Couple of things before I purchase

[GPS51]

Yup that's true now. It's changing over the next 3 months.

[Sephriem]

Originally Posted by kyranzor

You can never permenantly lose your home city, and once it is fully built and you have finished the 'quests' which form the intro to the game, there is nothing to do but battle/seige the ai and other players. It is definitely a limited end-game. Will take a while of constant playing to get there though. In the beta i got only halfway through this process, but i quickly realised the shortfalls of endgame play. Just like what happens in games like Guild Wars when your character reaches lvl20, nothing more to do except join guilds and do battles.

I think there's enough to do to hold someone attention over atm, it's an RTS game. There's not a whole lot of content you can add. In an RTS you just battle. It's still really early for this game and I'm sure they have things planned for the future.

[Pepi18]

My vision of the perfect MMORTS is to have a world in which we the players fight for land and form alliances in a sandbox sort of way. I don't know if any of you have heard of War Of Legends published by Jagex which releasex over a year ago, kind of like Evony, but with some serious issues most notably of which is their evil cash shop. The fight for power and alliances in it was a really cool concept though. Also Eve Online which although it is an MMORPG sandbox, has a similar idea with a world that is controlled by the player.

I think Dawn Of Fantasy is not far off that concept but I was a little dismayed that when I opened the world map and discovered it was not a view of a player run world but of a world full of AI. I have only known this game for 3 days now and I don't know the direction it is going in, but that is certainly what my dream MMORTS should be.

The quests, AI and home town are great the way they are, but I would like to have a world map where players live and breathe together (and which expands as more players come in like Eve Online), all on one server, creating cities, forming alliances, expanding their territory (like Eve Online - so basically Eve Online meets RTS - like war of legends - and the fantasy genre ).

[kyranzor]

yes it was a real shame when i first realised that the players are only able to connect through a match-maker system, and that the world map is just a tiny little pre-made adventure world, which somehow fits in thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of player cities. It's silly really. And yes, at least Evony had a landscape where people's towns are visible in scale to others.

[andreicde]

Originally Posted by kyranzor

yes it was a real shame when i first realised that the players are only able to connect through a match-maker system, and that the world map is just a tiny little pre-made adventure world, which somehow fits in thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of player cities. It's silly really. And yes, at least Evony had a landscape where people's towns are visible in scale to others.

silly?Not really. It would be stupid to see hundreds of towns on the map and very annoying as well.

[Abister]

I was also a little disappointed, but they may be unable to do it due to performance issues, but if it WERE like Eve meets RTS, that would be the best game ever.

BUT I am still quite content with what they have planned (I am pretty sure it's going to be like how it is now, only you see were all of the other players cities are in each region basically all on top of each other, and you choose the name from a list. Please, if I am wrong, correct me.) because I like how easy it will be to get around. But Pepi18's dream MMORTS is just like mine.

[Henry Martin]

Originally Posted by kyranzor

yes it was a real shame when i first realised that the players are only able to connect through a match-maker system, and that the world map is just a tiny little pre-made adventure world, which somehow fits in thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of player cities. It's silly really. And yes, at least Evony had a landscape where people's towns are visible in scale to others.

Its called "Instancing". It was a design decision not to have every player visible on the same world map.

All browser games that have every player on the world map is using tiled squares that is visual representation of a list. Having a list of names or have a world map filled with names is the same thing. A lot of browser games you dont even see your army move to a town you attack, Its all "Text". Also for most you dont even get to fight your own battles, you get a message awhile later saying if you won or lost.

Pretty much everyone asking for it is just for visual stimulation. As there no gameplay affect for this that a window of text couldn't do.

[Wolfentir]

Originally Posted by Henry Martin

Its called "Instancing". It was a design decision not to have every player visible on the same world map.

All browser games that have every player on the world map is using tiled squares that is visual representation of a list. Having a list of names or have a world map filled with names is the something. A lot of browser games you dont even see your army move to a town you attack, Its all "Text". Also for most you dont even get to fight your own battles, you get a message awhile later saying if you won or lost.

Pretty much everyone asking for it is just for visual stimulation. As there no gameplay affect for this that a window of text couldn't do.

But will there be wars over territory between the guilds some time in the future?

Lets say players can keep playing Online Kingdoms like they are now. They will build up their city, fight NPCs and PvP and level up their units. Then they can join a guild.

Lets say there can be 10 guilds in each region and each guild will start with 1/10 of the territory. Guild wars maps will be separate to Online Kingdom one and much simpler.

The map for guild play can be represented by coloured regions and when you click on them they will display which guilds are fighting for them, % controlled and lists with names of members of the guilds. For eg. a region might be 50% blue (human) and 50% green (elves) if only these these two guilds are fighting for the control of it.


A guild will consist of 10 players or less. According to average stats of players, their guild will be put into a certain region of the world where similiar guilds are located. Then members of guilds can fight each other (1v1, 2v2, etc) and results of fights will determine how much of the region each guild will control. Eg. all human guild members fight elven guild members and humans win by destroying 60% of the elven army (when all stats are added up from all the fights). Then human guild takes 60% of the elven territory. And all fights need to happen within a week or two (as agreed by members).


I wonder if this at least would be possible, since it was said that representing all cities and armies for all the players on one map would be impossible.

[Konstantin Fomenko]

There will be a game mechanics with guilds controlling large NPC towns and fighting over them yes. Sorry out of time to explain the entire game mechanics, there should be a few post that explain guilds already.

[Wolfentir]

Originally Posted by Konstantin Fomenko

There will be a game mechanics with guilds controlling large NPC towns and fighting over them yes. Sorry out of time to explain the entire game mechanics, there should be a few post that explain guilds already.

No worries KF. I tried searching posts on guilds and I couldn't find any official info on guilds. If anyone has a link to a post explaining how the guilds will work please let me know.