Age of Conan

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

 

Originally posted by Leucent

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Lets wait for an official dev comment on the article.

This is not the first time the press has got something not quite right.

 

Guild Vs Guild Over faction anyday...

As i said it s my opinion. So i ll say i totally disagree. With GvG this stuff happens.

Im sorry but  smaller PvP objectives are part of other faction games running up to large scale fights too. Doing something smaller in order to progress to something bigger is 'A' typical of other games.

 

Im not going to hijack the thread about the GvG stuff as posted many times the benefits > typical faction play.

The point is question from this article is the way is "supposed" to be implemented in AoC. As I said this is not the first time press has got something wrong, so I expect clarification on the matter monday / tuesday I guess. Until then its just another article with nothing on the official website FAQ nor no Dev's saying this is how it would be. Until there is concrete evidence supporting it then I will dismiss the idea as fact from the article.

In the last Hyborian Insider video Erling said that there will be more info to come on the mechanics of sieging, which one would presume would support or throw out this comment on IGN.

Personally, with only 2 lines, its kinda hard to formulate an opinon on how it works because not much was said.

I agree but if true, it is IMO a bad idea not saying it is in just saying how i feel. Now on the faction part i agree you re right, but the smaller parts leading to the big fight in F v F isn t based solely on these small parts it  has alot of factors involved. I m not sure if you played DAOC and not sure how much about WAR you know but i think you would agree if you did on the smaller picture leading to the bigger picture in F v F is much more involved then just a faction doing mini pvp games to get to this part.

Honestly, I'm not a "hardcore" PvPer, not in the least.  I enjoy the occasional PvP, but when I play games I focus more on myself enjoying my time in the game rather than breaking down stats and skills, etc.  I'm not knocking anyone else's playstyle here, just giving a small insight into my own.

After reading this thread, I would say the best compromising idea I've read so far is the one of having the guilds vying for a siege compete head to head in an instanced PvP "tournament" of sorts.  Say there's four guilds all vying for a chance at this one keep.  Have the system devide them into two sets of 1Gv1G, or hell even 2Gv2G.  In the 1Gv1G, the winners of each set then go on to fight each other and the final winner gets the lead spot.  In the 2Gv2G it would be similar in that the team that wins then gets to fight against one another for the spot.

Granted I'm not sure how difficult or easy it might be to impliment this kind of system and especially at this juncture with the release ebing so close, but this is by far I think the best idea that's been mentioned.

Originally posted by singsofdeath

 

Originally posted by Leucent

Originally posted by singsofdeath

 

Originally posted by Kien

 

Originally posted by Sacfed

Rewarding Mini-game PVP is BS.......Shake your heads Funcom.

 

Guilds that sign up for Siege should have to PVP against the other guilds for priority.  That could be in a mini-game setting.

 

I agree... is funcom attempting to substitute content with the lame-ass minigames? It sure sounds like it. I'm starting to re-think pre-ordering.

Substitute? Do you even have the slightest idea what's being talked about?

 

 

Fact of the matter is. ANY guild can participate in Sieges against other guilds. There is no restriction (except the restriction of numbers on the battlefield per se, but there's no set numbers there yet) on how many Guilds can attack an enemy Keep. The only thing this Mini-Game rating does set, is which guild will get the chance to -TAKE- the keep and keep it.

 

Now that the explanation is out of the way, how would you have done it? I'm asking for constructive feedback here, not more slandering. How would you determine the guild that is allowed to take hold of the keep after a victory? First come first served? There'd be even more whining then. World PvP Ranking? Might be an alternative, but it would give a big advantage to "big" guilds (in numbers), while smaller but maybe more "skilled" guilds would have a disadvantage (of course, depending on the PvP Experience System, that might not be the case, just tossing out concerns here).

 

So, how would you do it? Any people willing to make a constructive proposal instead of just wildly slandering the game?

Iknow it s not the answer but as i ve stated before and will stand by it G vs G games are terrible. The pre determined time to attack was bad now this is worse. Only way to fix this is do Faction vs Faction. Oh well if thats what they think is a good system. I for one think it is terrible.

Well, that is personal preference. Guild vs. Guild is, in my opinion, a much better system, because it leads to more politics and more player interaction. You can see this in EVE Online (to a much larger extent), and there are people who like it that way.

 

 

As it has been stated countless times before, AoC will not be for everyone. But to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of whining before even trying the game or seeing how it plays out is just...well, that's just not the way I would go about it.

Yeo i agree with you. If you prefer G v G well good :) I prefer F v F for a realm pride feeling etc. Anyways enough about that. I said it before along time ago and this idea falls into what i was thinking. The servers will be owned by the biggest guilds, if this systme is implemented. Oh well i honestly can t believe after i and many who thought Funcom was the anti WOW would do this. We ll have to wait and see.

Originally posted by skeptical

I haven't seen anything on what the capacity will be in this game.

They could've left out structured world pvp altogether.

I don't care if the entire game isn't tailored around what i or my 20 friends think is a good system. The majority of the game is more than acceptable for me.

it's not like I will cease to breath if the world pvp conditions aren't to my liking. It won't kill me.

sarcasm anyone?

Oh no! my beloved realm vs. realm freedom of keep capturing isn't a true DAoC mirror mold!! oh no what will i ever do! I don't think I can go on for much longer! I can't cancel my preorder oh no why god why did i pay for it, it couldn't have been the 10 videos and 250 screenshots that made my wet my pants, it couldn't have been the dev reports and game mechanics that i bragged to my friends about, why oh god why did i pay for this game in advance!

*you trying to respond* AAAAAND CUT. *you trying to respond again* THATS A RAP. *you trying again* WE GOT IT.

I have not experienced the high end pvp in AoC and prolly wont until the game goes live. So can't really say if this is a good or a bad thing. But from what I can put together with the info I know about AoC this seems like a pretty poor way of doing things. It seems as they want the pvp "grind" groups in their mini pvp games slaughtering the casuals over and over again. Perhaps they will learn after ppl complain enough or start leaving the game.

This tho is all based on what I know of the game, and that is very little.

If the OP is correct in his understanding of the procedure, I agree it doesn't seem like the best idea,

The only time it will come into play is if there are 19 guilds that want to siege at once, all of which are so large that they won't accept help from a second guild.

I am not sure about WoW, I never got into the PvP and high end raiding in that game, but in EQ there were maybe 12 guilds that would be large raid capable on a given server, and their server sizes were similar to what was reported here previously.

If the system winds up excluding people from participating in both parts of the siege warfare, then they'll probably change it.  I am not sure that's a realistic scenario.  20 large guilds all wanting to do seige warfare on a Saturday night?  That's 2000 people right there.

The leader (guild) in a siege will have some special capacity for organizing the attack? To me that make sense. Proven leadership/tactics (or the numbers to create a mindless horde) work for me. (well, it would work for me if I was into PvP/sieges). Or does it mean that if 5 clans sign up for a siege the one with the highest PvP 'score' will get to run in first. Again...go for it. Unless they overwhelm in one quick wave (which would indicate that again they have a horde or that the defenders don't have much of a defense) they will earn the title of 'Cannon Fodder'. (Trebuchet fodder if you prefer)

In general it's a way of keeping PvP clans active and fighting each other to keep vying for the top spot which means more PvE for me! Yay!~

read the OFFICIAL aoc forums to see what uproar there is about the state of pvp.  Their own forums will say it all.