I don't see 300 ever happening for this game. After trying sieges out, I don't see this happening, ever. When 48 vs 48 was under 10 FPS the entire time, I can't imagine ever seeing triple the amount of players with even better performance. If I'm wrong, than I'll be happy to be proven wrong. However... forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of Funcom's technical wizardry at this point.
Originally posted by AmazingAvery Originally posted by Die_Scream But the engine can't handle 48 x 48 so I hear. Wouldn't htis require a complete overhaul of the engine? Even if they could optimize up the wazoo, this engine wouldn't handle it, would it?
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable. The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come. The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
LOL your just frickin crazy because its the same base code flaws lag lag and more lag. If I take a brick and paint it gold and try pass it off as a gold bar its still a brick underneath. They revamped something that was a failure to begin with brilliant.
This info is forthcoming... its due in the short term... in the next few weeks... its behind schedule slightly... will be here by end of September... let people know whats coming... more important things to do first....
rofl. Are you taking a course in Dev-Speak now, or has this just come naturally with all the kool aid? ;p
The only way that 300 people will be involved in such a siege, is if they split the castle into multiple zones, thus having 300 people involved without having them in the same zone. Not even DAoC managed 300 people in one zone without crashing the server, and that game was otherwise quite good at handling large number of players in a one battle.
Following on from feedback they want the get this done right such as the Fugitive system, (another extra) and thus its behind schedule slightly.
The Fugitive System is a horrible, terrible, appalling, nightmarish freaking disaster that is just waiting to euthanize this game. One of the worst ideas for an mmorpg I have ever heard.
As far as the sieges, did they ever fix the issue where the game would not work with radeon 3850+ cards? If they haven't even jumped over that hurdle, how and why do they expect people to play in 300 man sieges?
___________________ Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
This info is forthcoming... its due in the short term... in the next few weeks... its behind schedule slightly... will be here by end of September... let people know whats coming... more important things to do first....
rofl. Are you taking a course in Dev-Speak now, or has this just come naturally with all the kool aid? ;p
Shouldn't they fix regular siege's first? Funcoms priorities are completely out the window. They're adding content when the content they already have is unfinished and broken. Seems like everyday there is more "fail" news from Funcom.
But the engine can't handle 48 x 48 so I hear. Wouldn't htis require a complete overhaul of the engine? Even if they could optimize up the wazoo, this engine wouldn't handle it, would it?
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
Avery you have to be a funcom employee, why else would you tirelessly defend a pos like age of conan..Funcom have no respect for their customers and flat lied about the features that they have in game..Avery where is the bar fighting that they talked about for 3 years or more.
Wait....let me get this striaght. Regular sieges were suppose to allow hundreds and hundreds of players to participate in them and they were eventually scaled back t0 48 vs 48 due to tech constaints and those seiges are nothing but lag fest and theseiges themselves are a joke when it is the players that knock down the walls using hundreds of hits with their own weapons.
Now we're told that the new huge siezes will allow 300 vs 300?
If the system can't handle properly 48vs48 siege battles without serious lag,....
how can they handlle batles with 300 people....?
If I were a journalist, I would ask this simple question.
It's so sad for MMORPG's that these developpers just keep hyping things they can't deliver.
Typical of what we've seen from this company.
-----> As the Director of Funcom was referring to the food industry, I'd think its time to call the Secretary of Health here, because AOC is responsible for some wide spread food poisoning and.... it's NOT helping the confidence in the food industry at all !!!!!
But the engine can't handle 48 x 48 so I hear. Wouldn't htis require a complete overhaul of the engine? Even if they could optimize up the wazoo, this engine wouldn't handle it, would it?
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
After what you have seen you really can belive this as well ???! That trip they bought for you to Norway, really payed off...for Funcom.
Jeeze
--- 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
To my understanding, it's not 300 vs 300. It's 300 total, which makes for 150 vs 150.
Apart from the fact that siege warfare weapons don't work and the obvious lag problem from increasing an already unplayable siege war up to threefold, there's an issue none seems to have adressed: No one will ever have participated in a legendary siege because of the effort it'll take to get one running.
It's been stated that each server will have 3 legendary keep slots. Apart from the obvious endless resource grind to finance them, these are keeps it'll take 150 online members to attack and defend. That's 150 hyperactive muppets with short attention spans that you'll have to manage to summon at a specific time of the day and herd into staying online for the duration of the fight, assuming they all don't crash and die. The logical and logistical failure here is the only legendary part of the whole ordeal. We all know how time consuming it is to get even two dozen people together for a raid and keep them motivated and coordinated.
I couldn't come up with a greater plan for failure even if I had a knife to my throat.
To my understanding, it's not 300 vs 300. It's 300 total, which makes for 150 vs 150. Apart from the fact that siege warfare weapons don't work and the obvious lag problem from increasing an already unplayable siege war up to threefold, there's an issue none seems to have adressed: No one will ever have participated in a legendary siege because of the effort it'll take to get one running. It's been stated that each server will have 3 legendary keep slots. Apart from the obvious endless resource grind to finance them, these are keeps it'll take 150 online members to attack and defend. That's 150 hyperactive muppets with short attention spans that you'll have to manage to summon at a specific time of the day and herd into staying online for the duration of the fight, assuming they all don't crash and die. The logical and logistical failure here is the only legendary part of the whole ordeal. We all know how time consuming it is to get even two dozen people together for a raid and keep them motivated and coordinated. I couldn't come up with a greater plan for failure even if I had a knife to my throat.
Well, this is funcom. Don't think anyone had to put a knife to anyone's throat over there :P
But the engine can't handle 48 x 48 so I hear. Wouldn't htis require a complete overhaul of the engine? Even if they could optimize up the wazoo, this engine wouldn't handle it, would it?
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
Try Tower wars with 40-50 people and say that again.
This info is forthcoming, its due in the short term, just like the PvP system which will be on us in the next few weeks. The only thing mentioned in that statement that should of been there at launch is the amount of players, everything else is Extra. Following on from feedback they want the get this done right such as the Fugitive system, (another extra) and thus its behind schedule slightly. My guess would be everything in the newsletter you just read will be here by end of September, with somethings before others. The newsletter which was released less that a month after release was there to let people know whats coming. I mean there have been more important things to do first. PS. You on a mission today OP?
Quick Question. Didn't they promise the PvP system by the end of June? Didn't Gaute himself promise the PvP system by the end of June? Isn't it pretty much August?
So by forthcoming, you mean by the end of August, I mean September, I mean November.
--------------------------------------------- I live to fight, and fight to live.
To my understanding, it's not 300 vs 300. It's 300 total, which makes for 150 vs 150. Apart from the fact that siege warfare weapons don't work and the obvious lag problem from increasing an already unplayable siege war up to threefold, there's an issue none seems to have adressed: No one will ever have participated in a legendary siege because of the effort it'll take to get one running. It's been stated that each server will have 3 legendary keep slots. Apart from the obvious endless resource grind to finance them, these are keeps it'll take 150 online members to attack and defend. That's 150 hyperactive muppets with short attention spans that you'll have to manage to summon at a specific time of the day and herd into staying online for the duration of the fight, assuming they all don't crash and die. The logical and logistical failure here is the only legendary part of the whole ordeal. We all know how time consuming it is to get even two dozen people together for a raid and keep them motivated and coordinated. I couldn't come up with a greater plan for failure even if I had a knife to my throat.
Very well said, Sir! I doubt they will be able to fix the current Siege system and the lag within the next 3 months.
My prediction still stands, AoC will be dead by September/October (eg. below 50k subs).
"Give players systems and tools instead of rails and rules"
I've pretty much kept my opinion to myself trying give Funcom the benefit of the doubt. I started AOC as a time killer until WAR comes out but got hooked by getting into a pretty good guild early on.
I have enjoyed the play up into the mid 50's and have now hit the content grind gap in quests and spend most of my time mining and getting mats to help build our Tier II compound. I have set the the goal to get at least one 80 character before I drop as I figure our guild will drop in throngs for WAR when it releases.
As a player I am disappointed beyond imagination at the false ads and hype they have spouted out since June and all the issues that key cropping up.
As a business professional I am shocked at the bad business practices they continually push forward. In a reputable company some one should have resigned by now an a apology given to the customer base. The only thing I will thank them for was I was able to by a large chunk of shares just prior to release and then cash out 4 days later with a nice profit. With those funds I will now be able to fund my WAR and Star Gate accounts when they launch.
Siege warfare is going to be one big lag fest. Unplayable unrealistic on most peoples computers, even the most the high end computers will struggle with all the effects.
Quick Question. Didn't they promise the PvP system by the end of June? Didn't Gaute himself promise the PvP system by the end of June? Isn't it pretty much August? So by forthcoming, you mean by the end of August, I mean September, I mean November.
they did initially say end of June in this announcement
So again they are a month behind on what they said they would have in place for content that has suppose to have been part of the system at launch. This is piss poor service at it's best they say be understanding how about crediting all the active accounts a month for not holding up their word. Then maybe everyone will be a bit more understanding they are still coding the paid for content how can they expect to get any expansion content out before the end of the year that's pretty dam bold to even hit at.
Anyone who has played AoC and participated in a PVP battle with over 20 people knows that this game will never be able to handle 300 people. Saying otherwise is a lie, plain and simple. Maybe if they add a newer fog effect that limits your view to like 5 meters in front of you, it MIGHT work. But nah, I don't ever see that happening. If 300 people on-screen was possible, then a good test for this would be to remove the instances somewhere and see how the game runs with everyone in one instance.
What if 260 were NPC's? lol. Im trying to get into the FC PR machines head
Actually what you just said brings up another point - what if 50-100 of the 300 people were Necro's? You'd have 300 people and 500 minions. Which would bring you down to a high of -1 fps.
So your saying that if they put enough characters on the screen the can make time go backwards? I actually could believe this one! lol
Comments
Technical wizardry, now thats comedy.
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
LOL your just frickin crazy because its the same base code flaws lag lag and more lag. If I take a brick and paint it gold and try pass it off as a gold bar its still a brick underneath. They revamped something that was a failure to begin with brilliant.
rofl. Are you taking a course in Dev-Speak now, or has this just come naturally with all the kool aid? ;p
The only way that 300 people will be involved in such a siege, is if they split the castle into multiple zones, thus having 300 people involved without having them in the same zone. Not even DAoC managed 300 people in one zone without crashing the server, and that game was otherwise quite good at handling large number of players in a one battle.
The Fugitive System is a horrible, terrible, appalling, nightmarish freaking disaster that is just waiting to euthanize this game. One of the worst ideas for an mmorpg I have ever heard.
As far as the sieges, did they ever fix the issue where the game would not work with radeon 3850+ cards? If they haven't even jumped over that hurdle, how and why do they expect people to play in 300 man sieges?
___________________
Sadly, I see storm clouds on the horizon. A faint stench of Vanguard is in the air.-Kien
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/
Hmm so atm you get lag + crashes with a small grp. Anyway how are the players supposed to find 300 players? Planning on a server merge?
I'm not a no life that sits in front of his computer all day long, I'm an intern that sits in front of his computer all day long.
rofl. Are you taking a course in Dev-Speak now, or has this just come naturally with all the kool aid? ;p
Taunt +1
More PR and bullshit. I doubt there will be enough ppl playing on each server to form alliance in few months.
Again its a bunch of lies and carrot on a stick to try few naive ppl to pay abit more for something that turns into bugs and nothingness...
I think you need to replace the word Legendary with Mythological.
Shouldn't they fix regular siege's first? Funcoms priorities are completely out the window. They're adding content when the content they already have is unfinished and broken. Seems like everyday there is more "fail" news from Funcom.
Gamer Plus+
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
Avery you have to be a funcom employee, why else would you tirelessly defend a pos like age of conan..Funcom have no respect for their customers and flat lied about the features that they have in game..Avery where is the bar fighting that they talked about for 3 years or more.
AmazingAvery inquiring minds want to know.
MAGA
Wait....let me get this striaght. Regular sieges were suppose to allow hundreds and hundreds of players to participate in them and they were eventually scaled back t0 48 vs 48 due to tech constaints and those seiges are nothing but lag fest and theseiges themselves are a joke when it is the players that knock down the walls using hundreds of hits with their own weapons.
Now we're told that the new huge siezes will allow 300 vs 300?
If the system can't handle properly 48vs48 siege battles without serious lag,....
how can they handlle batles with 300 people....?
If I were a journalist, I would ask this simple question.
It's so sad for MMORPG's that these developpers just keep hyping things they can't deliver.
Typical of what we've seen from this company.
-----> As the Director of Funcom was referring to the food industry, I'd think its time to call the Secretary of Health here, because AOC is responsible for some wide spread food poisoning and.... it's NOT helping the confidence in the food industry at all !!!!!
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
After what you have seen you really can belive this as well ???! That trip they bought for you to Norway, really payed off...for Funcom.
Jeeze
---
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
To my understanding, it's not 300 vs 300. It's 300 total, which makes for 150 vs 150.
Apart from the fact that siege warfare weapons don't work and the obvious lag problem from increasing an already unplayable siege war up to threefold, there's an issue none seems to have adressed: No one will ever have participated in a legendary siege because of the effort it'll take to get one running.
It's been stated that each server will have 3 legendary keep slots. Apart from the obvious endless resource grind to finance them, these are keeps it'll take 150 online members to attack and defend. That's 150 hyperactive muppets with short attention spans that you'll have to manage to summon at a specific time of the day and herd into staying online for the duration of the fight, assuming they all don't crash and die. The logical and logistical failure here is the only legendary part of the whole ordeal. We all know how time consuming it is to get even two dozen people together for a raid and keep them motivated and coordinated.
I couldn't come up with a greater plan for failure even if I had a knife to my throat.
Well, this is funcom. Don't think anyone had to put a knife to anyone's throat over there :P
http://www.speedtest.net/result/7300033012
Actually it can, and run stable, far from perfect at the moment, but its playable.
The "i hear " part is old news, guess what some of Funcoms patching did work.. some of it is yet to come.
The engine was AO's and overhauled, big time, how many people on a screen in AO?
Try Tower wars with 40-50 people and say that again.
Quick Question. Didn't they promise the PvP system by the end of June? Didn't Gaute himself promise the PvP system by the end of June? Isn't it pretty much August?
So by forthcoming, you mean by the end of August, I mean September, I mean November.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
Very well said, Sir! I doubt they will be able to fix the current Siege system and the lag within the next 3 months.
My prediction still stands, AoC will be dead by September/October (eg. below 50k subs).
I've pretty much kept my opinion to myself trying give Funcom the benefit of the doubt. I started AOC as a time killer until WAR comes out but got hooked by getting into a pretty good guild early on.
I have enjoyed the play up into the mid 50's and have now hit the content grind gap in quests and spend most of my time mining and getting mats to help build our Tier II compound. I have set the the goal to get at least one 80 character before I drop as I figure our guild will drop in throngs for WAR when it releases.
As a player I am disappointed beyond imagination at the false ads and hype they have spouted out since June and all the issues that key cropping up.
As a business professional I am shocked at the bad business practices they continually push forward. In a reputable company some one should have resigned by now an a apology given to the customer base. The only thing I will thank them for was I was able to by a large chunk of shares just prior to release and then cash out 4 days later with a nice profit. With those funds I will now be able to fund my WAR and Star Gate accounts when they launch.
Siege warfare is going to be one big lag fest. Unplayable unrealistic on most peoples computers, even the most the high end computers will struggle with all the effects.
they did initially say end of June in this announcement
www.funcom.com/wsp/funcom/frontend.cgi
then July 11, revised the expectation to be early August
forums-eu.ageofconan.com/showthread.php
the new PVP system is available for subscribers to try out on the Test Server so hopefully it make it to production somewhere in August
www.massively.com/2008/07/22/new-age-of-conan-patch-on-testlive-details-pvp-xp-gear-notorie/
EQ2 fan sites
So again they are a month behind on what they said they would have in place for content that has suppose to have been part of the system at launch. This is piss poor service at it's best they say be understanding how about crediting all the active accounts a month for not holding up their word. Then maybe everyone will be a bit more understanding they are still coding the paid for content how can they expect to get any expansion content out before the end of the year that's pretty dam bold to even hit at.
What if 260 were NPC's? lol. Im trying to get into the FC PR machines head
Actually what you just said brings up another point - what if 50-100 of the 300 people were Necro's? You'd have 300 people and 500 minions. Which would bring you down to a high of -1 fps.
So your saying that if they put enough characters on the screen the can make time go backwards? I actually could believe this one! lol