Did server performance moved that much that CD will be no issue for them ? I honestly have no idea, but its feature that can easy kill the game when it will not work.
Considering how much lower their budget will be for this game as opposed to warhammer... I seriously doubt it.
Collision detection exists in every game. It determines how game objects will intersect with each other.
Implementing it on players is a filter setting of an existing system in any game engine. It's also highly modular and can be turned off or on rather easiliy.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have no idea what caused the performance issues in war. CD alone, no I seriously doubt it, but saying it had nothing to do with it is bullshit.
No more than the steel plating in the Titanic's hull was responsible for it sinking.
As for myself, I'd point out the iceberg as being the cause.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
A lot of people have stated the fact that DAoC didn't have collision detection. There was only one reason for that, it was because of the limitations of the servers of the time. In early beta, I'm sure I remember that they actually had CD and it was taken out before release as it was giving problems in large scale battles.
The players asked for it constantly. It would have been an even better game with CD, but it wasn't technically possible at the time.
If MJ wants a realistic RvR game, then he's going to want shield walls, protected casters, choke points etc. I believe he'll want it in unless it again proves technically too problematic for smooth combat.
This could be good as in tanks being able to tank and it could be bad in bottleneck situations as in keep taking where there might be narrow areas. When I played Daoc it would have caused a stalemate it was hard enough without CD getting into an enclosed area. I do like the idea of CD but it may become a problem. Sitting on the fence with this one until I see the game.
Rome total war did CD properly. One defender can block an attacker. But RTW had this thing called 'push.' If one defender blocks multiple attackers, the defender will slowly get pushed back. So if a doorway is being blocked, anough attackers will eventually push the defender back enough to clear the doorway.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Absolutely love the tactical element that CD requires. And if done correctly this can add so much to pvp.
I would like to see a system that would allow a line of players able to block others from getting through a choke hold but the ability to push them back via superior numbers has to be included. And since no one person can hold the line indefinitely, there has to be an element of fatigue added to the equation.
I also think the line can consist of several different elements from a heavily armored tank to a medium/lightly armored blade whirling buzzsaw or a magic barrier like a wall of flame. This way everyone can contribute to the defense and would require teamwork to shif defenders as they fatigue or effects expire. And yes a wall of frame can be passed through, but the burn damage should be very high or even lethal.
I think if it is used by shield wielding warriors it would be a good thing. Shadowbane had it, warhammer had it. In a good pvp game, it makes sense. I dont think a mage is going to hold back a horde though.
I won't completely disagree with CD but I can say for certain that the current implementations of CD in MMO's is not positive in any way.
How wonderfully inconsistent of of you!
Not positive in any way? But you don't disagree with implementing CD in MMO's?
Most people who make a distinction between the use of collision detection between players and the procliviries of particular game engines in which they are used; observe that all of CD's supposed problems are not actually caused by CD, but by the limitations of the game engine and hardware.
It's seems an obvious point, but one that gets utterly ignored.
Not being able to walk through an object isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Not being able to walk through an object because said object hasn't been rendered properly so you can't tell it's there and CD treats it as real and blocks you: That is a bug and a flaw in the game engine.
Those who tread with ill intent Beneath our sacred firmament, Whether of Hammer or of Tree, Albion's might shall strike at thee!
I won't completely disagree with CD but I can say for certain that the current implementations of CD in MMO's is not positive in any way.
How wonderfully inconsistent of of you!
Not positive in any way? But you don't disagree with implementing CD in MMO's?
Most people who make a distinction between the use of collision detection between players and the procliviries of particular game engines in which they are used; observe that all of CD's supposed problems are not actually caused by CD, but by the limitations of the game engine and hardware.
It's seems an obvious point, but one that gets utterly ignored.
Not being able to walk through an object isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Not being able to walk through an object because said object hasn't been rendered properly so you can't tell it's there and CD treats it as real and blocks you: That is a bug and a flaw in the game engine.
Hey man, what's up? Still promoting false information about why CD going to actually be a good idea for CU?
Originally posted by Rhoklaw ...immersion breaking, well guess what, so is the lack of friendly damage.
Ouch. I never playd Daoc. FF is off? If it plays like a FPS, that would be a major turnoff for me.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon. In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Comments
Here's my take on some of your points:
Account for impenetrable blockage of chokepoints.
If it's impenetrable, that means it is very well and actively defended, stop attacking the enemy at their strongest point or reassess and take the fight somewhere else.
Account for getting trapped in the zerg.
Outflanking, encircling and trapping the enemy by having overwhelming numbers is part of the reason you try to have a large force in play, the counter to this are chokepoints and fortified positions, in open fields; the large force will always have the advantage if they play to their advantage wisely.
Account for the possible slide-show-lag-fest at sieges.
That kind of applies to everything in the game, so it's a rather redundant stipulation in regards to collision detection.
It's really not a tough sell at all.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Don't you see? Smart tactics would be encouraged because being mired down in such an engagement would not always be a foregone conclusion.
Why attack one point?
Why not have several prongs of the attack thus splitting up the defenders and placing strain upon their efforts?
If you literally can't get to a location becuase of the crowd, maybe some thought should be put toward other objectives or flanking maneuvers, etc.
A whole new way of thinking tactically emerges when some sense of gravity and, yes, reality, are given to a situation.
I consider the more considerations players have to choose from the better, it creates a less flat experience and diversifies all the branches of player's decision tree.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
[mod edit]
Second of all you didn't understand a single thing I said... being in cramped places in real life when trying to go or see something is the most frustrating thing, why IN THE WORLD would you want to introduce that into a game where the WHOLE POINT of the game is to have fun.
What you seem to not grasp from reading any and all of your posts is that tactics and strategy is not contigent on having CD in the game. There are plenty of tactical decisions and team work required to take or defend a keep with CD and without CD, but this argument is futile until you understand that. Clearly you think you need CD to develop strategy.
I consider the less fun I have playing my character in a MMORPG the more it flattens the experience, I will not have fun bumping my way around people in a buggy environment.
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
The WHOLE POINT of an MMO is not just to have fun as you would define it. Fun is different to every person. Some people would think it fun to have realistic collision detection (me). A lot of people get more fun from competition than a game that ignores any ingenuity in its design and just plays like WOW or any other cookie cutter MMO.
No plus one for you! That was entirely too predictable!
I would still play CU if it doesn't have CD, but I do think that if it is trying to attract long term hardcore RvR players, it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops.
Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
+1 to this.
I should add that any really good RvR game needs to reward smart tactics AND smart strategy.
Smart strategy should include logistics, the way you setup your crafting systems in the realm, the way your realm works together in planning out where to strike, where to feint, and perhaps where to retreat for maximizing the strategic value of the resources in each area.
Then you have the tactics, which wins battles. Ideally with fewer losses in terms of material and personnel than the enemy even if you bring a smaller force.
Every good army needs good strategic commanders and great tactical leaders.
How would you ever have any evidence to say CD will solve this: "it will want to have such a mechanic in place in order to keep the battles more dynamic and avoid repetitve zerg driven flip flops." ???
I don't even know what you are refering to by "Smart tactics should always give an edge in any fight, large or small."
Are you saying no CD doesn't have smart tactics large or small?
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
If you want something more than just button mashing and the predominance of large groups of players steamrolling smaller groups, you have to allow for some real and concrete factors to play out. Otherwise, all encounters will play out the same predictable way everytime.
One such factor is force multipliers such as fortified positions that can be relatively easy to defend against a larger force. Another factor is having chokepoints or bottleneck areas that can be held to slow or stop the movement of a larger enemy force.
Collision detection means that every player has a value just by holding their ground, they can't be ignored simply by walking through them. Objectives can actually be guarded in a more tangible manner and not just be about one group of button mashers fighting another group of button mashers.
If a keep is heavily defended, it would be very costly to try to capture it, this is how it should be. This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game.
You fight the enemy where they are their weakest and you should get rewarded for doing so.
But sometimes you will just have to deal a situation.
For example, take two players who are defending a narrow chokepoint. They will delay a larger group, the larger group will have to deal with the two defenders and not just pass through them.
Additionally, it is entirely conceivable that 10 defending players could effectively hold that narrow pass because the space would only allow a small number of the opposing force to actually engage the defenders.
But, consider that the narrow space also allows for the very effective use of AoE to counter balance things for both sides.
Without CD, just run through the two or ten defenders and truck on.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
It is an interesting few examples you put forward, none of which are however proven to be accurate.
I have played games without CD where everything you have described has happened, weird eh?
For example based on the MMO that has driven the creation of this game ( yes daoc sorry nerds i know its not daoc2 ) I have witnessed many keeps be defended by smaller forces, what allowed it? They were able to aoe them down which wouldn't have been possible with CD.
I think being able to rush the lord room or court yard created much more chaotic / random fight battles, which in the end after winning OR LOSING it had that epic feel to it!
I don't think you played daoc so this is futile as you won't understand anything i'm saying, but go play it and you will have to come up with other excuses as per why CD is more "tactical" lol ... Not everything plays out in a game as you see it in your mind.
As for "This is why Mark Jacobs doesn't want fast travel in the game." I think you're refering to having to basically /release and revive a far distance away right?
Because he has stated he likes Speed based classes so I hope you're not refering to that. Just clerifying.
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
Never said it couldn't happen without CD only that it happens far more rarely and involves more button mashing and the foregone conclusion (with very few exceptions) is that the bigger group always wins.
The exceptions prove the rule.
Smaller forces can defend a Keep rather well because Keeps are force multipliers, as I mentioned.
CD enhances this further by allowing the same situation but using players as walls instead of just the in-game structures.
This means you can have serious contentious and dynamic conflicts nearly everywhere in the game and not just in a Keep or Castle. In open areas a larger force will have the advantage because they can surround the smaller, in a Keep or chokepoint, smaller groups will have a big boost becuase the larger group has no real space to apply their greater power.
Steam rolling gets boring rather quickly for all parties involved. I played DAoC for two years before ToA, I know very well how the was, CD would have added far more depth. The best fights are made around the last stands and the turning of the tide against an opposing force. You could do all that in DAoC but you had to use LOS tricks in order to make it happen.
(Fast travel isn't speed class related, it's instant portaling, etc.)
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
WAR's server performance fails weren't due to having collsion detection even though people want to conflate the two things.
Not having enemy player renders so you can see them but still being blocked by them is very annoying, but CD isn't to blame for that problem.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Considering how much lower their budget will be for this game as opposed to warhammer... I seriously doubt it.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have no idea what caused the performance issues in war. CD alone, no I seriously doubt it, but saying it had nothing to do with it is bullshit.
Collision detection exists in every game. It determines how game objects will intersect with each other.
Implementing it on players is a filter setting of an existing system in any game engine. It's also highly modular and can be turned off or on rather easiliy.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
No more than the steel plating in the Titanic's hull was responsible for it sinking.
As for myself, I'd point out the iceberg as being the cause.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
A lot of people have stated the fact that DAoC didn't have collision detection. There was only one reason for that, it was because of the limitations of the servers of the time. In early beta, I'm sure I remember that they actually had CD and it was taken out before release as it was giving problems in large scale battles.
The players asked for it constantly. It would have been an even better game with CD, but it wasn't technically possible at the time.
If MJ wants a realistic RvR game, then he's going to want shield walls, protected casters, choke points etc. I believe he'll want it in unless it again proves technically too problematic for smooth combat.
Rome total war did CD properly. One defender can block an attacker. But RTW had this thing called 'push.' If one defender blocks multiple attackers, the defender will slowly get pushed back. So if a doorway is being blocked, anough attackers will eventually push the defender back enough to clear the doorway.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit
Absolutely love the tactical element that CD requires. And if done correctly this can add so much to pvp.
I would like to see a system that would allow a line of players able to block others from getting through a choke hold but the ability to push them back via superior numbers has to be included. And since no one person can hold the line indefinitely, there has to be an element of fatigue added to the equation.
I also think the line can consist of several different elements from a heavily armored tank to a medium/lightly armored blade whirling buzzsaw or a magic barrier like a wall of flame. This way everyone can contribute to the defense and would require teamwork to shif defenders as they fatigue or effects expire. And yes a wall of frame can be passed through, but the burn damage should be very high or even lethal.
So CD can be a huge tactical plus to any game.
Nanulak
How wonderfully inconsistent of of you!
Not positive in any way? But you don't disagree with implementing CD in MMO's?
Most people who make a distinction between the use of collision detection between players and the procliviries of particular game engines in which they are used; observe that all of CD's supposed problems are not actually caused by CD, but by the limitations of the game engine and hardware.
It's seems an obvious point, but one that gets utterly ignored.
Not being able to walk through an object isn't a bug, it's a feature.
Not being able to walk through an object because said object hasn't been rendered properly so you can't tell it's there and CD treats it as real and blocks you: That is a bug and a flaw in the game engine.
Those who tread with ill intent
Beneath our sacred firmament,
Whether of Hammer or of Tree,
Albion's might shall strike at thee!
Hey man, what's up? Still promoting false information about why CD going to actually be a good idea for CU?
Ozek - DAOC
Niix - Other games that sucked
Ouch. I never playd Daoc. FF is off? If it plays like a FPS, that would be a major turnoff for me.
Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit