conversation between funcom developers and AoC fanbois AoC Fanbois: hey, we are here for the epic siege battles you told us about with hundreds of players funcom developers: (waves hand and uses jedi mind trick) these aren't the siege battles you are looking for AoC Fanbois: these aren't the siege battles we are looking for funcom developers: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 AoC Fanbois: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 funcom developers: move along AoC fanbois: move along. Man I am totally stoaked about the awesome 48 vs. 48 siege battles we were promised.
Very nice and so true. I support AoC and I am looking forward to it but having both my eyes and ears work I can plainly see that funcom lie their collective ass of about sieges.
In Norway I guess "hundreds" = 96.
In Jason Stones head "up to" 500 in a siege = 96.
Apparently massive, huge and epic also = 96
Hell Funcom says it still is being "tweaked" well you know what tweaked means? That also means that the number could go DOWN not just up.
conversation between funcom developers and AoC fanbois AoC Fanbois: hey, we are here for the epic siege battles you told us about with hundreds of players funcom developers: (waves hand and uses jedi mind trick) these aren't the siege battles you are looking for AoC Fanbois: these aren't the siege battles we are looking for funcom developers: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 AoC Fanbois: these siege battles will only be 48 vs. 48 funcom developers: move along AoC fanbois: move along. Man I am totally stoaked about the awesome 48 vs. 48 siege battles we were promised.
haha, pure genius
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
With only 9 keeps, and 96 people per battle. Most people won't even get to participate in sieges. And forget about mercenaries. They certainly won't be needed
yup this is the biggest problem with the 48v48 pvp. You can literally have guilds controlling multiple keeps, and with no reason to ever hire a merc.
Lets put it this way. Each server is build for about 3500 accounts (not confirmed) How many of those will be able to enjoy the "massive" siege battles ?
Les say we have 1 siege for every city per week (wont happen ever) so.... 96x9 = 864
864 ppl will be able to enjoy siege battles ONCE a week at most. Lets not forget you will need massive ammount of resources to build the city up and to fight over it.
Now - lets think of Alatec Valley beeing done once per week by 1/3rd of the players. Is the content worth making it ? SImple answer is no. Its not. Still the "massive" siege battles that were supposed to be the big selling point of endgame content are directly limited by the GRAPHICS of the game. It has NOTHING to do with actual gameplay or what the players on the servers are after. Absolutly nothing.
TBH - Siege battles in AOC are a joke. Is that the endgame content this game can offer ? Seriously ?
Funcom have totally lost the concept of this game. They lied about those siege battles - they are turning the game into mingames that you have to do while their concept of the PVE raids are totally lost atm cause they have not one single purpose in the game (for guild and city objectives).
AOC is nothing but the graphics. Absolutly nothing. Cause Funcom have not single idea of the concept building of the game. It is ALL determined by the graphics. And the graphics have not been finalised yet.
So basicly - nothing in the game has been thought through. Absolutly nothing.
So... Massive PVP sieges - 3 tiers of PVE raids ? Is that down to 0.5 then compared to the basic understanding of massive ?
This is the reason I wont ever spend a dime on this game. I was thinking of trial it but seriously ... there is no point since the endgame is none existant in the game. And NOTHING of it has been tested in beta. NOTHING.
I can promise you this. THere will be less than 50k players playing AOC in 4 months time. NOTHING that Funcom said is true. NOTHING.
Lets put it this way. Each server is build for about 3500 accounts (not confirmed) How many of those will be able to enjoy the "massive" siege battles ? Les say we have 1 siege for every city per week (wont happen ever) so.... 96x9 = 864 864 ppl will be able to enjoy siege battles ONCE a week at most. Lets not forget you will need massive ammount of resources to build the city up and to fight over it. TBH - Siege battles in AOC are a joke. Is that the endgame content this game can offer ? Seriously ? Funcom have totally lost the concept of this game. They lied about those siege battles - they are turning the game into mingames that you have to do while their concept of the PVP raids are totally lost atm cause they have not one single purpose in the game (for guild and city objectives). AOC is nothing but the graphics. Absolutly nothing. Cause Funcom have not single idea of the concept building of the game. It is ALL determined by the graphics. And the graphics have not been finalised yet. So basicly - nothing in the game has been thought through. Absolutly nothing. So... Massive PVP sieges - 3 tiers of PVE raids ? Is that down to 0.5 then compared to the basic understanding of massive ?
You never cease to amaze me. Do you really think your initial argument which is decently put together about how few players can now participate in sieges could hurt the game will not be completely overshadowed by your trolling? You are the worst troll i've ever experienced across any forum and it seriously makes me laugh everytime I see you post.
This post = "McDonalds limits chicken nugget orders to 12!! McDonalds is a joke. Is this all they can offer? They are nothing but a clown with some deep fryers. I am a troll. I am trolling these forums. I hate McDonalds." When in reality chicken nuggets are but one item on their menu.
Have you ever even sieged in other games? 90% of them are too laggy to even play. If small numbers are required for stability then small numbers need to be enforced.
I have already said many times that I think they need to increase the frequency of the attack windows after this part of their design was limited short of what they thought, but all of your other trolling completely erases any hint of serious conversation that can come out of your post.
Originally posted by Alan0n
This is the reason I wont ever spend a dime on this game. I was thinking of trial it but seriously ... there is no point since the endgame is none existant in the game. And NOTHING of it has been tested in beta. NOTHING.
I can promise you this. THere will be less than 50k players playing AOC in 4 months time. NOTHING that Funcom said is true. NOTHING.
LOL your original post is bad enough, but seriously... Do you think anyone on any forum here wants to play with you? They have tested what they needed in beta and they have fixed their problems at an alarming rate so you stopped trolling about that. You ended up only trolling about how your mediocre machine with 50 processes running in the background sucks, and now you picked up this one thing to start all over again and troll from the mountain tops.
I beg of you please don't play. Please avoid the game at all costs since it has obviously hurt you so deeply inside. They have been very honest. There has always been disclaimers and such that state that this is a beta and systems are not finalized. They have already said that this number might not be final and they will continue to work to increase it.
Did you really think that anyone would let someone like you into their guild to siege in the first place?
Lets put it this way. Each server is build for about 3500 accounts (not confirmed) How many of those will be able to enjoy the "massive" siege battles ? Les say we have 1 siege for every city per week (wont happen ever) so.... 96x9 = 864 864 ppl will be able to enjoy siege battles ONCE a week at most. Lets not forget you will need massive ammount of resources to build the city up and to fight over it. Now - lets think of Alatec Valley beeing done once per week by 1/3rd of the players. Is the content worth making it ? SImple answer is no. Its not. Still the "massive" siege battles that were supposed to be the big selling point of endgame content are directly limited by the GRAPHICS of the game. It has NOTHING to do with actual gameplay or what the players on the servers are after. Absolutly nothing. TBH - Siege battles in AOC are a joke. Is that the endgame content this game can offer ? Seriously ? Funcom have totally lost the concept of this game. They lied about those siege battles - they are turning the game into mingames that you have to do while their concept of the PVE raids are totally lost atm cause they have not one single purpose in the game (for guild and city objectives). AOC is nothing but the graphics. Absolutly nothing. Cause Funcom have not single idea of the concept building of the game. It is ALL determined by the graphics. And the graphics have not been finalised yet. So basicly - nothing in the game has been thought through. Absolutly nothing. So... Massive PVP sieges - 3 tiers of PVE raids ? Is that down to 0.5 then compared to the basic understanding of massive ? This is the reason I wont ever spend a dime on this game. I was thinking of trial it but seriously ... there is no point since the endgame is none existant in the game. And NOTHING of it has been tested in beta. NOTHING.
I can promise you this. THere will be less than 50k players playing AOC in 4 months time. NOTHING that Funcom said is true. NOTHING.
NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING you say is going to change anyones opinion, because you sir are King of Trolls. There's NOTHING in this post that shows you to be trustful, all you do is try to cram all things you judge negative about AoC or Funcom in 1 worthless post. I fail to see how you have NOTHING to do but to spread doom 'till the last minute of pre-launch.
If NOTHING satisfies you, you have a problem. If NOTHING Funcom does right is worth mentioning by you, you have a problem. If you are payed to write shit, you are a dirty person. I can't see how anyone reading this post wouldn't be disgusted by your behaviour.
Good thing is the game is coming out and everyone can see for HIMSELF, and I'm finally happy we can disregard stupid posts as this and look forward to judging by ourselves.
96 enough? Are you kidding? With that kind of content????
Go play Counter-Strike or CoD4 or other games with this kind of limitation. This is a MMO and massive fights its what it supposed to bing. What do you think is the future of MMO? More limitation? No...i think (in my opinion) is freedom...to do what do you desire and the limits to be expanded as close as possible to realism. (of course with exceptions ....i won`t like permanent death for instance)
For example EVE. You can do what you want. Shure it has it`s problems...lag and other stuff. But it gives what other mmos don`t; and more...it has potential.Maybe with time lag will begin to vanish who knows. I`m shure CCP can say: oh...let`s fix lag...maxim number of ships in one sector = X and wohaaaa! problem fixed.........NO! WRONG!
You guys really like the game mechanics to prevent you from doing things that should be possible? Do you like limitations?
Most of you will start talking again about those NOOBS or what do you call them/it? zerg? rushers???...whatever i don`t care...the point is that this kind of people ware in real life to. It`s part of a battle. The real skill is by controlling masses of people and lead them to victory. What? you don`t like slaughter?...well....this is war this is how it should be.
Don`t get me wrong i like this game a lot. But this....MASSIVE PVP SIEGE it`s a crap. And i think it`s what it will prevent me from buying it. Feel free to think otherwise i don`t care...
Aaaa...one more thing...don`t flame me with those high requirements; i really don`t care. FFS stop crying about low FPS and turn to lower graphics; it will run just fine. And don`t blame performance for 48vs48 thingy.... you think that Funcom didn`t know that this is gonna happen? To make massive pvp need work and money. But money it`s what they(devs and stuff) need too right?
It`s game`s duty to provide features...and for a serious company...a mix between features and performance. So....graphics is the worst excuse.
Yes, but when the official strategy is as follows: Crash the other team's computers. Then you have a problem.
Or they do. I suppose that IS subjective material. One might think that such an action would also crash THEIR computer...thus rendering the matter moot. You could say that the victim may, perhaps, have a weaker system than the zerg. For some reason (cough cough AoC's ignorantly high specs cough cough) I doubt we'll be seeing that issue here.
Forcing 48 player limits to the MASSIVE sieges structures the whole matter around the guild format. I know, I know...you people love your stupid guild structure. I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
So instead of guilds what would you rather have? One gigantic friends list?
Communities. Frankly, all that Guilds ARE can be simplified into gigantic friends lists...ones that you don't actually get to control like normal friends lists. So, you have to deal with people you hate being on THAT friends list. Oh, and THIS friends list comes with special friends. These special friends can opt to lock you out of content (because these guild based games are structured to lock content away from those not involved WITH the guild structure) simply because they can.
In a community system, you have more freedom...more control over your own contribution. You cannot be shut out because some faceless name decides to do so. There is no "elite guild" competition...there are simply goals of the community. It may not sound like a difference, but there are some very important ones there. For one, the load is lessened on the players most active in the community. They do not HAVE to be so mean or strict because their potential pool of players to do things with is not so limited. Less stress has a neato trickle down pattern that makes the game more fun for the less active as well.
I could rant more, but it detracts from the thread...which is about AoC and its almost embarrassing choice to go with 96 man "massive sieges". 96 IS a large number...but coming from a time in MMO history where we have games which possess numbers that make that look like a '1' or '2' is amusing to say the least. EVE and DAoC operate with so many people in PvP at one time its sickening...and Lineage does too. Those games have 'massive PvP', this game has "highly structured and limited PvP"......a la' WoW. Nothing wrong with that, I actually liked WoW PvP. But hey, I'm not calling this apple an orange just because everyone else really wishes it were one.
To point, its ludicrous that they went this direction...especially given the setting, which affords much grander fields in which to soak the soil with blood. I can only imagine it!
"Barbarian: HALT! They have numbers greater than ours! We must fall back and plan a new strategy."
"Barbarian Strategist: Nah...they can't use em all. Give them a second to pick their 48 and we'll be fine."
I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
Alright here we go. Factional systems is probably one of the worst things to happen in MMOs. Tell me, why should I be forced to be friendly with or be obligated to help someone just because they happened to pick the same race as me. Why should I be forced to at arms with someone just because they picked an opposing race. There is absolutely no reason why the game should decide for me who are my allies and who are my enemies. You talk about guild systems forcing the play base into boxes out of their control when the factional system is the biggest perpetrator of this atrocity. A guild IS SUPPOSED to be a community. One that YOU choose to be a part of, not one that was forced upon you when you selected a particular race. It's your choice whether you stay in the guild or you find a new one that better fits your objectives in a game. Also there is nothing, outside of guild politics, that forces guilds to be exclusive. If you want to group with someone outside of your guild, there is nothing stopping you.
Originally posted by Gishgeron
Communities. Frankly, all that Guilds ARE can be simplified into gigantic friends lists...ones that you don't actually get to control like normal friends lists. So, you have to deal with people you hate being on THAT friends list. Oh, and THIS friends list comes with special friends. These special friends can opt to lock you out of content (because these guild based games are structured to lock content away from those not involved WITH the guild structure) simply because they can.
In a community system, you have more freedom...more control over your own contribution. You cannot be shut out because some faceless name decides to do so. There is no "elite guild" competition...there are simply goals of the community. It may not sound like a difference, but there are some very important ones there. For one, the load is lessened on the players most active in the community. They do not HAVE to be so mean or strict because their potential pool of players to do things with is not so limited. Less stress has a neato trickle down pattern that makes the game more fun for the less active as well.
Here your complaint about guilds is entirely based on the GAME putting restrictions on the amount of players able to participate, not the guild. You don't think the guild would bring all 100 people into Molten Core if they could? You don't think the guild would make use of every last person online to defend their city if they could? This was never a problem until the introduction of instances and with it a limit to the amount of players able to participate.
Communities. Frankly, all that Guilds ARE can be simplified into gigantic friends lists...ones that you don't actually get to control like normal friends lists. So, you have to deal with people you hate being on THAT friends list. Oh, and THIS friends list comes with special friends. These special friends can opt to lock you out of content (because these guild based games are structured to lock content away from those not involved WITH the guild structure) simply because they can. In a community system, you have more freedom...more control over your own contribution. You cannot be shut out because some faceless name decides to do so. There is no "elite guild" competition...there are simply goals of the community. It may not sound like a difference, but there are some very important ones there. For one, the load is lessened on the players most active in the community. They do not HAVE to be so mean or strict because their potential pool of players to do things with is not so limited. Less stress has a neato trickle down pattern that makes the game more fun for the less active as well.
Here your complaint about guilds is entirely based on the GAME putting restrictions on the amount of players able to participate, not the guild. You don't think the guild would bring all 100 people into Molten Core if they could? You don't think the guild would make use of every last person online to defend their city if they could? This was never a problem until the introduction of instances and with it a limit to the amount of players able to participate.
.. and that is EXACTLY why 48v48 restriction is such a crappy way of doing things...
This will breed such terrible elitism with uber guilds composed of teh hardcores who will dictate who gets to play the game and when...
Imagine if each WoW raid dungeon was open for only a few hours each few days... and then only a very limited number of instances spawned (say 4 instances of a given dungeon per "window" to stay true to the numbers). Only the guilds who grinded enough reputation doing daily quests may apply to enter a dungeon instance during the window. This is what AoC endgame PvP will look like. You think WoW was bad regarding elitist guilds and crap? Oh my....
/and to add:
I don't know what's the problem with factions. It's like being in an army - you have your pals that you trust and you don't have to talk to dorks down the hall.
The thing is that in an army (a system of factions) you can be a loner or a casual without being left out of the crucial components of the game experience - to stretch the allegory, the army will feed you, clothe you and send you to battle even if you don't talk to anybody. You can form your clique, a band of brothers, but this is optional - not required - and that makes it more enjoyable to me. I simply hate being forced to act friends with people I don't care for just in order to be able to experience the game's content.
You never cease to amaze me. Do you really think your initial argument which is decently put together about how few players can now participate in sieges could hurt the game will not be completely overshadowed by your trolling? You are the worst troll i've ever experienced across any forum and it seriously makes me laugh everytime I see you post. This post = "McDonalds limits chicken nugget orders to 12!! McDonalds is a joke. Is this all they can offer? They are nothing but a clown with some deep fryers. I am a troll. I am trolling these forums. I hate McDonalds." When in reality chicken nuggets are but one item on their menu. Have you ever even sieged in other games? 90% of them are too laggy to even play. If small numbers are required for stability then small numbers need to be enforced. I have already said many times that I think they need to increase the frequency of the attack windows after this part of their design was limited short of what they thought, but all of your other trolling completely erases any hint of serious conversation that can come out of your post.
You are as much troll as the person you are answering too, your mcdonalds analogy is flawed, if im only interested in chicken nuggets and i cant eat more than 12 then im gonna complaint about it, i dont need someone to come and tell me i can eat a big mac, it seems that everytime someone says "i dont like this feature" or "i think this wont be good for the game" some guy with these acolytes signatures comes along to remind us how awesome the game is and that there are "other features", stop selling the game and stick to the topic this is about sieges not about the other 1000 features you think are awesome.
Anyway back on topic i think what many ppl see as a turndown and thats my main issue is that sieges make guilds a more important part they band people together to accomplish a single goal, you feel like you can help your guild no matter what, so siege day approaches "we go to war today" , "joe, paul and john, you have to stay out sorry, 48 only" , this to me feels like a glorified WoW pre-tbc raid where you have to pick your best 48 and leave the rest out and i wish it wasnt like that i would like to build my army where everyone can give out their best.
Comments
With only 9 keeps, and 96 people per battle. Most people won't even get to participate in sieges.
And forget about mercenaries. They certainly won't be needed
In Norway I guess "hundreds" = 96.
In Jason Stones head "up to" 500 in a siege = 96.
Apparently massive, huge and epic also = 96
Hell Funcom says it still is being "tweaked" well you know what tweaked means? That also means that the number could go DOWN not just up.
haha, pure genius
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
yup this is the biggest problem with the 48v48 pvp. You can literally have guilds controlling multiple keeps, and with no reason to ever hire a merc.
Lets put it this way. Each server is build for about 3500 accounts (not confirmed) How many of those will be able to enjoy the "massive" siege battles ?
Les say we have 1 siege for every city per week (wont happen ever) so.... 96x9 = 864
864 ppl will be able to enjoy siege battles ONCE a week at most. Lets not forget you will need massive ammount of resources to build the city up and to fight over it.
Now - lets think of Alatec Valley beeing done once per week by 1/3rd of the players. Is the content worth making it ? SImple answer is no. Its not. Still the "massive" siege battles that were supposed to be the big selling point of endgame content are directly limited by the GRAPHICS of the game. It has NOTHING to do with actual gameplay or what the players on the servers are after. Absolutly nothing.
TBH - Siege battles in AOC are a joke. Is that the endgame content this game can offer ? Seriously ?
Funcom have totally lost the concept of this game. They lied about those siege battles - they are turning the game into mingames that you have to do while their concept of the PVE raids are totally lost atm cause they have not one single purpose in the game (for guild and city objectives).
AOC is nothing but the graphics. Absolutly nothing. Cause Funcom have not single idea of the concept building of the game. It is ALL determined by the graphics. And the graphics have not been finalised yet.
So basicly - nothing in the game has been thought through. Absolutly nothing.
So... Massive PVP sieges - 3 tiers of PVE raids ? Is that down to 0.5 then compared to the basic understanding of massive ?
This is the reason I wont ever spend a dime on this game. I was thinking of trial it but seriously ... there is no point since the endgame is none existant in the game. And NOTHING of it has been tested in beta. NOTHING.
I can promise you this. THere will be less than 50k players playing AOC in 4 months time. NOTHING that Funcom said is true. NOTHING.
You never cease to amaze me. Do you really think your initial argument which is decently put together about how few players can now participate in sieges could hurt the game will not be completely overshadowed by your trolling? You are the worst troll i've ever experienced across any forum and it seriously makes me laugh everytime I see you post.
This post = "McDonalds limits chicken nugget orders to 12!! McDonalds is a joke. Is this all they can offer? They are nothing but a clown with some deep fryers. I am a troll. I am trolling these forums. I hate McDonalds." When in reality chicken nuggets are but one item on their menu.
Have you ever even sieged in other games? 90% of them are too laggy to even play. If small numbers are required for stability then small numbers need to be enforced.
I have already said many times that I think they need to increase the frequency of the attack windows after this part of their design was limited short of what they thought, but all of your other trolling completely erases any hint of serious conversation that can come out of your post.
LOL your original post is bad enough, but seriously... Do you think anyone on any forum here wants to play with you? They have tested what they needed in beta and they have fixed their problems at an alarming rate so you stopped trolling about that. You ended up only trolling about how your mediocre machine with 50 processes running in the background sucks, and now you picked up this one thing to start all over again and troll from the mountain tops.
I beg of you please don't play. Please avoid the game at all costs since it has obviously hurt you so deeply inside. They have been very honest. There has always been disclaimers and such that state that this is a beta and systems are not finalized. They have already said that this number might not be final and they will continue to work to increase it.
Did you really think that anyone would let someone like you into their guild to siege in the first place?
If NOTHING satisfies you, you have a problem. If NOTHING Funcom does right is worth mentioning by you, you have a problem. If you are payed to write shit, you are a dirty person. I can't see how anyone reading this post wouldn't be disgusted by your behaviour.
Good thing is the game is coming out and everyone can see for HIMSELF, and I'm finally happy we can disregard stupid posts as this and look forward to judging by ourselves.
/rant off
Electric *NOTHING* eye!
96 enough? Are you kidding? With that kind of content????
Go play Counter-Strike or CoD4 or other games with this kind of limitation. This is a MMO and massive fights its what it supposed to bing. What do you think is the future of MMO? More limitation? No...i think (in my opinion) is freedom...to do what do you desire and the limits to be expanded as close as possible to realism. (of course with exceptions ....i won`t like permanent death for instance
)
For example EVE. You can do what you want. Shure it has it`s problems...lag and other stuff. But it gives what other mmos don`t; and more...it has potential.Maybe with time lag will begin to vanish who knows. I`m shure CCP can say: oh...let`s fix lag...maxim number of ships in one sector = X and wohaaaa! problem fixed.
........NO! WRONG!
You guys really like the game mechanics to prevent you from doing things that should be possible? Do you like limitations?
Most of you will start talking again about those NOOBS or what do you call them/it? zerg? rushers???...whatever i don`t care...the point is that this kind of people ware in real life to. It`s part of a battle. The real skill is by controlling masses of people and lead them to victory. What? you don`t like slaughter?...well....this is war this is how it should be.
Don`t get me wrong i like this game a lot. But this....MASSIVE PVP SIEGE it`s a crap. And i think it`s what it will prevent me from buying it. Feel free to think otherwise i don`t care...
Aaaa...one more thing...don`t flame me with those high requirements; i really don`t care. FFS stop crying about low FPS and turn to lower graphics; it will run just fine. And don`t blame performance for 48vs48 thingy.... you think that Funcom didn`t know that this is gonna happen? To make massive pvp need work and money. But money it`s what they(devs and stuff) need too right?
It`s game`s duty to provide features...and for a serious company...a mix between features and performance. So....graphics is the worst excuse.
ok...done!
Or they do. I suppose that IS subjective material. One might think that such an action would also crash THEIR computer...thus rendering the matter moot. You could say that the victim may, perhaps, have a weaker system than the zerg. For some reason (cough cough AoC's ignorantly high specs cough cough) I doubt we'll be seeing that issue here.
Forcing 48 player limits to the MASSIVE sieges structures the whole matter around the guild format. I know, I know...you people love your stupid guild structure. I prefer the community structure...as I've played a couple games that actually utilize one. Believe it or not...WoW at release possessed a very NICE community PvP structure. Lineage has one, EVE has one...even DAoC has one. Factional systems bring communities together to act and defend. Guild systems tear them apart...forcing the playerbase into boxes which absolve them all control over their own game. I hate guilds...I hate them more than I hate anything else present in the gaming world. Guild based structures are the very BANE of this genre.
So instead of guilds what would you rather have? One gigantic friends list?
Communities. Frankly, all that Guilds ARE can be simplified into gigantic friends lists...ones that you don't actually get to control like normal friends lists. So, you have to deal with people you hate being on THAT friends list. Oh, and THIS friends list comes with special friends. These special friends can opt to lock you out of content (because these guild based games are structured to lock content away from those not involved WITH the guild structure) simply because they can.
In a community system, you have more freedom...more control over your own contribution. You cannot be shut out because some faceless name decides to do so. There is no "elite guild" competition...there are simply goals of the community. It may not sound like a difference, but there are some very important ones there. For one, the load is lessened on the players most active in the community. They do not HAVE to be so mean or strict because their potential pool of players to do things with is not so limited. Less stress has a neato trickle down pattern that makes the game more fun for the less active as well.
I could rant more, but it detracts from the thread...which is about AoC and its almost embarrassing choice to go with 96 man "massive sieges". 96 IS a large number...but coming from a time in MMO history where we have games which possess numbers that make that look like a '1' or '2' is amusing to say the least. EVE and DAoC operate with so many people in PvP at one time its sickening...and Lineage does too. Those games have 'massive PvP', this game has "highly structured and limited PvP"......a la' WoW. Nothing wrong with that, I actually liked WoW PvP. But hey, I'm not calling this apple an orange just because everyone else really wishes it were one.
To point, its ludicrous that they went this direction...especially given the setting, which affords much grander fields in which to soak the soil with blood. I can only imagine it!
"Barbarian: HALT! They have numbers greater than ours! We must fall back and plan a new strategy."
"Barbarian Strategist: Nah...they can't use em all. Give them a second to pick their 48 and we'll be fine."
"Barbarian: No &*$#?! "
"Strategist: No %&$#."
"Barbarian: My manhood feels somehow lessened."
Alright here we go. Factional systems is probably one of the worst things to happen in MMOs. Tell me, why should I be forced to be friendly with or be obligated to help someone just because they happened to pick the same race as me. Why should I be forced to at arms with someone just because they picked an opposing race. There is absolutely no reason why the game should decide for me who are my allies and who are my enemies. You talk about guild systems forcing the play base into boxes out of their control when the factional system is the biggest perpetrator of this atrocity. A guild IS SUPPOSED to be a community. One that YOU choose to be a part of, not one that was forced upon you when you selected a particular race. It's your choice whether you stay in the guild or you find a new one that better fits your objectives in a game. Also there is nothing, outside of guild politics, that forces guilds to be exclusive. If you want to group with someone outside of your guild, there is nothing stopping you.
Here your complaint about guilds is entirely based on the GAME putting restrictions on the amount of players able to participate, not the guild. You don't think the guild would bring all 100 people into Molten Core if they could? You don't think the guild would make use of every last person online to defend their city if they could? This was never a problem until the introduction of instances and with it a limit to the amount of players able to participate.
Here your complaint about guilds is entirely based on the GAME putting restrictions on the amount of players able to participate, not the guild. You don't think the guild would bring all 100 people into Molten Core if they could? You don't think the guild would make use of every last person online to defend their city if they could? This was never a problem until the introduction of instances and with it a limit to the amount of players able to participate.
.. and that is EXACTLY why 48v48 restriction is such a crappy way of doing things...
This will breed such terrible elitism with uber guilds composed of teh hardcores who will dictate who gets to play the game and when...
Imagine if each WoW raid dungeon was open for only a few hours each few days... and then only a very limited number of instances spawned (say 4 instances of a given dungeon per "window" to stay true to the numbers). Only the guilds who grinded enough reputation doing daily quests may apply to enter a dungeon instance during the window. This is what AoC endgame PvP will look like. You think WoW was bad regarding elitist guilds and crap? Oh my....
/and to add:
I don't know what's the problem with factions. It's like being in an army - you have your pals that you trust and you don't have to talk to dorks down the hall.
The thing is that in an army (a system of factions) you can be a loner or a casual without being left out of the crucial components of the game experience - to stretch the allegory, the army will feed you, clothe you and send you to battle even if you don't talk to anybody. You can form your clique, a band of brothers, but this is optional - not required - and that makes it more enjoyable to me. I simply hate being forced to act friends with people I don't care for just in order to be able to experience the game's content.
You are as much troll as the person you are answering too, your mcdonalds analogy is flawed, if im only interested in chicken nuggets and i cant eat more than 12 then im gonna complaint about it, i dont need someone to come and tell me i can eat a big mac, it seems that everytime someone says "i dont like this feature" or "i think this wont be good for the game" some guy with these acolytes signatures comes along to remind us how awesome the game is and that there are "other features", stop selling the game and stick to the topic this is about sieges not about the other 1000 features you think are awesome.
Anyway back on topic i think what many ppl see as a turndown and thats my main issue is that sieges make guilds a more important part they band people together to accomplish a single goal, you feel like you can help your guild no matter what, so siege day approaches "we go to war today" , "joe, paul and john, you have to stay out sorry, 48 only" , this to me feels like a glorified WoW pre-tbc raid where you have to pick your best 48 and leave the rest out and i wish it wasnt like that i would like to build my army where everyone can give out their best.
I want the pro 48 people to comment on the youtube vid where they state HUNDREDS of players.
I'm just curious as to their response to it.