48vs48 Sieges!

[Downanael]

Bet you were waiting to see flaming here

Those who have seen Aoc forums have probably seen the huge whine thread about how this is elitism and ruins the game etc etc.

Am i the only one thinking it's so much better this way? I most certainly prefer smaller fights as there is actually space for tactics,and with the aoc being quite pretty i don't even dare to think how much it would nerf my fps.

What do YOU think about this? huge carebear and elitism favoring or is this actually pretty good choice so some guilds can't just go and zerg everything.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well.

A story from EVE.

People whined about 10vs10 fights being laggy.

They upgraded so it can hold 20vs20.

People whined about 30vs30 fights being laggy.

They upgraded it...

Well you get the point. If it was free, people would NEVER be happy.

If 48vs48 works in reasonable FPS, then all the power to limitations.

48vs48 is still huge in this kind of game.

 

[dee777]

Considering that roaming in the frontiers and seeking group on group action is not instanced at all, I _LOVE_ the limitation on a very respectable 48 each side size.

And regarding the EvE nostalgia...back when I stopped "fighting" in POS warfare zergs, we usually had around 250 ships per side plus 50 capitals. Lagtastic! Desyncmazing!

Putting a cap on sieging gets two very big thumbs up IMO!

 

[Downanael]

Considering that roaming in the frontiers and seeking group on group action is not instanced at all,

That don't get you those points that you can get ahead on the sieqe que or whatever it is called thought? Unless they changed that

Remember seeing post about that only pvp-minigames matters which really sucks imo.

 

[Brack]

as im new 2 researching this game this maybe a stupid question but am i right in thinking the player made cities which are instanced are now limited to 48 v 48 but the border kingdom stuff keeps and towers are open world like daoc?

 

[Downanael]

as im new 2 researching this game this maybe a stupid question but am i right in thinking the player made cities which are instanced are now limited to 48 v 48 but the border kingdom stuff keeps and towers are open world like daoc?

Nobody really knowns since there still is NDA on,It's a mystery

 

[LordjOX]

Yeah nobody knows. If a siege is 48 vs 48 - then fair play (but what if guild is > 48 membersize?).
But I reckon others can still interrupt the siege, so the numbers can tilt abit. It is open world after all.... or ... ?

But my guess, another retarded design choice by the silly designers at Funcom, it will be trashed to hell when people see how it won't work in practice, by excluding people. (btw not about 48 vs 48, but sieges might be instanced for example)

 

[Brack]

All i can say on the matter atm lol is if the keeps and towers are instanced seiges thats just retarded i could kinda live with the 48v48 on guild citie seiges as its better for smaller guilds and it would lend itself to the guild cities as they are in instanced zones anyway. If keep seiges are capped to 48v48 ppl that kinda removes the whole large open world battles lol

 

[dee777]

From what I gathered so far:

You gain "Yes-I-can-queue-for-sieging" points only from the pvp-minigames (capture the skull and team annihilation). But actually I think forming raids to get sieging done will be decided by the guild anyway, no matter how many points you have. Much like PvE raiding I guess, you setup a battlegroup of 48 people that will have the best chance to take that darn keep.

The sieging itself is instanced, but you can fight along the walls of the city just like world PvP.

You can ask other players not in your guild for help (mercenary style) if you cant get a decent 48 man raid together for taking a keep. Defenders may do the same.

When you declare war on a different guild to get their keep, there will be a graceperiod and a "window of opportunity" to take the keep. That is to avoid alarmclock raids.

All this info is hearsay, I havent participated in keep warfare yet.

HTH

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

(10 versus 10 battles never lagged in EVE.

Everything around 40 versus 40 in EVE always lagged for me and I doubt anything has changed since 2003 - you can see the effect on a solar system when 40 ships jump in simulatneously - but tbh I don't wanna try, vaporazing one dude with 40 ships assiting on him, I've never seen any fun in it.)

I find a hard limit good in AoC. It kills carebearism ("we suck, we bring more!"). 48 sounds reasonable, above, you will spend a lot more time just organizing the army and participating in a lot of shit down time with idiotic commanders shitting their pants and not moving out til some kind of a master plan is done.

 

[old.Tohtori]

(10 versus 10 battles never lagged in EVE.

Everything around 40 versus 40 in EVE always lagged for me and I doubt anything has changed since 2003 - you can see the effect on a solar system when 40 ships jump in simulatneously - but tbh I don't wanna try, vaporazing one dude with 40 ships assiting on him, I've never seen any fun in it.)

I find a hard limit good in AoC. It kills carebearism ("we suck, we bring more!"). 48 sounds reasonable, above, you will spend a lot more time just organizing the army and participating in a lot of shit down time with idiotic commanders shitting their pants and not moving out til some kind of a master plan is done.

The numbers in EVE were just to bring the point. But, it's true really what you said.

But don't bring that word into AoC without the correct context! Carebears don't fight, Goons bring more

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Carebears fight, they will fight 6 with 40, kill one and say "good fight" after.

At least that is my personal definition of carebear .

 

[Raven]

your average alb?

 

[rynnor]

your average alb?

Daoc wars continue eh If 48 is what it takes to be playable so be it - its still sounds a lot to me and 96 will probably still be killer lag i guess

 

[BloodOmen]

Sounds amazing 48 v 48 tbh

 

[Faeldawn]

48 v 48 is a pretty decent number for an instanced siege....but I for one thought sieging would be open-world and not another minigame (although not so mini)?

 

[dee777]

48 v 48 is a pretty decent number for an instanced siege....but I for one thought sieging would be open-world and not another minigame (although not so mini)?

I guess its a case of pick your own poison. Open-world keep warfare would be awesome, however you cannot control the zerg. Especially since AoC incorporates collision detection. I ll give it the benefit of doubt...for now. ^^

 

[Vasconcelos]

I'm more worried about open grpvsgrp in the border kingdoms not rewarding sieging points. It is so much straight thinking i cant believe none over FC has thought about that....

 

[Levin]

Yes.. I worry, along with many others on the AoC forums it seems, that the game will turn into eSports with everything having to be fair and set up neatly by PvP rules so that no side ever gets the upper hand in numbers. Sieges will feel like minigames too, especially if they're instanced, which i imagine they'd have to be with the 48-48 limit.

I had hoped for DaoC like sieges with hundreds of players (just like FunCom has advertised!). People are more than willing to turn their graphic settings down for such occations.

Also.. to have scheduled sieges once a week per keep (8 keeps per server) and then only 96 people can take part.. a whole lot of people won't ever get the chance to take part. Where will mercs come into play? Any guild who's got enough honour points (or whatever it will be called) to be "alllowed" to siege in the first place, will probably never need to have mercs fill up their 48 slots.

I think this is a huge letdown. Luckily, some dev posted on the open forums that "nothing is final" and they're still tweaking.. I think they had to say something like that to stem the tide of murderous costomers who feel ripped off by bait & switch tactics. If they couldn't do more it, they shouldn't have gone out and talked about "massive sieges with hundreds of players" just some two weeks ago.

So anyway... with some luck they will be able to up these numbers. I still think it sucks big time that you are only allowed to siege if you are a pvp minigame-freak, though.

All this has hurted to say, as i've been looking forward to AoC for years now. I'll still play it, and hope everything turns out ok in the end.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yes.. I worry, along with many others on the AoC forums it seems, that the game will turn into eSports with everything having to be fair and set up neatly by PvP rules so that no side ever gets the upper hand in numbers.

This is because players are whiners and developers are pansies.

Just catering away to all whines.

 

[fettoken]

High scale zergs has decreased since DaoC >: Givf 150+ pve zergs!!!

 

[Fafnir]

High scale zergs has decreased since DaoC >: Givf 150+ pve zergs!!!

Gifv 60 albs standing at lord in keep, and the old school mjolnir spell. Lag city.. But first of all gifv back Glacier Giant...

 

[fettoken]

Gifv 60 albs standing at lord in keep, and the old school mjolnir spell. Lag city.. But first of all gifv back Glacier Giant...

Agree!! Gotta have a GG running around throwing people around the place.

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Yeah, cause old school sieging in DAoC was oh so fun.

Bunch of noobs cought by red AoE mezz and PBAoE'ed to death.

Get to level 80 first, check it out and complain then.

 

[Levin]

Yeah, cause old school sieging in DAoC was oh so fun.

Bunch of noobs cought by red AoE mezz and PBAoE'ed to death.

Yes, it was fun. And please quit it with the categorization of people as "noobs" etc. A comment like that speaks tons more about you than of those it belittles. Every player is equally worth, and telling from the massive reactions, people would love (and had expected) more open world large sieges like we had in DaoC. It could be done six years ago so why not today? The argument that AoC has better graphics don't really hold water - after six years you'd think they would have a better engine than that.

Get to level 80 first, check it out and complain then.

I will! As long as I ever get the chance to take part in one of those VIP sieges. But like I said, I've invested too much time into this game and I love it too much to give up based on something that might changes many times over in the near future. Who knows, in a few months' time perhaps I will be as happy as Ron Jeremy at work.

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Yes, it was fun. And please quit it with the categorization of people as "noobs" etc. A comment like that speaks tons more about you than of those it belittles. Every player is equally worth, and telling from the massive reactions, people would love (and had expected) more open world large sieges like we had in DaoC. It could be done six years ago so why not today? The argument that AoC has better graphics don't really hold water - after six years you'd think they would have a better engine than that.

Massive reactions of forum whiners count for nothing.
Romantic perspectives about pointless mexican stand offs or PBAoE/Banelord bombing/F8 nuking that you call open world large sieges count for nothing too.

As for all players being equally worth, maybe in your communistic world (and that was a lie too).

From what I remeber AoC had always a ticketing system with a limited number of raiders/defenders planned, at least that's what I have been told by the product designer at the GC 2007.

DAoC fails at so many important points, using it as an argument for sieging is bad. So fine, you had your 200 versus 200 battle of equally good players at the evening for 3 hours and enjoyed it and the achievement while 8 players took your achievement away at 5 am, undefended.

 

[Levin]

Massive reactions of forum whiners count for nothing.
Romantic perspectives about pointless mexican stand offs or PBAoE/Banelord bombing/F8 nuking that you call open world large sieges count for nothing too.

You speak as if your view is the only view that counts. A bit narcissistic, don't you think?

As for all players being equally worth, maybe in your communistic world (and that was a lie too).

Haha yes of course "in my communist world". And in your perfect world you'd be the dictator I guess? Are you actually saying people with your own point of view are worth more than others? Or are you perhaps saying that players with 80+ hours (AN EXAMPLE) to spend per week are worth more than casual players? To whom? To Funcom? I don't see these "elite" players paying higher subs, or being in the majority, so why should they be worth more? Pffft.

DAoC fails at so many important points, using it as an argument for sieging is bad. So fine, you had your 200 versus 200 battle of equally good players at the evening for 3 hours and enjoyed it and the achievement while 8 players took your achievement away at 5 am, undefended.

I think the sieges in Daoc were great. Yes I agree that alarm clock raids with 8 players at 5 in the morning sucked, but that's easily corrected in a number of ways. Having scheduled eSport sieges is not a great option imo. I respect those who think it is though, and I'd expect the same courtesy in return.

Everyone should be allowed to express their opinion, just like thousands of players have on the forums about this issue. I'm so tired of hearing people calling eachother "whiners", "fanboi", "noob", "l33t kiddie" etc etc... Yes people can get worked up but why call eachother names?

I will still play the game and enjoy it no matter what they do to PvP, so... nevermind me. I just wanted to voice my opinion, to balance all my other posts which have been kind of "fanboi"-ist, to express it in the way of the forum argumentationists.

 

[fettoken]

Not worth arguing over something that can get fixed many times over, within a few months.

 

[Downanael]

Not worth arguing over something that can get fixed many times over, within a few months.

That's pretty true alright,should be easy to change the amount if they want to.

 

[Manisch Depressiv]

Are you actually saying people with your own point of view are worth more than others?

No, I actually only said that people not doging mezz or bombing are noobs.

It's funny of how even in 2008 a single group of Hibs can kill an Alb BG because they all run stuck to each other like sheeps even though you have told them to spread out in BG chat half a dozen times.

If you take it as an insult it's not my problem. I didn't say that it never happened to me either or that I don't give new players the rights to do anything "foolish"/strange in a game really. Sometimes noobish moments are the best moments a game can deliver.

As for all players being equally worth, that's simply a lie to me. I am not placing myself at a certain position but there are ALWAYS better and worse players than me - for different reasons, some might have just started or played for a long time, some might have good reflections or a special way of playing the game and so on. I have to admit that the better players are often the factor who decides how a battle will turn out.

I don't see a problem with saying that someone is a noob or that a group of players doing a thing only beginners should do are noobs.

If I'd wanted to insult someone/them I'd call them fucking noobs or useless noobs or carebears. For me noob means "a player that is doing something a new player would do".

I don't mind you expressing your opinion, I find DAoC's RvR (as in realm versus realm warfare) pointless. It has almost no meaning to its world, there no effective territory control, frontiers are almost totally decoupled from the economic market, the conflict can't be ended trough extinction of one entity and so on.

48 means that you have to think ahead and not just bring bigger numbers.
Grace period means that you will not take undefended keeps.
For me 48 vs 48 is massive enough, but it will depend on the map size really, some of the 64 vs 64 or just 16 vs 16 matches are unplayable on certain maps in many games, because the maps are just too small.

From a design/technical point of view I'd rather have AoC start with a "low" soft limit and set it higher once the servers have proved working in a live environment good.