Profile: miagisan
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • WHY FC WHY????

  • 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.

     

    and yet the ironic part here is...that the same people i see on these forums defending the 48vs48 are the same people who were bashing the 24v24 in potbs

  • Posted: 5/12/08 11:49 PM
    Age of Conan
• • WHY FC WHY????

  • 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.

  • Posted: 5/12/08 11:47 PM
    Age of Conan
• • WHY FC WHY????

  • Originally posted by Meatimus
    

    Originally posted by miagisan
    

    Originally posted by DAS1337
    

     

    Originally posted by HorrorScope
    

     

    Originally posted by Arkane_A
    

    Originally posted by DAS1337
    

     

    Originally posted by jadan2000
    

    im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!

    Epic battles compared to what?  It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever..  That's 96 people in one area..  That's also a starting number.  Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.

     

    At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.

    
    To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.

     

    Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people?  I played WoW, the server crashed every single time.  I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.

     

     

    You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it.  When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.

    in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city

    you can not compare SWG to AoC... graphics and performance.... please, use your head. AoC already has graphics that scale down, such as armors in cities, similiar to guild wars, but with everything that will be involved in these fights, with the graphics in this game... what you want is GD impossible. People already are cursing FC for the high system reqs for the game, for our systems to be able to handle a few hundred players in a siege battle, with everything that entitles, well, 99% of us couldn't afford that rig.

    no but everyone keeps saying "if you want to play you have to upgrade your rig" nonsense, which the same goes for the servers.

    Time moves on, graphics increase, hardware increase, then server capabilities also increase

    if swg was able to handle it on older servers with people using older hardware, then newer games should be using newer servers with our newer hardware. everything scales proportionately.

  • Posted: 5/12/08 11:45 PM
    Age of Conan
• • A little info about the Xbox360

  • Originally posted by whisperwynd
    

     You had Phantasy star online for the Dreamcast,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantasy_Star_Online

    and you also had EQOA (Everquest Online Adventures) for the PS2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EverQuest_Online_Adventures

    Sorry they aren't clickable 

    Both were out before FFXI.

    fixed for you :)

  • Posted: 5/12/08 11:40 PM
    Age of Conan
• • WHY FC WHY????

  • Originally posted by DAS1337
    

     

    Originally posted by HorrorScope
    

     

    Originally posted by Arkane_A
    

    Originally posted by DAS1337
    

     

    Originally posted by jadan2000
    

    im not really worried abotu it cause im getting teh game for free anyway, but there are people out there who have invested money in this game already just so they can do these "epic battles". We have all been told that we could play with hundreds of peole in the seiges. AND now, 4 days before the game launches, you find out from a manual, not even teh FC mouths, that there is a possiblity that the game will only handle 96 people in a seige. Yo man, Anyone and everyone has a right to be uncomfortable at the least about that! I do for one hope this is a typo, because if its not, its gonna hurt alot! Thats nothing short of false advertising if it is true!

    Epic battles compared to what?  It's bigger than about any other PvP MMO battles ever..  That's 96 people in one area..  That's also a starting number.  Who knows, even if it is official, that doesn't mean with some more optimizing that things can't be expanded.

     

    At the same time it is still much smaller than Shadowbane, L1, L2, DAoC. I believe WoW's highest battle before crashing was around 110 people in total. I know my server got to 130 but the server died during the first few seconds so it could have been done if we have around 100 ish people. I didn't expect the numbers to be overly large but I thought for sure 50-75 per side. Not a game breaking issue though and nothing to really complain over without trying it. Hell, look at raid guilds in WoW where most of them had a hard time fielding 40 members for a raid, this is more people than that.

    
    To add... Eve, SWG's. And we are talking many a year ago.

     

    Okay, now tell me how well those games performed under the stress of well over 100 people?  I played WoW, the server crashed every single time.  I played DAoC, while the servers usually didn't crash, it was like watching a slideshow at times.. I've never played Lineage.. so I can't comment on that, and I also haven't played EVE, though it's a space game.. pretty easy to handle a universe full of emptiness.. at least, easier.. I would imagine.

     

     

    You guys can piss and moan all you want about wanting 200v200 or more, but technology simply will not allow it.  When we all have T3 connections, then maybe we can start thinking about it being a possibility.

    in swg, valcyn server (which was no where near the largest) we had quite a few hundred plus battles, most of the time it was still playable...since i think (if i remember correctly) the graphics would scale themselves down automatically to help accomodate. I was able to play on a fairly low end rig at the time and still managed to fight fine, fps drop sure, but still playable. ONCE we crashed the server with a 300+ raid on a player city

  • Posted: 5/12/08 11:37 PM
    Age of Conan