Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.
The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.
Freshmango55 wrote:Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.
The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.
Well sorry to tell you but the servers simply can't handle big 100v100 battles in the open world without spikeing to 1200 ping we've already tested it several times.
The main thing they need to focus on is the damn server transitions tired of losing horses randomly.
Aout wrote:100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with
Brother wrote:Personally, I'm very down with the instanced battles - not only for performance reasons but also for the statistics they'll be able to track and display because of them.
I'll also add this has been a planned feature for a long time now so it's a bit amusing to be reading complaints about it now.Aout wrote:100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with
Hmm with 400k copies of YO sold, and all those players having free access to the MMO, I'd beg to differ
Aout wrote:Brother wrote:Personally, I'm very down with the instanced battles - not only for performance reasons but also for the statistics they'll be able to track and display because of them.
I'll also add this has been a planned feature for a long time now so it's a bit amusing to be reading complaints about it now.Aout wrote:100v100 battles ? Yea, right. At this point I doubt the game will have that amount of players to begin with
Hmm with 400k copies of YO sold, and all those players having free access to the MMO, I'd beg to differ
Copies of YO sold is absolutely no indication. I bought YO as well not knowing about those stupid battle instances, premium currency, premium consumables and other shenengians. I know 4 other people that are in the same boat. Now extrapolate.
Hutt wrote:And I completely support instanced battles. It's the only way to organize huge battles. Otherwise this would go to the "5AM capture all map" like many other games
There is still raiding, robbing, murdering with smaller groups on main map.
Humerox wrote:Hutt wrote:And I completely support instanced battles. It's the only way to organize huge battles. Otherwise this would go to the "5AM capture all map" like many other games
There is still raiding, robbing, murdering with smaller groups on main map.
Whose 5am? Using game mechanics to make things "easier" on guild organization is laughable. In a sandbox game, installing theme park design is detrimental to the entire concept of the game. Strong guilds should be able to maintain an effective defense, no matter the time zone. And this game is international, so it's easy to recruit members from all time zones.
When I stop on the main page for this game, it says "sandbox for thousands of players", not "sandbox with some theme park instancing for thousands of players".
I understand your argument. However, the game should be brutal, in all respects. Including popping your fortress at 5am your time because your guild hasn't taken the proper steps necessary to ensure its defense.
Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.
The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.
Ragemaster9999 wrote:Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online
Humerox wrote:Ragemaster9999 wrote:Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online
Allies. EvE is the perfect example of a true sandbox. If LiF wants to follow a good example, that's the best place to look. Preparing for all contingencies is part of good strategy.
All this carebear mentality in a supposed sandbox is surprising.
Ragemaster9999 wrote:Czanrei wrote:This battle mechanic sounds like a horrible idea. If "the team" continues on this path of adding any sort of instancing to the game like this mechanic mentioned, I have zero interest in this game any more.
The whole point of a MMO is to be in a persistent world and adding temporary instances is anything but persistent.
Yeah because I totally want third party armies to show up and ruin a good fight ala eve online
Ragemaster9999 wrote:eve has plenty of faults, I for one look forward to not seeing who brings a better batphone be a part of LIF.
Elindor wrote:...
Elindor wrote:...
Ishamael wrote:The game is a bit boring without judgement hours, so I hope this gets done soon for testing. Maybe we can have a JH this weekend if the battle system will take a while?
My point about the sieges was that I thought that your base should only be vulnerable to your enemy and their vassals/allies maybe....not just the entire server at large.
I also had always imagined that the battle system would have been a series of sieges on your base that the attacker had to win in order to flush you out from the area...not just ONE successful base attack...since really I mean for most people the base is the primary aspect of this game.
Yotoni wrote:I agree that one successful base attack on alliances who have only Tier1 monument is bit short to deserve monuments full destruction, thus wiping claims. It is even unrealistic.