Main > World

My main concern for Adventure mode (And potentially factions)

(1/3) > >>

Kriegson:
Will the playerbase be able to support it?

Lets not beat around the bush, we're a small niche community. If the maps are too expansive and the factions too numerous, you might end up with a handful of ships per faction, which based around the mechanics that are supposed to power the economy, may not be enough to make the world-go-round so to speak.

Your thoughts?

Skrimskraw:
valid question you have.

I'd rather have the choice between 2 and have a lot on each, instead of ending up like the mid-lvl planets in swtor, no one was on them.

Kriegson:
Personally I prefer 3, that way conflicts are never entirely one sided as the other two can join against the stronger.

Mill Wilkinson:
If the  playerbase is a problem, vut the map in half and yell "have at!".
Even while it'd hurt to lose the option to play a Fjordlander, the western side of the map would be more suited for starting th e adventure mode.

Unless you can be a fjordlander, even if cosmetic, and be just restricted to the western side of the map with the Yeshans and angleans and whatnot.

HamsterIV:
I thought the Adventure mode was going to be instance based like Left 4 Dead. So if a player identifies with the Ashari league they can still join a Chaladon vs Baronies instance on either side but will not help or harm their faction. It would be silly to align yourself with a faction and instantly loose access to 5/6ths of the game's content.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page