Age of Conan

 48 is a good number and anyone who plays a game like Medieval II will know this. Lag would be terrible. Sieging in a game is nothing like raiding.  You have to play by tactics and not just stand around in a circle beating a mob to death. To coordinate an attack or defense with hundreds of people would only hurt your game play.

Dark Age of Camelot.

There - this shoots down right about 90% of all appeasers.

48 is MASSIVE? Obviously you never played DAoC in its prime. Planetside still boasts 400 player battles per planet and reaches poplock during prime time on a regular basis. 96 is a fine number and if that's the best they can do, then I guess it's cool, but it's definitely not MASSIVE.

even with the chance of it lagging i would rather have a more open environment, i remember L2 when we had to stop a zerg of 100 people with only 50 that is epic, yes sure it did lag at some point  but the whole experience was awesome, zerg fest usually loose against a well organized group, and i was really looking forward to people banding together in zergs trying to take down organized groups, and vice-versa.

and can't guild buy NPC guards ? that will add to the body count when the battles is done  so 48+48=96+( X # NPCguards ) = 100+   and i think that will be alot of fun

Coming from GuildWars, I'd say 48 is a lot bigger than what I'd expect. In no way am I looking into MASSIVE PVP siege, since there's a fine line dividing a well coordinated PVP battle and utter chaos. Personally I'd prefer a well coordinated PVP battle, and as the number gets larger, the more likely it is going to turn into a mindless "bash and smash".

The limit is only for allies and mercenaries, not for guild members, so you can have 100 vs. 100 on the battlefield, if you have large guilds!

Originally posted by kgonecrazy

Coming from GuildWars, I'd say 48 is a lot bigger than what I'd expect. In no way am I looking into MASSIVE PVP siege, since there's a fine line dividing a well coordinated PVP battle and utter chaos. Personally I'd prefer a well coordinated PVP battle, and as the number gets larger, the more likely it is going to turn into a mindless "bash and smash".

Well this is why i think they have it right for many reasons, coordinating this many is possible, anyone who has faced a Premade MC in alterac valley knows who wins with an organised group.

Its not going to be 600v600 out in the middle of a feild killing and reressing in a never ending cycle.....Funcom have planned that it is to be an attack against the buildings and the keeps, if you had an army of 500+ you would just smash these buildings in minutes...plus the defending team would just be rolled over as most likely a guild would struggle to pull 500 online at same time and mercenaries would be more interested in destroying a city rather than protecting one, so you could end up with seige battles of 40 guildies fighting off 500 - 600 attackers (because there are no factions this seems an obvious way the battles would turn out).

So with the limits that they are impossing at this time, they seem more than reasonable, I am also sure that this system will evolve as time goes on once they are able to concentrate on single subject matters and try to implement peoples wishes towards large scale battles after the system has been tried and tested to the last....

Originally posted by M.D.33

The limit is only for allies and mercenaries, not for guild members, so you can have 100 vs. 100 on the battlefield, if you have a large guilds!

Not correct, they state that the 48 limit does not have to be compiled of your guild members only....if you wish you can fill up the numbers to 48 with people from outside of your guild.

Originally posted by Xris375

LOL. I seem to remember some fanbois being hurt by my claims that FC didn't have the talent to pull off 200v200

I'm not surprised at all.. Not at all.

Basicly we are talking what Blizzard did with AV.  That is in no way Massive.   But this was always known to be the case.  What Funcom talked about as massive is in reality something avrage.  Thats how it has been from start.

Dissapointing ofc but was known to be something close to this number.