Please keep things civil, you don't need to call people angry nerds just because you can not take an objective view to gw2.
So wait, you can derail a point that I am attempting to make in a public setting by essentially being a dick to me and pretty much everyone else who even brushes your point, but when I call you an angry nerd for telling me AND I QUOTE
Rein I am sorry you don't understand the very simple and basic concept of passing and failing an event.
You are basically hung up on the name of dynamic events in gw2, and the fluff from things like the manifesto. "But it says it is dynamic!!! How can it be pass/fail??!?!?!" Look at the actual mechanics, instead of what you are HOPING for.
And
Second off, this is a matter of you being unable to cope with the concept of being wrong to someone you may not be fond of.
Instead of just admitting you are struggling to understand what pass/fail means at a very basic level, you would rather turn this into something it is not.
Unfortunately I don't get derailed in my conversations so the only options here are really to comprehend pass/fail mechanics, or you might as well not even try to discuss about it, cause you shouldn't argue against things you can't grasp.
Implying I am an idiot, but you don't even really know me or what I have done in the past - both of those quotes are from the GW2 the next WOW??? thread if anyone wants to cite my sources.
Look dude, the slight insult I threw your way was uncalled for, but I've wanted to say much worse. You don't bother me personally, in fact I kind of enjoy waiting to see what "That guy" - that guy being you is going to say next. I even told you a few nights ago that I was an EQ and WoW raider but you called me a liar. For some reason I can't find that thread right now but it doesn't really matter unless you bring it up - then I'll probably have to.
That kind of rude ass behavior is what I would expect from a mid-20s shut in that does nothing but play games and still lives with their parents, without even holding a job or going to school. It doesn't matter what you actually are, but that is how you act. Therefore the angry nerd comment. Maybe if you would stop assuming your fake Mensa membership entitled you to telling everyone else how much of a "noob" or as you say it "Can't grasp" they are at MMORPG games, they would stop taking passive agressive stances towards you, or in my case - borderline aggressive.
The best part is, somewhere in your head you have it that I blindly accept whatever Anet tells me. Which you would find not the case had you not already made up your mind about me and everyone else that happens to try taking a different approach to an unreleased game that everyone has the same information about except you and your "inside sources" which are likely just some guy you talked to a video game convention - allowing you to share your false sense of entitlement with everyone.
Mister RobertDinh, unfortunately this probably won't be the last message I write directed at you with nothing to do with the game.
But believe me, it is the first of many as long as you and I share forum space at a place I check twice a day on my phone during breaks and what not. It's just so much more fun to attempt the impossible, I.E. Trying to get you to comprehend exactly how rediculous everything you say is. By the way dude, go look up the words "Objectivity" - "Pass" - "Fail" - "Conversation".
You know my stance, so why don't you keep trying to take yours of "Your obviously blinded by your devotion to the idea of Guild Wars 2 more than the reality of the matter" and see how that turns out. Actually, just think... for a second before you post from here on out - thank you and sorry for calling you an angry nerd. Dick.
I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you try to throw out personal attacks, and do not look at gw2 from an objective point of view.
Self-control and emotional intelligence are important things to develop if you want to become a better person.
My hope for this forum unlike another gw2 forum is that people can have civilized discussions without the tacky personal attacks and rude behavior. Just honesty and objectivity.
Originally posted by jezvin
Originally posted by RobertDinh
No it's not just on the user end, that just isn't a very experienced or well-informed thing to say. A good example was the gameplay demo lagging when 50 players were casting spells in a small area, despite using great hardware to show off GW2's graphics.
Sometimes games aren't coded efficiently, and players that even meet recommended specs often find parts of the game unplayable.
Also network lag depending on the game can bog down your system and create hardware lag as well.
You basically approach this issue with the attitude of "oh it never happened to me when I was casually playing pvp so it must not actually be an issue"
When the reality of it is no MMO to date has handled large-scale pvp smoothly.
Well that’s interesting because you are actually just wrong, that is an experienced and well-informed thing to say.
You seem so logical, so why would you use and example that contradicts what you are trying to argue.
I have brought up the point that if you want to reduce video lag then you would lower the graphics.
You then reply saying that there is video lag in a demo designed around showing the graphics.
It’s made to show graphics, not made to show WvW pvp. And you are using this as a base for your assumption that GW2 will keep up with a trend in laggy, yet playable MMO WvW.
You’re just wrong. Also you are not only misinformed, and inexperienced you take the cake with illogical. Please stop pouring out your assumptions as if they have any hard ground backing them.
Apparently the logic was hard for you to follow. The demo machines were of high quality hardware, yet the game lagged with 50 players in PvE in a concentrated area. This has nothing to do with the shatterer fight where people are spread out. It has to do with how the game handles concentrated strain.
If they are using good hardware, and the game lags with 50 people in PvE (no system pvp checks and damage are going out from player to player) then hundreds of people pvping would be exponentially worse.
As I said before you simply can't grasp the concept of mass pvp lag, because you aren't experienced with it, and you think that since you haven't had experience with it, the issue must not exist.
If they are using good hardware, and the game lags with 50 people in PvE (no system pvp checks and damage are going out from player to player) then hundreds of people pvping would be exponentially worse.
It wasn't 50 people. It was 100+ people in that picture.
I'm sorry if you have trouble counting. Others, however, have not.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Apparently the logic was hard for you to follow. The demo machines were of high quality hardware, yet the game lagged with 50 players in PvE in a concentrated area. This has nothing to do with the shatterer fight where people are spread out. It has to do with how the game handles concentrated strain.
The clients were of high quality, true. (Based on assumption that Alienware makes good computers) Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they had decent servers with them, were using servers in Ca, USA and being in Germany might have been having internet connection issues, or were just using PC's locally in place of servers. There could be any number of reasons that could cause this type of lag...including the fact that:
"This was exceptionally crazy because so many of us were clustered in a big pile, trying to cast as many spells as we could." comment from someone who was there.
If they are using good hardware, and the game lags with 50 people in PvE (no system pvp checks and damage are going out from player to player) then hundreds of people pvping would be exponentially worse.
It wasn't 50 people. It was 100+ people in that picture.
I'm sorry if you have trouble counting. Others, however, have not.
This would be another case of your biases skewing your perception of what you say.
You have to believe it was 100 because you need to skew every detail possible that helps to justify it for anet's defense.
To you it must have been server locations + bad hardware (like they would use bad hardware to show off the game through demos) + more people than stated + in the snow barefoot uphill both ways.
What it was in reality was about 50 people on good machines meant to show off the games graphics suffering major video lag at less than 10fps.
The reality of it is it was around 50 players. It may not be exactly 50 but I guarantee you it was closer to 50 than it was to 100.
I am objective, I have no reason to skew any of it, if it were close to 100 players I would have said 100, but to me it is just a matter of fact issue. If the game lagged with 2000 players I wouldn't even be making the point, but since it was a relatively low number compared to how many people often participate in large scale pvp, it is a concern. Because if the game lags with 50 people concentrated in PvE, it is going to lag much harder with hundreds of people in PvP.
You have to believe it was 100 because you need to skew every detail possible that helps to justify it for anet's defense.
Ah, projection. Fun. It's more like you have to believe it's 50 in your biased and uninformed attack on ANet.
To you it must have been server locations + bad hardware (like they would use bad hardware to show off the game through demos) + more people than stated + in the snow barefoot uphill both ways.
What it was in reality was about 50 people on good machines meant to show off the games graphics suffering major video lag at less than 10fps.
The reality of it is it was around 50 players. It may not be exactly 50 but I guarantee you it was closer to 50 than it was to 100.
(snips the nonsensical part)
You're blabbering (again) and projecting your own bias. It's tedious, somewhat, like a broken record. Ah well, I guess you can't really help yourself.
It's not 50, it's 100+. Shrug. If you have lost the ability to count, something that even primary school kids can do, then that's not my problem.
It only shows how non-objective and actually biased you are, and not even aware of it yourself. Heh, funny.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
You have to believe it was 100 because you need to skew every detail possible that helps to justify it for anet's defense.
Ah, projection. Fun. It's more like you have to believe it's 50 in your biased and uninformed attack on ANet.
To you it must have been server locations + bad hardware (like they would use bad hardware to show off the game through demos) + more people than stated + in the snow barefoot uphill both ways.
What it was in reality was about 50 people on good machines meant to show off the games graphics suffering major video lag at less than 10fps.
The reality of it is it was around 50 players. It may not be exactly 50 but I guarantee you it was closer to 50 than it was to 100.
(snips the nonsensical part)
You're blabbering (again) and projecting your own bias. It's tedious, somewhat, like a broken record. Ah well, I guess you can't really help yourself.
It's not 50, it's 100+. Shrug. If you have lost the ability to count, something that even primary school kids can do, then that's not my problem.
It only shows how non-objective and actually biased you are, and not even aware of it yourself. Heh, funny.
This is sorta like how delusional you were when I first pointed out the lag in the video and you swore that no such lag existed because in your mind it was impossible, and then you slowly realized how dead wrong you were..
You have to believe it was 100 because you need to skew every detail possible that helps to justify it for anet's defense.
Ah, projection. Fun. It's more like you have to believe it's 50 in your biased and uninformed attack on ANet.
To you it must have been server locations + bad hardware (like they would use bad hardware to show off the game through demos) + more people than stated + in the snow barefoot uphill both ways.
What it was in reality was about 50 people on good machines meant to show off the games graphics suffering major video lag at less than 10fps.
The reality of it is it was around 50 players. It may not be exactly 50 but I guarantee you it was closer to 50 than it was to 100.
(snips the nonsensical part)
You're blabbering (again) and projecting your own bias. It's tedious, somewhat, like a broken record. Ah well, I guess you can't really help yourself.
It's not 50, it's 100+. Shrug. If you have lost the ability to count, something that even primary school kids can do, then that's not my problem.
It only shows how non-objective and actually biased you are, and not even aware of it yourself. Heh, funny.
This is sorta like how delusional you were when I first pointed out the lag in the video and you swore that no such lag existed because in your mind it was impossible, and then you slowly realized how dead wrong you were..
This is sorta like how delusional you were when I first pointed out the lag in the video and you swore that no such lag existed because in your mind it was impossible, and then you slowly realized how dead wrong you were..
You are struggling with that again though.
At least he can count
Yep
@ Robertdinh: ah, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks and going to use examples that have nothing to do with this? Hehe, how predictable and immature.
Whatever, it's hard to take someone seriously who counts even worse than primary school kids. I'd suggest you take a look at the footage and do it by hand, maybe use a little paper to take notes.
Oh wait, that would be using hard evidence and an objective, measurable method of determining things. Hmm, I can see where the problem lies in that for you.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This is sorta like how delusional you were when I first pointed out the lag in the video and you swore that no such lag existed because in your mind it was impossible, and then you slowly realized how dead wrong you were..
You are struggling with that again though.
At least he can count
Yep
@ Robertdinh: ah, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks and going to use examples that have nothing to do with this? Hehe, how predictable and immature.
Whatever, it's hard to take someone seriously who counts even worse than primary school kids. I'd suggest you take a look at the footage and do it by hand, maybe use a little paper to take notes.
Oh wait, that would be using hard evidence and an objective, measurable method of determining things. Hmm, I can see where the problem lies in that for you.
It's not ad hominem it's pointing out this isn't the first time you have severely misunderstood what you are seeing. The first time being the exact same video.
It was obviously around 50 players, the objective people can realize that.
As for you mmogawd, aren't you the guy that just said GW1 was an mmorpg because he didn't understand what being an mmorpg entails?
It's not ad hominem it's pointing out this isn't the first time you have severely misunderstood what you are seeing. The first time being the exact same video.
It was obviously around 50 players, the objective people can realize that.
It's quite obviously not around 50 players, not even close. Wow, it's amazing how you keep that up, I'm really starting to think you have a problem with math on its most basic levels, namely counting and adding.
For those people visiting here who were lenient up till now about it, it only shows how far from real objectivity you are if you refuse to acknowledge such a simple fact.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Can someone link to that video so I can count ? thanks.
I think that whatever, the limit it still sounds fun. Player limit for me wouldn't be top of the list as a deciding factor.
This game is years out yet. It'll change at least once or twice more from now, just because producers get crazy ideas and like to create busy work.
There's a trend for the strategy battles in pvp games to add 50 per side to a map. Just as a reasonable number to achieve for skirmishes and helps keep numbers per sides under control.
There's also going to be 3 sides per battle from what I read. So it'll either be 150 people, 99 people, a number much higher or a number much less.
After reading the first few pages of this thread, I propose a drinking game. Only one rule: Take a drink every time Robert...somebody or other uses the word "objective" in any of its forms.
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums: Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Ignoring the personal attacks in reply to my personal attacks and the amount of irony in everything that guy says... including personal bias.
You have to remember that Anet is a company built on people trying to accomplish something that they can be proud of. This is a fact. I garantee they will find a way to make WvWvW fun with minimal lag. Planetside accomplished some extremely large scale fights with zero lag. I'll pretty much always remember being a machine gunner in a tank in the middle of a 3 tier battle Air, Ground and inside of the buildings we were fighting around. Big bolts of plasma and rockets flying over head. It was sweetness.
If GW2 can do half of that, it will be fantastic.
I doubt that many people would be log jammed into such a tight space during WvWvW according to Anet, there will be multiple objectives splitting people up a bit. Also, you can clearly see that in this video of objectivity that even moving a little bit away from the mass of people caused a dramatic increase in framerate.
Not bias, just eyes,
Edit: There are over 100 people, counted. Can't get an exact measure but that is about 110ish
Edit 2: Some are pets, keep that in mind - then again the pets would obviously count towards the drop in framerate and latency. That's still rather impressive.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
On that linked video there is definately more than 50 people I got to around 90 something but give/take 10 ppl.
Anyway found this info from an interview that is pertinent to this discussion:
- LA : We would like to learn more about the PvP mode which will replace competitive GvG, what shape does it take and what are the aims on the maps (death match, take the flag …?). ArenaNet stated that, in order to make this competitive game mode a real e-sports, eight players was too great a number. Since I cannot imagine an effective competitive PvP with four players (and I cannot think about odd numbers) must we infer that the groups will be six players?
Jon Peters – Game Designer : Competitive PvP in Guild Wars 2 will take a few forms. There will be hot-joinable pick up play that will allow larger team sizes, as well as tournaments that have fixed sizes and times. We aren’t currently revealing the game formats, but there are a number of shared goals that we want our PvP game types to have. They should all be easy to join in the middle of play and scale well to different team sizes. They should be equally fun for casual and competitive play, with dynamic team-based objectives. They should be observer friendly and avoid stalemate situations. Most importantly, they should be FUN.
Many competitive sports and e-sports do use an odd or varying number of players. Soccer is played with 11 players per side, unless it is indoors and then it is played with six. Counterstrike uses five person teams for competitive play. We believe that in order to build a more cohesive user base for competitive PvP the team size for tournaments should be smaller than eight (to make it easier to form teams), and should remain consistent between all game types and tournaments ( to avoid fragmenting the user base). We are not yet revealing the actual team size, but it will be greater than four and less than six.
- LA : You have announced impressive numbers in the GW2 manifesto saying that 501 players is better than 500. Are these figures realistic for WvW? Can you clarify what a “World” will be? In this PvP mode are all the players on the same map? How are you going to avoid the recurring defects seen in all games with a solid PvP such as the lag or crashing clients, especially considering how rich the GW2 animations are?
Jon Peters : World v World is indeed going to feature massive battles where hundreds of players will clash over a number of zones and many objectives. Each side in World v World will be represented by a Guild Wars 2 world (known in most games as a server). For any given week, each world will be matched up against two other worlds fighting over these objectives.
There are a variety of objectives catering to varying player population size. A single player might intercept a resource cart to a lumber mill. A group of players might assault the mill and take control of it for their own side. An army of players might assault a massive castle, breaching the walls, gates, and towers with powerful siege equipment and capturing it for their world. We believe this will spread the players out and avoid lagging problems in many cases. But when all the players converge in an epic clash at that big center castle, World v World uses the same persistent technology that the rest of the game uses. We are also doing some things across the game to handle large gatherings of players. In many ways, our event system is similar to WvW in that it also encourages large groups of players to gather against large groups of monsters, so this is a problem that we need to handle in both cases.
Network architecture:
- LA : The first GW was perfect in terms of network architecture. It allowed playing with players from all over the world while providing a very small ping. What will happen in GW2, must we expect classical “world servers” seen in all MMOs? If so, what have you planned to avoid that some servers are very active and others not at all, and to offer the same quality experience to all players?
Curtis Johnson : Guild Wars 2’s world servers will host many thousands of people at a time. Your account will primarily belong to one world; however we recognize that friendships often cross worlds. We want to maintain the inclusive friendly play we had in Guild Wars, so we plan to make it very easy to visit other worlds to play with your friends without restarting new characters or paying large transfer fees. We haven’t finalized all the details of this yet, but we’ll let you know when we do.
- LA : Is there a limit on the number of players who may be present in an area and beyond which another district is opened?
Eric Flannum : There is no districting in Guild Wars 2. In place of districting, we have divided our player base into various worlds (what other games might refer to as servers or shards). Each map within a world does have a player limit, but it is high enough that we expect it to be rarely if ever reached.
My (low) count is 107 Player characters. If you include the pets, the number of rigged objects jumps to roughly 142.
Solid evidence, Robert, you are wrong about the number of characters spamming skills. Period.
For a demo, having frame dips to roughly 10FPS is quite an achievement for that number of players with still plenty of time (a whole year if Robert's "sources" are to be believed) to optimise the engine to reduce video lag. I doubt we will have to worry about frame drops for mass PvP.
To be fair, the release date may indeed be the only thing he is right about.
Then again, there is no harm in wishing it would come out sooner Unless it causes Robert to attempt to assault us with insults because we are looking forward to a game. It will be said in a way like "Your letting your bias towards something you know nothing about (compared to me, is implied) work you up into a fanboy frenzy, Sorry but you are wrong".
Lol, I love this guy. He's like a nerd version of Kenny Powers.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
Originally posted by Sarielle After reading the first few pages of this thread, I propose a drinking game. Only one rule: Take a drink every time Robert...somebody or other uses the word "objective" in any of its forms.
If we were to do that, we would all be dead from alcohol poisoning by this point.
I love that picture.. the Dye system has let everyone look individual despite the fact that there is really a lot of repitition in what armor is being worn...
- LA : You have announced impressive numbers in the GW2 manifesto saying that 501 players is better than 500. Are these figures realistic for WvW? Can you clarify what a “World” will be? In this PvP mode are all the players on the same map? How are you going to avoid the recurring defects seen in all games with a solid PvP such as the lag or crashing clients, especially considering how rich the GW2 animations are?
Jon Peters : .... But when all the players converge in an epic clash at that big center castle, World v World uses the same persistent technology that the rest of the game uses. We are also doing some things across the game to handle large gatherings of players. In many ways, our event system is similar to WvW in that it also encourages large groups of players to gather against large groups of monsters, so this is a problem that we need to handle in both cases.
it is very hard to not like these guys; no dodging, sugarcoating; they know its a problem, they know they have to deal with it.
There are only around 50 people when the video lags.
It's like you will try to take everything out of context to defend gw2. Specifically when the game lags because people are spamming spells there are around 50 people on screen.
I do not care about how many people were there when they are running around picking flowers. I am talking specifically about when the game suffered major fps lag.
100+ people doing nothing isn't the same as 50 people spamming spells in a concentrated area.
There are only around 50 people when the video lags.
It's like you will try to take everything out of context to defend gw2. Specifically when the game lags because people are spamming spells there are around 50 people on screen.
I do not care about how many people were there when they are running around picking flowers. I am talking specifically about when the game suffered major fps lag.
100+ people doing nothing isn't the same as 50 people spamming spells in a concentrated area.
However, when actual battles like the zhaitan fight (60+ players + monsters + lots of spells and explosions) are going on it's fine, the lag occurs when 50 people are within a 100m^2 area, a totally unrealistic battlefield size for that many players since many would be scattered out of the area by a solitary AoE spell. It is you that are taking things out of context in your quest to troll.
There are only around 50 people when the video lags.
It's like you will try to take everything out of context to defend gw2. Specifically when the game lags because people are spamming spells there are around 50 people on screen.
I do not care about how many people were there when they are running around picking flowers. I am talking specifically about when the game suffered major fps lag.
100+ people doing nothing isn't the same as 50 people spamming spells in a concentrated area.
However, when actual battles are going on it's fine, the lag occures when 50 people are wthin a 100m^2 area, a totally unrealistic battlefield size for that many players since many would be scattered out of the area by a solitary AoE spell. It is you that are taking things out of context in your quest to troll.
Clearly you haven't ever played any largescale pvp games. Because in those games not only do you have more than 50 people in concentrated areas at times, you have many outside of that range also casting into it.
Unfortunately I know what I am talking about here.
Let's try to leave the personal attacks out of this, you don't need to call people trolls just because they have a better understanding of game mechanics and have valid concerns for the game instead of just claiming it is perfect and will have no problems.
Comments
I don't know how you can expect anyone to take you seriously when you try to throw out personal attacks, and do not look at gw2 from an objective point of view.
Self-control and emotional intelligence are important things to develop if you want to become a better person.
My hope for this forum unlike another gw2 forum is that people can have civilized discussions without the tacky personal attacks and rude behavior. Just honesty and objectivity.
Apparently the logic was hard for you to follow. The demo machines were of high quality hardware, yet the game lagged with 50 players in PvE in a concentrated area. This has nothing to do with the shatterer fight where people are spread out. It has to do with how the game handles concentrated strain.
If they are using good hardware, and the game lags with 50 people in PvE (no system pvp checks and damage are going out from player to player) then hundreds of people pvping would be exponentially worse.
As I said before you simply can't grasp the concept of mass pvp lag, because you aren't experienced with it, and you think that since you haven't had experience with it, the issue must not exist.
It wasn't 50 people. It was 100+ people in that picture.
I'm sorry if you have trouble counting. Others, however, have not.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
The clients were of high quality, true. (Based on assumption that Alienware makes good computers) Unfortunately, I'm not sure if they had decent servers with them, were using servers in Ca, USA and being in Germany might have been having internet connection issues, or were just using PC's locally in place of servers. There could be any number of reasons that could cause this type of lag...including the fact that:
"This was exceptionally crazy because so many of us were clustered in a big pile, trying to cast as many spells as we could." comment from someone who was there.
This would be another case of your biases skewing your perception of what you say.
You have to believe it was 100 because you need to skew every detail possible that helps to justify it for anet's defense.
To you it must have been server locations + bad hardware (like they would use bad hardware to show off the game through demos) + more people than stated + in the snow barefoot uphill both ways.
What it was in reality was about 50 people on good machines meant to show off the games graphics suffering major video lag at less than 10fps.
The reality of it is it was around 50 players. It may not be exactly 50 but I guarantee you it was closer to 50 than it was to 100.
I am objective, I have no reason to skew any of it, if it were close to 100 players I would have said 100, but to me it is just a matter of fact issue. If the game lagged with 2000 players I wouldn't even be making the point, but since it was a relatively low number compared to how many people often participate in large scale pvp, it is a concern. Because if the game lags with 50 people concentrated in PvE, it is going to lag much harder with hundreds of people in PvP.
I like everything I read about this game.
While I dont think I could ever be a 'this is my home' type of gamer ever again I do plan to spend some time in GW2 with friends.
I hope they keep their pvp as lively as they did in their first game, best aspect by far.
You're blabbering (again) and projecting your own bias. It's tedious, somewhat, like a broken record. Ah well, I guess you can't really help yourself.
It's not 50, it's 100+. Shrug. If you have lost the ability to count, something that even primary school kids can do, then that's not my problem.
It only shows how non-objective and actually biased you are, and not even aware of it yourself. Heh, funny.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
This is sorta like how delusional you were when I first pointed out the lag in the video and you swore that no such lag existed because in your mind it was impossible, and then you slowly realized how dead wrong you were..
You are struggling with that again though.
At least he can count
Yep
@ Robertdinh: ah, you're resorting to ad hominem attacks and going to use examples that have nothing to do with this? Hehe, how predictable and immature.
Whatever, it's hard to take someone seriously who counts even worse than primary school kids. I'd suggest you take a look at the footage and do it by hand, maybe use a little paper to take notes.
Oh wait, that would be using hard evidence and an objective, measurable method of determining things. Hmm, I can see where the problem lies in that for you.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
It's not ad hominem it's pointing out this isn't the first time you have severely misunderstood what you are seeing. The first time being the exact same video.
It was obviously around 50 players, the objective people can realize that.
As for you mmogawd, aren't you the guy that just said GW1 was an mmorpg because he didn't understand what being an mmorpg entails?
It's quite obviously not around 50 players, not even close. Wow, it's amazing how you keep that up, I'm really starting to think you have a problem with math on its most basic levels, namely counting and adding.
For those people visiting here who were lenient up till now about it, it only shows how far from real objectivity you are if you refuse to acknowledge such a simple fact.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Can someone link to that video so I can count ? thanks.
I think that whatever, the limit it still sounds fun. Player limit for me wouldn't be top of the list as a deciding factor.
Well on the debate of how many are pvping...
This game is years out yet. It'll change at least once or twice more from now, just because producers get crazy ideas and like to create busy work.
There's a trend for the strategy battles in pvp games to add 50 per side to a map. Just as a reasonable number to achieve for skirmishes and helps keep numbers per sides under control.
There's also going to be 3 sides per battle from what I read. So it'll either be 150 people, 99 people, a number much higher or a number much less.
In other words, ya'll all wrong.
After reading the first few pages of this thread, I propose a drinking game. Only one rule: Take a drink every time Robert...somebody or other uses the word "objective" in any of its forms.
Good point, I thought everyone knew the video that was being referred to.
Here it is, the Gamescom farewell video. This is the only video where GW2 showed lag, the Shatterer dragon fights showed none.
The ACTUAL size of MMORPG worlds: a comparison list between MMO's
The ease with which predictions are made on these forums:
Fratman: "I'm saying Spring 2012 at the earliest [for TOR release]. Anyone still clinging to 2011 is deluding themself at this point."
Ignoring the personal attacks in reply to my personal attacks and the amount of irony in everything that guy says... including personal bias.
You have to remember that Anet is a company built on people trying to accomplish something that they can be proud of. This is a fact. I garantee they will find a way to make WvWvW fun with minimal lag. Planetside accomplished some extremely large scale fights with zero lag. I'll pretty much always remember being a machine gunner in a tank in the middle of a 3 tier battle Air, Ground and inside of the buildings we were fighting around. Big bolts of plasma and rockets flying over head. It was sweetness.
If GW2 can do half of that, it will be fantastic.
I doubt that many people would be log jammed into such a tight space during WvWvW according to Anet, there will be multiple objectives splitting people up a bit. Also, you can clearly see that in this video of objectivity that even moving a little bit away from the mass of people caused a dramatic increase in framerate.
Not bias, just eyes,
Edit: There are over 100 people, counted. Can't get an exact measure but that is about 110ish
Edit 2: Some are pets, keep that in mind - then again the pets would obviously count towards the drop in framerate and latency. That's still rather impressive.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
On that linked video there is definately more than 50 people I got to around 90 something but give/take 10 ppl.
Anyway found this info from an interview that is pertinent to this discussion:
http://gw2.luna-atra.fr/interview_etape_avec_arenanet/#vo
PvP:
- LA : We would like to learn more about the PvP mode which will replace competitive GvG, what shape does it take and what are the aims on the maps (death match, take the flag …?). ArenaNet stated that, in order to make this competitive game mode a real e-sports, eight players was too great a number. Since I cannot imagine an effective competitive PvP with four players (and I cannot think about odd numbers) must we infer that the groups will be six players?
Jon Peters – Game Designer : Competitive PvP in Guild Wars 2 will take a few forms. There will be hot-joinable pick up play that will allow larger team sizes, as well as tournaments that have fixed sizes and times. We aren’t currently revealing the game formats, but there are a number of shared goals that we want our PvP game types to have. They should all be easy to join in the middle of play and scale well to different team sizes. They should be equally fun for casual and competitive play, with dynamic team-based objectives. They should be observer friendly and avoid stalemate situations. Most importantly, they should be FUN.
Many competitive sports and e-sports do use an odd or varying number of players. Soccer is played with 11 players per side, unless it is indoors and then it is played with six. Counterstrike uses five person teams for competitive play. We believe that in order to build a more cohesive user base for competitive PvP the team size for tournaments should be smaller than eight (to make it easier to form teams), and should remain consistent between all game types and tournaments ( to avoid fragmenting the user base). We are not yet revealing the actual team size, but it will be greater than four and less than six.
- LA : You have announced impressive numbers in the GW2 manifesto saying that 501 players is better than 500. Are these figures realistic for WvW? Can you clarify what a “World” will be? In this PvP mode are all the players on the same map? How are you going to avoid the recurring defects seen in all games with a solid PvP such as the lag or crashing clients, especially considering how rich the GW2 animations are?
Jon Peters : World v World is indeed going to feature massive battles where hundreds of players will clash over a number of zones and many objectives. Each side in World v World will be represented by a Guild Wars 2 world (known in most games as a server). For any given week, each world will be matched up against two other worlds fighting over these objectives.
There are a variety of objectives catering to varying player population size. A single player might intercept a resource cart to a lumber mill. A group of players might assault the mill and take control of it for their own side. An army of players might assault a massive castle, breaching the walls, gates, and towers with powerful siege equipment and capturing it for their world. We believe this will spread the players out and avoid lagging problems in many cases. But when all the players converge in an epic clash at that big center castle, World v World uses the same persistent technology that the rest of the game uses. We are also doing some things across the game to handle large gatherings of players. In many ways, our event system is similar to WvW in that it also encourages large groups of players to gather against large groups of monsters, so this is a problem that we need to handle in both cases.
Network architecture:
- LA : The first GW was perfect in terms of network architecture. It allowed playing with players from all over the world while providing a very small ping. What will happen in GW2, must we expect classical “world servers” seen in all MMOs? If so, what have you planned to avoid that some servers are very active and others not at all, and to offer the same quality experience to all players?
Curtis Johnson : Guild Wars 2’s world servers will host many thousands of people at a time. Your account will primarily belong to one world; however we recognize that friendships often cross worlds. We want to maintain the inclusive friendly play we had in Guild Wars, so we plan to make it very easy to visit other worlds to play with your friends without restarting new characters or paying large transfer fees. We haven’t finalized all the details of this yet, but we’ll let you know when we do.
- LA : Is there a limit on the number of players who may be present in an area and beyond which another district is opened?
Eric Flannum : There is no districting in Guild Wars 2. In place of districting, we have divided our player base into various worlds (what other games might refer to as servers or shards). Each map within a world does have a player limit, but it is high enough that we expect it to be rarely if ever reached.
Here's the image of the finale event.
My (low) count is 107 Player characters. If you include the pets, the number of rigged objects jumps to roughly 142.
Solid evidence, Robert, you are wrong about the number of characters spamming skills. Period.
For a demo, having frame dips to roughly 10FPS is quite an achievement for that number of players with still plenty of time (a whole year if Robert's "sources" are to be believed) to optimise the engine to reduce video lag. I doubt we will have to worry about frame drops for mass PvP.
To be fair, the release date may indeed be the only thing he is right about.
Then again, there is no harm in wishing it would come out sooner
Unless it causes Robert to attempt to assault us with insults because we are looking forward to a game. It will be said in a way like "Your letting your bias towards something you know nothing about (compared to me, is implied) work you up into a fanboy frenzy, Sorry but you are wrong".
Lol, I love this guy. He's like a nerd version of Kenny Powers.
People think it's fun to pretend your a monster. Me I spend my life pretending I'm not. - Dexter Morgan
If we were to do that, we would all be dead from alcohol poisoning by this point.
I love that picture.. the Dye system has let everyone look individual despite the fact that there is really a lot of repitition in what armor is being worn...
it is very hard to not like these guys; no dodging, sugarcoating; they know its a problem, they know they have to deal with it.
again, Avery, thanks alot.
I need more vespene gas.
I'm talking about 50 people when the video lags.
There are only around 50 people when the video lags.
It's like you will try to take everything out of context to defend gw2. Specifically when the game lags because people are spamming spells there are around 50 people on screen.
I do not care about how many people were there when they are running around picking flowers. I am talking specifically about when the game suffered major fps lag.
100+ people doing nothing isn't the same as 50 people spamming spells in a concentrated area.
However, when actual battles like the zhaitan fight (60+ players + monsters + lots of spells and explosions) are going on it's fine, the lag occurs when 50 people are within a 100m^2 area, a totally unrealistic battlefield size for that many players since many would be scattered out of the area by a solitary AoE spell. It is you that are taking things out of context in your quest to troll.
Clearly you haven't ever played any largescale pvp games. Because in those games not only do you have more than 50 people in concentrated areas at times, you have many outside of that range also casting into it.
Unfortunately I know what I am talking about here.
Let's try to leave the personal attacks out of this, you don't need to call people trolls just because they have a better understanding of game mechanics and have valid concerns for the game instead of just claiming it is perfect and will have no problems.