"We looked at the horse and wondered just how much of a beating it could take, eventually deciding to put it to the test"

Player collision, it comes to mind when thinking of only a very few select games, only a couple are MMO's. Ranked by relevance and popularity.

1. Neverwinter (20v20 pvp matches with physics and soft collision)

2. Mount and blade, war-band (100v100 matches with hard collision)

3. Warhammer online >DEADGAEM<

4. Age of cona---- *pukes*

5. Planetside 2 (Collision limited to vehicles only)

I have only seen collision used a few times in games involving sword and shield as far is a massively multiplier online is concerned. My personal opinion is that its a fantastic idea, collision in Neverwinter is done is such a way that greifing is either impossible or would take about 50 players to block the most narrow of doorways, but also removes the *Army behind the tree* element where it becomes impossible to gauge the enemy army since there could be models inside one another.

They added collision to PvE, i think its time to reconsider its non-existence in pvp as well. I cannot personally quote any sort of benchmark or tech hinderance this has on battles that consist of more than 100v100 battles like those seen in M&B warband, but its been a few years since then, and we STILL cant support this concept in something like 150v150? Surely there wont be any battles larger than that. Even in Planetside 2 the largest battle i ever saw consisted of (an estimated) 250 players, and im talking chaos on a level unheard of and i dont care how good your pc is, 250 people moving around casting stuff is gg for at least half your frames.

So why cant we just try it guys. Can we just have a beta tests that has PVP collision in it just to see how it works out? If it surely has no chance of working whatsoever, at least the players can see why it cant work and people like me can have a reason not to complain.

I read their recent response and it seems to me more like a design decision than anything else. They mentioned the technical load of collision, but it was amid other reasons of wanting the battle to be hectic and chaotic, which even though I love collision detection ill admit that battles felt more to me to be more structured since there is more value in a ' front line'.

I hope they release a campaign with collision activated though, with a 'if you lag it's your problem ' mentality.

In order to give tanks a real role and to allow us to try and block damaged keep walls we need collisions active for PvP!

I'm confused. It could be how you wrote this response.

If you are someone who can appreciate collision detection, as well as appreciates a good "front line", then wouldnt you be all for collision detection? At the very least, perhaps a small diameter dead center in each players model so that they cannot be DIRECTLY inside of each other.

Will be abused and it's a real issue with performance, so clear no, as stated from developers also.

I played mount & blade extensively and not even remotely do they have what cyrodill has, destructible buildings, CLASS SKILLS (in m&b there is only what we consider auto attacks), all that in a HUUUUUUUUUUGEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE map

There are a craptonmegafest of variables to be calculated, adding collision to every single player when we have 200 on screen, with skills, knock backs, urgh I can't even fathom the amount of calculations required, it would lag too much..... and ...yea... way too much lol.

There was player collision in warhammer online, and while it was awesome for small skimrishes, it absolutely MURDERED huge battles like those at the main keeps blocking access to a city siege. Like, 3 FPS murdered. I'd rather see 200 players on my screen moving fluidly than have CD in PvP.

Well shucks, looks like even trying the concept is being shot down. Oh well, all hail the ghost model!

I would rather have smooth 200 player battles with no CD then 100 player lag fest with it.

Its a technical decision not a design issue

Correct, as already mentioned several times.

The developers said we can either have large scale impressive battles OR collision detection.

I'm not sure how this works, so I'm going to leave the decision up to the developers. They gave us PvE collision, so that's a start.

Wow.. we really needed another one of these. Beat it some more OP!

Not while I played. Maybe it got worse after the first year? We had several huge battles without appreciable lag except at fortresses, which had optimization issues .

The decision is already done. The already (!) collected the feedback and that's why (!) the added the collision for PvE only. That's a design decision change. And during this reflection they (again) cosidered in parallel also to do it for PvP, but they cleary stated: No, not for PvP, sorry community, that's a performance issue. But in PvE, due to your feedback, we changed it.

So, my proposal is: That's it now. No reason to be too penetrant.

Oh I love collision, and appreciate front line fights for sure. However I was saying it seems like a design decision to not have collision (which I accept) as opposed to a hardware decision (which I wouldn't accept). I'm not going to fault them for making a decision based on the direction they want to take it. I only ever had a problem with the debates concerning 'teh lagz', which multiple games had managed to pull off 100+ person combat with no lag.