Im really glad I didn't pre order this game. 48 v48 ...bleh. So basically there will be next to no server politics. All you need is a good 48 man pvp guild with some scrubs to gather and build stuff for them. That means a guild can pretty much walk over anyone at anytime in game with no reprucussions. The only thing they have to worry about is defending the keep at a certain designated time against an equal army ....lame.
Expect Funcom to increase the Caps if needed, and if Performance is stable with 48vs48. It is not like you'll be experiencing Seige Warfare anytime soon anyway. There are what: 8 or 9 different Keep spots in the Borderlands for every server? That means that there won't be any real Seige Warfare until 9 or 10 Guilds are able to reach Level 3 Cities and then gather enough resources to start again with a Keep. The moment the cap actually limits gameplay on a wide-scale instead of improving it they will certainly increase it. I think they just want to be more careful earlier on.
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.
Its not the first time I have seen them say these things either. They are lucky this was leaked now a week before the game released as apposed to a month ago. They would have lost 1/4 of their sales minimum.
Anyone not now think that the mercenary system appears completely unnecessary or even redundant if the max is 48 v 48 players.
And also doesn’t this imply that due to the limited number of keeps (8 I believe) and the infrequency of the possibility of them being open to attack (3-6 days I believe) that siege PvP will only be regularly available to a relatively tiny and very exclusive proportion of the player population?
Perhaps if they increase the number of keep instances and also significantly reduce the potential period of time between sieges they could rectify this situation.
"We have done like various testing, internally and what not at one point in time we had a few hundred all logged into the same city, we still have the capability based on the performance changing either based on distance or the number of people in your vicinity, we can tone that down."
"But if it becomes a problem for example you might have a place that has 500 people in it. Your only going to see the 100 people that are closest to you."
This is not a quote but apparently the server isn’t really the things that’s going to have a problem, cheeta 2.0 engine has problems with AI, NPC‘s, scripting and pathing calculations.
"And for what we did intentionally for the border kingdoms and PvP is that while we had grand dreams at one point of having every player out there you know like moving about his troop, like 5 10 pike men or archers or what ever or what not to really give a massive siege feel, we found that the AI was so expensive we found we where better of eliminating as much NPC’s as possible."
"So that we could achieve those number of players having 500 players you know in a relatively small area and what not. And I feel pretty confident from at least what ive seen from beta we are going to be able to deliver on those massive battles and have a ton of players in the same area fighting"
So up to last month they where still talking about having 500 players in one place with at least 100 of them displayed by the client in the border kingdoms and during PvP.
And they where still feeling “pretty confident” based on beta that they would be able to deliver those “massive battles” and have “ton’s of players” in the same area fighting.
It is all starting to fall into place here. The point is that Funcom lead customers to believe that there were going to be 100s of players in a siege, now it doesn't even reach 100. Development companies really aren't giving us an option to trust them anymore, it's like take it with a grain of salt.
To many this was the selling point of AoC so you can't expect anything less then disgruntled customers. Having played Lineage2 and their castle sieges this is a let down to hear AoC is limiting players as L2 most sieges had 150+ players on screen at a time with very little lag on a decent machine 3yrs ago.
AoC fanbois defense is well AoC is graphically intense, this is not an excuse, since when did we go back in time. Each couple months hardware, software, techniques and engines are updated to do more things or process faster then the last couple of months. If AoC can not handle more than 48 vs 48 sieges then this is due to memory leaks, unoptimized models, and sloppy programming.
The zoning killed my interest the most and when I got to try it first had nothing but a frown was on my face. The sieges was the next thing I was interested in now with both up in flames, like many others there is no more a fence to lean on Funcom gave me all I needed to turn away from it.
It seems like a rush job and they are not optimizing as much as they should be doing. If they had pushed the launch back we may be sitting on another gem, but they didn't they took the risk of rushing everything once they found out Warhammer delayed release. I wish they would have pushed back but now they will pay the price for the restrictions to the PvP system.
You can't sugar coat this any other way, after what they promised they didn't even give you half of what was expected.
[[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button. Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
Expect Funcom to increase the Caps if needed, and if Performance is stable with 48vs48. It is not like you'll be experiencing Seige Warfare anytime soon anyway. There are what: 8 or 9 different Keep spots in the Borderlands for every server? That means that there won't be any real Seige Warfare until 9 or 10 Guilds are able to reach Level 3 Cities and then gather enough resources to start again with a Keep. The moment the cap actually limits gameplay on a wide-scale instead of improving it they will certainly increase it. I think they just want to be more careful earlier on.
Now and again a ray of intelligence shines through the dense clouds of this forum.
Why am I finding this kind of info (with proof) out from a fellow poster instead of funcom? If its in the instructions, why has funcom not revealed this information to the community before now? Before they took money for preorders?
Were they waiting for people to buy the game before they revealed it?
If they had said nothing about the siege cap ever, that would be one thing. But they led people to believe that the sieges would be hundreds. Not that I ever believed it, because anyone with a brain knew it was false from beginning due to technical limitations, but thats not the point. Months ago fanboys flamed anyone that suggested the cap was not in the hundreds, and now we know that they were just talking out of their asses.
I don't mind the actual limitation so much, its just a tad bigger than a multiplayer game like battlefield but I can find enjoyment in that. I just mind the fact this was hidden and had to be revealed by another community member. What other facts about the game have been hidden and contradict what has been spoonfed by press releases?
If anything, this should prove without a doubt one thing - Never put complete trust in what a dev or fanboy says. The only way you can find the real truth is to go find it yourself. Thank you to the guy that posted the proof screenshot.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
It is all starting to fall into place here. The point is that Funcom lead customers to believe that there were going to be 100s of players in a siege, now it doesn't even reach 100. Development companies really aren't giving us an option to trust them anymore, it's like take it with a grain of salt. To many this was the selling point of AoC so you can't expect anything less then disgruntled customers. Having played Lineage2 and their castle sieges this is a let down to hear AoC is limiting players as L2 most sieges had 150+ players on screen at a time with very little lag on a decent machine 3yrs ago. AoC fanbois defense is well AoC is graphically intense, this is not an excuse, since when did we go back in time. Each couple months hardware, software, techniques and engines are updated to do more things or process faster then the last couple of months. If AoC can not handle more than 48 vs 48 sieges then this is due to memory leaks, unoptimized models, and sloppy programming. The zoning killed my interest the most and when I got to try it first had nothing but a frown was on my face. The sieges was the next thing I was interested in now with both up in flames, like many others there is no more a fence to lean on Funcom gave me all I needed to turn away from it. It seems like a rush job and they are not optimizing as much as they should be doing. If they had pushed the launch back we may be sitting on another gem, but they didn't they took the risk of rushing everything once they found out Warhammer delayed release. I wish they would have pushed back but now they will pay the price for the restrictions to the PvP system. You can't sugar coat this any other way, after what they promised they didn't even give you half of what was expected.
Yeah this is starting to become more and more of a let down everyday. I didn't get to play past level 10 in ob due to working a lot of overtime but I'm getting the picture that it's not much different than tortage. Lots of invisible walls and loading loading loading.... someone please tell me I'm wrong I want a good pvp game, thats not guildwars 1.5
Yeah this is starting to become more and more of a let down everyday. I didn't get to play past level 10 in ob due to working a lot of overtime but I'm getting the picture that it's not much different than tortage. Lots of invisible walls and loading loading loading.... someone please tell me I'm wrong I want a good pvp game, thats not guildwars 1.5
Dude 48v48 is only 4 shy of 100 people. Think of how good the game looks, and the catipults, buildings, mounts, shadows, spells,etc. and then bring that into perspective. You are saying 48 people is not enough to make it fun. Come on. 48 is alot of people to try, while also making it not lag atrociously. So I think its safe to say that you are wrong.
Yeah this is starting to become more and more of a let down everyday. I didn't get to play past level 10 in ob due to working a lot of overtime but I'm getting the picture that it's not much different than tortage. Lots of invisible walls and loading loading loading.... someone please tell me I'm wrong I want a good pvp game, thats not guildwars 1.5
Firstly...I had trouble with the game before they patched it. Zoning took me 5 minutes and being near anyone was unplayable on low even after I reduced every setting possible. After the patch, I was able to crank it up to high and play smooth even with the large PVP battles right outside cities after they bumped us to level 20. I had no stuttering or slowdown for 5+ hours of playing. The patch didn't work for everyone...I will post my specs so you can compare yours to mine. If you didn't get smooth gameplay, you might want to wait a week before you buy the game. Give them some time to iron out things so you don't miss playtime.
Honestly, 48 people is more than enough. We're talking 86 people in one area killing each other and respawning and killing each other again. I'm sure most won't even notice during the fight. Most guilds wont even see 48 members on at one time so the problem isn't really a problem in my decision. My EQ2 guild usually has 40 members on at a time but we're rare and I've never seen 40 members get together to do anything. I do think the 48 members will go up later. They have admitted to having issues with memory leakage and there is good old optimization which is ongoing in MMO's. I never really cared for AO but did watch its post development. I have to admit, funcom did the best job of any MMO in post game development as far as story and content. They just screwed the pooch on their release. So count on the game and the content getting better over time. With the original playstyle, I believe this game can surpass EQ2 at least.
[edit]
P2 dual core 2.8 ECS MB(crappy board), 2 GB ram, 8600 GT, XP...runs like a dream
My prediction is that we won't see this number getting much higher, it will maybe increase as the years go by, but we wont see an massive increase.
This numbers doesn't really bother me, as long as its stable am fine.
Take EVE for an example, you can have hundreds of people in the same system, but as soon as you start seeing over hundred people on your screen at once, things start to get slow.
No modern computer would chop with 200-500 people running around, at last not without degrading the graphics's back to 2D.
(not going to read 7 pages of possible flaming.. heres my 2 cents though)
48v48 is a very solid number for the fact you WILL have to plan an attack instead of just rush rush rush zerg keke. It will reduce lag and open up the community as more guilds battle.
Many guilds is better than 3-5, 500 persons guild. If you can't understand why then I suggest learning about economy than what gear looks better.
I think this system would help out a lot since they are limited by 48vs48.Have the leaders always stay in battle, then maybe officers stay also, then have the rest cannon fodder have a respawn system where you have wait to be respawned again, so even with big guilds when ever someone dies they are replaced with the next in line.Small guilds can hire mercs to make up for numbers.This will encourage tactics, so no more people going of to die alone since they will have to wait in a line to be respawned again.
even with the chance of it lagging i would rather have a more open environment, i remember L2 when we had to stop a zerg of 100 people with only 50 that is epic, yes sure it did lag at some point but the whole experience was awesome, zerg fest usually loose against a well organized group, and i was really looking forward to people banding together in zergs trying to take down organized groups, and vice-versa.
Thank god.Someone can say their point without pure idiocy. I disagree with him, but i congradulate someone with a valid reason and something like "DaoC had XvX why doesnt this.'
Well for those who do not know the game title its called Age of Conan or AoC. Not Wow,DaoC,EQ2,Lineage2,etc. Take it for what it is or don't play. You ranting is deterring people who would like this game, but won't get it b/c or the negative comments.
Oh, one last note. For all the bashers out there one question. Do you seriously have nothing better to do than to bash a game you will not play OR hypocritically playing the game when it comes out?
It's stupid to be mad about this, It's getting released in like a week. MMO's have huge patches that change everything all the time, don't expect this to be set in stone. Once people actually get to the point of sieges, and competition, and the performance is more optimized this number will probably increase.
I honestly don't see it being any larger than 50 where it is at a point of being manageable. It was a good plan to start with but unfair the more you think about it. It is good because it gives those smaller guilds with different time frames an actual chance to make it to the top, at least before they themselves are attacked. I could see "X-treme" guilds taking over the servers just because they always have 100 - 150 players in their guild who can play whenever needed. I'm sorry, but I can't.
Yeah this is starting to become more and more of a let down everyday. I didn't get to play past level 10 in ob due to working a lot of overtime but I'm getting the picture that it's not much different than tortage. Lots of invisible walls and loading loading loading.... someone please tell me I'm wrong I want a good pvp game, thats not guildwars 1.5
Firstly...I had trouble with the game before they patched it. Zoning took me 5 minutes and being near anyone was unplayable on low even after I reduced every setting possible. After the patch, I was able to crank it up to high and play smooth even with the large PVP battles right outside cities after they bumped us to level 20. I had no stuttering or slowdown for 5+ hours of playing. The patch didn't work for everyone...I will post my specs so you can compare yours to mine. If you didn't get smooth gameplay, you might want to wait a week before you buy the game. Give them some time to iron out things so you don't miss playtime.
Honestly, 48 people is more than enough. We're talking 86 people in one area killing each other and respawning and killing each other again. I'm sure most won't even notice during the fight. Most guilds wont even see 48 members on at one time so the problem isn't really a problem in my decision. My EQ2 guild usually has 40 members on at a time but we're rare and I've never seen 40 members get together to do anything. I do think the 48 members will go up later. They have admitted to having issues with memory leakage and there is good old optimization which is ongoing in MMO's. I never really cared for AO but did watch its post development. I have to admit, funcom did the best job of any MMO in post game development as far as story and content. They just screwed the pooch on their release. So count on the game and the content getting better over time. With the original playstyle, I believe this game can surpass EQ2 at least.
[edit]
P2 dual core 2.8 ECS MB(crappy board), 2 GB ram, 8600 GT, XP...runs like a dream
Where did I say anything about performance? I have a c2d @3.2ghz and an 8800gts and it ran smooth before and after the patch. I'm talking about the big walled off zones killing it for me, and was wondering if the rumors I'm hearing are true that it's that way off newb isle as well.
The zones reeeeeeaaally open up after level 20. For example, in one zone near old tarantia in Aquilonia it took me about 15 minutes to go from one end to another , at which I had to stop since the mobs were all 5 levels higher than me and in packs of 20.
Comments
48v48 is too low, needs to be at least 70v70.This game was suppose to be about epic fights, guess i'll just have to see when it launches.
Im really glad I didn't pre order this game. 48 v48 ...bleh. So basically there will be next to no server politics. All you need is a good 48 man pvp guild with some scrubs to gather and build stuff for them. That means a guild can pretty much walk over anyone at anytime in game with no reprucussions. The only thing they have to worry about is defending the keep at a certain designated time against an equal army ....lame.
Expect Funcom to increase the Caps if needed, and if Performance is stable with 48vs48. It is not like you'll be experiencing Seige Warfare anytime soon anyway. There are what: 8 or 9 different Keep spots in the Borderlands for every server? That means that there won't be any real Seige Warfare until 9 or 10 Guilds are able to reach Level 3 Cities and then gather enough resources to start again with a Keep. The moment the cap actually limits gameplay on a wide-scale instead of improving it they will certainly increase it. I think they just want to be more careful earlier on.
Its not the first time I have seen them say these things either. They are lucky this was leaked now a week before the game released as apposed to a month ago. They would have lost 1/4 of their sales minimum.
Anyone not now think that the mercenary system appears completely unnecessary or even redundant if the max is 48 v 48 players.
And also doesn’t this imply that due to the limited number of keeps (8 I believe) and the infrequency of the possibility of them being open to attack (3-6 days I believe) that siege PvP will only be regularly available to a relatively tiny and very exclusive proportion of the player population?
Perhaps if they increase the number of keep instances and also significantly reduce the potential period of time between sieges they could rectify this situation.
Relevant Transcript from jason stone AOC community interview april 24th 08
Starts at 18:00 minutes
"We have done like various testing, internally and what not at one point in time we had a few hundred all logged into the same city, we still have the capability based on the performance changing either based on distance or the number of people in your vicinity, we can tone that down."
"But if it becomes a problem for example you might have a place that has 500 people in it. Your only going to see the 100 people that are closest to you."
This is not a quote but apparently the server isn’t really the things that’s going to have a problem, cheeta 2.0 engine has problems with AI, NPC‘s, scripting and pathing calculations.
"And for what we did intentionally for the border kingdoms and PvP is that while we had grand dreams at one point of having every player out there you know like moving about his troop, like 5 10 pike men or archers or what ever or what not to really give a massive siege feel, we found that the AI was so expensive we found we where better of eliminating as much NPC’s as possible."
"So that we could achieve those number of players having 500 players you know in a relatively small area and what not. And I feel pretty confident from at least what ive seen from beta we are going to be able to deliver on those massive battles and have a ton of players in the same area fighting"
So up to last month they where still talking about having 500 players in one place with at least 100 of them displayed by the client in the border kingdoms and during PvP.
And they where still feeling “pretty confident” based on beta that they would be able to deliver those “massive battles” and have “ton’s of players” in the same area fighting.
something here
It is all starting to fall into place here. The point is that Funcom lead customers to believe that there were going to be 100s of players in a siege, now it doesn't even reach 100. Development companies really aren't giving us an option to trust them anymore, it's like take it with a grain of salt.
To many this was the selling point of AoC so you can't expect anything less then disgruntled customers. Having played Lineage2 and their castle sieges this is a let down to hear AoC is limiting players as L2 most sieges had 150+ players on screen at a time with very little lag on a decent machine 3yrs ago.
AoC fanbois defense is well AoC is graphically intense, this is not an excuse, since when did we go back in time. Each couple months hardware, software, techniques and engines are updated to do more things or process faster then the last couple of months. If AoC can not handle more than 48 vs 48 sieges then this is due to memory leaks, unoptimized models, and sloppy programming.
The zoning killed my interest the most and when I got to try it first had nothing but a frown was on my face. The sieges was the next thing I was interested in now with both up in flames, like many others there is no more a fence to lean on Funcom gave me all I needed to turn away from it.
It seems like a rush job and they are not optimizing as much as they should be doing. If they had pushed the launch back we may be sitting on another gem, but they didn't they took the risk of rushing everything once they found out Warhammer delayed release. I wish they would have pushed back but now they will pay the price for the restrictions to the PvP system.
You can't sugar coat this any other way, after what they promised they didn't even give you half of what was expected.
GJ
Why am I finding this kind of info (with proof) out from a fellow poster instead of funcom? If its in the instructions, why has funcom not revealed this information to the community before now? Before they took money for preorders?
Were they waiting for people to buy the game before they revealed it?
If they had said nothing about the siege cap ever, that would be one thing. But they led people to believe that the sieges would be hundreds. Not that I ever believed it, because anyone with a brain knew it was false from beginning due to technical limitations, but thats not the point. Months ago fanboys flamed anyone that suggested the cap was not in the hundreds, and now we know that they were just talking out of their asses.
I don't mind the actual limitation so much, its just a tad bigger than a multiplayer game like battlefield but I can find enjoyment in that. I just mind the fact this was hidden and had to be revealed by another community member. What other facts about the game have been hidden and contradict what has been spoonfed by press releases?
If anything, this should prove without a doubt one thing - Never put complete trust in what a dev or fanboy says. The only way you can find the real truth is to go find it yourself. Thank you to the guy that posted the proof screenshot.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Yeah this is starting to become more and more of a let down everyday. I didn't get to play past level 10 in ob due to working a lot of overtime but I'm getting the picture that it's not much different than tortage. Lots of invisible walls and loading loading loading.... someone please tell me I'm wrong I want a good pvp game, thats not guildwars 1.5
Dude 48v48 is only 4 shy of 100 people. Think of how good the game looks, and the catipults, buildings, mounts, shadows, spells,etc. and then bring that into perspective. You are saying 48 people is not enough to make it fun. Come on. 48 is alot of people to try, while also making it not lag atrociously. So I think its safe to say that you are wrong
Firstly...I had trouble with the game before they patched it. Zoning took me 5 minutes and being near anyone was unplayable on low even after I reduced every setting possible. After the patch, I was able to crank it up to high and play smooth even with the large PVP battles right outside cities after they bumped us to level 20. I had no stuttering or slowdown for 5+ hours of playing. The patch didn't work for everyone...I will post my specs so you can compare yours to mine. If you didn't get smooth gameplay, you might want to wait a week before you buy the game. Give them some time to iron out things so you don't miss playtime.
Honestly, 48 people is more than enough. We're talking 86 people in one area killing each other and respawning and killing each other again. I'm sure most won't even notice during the fight. Most guilds wont even see 48 members on at one time so the problem isn't really a problem in my decision. My EQ2 guild usually has 40 members on at a time but we're rare and I've never seen 40 members get together to do anything. I do think the 48 members will go up later. They have admitted to having issues with memory leakage and there is good old optimization which is ongoing in MMO's. I never really cared for AO but did watch its post development. I have to admit, funcom did the best job of any MMO in post game development as far as story and content. They just screwed the pooch on their release. So count on the game and the content getting better over time. With the original playstyle, I believe this game can surpass EQ2 at least.
[edit]
P2 dual core 2.8 ECS MB(crappy board), 2 GB ram, 8600 GT, XP...runs like a dream
My prediction is that we won't see this number getting much higher, it will maybe increase as the years go by, but we wont see an massive increase.
This numbers doesn't really bother me, as long as its stable am fine.
Take EVE for an example, you can have hundreds of people in the same system, but as soon as you start seeing over hundred people on your screen at once, things start to get slow.
No modern computer would chop with 200-500 people running around, at last not without degrading the graphics's back to 2D.
(not going to read 7 pages of possible flaming.. heres my 2 cents though)
48v48 is a very solid number for the fact you WILL have to plan an attack instead of just rush rush rush zerg keke. It will reduce lag and open up the community as more guilds battle.
Many guilds is better than 3-5, 500 persons guild. If you can't understand why then I suggest learning about economy than what gear looks better.
I think this system would help out a lot since they are limited by 48vs48.Have the leaders always stay in battle, then maybe officers stay also, then have the rest cannon fodder have a respawn system where you have wait to be respawned again, so even with big guilds when ever someone dies they are replaced with the next in line.Small guilds can hire mercs to make up for numbers.This will encourage tactics, so no more people going of to die alone since they will have to wait in a line to be respawned again.
48 people is plenty for a massive battle. Do you realize how many 48 is? Let me demonstrate.
Thats one team of people. At any one time you could be fighting ALL OF THEM. Don't make me post the other half of the team.
The ultimate solution to every problem: more space marines.
how is this at all bad?
The thought of having to get more than 50 guildies (as i do not plan on using PUGs) online and organized for a PVP fight is hard to invision already.
Now the size of your guild is not a win button, i love it
Well with only having 6-8 battlekeeps, their will be super guilds that own these and have multiple guilds in one.
Well for those who do not know the game title its called Age of Conan or AoC. Not Wow,DaoC,EQ2,Lineage2,etc. Take it for what it is or don't play. You ranting is deterring people who would like this game, but won't get it b/c or the negative comments.
Oh, one last note. For all the bashers out there one question. Do you seriously have nothing better to do than to bash a game you will not play OR hypocritically playing the game when it comes out?
It's stupid to be mad about this, It's getting released in like a week. MMO's have huge patches that change everything all the time, don't expect this to be set in stone. Once people actually get to the point of sieges, and competition, and the performance is more optimized this number will probably increase.
--------------------
-Currently playing FFXIV, and BDO.
I honestly don't see it being any larger than 50 where it is at a point of being manageable. It was a good plan to start with but unfair the more you think about it. It is good because it gives those smaller guilds with different time frames an actual chance to make it to the top, at least before they themselves are attacked. I could see "X-treme" guilds taking over the servers just because they always have 100 - 150 players in their guild who can play whenever needed. I'm sorry, but I can't.
96 people total is a fine enough number for me.
Firstly...I had trouble with the game before they patched it. Zoning took me 5 minutes and being near anyone was unplayable on low even after I reduced every setting possible. After the patch, I was able to crank it up to high and play smooth even with the large PVP battles right outside cities after they bumped us to level 20. I had no stuttering or slowdown for 5+ hours of playing. The patch didn't work for everyone...I will post my specs so you can compare yours to mine. If you didn't get smooth gameplay, you might want to wait a week before you buy the game. Give them some time to iron out things so you don't miss playtime.
Honestly, 48 people is more than enough. We're talking 86 people in one area killing each other and respawning and killing each other again. I'm sure most won't even notice during the fight. Most guilds wont even see 48 members on at one time so the problem isn't really a problem in my decision. My EQ2 guild usually has 40 members on at a time but we're rare and I've never seen 40 members get together to do anything. I do think the 48 members will go up later. They have admitted to having issues with memory leakage and there is good old optimization which is ongoing in MMO's. I never really cared for AO but did watch its post development. I have to admit, funcom did the best job of any MMO in post game development as far as story and content. They just screwed the pooch on their release. So count on the game and the content getting better over time. With the original playstyle, I believe this game can surpass EQ2 at least.
[edit]
P2 dual core 2.8 ECS MB(crappy board), 2 GB ram, 8600 GT, XP...runs like a dream
Where did I say anything about performance? I have a c2d @3.2ghz and an 8800gts and it ran smooth before and after the patch. I'm talking about the big walled off zones killing it for me, and was wondering if the rumors I'm hearing are true that it's that way off newb isle as well.
The zones reeeeeeaaally open up after level 20. For example, in one zone near old tarantia in Aquilonia it took me about 15 minutes to go from one end to another , at which I had to stop since the mobs were all 5 levels higher than me and in packs of 20.
please...zerging can be done with 1 person.....all hail SWG combat medic!
numbers dont matter in zerging
Yes, but when the official strategy is as follows:
Crash the other team's computers.
Then you have a problem.