MASSIVE multiplayer = hundreds on one server.

32 players = standard multiplayer.

If 32 was MMO, wow, let's fire up BC2, MW3, BF3 for some MMO goodness.

I remember, back in the day, when the ability for 32 players to play the same game all at one time was massively multiplayer. Quakeworld, for one. Guess I'm just an old salt now - that's "standard".

I'm still confused why all the hubbub over the nomenclature, though. The game will be what the game will be. If it will have 32 players playing on the same map at one time, then it will be a 32 player game. Call that MMO, call it just MO, or call it a rose - it will all smell the same in the end. Which is, to say, it will smell not entirely unlike a real rose. So calling it a rose is probably the worse of the three examples I gave, but I hope you get the Bard's gist: the point is what it smells like, not what you call it.

I wonder...if the only real conversation about a game is whether or not it should be titled an MMO or not, is that a good sign, or a bad sign?

I believe there should be something else
Closed Beta-test announcement for example. Gaijin announced it three days ago. It will start somewhere in Q1 2012 and candidates' applications for beta will be reviewed in January 2012
Sign-up page remains on its plance: http://worldofplanesgame.com/en/

In that case my first shipped game Golf Battle 3D for IOS qualifies as an MMO since we only had one central server hosting about ~500k players at once yet pvp matches are always 1 on 1 duels. It isn't billed as such but technically it qualifies as one because it has the necessary player persistence systems in place and players compete for supremacy on a global leaderboard. Navy Field on the other hand, is billed as one as it has stat-driven global map which is faction-locked and where battles/coop quests are generated yet these are always constrained to ~16v16 or something like that. Note that this is 32p per battle, not 32p for the entire game. You are making the flawed assumption that the entire game in WoP is that one 32p furball which it obviously isn't because of the billed global war system.
So far I haven't seen any indication that WoP will be 32p on one server, just that individual battles/missions will be locked to 32p. To state this is one and the same is clearly dishonest.

Reality - you can only ever play against/with 31 players.

Don't care about stats, persistence, factions. They're all nice but the reality is I'll only ever see 31 players in the air with me.

Oh some dude on another server just added to the war effort? Well and dandy, was he in my foxhole taking my hits with me?

You'll only ever see 31 other players. That's not massive, that's standard multiplayer these days.

You could wait until it's released...

...in the meantime.

LMFAO WoP fanboys trying to redefine what an MMO is.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massively_multiplayer_online_game



No way. I'm too busy playing my MMO BF3.

So is all you can do to grab isolated sentences out of context and attack them? That's called strawmanning.

Magic The Gathering: Online is an MMO, but do you honestly think it features 100's on 100's battles being a turn based card game? Don't think so. It's still an MMO. In fact, since you're all trying to class WoP as not being an MMO over number of players in simultaneous combat, go find ANY MMO outside of Aces High/Warbirds that has thousands of players engaged in simultaneous combat. They may have thousands of players all walking around following their own quests, but rarely do you interact with more than a few dozen at best at any one time. And some of them even stream you into smaller maps for indoors environments etc so you de facto do not exist on the same map as the players outside.

I wonder what the gameplay would be like.
32players per grid of the huge map? or 32 players per dogfight session with random map rotation like WOT?

...and trolling here when time allows. At least you're consistent