Add new comment

Actually, I think that what Abalieno describes IS possible. Just not as a pure, "individualistic" mmorpg. You would have to combine an individualistic play level with a strategic one. In other words: somehow mix a game like Rome Total War with a multiplayer rpg.

That's what I've been writing from the beginning. A mix of conquest PvP game with strategic, RTS and even wargame elements. Nothing too complicated but a few rules that tie together these parts.

My PvP advancement system was based from the start on ranks that you can unblock to have access to different "roles" on the battlefield. This was already all defined.

What all PvP games out there DON'T do is structure the large battles. We have group mechanics for the most part, but the bigger battles are unregulated, just scaled-up versions of the same mechanics. If you see a mindless zerg is because there was no structure in the first place.

My idea from the start has been about developing mechanics and rules that define the roles of different squadrons and give each a different "function" and objective in the battlefield. So that the players are encouraged to organize. This comes directly from the rules. Depending on your role you have a specific objective to achieve that is different from the players in another division. All collaborate together to the same "war" but the patterns of the interaction are different.

It's a duty of the design to open up these possibilities. If what you see is just a mindless zerg is simply because that type of encounter is "unregulated". Add choices, options and defined roles and the whole situation will change.

But no NPCs. There's no need for them. There are guards in the outposts but there is no respawn and the battles are supposed to be between players.