If you ever played EVE and got involved in an "epic" space battle you'll know these massive battles never really work. It turns into a frustrating slide show of a lagfest where you hear you're dead over vent then see it 20 mins later. I've been playing Battlefield for the last year instead of MMORPGs, the largest is a 64 player map. The side with the best organization always wins. Good squad leaders with members that follow orders + good commander = victory 99.9% of the time, unless the enemy does the same then it's a real good fight win or lose. AoC having 96 players for a siege is just fine, I get decent performance and the side that is most organized along the lines of Battlefield wins. Although here you have greater differences in skill so maybe you'll get the odd skilled warrior leading the charge. If you had 500 per battle most players wouldn't even see the battle, I've never participated in a massive battle of 100 vs 100 or more where the majority didn't lag out and only witness a slide show.
You have never been in a Lineage 2 siege with 1000 people. The feeling is not the same. If you have never been in one, then you can't understand the feeling.
Squad based battle is not WAR. When thinking about castle siege, I think WAR. Great battle is always chaotic, even the most organized one. Come on, 48 people trying to take down a castle with 2 layers of wall? What about those siege weapon? they gonna run them self? or just have one person push it? That's a freaking toy, not siege weapon.
Do you realize how funny it is when you stand on your wall and you see 48 people running up? You gonna need 48 freaking Titans. Not even 48 Conans can siege a castle with 2 layers of fortified walls.
Not refuting your claim, but do you have a screenshot of 1000 players seiging a castle in Lineage 2? Since I can't recall every seeing a screenshot in an MMORPG of over 100 ppl in one place without 50% of the players lagging. Also how does L2 overcome lag? Since 1000 players in an area where they're in visual distance of eachother would crash the server, they must have cut it up into several instances?
As for having 48 players seige a castle, it might not seem realistic outside of Conan lore but we aren't when we're playing AoC. If you want to be a member of the 1000 forgotten cannon fodder then fine, but I'd rather be one of the esteemed 48 heroes that stormed a castle and will be remembered. I suppose it just comes down to personal taste in that respect.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
another nail in the "revolutionary next-gen" coffin...
WotLK is going to have better world PvP than the "revolutionary next-gen" AoC.
I'll let that sink in with you people.
As I said a while ago, boobs and DX10 doth not a next-gen make.
I suppose they'll soon announce that siege battles will be instanced after all... No point in limiting the number of participants otherwise.
Another half-assed badly thought out game design solution from FC. These people were so taken with gfx and lore that I suppose not one of them sat down and thought how to actually make these awesome ideas actually work from a pure game design perspective... Scheduled siege time windows?? Man, I'd fire the lot of them... and send them back to designing Risk variants for homework (it's a lot harder than it sounds)
To me there seems to be 2 bottlenecks in getting larger and larger pvp battles.
1) Bandwidth - Download speeds are pretty impressive these days (mine is 12meg/sec on ADSL2+) but upload speeds are still pretty dire I get 768 k/sec and that is a pretty good package. No matter how much data you can recieve from the game servers you can't just seem to upload it quick enough for something like this.
Coupled with ISP's using traffic shaping etc to reduce bandwidth avaliable and you have a pretty big bottleneck.
2)Organisation - getting a 20 man raid going in a MMO at times can be a feat let alone 48 vs 48. People are quoting these "epic" battles that were on other MMO's and all I can remember is that there was a ton of waiting while everybody was getting ready then a server melt kicking everybody off. Not my idea of fun.
I think a 48 vs 48 pvp is going to be plenty to be getting on with for now.
If you ever played EVE and got involved in an "epic" space battle you'll know these massive battles never really work. It turns into a frustrating slide show of a lagfest where you hear you're dead over vent then see it 20 mins later. I've been playing Battlefield for the last year instead of MMORPGs, the largest is a 64 player map. The side with the best organization always wins. Good squad leaders with members that follow orders + good commander = victory 99.9% of the time, unless the enemy does the same then it's a real good fight win or lose. AoC having 96 players for a siege is just fine, I get decent performance and the side that is most organized along the lines of Battlefield wins. Although here you have greater differences in skill so maybe you'll get the odd skilled warrior leading the charge. If you had 500 per battle most players wouldn't even see the battle, I've never participated in a massive battle of 100 vs 100 or more where the majority didn't lag out and only witness a slide show.
You have never been in a Lineage 2 siege with 1000 people. The feeling is not the same. If you have never been in one, then you can't understand the feeling.
Squad based battle is not WAR. When thinking about castle siege, I think WAR. Great battle is always chaotic, even the most organized one. Come on, 48 people trying to take down a castle with 2 layers of wall? What about those siege weapon? they gonna run them self? or just have one person push it? That's a freaking toy, not siege weapon.
Do you realize how funny it is when you stand on your wall and you see 48 people running up? You gonna need 48 freaking Titans. Not even 48 Conans can siege a castle with 2 layers of fortified walls.
Not refuting your claim, but do you have a screenshot of 1000 players seiging a castle in Lineage 2? Since I can't recall every seeing a screenshot in an MMORPG of over 100 ppl in one place without 50% of the players lagging. Also how does L2 overcome lag? Since 1000 players in an area where they're in visual distance of eachother would crash the server, they must have cut it up into several instances?
As for having 48 players seige a castle, it might not seem realistic outside of Conan lore but we aren't when we're playing AoC. If you want to be a member of the 1000 forgotten cannon fodder then fine, but I'd rather be one of the esteemed 48 heroes that stormed a castle and will be remembered. I suppose it just comes down to personal taste in that respect.
old SS, couldnt find bigger ones cause there weren't that many factor clans when I was playing, but this one had over 500 people fighting and I had no lag at all in my old computer.
That was a common fight for a raid boss, sieges could go well over 700 people when I was playing, and saw videos with hella massive sieges in C2, finalelf Dion siege video could have way more than 1000 people, and its 3 years old already.
If you dont have anything insigthful to add, please, advoid looking like a retard for everyone who has played L2 in this forum. Those battles were fought once every 5 days and people kept doing them over and over.
The doomsayers are forgetting about how graphically intense the game is. (actually they're not, just just whining like children yet again) With so many people on screen at once you'd just be here complaining about lag next, so get a grip, get a clue, and get over it.
As for epic battles, The last battle I was in while I played SWG years ago with my commando probably had 200+ people. With all settings turned all the way down, and the systemflush command on auto recycle via macro, it was lag fest city. Luckily though as long as I stayed on the outskirts of the battle I did ok.
I can hear it now
Quote from whiner "ZOMG they've lifted the cap on sieges and now I can't play cause of lag ZOMGWTFBBQ FC you dropped the ball on this one, I'm gonna go whine on mmorpg.com's forums about how you lied to us and cheated me out my mommy and daddys hard earned money" Of course it will have worse grammar and spelling then what I just threw out, and have numbers replacing letters and things like that.
The doomsayers are forgetting about how graphically intense the game is. (actually they're not, just just whining like children yet again) With so many people on screen at once you'd just be here complaining about lag next, so get a grip, get a clue, and get over it.
As for epic battles, The last battle I was in while I played SWG years ago with my commando probably had 200+ people. With all settings turned all the way down, and the systemflush command on auto recycle via macro, it was lag fest city. Luckily though as long as I stayed on the outskirts of the battle I did ok.
I can hear it now
Quote from whiner "ZOMG they've lifted the cap on sieges and now I can't play cause of lag ZOMGWTFBBQ FC you dropped the ball on this one, I'm gonna go whine on mmorpg.com's forums about how you lied to us and cheated me out my mommy and daddys hard earned money" Of course it will have worse grammar and spelling then what I just threw out, and have numbers replacing letters and things like that.
Ephimero, there were about 50 people in that screenshot so don't be offended if I don't take your word for it that there was 500 and you ran it on an old rig 3 years ago. I however refuse to believe there are 1000 man seiges in L2 or anyother MMORPG for that matter. It would crash the sertver having 1000 ppl in one place, it's as simple as that. Your screenshot reminded me of one of the towns in GW, and if you look at the chat window in your screenshot someone is complaining about lag spikes!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
8v8 and 48v48 good in mmorps?! Dont u guys see that u pay for every month fee to play in huge hub? 100v100 should be lowest least before tis game is massive pvp game.
8v8 and 48v48 good in mmorps?! Dont u guys see that u pay for every month fee to play in huge hub? 100v100 should be lowest least before tis game is massive pvp game. <modedit>
There is nothing wrong with 48v48 battles, anyone with a low-mid range computer would have issues with anything higher. Even with a high end rig you'll still run into issues with massive amounts of players on screen.
<modedit>
~ ~
Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
8v8 and 48v48 good in mmorps?! Dont u guys see that u pay for every month fee to play in huge hub? 100v100 should be lowest least before tis game is massive pvp game. <modedit>
There is nothing wrong with 48v48 battles, anyone with a low-mid range computer would have issues with anything higher. Even with a high end rig you'll still run into issues with massive amounts of players on screen. <modedit>
Then buy better computer, thats ur proplem, not game
8v8 and 48v48 good in mmorps?! Dont u guys see that u pay for every month fee to play in huge hub? 100v100 should be lowest least before tis game is massive pvp game. <modedit>
no it isnt 100v100 cause FC doesnt want it to be, u dont like it?
then dont play and let the ppl who do play enjoy it themselves
MMOs currently playing: - About to play: Lord of the Rings Online Played: Anarchy Online (alltime favorite) and lots of f2p titles (honorable mentions: 9Dragons, Martial Heroes, Dekaron, Atlantica Online)
To me there seems to be 2 bottlenecks in getting larger and larger pvp battles. 1) Bandwidth - Download speeds are pretty impressive these days (mine is 12meg/sec on ADSL2+) but upload speeds are still pretty dire I get 768 k/sec and that is a pretty good package. No matter how much data you can recieve from the game servers you can't just seem to upload it quick enough for something like this. Coupled with ISP's using traffic shaping etc to reduce bandwidth avaliable and you have a pretty big bottleneck.
... What? You do realize for normal gameplay you'll use something like 5 kB/s upload right? And lets face it, the amount of information you send to the server doesn't scale anywhere close to the amount of information the server sends to you. What you send to the server will be things regarding your characters movement, attacks and such, it will be roughly the same whether it's 1 person or 100 people around you.
If your ISP's traffic shaping makes your game traffic low priority, you should call them and tell them they're a bunch of retards and then find a new ISP, since they obviously have no clue what they are doing (and should lose 50 DKP)
yeah i remember them saying this also, think it might have been in an interview with jason stone (hope thats the right name). They can hold about 500 total people but they have a system in place that if they choose they can make it so only 100 of the closest people to you are visable to cut down on lag and such.
Originally posted by HorrorScope
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Originally posted by HorrorScope
They have mentioned numbers around 500 prior and these sieges are also instanced.
Naw, they have said they hope to have over 100 people in a siege, they have also said back in August last year that they did have 200 and something people on screen at once in a siege in testing, on unoptimized engine with massive lag. mmorpg.com has the siege video 20 something mins long streaming here.
1. So where is the 200 at now a year later?
2. I'm am reporting to you the 500 is a quote from them not that long ago.
Despite desperate attempts at damage control, historical revisionism concerning past promises by the developers that have proven to be wrong or sycophantic apologist lowering there expectations and standards.
48 v 48 max players (if this is confirmed) is not epic or massive neither does it have anything revolutionary or next generation about it at all, these look a lot more like the average multiplayer FPS player server numbers then the sort of number you would expect from a massive multiplayer online game.
For people who are attempting to make excuses about technical limitations limiting the maximum number of players in a siege have you considered that many players might still experience unacceptable problems even with a 96 player limit considering this games requirements.
Or that a core design principle for any MMO that plans to have epic/massive siege battles as one of its major features should be a game engine that adequately dynamically scales its performance depending on the number of players on screen, or any of the other solutions to allow battles with hundreds of players demonstrated by many other MMO’s some of which are many years old.
Any people professing to be perfectly happy with sieges limited to under 100 players or not understanding why its important should consider why even the developers of the game themselves appeared to put so much emphasis on it when making numerous references to epic/massive siege battles with hundreds of players whilst promoting this as a major feature of there game in the past.
Hopefully the developers will be able to further optimize the engine and increase the maximum number of players in the future after launch, if they cant then it seems that graphics certainly have taken precedence over game play in this instance.
Ephimero, there were about 50 people in that screenshot so don't be offended if I don't take your word for it that there was 500 and you ran it on an old rig 3 years ago. I however refuse to believe there are 1000 man seiges in L2 or anyother MMORPG for that matter. It would crash the sertver having 1000 ppl in one place, it's as simple as that. Your screenshot reminded me of one of the towns in GW, and if you look at the chat window in your screenshot someone is complaining about lag spikes!
The 30's whant his mythos of computer exploding back. Theres nothing magical of "strong" on have 1000 players on a single location. And well coded code will not crash with a overload of data. Today people use templates and standard objects like stacks and dynamic list, that support and unlimited number of items. Static arrays are confined to poorly coded C freeware apps on 1998.
Are we talking about 100x100 arena battles ? 48 ppl in one side is a joke. Specially considering that the talk has been about 500 in podcasts. Funny that the same podcast talked about spellweaving beeing in at start...
How much can you trust a single word of what Funcom is saying ? Answer is Zero. You can't trust anything. THey are just selling you promises that they are just fine in not delivering when you have preordered the game.
Are we talking about 100x100 arena battles ? 48 ppl in one side is a joke. Specially considering that the talk has been about 500 in podcasts. Funny that the same podcast talked about spellweaving beeing in at start... How much can you trust a single word of what Funcom is saying ? Answer is Zero. You can't trust anything. THey are just selling you promises that they are just fine in not delivering when you have preordered the game.
lol the noobs think that a 100v100 or even more would work, ugh how sad.
Shadowbane barley pulled that off, but they didnt even add limits! And guess what? it was awesome and I have seen battles of like 200v200+....but the thing is....
Half the people were constantly getting disconnected, and the lag was horrible.....
I think 48v48 will be managable, and im sure they will improve this number over time.Really want your guild city destoryed by a zerg of 300+ against your force of 30-40 if your a casual guild?
lol the noobs think that a 100v100 or even more would work, ugh how sad. Shadowbane barley pulled that off, but they didnt even add limits! And guess what? it was awesome and I have seen battles of like 200v200+....but the thing is.... Half the people were constantly getting disconnected, and the lag was horrible..... I think 48v48 will be managable, and im sure they will improve this number over time.Really want your guild city destoryed by a zerg of 300+ against your force of 30-40 if your a casual guild?
Whats the point of the mercenary system? 100 vs 100 can work just not in this game.
I can understand that if you really like the game, you will defend it tooth and nail, even to defend 48v48 as "epic", but don't start underestimating how successful mass pvp was in L2 and DAOC. It's an insult to games that were successes to a game that has yet to prove itself.
They have shown guild fights on the hd gaming channel in lineage 2 that have had confirmed numbers around 800 people. Lineage 2 is undoubtedly the most successful for a game that has great graphics for its time and can handle REAL large scale pvp.
As far as DAOC, I played on Tristan Hibernia, and we were commonly in fights with each side having around 100 people (3 sides Hibs Albs Mids) on the same battlefield in new frontiers and I had little to no lag on max settings. Granted I had a good computer for the game back then, but as we all know from the ever growing e-peen, many apparently have uberzomg rigs for aoc and the limit on pvp in instances is pathetic.
Comments
Squad based battle is not WAR. When thinking about castle siege, I think WAR. Great battle is always chaotic, even the most organized one. Come on, 48 people trying to take down a castle with 2 layers of wall? What about those siege weapon? they gonna run them self? or just have one person push it? That's a freaking toy, not siege weapon.
Do you realize how funny it is when you stand on your wall and you see 48 people running up? You gonna need 48 freaking Titans. Not even 48 Conans can siege a castle with 2 layers of fortified walls.
Not refuting your claim, but do you have a screenshot of 1000 players seiging a castle in Lineage 2? Since I can't recall every seeing a screenshot in an MMORPG of over 100 ppl in one place without 50% of the players lagging. Also how does L2 overcome lag? Since 1000 players in an area where they're in visual distance of eachother would crash the server, they must have cut it up into several instances?
As for having 48 players seige a castle, it might not seem realistic outside of Conan lore but we aren't when we're playing AoC. If you want to be a member of the 1000 forgotten cannon fodder then fine, but I'd rather be one of the esteemed 48 heroes that stormed a castle and will be remembered. I suppose it just comes down to personal taste in that respect.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Lol...
another nail in the "revolutionary next-gen" coffin...
WotLK is going to have better world PvP than the "revolutionary next-gen" AoC.
I'll let that sink in with you people.
As I said a while ago, boobs and DX10 doth not a next-gen make.
I suppose they'll soon announce that siege battles will be instanced after all... No point in limiting the number of participants otherwise.
Another half-assed badly thought out game design solution from FC. These people were so taken with gfx and lore that I suppose not one of them sat down and thought how to actually make these awesome ideas actually work from a pure game design perspective... Scheduled siege time windows?? Man, I'd fire the lot of them... and send them back to designing Risk variants for homework (it's a lot harder than it sounds)
48 vs 48 with Conans graphics is more than enough and impressive.
Its least to say a step up from WoWs cartoon gfx with alterac valley 40 vs 40.
If they can pull 48 s 48 off with those gfx than I'm impressed.
To me there seems to be 2 bottlenecks in getting larger and larger pvp battles.
1) Bandwidth - Download speeds are pretty impressive these days (mine is 12meg/sec on ADSL2+) but upload speeds are still pretty dire I get 768 k/sec and that is a pretty good package. No matter how much data you can recieve from the game servers you can't just seem to upload it quick enough for something like this.
Coupled with ISP's using traffic shaping etc to reduce bandwidth avaliable and you have a pretty big bottleneck.
2)Organisation - getting a 20 man raid going in a MMO at times can be a feat let alone 48 vs 48. People are quoting these "epic" battles that were on other MMO's and all I can remember is that there was a ton of waiting while everybody was getting ready then a server melt kicking everybody off. Not my idea of fun.
I think a 48 vs 48 pvp is going to be plenty to be getting on with for now.
You have never been in a Lineage 2 siege with 1000 people. The feeling is not the same. If you have never been in one, then you can't understand the feeling.Squad based battle is not WAR. When thinking about castle siege, I think WAR. Great battle is always chaotic, even the most organized one. Come on, 48 people trying to take down a castle with 2 layers of wall? What about those siege weapon? they gonna run them self? or just have one person push it? That's a freaking toy, not siege weapon.
Do you realize how funny it is when you stand on your wall and you see 48 people running up? You gonna need 48 freaking Titans. Not even 48 Conans can siege a castle with 2 layers of fortified walls.
Not refuting your claim, but do you have a screenshot of 1000 players seiging a castle in Lineage 2? Since I can't recall every seeing a screenshot in an MMORPG of over 100 ppl in one place without 50% of the players lagging. Also how does L2 overcome lag? Since 1000 players in an area where they're in visual distance of eachother would crash the server, they must have cut it up into several instances?
As for having 48 players seige a castle, it might not seem realistic outside of Conan lore but we aren't when we're playing AoC. If you want to be a member of the 1000 forgotten cannon fodder then fine, but I'd rather be one of the esteemed 48 heroes that stormed a castle and will be remembered. I suppose it just comes down to personal taste in that respect.
old SS, couldnt find bigger ones cause there weren't that many factor clans when I was playing, but this one had over 500 people fighting and I had no lag at all in my old computer.
That was a common fight for a raid boss, sieges could go well over 700 people when I was playing, and saw videos with hella massive sieges in C2, finalelf Dion siege video could have way more than 1000 people, and its 3 years old already.
If you dont have anything insigthful to add, please, advoid looking like a retard for everyone who has played L2 in this forum. Those battles were fought once every 5 days and people kept doing them over and over.
The doomsayers are forgetting about how graphically intense the game is. (actually they're not, just just whining like children yet again) With so many people on screen at once you'd just be here complaining about lag next, so get a grip, get a clue, and get over it.
As for epic battles, The last battle I was in while I played SWG years ago with my commando probably had 200+ people. With all settings turned all the way down, and the systemflush command on auto recycle via macro, it was lag fest city. Luckily though as long as I stayed on the outskirts of the battle I did ok.
I can hear it now
Quote from whiner "ZOMG they've lifted the cap on sieges and now I can't play cause of lag ZOMGWTFBBQ FC you dropped the ball on this one, I'm gonna go whine on mmorpg.com's forums about how you lied to us and cheated me out my mommy and daddys hard earned money" Of course it will have worse grammar and spelling then what I just threw out, and have numbers replacing letters and things like that.
Whine on
Want a taste of religion? Lick a witch.
Dream on lol
Ephimero, there were about 50 people in that screenshot so don't be offended if I don't take your word for it that there was 500 and you ran it on an old rig 3 years ago. I however refuse to believe there are 1000 man seiges in L2 or anyother MMORPG for that matter. It would crash the sertver having 1000 ppl in one place, it's as simple as that. Your screenshot reminded me of one of the towns in GW, and if you look at the chat window in your screenshot someone is complaining about lag spikes!
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience"
CS Lewis
Im trying to find more ss out of the webs I used to host my pics in, my 800x600 res back then didn't really help :<
8v8 and 48v48 good in mmorps?! Dont u guys see that u pay for every month fee to play in huge hub? 100v100 should be lowest least before tis game is massive pvp game.
<modedit>
There is nothing wrong with 48v48 battles, anyone with a low-mid range computer would have issues with anything higher. Even with a high end rig you'll still run into issues with massive amounts of players on screen.
<modedit>
~ ~
Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
There is nothing wrong with 48v48 battles, anyone with a low-mid range computer would have issues with anything higher. Even with a high end rig you'll still run into issues with massive amounts of players on screen.
<modedit>
Then buy better computer, thats ur proplem, not game
no it isnt 100v100 cause FC doesnt want it to be, u dont like it?
then dont play and let the ppl who do play enjoy it themselves
MMOs currently playing: -
About to play: Lord of the Rings Online
Played: Anarchy Online (alltime favorite) and lots of f2p titles (honorable mentions: 9Dragons, Martial Heroes, Dekaron, Atlantica Online)
If your ISP's traffic shaping makes your game traffic low priority, you should call them and tell them they're a bunch of retards and then find a new ISP, since they obviously have no clue what they are doing (and should lose 50 DKP)
Naw, they have said they hope to have over 100 people in a siege, they have also said back in August last year that they did have 200 and something people on screen at once in a siege in testing, on unoptimized engine with massive lag. mmorpg.com has the siege video 20 something mins long streaming here.
1. So where is the 200 at now a year later?
2. I'm am reporting to you the 500 is a quote from them not that long ago.
Despite desperate attempts at damage control, historical revisionism concerning past promises by the developers that have proven to be wrong or sycophantic apologist lowering there expectations and standards.
48 v 48 max players (if this is confirmed) is not epic or massive neither does it have anything revolutionary or next generation about it at all, these look a lot more like the average multiplayer FPS player server numbers then the sort of number you would expect from a massive multiplayer online game.
For people who are attempting to make excuses about technical limitations limiting the maximum number of players in a siege have you considered that many players might still experience unacceptable problems even with a 96 player limit considering this games requirements.
Or that a core design principle for any MMO that plans to have epic/massive siege battles as one of its major features should be a game engine that adequately dynamically scales its performance depending on the number of players on screen, or any of the other solutions to allow battles with hundreds of players demonstrated by many other MMO’s some of which are many years old.
Any people professing to be perfectly happy with sieges limited to under 100 players or not understanding why its important should consider why even the developers of the game themselves appeared to put so much emphasis on it when making numerous references to epic/massive siege battles with hundreds of players whilst promoting this as a major feature of there game in the past.
Hopefully the developers will be able to further optimize the engine and increase the maximum number of players in the future after launch, if they cant then it seems that graphics certainly have taken precedence over game play in this instance.
The 30's whant his mythos of computer exploding back. Theres nothing magical of "strong" on have 1000 players on a single location. And well coded code will not crash with a overload of data. Today people use templates and standard objects like stacks and dynamic list, that support and unlimited number of items. Static arrays are confined to poorly coded C freeware apps on 1998.
Are we talking about 100x100 arena battles ? 48 ppl in one side is a joke. Specially considering that the talk has been about 500 in podcasts. Funny that the same podcast talked about spellweaving beeing in at start...
How much can you trust a single word of what Funcom is saying ? Answer is Zero. You can't trust anything. THey are just selling you promises that they are just fine in not delivering when you have preordered the game.
Yes beta is going to be a long one.
lol the noobs think that a 100v100 or even more would work, ugh how sad.
Shadowbane barley pulled that off, but they didnt even add limits! And guess what? it was awesome and I have seen battles of like 200v200+....but the thing is....
Half the people were constantly getting disconnected, and the lag was horrible.....
I think 48v48 will be managable, and im sure they will improve this number over time.Really want your guild city destoryed by a zerg of 300+ against your force of 30-40 if your a casual guild?
I play all ghame
Whats the point of the mercenary system? 100 vs 100 can work just not in this game.
If they cant make it playable with more than 48x48 players...leave it as it is.More people will cry later on lagging/crashing than now.
Playable and fun...the "golden combination" of any MMO.
200x200 or 300x300 will be fun,infinite zerging,uber chaos etc....but it wont be playable.
I'm more curious as to why so many people are ignoring the youtube vid and what was said in it.
I can understand that if you really like the game, you will defend it tooth and nail, even to defend 48v48 as "epic", but don't start underestimating how successful mass pvp was in L2 and DAOC. It's an insult to games that were successes to a game that has yet to prove itself.
They have shown guild fights on the hd gaming channel in lineage 2 that have had confirmed numbers around 800 people. Lineage 2 is undoubtedly the most successful for a game that has great graphics for its time and can handle REAL large scale pvp.
As far as DAOC, I played on Tristan Hibernia, and we were commonly in fights with each side having around 100 people (3 sides Hibs Albs Mids) on the same battlefield in new frontiers and I had little to no lag on max settings. Granted I had a good computer for the game back then, but as we all know from the ever growing e-peen, many apparently have uberzomg rigs for aoc and the limit on pvp in instances is pathetic.