Disclaimer: I did find this thread but it's more about technical issues such as voice chat. -- I was wondering how the game would look like if it was designed around 20 vs 20 player matches. It strikes me that this type of match might thrive in planetary systems of sufficient size such that each team will have at least several planets at its disposal, with many other contested planets to fight over. For argument's sake, let's suppose that both teams are well coordinated. Isn't there essentially a lack of strategic options at some point during the game? Let's say you are in a scenario with a war of attrition between two sides (like playing Risk where you and your opponent share only one border), can that legitimately be called successful game design? And how often would such scenarios occur? Or should there be support for all sorts of different (interplanetary?) interactions that take place on a larger scale? The alternative is to keep to the model for 1 versus 1 games with just one or two planets, and accept that the scale of the game is going to remain consistent regardless of number of players. It's just that your scope declines in team games, as you might have less area to cover. Basically, the question is whether you think the game scales well with larger number of players or whether it's only playable by keeping the scale the same but reducing the contributions or control of individual players. I was personally thinking that maybe the design could be expanded to accommodate different numbers of players, but is that feasible/sensible?
The question is simply, how easy/hard it will be to reinforce between planets. If you have, say a clanwar on 3 planets - every planet has a few starting players. Then assuming odds are even, there will be some front on each that are fought over until someone gains the upper hand - small contributions could make a difference here, say Team A can decide to transfer units to 1 planet and try to win it - while having worse chances on the other planets. That the best case, but realistically if one teams gains one planets and the others are still fought over, then it likely will mean the game is concluded and just will drag out for some time. I cant see how you will be able to make inter-planetary interaction usefull while not giving the team with more planets a huge advantage. Simply from a spectators perspective, having 3 seperate simultanous fights you can spectate would already be a nice feature.
What your describing is the problem of scale in this game so far. As the planets are tiny and very few at the moment it is too easy for players to spread over (tiny area ). If and when the planets get say 50 times bigger and more numerous than you can count then you will be able to land forces on peoples planets without them knowing. Unfortunately the main part of the community that is active on this forum don't want the grand scale.
20 vs. 20, both teams coordinated. How would it go? Lets say there are a number of different planets. Each spawn planet would have some commanders from each side. First they would fight it out on their planets. The coordination would allow direct support to a struggling base/planet (lots of units/buildings/features still needed for that). In the end, one side would win on a few, the other on the rest of the spawn planets and the interplanetary stage would begin. Here the whole team (all 20 players) would coordinate to invade enemy planets(lots more units/buildings/features needed). This would continue until one team would be victorious. You could also have a single, massive planet. Does it scale NOW? For a single planet, yes, but not perfectly. For lots of planets, no. What exactly do you mean by that? If you mean making it so that 1 player has to do less then it's simple: give him his own army. Team alliances will be in the game at launch.
Is 20 vs. 20 realistic to expect with the engine the way it is? I had been under the impression that Galactic War, with multiple successive battles across individual solar systems, is more the direction they're intending.
Careful. We WANT IT. We just keep looking at Planetside 2 and saying, let's not end up like them. So we are cautious. Less adventurous. May be a bad thing, but I still am skeptical when someone says MASSIVE.
@leadfootslim http://www.uberent.com/pa/ Planetside 2 can be awesome tho, just avoid the places where it says 48+.
What I meant was, say you have a one versus one game with each player controlling 25 resource points, then it would be logical to think you could have a five versus five game with each player controlling five resource points. The gameplay stays the same, but accommodates more players. It's just that you have less to do, but for some people that's okay since team games have a reputation as being more casual I guess? But personally I was hoping for team games that are interesting in their own right, where as a player you could still control 25 resource points, but since it's twenty versus twenty, the gameplay itself is massively scaled up. I guess you are right that it could work with one large planet, but how could it work with multiple planets?
That is one of the major things they are working on - multi planet spawns. It literally FORCES orbital combat in the long haul, unfortunately. I dont expect it until at least the new orbital is out.
Lets say you have a 20 vs. 20 game with 5 spawn planets. On those planets you will have 4 vs. 4. The difference between this and a normal 4v4 will be that people on other planets will be able to help you with eco and/or units using the teleporter. The late game is still a mystery tho. You'll need an asteroid orbiting the planet to invade it, but why not just smash it into the planet? They need to make invading a planet viable. Nerf asteroid smashing.
no asteroid smashing is a main feature, there is no need to nerf it. Just enhance the possibilities to stop a asteroid from being smashed (like some way to kill the halleys more efficiently and fast)
I want large teams, but I'm wary of super large scale games since playing MAG on PS3. Two words, cluster . f.... Obviously, totally different game type (FPS vs RTS), so I'm hopeful.
I wish an asteroids size determined the range of destruction it unleashed. Smaller roids on a large planet might just scorch a continent, where a large asteroid on a smaller planet might just remove both of them entirely.
