seems to me like the people here are just afraid of having to actually have any level of personal skill or leadership be involved with their pvp. 48 v 48 IS epic. I'm sorry people but it is. 100 v 100? Thats chaos thats not epic.
Personally i'm extremely glad for this since it makes one thing more important.
1. Guilds.
Mercenaries(imho) are supposed to be fillers, there to just boost your guild. Theres 8 keeps right? Guess what? that means only 8 guilds can have keeps at a given time. 300 people super guilds would basically just sit in their keep during open times and never get it taken, and if someone managed to even gather 300 people to fight back, they could merc in even more players, and then they'd never lose it.
Over time smaller guilds would die off, and there would be 8 guilds each holding a keep, any new guild can never get a keep. Keeps never change hands. The only time someone actually sieges a keep is when one guild would manage to screw over a another guild, either through one being the super guild and having built a force large enough to take the smallest guilds keep. Or busting up the guild form the inside.
That's not fun. That's shit. Plain and utter shit. I may be alone here, but i'd actually want to... ummm.. i dunno... ACTUALLY HAVE KEEP SIEGES WHERE WE HAD TO WORK TO KEEP AND TAKE THEM.
not just bring more and more and more players untill you overwhelm the enemy.
seems to me like the people here are just afraid of having to actually have any level of personal skill or leadership be involved with their pvp. 48 v 48 IS epic. I'm sorry people but it is. 100 v 100? Thats chaos thats not epic. Personally i'm extremely glad for this since it makes one thing more important. 1. Guilds. Mercenaries(imho) are supposed to be fillers, there to just boost your guild. Theres 8 keeps right? Guess what? that means only 8 guilds can have keeps at a given time. 300 people super guilds would basically just sit in their keep during open times and never get it taken, and if someone managed to even gather 300 people to fight back, they could merc in even more players, and then they'd never lose it. Over time smaller guilds would die off, and there would be 8 guilds each holding a keep, any new guild can never get a keep. Keeps never change hands. The only time someone actually sieges a keep is when one guild would manage to screw over a another guild, either through one being the super guild and having built a force large enough to take the smallest guilds keep. Or busting up the guild form the inside. That's not fun. That's shit. Plain and utter shit. I may be alone here, but i'd actually want to... ummm.. i dunno... ACTUALLY HAVE KEEP SIEGES WHERE WE HAD TO WORK TO KEEP AND TAKE THEM.
not just bring more and more and more players untill you overwhelm the enemy.
You're not alone mate, I played EVE where seiges meant massive lagfests and the biggest corp/alliance won. Skill or equipment never came into it, it was about amassing a massive force bigger than your enemy and enough to lag him out. Yeah lag was one of the main weapons involved, so no matter how quick the enemy reacts he can't stop you.
All this talk of seiges involving 500 vs 500 or even 250 vs 250, I say screenshot or it never happened. Even in EVE they had to close down Jita when it had too 500 people in it, and they weren't all in the same place fighting even! Remember too that EVE runs on the most powerful civilian computer in the world, and that can't handle seiges of 100 vs 100. So I don't understand how L2 running on some shitty server with a cap of about 6000 can handle 1000 ppl all in one place. Like I said sceenshot or it never happened.
As for 48 vs 48, it leaves seige warfare open to all, and it gives guilds of all sizes the chance to own a keep. It comes down to skill and organization rather than having the fat 900lb gorilla guild just barging through the server and everyone either leaving or joining them.
Wehter a battle with 96 people in it is epic or not then that's your decision, Funcom never promised larger battles but certainly did hint and insinuate it. They made a last minute decision to piss off some people now rather than piss off everyone when they tried an epic seige for the first time and everyone lagged and CTDed.
"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"
seems to me like the people here are just afraid of having to actually have any level of personal skill or leadership be involved with their pvp. 48 v 48 IS epic. I'm sorry people but it is. 100 v 100? Thats chaos thats not epic. Personally i'm extremely glad for this since it makes one thing more important. 1. Guilds. Mercenaries(imho) are supposed to be fillers, there to just boost your guild. Theres 8 keeps right? Guess what? that means only 8 guilds can have keeps at a given time. 300 people super guilds would basically just sit in their keep during open times and never get it taken, and if someone managed to even gather 300 people to fight back, they could merc in even more players, and then they'd never lose it. Over time smaller guilds would die off, and there would be 8 guilds each holding a keep, any new guild can never get a keep. Keeps never change hands. The only time someone actually sieges a keep is when one guild would manage to screw over a another guild, either through one being the super guild and having built a force large enough to take the smallest guilds keep. Or busting up the guild form the inside. That's not fun. That's shit. Plain and utter shit. I may be alone here, but i'd actually want to... ummm.. i dunno... ACTUALLY HAVE KEEP SIEGES WHERE WE HAD TO WORK TO KEEP AND TAKE THEM.
not just bring more and more and more players untill you overwhelm the enemy.
You're not alone mate, I played EVE where seiges meant massive lagfests and the biggest corp/alliance won. Skill or equipment never came into it, it was about amassing a massive force bigger than your enemy and enough to lag him out. Yeah lag was one of the main weapons involved, so no matter how quick the enemy reacts he can't stop you.
All this talk of seiges involving 500 vs 500 or even 250 vs 250, I say screenshot or it never happened. Even in EVE they had to close down Jita when it had too 500 people in it, and they weren't all in the same place fighting even! Remember too that EVE runs on the most powerful civilian computer in the world, and that can't handle seiges of 100 vs 100. So I don't understand how L2 running on some shitty server with a cap of about 6000 can handle 1000 ppl all in one place. Like I said sceenshot or it never happened.
As for 48 vs 48, it leaves seige warfare open to all, and it gives guilds of all sizes the chance to own a keep. It comes down to skill and organization rather than having the fat 900lb gorilla guild just barging through the server and everyone either leaving or joining them.
Wehter a battle with 96 people in it is epic or not then that's your decision, Funcom never promised larger battles but certainly did hint and insinuate it. They made a last minute decision to piss off some people now rather than piss off everyone when they tried an epic seige for the first time and everyone lagged and CTDed.
that's the way i feel. but i see why some people would be upset. it's very shady to do a bait and switch. i personally like the decision. even if the servers could handle the stress, i don't like the idea of who ever has the most people win.
To me, it doesn't sound like bait and switch. It sounds like a change of plans, due to issues in performance, latency, or simply gameplay, and then choosing a suitable number and balancing around that.
How do you keep sieges competitive, a guild based activity(sorry mercs, your not that important, the entire merc system is to let "loners" have "some" use. Not be the "requirement".) Without expanding the end game pvp guild features into something that most guilds can never hope to even have a shot at? By limiting numbers to a large but pheasible amount.
With a size of 48 it means that a guild can have roughly 30 people active at any given time, and merc in 18 people, while having a staple playerbase of 40-50 being ideal.
Not only does this discourage zerging, but it ADDS strategy elements, such as dividing up players into smaller groups to help hinder the attackers, defend key points and issue counter strikes from the side, or many many other features of little micro management strategy, that zergs will just... zerg.
To me, it doesn't sound like bait and switch. It sounds like a change of plans, due to issues in performance, latency, or simply gameplay, and then choosing a suitable number and balancing around that. How do you keep sieges competitive, a guild based activity(sorry mercs, your not that important, the entire merc system is to let "loners" have "some" use. Not be the "requirement".) Without expanding the end game pvp guild features into something that most guilds can never hope to even have a shot at? By limiting numbers to a large but pheasible amount. With a size of 48 it means that a guild can have roughly 30 people active at any given time, and merc in 18 people, while having a staple playerbase of 40-50 being ideal. Not only does this discourage zerging, but it ADDS strategy elements, such as dividing up players into smaller groups to help hinder the attackers, defend key points and issue counter strikes from the side, or many many other features of little micro management strategy, that zergs will just... zerg.
Good points, i dont agree but i can see where u are coming from.
Now why wouldnt FC tell its customer base about this?
To me, it doesn't sound like bait and switch. It sounds like a change of plans, due to issues in performance, latency, or simply gameplay, and then choosing a suitable number and balancing around that. How do you keep sieges competitive, a guild based activity(sorry mercs, your not that important, the entire merc system is to let "loners" have "some" use. Not be the "requirement".) Without expanding the end game pvp guild features into something that most guilds can never hope to even have a shot at? By limiting numbers to a large but pheasible amount. With a size of 48 it means that a guild can have roughly 30 people active at any given time, and merc in 18 people, while having a staple playerbase of 40-50 being ideal. Not only does this discourage zerging, but it ADDS strategy elements, such as dividing up players into smaller groups to help hinder the attackers, defend key points and issue counter strikes from the side, or many many other features of little micro management strategy, that zergs will just... zerg.
Good points, i dont agree but i can see where u are coming from.
Now why wouldnt FC tell its customer base about this?
Maybe because they still plan to add in larger pvp style content in the future? I really don't know, it could have been developed with both styles(open and zerg) vs (closed and guild based) and that they we're trying to work on getting the open version ready, and simply couldn't complete it in time.
Every game makes grandoise promises, with the intent to deliver, but it doesn't always work out that way. I bet they are eating crow over having to break their promises, and i bet they are the ones making the biggest crow pies. At the end of the day, it simply is how it is.
I have complete belief that they never intended to perform a bait and switch, but were simply not left with any other option.
Like i said, i don't know. I don't work for FC. I don't know all the decisions behind capping it. I don't know if they have any other plans for large scale raids.
Maybe FC is thinking of raising the cap sometime in the future, they did say it was 96 "for now". Perhaps they want to take a cautious approach, see what is possible later on and if larger seiges are viable then ask if people want to try raising the cap?
I'm not a mind reader but it seems FC has the option to set the cap wherever they wish as they've demonstrated with larger seiges in the past. I'm certain raising it slowly overtime and recording the reaction is better than lowering it after launch because everyone lags and crashes and then they make a bee line to the forums to piss and moan constantly?
Just my thoughts on the reason behind this decision to go with a 96 man cap.
"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"
To me, it doesn't sound like bait and switch. It sounds like a change of plans, due to issues in performance, latency, or simply gameplay, and then choosing a suitable number and balancing around that. How do you keep sieges competitive, a guild based activity(sorry mercs, your not that important, the entire merc system is to let "loners" have "some" use. Not be the "requirement".) Without expanding the end game pvp guild features into something that most guilds can never hope to even have a shot at? By limiting numbers to a large but pheasible amount. With a size of 48 it means that a guild can have roughly 30 people active at any given time, and merc in 18 people, while having a staple playerbase of 40-50 being ideal. Not only does this discourage zerging, but it ADDS strategy elements, such as dividing up players into smaller groups to help hinder the attackers, defend key points and issue counter strikes from the side, or many many other features of little micro management strategy, that zergs will just... zerg.
yep everything in there is true and that's what i like about the cap.
but as i was following the game i got the impression also that it would be 100's of people involved. even tho they didn't give exact numbers. they did say 100's.
"we have done various testing where at one point in time we had a few hundred people logged into one player city at one time"
"for example you might have a battle that has 500 people in it"
"the servers won't have a problem with it"
"eliminate npcs so we could have 500 people in one battle"
"i feel confident that, from what i seen i seen during the beta, that we are going to deliver on those massive battles, and have a ton of players in the same area fighting"
When it all starts, the battle can be a scene of complete chaos. Funcom is aiming to have over one hundred players charging the battlefields at the same time, and the guilds will have to coordinate their attack – and their defense – carefully. Will you place the archers on the walls? Will you put your war mammoths at the front? A thousand war stories will unfold in the minutes or hours ahead.
Again, wanting these things, and actually creating them are different things. They probably changed their minds due to some problem that arose during development. I don't know, i don't know their reasons. All i'm saying is that they changed their minds for a -reason- not just to spit in your eye
even tho they didn't do it on purpose they still did it :P. and i'm not saying it will never change. just the way it got dropped on us, by a ss of a manual that funcom knew about. but still told us it was one way, but were really planning on doing it another way, is kinda shady.
Like the majority of u said...FC disapoint us with the cap of the sieges ...only 48/48 ....
How could is that possible that a game like this ...with such lore...such features...only to have "MINI SIEGES" .? ..yes...(we can call them like this....)
Great example....Lineage II ...I loved that ! Great graphics....and great sieges! ...
Pls FUNCOM dont ruin the game....keep the sieges as u told us : massive....
We must have the feeling we play for something...and a siege could be one of the things we play for...
And we need more infos and many other things in guild interface ....In beta the guild interface was very weak and horrible...
The rest of the game its amasing but many things still need to be fixed..and pls make siege cap for the begining 200vs 200....sorry for my english
Again, wanting these things, and actually creating them are different things. They probably changed their minds due to some problem that arose during development. I don't know, i don't know their reasons. All i'm saying is that they changed their minds for a -reason- not just to spit in your eye
even tho they didn't do it on purpose they still did it :P. and i'm not saying it will never change. just the way it got dropped on us, by a ss of a manual that funcom knew about. but still told us it was one way, but were really planning on doing it another way, is kinda shady.
Well the videos and all the quotes sound to me more like the typical developer whos so proud of their game and expects everything out of the game. The guy who promises the world, and praises features which aren't set it stone, still being tested, or just beginning development cycles.
I don't remember them ever saying exactly how many people will be raiding, or that they have settled on a number. They've said 500 people -in- the town, and -hundreds- fighting. neither of which were complete promises, nor were they the explicit numbers going to be used.
I understand, but it's not like they are trying to lie to everyone. They simply were unable to follow through with their original design -intention-
[quote]
Like the majority of u said...FC disapoint us with the cap of the sieges ...only 48/48 ....
How could is that possible that a game like this ...with such lore...such features...only to have "MINI SIEGES" .? ..yes...(we can call them like this....)
No we can't 48 vs 48 is a very decent size for a guild vs guild conflict. Hardly mini.
Great example....Lineage II ...I loved that ! Great graphics....and great sieges! ...
Lineage 2 has terrible graphics and well everything. Lineage 2's graphics are a "illusion" IT has high quality textures, but the models are only "so-so" added onto that is the terrible landscape. AoC is about 50x the graphical quality of l2. You can't even compare the two. This is ignoring the fact that L2 restricts everyone's movement and it's much less server intensive when you don't have real control over your character. Theres a huge difference on server load between p&c(and terrible keyboard movement) and full free form movement
Pls FUNCOM dont ruin the game....keep the sieges as u told us : massive....
We must have the feeling we play for something...and a siege could be one of the things we play for...
It will still be enjoyable, and your going to love it. So will the people who want real PvP and not zerg zerg zerg zerg zerg zerg zerg.
And we need more infos and many other things in guild interface ....In beta the guild interface was very weak and horrible...
I can't comment on this seeing as how i've been excluded from the beta tests(missed the free keys and i refuse to p2p fileplanet)
The rest of the game its amasing but many things still need to be fixed..and pls make siege cap for the begining 200vs 200....sorry for my english
The higher the amount of players, the less individual skill is involved. It also makes it a nightmare to balance classes around. After all, what's strong in 200 v 200 might suck in smaller conflicts. and vice versi. look at DAoC... In larger fights, it simply SUCKED playing as a melee[/quote]
well since the quote tags don't work i have no clue how to edit in a quote. so take it what you will
Again, wanting these things, and actually creating them are different things. They probably changed their minds due to some problem that arose during development. I don't know, i don't know their reasons. All i'm saying is that they changed their minds for a -reason- not just to spit in your eye
even tho they didn't do it on purpose they still did it :P. and i'm not saying it will never change. just the way it got dropped on us, by a ss of a manual that funcom knew about. but still told us it was one way, but were really planning on doing it another way, is kinda shady.
Well the videos and all the quotes sound to me more like the typical developer whos so proud of their game and expects everything out of the game. The guy who promises the world, and praises features which aren't set it stone, still being tested, or just beginning development cycles.
I don't remember them ever saying exactly how many people will be raiding, or that they have settled on a number. They've said 500 people -in- the town, and -hundreds- fighting. neither of which were complete promises, nor were they the explicit numbers going to be used.
I understand, but it's not like they are trying to lie to everyone. They simply were unable to follow through with their original design -intention-
yep, i don't think it was planned to be that way either. but i understand why people don't like it and why some feel duped.
So let me get this right, the game will be like the novels..........
"We are doomed! Our enemies are horded at our gates, there are atleast 500 men!" "What?" "We are doomed! We barely have 50 men!" "Shutup noob, the siege instance only allows 48 vs 48" "Oh..... Then why don't we just attack the 5000 men defending thier keep if numbers do not matter?" "Well, we would have to scedule that in advance with the defending force." "Why can't we rush in and seige the city?" "Because we are barbarians, and we enjoy a fair fight at a designated time with equal numbers. How does Thursday 8:00pm Central time sound to you?" "We will spill thier blood! Oh wait..... Thursday is family game night" "Damned Aquilonians and thier game nights"
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
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.
AoC is "Scalable" enough. But running more than 48v48 has nothing to do with "scalability". A lot of things come into play. Not everyone on the battlefield is gonna have the same rig, the same network connection, etc. Same crap happens in WoW. If 80% of all the people in BG is on Broadband, and 20% is on dialup, the Dialups get the advantage. Ever seen in a BG, getting assraped by rogue, hunter, warrior and they jitter around like crazy and it's hard to face them cause by the time you do face them, they're behind ya again. yea.. that's not scalable. haha scaleable, what a dumb e-word. "Our servers are scalable" "When we design this progam, we are going to design it to be scalable". LOL
Anyways, point i'm saying bsmith is this, scalability has nothing to do with 48v48. You get too many pixels on the field and not everyone is gonna be able to handle it. Especially those people that never upgraded their computers and are operating on bare minimum. Tell those bare minimum people to "scalabilitize" their system on up.
So let me get this right, the game will be like the novels..........
"We are doomed! Our enemies are horded at our gates, there are atleast 500 men!" "What?" "We are doomed! We barely have 50 men!" "Shutup noob, the siege instance only allows 48 vs 48" "Oh..... Then why don't we just attack the 5000 men defending thier keep if numbers do not matter?" "Well, we would have to scedule that in advance with the defending force." "Why can't we rush in and seige the city?" "Because we are barbarians, and we enjoy a fair fight at a designated time with equal numbers. How does Thursday 8:00pm Central time sound to you?" "We will spill thier blood! Oh wait..... Thursday is family game night" "Damned Aquilonians and thier game nights"
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
From what I can gather, guild's can't just go around attacking keeps. In real life, there is a setup time. The soldiers make it to the siege place. They set up camp, they rest for DAYS, and then they fight. So yes, this makes perfect sense, waiting for the siege.
So let me get this right, the game will be like the novels..........
"We are doomed! Our enemies are horded at our gates, there are atleast 500 men!" "What?" "We are doomed! We barely have 50 men!" "Shutup noob, the siege instance only allows 48 vs 48" "Oh..... Then why don't we just attack the 5000 men defending thier keep if numbers do not matter?" "Well, we would have to scedule that in advance with the defending force." "Why can't we rush in and seige the city?" "Because we are barbarians, and we enjoy a fair fight at a designated time with equal numbers. How does Thursday 8:00pm Central time sound to you?" "We will spill thier blood! Oh wait..... Thursday is family game night" "Damned Aquilonians and thier game nights"
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
From what I can gather, guild's can't just go around attacking keeps. In real life, there is a setup time. The soldiers make it to the siege place. They set up camp, they rest for DAYS, and then they fight. So yes, this makes perfect sense, waiting for the siege.
Now that's an epic load of bull if I ever heard any...
How is it a load of bull? Have you researched historical battles?
1) More than is probably good for me. I won't go into analysis how medieval/ancient warfare and sieging worked because:
2) This is a mass-appeal game, its a different sack of potatoes than a "historical"simulation of warfare in an imagined time period... The excuse of "historical authenticity" is so utterly laughable when it is quite obvious that it is the technical issues as well as pathetically badly thought out (or rather not thought out) basic game mechanics that are the cause of such a last minute decision.
When I first heard of their original system with instanced PvE cities where the production is and open world PvP keeps with resource gathering I was a bit taken aback but soon realized that it's quite a good system because it would actually enable the PvP siege game to be dynamic - keeps being taken here and there constantly without catastrophic repercussions for the guilds. You loose a keep, tough luck - go grab another one!
However, this "siege time window" decision is so incredibly inept game design wise that I won't even bother with trying out the game. It really is the bottom. I've even started seeing AoC fanbois saying that "AoC was always to be a PvE game with some cool PvP included..." Talk about history repeating itself.
I'm dog tired of clueless devs who believe that meaningful group PvP is the easiest thing to design... and when push comes to shove come release they realize that true group comepetitve PvP environment is actually the most sensitive of all environments and then try applying half-assed patches to a fundamentally broken system. Meh, should have concentrated less on tits and raid instances before they got their basics straight.
So let me get this right, the game will be like the novels..........
"We are doomed! Our enemies are horded at our gates, there are atleast 500 men!" "What?" "We are doomed! We barely have 50 men!" "Shutup noob, the siege instance only allows 48 vs 48" "Oh..... Then why don't we just attack the 5000 men defending thier keep if numbers do not matter?" "Well, we would have to scedule that in advance with the defending force." "Why can't we rush in and seige the city?" "Because we are barbarians, and we enjoy a fair fight at a designated time with equal numbers. How does Thursday 8:00pm Central time sound to you?" "We will spill thier blood! Oh wait..... Thursday is family game night" "Damned Aquilonians and thier game nights"
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
God this vulnerability window crap is lame. You now have a glorified WOW BG. Knowing 48 enemies are attacking and when they are is the opposite of how a battle should be. Enough of this it s a game already 2am crap. The game should have all out war for BKs. Lose one take it or another one back.
Comments
seems to me like the people here are just afraid of having to actually have any level of personal skill or leadership be involved with their pvp. 48 v 48 IS epic. I'm sorry people but it is. 100 v 100? Thats chaos thats not epic.
Personally i'm extremely glad for this since it makes one thing more important.
1. Guilds.
Mercenaries(imho) are supposed to be fillers, there to just boost your guild. Theres 8 keeps right? Guess what? that means only 8 guilds can have keeps at a given time. 300 people super guilds would basically just sit in their keep during open times and never get it taken, and if someone managed to even gather 300 people to fight back, they could merc in even more players, and then they'd never lose it.
Over time smaller guilds would die off, and there would be 8 guilds each holding a keep, any new guild can never get a keep. Keeps never change hands. The only time someone actually sieges a keep is when one guild would manage to screw over a another guild, either through one being the super guild and having built a force large enough to take the smallest guilds keep. Or busting up the guild form the inside.
That's not fun. That's shit. Plain and utter shit. I may be alone here, but i'd actually want to... ummm.. i dunno... ACTUALLY HAVE KEEP SIEGES WHERE WE HAD TO WORK TO KEEP AND TAKE THEM.
not just bring more and more and more players untill you overwhelm the enemy.
I think another good point is that while you may have 100-200 people in your guild. You won't always have that many online.
Some people do have a life outside of a game
All this talk of seiges involving 500 vs 500 or even 250 vs 250, I say screenshot or it never happened. Even in EVE they had to close down Jita when it had too 500 people in it, and they weren't all in the same place fighting even! Remember too that EVE runs on the most powerful civilian computer in the world, and that can't handle seiges of 100 vs 100. So I don't understand how L2 running on some shitty server with a cap of about 6000 can handle 1000 ppl all in one place. Like I said sceenshot or it never happened.
As for 48 vs 48, it leaves seige warfare open to all, and it gives guilds of all sizes the chance to own a keep. It comes down to skill and organization rather than having the fat 900lb gorilla guild just barging through the server and everyone either leaving or joining them.
Wehter a battle with 96 people in it is epic or not then that's your decision, Funcom never promised larger battles but certainly did hint and insinuate it. They made a last minute decision to piss off some people now rather than piss off everyone when they tried an epic seige for the first time and everyone lagged and CTDed.
"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
All this talk of seiges involving 500 vs 500 or even 250 vs 250, I say screenshot or it never happened. Even in EVE they had to close down Jita when it had too 500 people in it, and they weren't all in the same place fighting even! Remember too that EVE runs on the most powerful civilian computer in the world, and that can't handle seiges of 100 vs 100. So I don't understand how L2 running on some shitty server with a cap of about 6000 can handle 1000 ppl all in one place. Like I said sceenshot or it never happened.
As for 48 vs 48, it leaves seige warfare open to all, and it gives guilds of all sizes the chance to own a keep. It comes down to skill and organization rather than having the fat 900lb gorilla guild just barging through the server and everyone either leaving or joining them.
Wehter a battle with 96 people in it is epic or not then that's your decision, Funcom never promised larger battles but certainly did hint and insinuate it. They made a last minute decision to piss off some people now rather than piss off everyone when they tried an epic seige for the first time and everyone lagged and CTDed.
that's the way i feel. but i see why some people would be upset. it's very shady to do a bait and switch. i personally like the decision. even if the servers could handle the stress, i don't like the idea of who ever has the most people win.
To me, it doesn't sound like bait and switch. It sounds like a change of plans, due to issues in performance, latency, or simply gameplay, and then choosing a suitable number and balancing around that.
How do you keep sieges competitive, a guild based activity(sorry mercs, your not that important, the entire merc system is to let "loners" have "some" use. Not be the "requirement".) Without expanding the end game pvp guild features into something that most guilds can never hope to even have a shot at? By limiting numbers to a large but pheasible amount.
With a size of 48 it means that a guild can have roughly 30 people active at any given time, and merc in 18 people, while having a staple playerbase of 40-50 being ideal.
Not only does this discourage zerging, but it ADDS strategy elements, such as dividing up players into smaller groups to help hinder the attackers, defend key points and issue counter strikes from the side, or many many other features of little micro management strategy, that zergs will just... zerg.
Now why wouldnt FC tell its customer base about this?
Good points, i dont agree but i can see where u are coming from.Now why wouldnt FC tell its customer base about this?
Maybe because they still plan to add in larger pvp style content in the future? I really don't know, it could have been developed with both styles(open and zerg) vs (closed and guild based) and that they we're trying to work on getting the open version ready, and simply couldn't complete it in time.
Every game makes grandoise promises, with the intent to deliver, but it doesn't always work out that way. I bet they are eating crow over having to break their promises, and i bet they are the ones making the biggest crow pies. At the end of the day, it simply is how it is.
I have complete belief that they never intended to perform a bait and switch, but were simply not left with any other option.
Like i said, i don't know. I don't work for FC. I don't know all the decisions behind capping it. I don't know if they have any other plans for large scale raids.
Maybe FC is thinking of raising the cap sometime in the future, they did say it was 96 "for now". Perhaps they want to take a cautious approach, see what is possible later on and if larger seiges are viable then ask if people want to try raising the cap?
I'm not a mind reader but it seems FC has the option to set the cap wherever they wish as they've demonstrated with larger seiges in the past. I'm certain raising it slowly overtime and recording the reaction is better than lowering it after launch because everyone lags and crashes and then they make a bee line to the forums to piss and moan constantly?
Just my thoughts on the reason behind this decision to go with a 96 man cap.
"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
yep everything in there is true and that's what i like about the cap.
but as i was following the game i got the impression also that it would be 100's of people involved. even tho they didn't give exact numbers. they did say 100's.
http://www.uberguilds.org/radio/audio/by/title/jason_stone_age_of_conan_community_interview_april-24th_2008
at around 17:50 or so jason stone said
"we have done various testing where at one point in time we had a few hundred people logged into one player city at one time"
"for example you might have a battle that has 500 people in it"
"the servers won't have a problem with it"
"eliminate npcs so we could have 500 people in one battle"
"i feel confident that, from what i seen i seen during the beta, that we are going to deliver on those massive battles, and have a ton of players in the same area fighting"
When it all starts, the battle can be a scene of complete chaos. Funcom is aiming to have over one hundred players charging the battlefields at the same time, and the guilds will have to coordinate their attack – and their defense – carefully. Will you place the archers on the walls? Will you put your war mammoths at the front? A thousand war stories will unfold in the minutes or hours ahead.
http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=online&utm_campaign=Clan_of_Conan&utm_content=Issue_10&func=publish.show&table=CONTENT&func_id=1923
Again, wanting these things, and actually creating them are different things.
They probably changed their minds due to some problem that arose during development.
I don't know, i don't know their reasons. All i'm saying is that they changed their minds for a -reason- not just to spit in your eye
even tho they didn't do it on purpose they still did it :P. and i'm not saying it will never change. just the way it got dropped on us, by a ss of a manual that funcom knew about. but still told us it was one way, but were really planning on doing it another way, is kinda shady.
Like the majority of u said...FC disapoint us with the cap of the sieges ...only 48/48 ....
How could is that possible that a game like this ...with such lore...such features...only to have "MINI SIEGES" .? ..yes...(we can call them like this....)
Great example....Lineage II ...I loved that ! Great graphics....and great sieges! ...
Pls FUNCOM dont ruin the game....keep the sieges as u told us : massive....
We must have the feeling we play for something...and a siege could be one of the things we play for...
And we need more infos and many other things in guild interface ....In beta the guild interface was very weak and horrible...
The rest of the game its amasing but many things still need to be fixed..and pls make siege cap for the begining 200vs 200....sorry for my english
even tho they didn't do it on purpose they still did it :P. and i'm not saying it will never change. just the way it got dropped on us, by a ss of a manual that funcom knew about. but still told us it was one way, but were really planning on doing it another way, is kinda shady.
Well the videos and all the quotes sound to me more like the typical developer whos so proud of their game and expects everything out of the game. The guy who promises the world, and praises features which aren't set it stone, still being tested, or just beginning development cycles.
I don't remember them ever saying exactly how many people will be raiding, or that they have settled on a number. They've said 500 people -in- the town, and -hundreds- fighting. neither of which were complete promises, nor were they the explicit numbers going to be used.
I understand, but it's not like they are trying to lie to everyone. They simply were unable to follow through with their original design -intention-
[quote]
Like the majority of u said...FC disapoint us with the cap of the sieges ...only 48/48 ....
How could is that possible that a game like this ...with such lore...such features...only to have "MINI SIEGES" .? ..yes...(we can call them like this....)
No we can't 48 vs 48 is a very decent size for a guild vs guild conflict. Hardly mini.
Great example....Lineage II ...I loved that ! Great graphics....and great sieges! ...
Lineage 2 has terrible graphics and well everything. Lineage 2's graphics are a "illusion" IT has high quality textures, but the models are only "so-so" added onto that is the terrible landscape. AoC is about 50x the graphical quality of l2. You can't even compare the two. This is ignoring the fact that L2 restricts everyone's movement and it's much less server intensive when you don't have real control over your character. Theres a huge difference on server load between p&c(and terrible keyboard movement) and full free form movement
Pls FUNCOM dont ruin the game....keep the sieges as u told us : massive....
We must have the feeling we play for something...and a siege could be one of the things we play for...
It will still be enjoyable, and your going to love it. So will the people who want real PvP and not zerg zerg zerg zerg zerg zerg zerg.
And we need more infos and many other things in guild interface ....In beta the guild interface was very weak and horrible...
I can't comment on this seeing as how i've been excluded from the beta tests(missed the free keys and i refuse to p2p fileplanet)
The rest of the game its amasing but many things still need to be fixed..and pls make siege cap for the begining 200vs 200....sorry for my english
The higher the amount of players, the less individual skill is involved. It also makes it a nightmare to balance classes around. After all, what's strong in 200 v 200 might suck in smaller conflicts. and vice versi. look at DAoC... In larger fights, it simply SUCKED playing as a melee[/quote]
well since the quote tags don't work i have no clue how to edit in a quote. so take it what you will
even tho they didn't do it on purpose they still did it :P. and i'm not saying it will never change. just the way it got dropped on us, by a ss of a manual that funcom knew about. but still told us it was one way, but were really planning on doing it another way, is kinda shady.
Well the videos and all the quotes sound to me more like the typical developer whos so proud of their game and expects everything out of the game. The guy who promises the world, and praises features which aren't set it stone, still being tested, or just beginning development cycles.
I don't remember them ever saying exactly how many people will be raiding, or that they have settled on a number. They've said 500 people -in- the town, and -hundreds- fighting. neither of which were complete promises, nor were they the explicit numbers going to be used.
I understand, but it's not like they are trying to lie to everyone. They simply were unable to follow through with their original design -intention-
yep, i don't think it was planned to be that way either. but i understand why people don't like it and why some feel duped.
So let me get this right, the game will be like the novels..........
"We are doomed! Our enemies are horded at our gates, there are atleast 500 men!"
"What?"
"We are doomed! We barely have 50 men!"
"Shutup noob, the siege instance only allows 48 vs 48"
"Oh..... Then why don't we just attack the 5000 men defending thier keep if numbers do not matter?"
"Well, we would have to scedule that in advance with the defending force."
"Why can't we rush in and seige the city?"
"Because we are barbarians, and we enjoy a fair fight at a designated time with equal numbers. How does Thursday 8:00pm Central time sound to you?"
"We will spill thier blood! Oh wait..... Thursday is family game night"
"Damned Aquilonians and thier game nights"
STOP WHINING!
gameplay is more important then lore, or "realism" more at 11
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
Was that a yes or a no?
STOP WHINING!
AoC is "Scalable" enough. But running more than 48v48 has nothing to do with "scalability". A lot of things come into play. Not everyone on the battlefield is gonna have the same rig, the same network connection, etc. Same crap happens in WoW. If 80% of all the people in BG is on Broadband, and 20% is on dialup, the Dialups get the advantage. Ever seen in a BG, getting assraped by rogue, hunter, warrior and they jitter around like crazy and it's hard to face them cause by the time you do face them, they're behind ya again. yea.. that's not scalable. haha scaleable, what a dumb e-word. "Our servers are scalable" "When we design this progam, we are going to design it to be scalable". LOL
Anyways, point i'm saying bsmith is this, scalability has nothing to do with 48v48. You get too many pixels on the field and not everyone is gonna be able to handle it. Especially those people that never upgraded their computers and are operating on bare minimum. Tell those bare minimum people to "scalabilitize" their system on up.
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
From what I can gather, guild's can't just go around attacking keeps. In real life, there is a setup time. The soldiers make it to the siege place. They set up camp, they rest for DAYS, and then they fight. So yes, this makes perfect sense, waiting for the siege.
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
From what I can gather, guild's can't just go around attacking keeps. In real life, there is a setup time. The soldiers make it to the siege place. They set up camp, they rest for DAYS, and then they fight. So yes, this makes perfect sense, waiting for the siege.
Now that's an epic load of bull if I ever heard any...
1) More than is probably good for me. I won't go into analysis how medieval/ancient warfare and sieging worked because:
2) This is a mass-appeal game, its a different sack of potatoes than a "historical" simulation of warfare in an imagined time period... The excuse of "historical authenticity" is so utterly laughable when it is quite obvious that it is the technical issues as well as pathetically badly thought out (or rather not thought out) basic game mechanics that are the cause of such a last minute decision.
When I first heard of their original system with instanced PvE cities where the production is and open world PvP keeps with resource gathering I was a bit taken aback but soon realized that it's quite a good system because it would actually enable the PvP siege game to be dynamic - keeps being taken here and there constantly without catastrophic repercussions for the guilds. You loose a keep, tough luck - go grab another one!
However, this "siege time window" decision is so incredibly inept game design wise that I won't even bother with trying out the game. It really is the bottom. I've even started seeing AoC fanbois saying that "AoC was always to be a PvE game with some cool PvP included..." Talk about history repeating itself.
I'm dog tired of clueless devs who believe that meaningful group PvP is the easiest thing to design... and when push comes to shove come release they realize that true group comepetitve PvP environment is actually the most sensitive of all environments and then try applying half-assed patches to a fundamentally broken system. Meh, should have concentrated less on tits and raid instances before they got their basics straight.
well it is a game after all. most people won't be able to log on at 2 am when someone decides to attack thier keep. so i think a vulnerability window is needed.
God this vulnerability window crap is lame. You now have a glorified WOW BG. Knowing 48 enemies are attacking and when they are is the opposite of how a battle should be. Enough of this it s a game already 2am crap. The game should have all out war for BKs. Lose one take it or another one back.