Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WHY FC WHY????
jadan2000
Member UncommonPosts: 508
http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=90588&page=12
This really hurt! I do pray its a typo. For those that dont want to read. There are basically screenshots up on the AOC forums of the AOC ingame manual showing that there is a limit of 48 players per side in seige battles.
OUCH OUCH OUCH!!
Comments
It's a good number, we are talking here about very detailed combat with more players then the alterac valley in world of warcraft. The static number make it become a very well tuned compitition zone where skills matter and not numbers.
People can think about it what they want but just have some fate, because it will turn out great.
Anyone know what the heck "Configuration: includes/config.php does not exist. Please fill out the data in config.php.new and rename it to config.php" means when I try to access the official forums?
------------------------------
'Cry Havoc, and Let Loose the Dogs of WARRRRR!!!'
I dunno, but 200 ppl running around Tarren mill sucked. I think 48vs48 is gonna be nice. That's still better than AV in WoW...
HEADS ARE GONNA ROLL
looks like the forum software config file is not present or they are reloading the forum software and you caught them int he middle of it
Nothing is officially confirmed yet. Its a manageable size as it is right now. Stops a zerg too.
It could be 48 per side that will be subject to the objectives and still be in an open area, where others can enter but not score in the ticketing system for sieges. Like 96 people in the fight but the area can hold more, like another 100.
Best to wait for official acknowledgement and clarification.
48 v 48 is perfect. Guilds dont have to be huge, lets more people participate.
im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!
Have to look at it too from the tech side if they can handle say for example 300- 500 people in a zone and there are 3 battlekeeps per zone thats 300 people in the border kingdoms essentially getting it on. The left overs will be everyone else because its open pvp zone.
So technically you could have massive in that zone, just not all at your keeps front door. Plus extra people running around who just wont be able to score for either guild making up numbers but having an influence too as the keeps themselves arent instanced.
Would be nice to have some clarification too - I expect it to come late morning Norway time
well epic pvp battles depend on the person.
To me personally 8 groups per team, is rather epic.
48v48 is not epic. It is not massive. It is not "100's of players fighting."
I'm super let down if this turns out to be true.
|Mortal Online|Gnostaria|
They have mentioned numbers around 500 prior and these sieges are also instanced. No doubt this info is hard to obtain and if it's not either, then why not tell the world? In the end the odds look like they just may win again and that is "history tells us holding onto a very late NDA isn't a good sign". No one has seen any of this in action so it's still always possible there is something that is been lost in translation, but then I go back to such a late NDA and really no ofiicial word.
I was hoping that attackers would be able to storm the battle keep from multiple sides with a huge army. While defenders would have clear advantage (they are stationed within a defensive position), but be most likely outnumbered due to mercaneries, ally guilds, and such joining the attackers to make a massive (hundreds of players) raid against the keep.
If it's 48 vs 48 inside an instance, then it's just another battleground. And it would also mean, that for some bizzarre reason, defenders won't really get any advantage at all for being inside a keep. Since if they had advantage, the most skilled guild could easily hold one keep forever. And since they don't have advantage, what is the point of keep at all?
Naw, they have said they hope to have over 100 people in a siege, they have also said back in August last year that they did have 200 and something people on screen at once in a siege in testing, on unoptimized engine with massive lag. mmorpg.com has the siege video 20 something mins long streaming here.
In a skillbased combat system; 48 per side is more than enough.
Having more would actually dumbdown the experience in my opinion; just too much chaos.
If FC stages these mini battles correctly the appearance of an "epic" battle will be possible. Imagine overlooking a frontline def of these group battles and seeing the carnage unfold; waiting for your turn. Would be cool.
Naw, they have said they hope to have over 100 people in a siege, they have also said back in August last year that they did have 200 and something people on screen at once in a siege in testing, on unoptimized engine with massive lag. mmorpg.com has the siege video 20 something mins long streaming here.
1. So where is the 200 at now a year later?
2. I'm am reporting to you the 500 is a quote from them not that long ago.
I agree with the OP in that the thing that attracted me to the siege battles was the thought of 100vs100 battles and other such epic fights. But honestly, there's gotta be a limit to it all. There will be far too much going on with 48vs48 when you consider siege weapons and the server accounting for destructible objects. Not to mention it will probably consist of 48 people on mammoths vs 48 people on mammoths. >.> And with collision detection, defends would just ahve to have a massive guild to create a wall around their fort. And the attackers could consist of several mid-sized guilds joining forces to fight one big guild so that the fight would be unfair.
Anyways, many reasons for and against. I think funcom made a good choice.
where has FC ever officially stated anything about siege battles #s ?
can you provide this information please.
GDC in Leipzig last year.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TTsDVeurU8
"Of course, this will usually involve hundreds of players, we don't have access to hundreds of players in here so we simply have to simulate this."
"So of course, you just have to envision hundreds of players in this battle field instead of these mindless NPC's."
THAT is the siege I wanted. I wanted hundreds of players fighting for a keep. THAT is massive PvP. 48 is not massive.
|Mortal Online|Gnostaria|
Ya I won't argue that, they know best for what will work. The deal is they sold it one way and then drop this on us so late. There are a lot of people who were planning on making a trip from other MMO's that had 100 vs 100 up to 1000 vs 1000 sieges and that was the #1 reason.
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
Wow, and this is supposed to be a PvP game? You might as well join an auto balanced CounterStrike server. That's trash. Instanced arena/pointless PvP for the lose! Knew ya had it in ya Funcom
Darkfall Travelogues!
At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.
To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.
I dont care about performance, if it really is like this im going to be very upset.
still going to play the game but this is preatty lame.
-Jive
wait...what?
i thought this was going to be full on seiging...was one of the things actually attracting me to this game.
and its bull if it cant handle it....in swg we use to have MASSIVE battles. One was over 300 people before the server went boom, and that was on old hardware/servers.