im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!
Epic battles compared to what? It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever.. That's 96 people in one area.. That's also a starting number. Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
Also, might want to add 16gigs of DDR5 and a Geforce 15800 Ultra with 3 megs of video memory and a decacore processor running at 5.0ghz... I meant.. it's just not possible.. lol
I dont care about performance, if it really is like this im going to be very upset.
still going to play the game but this is preatty lame.
-Jive
Wow, so you're saying you would prefer a 100v100, where you get 5 fps on a top notch computer, taking forever to cast a spell, over 48v48, where you can actually, you know, do shit?
Keep in mind there is collision detection for every single player, siege vehicles flinging particle-based fire rocks. Builds will receive damage, mounts come into play, spells will be cast, arrows will be a flyi'n..
im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!
Epic battles compared to what? It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever.. That's 96 people in one area.. That's also a starting number. Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city
I dont care about performance, if it really is like this im going to be very upset.
still going to play the game but this is preatty lame.
-Jive
yea I change my mind, I'de rather have horrible experience with hundreds of people full of lag,disconnects and crashes than an good, clean experience with 100. If you've ever participated in large scale pvp, you'de understand that in AoCs case, 96 is plenty for now. GD the games not even out yet, did you know when wow released battlegrounds weren't even in the game. It was over 8 months before they were implimented.
Ok im one of the biggest supporters of AoC on this site, check my post history, in my opinion I would rather see no limitations. Whose to say anyone would actually ever get a 100 vs. 100 battle, its just thre fact that its possible that i would like it.
I think its lame, and thats my opinion, you people need to watch who you question.
You dont go into battle shooting at your own army.
Just speaking of DAoC the only time it was slideshow like was when it got over 500ish people for me. Seeing battles of 100-300 was never a problem for my computer and I didn't have a fantastic computer back then.
im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!
Epic battles compared to what? It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever.. That's 96 people in one area.. That's also a starting number. Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city
Yea, but who even plays that game anymore? I guess those 300 people fights weren't enough to keep people around. I'd rather have something my system can handle, than a poorly designed game with 10 year old graphics.. and SWG is no AoC in the graphics department. It's all preference, some people want one thing, other people want something different. And thank goodness for that.
im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!
Epic battles compared to what? It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever.. That's 96 people in one area.. That's also a starting number. Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city
you can not compare SWG to AoC... graphics and performance.... please, use your head. AoC already has graphics that scale down, such as armors in cities, similiar to guild wars, but with everything that will be involved in these fights, with the graphics in this game... what you want is GD impossible. People already are cursing FC for the high system reqs for the game, for our systems to be able to handle a few hundred players in a siege battle, with everything that entitles, well, 99% of us couldn't afford that rig.
no but everyone keeps saying "if you want to play you have to upgrade your rig" nonsense, which the same goes for the servers.
Time moves on, graphics increase, hardware increase, then server capabilities also increase
if swg was able to handle it on older servers with people using older hardware, then newer games should be using newer servers with our newer hardware. everything scales proportionately.
Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play.
Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won.
I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc.
What part of that is fun?
With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side.
The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100 and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands.
The problem is AoCs engine is not scalable enough.
Look at LoTRO for instance;
At max settings it looks beautiful. Its graphics being comparable to vanguard. But I can scale it down to look like the original everquest or AC2 if I have a really crappy comp. Having Ultra/high/medium/low/verylow is a must for MMORPGs to succeed.
I like AoC but it sucks that there is no scalability. It really sucks that my girlfriend cannot play it at all with a 1 year old computer. It plays lotro beautifully with high settings but AoC is a slideshow on it because its not a 512mb card. This game would be AMAZING if it was more scalable.
I am a forum troll hunter. Be afraid trolls, very afraid!
Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play. Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won. I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc. What part of that is fun? With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side. The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100 and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands. That isnt fun for anyone.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
So it turns out that seige battle turns out to be just 50 vs 50? LMAO So much for "epic" battles. Like Avery said, it is epic when all 9 battle keeps on a server are going at it at the same time. LOL This is like PoTBS 24 v 24 thing when you have several hundred people per guild. What is the point? LOL This post made my day.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!
Epic battles compared to what? It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever.. That's 96 people in one area.. That's also a starting number. Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
Also, might want to add 16gigs of DDR5 and a Geforce 15800 Ultra with 3 megs of video memory and a decacore processor running at 5.0ghz... I meant.. it's just not possible.. lol
From the sounds of it, taking others words... L2 handles this the best as they can have over 1500 people fighting at once. The use a lod system. As the natives are saying now, someone sold them 100's and since it's been done years ago and people want to believe technology moves forward that this was the expectations they were given. Nothing more or less.
So it turns out that seige battle turns out to be just 50 vs 50? LMAO So much for "epic" battles. Like Avery said, it is epic when all 9 battle keeps on a server are going at it at the same time. LOL This is like PoTBS 24 v 24 thing when you have several hundred people per guild. What is the point? LOL This post made my day.
Shannia, would you please go troll the Runescape forums please. your 'LOL' banter is highly annoying and stop padding your post count.. it doesn't make you better than everyone else
So it turns out that seige battle turns out to be just 50 vs 50? LMAO So much for "epic" battles. Like Avery said, it is epic when all 9 battle keeps on a server are going at it at the same time. LOL This is like PoTBS 24 v 24 thing when you have several hundred people per guild. What is the point? LOL This post made my day.
and yet the ironic part here is...that the same people i see on these forums defending the 48vs48 are the same people who were bashing the 24v24 in potbs
Just speaking of DAoC the only time it was slideshow like was when it got over 500ish people for me. Seeing battles of 100-300 was never a problem for my computer and I didn't have a fantastic computer back then.
You've never seen 500 people in the same area. I played that game when it was at it's prime on one of the highest populated servers.. and I was in a guild that was in the top 3 on the entire server in PvP. I NEVER saw 500 people.. at relic raids, you might get 200 or so.. 300 was a rarity and I've never seen that first hand. On most servers early on, everyone fought in Hibernia.. even in the most hectic times, you'd only see 50v50.. come on dude.
I'm calling bullshit on that one man.
Maybe you had a better computer than me, but I know I could solo and group without getting slowdown.. so it was good enough for casual play. All I know is that when it got above 100 people on the same screen or vicinity, it started getting choppy..
This really hurt! I do pray its a typo. For those that dont want to read. There are basically screenshots up on the AOC forums of the AOC ingame manual showing that there is a limit of 48 players per side in seige battles.
Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play. Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won. I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc. What part of that is fun? With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side. The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100 and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands. That isnt fun for anyone.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.
There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.
So it turns out that seige battle turns out to be just 50 vs 50? LMAO So much for "epic" battles. Like Avery said, it is epic when all 9 battle keeps on a server are going at it at the same time. LOL This is like PoTBS 24 v 24 thing when you have several hundred people per guild. What is the point? LOL This post made my day.
Shannia, would you please go troll the Runescape forums please. your 'LOL' banter is highly annoying and stop padding your post count.. it doesn't make you better than everyone else
You sir, are an idiot. I was mocked and ridiculed when I was saying we'd have 50 vs 50 seige battles and people said I was wrong. There would be 100 vs 100 minimum. Then come to find out, it is just 48 vs 48. I love when any developer proves me right after the Fanbois brigade had to take their shots at me telling me I was full of crap with such small battles.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Just speaking of DAoC the only time it was slideshow like was when it got over 500ish people for me. Seeing battles of 100-300 was never a problem for my computer and I didn't have a fantastic computer back then.
You've never seen 500 people in the same area. I played that game when it was at it's prime on one of the highest populated servers.. and I was in a guild that was in the top 3 on the entire server in PvP. I NEVER saw 500 people.. at relic raids, you might get 200 or so.. 300 was a rarity and I've never seen that first hand. On most servers early on, everyone fought in Hibernia.. even in the most hectic times, you'd only see 50v50.. come on dude.
I'm calling bullshit on that one man.
Maybe you had a better computer than me, but I know I could solo and group without getting slowdown.. so it was good enough for casual play. All I know is that when it got above 100 people on the same screen or vicinity, it started getting choppy..
No he speaks the truth. Many times there were 300-400 on RR slide show if everyone wwas in one area, but ws fairly smooth with the big battles outside everyone at once. 96 people was easily handled during RR. This 48 vs 48 is funny stuff.
No game can stand 1500 people in one area, and that's standing still, not moving.. Maybe 16 bit genesis graphics.. but not graphics that are acceptable by todays standards. Instant crash.
I've personally never bashed POTBS 24 vs 24. I frankly don't care about POBTS at all to be honest.
I think 50 vs 50 is enough. Alterac Valley was 40 vs 40 and that was pretty epic until Blizzard ruined it by removing the zerg and making people focus only on PVE achievements completely ignoring the other side.
50 vs 50 has 20 more then AV and hopefully it will be a big clash instead of two teams ignoring each other like AV. If that happens then 50 vs 50 will be epic.
Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play. Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won. I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc. What part of that is fun? With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side. The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100 and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands. That isnt fun for anyone.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.
There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.
That is one crappy bunch of 48+ people if that happened.
Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play. Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won. I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc. What part of that is fun? With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side. The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100 and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands. That isnt fun for anyone.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.
There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.
Uh, this only happened with spiritmasters spamming their aoe.. and a group of 48, I don't care how bad they are.. will eventually overcome even the most skilled and geared up spiritmaster zerg. God, how I hated that...
Comments
Epic battles compared to what? It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever.. That's 96 people in one area.. That's also a starting number. Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
Also, might want to add 16gigs of DDR5 and a Geforce 15800 Ultra with 3 megs of video memory and a decacore processor running at 5.0ghz... I meant.. it's just not possible.. lol
Wow, so you're saying you would prefer a 100v100, where you get 5 fps on a top notch computer, taking forever to cast a spell, over 48v48, where you can actually, you know, do shit?
Keep in mind there is collision detection for every single player, siege vehicles flinging particle-based fire rocks. Builds will receive damage, mounts come into play, spells will be cast, arrows will be a flyi'n..
That is a lot for any simulator to handle.
A LOT.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city
yea I change my mind, I'de rather have horrible experience with hundreds of people full of lag,disconnects and crashes than an good, clean experience with 100. If you've ever participated in large scale pvp, you'de understand that in AoCs case, 96 is plenty for now. GD the games not even out yet, did you know when wow released battlegrounds weren't even in the game. It was over 8 months before they were implimented.
Ok im one of the biggest supporters of AoC on this site, check my post history, in my opinion I would rather see no limitations. Whose to say anyone would actually ever get a 100 vs. 100 battle, its just thre fact that its possible that i would like it.
I think its lame, and thats my opinion, you people need to watch who you question.
You dont go into battle shooting at your own army.
-Jive
Just speaking of DAoC the only time it was slideshow like was when it got over 500ish people for me. Seeing battles of 100-300 was never a problem for my computer and I didn't have a fantastic computer back then.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city
Yea, but who even plays that game anymore? I guess those 300 people fights weren't enough to keep people around. I'd rather have something my system can handle, than a poorly designed game with 10 year old graphics.. and SWG is no AoC in the graphics department. It's all preference, some people want one thing, other people want something different. And thank goodness for that.
Just remember, Blizzard promised BGs on launch, failed to deliver and a year later, there's BGs.
Calm down, 48v48 is still better than WoW
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city
you can not compare SWG to AoC... graphics and performance.... please, use your head. AoC already has graphics that scale down, such as armors in cities, similiar to guild wars, but with everything that will be involved in these fights, with the graphics in this game... what you want is GD impossible. People already are cursing FC for the high system reqs for the game, for our systems to be able to handle a few hundred players in a siege battle, with everything that entitles, well, 99% of us couldn't afford that rig.
no but everyone keeps saying "if you want to play you have to upgrade your rig" nonsense, which the same goes for the servers.Time moves on, graphics increase, hardware increase, then server capabilities also increase
if swg was able to handle it on older servers with people using older hardware, then newer games should be using newer servers with our newer hardware. everything scales proportionately.
Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play.
Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won.
I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc.
What part of that is fun?
With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side.
The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100 and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands.
That isnt fun for anyone.
The problem is AoCs engine is not scalable enough.
Look at LoTRO for instance;
At max settings it looks beautiful. Its graphics being comparable to vanguard. But I can scale it down to look like the original everquest or AC2 if I have a really crappy comp. Having Ultra/high/medium/low/verylow is a must for MMORPGs to succeed.
I like AoC but it sucks that there is no scalability. It really sucks that my girlfriend cannot play it at all with a 1 year old computer. It plays lotro beautifully with high settings but AoC is a slideshow on it because its not a 512mb card. This game would be AMAZING if it was more scalable.
I am a forum troll hunter. Be afraid trolls, very afraid!
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
So it turns out that seige battle turns out to be just 50 vs 50? LMAO So much for "epic" battles. Like Avery said, it is epic when all 9 battle keeps on a server are going at it at the same time. LOL This is like PoTBS 24 v 24 thing when you have several hundred people per guild. What is the point? LOL This post made my day.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people? I played WoW, the server crashed every single time. I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.
You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it. When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.
Also, might want to add 16gigs of DDR5 and a Geforce 15800 Ultra with 3 megs of video memory and a decacore processor running at 5.0ghz... I meant.. it's just not possible.. lol
From the sounds of it, taking others words... L2 handles this the best as they can have over 1500 people fighting at once. The use a lod system. As the natives are saying now, someone sold them 100's and since it's been done years ago and people want to believe technology moves forward that this was the expectations they were given. Nothing more or less.
Shannia, would you please go troll the Runescape forums please. your 'LOL' banter is highly annoying and stop padding your post count.. it doesn't make you better than everyone else
and yet the ironic part here is...that the same people i see on these forums defending the 48vs48 are the same people who were bashing the 24v24 in potbs
I'm calling bullshit on that one man.
Maybe you had a better computer than me, but I know I could solo and group without getting slowdown.. so it was good enough for casual play. All I know is that when it got above 100 people on the same screen or vicinity, it started getting choppy..
HAHAHAHA AOC s massive battles of epic size rofl.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.
Shannia, would you please go troll the Runescape forums please. your 'LOL' banter is highly annoying and stop padding your post count.. it doesn't make you better than everyone else
You sir, are an idiot. I was mocked and ridiculed when I was saying we'd have 50 vs 50 seige battles and people said I was wrong. There would be 100 vs 100 minimum. Then come to find out, it is just 48 vs 48. I love when any developer proves me right after the Fanbois brigade had to take their shots at me telling me I was full of crap with such small battles.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
I'm calling bullshit on that one man.
Maybe you had a better computer than me, but I know I could solo and group without getting slowdown.. so it was good enough for casual play. All I know is that when it got above 100 people on the same screen or vicinity, it started getting choppy..
No he speaks the truth. Many times there were 300-400 on RR slide show if everyone wwas in one area, but ws fairly smooth with the big battles outside everyone at once. 96 people was easily handled during RR. This 48 vs 48 is funny stuff.
No game can stand 1500 people in one area, and that's standing still, not moving.. Maybe 16 bit genesis graphics.. but not graphics that are acceptable by todays standards. Instant crash.
I've personally never bashed POTBS 24 vs 24. I frankly don't care about POBTS at all to be honest.
I think 50 vs 50 is enough. Alterac Valley was 40 vs 40 and that was pretty epic until Blizzard ruined it by removing the zerg and making people focus only on PVE achievements completely ignoring the other side.
50 vs 50 has 20 more then AV and hopefully it will be a big clash instead of two teams ignoring each other like AV. If that happens then 50 vs 50 will be epic.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.
That is one crappy bunch of 48+ people if that happened.
then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.
8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.
Uh, this only happened with spiritmasters spamming their aoe.. and a group of 48, I don't care how bad they are.. will eventually overcome even the most skilled and geared up spiritmaster zerg. God, how I hated that...