I see the term "zerg" thrown around alot here. Let me remind you guys what zerg means, since it's pretty obvious most of you don't know.
From Urban Dictionary (Not the best place but this is what zerg means)
Originally a playable race of characters in the online Video game “StarCraft”; this term is now commonly used by the online gaming community.
To assure ones victory using overwhelming numbers.
To greatly outnumber the enemy, and swarm them.
To trivialize en encounter using mass numbers of allies rather then skill
Everyone target the boss, and zerg it.
That guild zerged us.
Those guys are a bunch of zerglings.
To assure ones victory with overwhelming numbers.
200v100 is a zerg. 200v200 is not a zerg. A well organized group of 200(very, very possible don't give me shit and tell me it isn't)is going to stomp a group of 200 idiots that have no leadership.
If they give us 100v100, 150v150, or 200v200 I will pretty much guarantee they will fill up all the time because they are so limited. There will be no "zerg." There will be organized chaos. Stop saying people want to zerg and do nothing else, because you are very wrong. We want the "epic" and "massive" battles we were promised on numerous occasions.
48 people is plenty for a massive battle. Do you realize how many 48 is? Let me demonstrate.
Thats one team of people. At any one time you could be fighting ALL OF THEM. Don't make me post the other half of the team.
LOL! Spam wars!
Very good representation of these forums
heh it might be just me but i think that poster did the best job of actually explaining in simple terms what some are not understanding...
48 + 48 = 96
96 folks duking it out AoC style is a LOT of action...if this isn't enough action to float your boat and you just want to complain bc it is not the number they originally stated that is just lame - means you are just trying to point how that they did not do exactly as they say and you are not mad bc you are getting lack of gameplay or it really effects you - you are just mad bc it is different than what was told to you..you do realize this thing happens every single day in the business world right?
have you ever sat to think for a sec that maybe just maybe they realized that 100s of players was too much for 98% of the gamers comps to handle?
think of games that actually have THAT many toons on screen at once, with the graphics AoC has, and that is considered an MMO... let me know when you come up with that list i will be eager to see it
Well, many gamers have come to use the term 'zerg' in a different context in the very specific case of arena/battleground PvP.
In most contexts, zerg does mean to swarm or overwhelm by numbers. In this context, it means running THROUGH the battle without fighting in order to reach some objectve (an NPC boss, or in this case, the enemy keep).
Since you can't actually 'stop' people from advancing, they can just run through your polygons and past the defenses in large numbers.
I'm not a huge fan of the game either, but I think 48 vs 48 is more than enough as well.
I don't know what people are crying about, other than a developer going back on what they promised previously...and that is nothing new.
What I am very curious about is actually seeing someone's video showing a maxed out 48 vs 48 siege battle. I know this isn't possible yet with the NDA and all, which is why I will be waiting a certain time period after release to see the reviews of the game performance.
I have a fairly high end computer, and was getting abysmal performance in the OB. Especially in town when there were say more than 5 people around. Characters would be blinking in and out around me, and my hard drive sounded like it was churning butter.
I know there are people who claim they are running the game "just fine" on an IBM PS/1 with 2MB of RAM and a 64KB video card, but it seems there are many people like me running on a quad core, 4GB, 8800GTX system where the game is all but unplayable.
I can understand limits. 48 vs 48 if thats what they needed to do.
Just don't call it "MASSIVE"
As for the EVE comment. Yes in true massive engagements it slows. I have been in numbers more like 248 vs 248 and more. It has improved greatly over the years EVE has been online. EVE has the most advanced hardware of ANY mmo on the market and it is constantly upgrading and innovating new ways to handle more then 30,000 people on the same server at the same time.
I would bet AOC's 48 vs 48 will slow to a "massive" degree.
I hope I am wrong about AOC and it kicks ass. Only time after release will tell.
Does anyone else notice that Jsteiner posted 58 cans of spam, not 48?
Anyway, 48 vs 48 is not enough. I was looking forward to those massive sieges. Even though I am part of a guild that only consists of small group of long time PvPers, I was looking forward to those epic hundreds vs hundreds battles. Why? Because it promotes politics. It promotes the formation of alliances and the nightmare of logistics that accompanies it. The small guilds can fight each other guild vs guild but if a large guild tries to pick on the smaller guilds, the alliances are there to back them up.
Yes, but when the official strategy is as follows: Crash the other team's computers. Then you have a problem.
Or they do. I suppose that IS subjective material. One might think that such an action would also crash THEIR computer...thus rendering the matter moot. You could say that the victim may, perhaps, have a weaker system than the zerg. For some reason (cough cough AoC's ignorantly high specs cough cough) I doubt we'll be seeing that issue here.
Forcing 48 player limits to the MASSIVE sieges structures the whole matter around the guild format. I know, I know...you people love your stupid guild structure. I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
Yes, but when the official strategy is as follows: Crash the other team's computers. Then you have a problem.
Or they do. I suppose that IS subjective material. One might think that such an action would also crash THEIR computer...thus rendering the matter moot. You could say that the victim may, perhaps, have a weaker system than the zerg. For some reason (cough cough AoC's ignorantly high specs cough cough) I doubt we'll be seeing that issue here.
Forcing 48 player limits to the MASSIVE sieges structures the whole matter around the guild format. I know, I know...you people love your stupid guild structure. I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
So instead of guilds what would you rather have? One gigantic friends list?
If they can raise it higher, that determination should be based on performance and server population statistics.
I know many zergoid leaders were spam recruiting anyone and everyone to capture the first keep without any competition at all, and they knew full well they could keep it pretty much forever.
AoC Battle Keep winner is determined by who keeps the keep the longest during the fight. Any zerg type guild owning the BK could in effect keep it forever by continually crashing the server, especially if people created a counter zerg to take them down, pretty much guaranteeing a server lockup and/or slideshow. Of course we're assuming here, the servers won't just form 9 mega guilds and share the server. (ie no battles at all)
Bring on 48v48. Zerg lag fests and politics .. no thank you, keep it in L2, Eve and DaoC.
i don't really understand why every one claims Funcom to have lied, maybe they just tested it and 48x48 worked better? when they said 100v100 or what ever they may have had full intention of implementing that.
now maybe I'm just being a little naive but i think people are a bit quick on the trigger.
i don't really understand why every one claims Funcom to have lied, maybe they just tested it and 48x48 worked better? when they said 100v100 or what ever they may have had full intention of implementing that. now maybe I'm just being a little naive but i think people are a bit quick on the trigger.
What do u mean u don't understand? they said up two a couple of weeks ago that there would be hundreds taking part in those sieges. Now a beta leak shows that sieges will be 48 vs 48. English may not be my native language but from my understanding 96 people is close to hundred not hundredS. Again english is not my native but i call that a lie.
Here is a definition of the lie for you:
Lie:
1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives
I say what funcom did falls into those 2 definitions. Wether or not they could deliver those hundreds they promised they should at least have come clean about it.
First off, there is no reason to compare this to AV in world of warcraft, that's just stupid. Secondly, we're talking about 48x48 fighting over a battlekeep, not 10mile radius map of towers and graveyards. Anyone who expects the battles to be any bigger is only fooling themselves. They have said the battles would be around 50v50 for months now, and it's no ones fault but your own for expecting something they in no way could possibley give.
As for DAOC and planetside being able to do such huge battles, that's because the texture and polygon count on those games are so horrible, even for when they were first released. Not to mention, AOC =/= DAOC. Two very different styles of pvp, and to be honest I prefer AOC's FFA PVP over daoc or warhammers, as do a lot of people.
When warhammer comes out with their "pvp" and it's not massive, what will you guys cry about then? Massive does not always mean fun, and it usually always means skilless zerging.
So what happened to mini-objectives: Towers? Oh and.....where do you get your info? 3 weeks ago Jason "Athelan" Stone said that they are confident that they can deliver massive sieges with as many as 500 people fighting in the same area. Here is the link to audio interview, the part that you want to listen to starts at 18 minutes. http://www.uberguilds.org/radio/audio/by/title/jason_stone_age_of_conan_community_interview_april-24th_2008
Hmm... maybe although i have a feeling anytime a gaming company mentions anything about their games they also mention that some facts may change during Beta.... depending on what works best, IE if people cant run 100v100 because of lag zerg whatever.
At the end of the day Funcom wants to make a good game people enjoy, i think that may rank just a tad higher then letting people have massive battles.
Basically what everyone is saying is that we can't have the massive epic battles that we were told we could have because of lag because the game is too graphics intensive. So they scaled it back to being only 48 vs 48 and everyone is okay with that like that's how it should have been all this time. Basically they sacrificed gameplay in order to make it pretty.
Form should not come before function. Unless you're Apple, then you can somehow get away with it.
You know, I love the idea of 48vs48....though I hope that some day we see battles upwards of 200vs200(that would be awesome), but in games like BF2 and such 64vs64 is just about right for some great battles to occur. Now what would really make me (edited for the graphic nature) would be to see large scalle battles like the kind you see in Planetside...but done with swords, bows and siege machines.
Originally posted by Teala You know, I love the idea of 48vs48....though I hope that some day we see battles upwards of 200vs200(that would be awesome), but in games like BF2 and such 64vs64 is just about right for some great battles to occur. Now what would really make me (edited for the graphic nature) would be to see large scalle battles like the kind you see in Planetside...but done with swords, bows and siege machines. That would be incredibly awesome!
Huxley is supposed to have 100vs100 man battles. That's the scale I want to see.
That did actually make me laugh, and it is quite true. But I do find that 48 vs. 48 is going to be good and if they find that it isn't or people are crying out for more then I bet they will increase it. Also the way we are arguing is that 48 seems like a low number, but once you get into the game you could find that 48 is the perfect number and if it went any higher it would ruin it. But this is just opinion and we will have to wait to see if siege warfare is good with 48 players or not.
I think wow has contaminated people's minds if "we want to see x vs x". Everything set up, there's no surprise factor, there's no adrenaline, NO POLITICS...its just...routine. Way to paste pvp in a game making it totally useless. PvP without consequences is just as bad as set up "fair" pvp, nobody gets pissed, nobody cares about dying, people get that "this pvp thing has no sense" feeling and everybody gets bored.
Im sad to see im one of the few ones here who would pray for a decent pvp system, and not these mini games that never made pvp matter.
conversation between funcom developers and AoC fanbois AoC Fanbois: hey, we are here for the epic siege battles you told us about with hundreds of players funcom developers: (waves hand and uses jedi mind trick) these aren't the siege battles you are looking for AoC Fanbois: these aren't the siege battles we are looking for funcom developers: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 AoC Fanbois: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 funcom developers: move along AoC fanbois: move along. Man I am totally stoaked about the awesome 48 vs. 48 siege battles we were promised.
conversation between funcom developers and AoC fanbois AoC Fanbois: hey, we are here for the epic siege battles you told us about with hundreds of players funcom developers: (waves hand and uses jedi mind trick) these aren't the siege battles you are looking for AoC Fanbois: these aren't the siege battles we are looking for funcom developers: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 AoC Fanbois: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 funcom developers: move along AoC fanbois: move along. Man I am totally stoaked about the awesome 48 vs. 48 siege battles we were promised.
... and we have a clear winner of this thread!
This made me laugh as well. I have to say, that is the sentiment I got regarding how the tone of the posts went over the last 3 days or so.
Comments
I see the term "zerg" thrown around alot here. Let me remind you guys what zerg means, since it's pretty obvious most of you don't know.
From Urban Dictionary (Not the best place but this is what zerg means)
Originally a playable race of characters in the online Video game “StarCraft”; this term is now commonly used by the online gaming community.
To assure ones victory using overwhelming numbers.
To greatly outnumber the enemy, and swarm them.
To trivialize en encounter using mass numbers of allies rather then skill
Everyone target the boss, and zerg it.
That guild zerged us.
Those guys are a bunch of zerglings.
To assure ones victory with overwhelming numbers.
200v100 is a zerg. 200v200 is not a zerg. A well organized group of 200(very, very possible don't give me shit and tell me it isn't)is going to stomp a group of 200 idiots that have no leadership.
If they give us 100v100, 150v150, or 200v200 I will pretty much guarantee they will fill up all the time because they are so limited. There will be no "zerg." There will be organized chaos. Stop saying people want to zerg and do nothing else, because you are very wrong. We want the "epic" and "massive" battles we were promised on numerous occasions.
|Mortal Online|Gnostaria|
Very good representation of these forums
LOL! Spam wars!Very good representation of these forums
heh it might be just me but i think that poster did the best job of actually explaining in simple terms what some are not understanding...
48 + 48 = 96
96 folks duking it out AoC style is a LOT of action...if this isn't enough action to float your boat and you just want to complain bc it is not the number they originally stated that is just lame - means you are just trying to point how that they did not do exactly as they say and you are not mad bc you are getting lack of gameplay or it really effects you - you are just mad bc it is different than what was told to you..you do realize this thing happens every single day in the business world right?
have you ever sat to think for a sec that maybe just maybe they realized that 100s of players was too much for 98% of the gamers comps to handle?
think of games that actually have THAT many toons on screen at once, with the graphics AoC has, and that is considered an MMO... let me know when you come up with that list i will be eager to see it
I play a lot of games...
Well, many gamers have come to use the term 'zerg' in a different context in the very specific case of arena/battleground PvP.
In most contexts, zerg does mean to swarm or overwhelm by numbers.
In this context, it means running THROUGH the battle without fighting in order to reach some objectve (an NPC boss, or in this case, the enemy keep).
Since you can't actually 'stop' people from advancing, they can just run through your polygons and past the defenses in large numbers.
I'm not a huge fan of the game either, but I think 48 vs 48 is more than enough as well.
I don't know what people are crying about, other than a developer going back on what they promised previously...and that is nothing new.
What I am very curious about is actually seeing someone's video showing a maxed out 48 vs 48 siege battle. I know this isn't possible yet with the NDA and all, which is why I will be waiting a certain time period after release to see the reviews of the game performance.
I have a fairly high end computer, and was getting abysmal performance in the OB. Especially in town when there were say more than 5 people around. Characters would be blinking in and out around me, and my hard drive sounded like it was churning butter.
I know there are people who claim they are running the game "just fine" on an IBM PS/1 with 2MB of RAM and a 64KB video card, but it seems there are many people like me running on a quad core, 4GB, 8800GTX system where the game is all but unplayable.
48 vs 48
I can understand limits. 48 vs 48 if thats what they needed to do.
Just don't call it "MASSIVE"
As for the EVE comment. Yes in true massive engagements it slows. I have been in numbers more like 248 vs 248 and more. It has improved greatly over the years EVE has been online. EVE has the most advanced hardware of ANY mmo on the market and it is constantly upgrading and innovating new ways to handle more then 30,000 people on the same server at the same time.
I would bet AOC's 48 vs 48 will slow to a "massive" degree.
I hope I am wrong about AOC and it kicks ass. Only time after release will tell.
SHOHADAKU
Does anyone else notice that Jsteiner posted 58 cans of spam, not 48?
Anyway, 48 vs 48 is not enough. I was looking forward to those massive sieges. Even though I am part of a guild that only consists of small group of long time PvPers, I was looking forward to those epic hundreds vs hundreds battles. Why? Because it promotes politics. It promotes the formation of alliances and the nightmare of logistics that accompanies it. The small guilds can fight each other guild vs guild but if a large guild tries to pick on the smaller guilds, the alliances are there to back them up.
Or they do. I suppose that IS subjective material. One might think that such an action would also crash THEIR computer...thus rendering the matter moot. You could say that the victim may, perhaps, have a weaker system than the zerg. For some reason (cough cough AoC's ignorantly high specs cough cough) I doubt we'll be seeing that issue here.
Forcing 48 player limits to the MASSIVE sieges structures the whole matter around the guild format. I know, I know...you people love your stupid guild structure. I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
promising massive and providing average. Age of Conan in store's soon.
Retired From: L2, SWG, RFO, WoW, War, Aion
Waiting For: Tera, Blade & Soul, Huxley, SWTOR,
Or they do. I suppose that IS subjective material. One might think that such an action would also crash THEIR computer...thus rendering the matter moot. You could say that the victim may, perhaps, have a weaker system than the zerg. For some reason (cough cough AoC's ignorantly high specs cough cough) I doubt we'll be seeing that issue here.
Forcing 48 player limits to the MASSIVE sieges structures the whole matter around the guild format. I know, I know...you people love your stupid guild structure. I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
So instead of guilds what would you rather have? One gigantic friends list?
48v48 is an excellent start.
If they can raise it higher, that determination should be based on performance and server population statistics.
I know many zergoid leaders were spam recruiting anyone and everyone to capture the first keep without any competition at all, and they knew full well they could keep it pretty much forever.
AoC Battle Keep winner is determined by who keeps the keep the longest during the fight. Any zerg type guild owning the BK could in effect keep it forever by continually crashing the server, especially if people created a counter zerg to take them down, pretty much guaranteeing a server lockup and/or slideshow. Of course we're assuming here, the servers won't just form 9 mega guilds and share the server. (ie no battles at all)
Bring on 48v48.
Zerg lag fests and politics .. no thank you, keep it in L2, Eve and DaoC. 
i don't really understand why every one claims Funcom to have lied, maybe they just tested it and 48x48 worked better? when they said 100v100 or what ever they may have had full intention of implementing that.
now maybe I'm just being a little naive but i think people are a bit quick on the trigger.
Here is a definition of the lie for you:
Lie:
1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives
I say what funcom did falls into those 2 definitions. Wether or not they could deliver those hundreds they promised they should at least have come clean about it.
So what happened to mini-objectives: Towers? Oh and.....where do you get your info? 3 weeks ago Jason "Athelan" Stone said that they are confident that they can deliver massive sieges with as many as 500 people fighting in the same area. Here is the link to audio interview, the part that you want to listen to starts at 18 minutes. http://www.uberguilds.org/radio/audio/by/title/jason_stone_age_of_conan_community_interview_april-24th_2008
Playing: Darkfall Unholy Wars
Played: Darkfall, EVE, AoC, Ryzom, Ragnarok Online, GW2, PS2, Secret World, WOW, City Of Heroes/Villains, Champion Online.
Hmm... maybe although i have a feeling anytime a gaming company mentions anything about their games they also mention that some facts may change during Beta.... depending on what works best, IE if people cant run 100v100 because of lag zerg whatever.
At the end of the day Funcom wants to make a good game people enjoy, i think that may rank just a tad higher then letting people have massive battles.
Basically what everyone is saying is that we can't have the massive epic battles that we were told we could have because of lag because the game is too graphics intensive. So they scaled it back to being only 48 vs 48 and everyone is okay with that like that's how it should have been all this time. Basically they sacrificed gameplay in order to make it pretty.
Form should not come before function. Unless you're Apple, then you can somehow get away with it.
I think a lot of posters on this topic must be on funcom's payroll.
"For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, 'If I live, I will kill you. If I die, You are forgiven.' Such is the rule of honour..."
conversation between funcom developers and AoC fanbois
AoC Fanbois: hey, we are here for the epic siege battles you told us about with hundreds of players
funcom developers: (waves hand and uses jedi mind trick) these aren't the siege battles you are looking for
AoC Fanbois: these aren't the siege battles we are looking for
funcom developers: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48
AoC Fanbois: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48
funcom developers: move along
AoC fanbois: move along. Man I am totally stoaked about the awesome 48 vs. 48 siege battles we were promised.
"For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, 'If I live, I will kill you. If I die, You are forgiven.' Such is the rule of honour..."
Even though I am fine with 48 vs. 48, that post made me laugh out loud, unsane13, hahaha.
*envisions Gaute in a darth vader suit doing the vader breath. HOOOO-PAAAAH.
You know, I love the idea of 48vs48....though I hope that some day we see battles upwards of 200vs200(that would be awesome), but in games like BF2 and such 64vs64 is just about right for some great battles to occur. Now what would really make me (edited for the graphic nature) would be to see large scalle battles like the kind you see in Planetside...but done with swords, bows and siege machines.
That would be incredibly awesome!
That did actually make me laugh, and it is quite true. But I do find that 48 vs. 48 is going to be good and if they find that it isn't or people are crying out for more then I bet they will increase it. Also the way we are arguing is that 48 seems like a low number, but once you get into the game you could find that 48 is the perfect number and if it went any higher it would ruin it. But this is just opinion and we will have to wait to see if siege warfare is good with 48 players or not.
I think wow has contaminated people's minds if "we want to see x vs x". Everything set up, there's no surprise factor, there's no adrenaline, NO POLITICS...its just...routine. Way to paste pvp in a game making it totally useless. PvP without consequences is just as bad as set up "fair" pvp, nobody gets pissed, nobody cares about dying, people get that "this pvp thing has no sense" feeling and everybody gets bored.
Im sad to see im one of the few ones here who would pray for a decent pvp system, and not these mini games that never made pvp matter.
... and we have a clear winner of this thread!
... and we have a clear winner of this thread!
This made me laugh as well. I have to say, that is the sentiment I got regarding how the tone of the posts went over the last 3 days or so.