and can't guild buy NPC guards ? that will add to the body count when the battles is done so 48+48=96+( X # NPCguards ) = 100+ and i think that will be alot of fun
Coming from GuildWars, I'd say 48 is a lot bigger than what I'd expect. In no way am I looking into MASSIVE PVP siege, since there's a fine line dividing a well coordinated PVP battle and utter chaos. Personally I'd prefer a well coordinated PVP battle, and as the number gets larger, the more likely it is going to turn into a mindless "bash and smash".
Coming from GuildWars, I'd say 48 is a lot bigger than what I'd expect. In no way am I looking into MASSIVE PVP siege, since there's a fine line dividing a well coordinated PVP battle and utter chaos. Personally I'd prefer a well coordinated PVP battle, and as the number gets larger, the more likely it is going to turn into a mindless "bash and smash".
Well this is why i think they have it right for many reasons, coordinating this many is possible, anyone who has faced a Premade MC in alterac valley knows who wins with an organised group.
Its not going to be 600v600 out in the middle of a feild killing and reressing in a never ending cycle.....Funcom have planned that it is to be an attack against the buildings and the keeps, if you had an army of 500+ you would just smash these buildings in minutes...plus the defending team would just be rolled over as most likely a guild would struggle to pull 500 online at same time and mercenaries would be more interested in destroying a city rather than protecting one, so you could end up with seige battles of 40 guildies fighting off 500 - 600 attackers (because there are no factions this seems an obvious way the battles would turn out).
So with the limits that they are impossing at this time, they seem more than reasonable, I am also sure that this system will evolve as time goes on once they are able to concentrate on single subject matters and try to implement peoples wishes towards large scale battles after the system has been tried and tested to the last....
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
The limit is only for allies and mercenaries, not for guild members, so you can have 100 vs. 100 on the battlefield, if you have a large guilds!
Not correct, they state that the 48 limit does not have to be compiled of your guild members only....if you wish you can fill up the numbers to 48 with people from outside of your guild.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
Basicly we are talking what Blizzard did with AV. That is in no way Massive. But this was always known to be the case. What Funcom talked about as massive is in reality something avrage. Thats how it has been from start.
Dissapointing ofc but was known to be something close to this number.
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.
~ ~
Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
Another point I'd like to make is that a player's individual value on a battlefield is inversely proportional to the total number of players. That being said, in a 200 vs 200 for example, losing 10 player on one team would not change the tide of the battle significantly. However in 48 vs 48, losing 10 is a huge set back for that team. So basically, in a MASSIVE battle (AKA 200 vs 200), your death would go unnoticed. So would you rather feel like you are actually making a difference or would you rather be a disposable minion?
I think 48 vs. 48 is a great number for how big the cities/battlefields look especially with respawning. I am not looking for a zerg fest. 48 is a great number of full parties.. 48/6 = 8 full parties. That is a great number for tactical planning. Although they did say they were aiming to support 200-300 eventually. I think this would turn into lag, zerg, and frustration. At most I'd like to maybe see 10 full parties enabled so maybe 60 vs. 60. We will see though once it launches. 48 vs. 48 might feel like too many or it might feel like not enough. I think the devs will be moving this number around as they haven't tested large scale sieges in a live environment. I would prefer for them to run smooth though with tactics employed rather then laggy where you die and have no idea how.
I think though that they may need to increase the amount of attack windows or something so that more of the server can get in on the battles.
Another point I'd like to make is that a player's individual value on a battlefield is inversely proportional to the total number of players. That being said, in a 200 vs 200 for example, losing 10 player on one team would not change the tide of the battle significantly. However in 48 vs 48, losing 10 is a huge set back for that team. So basically, in a MASSIVE battle (AKA 200 vs 200), your death would go unnoticed. So would you rather feel like you are actually making a difference or would you rather be a disposable minion?
That depends primarily on the way the battle's terrain, objectives etc are set up, no to mention the impact of individual skill as well as group play and coordination on the outcome.
You can have meaningless zerg pvp 10v10 and deep an meaningful 200v200. We'll see how smartly the sieges are designed.. are there multiple objectives? multiple entrances? different ways of accomplishing the same effect? Is the battle itself isolated or can it be influenced by outside factors? This is much more important for quality PvP than sheer XvX size.
When the trolls are spining stuff around to make a point every1 jumps over them reporting people and stuff. Now i love how the fanbois are doing the same thing and dont mind doing so.
When FC announced massive epic sieges did any1 complain about individual skill? about zerg pvp? dont think so. But after FC lied to its customers its all ok since 48 is the magic number all of a sudden, with 48 people your death counts, 48 is not a zerg, 48 allows for skill and all that random stuff people are suddenly making up.
Do i like 100 vs 100 battles? dont matter cause FC dont give me a choice do they? But ye i sure as hell prefer graphics and leaving x number of my guildies out of the fun, to i dunno every1 participating since that is what a guild is for?
What I find ironic is that the way Funcom designed the game its set up for large guilds. You will need a lot of resources to build player cities and battlekeeps, you will need a lot of players to assert yourself on a server so you can get one of the few battlekeep spots... But when it comes to actually participating in the siege battles, only 48 people can go. I could easily see guilds going over 100+ people, and its kind of a slap in the face to say "Hey thanks for putting in all the time and effort in building up our cities, but now that its time to actually enjoy the fruits of your labor, you can't go."
When the trolls are spining stuff around to make a point every1 jumps over them reporting people and stuff. Now i love how the fanbois are doing the same thing and dont mind doing so.
When FC announced massive epic sieges did any1 complain about individual skill? about zerg pvp? dont think so. But after FC lied to its customers its all ok since 48 is the magic number all of a sudden, with 48 people your death counts, 48 is not a zerg, 48 allows for skill and all that random stuff people are suddenly making up. Do i like 100 vs 100 battles? dont matter cause FC dont give me a choice do they? But ye i sure as hell prefer graphics and leaving x number of my guildies out of the fun, to i dunno every1 participating since that is what a guild is for?
Any1 else appreciate the irony in this?
or it stimulates the making of more guilds so that its not like that a few HUGE guilds take all the power forever by winning with just big numbers of guildies zerging there way to the battle. Next to that even if a guild has 100+ members the guildwars are for the toplvls only.. or its divived in different lvl ranges, i dont know which one but u will never be able to involve all lvl ranges
48 isnt a magic number, but with the heavy engine i dont think FC has a choice. Besides that i never did any bigger raids (well 1 or 2 times in AO and the zone crashed ) so its all ok for me. Still ill await the release before ill buy it.. or not
i appreciate the irony, and i am glad that u wont play it.. +1 for the aoc community
MMOs currently playing: - About to play: Lord of the Rings Online Played: Anarchy Online (alltime favorite) and lots of f2p titles (honorable mentions: 9Dragons, Martial Heroes, Dekaron, Atlantica Online)
There goes the last bastion of those who yelled "AoC is uber PvP-game OMG!11" AoC is a PvE-game with PvP tagget on, period. Honestly, this shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone with the ability to read between the lines.
Its not really a surprise, at least not to me, but it's more fuel for the "I told you so" people. Funcom tosses a lot of catch phrases like "massive PVP" out without really defining them, which lead people to be misinformed. Perhaps in Funcom's mind 48 vs 48 is "massive", but for some people thats nothing. Personally it just sounds like a glorified AV battle, with objectives that actually matter. Then again I could care less, as if I do buy this game it would be for the PVE not the PVP.
48 vs 48??? ...while they can't even get 10 against 10 without frame drops to 5 FPsecond. 48 vs 48 of still picturres half of the time ....LOL No wonder they didn't offer it yet. No need to Beta test I suppose.
Well, seeing as how your wrong, I suppose i'll let you go on your lack of information. I do suggest buying a computer that doesn't come out of a crackerjack box though.
Hmm and you said you can run this np on a $500 Wal Mart comp go figure.
LOL. I seem to remember some fanbois being hurt by my claims that FC didn't have the talent to pull off 200v200
Yes i remember when i said it will be another WOW BG and i got jumped on with they ll have 100 vs 100 easily go away idiot etc. I was just stating it because of lag issues. So now basically you have a BK that is getting attacked. Not only does the eneemy have to tell the owning guild they want to attack it, the owning guild tells them when they can attack, now you can bring a huge force of 48 lol this is sad truly for all the claims of Epic sieges never before seen in a MMO. Here all line up your massive force of 48 lol.
This is pretty disappointing. I know alot of guilds went on a recruiting binge to get 150+ members thinking they would need it for sieges. 48 people isn't even a full raid in some MMO's. I never really expected it to be 500 like some people were saying but FC said they were testing sieges with 200 or so people. Guess that didn't go so well. So much for all that mercenary shit it won't be hard to get 48 people together once or twice a week. If your a casual gamer not in a high end guild you can forget about seeing a siege they are just going to be high end raid content now if this holds up.
As I was reading down this post, I saw all the Warhammer Fanbois trying to put AoC down again. When the fact of the matter is that Warhammer's city siege PvP is going to be instances inside of instances. They can't even hold a city siege inside one instance. While were on the subject, Warhammer also has the mindless button mashing so you can see BIG numbers and hopefully you can do a 25 man raid to get more EPICS! None of this stuff is in though because EA Mythic is reassessing the game AGAIN. So before you start bashing AoC look and see what your own game has to offer.
As I was reading down this post, I saw all the Warhammer Fanbois trying to put AoC down again. When the fact of the matter is that Warhammer's city siege PvP is going to be instances inside of instances. They can't even hold a city siege inside one instance. While were on the subject, Warhammer also has the mindless button mashing so you can see BIG numbers and hopefully you can do a 25 man raid to get more EPICS! None of this stuff is in though because EA Mythic is reassessing the game AGAIN. So before you start bashing AoC look and see what your own game has to offer.
I won t comment on how wrong you are lol(NDA) but thats ok. I can say one thing city sieges are not 48 vs 48 and can be attacked by anyone anytime, wow what a concept, anyways you BK fights are ecxactly like city sieges as far as instancing goes, good try
Dark Age of Camelot. There - this shoots down right about 90% of all appeasers.
There really is nothing to shoot down here... why are you always trying to make out like this is some kind of fight?
Look...
AoC is AoC. It is what it is.
I can understand it when people have technical issues etc and want to complain (to an extent...), but complaining about a system design choice in a game is wierd to me...
Like I say, FC have made a design choice to limit siege warfare to 48 a side. Thats it. No more. There is no debate here. That either appeals to you or it dosent.
Noone is pretending it is anything then what it is saying it is. You still have the choice to purchase or not. Noone promised that this game was going to be the universal reagent capable of appealing equally to every pedantic, argumentative, moaning, negative, tantrum throwing MMORPGer out there.
This is very disappointing. Basic it just like World of Warcraft Alterac Valley with eight more people on each side. Plus 1-2 battlekeep. I am really concern about major guilds. Lets say you have a 300 man strong guild army, but you can only defend it with 48 of you troops. I really dislike that a lot.
“Of course this usually involves hundreds of players”, “This is how sieging looks in AOC”
“You will have to muster your ENTIRE GUILD ! And really go into this, This is going to take hours this siege is HUGE! HUGE! Stuff.
“Of course you have to envision hundreds of players on this battlefield”
“We watched troy, we watched brave heart, we watched 300, all these movies, that’s really the feeling we want to capture here, its you there on the battle field, swinging you sword and being one of MANY! MANY! soldiers in a HUGH! HUGH! EPIC WAR!.
“As a guild you might not have access to that many players ,so what a guild can do is hire player mercenary’s, you can go out and say we will pay 100 gold to anyone that will help us for this war, so that’s a great way for players to get into siege PvP without actually having to be part of this HUGE GUILD.”
Check the video yourself if you doubt the accuracy or context of the quotes.
What I find ironic is that the way Funcom designed the game its set up for large guilds. You will need a lot of resources to build player cities and battlekeeps, you will need a lot of players to assert yourself on a server so you can get one of the few battlekeep spots... But when it comes to actually participating in the siege battles, only 48 people can go. I could easily see guilds going over 100+ people, and its kind of a slap in the face to say "Hey thanks for putting in all the time and effort in building up our cities, but now that its time to actually enjoy the fruits of your labor, you can't go."
Turn you nailed it perfectly imo. This is what irked me about the design as well. You limit the the battlefields to a certain number of players, in a game that requires massive guilds to fund the player cities being built. So then what do you, of course you bring the 48 best pvpers with you to defend a keep, and that alienates a huge part of your guild. I just don't think it was completely thought out in end game terms. 100v100 would have been more reasonable, I know we had at least that many in major battles in Shadowbane.
Granted you have to take into account improved graphics, but apparently everyone is fine telling the noobs to buy better pcs. Perhaps they should have made it 100v100 and funcom tell the fanbois to turn their high end rigs to low settings lol.
Comments
and can't guild buy NPC guards ? that will add to the body count when the battles is done so 48+48=96+( X # NPCguards ) = 100+ and i think that will be alot of fun
Coming from GuildWars, I'd say 48 is a lot bigger than what I'd expect. In no way am I looking into MASSIVE PVP siege, since there's a fine line dividing a well coordinated PVP battle and utter chaos. Personally I'd prefer a well coordinated PVP battle, and as the number gets larger, the more likely it is going to turn into a mindless "bash and smash".
The limit is only for allies and mercenaries, not for guild members, so you can have 100 vs. 100 on the battlefield, if you have large guilds!
Well this is why i think they have it right for many reasons, coordinating this many is possible, anyone who has faced a Premade MC in alterac valley knows who wins with an organised group.
Its not going to be 600v600 out in the middle of a feild killing and reressing in a never ending cycle.....Funcom have planned that it is to be an attack against the buildings and the keeps, if you had an army of 500+ you would just smash these buildings in minutes...plus the defending team would just be rolled over as most likely a guild would struggle to pull 500 online at same time and mercenaries would be more interested in destroying a city rather than protecting one, so you could end up with seige battles of 40 guildies fighting off 500 - 600 attackers (because there are no factions this seems an obvious way the battles would turn out).
So with the limits that they are impossing at this time, they seem more than reasonable, I am also sure that this system will evolve as time goes on once they are able to concentrate on single subject matters and try to implement peoples wishes towards large scale battles after the system has been tried and tested to the last....
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
Not correct, they state that the 48 limit does not have to be compiled of your guild members only....if you wish you can fill up the numbers to 48 with people from outside of your guild.
"Trump is a blunt force, all-American, laser-guided middle finger to everything and everyone in Washington, D.C." - Wayne Allyn Root
I'm not surprised at all.. Not at all.
Basicly we are talking what Blizzard did with AV. That is in no way Massive. But this was always known to be the case. What Funcom talked about as massive is in reality something avrage. Thats how it has been from start.
Dissapointing ofc but was known to be something close to this number.
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.
~ ~
Had I the heavens' embroidered cloths, Enwrought with golden and silver light, The blue and the dim and the dark cloths Of night and light and the half light, I would spread the cloths under your feet: But I, being poor, have only my dreams; I have spread my dreams under your feet; Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
Another point I'd like to make is that a player's individual value on a battlefield is inversely proportional to the total number of players. That being said, in a 200 vs 200 for example, losing 10 player on one team would not change the tide of the battle significantly. However in 48 vs 48, losing 10 is a huge set back for that team. So basically, in a MASSIVE battle (AKA 200 vs 200), your death would go unnoticed. So would you rather feel like you are actually making a difference or would you rather be a disposable minion?
I think 48 vs. 48 is a great number for how big the cities/battlefields look especially with respawning. I am not looking for a zerg fest. 48 is a great number of full parties.. 48/6 = 8 full parties. That is a great number for tactical planning. Although they did say they were aiming to support 200-300 eventually. I think this would turn into lag, zerg, and frustration. At most I'd like to maybe see 10 full parties enabled so maybe 60 vs. 60. We will see though once it launches. 48 vs. 48 might feel like too many or it might feel like not enough. I think the devs will be moving this number around as they haven't tested large scale sieges in a live environment. I would prefer for them to run smooth though with tactics employed rather then laggy where you die and have no idea how.
I think though that they may need to increase the amount of attack windows or something so that more of the server can get in on the battles.
That depends primarily on the way the battle's terrain, objectives etc are set up, no to mention the impact of individual skill as well as group play and coordination on the outcome.
You can have meaningless zerg pvp 10v10 and deep an meaningful 200v200. We'll see how smartly the sieges are designed.. are there multiple objectives? multiple entrances? different ways of accomplishing the same effect? Is the battle itself isolated or can it be influenced by outside factors? This is much more important for quality PvP than sheer XvX size.
When the trolls are spining stuff around to make a point every1 jumps over them reporting people and stuff. Now i love how the fanbois are doing the same thing and dont mind doing so.
When FC announced massive epic sieges did any1 complain about individual skill? about zerg pvp? dont think so. But after FC lied to its customers its all ok since 48 is the magic number all of a sudden, with 48 people your death counts, 48 is not a zerg, 48 allows for skill and all that random stuff people are suddenly making up.
Do i like 100 vs 100 battles? dont matter cause FC dont give me a choice do they? But ye i sure as hell prefer graphics and leaving x number of my guildies out of the fun, to i dunno every1 participating since that is what a guild is for?
Any1 else appreciate the irony in this?
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMD FX-4300
8gb DDR 667
Nvidia GTX 770
or it stimulates the making of more guilds so that its not like that a few HUGE guilds take all the power forever by winning with just big numbers of guildies zerging there way to the battle. Next to that even if a guild has 100+ members the guildwars are for the toplvls only.. or its divived in different lvl ranges, i dont know which one but u will never be able to involve all lvl ranges
48 isnt a magic number, but with the heavy engine i dont think FC has a choice. Besides that i never did any bigger raids (well 1 or 2 times in AO and the zone crashed
) so its all ok for me. Still ill await the release before ill buy it.. or not
i appreciate the irony, and i am glad that u wont play it.. +1 for the aoc community
MMOs currently playing: -
About to play: Lord of the Rings Online
Played: Anarchy Online (alltime favorite) and lots of f2p titles (honorable mentions: 9Dragons, Martial Heroes, Dekaron, Atlantica Online)
There goes the last bastion of those who yelled "AoC is uber PvP-game OMG!11" AoC is a PvE-game with PvP tagget on, period.
Honestly, this shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone with the ability to read between the lines.
Its not really a surprise, at least not to me, but it's more fuel for the "I told you so" people. Funcom tosses a lot of catch phrases like "massive PVP" out without really defining them, which lead people to be misinformed. Perhaps in Funcom's mind 48 vs 48 is "massive", but for some people thats nothing. Personally it just sounds like a glorified AV battle, with objectives that actually matter. Then again I could care less, as if I do buy this game it would be for the PVE not the PVP.
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMD FX-4300
8gb DDR 667
Nvidia GTX 770
Well, seeing as how your wrong, I suppose i'll let you go on your lack of information. I do suggest buying a computer that doesn't come out of a crackerjack box though.
Hmm and you said you can run this np on a $500 Wal Mart comp go figure.
Yes i remember when i said it will be another WOW BG and i got jumped on with they ll have 100 vs 100 easily go away idiot etc. I was just stating it because of lag issues. So now basically you have a BK that is getting attacked. Not only does the eneemy have to tell the owning guild they want to attack it, the owning guild tells them when they can attack, now you can bring a huge force of 48 lol this is sad truly for all the claims of Epic sieges never before seen in a MMO. Here all line up your massive force of 48 lol.
This is pretty disappointing. I know alot of guilds went on a recruiting binge to get 150+ members thinking they would need it for sieges. 48 people isn't even a full raid in some MMO's. I never really expected it to be 500 like some people were saying but FC said they were testing sieges with 200 or so people. Guess that didn't go so well. So much for all that mercenary shit it won't be hard to get 48 people together once or twice a week. If your a casual gamer not in a high end guild you can forget about seeing a siege they are just going to be high end raid content now if this holds up.
As I was reading down this post, I saw all the Warhammer Fanbois trying to put AoC down again. When the fact of the matter is that Warhammer's city siege PvP is going to be instances inside of instances. They can't even hold a city siege inside one instance. While were on the subject, Warhammer also has the mindless button mashing so you can see BIG numbers and hopefully you can do a 25 man raid to get more EPICS! None of this stuff is in though because EA Mythic is reassessing the game AGAIN. So before you start bashing AoC look and see what your own game has to offer.
I won t comment on how wrong you are lol(NDA) but thats ok. I can say one thing city sieges are not 48 vs 48 and can be attacked by anyone anytime, wow what a concept, anyways you BK fights are ecxactly like city sieges as far as instancing goes, good try
There really is nothing to shoot down here... why are you always trying to make out like this is some kind of fight?
Look...
AoC is AoC. It is what it is.
I can understand it when people have technical issues etc and want to complain (to an extent...), but complaining about a system design choice in a game is wierd to me...
Like I say, FC have made a design choice to limit siege warfare to 48 a side. Thats it. No more. There is no debate here. That either appeals to you or it dosent.
Noone is pretending it is anything then what it is saying it is. You still have the choice to purchase or not. Noone promised that this game was going to be the universal reagent capable of appealing equally to every pedantic, argumentative, moaning, negative, tantrum throwing MMORPGer out there.
Either buy the game or don't.
This is very disappointing. Basic it just like World of Warcraft Alterac Valley with eight more people on each side. Plus 1-2 battlekeep. I am really concern about major guilds. Lets say you have a 300 man strong guild army, but you can only defend it with 48 of you troops. I really dislike that a lot.
A picture (or video presentation) speaks louder then a thousand words
From GC 2007 Age of Conan Siege demonstration
“Of course this usually involves hundreds of players”, “This is how sieging looks in AOC”
“You will have to muster your ENTIRE GUILD ! And really go into this, This is going to take hours this siege is HUGE! HUGE! Stuff.
“Of course you have to envision hundreds of players on this battlefield”
“We watched troy, we watched brave heart, we watched 300, all these movies, that’s really the feeling we want to capture here, its you there on the battle field, swinging you sword and being one of MANY! MANY! soldiers in a HUGH! HUGH! EPIC WAR!.
“As a guild you might not have access to that many players ,so what a guild can do is hire player mercenary’s, you can go out and say we will pay 100 gold to anyone that will help us for this war, so that’s a great way for players to get into siege PvP without actually having to be part of this HUGE GUILD.”
Check the video yourself if you doubt the accuracy or context of the quotes.
What I find ironic is that the way Funcom designed the game its set up for large guilds. You will need a lot of resources to build player cities and battlekeeps, you will need a lot of players to assert yourself on a server so you can get one of the few battlekeep spots... But when it comes to actually participating in the siege battles, only 48 people can go. I could easily see guilds going over 100+ people, and its kind of a slap in the face to say "Hey thanks for putting in all the time and effort in building up our cities, but now that its time to actually enjoy the fruits of your labor, you can't go."Turn you nailed it perfectly imo. This is what irked me about the design as well. You limit the the battlefields to a certain number of players, in a game that requires massive guilds to fund the player cities being built. So then what do you, of course you bring the 48 best pvpers with you to defend a keep, and that alienates a huge part of your guild. I just don't think it was completely thought out in end game terms. 100v100 would have been more reasonable, I know we had at least that many in major battles in Shadowbane.
Granted you have to take into account improved graphics, but apparently everyone is fine telling the noobs to buy better pcs. Perhaps they should have made it 100v100 and funcom tell the fanbois to turn their high end rigs to low settings lol.