Wishfull thinking?

  • I was playing Guildwars 2 WvW and was thinking, man could this only be in Chiv it would be awesome. I know technical its not possible yet… but some day it will be. I know I am a dreamer, but I just had to share it here on the forum.
    I can imagine huge battles where numbers count, and small groups sneaking around, castle sieges, long epic journeys, intense fights interspersed with just hanging out etc etc. situated in a never ending battle, I would love it.

    I just don’t understand why nobody tried to make a huge map, both Mason and Agatha have to defend and attack at the same time and the winner is the one who conquer a certain number of objectives first, once a objective is conquered you have to defend it and conquer the next one. Its less static than the objective maps system now, and it gives a more WvW feeling, because you can conquer lost objectives back, you have a chance to fight back and still win. For Agatha and Mason are the same objectives to be met in order to win.

    Ok that was it, my two cents… is this to much to ask or is this possible to realize in Chiv ?

  • Way too much to ask haha. This game can’t even properly support 32 player servers without the tickrate cranked up and higher tickrates cost a lot of money. Eventually when the global internet infrastructure is all fiber and game servers have the power to calculate the dimensions of your mom’s ass, then perhaps your dream would become a reality.

  • What you are describing is an MMO, which Chivalry is not.

  • Was thinking about something like this before the competition……but there are many limitations

  • Check out a game called MORTAL online (MMO), which is a first person medieval MMO game that uses Unreal Engine 3 and has real time combat where you must block etc. There is even mounted combat too with some interesting but frustrating horse riding mechanics.

    I don’t think it’s impossible, but it is difficult for MMO developers to start up their games, especially when the game tries to do something different as opposed to the tried and true, as most investors just want to invest in the same old same old, not wanting to take risks with something new.

    The idea is feasible and it is proven in Mortal online and some other games out there such as FPS MMO’s like planetside, WW2 online: Battleground Europe and so on.

    The problem with real time MMO’s is that you pretty much need a server for each region, and each region has a priority on those servers so if there are less players in a specific region in the game on the world map, then the server would not prioritize that area, thus the players may get more latency issues. Where a more populated area would possibly even get 2-3 servers trying to handle all of the information in that area at one time. But what happens where there are multiple heavily populated areas? More servers are needed, or the servers get dispersed to the point that they can’t be spread out any more, latency issues occur, and eventually a server crash occurs (hence they do stress tests before a game is out).

    The idea is there, the technology is there, the feasibility is there, however I think it’s just a matter of getting the right funding, doing the right advertising and making sure that the game functions in a way that is progressive for players, but in a way that it doesn’t completely unbalance things.

    I have thought about this before though, and I think that if TBS used some spare time to come up with a plan for this, they could be onto something big. MORTAL online is a flop because….well, it had no marketing, it’s player base is tiny, and by time word reaches a few people, many people have already stopped playing the game.

    If TBS were to do this, they would have one chance, and if they blew it, they would risk their company going belly up…quite frankly, I don’t want to see that, because Chivalry is awesome, and TBS are awesome, they have a success story that should not be turned into a story of failure.

  • I was actually going to make a tug of war type map but got distracted with my FFA map. It’s definitely possible to have both teams attacking at the same time fighting over spots but the way that objectives are set up right now doesn’t really allow for a back and forth, only A -> B -> C. So you could do it but it would only have 1 objective with limited explanation to the players and of course on a way smaller scale than GW.

  • The tug-o-war system can work, and should be really simple to do. I intend to make the system in kismet once the competition is over, and perhaps also make an RTS type system where players can actually gather resources and build a base on a large-ish map.

  • Thanks for all the reactions. I understand that its way to much to ask for Chiv, and its not like I would convert Chiv to an MMO.

    But still on a smaller scale 32 player base map it can be done. And in king of the hill mode both teams can conquer one point and hold it to win, maybe its possible to make more cap points and remove the time limit.

    I really think its encouraging that some level designers in this topic are thinking/planning to get some going in this dynamic game-play direction.

  • So like that awful territory control gamemode in TF2?

    It was a massive failure in that game.

  • I think a game mode like Uprising in Far Cry 2 would be suitable.
    Each team would have a captain, and that captain must be essentially guarded/escorted to the capture points in order to cap them.

    The only problem with that system was that sometimes an AFK player would become captain. The way to solve that issue was to have a captain voting system though to vote for a new captain, which could be done in Chivalry too.

    Other than that issue, the game mode worked really well, it encouraged actual team work, not just players being rambo, and everyone felt that they played an important role in the team which is awesome :)

Log in to reply