| Thread (177 posts) | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Toolfan 5/13/08 5:01:24 AM
|
||
|
Advanced Member
Joined: 11/24/06 |
yeah i remember them saying this also, think it might have been in an interview with jason stone (hope thats the right name). They can hold about 500 total people but they have a system in place that if they choose they can make it so only 100 of the closest people to you are visable to cut down on lag and such. Originally posted by HorrorScope
|
|
| |
||
|
Polarization 5/13/08 5:22:07 AM
|
||
|
Hard Core Member
Joined: 1/06/05
This is the way the Darkfall ends Not with a beta but a whimper. |
Despite desperate attempts at damage control, historical revisionism concerning past promises by the developers that have proven to be wrong or sycophantic apologist lowering there expectations and standards. 48 v 48 max players (if this is confirmed) is not epic or massive neither does it have anything revolutionary or next generation about it at all, these look a lot more like the average multiplayer FPS player server numbers then the sort of number you would expect from a massive multiplayer online game. For people who are attempting to make excuses about technical limitations limiting the maximum number of players in a siege have you considered that many players might still experience unacceptable problems even with a 96 player limit considering this games requirements. Or that a core design principle for any MMO that plans to have epic/massive siege battles as one of its major features should be a game engine that adequately dynamically scales its performance depending on the number of players on screen, or any of the other solutions to allow battles with hundreds of players demonstrated by many other MMO’s some of which are many years old. Any people professing to be perfectly happy with sieges limited to under 100 players or not understanding why its important should consider why even the developers of the game themselves appeared to put so much emphasis on it when making numerous references to epic/massive siege battles with hundreds of players whilst promoting this as a major feature of there game in the past. Hopefully the developers will be able to further optimize the engine and increase the maximum number of players in the future after launch, if they cant then it seems that graphics certainly have taken precedence over game play in this instance. |
|
| |
||
|
Teiman 5/13/08 12:30:46 PM
|
||
|
Advanced Member
Joined: 2/29/08 |
Originally posted by Agricola1
|
|
| |
||
|
Alan0n 5/13/08 12:46:39 PM
|
||
|
Hard Core Member
Joined: 5/11/07 |
Are we talking about 100x100 arena battles ? 48 ppl in one side is a joke. Specially considering that the talk has been about 500 in podcasts. Funny that the same podcast talked about spellweaving beeing in at start... How much can you trust a single word of what Funcom is saying ? Answer is Zero. You can't trust anything. THey are just selling you promises that they are just fine in not delivering when you have preordered the game.
|
|
| |
||
|
Leucent 5/13/08 12:49:18 PM
|
||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/24/04 |
Originally posted by Alan0n
|
|
| |
||
|
Player_420 5/13/08 12:53:49 PM
|
||
|
Advanced Member
Joined: 2/19/04 |
lol the noobs think that a 100v100 or even more would work, ugh how sad. Shadowbane barley pulled that off, but they didnt even add limits! And guess what? it was awesome and I have seen battles of like 200v200+....but the thing is.... Half the people were constantly getting disconnected, and the lag was horrible..... I think 48v48 will be managable, and im sure they will improve this number over time.Really want your guild city destoryed by a zerg of 300+ against your force of 30-40 if your a casual guild? |
|
| I have played EVERY MMO |
||
|
Leucent 5/13/08 12:55:21 PM
|
||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 1/24/04 |
Originally posted by Player_420
|
|
| |
||
|
Azor1990 5/13/08 1:03:05 PM
|
||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 4/15/08 |
If they cant make it playable with more than 48x48 players...leave it as it is.More people will cry later on lagging/crashing than now. Playable and fun...the "golden combination" of any MMO.
200x200 or 300x300 will be fun,infinite zerging,uber chaos etc....but it wont be playable. |
|
| |
||
|
convict 5/13/08 1:20:11 PM
|
||
Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/20/05 |
I'm more curious as to why so many people are ignoring the youtube vid and what was said in it. |
|
|
|
||
|
TheFirst109 5/13/08 1:20:11 PM
|
||
|
Apprentice Member
Joined: 7/08/07 |
I can understand that if you really like the game, you will defend it tooth and nail, even to defend 48v48 as "epic", but don't start underestimating how successful mass pvp was in L2 and DAOC. It's an insult to games that were successes to a game that has yet to prove itself.
They have shown guild fights on the hd gaming channel in lineage 2 that have had confirmed numbers around 800 people. Lineage 2 is undoubtedly the most successful for a game that has great graphics for its time and can handle REAL large scale pvp.
As far as DAOC, I played on Tristan Hibernia, and we were commonly in fights with each side having around 100 people (3 sides Hibs Albs Mids) on the same battlefield in new frontiers and I had little to no lag on max settings. Granted I had a good computer for the game back then, but as we all know from the ever growing e-peen, many apparently have uberzomg rigs for aoc and the limit on pvp in instances is pathetic. | |
