Epic Siege Battles unlike any MMO prior to this game (includes DAOC)

AmazingAvery

"In Theory"...Thats the thoughts of Wired blogger Earnest Cavalli as he saw Age of Conan at the GDC 2008.

"....and after the demonstration I witnessed this morning, I'm happy to say they've included enough innovation in gameplay to differentiate the title, if not seriously compete with the reigning MMO king, World of Warcraft."

"When a guild controls a city, and its inherent financial and gameplay advantages, other guilds driven by jealousy, boredom or a gamer's natural bloodlust, are allowed to attack these bases en masse.

As the attack progresses, the assaulting team must first break through walls (covered by ranged attackers), then through inner walls (also bristling with attackers) and finally to the keep.

If that sounds at all like any number of History Channel documentaries you've seen on historical sieges, that seems to be the goal here. The system they've created should, in theory, create epic battles unlike anything MMOs have seen prior to this.

Yes, that includes Dark Age of Camelot."

"Key to the experience was the developers' desire to let players "recognize your friends" simply by their customized features.

That seems like a common claim in pre-release MMOs, but the character creation system they've created easily rivals that of (non MMO) Oblivion and even City of Heroes with the sheer number of options you're given.

Every facet of character design is handled via simple sliders and while it may take quite a while to design a character to your liking, MMO players are nothing if not patient."

Read more here: http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/02/gdc-08-age-of-c.html

In other GDC 2008 news Gametap releases their impressions with the new screenshots too: http://www.gametap.com/home/read/article/3995

The walls and the sheer size of the PvP 'Battle Keep' easily are more massive than anything seen before in an mmorpg, Shadowbane or DAOC. I for one can't wait to put it to the test.

 

 

Ranma87

Yes but the massive amounts of framerate lag is going to give players with high end systems an advantage in these seiges.

And what about 360? That thing only has 512mb of debticated ram (about the same as 1gb in a PC)

jsw4895

It looks great!

Kaiphas

Sounds really awesome. But is AoC going to be a huge time-sink?

GeneralCrazy

It will be interesting to see how smooth this runs once there is enough players on the servers to really stress test the servers and clients.

I keeping an open mind about this game but it is still under NDA.

One of the problems I have with a lot  of the games is there is just way to many base classes/roles that tend to put a big time sink on putting together groups for doing group based content.

 

 

throckmorton

---

Originally posted by AmazingAvery
The walls and the sheer size of the PvP 'Battle Keep' easily are more massive than anything seen before in an mmorpg, Shadowbane or DAOC.

---

I've never played DaoC, but from the videos we have seen, I wouldn't say the sieges are easily more massive than Shadowbane.

miagisan

Originally posted by GeneralCrazy


It will be interesting to see how smooth this runs once there is enough players on the servers to really stress test the servers and clients.
I keeping an open mind about this game but it is still under NDA.
One of the problems I have with a lot  of the games is there is just way to many base classes/roles that tend to put a big time sink on putting together groups for doing group based content.
 
 

my number one concern..no matter how great a game can be...performance will kill it

and seeing as how fanbois have nothing bad to say about the game makes me even more skepticle.  Until i see proof with my own eyes that a) the system can handle mass pvp and b) you will not need a huge highend system for this game....well...i am just going to wait a few months after launch...tired of buying overhyped trash and not hearing anything about it till after launch...especially a company which refuses to lift the nda till launch date

Xasapis

Actually the NDA related to the beta status of the game will never be lifted.

The article itself seem to be written by a fan rather by a member of the press. Perhaps the presentation was too good or perhaps he was pleasantly surprised. Sometimes we are influenced by our expectations. When we expect little and are given more, we tend to be more enthusiastic than when we expect tons and we receive little.

As for the massive battles, hard to tell for each one individually or how the game will behave even on high end systems. I've build myself a good system so I'm not overly worried, but it is a concern for the amount of mass appeal the game will receive. In conclusion, it's a bit useless if a beta tester claims that the game runs fine or runs like snails; too many people out there without optimised systems, too many different configurations.

If I told you the game runs great, you shouldn't take my word for it, you don't have my system, my connection or my configuration.

If I told you the game runs like snake, you shouldn't take my word for it for exactly the above reasons.

 

The texture scaling is good in AoC. So it all comes down to what the servers can handle in relation to the network code. Which is the same concern I have for WAR world PvP (although because I am not following WAR that closely, I don't know how big battles in term of people is expected in that game).

grindery

Hmm thats a tough call or the scale of sieges. Ive played both shadowbane (still do) and DAOC. Now I remember in the early days of shadowbane (when it was first released) I played on the server apptly named War. I still remember the first bane I attended and there was well over 500 actual players, not counting the actual npc's that where used to defend the city. I never played DAOC in its heyday but my cousin did and he still has screenshots of the massive sieges that game went through as well. He was with a guild at the beginning of the game that led 2 scouting parties of about 75 stealthers all together not including their main force. That was just them, and both games if I remember correctly (Shadowbane especially) had horrible horrible performance when it came to that many people on screen all at once. If age of conan is toting to have larger battles than the aforementioned then I except the same thing I got when I played shadowbane, players engage and half the of the attending players ctd where the other half locks up. Also knowing the horrible engine coding of AO when it was first released and how long it took them to clear it up. I dont have much faith in those claims or about the performance the developers are talking about.

Kyleran

Yeah yeah yeah, better than  DAOC.  Maybe so, but we'll have to wait and see if we can actually render more than 25 people on the screen at the same time.  Rumors so far have not been pointing towards swift performance numbers.

Peformance was an issue for DAOC though.... I never had too much trouble in a standard keep battle, usually about 75 vs 75, but whenever a relic keep was under attack that could easily swell to over 200 people per side and while some folks could play, my mid-range computer lagged out something fierce. I'd literally see like 3 frames a minute, usually the last one being that of my death.

This time around I'll have a better box (but certain not the best out there) so I'll waiting to see how the big fights end up for me.

 

Aelfinn

Originally posted by Kyleran


Yeah yeah yeah, better than  DAOC.  Maybe so, but we'll have to wait and see if we can actually render more than 25 people on the screen at the same time.  Rumors so far have not been pointing towards swift performance numbers.
Peformance was an issue for DAOC though.... I never had too much trouble in a standard keep battle, usually about 75 vs 75, but whenever a relic keep was under attack that could easily swell to over 200 people per side and while some folks could play, my mid-range computer lagged out something fierce. I'd literally see like 3 frames a minute, usually the last one being that of my death.
This time around I'll have a better box (but certain not the best out there) so I'll waiting to see how the big fights end up for me.
 

Funcom has run events with more than 600 onscreen characters in AO using highly outdated and buggy game engines that were not originally designed to handle such a load. Somehow I doubt they will have many issues with half that using their newly rebuilt one, so long as the client computers have decent specs at any rate.

vmoped

Not to bash AoC, but the siege he described sounds just like what has been taking place in Shadowbane for years.  City building and sieging is not an original concept for AoC, yet too many previewers and hype artists seem to allude that AoC came up with this concept.  I hope the best for AoC, but lets be honest about what is, and what isnt an original concept in the game.

Aelfinn

Originally posted by vmoped


Not to bash AoC, but the siege he described sounds just like what has been taking place in Shadowbane for years.  City building and sieging is not an original concept for AoC, yet too many previewers and hype artists seem to allude that AoC came up with this concept.  I hope the best for AoC, but lets be honest about what is, and what isnt an original concept in the game.

I'm not saying they did city sieging in general first and I can't seem to see where this article does either. AoC appears to be doing it right, and thats all that matters to me.

If nothing at all else, unlike in Shadowbane, it shouldn't be possible for superguilds to effectively own a server, and it won't be possible for assassin's to sneak in and win a battle before it's even begun.

Xasapis

To vmoped:

"Not to bash AoC... " but the thing is that you're bashing the game because what a previewer wrote. So the siege concept and implementation was not originated in AoC. Does this make it a bad game for including them? You sure make it sound like it is.

Do you think WAR will be a worse game because it will imitate the RvR found in DAoC?

To Aelfinn:

I didn't see what Funcom is doing to prevent server domination from an alliance (via mechanics of course). Care to elaborate on this, you seem to be very confident about it. I do agree that the assassin "trick" affected negatively the fun of sieges.

Qmire

is it only me who seems to think that one was written by someone who got paid to write that??

 

I'm getting a bad feeling here, i've been waiting for AoC so long but i'm starting to sense something bitter here.....

 

This game won't reach high subs if it's badly coded with such high system requirements and certainly don't want a lagfest siege either. The more information that sips out, which seems too good to be true, the less i wanna buy this game when it gets out. 

Funcom, please don't turn this game into trash....

 

The sieging features did however sound very great and all but i don't want to get my hopes too high up on this, since the NDA is still not lifted = something is not right.

Xasapis

To Qmire:

NDA regarding the beta will never be lifted. It's Funcom's policy regarding all betas. I don't know the reasons behind it, it may have something to do with the local law or it may be total irrelevant.

So you're hearing good stuff about the game, the negative voices are mostly concerns and not complains and you feel less attracted by the game? What would you do if you had a revolt the size of Vanguard?

One thing is certain. Nothing can live up to the hype created by some people, so it's best to be objective on what your expectations of the game are. Personally speaking, I like what I see and I intend to follow them when they launch.

vmoped

Originally posted by Xasapis


To vmoped:
"Not to bash AoC... " but the thing is that you're bashing the game because what a previewer wrote. So the siege concept and implementation was not originated in AoC. Does this make it a bad game for including them? You sure make it sound like it is.
Do you think WAR will be a worse game because it will imitate the RvR found in DAoC?
To Aelfinn:
I didn't see what Funcom is doing to prevent server domination from an alliance (via mechanics of course). Care to elaborate on this, you seem to be very confident about it. I do agree that the assassin "trick" affected negatively the fun of sieges.

I sure would like to know where in my previous post I bashed AoC, because I didn't.  I moreso bashed the article which described a siege battle that is very similar to battles that once raged in Shadowbane.  Your assumptions were wrong sir.  I was just merely stating that alot of people and reviewers seem to allude that AoC is the first game to ever impliment city sieging.  As I stated I wish the best for AoC, and currently plan to purchase it myself.  So go ahead and make some more assumptions about this post Xasapis.

Xasapis

My apologies then.

Euthorus

I am going to call a complete and utter BS on this post and the DEV claim. I personally led and attended DAOC raids numbering into 500's and it wasnt pretty lag wise - no game can process spell effects, particles, textures,  not mention DX10 atmospheric, light, skin, etc character models where 1000+ players are going for the same spot.

Age of Conan at this point is more like Age of Speculation with devs making cool pre-rendered vids and outlandish promisses.

miagisan

Originally posted by Aelfinn


 
Originally posted by Kyleran


Yeah yeah yeah, better than  DAOC.  Maybe so, but we'll have to wait and see if we can actually render more than 25 people on the screen at the same time.  Rumors so far have not been pointing towards swift performance numbers.
Peformance was an issue for DAOC though.... I never had too much trouble in a standard keep battle, usually about 75 vs 75, but whenever a relic keep was under attack that could easily swell to over 200 people per side and while some folks could play, my mid-range computer lagged out something fierce. I'd literally see like 3 frames a minute, usually the last one being that of my death.
This time around I'll have a better box (but certain not the best out there) so I'll waiting to see how the big fights end up for me.
 

Funcom has run events with more than 600 onscreen characters in AO using highly outdated and buggy game engines that were not originally designed to handle such a load. Somehow I doubt they will have many issues with half that using their newly rebuilt one, so long as the client computers have decent specs at any rate.

 

theres no way you can compare the 2 gaming engines, since there is a huge difference in graphics, and aoc is much more computer intensive

Sophist

All I know is I'm glad as hell I'm building my new PC now.

Unknown

Can't wait to defend my keep against kids....

Whomever wrote this article are biased, Now I have followed the development Of Age Of conan since about 2005?. I can say that Funcom aim was to keep the children OUT!  Siege battles better than Dark Age? I want to see that!.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

Jackcolt

Originally posted by Euthorus


I am going to call a complete and utter BS on this post and the DEV claim. I personally led and attended DAOC raids numbering into 500's and it wasnt pretty lag wise - no game can process spell effects, particles, textures,  not mention DX10 atmospheric, light, skin, etc character models where 1000+ players are going for the same spot.
Age of Conan at this point is more like Age of Speculation with devs making cool pre-rendered vids and outlandish promisses.

Please link to just one pre-rendered video?

Let me guess. DAoC player hurt because an article claims that AoC has more massive PvP than DAoC?

Kyleran

Originally posted by Jackcolt


 
Originally posted by Euthorus


I am going to call a complete and utter BS on this post and the DEV claim. I personally led and attended DAOC raids numbering into 500's and it wasnt pretty lag wise - no game can process spell effects, particles, textures,  not mention DX10 atmospheric, light, skin, etc character models where 1000+ players are going for the same spot.
Age of Conan at this point is more like Age of Speculation with devs making cool pre-rendered vids and outlandish promisses.

 

Please link to just one pre-rendered video?

Let me guess. DAoC player hurt because an article claims that AoC has more massive PvP than DAoC?

Not really, just in many of our experiences games that have hundreds of players on the screen at the same time have lagged pretty badly.  This includes DAOC, Shadowbane, EVE, WOW (yes, I was in fights of 100's back in the day) and FFXI.  Surprisingly L2 always handled fights of 100's but they made some design decisions that explain why it worked so well.

We're just skeptical.  This game is reported to require high level hardware just to play the basic game, and we're all waiting to see whether Funcom (who's past reputation is hardly stellar) can really pull it off. 

I'll be playing so I'll be sure to let you know.

 

singsofdeath

Originally posted by Kyleran


 
Originally posted by Jackcolt


 
Originally posted by Euthorus


I am going to call a complete and utter BS on this post and the DEV claim. I personally led and attended DAOC raids numbering into 500's and it wasnt pretty lag wise - no game can process spell effects, particles, textures,  not mention DX10 atmospheric, light, skin, etc character models where 1000+ players are going for the same spot.
Age of Conan at this point is more like Age of Speculation with devs making cool pre-rendered vids and outlandish promisses.

 

Please link to just one pre-rendered video?

Let me guess. DAoC player hurt because an article claims that AoC has more massive PvP than DAoC?

Not really, just in many of our experiences games that have hundreds of players on the screen at the same time have lagged pretty badly.  This includes DAOC, Shadowbane, EVE, WOW (yes, I was in fights of 100's back in the day) and FFXI.  Surprisingly L2 always handled fights of 100's but they made some design decisions that explain why it worked so well.

 

We're just skeptical.  This game is reported to require high level hardware just to play the basic game, and we're all waiting to see whether Funcom (who's past reputation is hardly stellar) can really pull it off. 

I'll be playing so I'll be sure to let you know.

 

BTW, why is FunCom's reputation not stellar? All right, they pulled off a bad launch, we can all agree on that, but they have been improving and running AO for years now. It's one of the oldest games still played that's around and is actually STILL getting an engine upgrade even after being around for so long. I wouldn't say that qualifies as a failure, does it?