Age of Conan

Originally posted by Phynyte

As I was reading down this post, I saw all the Warhammer Fanbois trying to put AoC down again. When the fact of the matter is that Warhammer's city siege PvP is going to be instances inside of instances. They can't even hold a city siege inside one instance. While were on the subject, Warhammer also has the mindless button mashing so you can see BIG numbers and hopefully you can do a 25 man raid to get more EPICS! None of this stuff is in though because EA Mythic is reassessing the game AGAIN. So before you start bashing AoC look and see what your own game has to offer.

I won t comment on how wrong you are lol(NDA) but thats ok. I can say one thing city sieges are not 48 vs 48 and can be attacked by anyone anytime, wow what a concept, anyways you BK fights are ecxactly like city sieges as far as instancing goes, good try :)

Originally posted by markoraos

Dark Age of Camelot.

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

There really is nothing to shoot down here... why are you always trying to make out like this is some kind of fight?

Look...

AoC is AoC. It is what it is.

I can understand it when people have technical issues etc and want to complain (to an extent...), but complaining about a system design choice in a game is wierd to me...

Like I say, FC have made a design choice to limit siege warfare to 48 a side. Thats it. No more. There is no debate here. That either appeals to you or it dosent.

Noone is pretending it is anything then what it is saying it is. You still have the choice to purchase or not. Noone promised that this game was going to be the universal reagent capable of appealing equally to every pedantic, argumentative, moaning, negative, tantrum throwing MMORPGer out there.

Either buy the game or don't.

This is very disappointing. Basic it just like World of Warcraft Alterac Valley with eight more people on each side. Plus 1-2 battlekeep. I am really concern about major guilds. Lets say you have a 300 man strong guild army, but you can only defend it with 48 of you troops. I really dislike that a lot.

A picture (or video presentation) speaks louder then a thousand words

From GC 2007 Age of Conan Siege demonstration

“Of course this usually involves hundreds of players”, “This is how sieging looks in AOC”

Originally posted by TurnX

 

Originally posted by fantaros

Any1 else appreciate the irony in this?

What I find ironic is that the way Funcom designed the game its set up for large guilds. You will need a lot of resources to build player cities and battlekeeps, you will need a lot of players to assert yourself on a server so you can get one of the few battlekeep spots... But when it comes to actually participating in the siege battles, only 48 people can go. I could easily see guilds going over 100+ people, and its kind of a slap in the face to say "Hey thanks for putting in all the time and effort in building up our cities, but now that its time to actually enjoy the fruits of your labor, you can't go."

 

Turn you nailed it perfectly imo. This is what irked me about the design as well. You limit the the battlefields to a certain number of players, in a game that requires massive guilds to fund the player cities being built. So then what do you, of course you bring the 48 best pvpers with you to defend a keep, and that alienates a huge part of your guild. I just don't think it was completely thought out in end game terms. 100v100 would have been more reasonable, I know we had at least that many in major battles in Shadowbane.

Granted you have to take into account improved graphics, but apparently everyone is fine telling the noobs to buy better pcs. Perhaps they should have made it 100v100 and funcom tell the fanbois to turn their high end rigs to low settings lol.

48v48 is too low, needs to be at least 70v70.This game was suppose to be about epic fights, guess i'll just have to see when it launches.

 Im really glad I didn't pre order this game. 48 v48 ...bleh. So basically there will be next to no server politics. All you need is a good 48 man pvp guild with some scrubs to gather and build stuff for them. That means a guild can pretty much walk over anyone at anytime in game with no reprucussions. The only thing they have to worry about is defending the keep at a certain designated time against an equal army ....lame.

Expect Funcom to increase the Caps if needed, and if Performance is stable with 48vs48. It is not like you'll be experiencing Seige Warfare anytime soon anyway. There are what: 8 or 9 different Keep spots in the Borderlands for every server? That means that there won't be any real Seige Warfare until 9 or 10 Guilds are able to reach Level 3 Cities and then gather enough resources to start again with a Keep. The moment the cap actually limits gameplay on a wide-scale instead of improving it they will certainly increase it. I think they just want to be more careful earlier on.

Originally posted by Polarization

A picture (or video presentation) speaks louder then a thousand words

From GC 2007 Age of Conan Siege demonstration

“Of course this usually involves hundreds of players”, “This is how sieging looks in AOC”

“You will have to muster your ENTIRE GUILD ! And really go into this, This is going to take hours this siege is HUGE! HUGE! Stuff.

“Of course you have to envision hundreds of players on this battlefield”

“We watched troy, we watched brave heart, we watched 300, all these movies, that’s really the feeling we want to capture here, its you there on the battle field, swinging you sword and being one of MANY! MANY! soldiers in a HUGH! HUGH! EPIC WAR!.

“As a guild you might not have access to that many players ,so what a guild can do is hire player mercenary’s, you can go out and say we will pay 100 gold to anyone that will help us for this war, so that’s a great way for players to get into siege PvP without actually having to be part of this HUGE GUILD.”

Check the video yourself if you doubt the accuracy or context of the quotes.

Its not the first time I have seen them say these things either. They are lucky this was leaked now a week before the game released as apposed to a month ago. They would have lost 1/4 of their sales minimum.

Anyone not now think that the mercenary system appears completely unnecessary or even redundant if the max is 48 v 48 players.

And also doesn’t this imply that due to the limited number of keeps (8 I believe) and the infrequency of the possibility of them being open to attack (3-6 days I believe) that siege PvP will only be regularly available to a relatively tiny and very exclusive proportion of the player population?

Perhaps if they increase the number of keep instances and also significantly reduce the potential period of time between sieges they could rectify this situation.

Relevant Transcript from jason stone AOC community interview april 24th 08

Starts at 18:00 minutes

"We have done like various testing, internally and what not at one point in time we had a few hundred all logged into the same city, we still have the capability based on the performance changing either based on distance or the number of people in your vicinity, we can tone that down."

"But if it becomes a problem for example you might have a place that has 500 people in it. Your only going to see the 100 people that are closest to you."

This is not a quote but apparently the server isn’t really the things that’s going to have a problem, cheeta 2.0 engine has problems with AI, NPC‘s, scripting and pathing calculations.

"And for what we did intentionally for the border kingdoms and PvP is that while we had grand dreams at one point of having every player out there you know like moving about his troop, like 5 10 pike men or archers or what ever or what not to really give a massive siege feel, we found that the AI was so expensive we found we where better of