Melee Battlegrounds - New Gameplay concept!

[Tindel]

Talk about going in the wrong direction.

All the flaws with the mod crpg was based upon a wrong perception of what people really want to play.

If all focus had been on creative a awesome fighting game it would not only still be a popular mod, it would be hugely successfull.
Strat and shitty maps and weird patches changed all that, and the mod is dying.

Making a shitty lowbudget sandbox mmo (it has been done before, about 100 times) wont be played by anyone.

It should be like crpg 2012, with 120players on siege. Except better.

That would be worth playing.

[Jambi]

Talk about going in the wrong direction.

All the flaws with the mod crpg was based upon a wrong perception of what people really want to play.

If all focus had been on creative a awesome fighting game it would not only still be a popular mod, it would be hugely successfull.
Strat and shitty maps and weird patches changed all that, and the mod is dying.

Making a shitty lowbudget sandbox mmo (it has been done before, about 100 times) wont be played by anyone.

It should be like crpg 2012, with 120players on siege. Except better.

That would be worth playing.

+1

   

 :P  8-)

[MacX85]

Making a shitty lowbudget sandbox mmo (it has been done before, about 100 times) wont be played by anyone.

It should be like crpg 2012, with 120players on siege. Except better.

That would be worth playing.

Well, I hope it will be an awesome sandbox MMO. Combat so far looks really promising in stark contrast to the other "100" (more like 3) shitty sandbox MMOs that tried something like that.
I wouldn't bother getting excited for another round-based swordfighting game of which we really have enough of (M&B, WotR/WotV, Chivalry, For Honor and likely Bannerlord).

[Herkkutatti666]

Talk about going in the wrong direction.

All the flaws with the mod crpg was based upon a wrong perception of what people really want to play.

If all focus had been on creative a awesome fighting game it would not only still be a popular mod, it would be hugely successfull.
Strat and shitty maps and weird patches changed all that, and the mod is dying.

Making a shitty lowbudget sandbox mmo (it has been done before, about 100 times) wont be played by anyone.

It should be like crpg 2012, with 120players on siege. Except better.

That would be worth playing.

2012 best gaming year of muh life

[Leshma]

You're wrong about sandbox "survival" MMOs. They might be broken, every and each of those games, but they in fact made shitload of money. DayZ is obviously first and made the most, but is arguably biggest scam everything considered. WarZ was carbon copy and while it fucked over people I take the stance that it was in better shape than DayZ when people still cared about that game. Rust is also incredibly successful, even games like Forest made lot of money.

Latest addition to survival MMO genre, thanks to huge popularity of Jurrasic World, sold million copies in less a month. It is the most polished game of its kind, but wouldn't say ARK Survival Evolved deserve sales it achieved.

If Donkeys are lucky and manage to finish game in reasonable time, medieval could become global fad which will propel their game into stratosphere and make them rich. Even without that, I'm certain they can sell at least 100k copies. People love sandbox games.

[MacX85]

I thought we were talking about sword fighting MMOs comparable to M&B. That's something else than a shooter-based game entirely. The only somehow comparable games I can think of are Mortal Online, Life is Feudal and Gloria Victis. But all of those fail in the combat apartment so far.
A big openworld  game with well-rounded combat mechanics and a political/warfare focus instead of survival grinding is what I've been dreaming about for years now.

[Thomek]

As it has been mentioned before I'm sure, this is the current plan:

Main focus is Epic, with its world and player factions competing, creating their purpose.

But ALSO, to have an option to "jump in" to game modes similar to Battle (and other game modes), when a player needs that kick of some quality fighting and insta gratification.

IMO it fulfills whatever mood or type the player is having. If you like to climb to the top of, or develop/organize a faction, or merely support it in various ways. If you like to craft and develop your unique character, all the tools are there. If you just enjoy a random good battle or siege the game should give that too.

As to how these game modes interact with each other, I think (personally), that battles that are inconsequential and for fun, should have a minor to no influence on your Epic character, but that there should be some connection between them. We would want players to use both game modes, but not strictly require it. 

[Thomek]

No strat ticks mechanic plz

I'm no expert, but the tick mechanic is probably there just because of inherent limitations in the WB engine, making ticks the only way to do certain stuff. Tick mechanic is not there because its the best way, but because it's was the only viable way.

I mean.. the reason this game is made is because of the limitations and hacks to make crpg/strat even work. Making your own game, in your own engine, allows you to almost anything.

Don't expect a tick mechanic! Understand the almost limitless freedom, only strangled by imagination and manpower, that we posess in MBG.

[Thomek]

I'll just repeat, some, non-mandatory connection. What exactly it will be remains to be decided. It could range from purely esthetic things like item mods/colors/variations only achievable from epic play, to minor connected tasks. Perhaps even insta gamemodes with and without consequences. In any case, an instant battle joining option, will give players skill and training that can be put into great effect in Epic. Perhaps that will be enough?

If you have ideas, bring em on.

[Mr_Oujamaflip]

Why not have the hub city in the middle of the "epic" land, a place people can go to hang out, do dueling, jousting etc. Also join standard battle/siege servers. If you leave the city that then takes you to the "epic" game mode where you've got to fend for yourself.

[MacX85]

Why not have the hub city in the middle of the "epic" land, a place people can go to hang out, do dueling, jousting etc. Also join standard battle/siege servers. If you leave the city that then takes you to the "epic" game mode where you've got to fend for yourself.

I guess player cap would be an issue around this area.

[Tindel]

A shitty round-based medieval fighting game, cos that hasnt been done before.

Let's compete with Bannerlord by making an IDENTICAL (yet cheaper) game.

Lots of people came to cRPG because they wanted a multiplayer version of the native map, a persistent competitive multiplayer with fiefs and conflict on the map. Many of them found it to be clunky, poorly explained and with no up-to-date guides. Making something that is a competent version of Strategus with an actual guide or tutorial in-game would be awesome.

Strategus was like a cancer in crpg, if it had been cut out early maybe the game would gave survived.

The native strategic map was pure shit, strategus was pure shit. The only good thing to ever come from mount and blade and crpg was the combat mechanics.

Too bad the were constantly changed into unrecognition, and thus the decline of interest in all the players.

[Tristan_of_Erzoth]

Strategus was like a cancer in crpg, if it had been cut out early maybe the game would gave survived.

The native strategic map was pure shit, strategus was pure shit. The only good thing to ever come from mount and blade and crpg was the combat mechanics.

Too bad the were constantly changed into unrecognition, and thus the decline of interest in all the players.

I'm pretty sure most people would agree that strategus is the best part

[Teeth]

I am not so sure at all. In 2011 there was a pretty thriving clan battle and event scene in EU, Strategus quickly murdered that when it returned, partly due to certain scum factions attacking during scheduled event times. I can think of dozens of clans that had a strong server presence for years that never really played Strategus, save maybe for the first or second rendition, including my own. When Byzantium had 10-30 people on the server nearly at all times, there were only like 5 people who played Strat battles regularly. I only like Strat Battles because it allows polearmers to shine and because I like to compete for the top spot on the board. If I ignore that, a Strat Battle is just a boring plate grindfest where killing and dying is very inconsequential. I'd pick a good Battle session or even a good Siege session over a good Strat Battle any day.

[Jacko]

Strategus is a divider, for sure. Personally I was very interested in it initially, but that quickly faltered once the flaws showed up.

Epic (and Strategus) gives a much needed persistency to battles. A random village battle, Or, defending your own village where a win might turn the conflict in your favour?
Context matters.

On hub city:
We have the functionality to have a massive amount of players (tried and works) on the same server at the same time, but that would means no open world combat in that area/server (like an MMO). We have ways to allow duels and other small scale combat to happen real time on in the hub, the questions is rather, do we want to tie it into Epic?

Truth be told we aren't sure we Want a hub city in Epic, or any infrastructure on the [Epic] map that isn't player built. Something we are discussing continuously and will be decided by play testing and feedback rather than what we think works or doesn't.

Edit, typos etc.