Any New News/Info of PVP? | Forums

[GiveMeTactical]

Only coop with the guys in Paris, we did a litlle part of the campaign.

This is what I suspected, hence, why many of us, including me, tend not to believe when you say the Campaign is 1000 better than GR/GR2. I am not saying you are lying Ulakai but perhaps now you understand our dilemma.

GiveMeTactical I hope you will have an answer soon for all capabilities of your ally AI team-mates ... for now the communication of Ubi is clearly more focused on the Co-op aspect of the game (sorry for you )
But it seems logic since co-op is the main way to play the game

Therein lies the problem and why I insist on what I harped at. They are not changing, they are not listening to any feedback, they are doing what UBI does best... whatever they want and leave the main Campaign as an after thought, though they want us to pay full price for it, otherwise, what is the harm on throwing everyone a bone with the different options (campaign, co-op, MP) of the game?

Its all good though, I never thought it would be different since the beginning anyway. And I understand, you are not saying the campaign will blow chunks, but I have a feeling, just like you guy with MP, that if you are not going to buy it for co-op only, you will not enjoy it fully.

[swade009]

This is what I suspected, hence, why many of us, including me, tend not to believe when you say the Campaign is 1000 better than GR/GR2. I am not saying you are lying Ulakai but perhaps now you understand our dilemma.


Therein lies the problem and why I insist on what I harped at. They are not changing, they are not listening to any feedback, they are doing what UBI does best... whatever they want and leave the main Campaign as an after thought, though they want us to pay full price for it, otherwise, what is the harm on throwing everyone a bone with the different options (campaign, co-op, MP) of the game?

Its all good though, I never thought it would be different since the beginning anyway. And I understand, you are not saying the campaign will blow chunks, but I have a feeling, just like you guy with MP, that if you are not going to buy it for co-op only, you will not enjoy it fully.

I have a feeling co op MP will be repetitive like Metal Gear Phantom Pain.

[xIMayhemIx]

If the devs make mulitiplayer PvP the whole map, I wonder what size player count they will go with? 16 with 4 squads of 4 would be my limit, IF its similar size to GTAV. But some how I dont see this happening. Maybe they might go the smaller section off PvP maps, where it changes to different biomes. I still think 8 players is ubisofts limit.

[Lolssi]

If the devs make mulitiplayer PvP the whole map, I wonder what size player count they will go with? 16 with 4 squads of 4 would be my limit, IF its similar size to GTAV. But some how I dont see this happening. Maybe they might go the smaller section off PvP maps, where it changes to different biomes. I still think 8 players is ubisofts limit.

Why do you have limit?

[xIMayhemIx]

Well, it all depends on the size of the PvP area(have to wait&see). Too many ppl will cause the framerate to crash and then environment pop ins will lag out yada yada yada... If the latest Farcrys NPCs have problems (spawning in view distance) and thats co-op only, I cant see PvP openworld in GRWL being any better. BTW I wish there was no limits to player count, but it is ubisoft.

[ES-Ulukai]

If pvp there is, it will be classical pvp and not a full open world pvp.

Now it can save time by taking different location of the campaign map and do some modifications fit for pvp and like BF,1 map can have 3 size like large, medium and small depending on the server capability and if it would allow dedicated servers.

[GiveMeTactical]

I have a feeling co op MP will be repetitive like Metal Gear Phantom Pain.

If they make the game for matre audience, it shouldn't have to be but, mature audience is not the profit market for them so yes... rinse and repeat is what I am also thinking.

But don't be negative... wait for the game release to decide!

[Lolssi]

Well, it all depends on the size of the PvP area(have to wait&see). Too many ppl will cause the framerate to crash and then environment pop ins will lag out yada yada yada... If the latest Farcrys NPCs have problems (spawning in view distance) and thats co-op only, I cant see PvP openworld in GRWL being any better. BTW I wish there was no limits to player count, but it is ubisoft.

It's doable. Hundreds of players on same battle without major lag was done already around five years ago. You need to have capable rig and of course game needs to be designed for it. So not gonna happen with Wildlands and propably not even with Ubi

[Cortexian]

PlanetSide 2 is probably the best example I can think of when it comes to massive-scale battles with hundreds of players at once. But they cheat the system in a lot of ways with really low-draw distances and other stuff. Sacrifices have to be made somewhere.

In the largest MP battles of all time in EVE Online they have to implement time dilation. They literally slow down the game when there are a lot of players in the same place so that everyone's computers and the servers have time to process what is happening. I think it's a pretty terrible solution, and I certainly wouldn't want to play games like that.

[Lolssi]

I had great draw distances in PlanetSide 2. Not saying there wasn't texture popping here or there but I could drop enemies that were propably at least 200m away.