Age of Conan

I remember distinctly they said in a podcast that hundreds and hundreds of players would battle for the keeps. Sounds like propaganda once again. Does anyone remember way before EQ2 came out there were screenshots of character creation and touting the amazing ability to create your character in many ways. Then when the game released everyone realized the games character graphics were reduced to silly puddy.

Same basic idea. Devs over exaggerate the games features to gain interest then size it down close to release. You can't tell me game developers are surprised just before release that their game's features have to be reduced. They know all along.

Sure, 96 players maybe enough for some enjoyable gameplay. But that is not the issue now is it. The issue is about the community being misled. http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TTsDVeurU8

Originally posted by TheSheikh

 

Originally posted by Grunties

I'll probably be playing WAR for the truly epic and massive 100+ siege battles as I know their engine easily supports it , and AoC I will play for the small group/single player story and questing pve fun, which is the area I think it does well. But PvP here just isn't the size, scope or fun that I am looking for.

 

Mythic has easily done 200+ battles on DAoC.

 

Here is a video with minimal lag from a DAoC zerg with atleast 200 players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkl_fAjmLmA&feature=related

Goddam did you really have to post that??? You just made me resub for a month lol

Originally posted by minocin

I thought the Merc system sounded good and I wanted to do that rather than join a guild yet I find it hard to believe this system was worth coding if the battles are only 48v48.

It's a good backup system. Don't hate me guys, but I find myself comparing this to WoW's AV battles. 40 vs 40. If there's a really small guild, say, 30 people, then the merc. system will come in handy. But since I suspect the guilds will easily have 50+ people, I guess you're right. But it's always nice to have a plan B! AV always filled up within minutes, but unless it was a premade, they were really all "mercs" since they were random people from different servers.

Originally posted by TheSheikh

 

Originally posted by Grunties

I'll probably be playing WAR for the truly epic and massive 100+ siege battles as I know their engine easily supports it , and AoC I will play for the small group/single player story and questing pve fun, which is the area I think it does well. But PvP here just isn't the size, scope or fun that I am looking for.

 

Mythic has easily done 200+ battles on DAoC.

 

Here is a video with minimal lag from a DAoC zerg with atleast 200 players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkl_fAjmLmA&feature=related

Now I am NOT going to all out defend AoC, because I find that the loading screens of Conan just kills off everyhting MMORPG's stood for: an open seamless world where you live in.

They did this just to have more pixels/shades, which is a shame.

That's WHY they limit these sieges to 48 also, because with their "innovative" real time battle system more would be uncontrollable lag from the server AND even more minutes of pre-downloading "graphics" from the HD.

BUT BUT--- please there IS a diffference when you want to animate 30 vectors a person or a few thousands a person.

The maximum number players in the scenarios of WAR is .... 28/28 BTW. And this is logical in view of their system and graphics.

At least in WAR NOT ALL will be loaded in little parts, but "100 dred against 100 dred" is only possible with very very low vector counts.

Miracles just don't exist, not even in computerland.

Originally posted by Leucent

This isn t true i have witnessed easily 300-400 people fighting over a relic at a milegate. I was there and i know for a fact it didn t crash at all. Lag yes but was playable enough to know wtf i was doing.

not even if you reduced the characters to a few vectors/pixels.

====> Server lag.

Originally posted by Lhex

I remember distinctly they said in a podcast that hundreds and hundreds of players would battle for the keeps. Sounds like propaganda once again. Does anyone remember way before EQ2 came out there were screenshots of character creation and touting the amazing ability to create your character in many ways. Then when the game released everyone realized the games character graphics were reduced to silly puddy.

Same basic idea. Devs over exaggerate the games features to gain interest then size it down close to release. You can't tell me game developers are surprised just before release that their game's features have to be reduced. They know all along.

Sure, 96 players maybe enough for some enjoyable gameplay. But that is not the issue now is it. The issue is about the community being misled. http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TTsDVeurU8

 

I've noticed that video keeps getting ignored.

Originally posted by Meatimus

stricly with performance in mind, with the graphics of this game... it seems like a smart move . One thing I've learned from other mmos is that large scale pvp is worthless if its nothing but lag spikes and disconnects. With 96 players in a battle, should be plenty to test any system.

Yes, after months of WoW's polygonial-styled graphics they do seem amazing, but compared to even intentionally weaker-graphic games like Sins of a Solar Empire, they're just... I dunno.

I fail to see how they manage to cram such a lagginess into such bad detail and overall quality.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

 

Originally posted by Leucent

This isn t true i have witnessed easily 300-400 people fighting over a relic at a milegate. I was there and i know for a fact it didn t crash at all. Lag yes but was playable enough to know wtf i was doing.

Sorry NOT possible,

 

not even if you reduced the characters to a few vectors/pixels.

====> Server lag.

Possible yes and i saw it don t bother arguing it. There was lag sure but i could move and still had fun.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

 

Originally posted by TheSheikh

 

Originally posted by Grunties

I'll probably be playing WAR for the truly epic and massive 100+ siege battles as I know their engine easily supports it , and AoC I will play for the small group/single player story and questing pve fun, which is the area I think it does well. But PvP here just isn't the size, scope or fun that I am looking for.

 

Mythic has easily done 200+ battles on DAoC.

 

Here is a video with minimal lag from a DAoC zerg with atleast 200 players.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkl_fAjmLmA&feature=related

Now I am NOT going to all out defend AoC, because I find that the loading screens of Conan just kills off everyhting MMORPG's stood for: an open seamless world where you live in.

 

They did this just to have more pixels/shades, which is a shame.

That's WHY they limit these sieges to 48 also, because with their "innovative" real time battle system more would be uncontrollable lag from the server AND even more minutes of pre-downloading "graphics" from the HD.

BUT BUT--- please there IS a diffference when you want to animate 30 vectors a person or a few thousands a person.

The maximum number players in the scenarios of WAR is .... 28/28 BTW. And this is logical in view of their system and graphics.

At least in WAR NOT ALL will be loaded in little parts, but "100 dred against 100 dred" is only possible with very very low vector counts.

Miracles just don't exist, not even in computerland.

WAR has Scenarios and Open World PvP.

Scenarios are limited like you said above, but Open World PvP is not limited at all.