Age of Conan

Originally posted by miagisan

Originally posted by Pyrostasis

Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play.

Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won.

I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc.

What part of that is fun?

With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side.

The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100  and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands.

That isnt fun for anyone.

then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.

There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.

Originally posted by drarkanex

Originally posted by Shannia

So it turns out that seige battle turns out to be just 50 vs 50? LMAO  So much for "epic" battles.   Like Avery said, it is epic when all 9 battle keeps on a server are going at it at the same time.  LOL   This is like PoTBS 24 v 24 thing when you have several hundred people per guild.  What is the point?  LOL  This post made my day.

 

Shannia, would you please go troll the Runescape forums please.  your 'LOL' banter is highly annoying and stop padding your post count..  it doesn't make you better than everyone else

You sir, are an idiot.  I was mocked and ridiculed when I was saying we'd have 50 vs 50 seige battles and people said I was wrong.  There would be 100 vs 100 minimum.  Then come to find out, it is just 48 vs 48.  I love when any developer proves me right after the Fanbois brigade had to take their shots at me telling me I was full of crap with such small battles.

Originally posted by DAS1337

 

Originally posted by Arkane_A

Just speaking of DAoC the only time it was slideshow like was when it got over 500ish people for me. Seeing battles of 100-300 was never a problem for my computer and I didn't have a fantastic computer back then.

You've never seen 500 people in the same area.  I played that game when it was at it's prime on one of the highest populated servers.. and I was in a guild that was in the top 3 on the entire server in PvP.  I NEVER saw 500 people.. at relic raids, you might get 200 or so.. 300 was a rarity and I've never seen that first hand.   On most servers early on, everyone fought in Hibernia.. even in the most hectic times, you'd only see 50v50.. come on dude.

 

 

I'm calling bullshit on that one man.

 

Maybe you had a better computer than me, but I know I could solo and group without getting slowdown.. so it was good enough for casual play.  All I know is that when it got above 100 people on the same screen or vicinity, it started getting choppy..

No he speaks the truth. Many times there were 300-400 on RR slide show if everyone wwas in one area, but ws fairly smooth with the big battles outside everyone at once. 96 people was easily handled during RR. This 48 vs 48 is funny stuff.

No game can stand 1500 people in one area, and that's standing still, not moving.. Maybe 16 bit genesis graphics.. but not graphics that are acceptable by todays standards.  Instant crash. 

I've personally never bashed POTBS 24 vs 24. I frankly don't care about POBTS at all to be honest.

I think 50 vs 50 is enough. Alterac Valley was 40 vs 40 and that was pretty epic until Blizzard ruined it by removing the zerg and making people focus only on PVE achievements completely ignoring the other side.

50 vs 50 has 20 more then AV and hopefully it will be a big clash instead of two teams ignoring each other like AV. If that happens then 50 vs 50 will be epic.

Originally posted by Pyrostasis

 

Originally posted by miagisan

Originally posted by Pyrostasis

Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play.

Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won.

I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc.

What part of that is fun?

With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side.

The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100  and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands.

That isnt fun for anyone.

then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.

8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.

 

There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.

That is one crappy bunch of 48+ people if that happened.

Originally posted by Pyrostasis

 

Originally posted by miagisan

Originally posted by Pyrostasis

Guys... the issue is the more folks you have in battles the less cordinated and the more unorganized things get. Sure in the movies 500 v 500 looks awesome and epic... but in a MMO its chaos. People break down do their own thing, mindlessly killing whatever... it turns into counter strike. The only tactic becomes how many people can you throw at the enemy long enough to break them. Thats not good game play.

Lets look at DAOC. Sure there were many fights were 200+ enemy players sieged a keep. Casters sat back nuked each other till someone got enough people willing to charge, and then forces locked and the biggest side won.

I remember on my 8man hitting many of these relic raids 40+ people and killing them, wiping them out... with 8 people! Why? Cause they were lemmings. They werent working together, werent assisting, werent focused, were confused, lost, etc.

What part of that is fun?

With 48 people v 48 people your looking at a large force, but still with the ability to organize and be coordinated. People will be able to stay with the group and focus better. Not to mention pc performance on the client side.

The other thing... smaller battles PROMOTE pvp. You will have hundreds of guilds competing for the borderkeeps and they will change hands constantly. In 100  and 200 man zerg battles your going to have 8 super guilds on the server... and the keeps will rarely if ever change hands.

That isnt fun for anyone.

then by your logic....8 men could beat 48 in any game..so that point is moot.

8 coordinated players frequently beat 48+ men in DAOC... happened all the time. Zergs are not as coordinated as a small team that plays together daily. Some game mechanics such as wow cater to #'s over skill... however any game where skill and how you play your toon (and so far AoC seems to lean more towards DAOC than to WoW) Coordination will beat numbers most of the time.

 

There is of course a limit to what you can do... and there are different levels of zergs. For instance... Hellvamp zerg on Gareth was pretty much free rps. However, there were other zergs who ran as 3 or 4 groups that were extremely coordinated with a single MA or Two and could compete fairly well. Granted a good 8 man would still kill 2 or 3x their numbers.

Uh, this only happened with spiritmasters spamming their aoe.. and a group of 48, I don't care how bad they are.. will eventually overcome even the most skilled and geared up spiritmaster zerg.  God, how I hated that...

Ok sorry for bigger print:

Interview here : Radio Podcast : http://www.uberguilds.org/radio/audio/by/title/jason_stone_age_of_conan_community_interview_april-24th_2008

April 24th 2008 listen from : >> 17minutes 50 secs

Testing perspective / assessing internally - a few hundred people logged into same city - that have the capability of changing the numbers.

As an example: Might in a battle that has 500 people in it but you will only see around 100 nearest to you from fog effects.

"Confident that they can deliever on those massive battles!"

So lets wait for more official clarification!

Originally posted by Leucent

Originally posted by DAS1337

 

Originally posted by Arkane_A

Just speaking of DAoC the only time it was slideshow like was when it got over 500ish people for me. Seeing battles of 100-300 was never a problem for my computer and I didn't have a fantastic computer back then.

You've never seen 500 people in the same area.  I played that game when it was at it's prime on one of the highest populated servers.. and I was in a guild that was in the top 3 on the entire server in PvP.  I NEVER saw 500 people.. at relic raids, you might get 200 or so.. 300 was a rarity and I've never seen that first hand.   On most servers early on, everyone fought in Hibernia.. even in the most hectic times, you'd only see 50v50.. come on dude.

 

 

I'm calling bullshit on that one man.

 

Maybe you had a better computer than me, but I know I could solo and group without getting slowdown.. so it was good enough for casual play.  All I know is that when it got above 100 people on the same screen or vicinity, it started getting choppy..

No he speaks the truth. Many times there were 300-400 on RR slide show if everyone wwas in one area, but ws fairly smooth with the big battles outside everyone at once. 96 people was easily handled during RR. This 48 vs 48 is funny stuff.

Right, and that's exactly what we are talking about.. epic battles doesn't mean small skirmishes totaling 300 players over the entire zone.  We are talking about over 100 people fighting within the same small area.. meaning that you can see the majority of them on your screen.. do you even understand the rendering involved in the process?