Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WTF PvP Numbers ???
JackBauer24
Member Posts: 283
According to PC magazine I just got today, the "Massive Guild Sieges" that the developers about are actually 48vs48. This was the one thing I was looking forward to and now its gone. WTF
I mean ill still buy the game (I dont know why) but I hate these little "By the way" things the developers are doing so far.
Comments
You missed the upteenth Threads here on MMORPG.com about this very subject? Where have you been m8? XD
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
so whats wrong? I'm not quite sure what your upset about. Is it the numbers?
48vs48 does suck compared to the massive siege battles from games like Shadowbane. It'll be enough as long as it's strategic, fun, and there's a quick respawn and easy way to get back into battle. There may only be 48 per side but with respawning and continuing the battle, plus NPC guards/mercs, it could be a fairly intense battle.
At the start they said massive siege battles. 48vs48 is not even a siege its a joke. Thats more like a tactical mission than a huge battle. Thats why I am pissed
Agreed. Anymore people might bog down the computer more anyway. Well mine atleast. Its not the best rig but its decent. so 48v48 is a good number
"if" your allowed to have mercs help out that will be awesome, thats what my guild is shooting for anyways MERCS ! yar.. anyways, I dunno about the respawning, I do hope it's not allowed, i mean if respawns are allowed then how do you keep your city from falling?
Now theres the timeframe deal, again speculation but if you can "schedule" the battle for any time with warning then the best strategy would be to schedule it when the other guild is.. offline? Lol, its not always about "fighting" there will be lots of that going on throughout the game. Its about tearing their shit down and "hopefully" claiming their land, making them move or something of that nature.
I was under the impression that BOTH guilds consent to a time. I seem to recall reading an article a long time ago that said each player can control mercenaries, and if that's true 48v48 will be spectacular enough.
It would be fantastic to see a realistic siege, but let's face it: until they can make 1000 players appear on a screen without any performance hits, massive sieges aren't possible. The majority of the player base wants to play a game, not watch a slide show. Perhaps when the technology is available, it will change, or perhaps we will see an option to increase the limits on sieges in the future.
In Guildwars, the 8v8 guild battles were epic enough. There was ALOT going on with those 16 players, and it was incredibly fast paced. 48v48 is going to be fucking incredible.... guarenteed no one has seen battles on epic proportions like this before.... save for Shadowbane....
You have got to be kidding me right? 96 people total is so far from epic it s not even funny. I ve said it before i ve been in battles in DAOC wellpassed 300 people and very little lag. All these people that think 96 people in siege battles are epic actually blow my mind.
Its not an mmorpg but Planetside was what you called EPIC! 1000+ players in the same map / same base killing the shit out of each other. It can be done, funcom obviously need to work on there .net code.
loved planetside, playing EVE
Planetside wasn't anywhere close to what AoC has graphically, and that is the problem. I could play a game of Call of Duty 1 with a billion people on it and probably not lag; but its because the graphics engine is so old. Now, let's try Crysis with the same number of people...
If Funcom is unable to make their graphic engine efficient enough, it could be possible to increase the numbers, but I bet its a graphical limitation that they have no control over that is hindering PvP numbers.
What are you going to do against 48 other players except get pwned? Would another 48 pwning your face make the game better for you? Take the game and play it, if not log off and find something else to boo-hoo about.
/banish troll
Seriously, who cares? Everyone should care. Funcom lied, again. He's not being a troll, he's just complaining about being lied to. He thought that the game would support massive guild battles, but instead, here's more how it goes.
There's an extremely finite number of battle keeps. In order to siege these keeps you need a preset time and permission, which is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard. To get the privelage to attack it, you need to grind the CTF game, those with the most CTF points get to siege. And even then, only 48 people get to. That is a very small number. That is nowhere near the epic battles they advetised, and considering all the other features they cut, I"m not even surprised.
Darkfall Travelogues!
The game was just released what.... a few hours ago? If it had massive pvp battles included then what else would you all complain about? If you feel that you have been lied to THEN DON'T PLAY THE GAME. See how easy that was? I just saved you several hours of heartache...
/banish troll x2
I also find the 48vs48 a bit low. However, keep in mind that 48vs48, guildvsguild, attackervsdefender in a siege environment will be a new experience and never seen before in a game. I'm talking rhinos mounts (controlled by players) hammering on the gates, trebuchets destroying walls and defenders blocking the access with their bodies ( yes there is collision detection). I'm pretty sure Funcom would have had more players on each side if it was more fun. They've probably realized 48vs48 is the best they can come up with at the moment, but I'm sure if they get more time they might be able to change it with a future patch. Perhaps. Maybe.
48vs48 isn't massive, but it's the best we've seen so far in this setting. One other thing; every developer in the history of mankind has thrown out more ideas than they could put in the finished product. It's fact in AoC and it will be fact in - for instance - WAR. If the only reason you wanted to play AoC was because of "massive sieges" then I'm sorry and I recommend you to give it a miss. At least a year or so maybe it changes then.
The game was just released what.... a few hours ago? If it had massive pvp battles included then what else would you all complain about? If you feel that you have been lied to THEN DON'T PLAY THE GAME. See how easy that was? I just saved you several hours of heartache...
/banish troll x2
You know normally i would agree with you that the game just got released, but he/she has every right to be upset. They stated many times it would be epic and if i remember 100s of people fighting. This was false. The game made a huge design flaw with pixels over gameplay IMO and they ll have to live with it now. If you re into a controlled amount of people and a pre determined time they can attack then it could be epic, but for most of us who have played games other then WOW s BGs know it s not.
This i agree with i was wanting to play it for the massive siege. After i saw the window for attack time and now 48vs48 i would not pick it up. Not saying alot wont like it but in a year or so many other games should and will be out so i m sure alot will move on. We ll see when the PLing guilds hit there and see how it is.
The RvR system has unlimited number of people (most I've seen is about 600 people) fighting for control of several DOZEN keeps and about 50 towers. There are trebuchets, rams, balistas, catapults, boiling oil, destructable walls and siege equipment, skiffs, battleships, war galleys that could block off harbors and sink retreating enemies. AoC is a watered down regulated imitation of this system, and many people thought (I didn't) that it would be the next big PvP game.
So...you can see why some people feel its unacceptable. If a game could do what I just listed in 2001, then how come Funcom can't do it now? Because they went for better graphics over gameplay.
Darkfall Travelogues!
ok...
I will say this again...
NO other game as even ATTEMPTED to do what AoC is doing and that includes Shadowbane AND DAoC (and I've played both).
No other game ever released has the level of collision detection that AoC has, NONE and trust me, that collision detection is VERY costly. In this case, it has little to do with graphics (though some) and more to do with all the moving 'obstacles' that are in the game. This puts a very heavy load on processors and they probably did not wish to increase their system specs any higher than they already were, they wouldn't have enough people playing if the game required a 9300 yorkfield as a minimum requirement with the 9750 as the recommended.
Shadowbane didn't do this (though it was promised, along with the ability to change the maps through traveling over it, though people seem to forget that
. DAoC didn't do that. In short, they cut corners that AoC didn't to allow for the larger battles, battles that will be more realistic (ie, you can actually flank someone and pin them in, or pin people against a wall through the collision detection).
This is a very important step foward in the MMO world, yes I would of liked the numbers on seiges to be larger, who really wouldn't of? I come from a SB background where I was in a very large nation, so I understand the large seige desire.
But take note, nothing is saying that 48/48 is where it will stay, that is just its initial setting, as they get more 'testing' in on the seige mechanics and how well it is working, that number could go up and I would rather they start low and work their way up than to come out and say seiges are 200v200 and have to cut it back after launch.
Agreed. Anymore people might bog down the computer more anyway. Well mine atleast. Its not the best rig but its decent. so 48v48 is a good number
How can it bog down the PC when they said they are "Culling" objects that got over the limit in any case? EVE does it and allows ya to turn every single ship onscreen into icons
Eve Online also has collision detection + full scale MASSIVE battles but anyway I'm more concerned bout the state of PVP server. The BK PVP might be okay actually. but anyway wanted to point out they are for sure not the first for this stuff...
Now, as for DAoC and Shadowbane. The tech probably wasn't there yet. DAoC released in 2001.
Another thing... you cannot possibly be blind enough to suggest that just because DAoC didn't have collision detection that it was nowhere near as ambitious as AoC. DAoC was revolutionary to PvP and is STILL, SEVEN YEARS LATER, the king of PvP. AoC is nowhere near stepping out of the box. They have a heavily regulated and simplified siege system. Just because it has collision detection doesn't mean its infinitely better. Collision detection does not make the game. I have no idea what you're trying to get at.
Darkfall Travelogues!
I think respawning is allowed, you have the 2 hour window to keep going I think.. the way you defend the keep is to keep the defenders "Score" below your own. If there's reaches higher than yours then they can actually take the keep I think(Score is calculated on each side by k/d, buildings destroyed, areas captured, etc).
--------------------
-Currently playing FFXIV, and BDO.
At the start they said massive siege battles. 48vs48 is not even a siege its a joke. Thats more like a tactical mission than a huge battle. Thats why I am pissed
When its in development....no. If its in the middle of a live game progression...yes. This was still in development when they made those changes. It sucks; but Im not pissed at them for not being able to effectively achieve what they wanted
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
I have a feeling this is the reason for the low 48/48 cap. They want to make sure that it works, that the performance people are getting is good enough and that it doesn't lag the server to death. Raising the cap later on should be a simple affair. Repairing the reputation of sieges being a lagfest because they started out with a cap of 100/100 would be much much harder. Oh, and when they do raise the cap, they can make a big deal out of it and get some promotion.
I'm a big ol' fluffy carewolf. Be afraid. Be very afraid.