News: Daybreak Games Hit With Layoffs, Matt Higby resigns

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Calista

Here is a basic diagram of an MMO.

http://mirrors.fom.nexeontech.com/v5.jpg

Battlefield is not an MMO, it is an instanced MOG and as such it is not required to maintain a high degree of persistence. Anyway, about the only way PS2 could do it is provision out game servers and host them in proximity to rest of the servers in the farm and perhaps charge players money to use them. I imagine that would be an expensive endeavor.

PS2 may have persistence but it is being played like a deathmatch. What does persistence profit us when it isn't being used?

Also, why can't these cut-down servers be done same as Battlefield and located offsite/around the world where players are? Do Battlefield server owners not actually pay enough to make that system work?

[Calista]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

PS2 may have persistence but it is being played like a deathmatch. What does persistence profit us when it isn't being used?

Can't disagree with you there but the fact is all their code is written to tightly integrate into a specific environment. I think it would be interesting to see if they could or would create a game server and make each hex region an independent instance. Kinda like BF but with broader implications on continent and world consequences. I think it would be interesting to see the public's reception of such an environment.

They don't have very many players in the PS4 version and already players are complaining about frame rates when in large battles. From what I have been reading these "large" battles aren't close to what the PC sees so I don't know how this is going to turn out. Maybe this hex instancing model would work better for consoles but it would redefine the gameplay substantially.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

PS2 may have persistence but it is being played like a deathmatch. What does persistence profit us when it isn't being used?

Sigh.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Figment

Sigh.

I can only assume you disagree; surely you don't think persistence fulfills its purpose simply by existing? It needs to exist as an underlying mechanic to make other mechanics work well. Just because a fight can stop dead cold and territory will sit as it was until others come back doesn't mean much. It is regularly undermined by alerts when the winner is granted huge areas they didn't hold and didn't have to fight for. It is regularly cheapened by base design, where the winner between large forces is the one that doesn't have to log for bed.

No, persistence is an underlying thing that makes what lies above it better. But what lies above it in this game remains undone. No attrition mechanics, poor layout, so on.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I can only assume you disagree; surely you don't think persistence fulfills its purpose simply by existing? It needs to exist as an underlying mechanic to make other mechanics work well. Just because a fight can stop dead cold and territory will sit as it was until others come back doesn't mean much. It is regularly undermined by alerts when the winner is granted huge areas they didn't hold and didn't have to fight for. It is regularly cheapened by base design, where the winner between large forces is the one that doesn't have to log for bed.

No, persistence is an underlying thing that makes what lies above it better. But what lies above it in this game remains undone. No attrition mechanics, poor layout, so on.

I think he probably agrees and hence the unhappiness.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ringring

I think he probably agrees and hence the unhappiness.

Ooops....sorry. I just remembered some folks way back in pre-release thought that if we could just get to where the game is persistent, it would be enough and everything would work itself out.

[Luciav]

Buenas, qué tal? Me he registrado en el foro para intentar aportar cosas sobre los temas en los que mejor me defiendo.