| 12 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Being that Sieges 48v48 Combat in Sieges was supposed to be a hallmark of this game and yet is busted to hell as of today players are still reporting that they are broken. Why not fix them? Have you shut down all operations aside from debugging the broken siege code? Have you pulled off the team working on the expansion to debug this? Have you considered removing casters from the game since they seem to be causing the problem in a lot of siege situations and they suck balls? Not only this, but why is this game limiting the number of players who can participate in these sieges to the members of the most powerful guilds who can attain a battlekeep? Why not allow players to join in the battles via some sort of mercenary system which has been asked for since after launch? How many more months are going to pass before you involved 100% of the players in the component 95% are interested in. Instead of limiting it to 15-25% because of how guilds are setup. Given the circumstances of the game, the decline of your company and player opinions, you guys should be doing everything possible to re-write code and mechanics to allow players to do a whole lot more than just run a few new dungeons and run a few new characters through Tortage yet again and again and again... Discuss... |
|
Originally posted by LordBonezy .... Why not allow players to join in the battles via some sort of mercenary system which has been asked for since after launch?
This wasn't player suggestion, it was an advertised feature prior to launch. Add it to the long list of Vapor including blood money, drunken brawling, mounted combat, combat formations and caster penalties / punishment for spell fumbling. If FunCom could fix the siege issues they would, same for cross server mini-games, if they could make them possible they would. If they could balance melee vs. caster they would. They can't so they don't, but lucky for us they are now willing to lower the subscription prices to compensate for those missing features. |
|
Originally posted by LordBonezy
the past week, ive gone through another 3 sieges, 1 a double header of 2 sieges in one day back to back a hour apart, and a third siege 4 days after. 2 out of 3 of the sieges ive been in have no crashed, but experienced one of the most nightmareish lags they could rival what ive experienced in early launch day of this game. but there comes a point that even if funcom took away the casters, shut down the servers or whatever, sieges the way they are, are coming to a point that they, too, would need a complete overhaul; the idea of tweaking and fiddling with the code to re-fix them may curse funcom than bless them, forcing them to take too long to figure out a way to stop making sieges crash. Again, sieges began to break left and right at the very implementation of 1.05, drastic changes with the game itself have to placed sieges into a dangerous spot of never being fixed. why? my guess, is because whatever the old code sieges are using, just does not match well with the new things AOC has gained. i dont know jack crap about coding, but if it is still taking funcom a long time to figure out how to fix sieges; would a complete overhaul be the only way to go? look at funcoms plan of adding in super battlekeeps, and their dream of having 100+ battles; talk with any customer playing AOC right now, they will more likely say it aint gonna happen due to their faith with sieges/battlekeeps today, and seeing such a idea go live before the year is out is a lie waiting to happen (but of course funcom hasnt said that thankfully) also, to add to what i said, funcom continues to be confident with their choice of aiming for the state-of-the-art appeal over tried and true performance. for AOC , we do have a pretty game, but at the cost of both game and customers being a test bed of things that work and do not work, added with being at the mercy of "hope to be ready" drivers/components from outside companies that suppose to further enchance the mmo's gameplay (DirectX10).
|
|
|
AmazingAvery
 Age of Conan Advocate
Joined: 1/16/07
Only a fool hates that which he knows nothing about |
Originally posted by MagusMagnus
Beg your pardon but it was an idea that had it's roots from community suggestions, later pretty much championed publically by Jason Stone and Jayde and ultimately the system was deemed not to work. So please understand that there is a difference between we are looking an incorperating things during Alpha and Beta and then dismissed due to issues that did not meet requirements. Same goes for Combat Formations. Same with the Hell penalty. The history is all out there. Yet another example of a company talking about idea's with the community and a passer by then saying that this is part of the game when clearly it is not. Blood Money was IN beta and later removed due to the mechanic not working and the direction change during beta. Siege issues and Cross server mini games are unrelated. So please don't even attempt to link the too. Again just misinformed and again starting the cycle of this and that when there is no correlation between them. The tech is totally different and yet your just adding to the misinformation where you're perceived to get the wrong end of the stick. Sieges DO need further optimization, balance is at an all time "pretty much decent". Another misconception is that the balance is done on 1vs1 when it is not and never has been designed like that. Drunken Brawling was also in early Alpha/Beta some nice youtube vids out there showing it. This was early concept and not the full implementation of it as it was described to being perceived what it would be like in game at release. This feature also didn't make the cut so late in development that part of the book pertains to it in some area's. There were never promises made. There were promises to work with the community to look into what could make the game better during it's development and that happened. There are websites out there with Athlean quotes including this one which will paint things different to what you're trying to do and say. So how sure are you at the end of the day? Are you sure you was reading about some features that were being developed during pre-release and next time around brought the game and wondered where they were (not checking up on press releases and new information prior to release which made everyone aware they were cut) ? 1yr notice on blood money, 6 months notice on formations and Hell "concepts".. Ask to what Lord B is wanting to know. Funcom are looking into seiges and I recommend players check out the test server forums for more insight. New Tarantia Commons DX10 - DX 10 Goodness - |
|
You think AoC seiges are bad, go try Aions fortress seiges.....500x the lag, and more memory leaks than AoC. At least in AoC i can play the majority of the seige and enjoy it, only to have the ending ruined (not always either). So far i havent had a playable seige experience in Aion. |
|
|
@ Malickie Why do I care? I played the game for more than a year. And when some Obvious Shill wants to try re-writing the reality of how everything went down I have to call bullshit, and he thinks he is gonna talk shit to fans who actually played the game instead trying to sell it on game forums, hell yes I am gonna pipe up. {mod edit}
|
|
|
AmazingAvery
Age of Conan Advocate
Joined: 1/16/07
Only a fool hates that which he knows nothing about |
Originally posted by MagusMagnus
Blood Money: www.youtube.com/watch please watch and near to the end please note the usage of "Blood Coins" - also please note the date of the video... Then weigh that up when you entered beta (if at all). Nearly quarter million views.. Drunken Brawling in it's infancy in Age of Conan Dec 2006: gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/7981 1min 30 odd secs in. Directional non weapon based combat via consumption of liquor through inventory. Notice the yellow bar gui change and those animations specific which are not in game now. (This is one of several videos from around the time and even early 2007 convention videos have commentry and footage describing what happens. A lot of these links out there are broken but several others are around) Both public videos and I have posted several times here. Mercenary was only in beta at FC and not available to public testers. I visually saw parts of it myself in Jan 2008 (not in game parts) but paper mechanics. After that anyone who was in beta around then knew that the behind the scenes testing was some 3 months ahead due to some 60 + testers in house. I can see how a community initiated concept which didn't see light of day be frustrating. Now what? Do you still not understand that:
Enjoy the vids, I had many more on Stage 6 before it shut down. These two vids are as much for you too Lord B, to show you that features were there and then cut simply because they didn't work as well as they sounded. New Tarantia Commons DX10 - DX 10 Goodness - |
|
Sabradin
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/24/07
-------------------- |
lol it just wont work too much too little too soon |
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Hilarious, Read the article I linked, check the date. They are advertising / promoting features 3.5 weeks before the retail launch of the game. He is saying they exist, and it turns out they didn't beyond what you have just admitted to be some notes on paper and a few half second references on a demo from 2 years prior. So much fail. Try all you like to pretend it didn't go down that way, you aren't fooling anyone beyond yourself. Even the most hardcore fans aren't trying to the fact that the launch was more than a year too early and flat out failure. A lot of us stuck it out anyway, and only left after months and months of squandered money and time with a lax development cycle. Your sad attempt to try to hide those facts show you have ZERO credibility. No one is buying your story anymore.
|
|
{mod edit} I dont really read Averys posts because the are incredibly biased, but he is truthful and you can trust the facts in his info. Although he might omit negative facts, the positive facts are always true. Also he has a vast knowledge of the game so I take his word over others in this forum any day. Playing: Not anymore. Just lurking. |
|
|
However you look at it my point as well as Averys still stands {mod edit} Things change from beta to live when it comes to whats in or going to be in. On top of that the guy you are quoting left the studio did he not? As he was the one you accused of lying, he faced the consequence already. Why beat a dead horse, when there are actual issues that still matter in terms of making AOC a game many would play? This seems to be a trivial issue in comparison to the many that need addressing. For every minute You are angry , You lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson |
|
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Beg your pardon but it was an idea that had it's roots from community suggestions, later pretty much championed publically by Jason Stone and Jayde and ultimately the system was deemed not to work. THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK. SIEGES CRASH, EVEN WHEN THEY WERE WORKING, THEY DON'T ALLOW MOST PLAYERS ON A SERVER TO PARTICIPATE. THE SUGGESTED SYSTEM OF HAVING EVERY PLAYER ON A SERVER BE ABLE TO ENTER A QUEUE FOR A SIEGE ON THE SIDE OF THEIR CHOICE, ATTACKER OR DEFENDER HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED IN AOC. THIS TYPE OF A SYSTEM WHERE PLAYERS JOIN ON ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER HAS BEEN IN GAME DESIGN SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING OF MULTIPLAYER EXPRIENCES I.E. COUNTERSTIKE. THE REASON WE DONT HAVE IT IS BECAUSE FUNCOM IS INCOMPETENT. So please understand that there is a difference between we are looking an incorperating things during Alpha and Beta and then dismissed due to issues that did not meet requirements. Same goes for Combat Formations. Same with the Hell penalty. The history is all out there. Yet another example of a company talking about idea's with the community and a passer by then saying that this is part of the game when clearly it is not. Blood Money was IN beta and later removed due to the mechanic not working and the direction change during beta. Siege issues and Cross server mini games are unrelated. So please don't even attempt to link the too. Again just misinformed and again starting the cycle of this and that when there is no correlation between them. The tech is totally different and yet your just adding to the misinformation where you're perceived to get the wrong end of the stick. Sieges DO need further optimization, balance is at an all time "pretty much decent". Another misconception is that the balance is done on 1vs1 when it is not and never has been designed like that. Drunken Brawling was also in early Alpha/Beta some nice youtube vids out there showing it. This was early concept and not the full implementation of it as it was described to being perceived what it would be like in game at release. This feature also didn't make the cut so late in development that part of the book pertains to it in some area's. There were never promises made. There were promises to work with the community to look into what could make the game better during it's development and that happened. ONLY LIES AND ADVERTISING AYE AVERY? There are websites out there with Athlean quotes including this one which will paint things different to what you're trying to do and say. So how sure are you at the end of the day? HOW ABOUT WE LEAVE THE CLICHES IN 2006 AND TALK ABOUT WHERE THIS GAME IS 20+MONTHS FROM LAUNCH. THE END OF THE DAY WAS MONTHS AGO. WHERE IS THE COMPLETE, FUNCTIONAL, FUN PRODUCT? Are you sure you was reading about some features that were being developed during pre-release and next time around brought the game and wondered where they were (not checking up on press releases and new information prior to release which made everyone aware they were cut) ? 1yr notice on blood money, 6 months notice on formations and Hell "concepts".. Ask to what Lord B is wanting to know. Funcom are looking into seiges and I recommend players check out the test server forums for more insight.
|
|
