Most zones seem to be set to 48 players maximum though sieges are supposed to allow 96 and maybe the harvesting zones allow more.
thats not an MMO at all then
he is right, its BF2 with connecting servers
Think of it this way. AoC is a lot like Guild Wars. The only difference is, when you enter a zone, you can see everyone in that zone up too a max of 48 people per server for that zone. So if theres 10 servers and theres 48 people in every zone, that's 480 people that you can interact with. But only 48 at any one time. With Guild Wars you can only see those in your party until you enter another town.
It is still a massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. It's just everyone is grouped up into cages rather than being able to rome around with each other. BF2 on the other hand is just a game with a bunch of servers that you can connect too. There is a distinct difference. Many will argue, but AoC is still an MMORPG. They call Guild Wars an MMORPG and it's no different really.
Theres no difference between BF2 and any MMO when it comes down to it... its all a bunch of zones instances servers call it what you want but its still a room full of people that kill each other in. In AOC the limit is 48vs48 in BF2 its 32vs32 in Joint Ops its 100vs100, ive played all the mmo's even EVE with 600 player lagging in Jita you still never see more than 100 or so in your area anyway, and the most massive game ive played when it comes to how many people ive actually playing and competeing with at one time was Joint Operations Typhoon rising on a 200 player server filled to the tits, that was massive, sure the map wasnt 100000km of empty space but the damn game was massive with all the people playing and by definition its not a massively multiplyer online game ... funny how that works, a game with 100vs100 isnt a MMo but a game thats 48vs48 is... whys that? the only thing massive about mmo's is the amount of money youll spend before your finished with them.
edit:
Oh right, BF2 doesnt have a 3d chatroom, thats another difference I guess ...
Why are people bitching about instances in AoC and not EQ2? From what I've heard they use the same sort of system.
EQ2 has open areas, open dungeons and open cities. You have to deal with a loading screen for about 10 seconds to get into these areas. Also, if there gets to be too many people in one zone it will make another instance of it. That is where ppl are making the comparison. However, the size of EQ2 zones are about 20x bigger than that of the zones in AoC, so you aren't seeing a loading screen every 5 minutes.
Have you ever zoned into a dungeon, and every 100 yards into that dungeon zoned again? and again? and again? heheh. I just think it's excessive.
I can get around the zoning, but I do have one complaint about it. For as much loading as you do in AoC, and as small as the areas are, don't you think the load times would be under 3 seconds instead of around 20?
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Original poster has a point, this game a poor example of an MMO hands down. I played until Level freakin 30 and it was the most grueling experience of my life. I actually threw the piece of junk AOC box in the garbage pail, went to gamestop and bought a Vanguard box for $20 (I lost my other cd) resubbed to my old vanguard account patched and played for 3 hours tonight (and had a freakin blast exploring). Vanguard is a great game (though it needs some work in char animations, spell effects and such but great world and runs amazing on my 4 yr old systeml ooks great with everything turned up high at 1280 X1024). I actually applaud SOE (yeah I know I hate SOE but give them credit for getting Vanguard working pretty damn well) for their hard work on it.
Play WOW, GW (yeah its way batter and looks better than AOC) and Vanguard and enjoying all of them. Age of Conan is a scam hands down its next Gen graphics (oh yeah great graphics sorry it does'nt look all that great to honest, I can run it okay turned up in DX9 but cannot stand char animations no mob AI and lonely lonely world).
What a waste of $40 ah not so upset hey its only $40 I feel bad for the suckers who spent $90 or more on the Collector's edition. HA HA LOL
Let the flame war begin, go ahead bitch and moan while I laugh at AOC (same thing the devs at blizzard are doing).
Original poster has a point, this game a poor example of an MMO hands down. I played until Level freakin 30 and it was the most grueling experience of my life. I actually threw the piece of junk AOC box in the garbage pail, went to gamestop and bought a Vanguard box for $20 (I lost my other cd) resubbed to my old vanguard account patched and played for 3 hours tonight (and had a freakin blast exploring). Vanguard is a great game (though it needs some work in char animations, spell effects and such but great world and runs amazing on my 4 yr old systeml ooks great with everything turned up high at 1280 X1024). I actually applaud SOE (yeah I know I hate SOE but give them credit for getting Vanguard working pretty damn well) for their hard work on it.
Play WOW, GW (yeah its way batter and looks better than AOC) and Vanguard and enjoying all of them. Age of Conan is a scam hands down its next Gen graphics (oh yeah great graphics sorry it does'nt look all that great to honest, I can run it okay turned up in DX9 but cannot stand char animations no mob AI and lonely lonely world).
What a waste of $40 ah not so upset hey its only $40 I feel bad for the suckers who spent $90 or more on the Collector's edition. HA HA LOL
Let the flame war begin, go ahead bitch and moan while I laugh at AOC (same thing the devs at blizzard are doing).
So be it. Obviously you have no clue what 'graphics' are. Have you seen the graphics engine in AoC? Dynamic lighting and shadows, real time and day cycles, realistic cloud movement and various other features. These are features that are included in Crysis. Don't call Crysis a next-gen game? Hah.
I agree with GW looking more aesthetically pleasing though the graphics engine doesn't equate to AoC.
I'm sorry you don't like it. Congrats, you're 1 person in the world that has an opinion. I wish I had one of those.
Why are people bitching about instances in AoC and not EQ2? From what I've heard they use the same sort of system.
EQ2 has open areas, open dungeons and open cities. You have to deal with a loading screen for about 10 seconds to get into these areas. Also, if there gets to be too many people in one zone it will make another instance of it. That is where ppl are making the comparison. However, the size of EQ2 zones are about 20x bigger than that of the zones in AoC, so you aren't seeing a loading screen every 5 minutes.
Play past Tortage
Have you ever zoned into a dungeon, and every 100 yards into that dungeon zoned again? and again? and again? heheh. I just think it's excessive.
Play past Tortage
I can get around the zoning, but I do have one complaint about it. For as much loading as you do in AoC, and as small as the areas are, don't you think the load times would be under 3 seconds instead of around 20?
It's 2008, playing AoC on your 1999 E-Machines will cause a loss of overall performance.
Original poster has a point, this game a poor example of an MMO hands down. I played until Level freakin 30 and it was the most grueling experience of my life. I actually threw the piece of junk AOC box in the garbage pail, went to gamestop and bought a Vanguard box for $20 (I lost my other cd) resubbed to my old vanguard account patched and played for 3 hours tonight (and had a freakin blast exploring). Vanguard is a great game (though it needs some work in char animations, spell effects and such but great world and runs amazing on my 4 yr old systeml ooks great with everything turned up high at 1280 X1024). I actually applaud SOE (yeah I know I hate SOE but give them credit for getting Vanguard working pretty damn well) for their hard work on it.
Play WOW, GW (yeah its way batter and looks better than AOC) and Vanguard and enjoying all of them. Age of Conan is a scam hands down its next Gen graphics (oh yeah great graphics sorry it does'nt look all that great to honest, I can run it okay turned up in DX9 but cannot stand char animations no mob AI and lonely lonely world).
What a waste of $40 ah not so upset hey its only $40 I feel bad for the suckers who spent $90 or more on the Collector's edition. HA HA LOL
Let the flame war begin, go ahead bitch and moan while I laugh at AOC (same thing the devs at blizzard are doing).
So be it. Obviously you have no clue what 'graphics' are. Have you seen the graphics engine in AoC? Dynamic lighting and shadows, real time and day cycles, realistic cloud movement and various other features. These are features that are included in Crysis. Don't call Crysis a next-gen game? Hah.
I agree with GW looking more aesthetically pleasing though the graphics engine doesn't equate to AoC.
I'm sorry you don't like it. Congrats, you're 1 person in the world that has an opinion. I wish I had one of those.
Sorry to burst your pathetic little bubble but Vanguards day and night cycles plus its lighting and shadows,clouds and overall weather system beats AOC hands down.
Heh sorry. Played Vanguard and the graphics don't even compare to AoC's at this point. It's definitely an improved game since it launched (Meaning Vanguard) but let's not exaggerate. The one thing no one denies in regards to AoC is it's graphics. Even those who do not like the game. As for the point of the thread, please browse the forum here. It has already been proven that the 48 per zone is just something pulled by those who wish to troll and throw out incorrect information. The 48 is only in regards to siege warfare right now which is at 48 vs 48. I don't think anyone has a hard number of how many can be in an instance at a time at this point. If someone does hopefully they can give you your answer.
Oh and the poster who was comparing EQ2 and AoC's zones saying you have to zone all the time AoC obviously has not played that far. It is said by many that the zones actually drop the higher you go. Also that the areas are very vast which is a contradiction to you saying they are small. Since most opinion says different than you, you may wish to level further. So far I would say the two games actually compare very well when it comes to the instances. It is nothing any where near Guildwars which I have also played.
And lastly....I could care less if a game does enough to be called an MMO by the public/gaming community. I play for enjoyment, not for a game genre or classification. If you enjoy the game then play it. If you don't you simply move on. Sitting around and trying to classify it is a bit besides the point. Good luck with whatever game you enjoy.
Heh sorry. Played Vanguard and the graphics don't even compare to AoC's at this point. It's definitely an improved game since it launched (Meaning Vanguard) but let's not exaggerate. The one thing no one denies in regards to AoC is it's graphics. Even those who do not like the game. As for the point of the thread, please browse the forum here. It has already been proven that the 48 per zone is just something pulled by those who wish to troll and throw out incorrect information. The 48 is only in regards to siege warfare right now which is at 48 vs 48. I don't think anyone has a hard number of how many can be in an instance at a time at this point. If someone does hopefully they can give you your answer. Oh and the poster who was comparing EQ2 and AoC's zones saying you have to zone all the time AoC obviously has not played that far. It is said by many that the zones actually drop the higher you go. Also that the areas are very vast which is a contradiction to you saying they are small. Since most opinion says different than you, you may wish to level further. So far I would say the two games actually compare very well when it comes to the instances. It is nothing any where near Guildwars which I have also played. And lastly....I could care less if a game does enough to be called an MMO by the public/gaming community. I play for enjoyment, not for a game genre or classification. If you enjoy the game then play it. If you don't you simply move on. Sitting around and trying to classify it is a bit besides the point. Good luck with whatever game you enjoy.
Wildlands, AoC's first "open world" zone, is actually smaller than Antonica in EQ2. Both are instanced though, EQ2 instances at 100, the number for AoC seems to be a lot less.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Heh sorry. Played Vanguard and the graphics don't even compare to AoC's at this point. It's definitely an improved game since it launched (Meaning Vanguard) but let's not exaggerate. The one thing no one denies in regards to AoC is it's graphics. Even those who do not like the game. As for the point of the thread, please browse the forum here. It has already been proven that the 48 per zone is just something pulled by those who wish to troll and throw out incorrect information. The 48 is only in regards to siege warfare right now which is at 48 vs 48. I don't think anyone has a hard number of how many can be in an instance at a time at this point. If someone does hopefully they can give you your answer. Oh and the poster who was comparing EQ2 and AoC's zones saying you have to zone all the time AoC obviously has not played that far. It is said by many that the zones actually drop the higher you go. Also that the areas are very vast which is a contradiction to you saying they are small. Since most opinion says different than you, you may wish to level further. So far I would say the two games actually compare very well when it comes to the instances. It is nothing any where near Guildwars which I have also played. And lastly....I could care less if a game does enough to be called an MMO by the public/gaming community. I play for enjoyment, not for a game genre or classification. If you enjoy the game then play it. If you don't you simply move on. Sitting around and trying to classify it is a bit besides the point. Good luck with whatever game you enjoy.
Wildlands, AoC's first "open world" zone, is actually smaller than Antonica in EQ2. Both are instanced though, EQ2 instances at 100, the number for AoC seems to be a lot less.
No one unfortunately seems to know the actual number. But it has been shown already and stated by some playing that they know it can handle similar to the amount of EQ2. Here's link to a post on the second page or so where a player actually had a video during a guild meeting of 75 people.
It is still a massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. It's just everyone is grouped up into cages rather than being able to rome around with each other. BF2 on the other hand is just a game with a bunch of servers that you can connect too. There is a distinct difference. Many will argue, but AoC is still an MMORPG. They call Guild Wars an MMORPG and it's no different really.
Actually, a lot of people do not consider Guild Wars a true MMORPG.
The entire MMO or NOT debate is quite complicated, some think AoC is not a real MMO while others even consider Diablo II an MMO because there were thousands of player online playing the game (even if they were in 2-8 player instances).
--------------------------------------------------------- Never argue with idiots. They are immune to logic.
Comments
Why are people bitching about instances in AoC and not EQ2? From what I've heard they use the same sort of system.
thats not an MMO at all then
he is right, its BF2 with connecting servers
Think of it this way. AoC is a lot like Guild Wars. The only difference is, when you enter a zone, you can see everyone in that zone up too a max of 48 people per server for that zone. So if theres 10 servers and theres 48 people in every zone, that's 480 people that you can interact with. But only 48 at any one time. With Guild Wars you can only see those in your party until you enter another town.It is still a massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. It's just everyone is grouped up into cages rather than being able to rome around with each other. BF2 on the other hand is just a game with a bunch of servers that you can connect too. There is a distinct difference. Many will argue, but AoC is still an MMORPG. They call Guild Wars an MMORPG and it's no different really.
Theres no difference between BF2 and any MMO when it comes down to it... its all a bunch of zones instances servers call it what you want but its still a room full of people that kill each other in. In AOC the limit is 48vs48 in BF2 its 32vs32 in Joint Ops its 100vs100, ive played all the mmo's even EVE with 600 player lagging in Jita you still never see more than 100 or so in your area anyway, and the most massive game ive played when it comes to how many people ive actually playing and competeing with at one time was Joint Operations Typhoon rising on a 200 player server filled to the tits, that was massive, sure the map wasnt 100000km of empty space but the damn game was massive with all the people playing and by definition its not a massively multiplyer online game ... funny how that works, a game with 100vs100 isnt a MMo but a game thats 48vs48 is... whys that? the only thing massive about mmo's is the amount of money youll spend before your finished with them.
edit:
Oh right, BF2 doesnt have a 3d chatroom, thats another difference I guess ...
EQ2 has open areas, open dungeons and open cities. You have to deal with a loading screen for about 10 seconds to get into these areas. Also, if there gets to be too many people in one zone it will make another instance of it. That is where ppl are making the comparison. However, the size of EQ2 zones are about 20x bigger than that of the zones in AoC, so you aren't seeing a loading screen every 5 minutes.
Have you ever zoned into a dungeon, and every 100 yards into that dungeon zoned again? and again? and again? heheh. I just think it's excessive.
I can get around the zoning, but I do have one complaint about it. For as much loading as you do in AoC, and as small as the areas are, don't you think the load times would be under 3 seconds instead of around 20?
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Original poster has a point, this game a poor example of an MMO hands down. I played until Level freakin 30 and it was the most grueling experience of my life. I actually threw the piece of junk AOC box in the garbage pail, went to gamestop and bought a Vanguard box for $20 (I lost my other cd) resubbed to my old vanguard account patched and played for 3 hours tonight (and had a freakin blast exploring). Vanguard is a great game (though it needs some work in char animations, spell effects and such but great world and runs amazing on my 4 yr old systeml ooks great with everything turned up high at 1280 X1024). I actually applaud SOE (yeah I know I hate SOE but give them credit for getting Vanguard working pretty damn well) for their hard work on it.
Play WOW, GW (yeah its way batter and looks better than AOC) and Vanguard and enjoying all of them. Age of Conan is a scam hands down its next Gen graphics (oh yeah great graphics sorry it does'nt look all that great to honest, I can run it okay turned up in DX9 but cannot stand char animations no mob AI and lonely lonely world).
What a waste of $40 ah not so upset hey its only $40 I feel bad for the suckers who spent $90 or more on the Collector's edition. HA HA LOL
Let the flame war begin, go ahead bitch and moan while I laugh at AOC (same thing the devs at blizzard are doing).
So be it. Obviously you have no clue what 'graphics' are. Have you seen the graphics engine in AoC? Dynamic lighting and shadows, real time and day cycles, realistic cloud movement and various other features. These are features that are included in Crysis. Don't call Crysis a next-gen game? Hah.
I agree with GW looking more aesthetically pleasing though the graphics engine doesn't equate to AoC.
I'm sorry you don't like it. Congrats, you're 1 person in the world that has an opinion. I wish I had one of those.
EQ2 has open areas, open dungeons and open cities. You have to deal with a loading screen for about 10 seconds to get into these areas. Also, if there gets to be too many people in one zone it will make another instance of it. That is where ppl are making the comparison. However, the size of EQ2 zones are about 20x bigger than that of the zones in AoC, so you aren't seeing a loading screen every 5 minutes.
Play past Tortage
Have you ever zoned into a dungeon, and every 100 yards into that dungeon zoned again? and again? and again? heheh. I just think it's excessive.
Play past Tortage
I can get around the zoning, but I do have one complaint about it. For as much loading as you do in AoC, and as small as the areas are, don't you think the load times would be under 3 seconds instead of around 20?
It's 2008, playing AoC on your 1999 E-Machines will cause a loss of overall performance.
So be it. Obviously you have no clue what 'graphics' are. Have you seen the graphics engine in AoC? Dynamic lighting and shadows, real time and day cycles, realistic cloud movement and various other features. These are features that are included in Crysis. Don't call Crysis a next-gen game? Hah.
I agree with GW looking more aesthetically pleasing though the graphics engine doesn't equate to AoC.
I'm sorry you don't like it. Congrats, you're 1 person in the world that has an opinion. I wish I had one of those.
Sorry to burst your pathetic little bubble but Vanguards day and night cycles plus its lighting and shadows,clouds and overall weather system beats AOC hands down.
Heh sorry. Played Vanguard and the graphics don't even compare to AoC's at this point. It's definitely an improved game since it launched (Meaning Vanguard) but let's not exaggerate. The one thing no one denies in regards to AoC is it's graphics. Even those who do not like the game. As for the point of the thread, please browse the forum here. It has already been proven that the 48 per zone is just something pulled by those who wish to troll and throw out incorrect information. The 48 is only in regards to siege warfare right now which is at 48 vs 48. I don't think anyone has a hard number of how many can be in an instance at a time at this point. If someone does hopefully they can give you your answer.
Oh and the poster who was comparing EQ2 and AoC's zones saying you have to zone all the time AoC obviously has not played that far. It is said by many that the zones actually drop the higher you go. Also that the areas are very vast which is a contradiction to you saying they are small. Since most opinion says different than you, you may wish to level further. So far I would say the two games actually compare very well when it comes to the instances. It is nothing any where near Guildwars which I have also played.
And lastly....I could care less if a game does enough to be called an MMO by the public/gaming community. I play for enjoyment, not for a game genre or classification. If you enjoy the game then play it. If you don't you simply move on. Sitting around and trying to classify it is a bit besides the point. Good luck with whatever game you enjoy.
Wildlands, AoC's first "open world" zone, is actually smaller than Antonica in EQ2. Both are instanced though, EQ2 instances at 100, the number for AoC seems to be a lot less.
Still waiting for your Holy Grail MMORPG? Interesting...
Wildlands, AoC's first "open world" zone, is actually smaller than Antonica in EQ2. Both are instanced though, EQ2 instances at 100, the number for AoC seems to be a lot less.
No one unfortunately seems to know the actual number. But it has been shown already and stated by some playing that they know it can handle similar to the amount of EQ2. Here's link to a post on the second page or so where a player actually had a video during a guild meeting of 75 people.http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/181978/page/1
The entire MMO or NOT debate is quite complicated, some think AoC is not a real MMO while others even consider Diablo II an MMO because there were thousands of player online playing the game (even if they were in 2-8 player instances).
---------------------------------------------------------
Never argue with idiots. They are immune to logic.