Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Guild size cap?
Shannia
Member Posts: 2,096
A few months back, we discussed guild cap size. Numbers ran from 50 to uncapped. Now that we have documented proof that seige warfare is capped @ 48 vs 48, do we have the same documented proof as to the cap on the size of a guild?
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Comments
999 is cap.
Excellent! Means 48 players could have 951 players cheering them on while the 48 are defending a battle seige event. This is awesome news! Besides, can you image the PvP points the observers to these events will be able to rack up keeping on lookers away? ^^
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Could you imagine a guild with 999 people being allowed to siege? That would destroy that server. Anyone that would make a guild that size would be a fool. I guess you would prefer that all siege battles = Zerg fest?
I agree that 48 x 48 may be low but who knows where the number will end up as it is tested and optimized over time. I think your vision of it sounds infinitely more miserable then being limited to 48 x 48. I do agree that, since they designed it for 200-300 people though with the window times like spread out over 1 week allowing 2000 or so people to participate a week, they need to either bump up the amount of windows or add more battlekeeps to keep consistent with their original design.
Or have no limit, this i a design flaw wanting shiny graphics and now it s holding them back on some things. It will come down to the closest friends who run guilds and the others allowed will be determined on more then likely play time. Someone who is more casual due to RL or whatever is shafted again. People say it s a game and not a 24/7 job because they have lives outside the game when i argued about the predetermined time frame an anemy can attack is dumb now this takes the cake. Elitists here we come.
The reason why I asked this is that I know there are a good number of mega AoC guilds with literally 500-1,000 people. There are also a few boasting over a 1,000 members. With there only being 9 battle keeps on a server, and only 48 v 48 seige warfare, what is to stop these mega guilds from dividing up into a bunch of smaller guilds with the intent of making an alliance with themselves and taking over all the battle keeps on a server? Is it probable, no. But with only 48 on 48 seige warfare, I see mega guilds becoming a huge problem in the border kingdoms on a few servers.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Yep i agree and i said it before the biggest guild will own the servers. In shadowbane i was a member of DHL (DeathHead Legion) on WAR server when it first came out. We were so big it was extremly boring because noone would attack us all we did was run around and own everything. Some did try hard to fight us off but in the end the guild disbanded due to the time it took to keep a city going , especially with no one attacking us. This will happen here i fear due to what Shannia said, someone wil think of this for sure.
I know I will join a guild with no more than 48 members. I dont wanna be the one left out of siegues and i dont want to leave anyone out of a siegue. And I think a lot of people will do the same.
About the cap of players i a sigue for me 48 vs 48 sounds as a good number.
I can see some liking it to me it s odd to cap a siege. I know why they re doing it but this can be blamed to the graphics. It got extremly laggy in DAOC RR and sometimes keep takes/defense, but that was the fun part of it you never knew what was around the corner. This is basically ok guys theres 5 enemies left we ve won mellow dramatic. It IMO would be way better not knowing if whats around that corner. Oh well sieges won t last to long i m guessing.
On the flipside, maybe a 48x48 cap would negate the "large guilds pwn everything" problem. If a guild of 48 people is taking on a guild of 1000 people, they in effect have the same chance of winning.
This can be both a positive and a negative...
Positive because it could mean there WILL be battlekeep turnover = more siege battle fun for you and I.
Negative because it kind of defies logic that a group of 48 shouldn't overtake a group of 1000. However, Leonidis did this at Thermopylae a long ago with his band of merry Greeks - so you never know
I'm not creative enough to have a signature
As for not being invited to the seige because you don't play 24/7...if you're in a guild that picks the 48 people based on friendship or activity rather than ability, your guild will lose. Smart guilds will be picking the best players.
And without predetermined attack times, guilds would just stay up all night until the rival guild went to bed, then they'd take the keep. Hello shadowbane, unlimited seige times were tried and failed miserably.
In fact, I would bet good money that the the cap is for 50/50 Performance/Gameplay.
I'm Pro-Cap.
Even in the hardest of hardcore guilds, you'll be very hard pressed to have a guild of 48 and have all of them online for a raid. Sure, if you take the allstars of every guild that live in their parents basement, jobless.. yeah, you might get that number every once in a while.. but 99.9% of your guilds out there are going to be littered with casuals and even some of your 'hardcore' players aren't going to be there 24/7.
WoW's cap was 500. You also need to remember that people have alternate characters that will be in the guild. We would rarely get 100 people on at the same time for those reasons alone. Usually, it would be around 60-70 people for a big 40 man raid. I expect the numbers to be the same for AoC as well. Some people will get left out.. but that doesn't mean you can't be hired as a merc and go help out anyways. That doesn't mean you can't take another group of people out and capture a tower or go do some quests. Some of you are overreacting.
Dude the biggest guilds won't dominate the servers for exactly this reason. Think about it if it's 48 x 48 then what does it matter if you have 500 guildies? It's the most skilled 48 people that will win a city. Who cares if a guild tries to take 5 keeps. They will just be spreading themselves thin. A group of 48 people that train together can take any keep at will meaning smaller organized guilds would be the strongest.
As for not being invited to the seige because you don't play 24/7...if you're in a guild that picks the 48 people based on friendship or activity rather than ability, your guild will lose. Smart guilds will be picking the best players.
And without predetermined attack times, guilds would just stay up all night until the rival guild went to bed, then they'd take the keep. Hello shadowbane, unlimited seige times were tried and failed miserably.
You re right i don t know if it s a performance thing but come on some of it has to do with it. I understand your whole SB comment but IMO i hate set times in a MMO world i m not going over it again except i ll say i don t like it. BK s are too valuable and expensive to keep etc to lose over night i get it, why not have a different reason to own one like make crafting super important and only the best resources can be gathered near a BK. This means if your guild wants the best stuff it takes one. Maybe a few other perks. This in turn won t be so bad if you lose it to some gutless guild. Just take it back and show them how lame and gutless they are. I m not saying i could design a game better then FC i m just saying alot of the decisions they re making in pvp is IMO leading towards more of a glorified WOW BG. For end game pvp that won t keep people around very long wether you think it will or not.
You don't fight players for cities, you only fight other players for battle keeps. You fight NPCs to maintain your city.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
I'm not creative enough to have a signature
See i think theres no overreacting at all. If someone hates the idea and thought otherwise and is now really upset the game they really wanted to play is changing not to their liking. This isn t for some not all a oh well it s ok i can live with that , some wanted and thought there would be huge super cool battles with alot of people at once not just a select 48 from a guild of 100-200( and yes it will happen restrictions like this means alot of your guild will be left out almost always). They have every right to get upset by it.
Well, maybe it would also be possible to have 2 or more guilds banding together for a siege?
After all, we must still remember the prospect of mercenaries.
When they made a cap of how many cities a nation could have in Shadowbane that is exactly what happend. I am pretty sure the scenario you came up with will happen. That's the nature of the beast sadly. It still won't keep me from killing them and trying to make their lives a living hell.
Juegos de Lucha-Free online games
RPG Titles
Juego De Guerra
Rift Universe
Just a note: A guild can own only 1 keep you can go and siege other keeps but you cant claim it if you already owe a keep. Thats also zerg protection so they choosed tactics and skills vs zerg and thats always good imo.
I was never a fan of mass battle they are nice at early begning but later on ( DaoC, Lineage2 ) all you get is chaos and zerg will win most of the times if only some basic tactics is used.
Futilez[Do You Have What It Takes ?]
EVE-ONLINE go look it up.
You would have 500 vs 500 battles for a system. The lag would be bad but they were constantly working on making it work and when I stopped playing they were close to doing it. 48 vs 48? that is complete bull crap. 100 vs 100 minimum.
Just a note: A guild can own only 1 keep you can go and siege other keeps but you cant claim it if you already owe a keep. Thats also zerg protection so they choosed tactics and skills vs zerg and thats always good imo.
I was never a fan of mass battle they are nice at early begning but later on ( DaoC, Lineage2 ) all you get is chaos and zerg will win most of the times if only some basic tactics is used.
If they agressor already has a keep and they win, then what happens to the keep? Does it just sit there empty until the week is up for the top two to go after it in a seige battle?
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Haha I could go find some battles that had less than 200 players where the lag was ridiculous. The last war I was in in EVE consisted of getting around 1 frame every 5-10 seconds, and then being podded. You also have to consider that an EVE zone/system is infinitely larger than the size of a Battlekeep in AoC. Level of Detail kicks in quickly in that game.
In most games when they push the numbers it makes the experience entirely miserable. It's like in FFXI with Besieged... They could get 500+ in the zone sure but it lagged to all hell. It was miserable.
L2 wow they had some huge sieges... which consisted of lagging, getting zerged, dying from god knows what, and doing it over and over again.
I would also like for these numbers to go up some but not unlimited. I would prefer at most it went up to maybe 100 vs. 100, but I would way rather the sieges be stable and fun instead of laggy and miserable.
@Shannia: Yeah I meant Battlekeeps. Thought it would be assumed.
I think these large scale battles are possible, but people need to consider a few things or maybe the companies should start setting Hardware qualification lists or at least a Network speed test. It is the guys that still runs a P3 256mb of ram on some sort of cheap DSL or cable Light network that drags the speeds down. If everyone did a speed test for at least the connection it would greatly increase the games speed. I know you can run on a cheap system with all the shading and pixel to the lowest setting but if you’re on a slow Wan connection a super Quad core won’t mean anything.
RTS games have been posing the connection speed for years now. I play a lot of RTS game and I make sure that all the players are under 150ms. I also post the game name as Dual core only hehehe. Maybe when you enter in the queue for the game, it shows all the users info like class, level, and it shows you the ICMP(ping) connections, When you see the user at 1000ms + you know right away he is either running a crappy system or his connection to the server is very bad. It would be like a Russian connected to a Canadian server of course it will be slow; there would be 15 hops between the server and client. I think people forgetting the infrastructure (network), most of the time it has nothing to do with the game itself. this is just basic networking
http://www.wowarmory.com/guild-info.xml?r=Malfurion&n=Lock+and+Shackles&p=1
Guild info
Actually the big guilds would still "pwn" everything. Even if a smaller guild manages to win a battle keep spot from one of the big guilds they would now need the gold and resources to build their own keep. If you have a guild with only 50 members it's going to be a lot harder for them to gather resources than it would be for a guild with 1000 members, which would make it a lot harder to have the battle keep ready before the next attack window time has to be scheduled.