This game looks sooo bland, the graphics are ugly and the character models are nearly as worse as Vanguard sooo plastic and doll like with poor animations. I don't think this game will do well.
Your a Idot,
I think the game looks allot better then 90% of the games out their. Now go back to the WARboards.
And another one...........................................oO
So everyone that gives his/her somewhat negative opinion about AoC should return to the War forums? lmao
Edit: and Yes for what i seen/read about both games, i think i'll like em both
Just a few things Xris. This was an advertisement video. Not a gameplay video. Anyone should be able to realize that. What do yo mean with advertisment ? Is this not from a PvP instance, or are they justrunning around pretending they have a PvP engine? PvP videos will be released when the game is in Open beta or after release. I wouldn't expect anything but convention videos or advertisements until then. Also the developers are shooting for something around 200 characters on screen at once I believe. Ok, thanks for the info. 100vs100 is not bad but I'll belive it when I see it The game is not coming out in November, it is coming out in March '08. I'm fully aware of the game had an releasedate end october but the delay was advertised as "difficult controls", not laggy PvP. Hopefully, we'll get a better video later on.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
Hi Xris375, how can a staged event be worrysome 6 months before release? I too was hoping sooner rather that later - some real persons to participate in a seige and it be shown to the public in an official capacity would be nice, (but not a requirement right now in the stage of development). But there is plenty of time, I seriously don't think this clip is set up to promote that. I certainley haven't persued this opinion nor do I see it like this. Its a taster of what they hope it to be like. I hope it turns out similar but in a fully fledged human controlling way (as they planned/ designed) I dont quite understand "Formation is not a feature, it is (almost) a proof that the devs don't have the skills to pull off anything over 20v20 outside an instance" could you possibly explain that statement a bit better? To me formation combat is dervied from a particular Prestige Class, and I kinda find it weird you say that the devs havent got the "skills" to put a 20v20 outside an instance - as some working on AoC and the Company as a whole have done this in AO before. But please in your professional opinion (or just your own as a poster) please, please state what skills are neccessary to complete this objective, maybe they might listen!!! Honestly how is what you said then not a dig without backup?
My point is that is was the controls, not the siege play that was the problem with the last delay. So if the controls hadn't been so difficult, the game would have been released end october. The siege stuff should already have been in the game.
Formation as I understand it, giving up the control of your character. So in stead of having to keep track of 20 people, you only have to keep track of one (the leader) movement wise. The difficulty with 200v200 fights is that TCP/IP. If your connection is more lagger than mine, you will be the weakest link, also Internet as such is best effort. I'm not going into WAN optimisation (it's not my area) and proxying but basically if you don't take the transport and network layer into account, it will not work well outside an limited instance.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
Maybe this is the point you are trying to drive at (I'm not sure, but it sort of seems like it) but the controls was just the 'officially given' reason for the last delay. Many people have suspected that there was a lot more really going on past that explanation, given that at the time the delay was announced, they had not shown anything of sieges, female avatars, the corruption magic system, any pvp, any footage of more than one player on screen, etc.
I am not questioning the delay, as I think it was the right move if a game is as incomplete. I am just saying that just because they said controls was the only reason for the delay, doesn't mean it was. There is certainly enough evidence to the contrary to warrent healthy skepticism.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Xris375
From AA; Hi Xris375, how can a staged event be worrysome 6 months before release? I too was hoping sooner rather that later - some real persons to participate in a seige and it be shown to the public in an official capacity would be nice, (but not a requirement right now in the stage of development). But there is plenty of time, I seriously don't think this clip is set up to promote that. I certainley haven't persued this opinion nor do I see it like this. Its a taster of what they hope it to be like. I hope it turns out similar but in a fully fledged human controlling way (as they planned/ designed) I dont quite understand "Formation is not a feature, it is (almost) a proof that the devs don't have the skills to pull off anything over 20v20 outside an instance" could you possibly explain that statement a bit better? To me formation combat is dervied from a particular Prestige Class, and I kinda find it weird you say that the devs havent got the "skills" to put a 20v20 outside an instance - as some working on AoC and the Company as a whole have done this in AO before. But please in your professional opinion (or just your own as a poster) please, please state what skills are neccessary to complete this objective, maybe they might listen!!! Honestly how is what you said then not a dig without backup? My point is that is was the controls, not the siege play that was the problem with the last delay. So if the controls hadn't been so difficult, the game would have been released end october. The siege stuff should already have been in the game. Formation as I understand it, giving up the control of your character. So in stead of having to keep track of 20 people, you only have to keep track of one (the leader) movement wise. The difficulty with 200v200 fights is that TCP/IP. If your connection is more lagger than mine, you will be the weakest link, also Internet as such is best effort. I'm not going into WAN optimisation (it's not my area) and proxying but basically if you don't take the transport and network layer into account, it will not work well outside an limited instance.
So if I understand this right, just because we haven't seen say a 20 vs 20 (or 200v200 or whatever) real life people in a seige event yet, its cause to say that the developers havent got the "skill" or capacity to achieve this, even though its been planned for from concept? I still don't see that just because we haven't seen a real life played formations yet, it is right to label the developers as lacking in any skill to produce them or to choose not to, exercising there right to content release before game release (just as we have seen many games companies do).
The controls and more specifically in relation to the delay in that area was purely a U.I one. People had a hard time trying to master their character, doing combos etc. I personally didn't take from the game directors wordage that there wasn't any issue with formations, their implementation or control, simply because it wasn't mentioned. So lets be clear on this, these are two different things. We still are a little unsure how formations will work, especially in a mounted situation from what I can gather. I still don't see how this lack of knowledge pertains for scope in relation to the delay. Who is to say that if the testing found the basic control of the character to be ok, and the Oct 31st and Nov 4th releases went ahead that by now we wouldn't of seen this material amongst many other unknowns at this point in time being Oct 1st??? Its also been said since the delay was announced, start of August, that they will be spacing out updates - Clan of Conan content as well as weekly Friday update content in line with the new release date.
Now no one has said that there would be 200 v 200 battles, the amount is still being optimized, from Leipzig interviews they said the max they have had on screen at any one time was 261 in a seige - with the game running at 1 frame every 10 minutes! I know they are aiming for 150 people on screen altogether as a rough estimate you can figure that from anywhere between say 70 - 100 people per side in a fight is what is looking likely - at the high end (Scope in there for max amount of Mercs too). That cuts your 400 people on screen by more than half. Obviously connection TCP/IP isnt the only main concern for the player here, there is Client Side and Server Side potential for lag (connection and sytem type you run). This is something still in testing as we all know the game is still at the beta stage.
I agree with what Siresper says "Many people have suspected that there was a lot more really going on past that explanation, given that at the time the delay was announced, they had not shown anything of sieges, female avatars, the corruption magic system, any pvp, any footage of more than one player on screen, etc."
Sure its good to ask where "is" this information, but lets also be reasonable with reference to the timeline. Personally if the end of Oct, start of Nov release date stuck and with there being 1 month to go and we hadn't seen these or most of these things by now then yea I would be kinda worried. But as there is something like another 175 days to go the point is mute again. Maybe people can see for themselves by Christmas with them wanting a good 2-3 months of open beta, they said the option for that route is there. But the delay also could give them incentive to go back and re-evaluate the original concepts and implementation - hence, with changes we haven't seen as yet, I would say that could deemed as quite reasonable and a fair assumption. You could also hypothesize that we haven't seen the content in question because they weren't happy with it themselves, but tis still not a reason to say they lack "skill" in achieving this.
They work to their own deadlines, not ours, we should as interested people make fair assumptions based on all the information they have given. Quite possibly this goes out the window when someone with a really pessimistic side wants answers, but with the way things are in this industry isn't it better to keep a slightly open mind? After all doesn't the saying go innocent until proven guilty, and what exactly are Funcom guilty of with regards to this game and in topic - this video clip? A scripted event to show us some potential? Or lack of information with regard to the subject? I have to add alot has been said about PvP, it has its own section on the official forums with lots of answers (not all).
So if I understand this right, just because we haven't seen say a 20 vs 20 (or 200v200 or whatever) real life people in a seige event yet, its cause to say that the developers havent got the "skill" or capacity to achieve this, even though its been planned for from concept? I still don't see that just because we haven't seen a real life played formations yet, it is right to label the developers as lacking in any skill to produce them or to choose not to, exercising there right to content release before game release (just as we have seen many games companies do).
That is right, if they haven' the network stuff in order by now, there is a chance it never will be. Client and server optimization will only take you so far. I am sorry but there is a reason why you have lag in most games and that is because it is dealt with too late in the development.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Xris375
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
So if I understand this right, just because we haven't seen say a 20 vs 20 (or 200v200 or whatever) real life people in a seige event yet, its cause to say that the developers havent got the "skill" or capacity to achieve this, even though its been planned for from concept? I still don't see that just because we haven't seen a real life played formations yet, it is right to label the developers as lacking in any skill to produce them or to choose not to, exercising there right to content release before game release (just as we have seen many games companies do).
That is right, if they haven' the network stuff in order by now, there is a chance it never will be. Client and server optimization will only take you so far. I am sorry but there is a reason why you have lag in most games and that is because it is dealt with too late in the development.
Im sorry but your views and labeling are very disturbing to me.
So if I understand this right, just because we haven't seen say a 20 vs 20 (or 200v200 or whatever) real life people in a seige event yet, its cause to say that the developers havent got the "skill" or capacity to achieve this, even though its been planned for from concept? I still don't see that just because we haven't seen a real life played formations yet, it is right to label the developers as lacking in any skill to produce them or to choose not to, exercising there right to content release before game release (just as we have seen many games companies do).
That is right, if they haven' the network stuff in order by now, there is a chance it never will be. Client and server optimization will only take you so far. I am sorry but there is a reason why you have lag in most games and that is because it is dealt with too late in the development.
Im sorry but your views and labeling are very disturbing to me.
Excuse me ? What view and what labeling ?
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Xris375
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Im sorry but your views and labeling are very disturbing to me.
Excuse me ? What view and what labeling ?
Ok I find it disturbing that you attach (label) Formations as "almost proof" that the devs done have the skills to put out large scale battles. Formation is an ability of a prestige class, a game mechanic, a function to give extra support and meaning in combat. Wouldn't you say that the comment below is a little derogatory? maybe im reading too much into it, but it comes across as a little demeaning, formations dont have anything to do with the amount of people on the battle field, it works with what is already there.
Originally posted by Xris375
Formation is not a feature, it is (almost) a proof that the devs don't have the skills to pull off anything over 20v20 outside an instance.
Hmm every video thus far shows the main char moving a bit here and there and just about EVERYTHING ELSE is a scripted bot or a stationary placeholder ragdoll. For all the beauty of world design I have seen thus far in AoC it simply looks....lifeless. Kind of reminds me of the huge picturesque world of Vanguard ( not a positive comparison)
Judging from 2 years of playing AO I wouldn't put it past Funcom to put FUN in disFUNctional.
Ok I find it disturbing that you attach (label) Formations as "almost proof" that the devs done have the skills to put out large scale battles. Formation is an ability of a prestige class, a game mechanic, a function to give extra support and meaning in combat. Wouldn't you say that the comment below is a little derogatory? maybe im reading too much into it, but it comes across as a little demeaning, formations dont have anything to do with the amount of people on the battle field, it works with what is already there. If Funcom spin it as a feature, fine. It will sure make an impact on how well PvP will run. I stand by my opinion that if they can't pull off a decent PvP fight (lets say 100v100) without formation, they don't have imo good "network skills". If you want to pull a Darth Vader on me for having that opinion, well, we just have to agree to disagree untill Funcom shows us differently.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
If Funcom spin it as a feature, fine. It will sure make an impact on how well PvP will run. I stand by my opinion that if they can't pull off a decent PvP fight (lets say 100v100) without formation, they don't have imo good "network skills". If you want to pull a Darth Vader on me for having that opinion, well, we just have to agree to disagree untill Funcom shows us differently.
Um... this video is not indicative of how real PvP combat will look. It is a purely pre-scripted demonstration of a small part of the siege system that will be found in AoC.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a prestige class having an ability to create formations (and honestly, no one really knows what that means yet) equals bad network code?
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I believe that you are the only one that understands it.
Here are a few things you might want to remember.
1. The game is 6 months from release. I had to say this to preface the other points.
2. I can not recall any game that showed 100 vs. 100 PvP battles to showcase it's game 6 months from release. Even Shadowbane only had about 20 vs 20 videos before the game was released. Yet in SB we had 200+ people fighting regularly. Just because they didn't show it in their ADVERTISEMENT videos doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.
If the developers are shooting for 100-200 people in a battle then they will most likely achieve it over the next 6 months. If they haven't already.
3. DaOC had pre-release ADVERTISEMENTS that showcased about 20-30 people attacking a keep. I guess using your logic that means that it wasn't possible to have bigger battles after the game was released because of crappy "network skills" as you would say.
4. Any trouble that AoC has with getting 200+ people on screen at once is going to be because of an unoptimized game client when it comes to rendering large numbers of people on screen at once (down scaling). It will have absolutely nothing to do with the networking code or formations.
5. Again, we have no idea how the "formation" skill will actually work, but I would doubt it's little more then a buff to the party members that stay close to you. Most game developers know that their players don't want someone else controlling their characters & Funcom is definitely not new to the genre.
Trying to say one of the game's highest selling points (the large scale PvP battles) is not going to be possible because of the formation skill is like saying your car won't start because the tires are on the ground.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
If Funcom spin it as a feature, fine. It will sure make an impact on how well PvP will run. I stand by my opinion that if they can't pull off a decent PvP fight (lets say 100v100) without formation, they don't have imo good "network skills". If you want to pull a Darth Vader on me for having that opinion, well, we just have to agree to disagree untill Funcom shows us differently.
Um... this video is not indicative of how real PvP combat will look. It is a purely pre-scripted demonstration of a small part of the siege system that will be found in AoC.
I get that...now I see PvP mechanics as basics that should be in place before the polishing can start. I would be worried that they cannot even demostrate a 20 vs 20 siege battle withiout scipting by now.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a prestige class having an ability to create formations (and honestly, no one really knows what that means yet) equals bad network code?
I saw a bucnh of people running in formation in the video. But if that is scripted and not a demostration of formation. I'll grant you that. Formation, as i saw it, is that you only need to keep track of one player, instead of 20. 1:20 will hugely improve performance.
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I believe that you are the only one that understands it.
Ever heard about latenncy and retransmissions in TCp/IP ? Come back to me when you do.
Here are a few things you might want to remember.
1. The game is 6 months from release. I had to say this to preface the other points.
This game was supposed to release in 2006. 4 delays later basic stuff as PvP and siegeplay should be in place.
2. I can not recall any game that showed 100 vs. 100 PvP battles to showcase it's game 6 months from release. Even Shadowbane only had about 20 vs 20 videos before the game was released. Yet in SB we had 200+ people fighting regularly. Just because they didn't show it in their ADVERTISEMENT videos doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.
Just because they advertises, doen't mean they can do it. Especially when they actually have to script something to show how it could work.
If the developers are shooting for 100-200 people in a battle then they will most likely achieve it over the next 6 months. If they haven't already.
Or not, depends on what the devs have done in their code to optimize code. If you desgn a plane, you better not hope to go to the moon.
3. DaOC had pre-release ADVERTISEMENTS that showcased about 20-30 people attacking a keep. I guess using your logic that means that it wasn't possible to have bigger battles after the game was released because of crappy "network skills" as you would say.
Different game, different code, different goals. How can you compare them ?
4. Any trouble that AoC has with getting 200+ people on screen at once is going to be because of an unoptimized game client when it comes to rendering large numbers of people on screen at once (down scaling). It will have absolutely nothing to do with the networking code or formations.
Ever played a game in PvP where people just blinked around when it begun to lag ? Let me tell you, it had nothing to do with an unoptimized game client. In WoW you could fit 100-200 people in the same frame without a problem. Put the same toons in AV and you will get lag from hell.
5. Again, we have no idea how the "formation" skill will actually work, but I would doubt it's little more then a buff to the party members that stay close to you. Most game developers know that their players don't want someone else controlling their characters & Funcom is definitely not new to the genre.
Okay, again I saw formation in the video but if that is just scripted bots, we'll see how this "feature" works out.
Trying to say one of the game's highest selling points (the large scale PvP battles) is not going to be possible because of the formation skill is like saying your car won't start because the tires are on the ground.
I'm not saying it will not work, I say you may expect alot of lag and sucky gameplay if you don't take the network layer into account. It's like buying a big Volvo Trailer with a small fiat engine.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
If Funcom spin it as a feature, fine. It will sure make an impact on how well PvP will run. I stand by my opinion that if they can't pull off a decent PvP fight (lets say 100v100) without formation, they don't have imo good "network skills". If you want to pull a Darth Vader on me for having that opinion, well, we just have to agree to disagree untill Funcom shows us differently.
Um... this video is not indicative of how real PvP combat will look. It is a purely pre-scripted demonstration of a small part of the siege system that will be found in AoC.
I get that...now I see PvP mechanics as basics that should be in place before the polishing can start. I would be worried that they cannot even demostrate a 20 vs 20 siege battle withiout scipting by now.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a prestige class having an ability to create formations (and honestly, no one really knows what that means yet) equals bad network code?
I saw a bucnh of people running in formation in the video. But if that is scripted and not a demostration of formation. I'll grant you that. Formation, as i saw it, is that you only need to keep track of one player, instead of 20. 1:20 will hugely improve performance.
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I believe that you are the only one that understands it.
Ever heard about latenncy and retransmissions in TCp/IP ? Come back to me when you do.
Here are a few things you might want to remember.
1. The game is 6 months from release. I had to say this to preface the other points.
This game was supposed to release in 2006. 4 delays later basic stuff as PvP and siegeplay should be in place.
2. I can not recall any game that showed 100 vs. 100 PvP battles to showcase it's game 6 months from release. Even Shadowbane only had about 20 vs 20 videos before the game was released. Yet in SB we had 200+ people fighting regularly. Just because they didn't show it in their ADVERTISEMENT videos doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.
Just because they advertises, doen't mean they can do it. Especially when they actually have to script something to show how it could work.
If the developers are shooting for 100-200 people in a battle then they will most likely achieve it over the next 6 months. If they haven't already.
Or not, depends on what the devs have done in their code to optimize code. If you desgn a plane, you better not hope to go to the moon.
3. DaOC had pre-release ADVERTISEMENTS that showcased about 20-30 people attacking a keep. I guess using your logic that means that it wasn't possible to have bigger battles after the game was released because of crappy "network skills" as you would say.
Different game, different code, different goals. How can you compare them ?
4. Any trouble that AoC has with getting 200+ people on screen at once is going to be because of an unoptimized game client when it comes to rendering large numbers of people on screen at once (down scaling). It will have absolutely nothing to do with the networking code or formations.
Ever played a game in PvP where people just blinked around when it begun to lag ? Let me tell you, it had nothing to do with an unoptimized game client. In WoW you could fit 100-200 people in the same frame without a problem. Put the same toons in AV and you will get lag from hell.
5. Again, we have no idea how the "formation" skill will actually work, but I would doubt it's little more then a buff to the party members that stay close to you. Most game developers know that their players don't want someone else controlling their characters & Funcom is definitely not new to the genre.
Okay, again I saw formation in the video but if that is just scripted bots, we'll see how this "feature" works out.
Trying to say one of the game's highest selling points (the large scale PvP battles) is not going to be possible because of the formation skill is like saying your car won't start because the tires are on the ground.
I'm not saying it will not work, I say you may expect alot of lag and sucky gameplay if you don't take the network layer into account. It's like buying a big Volvo Trailer with a small fiat engine.
Just to note, they have had 20 vs 20 fights in different events (Players not scripts) and people who got to play has said it's been flawless lag wise.
They used scripts because showing large scale pvp with beta testers involved on day to day basis in events would have been VERY difficult to coordinate...and they couldnt use devs because devs who werent on events had to work on the game.
Originally posted by kishe Just to note, they have had 20 vs 20 fights in different events (Players not scripts) and people who got to play has said it's been flawless lag wise.
Can you provide a link to this information? Largest I've heard of was from that french site... and that one reported severe lag issues from many people. Not to mention.. none of them have actually been recorded... word of mouth FTL.
Originally posted by kishe Just to note, they have had 20 vs 20 fights in different events (Players not scripts) and people who got to play has said it's been flawless lag wise.
They used scripts because showing large scale pvp with beta testers involved on day to day basis in events would have been VERY difficult to coordinate...and they couldnt use devs because devs who werent on events had to work on the game.
What is difficult to coordinate massive pvp, unless you are trying to fake something which is not in the game ?
This thread was presented as an example of Siege Warefare, large PVP combat. In truth there were no siege warfare, no large PvP combat, just alot of bots and fanbois pretending they could.
Also;
Originally posted by Xris375
Formation is not a feature, it is (almost) a proof that the devs don't have the skills to pull off anything over 20v20 outside an instance.
just to note, 20v20 don't actually impress me much.
--- And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there. John Smedley, SOE
Comments
Your a Idot,I think the game looks allot better then 90% of the games out their. Now go back to the WARboards.
And another one...........................................oO
So everyone that gives his/her somewhat negative opinion about AoC should return to the War forums? lmao
Edit: and Yes for what i seen/read about both games, i think i'll like em both
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
From AA;
Hi Xris375, how can a staged event be worrysome 6 months before release? I too was hoping sooner rather that later - some real persons to participate in a seige and it be shown to the public in an official capacity would be nice, (but not a requirement right now in the stage of development). But there is plenty of time, I seriously don't think this clip is set up to promote that. I certainley haven't persued this opinion nor do I see it like this. Its a taster of what they hope it to be like. I hope it turns out similar but in a fully fledged human controlling way (as they planned/ designed) I dont quite understand "Formation is not a feature, it is (almost) a proof that the devs don't have the skills to pull off anything over 20v20 outside an instance" could you possibly explain that statement a bit better? To me formation combat is dervied from a particular Prestige Class, and I kinda find it weird you say that the devs havent got the "skills" to put a 20v20 outside an instance - as some working on AoC and the Company as a whole have done this in AO before. But please in your professional opinion (or just your own as a poster) please, please state what skills are neccessary to complete this objective, maybe they might listen!!! Honestly how is what you said then not a dig without backup?
My point is that is was the controls, not the siege play that was the problem with the last delay. So if the controls hadn't been so difficult, the game would have been released end october. The siege stuff should already have been in the game.
Formation as I understand it, giving up the control of your character. So in stead of having to keep track of 20 people, you only have to keep track of one (the leader) movement wise. The difficulty with 200v200 fights is that TCP/IP. If your connection is more lagger than mine, you will be the weakest link, also Internet as such is best effort. I'm not going into WAN optimisation (it's not my area) and proxying but basically if you don't take the transport and network layer into account, it will not work well outside an limited instance.
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
Maybe this is the point you are trying to drive at (I'm not sure, but it sort of seems like it) but the controls was just the 'officially given' reason for the last delay. Many people have suspected that there was a lot more really going on past that explanation, given that at the time the delay was announced, they had not shown anything of sieges, female avatars, the corruption magic system, any pvp, any footage of more than one player on screen, etc.
I am not questioning the delay, as I think it was the right move if a game is as incomplete. I am just saying that just because they said controls was the only reason for the delay, doesn't mean it was. There is certainly enough evidence to the contrary to warrent healthy skepticism.
So if I understand this right, just because we haven't seen say a 20 vs 20 (or 200v200 or whatever) real life people in a seige event yet, its cause to say that the developers havent got the "skill" or capacity to achieve this, even though its been planned for from concept? I still don't see that just because we haven't seen a real life played formations yet, it is right to label the developers as lacking in any skill to produce them or to choose not to, exercising there right to content release before game release (just as we have seen many games companies do).
The controls and more specifically in relation to the delay in that area was purely a U.I one. People had a hard time trying to master their character, doing combos etc. I personally didn't take from the game directors wordage that there wasn't any issue with formations, their implementation or control, simply because it wasn't mentioned. So lets be clear on this, these are two different things. We still are a little unsure how formations will work, especially in a mounted situation from what I can gather. I still don't see how this lack of knowledge pertains for scope in relation to the delay. Who is to say that if the testing found the basic control of the character to be ok, and the Oct 31st and Nov 4th releases went ahead that by now we wouldn't of seen this material amongst many other unknowns at this point in time being Oct 1st??? Its also been said since the delay was announced, start of August, that they will be spacing out updates - Clan of Conan content as well as weekly Friday update content in line with the new release date.
Now no one has said that there would be 200 v 200 battles, the amount is still being optimized, from Leipzig interviews they said the max they have had on screen at any one time was 261 in a seige - with the game running at 1 frame every 10 minutes! I know they are aiming for 150 people on screen altogether as a rough estimate you can figure that from anywhere between say 70 - 100 people per side in a fight is what is looking likely - at the high end (Scope in there for max amount of Mercs too). That cuts your 400 people on screen by more than half. Obviously connection TCP/IP isnt the only main concern for the player here, there is Client Side and Server Side potential for lag (connection and sytem type you run). This is something still in testing as we all know the game is still at the beta stage.
I agree with what Siresper says "Many people have suspected that there was a lot more really going on past that explanation, given that at the time the delay was announced, they had not shown anything of sieges, female avatars, the corruption magic system, any pvp, any footage of more than one player on screen, etc."
Sure its good to ask where "is" this information, but lets also be reasonable with reference to the timeline. Personally if the end of Oct, start of Nov release date stuck and with there being 1 month to go and we hadn't seen these or most of these things by now then yea I would be kinda worried. But as there is something like another 175 days to go the point is mute again. Maybe people can see for themselves by Christmas with them wanting a good 2-3 months of open beta, they said the option for that route is there. But the delay also could give them incentive to go back and re-evaluate the original concepts and implementation - hence, with changes we haven't seen as yet, I would say that could deemed as quite reasonable and a fair assumption. You could also hypothesize that we haven't seen the content in question because they weren't happy with it themselves, but tis still not a reason to say they lack "skill" in achieving this.
They work to their own deadlines, not ours, we should as interested people make fair assumptions based on all the information they have given. Quite possibly this goes out the window when someone with a really pessimistic side wants answers, but with the way things are in this industry isn't it better to keep a slightly open mind? After all doesn't the saying go innocent until proven guilty, and what exactly are Funcom guilty of with regards to this game and in topic - this video clip? A scripted event to show us some potential? Or lack of information with regard to the subject? I have to add alot has been said about PvP, it has its own section on the official forums with lots of answers (not all).
If you want some clarification on Formations then look right here: http://bymitra.com/search/13685
That is right, if they haven' the network stuff in order by now, there is a chance it never will be. Client and server optimization will only take you so far. I am sorry but there is a reason why you have lag in most games and that is because it is dealt with too late in the development.
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
That is right, if they haven' the network stuff in order by now, there is a chance it never will be. Client and server optimization will only take you so far. I am sorry but there is a reason why you have lag in most games and that is because it is dealt with too late in the development.
Im sorry but your views and labeling are very disturbing to me.
That is right, if they haven' the network stuff in order by now, there is a chance it never will be. Client and server optimization will only take you so far. I am sorry but there is a reason why you have lag in most games and that is because it is dealt with too late in the development.
Im sorry but your views and labeling are very disturbing to me.
Excuse me ? What view and what labeling ?
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
Excuse me ? What view and what labeling ?
Ok I find it disturbing that you attach (label) Formations as "almost proof" that the devs done have the skills to put out large scale battles. Formation is an ability of a prestige class, a game mechanic, a function to give extra support and meaning in combat. Wouldn't you say that the comment below is a little derogatory? maybe im reading too much into it, but it comes across as a little demeaning, formations dont have anything to do with the amount of people on the battle field, it works with what is already there.
Sorry I just find it a strange comment!
Hmm every video thus far shows the main char moving a bit here and there and just about EVERYTHING ELSE is a scripted bot or a stationary placeholder ragdoll. For all the beauty of world design I have seen thus far in AoC it simply looks....lifeless. Kind of reminds me of the huge picturesque world of Vanguard ( not a positive comparison)
Judging from 2 years of playing AO I wouldn't put it past Funcom to put FUN in disFUNctional.
FUNCOM - putting the FUN in disFUNctional !
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
Um... this video is not indicative of how real PvP combat will look. It is a purely pre-scripted demonstration of a small part of the siege system that will be found in AoC.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a prestige class having an ability to create formations (and honestly, no one really knows what that means yet) equals bad network code?
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I believe that you are the only one that understands it.
Here are a few things you might want to remember.
1. The game is 6 months from release. I had to say this to preface the other points.
2. I can not recall any game that showed 100 vs. 100 PvP battles to showcase it's game 6 months from release. Even Shadowbane only had about 20 vs 20 videos before the game was released. Yet in SB we had 200+ people fighting regularly. Just because they didn't show it in their ADVERTISEMENT videos doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.
If the developers are shooting for 100-200 people in a battle then they will most likely achieve it over the next 6 months. If they haven't already.
3. DaOC had pre-release ADVERTISEMENTS that showcased about 20-30 people attacking a keep. I guess using your logic that means that it wasn't possible to have bigger battles after the game was released because of crappy "network skills" as you would say.
4. Any trouble that AoC has with getting 200+ people on screen at once is going to be because of an unoptimized game client when it comes to rendering large numbers of people on screen at once (down scaling). It will have absolutely nothing to do with the networking code or formations.
5. Again, we have no idea how the "formation" skill will actually work, but I would doubt it's little more then a buff to the party members that stay close to you. Most game developers know that their players don't want someone else controlling their characters & Funcom is definitely not new to the genre.
Trying to say one of the game's highest selling points (the large scale PvP battles) is not going to be possible because of the formation skill is like saying your car won't start because the tires are on the ground.
"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."
Um... this video is not indicative of how real PvP combat will look. It is a purely pre-scripted demonstration of a small part of the siege system that will be found in AoC.
I get that...now
I see PvP mechanics as basics that should be in place before the polishing can start. I would be worried that they cannot even demostrate a 20 vs 20 siege battle withiout scipting by now.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a prestige class having an ability to create formations (and honestly, no one really knows what that means yet) equals bad network code?
I saw a bucnh of people running in formation in the video. But if that is scripted and not a demostration of formation. I'll grant you that. Formation, as i saw it, is that you only need to keep track of one player, instead of 20. 1:20 will hugely improve performance.
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I believe that you are the only one that understands it.
Ever heard about latenncy and retransmissions in TCp/IP ? Come back to me when you do.
Here are a few things you might want to remember.
1. The game is 6 months from release. I had to say this to preface the other points.
This game was supposed to release in 2006. 4 delays later basic stuff as PvP and siegeplay should be in place.
2. I can not recall any game that showed 100 vs. 100 PvP battles to showcase it's game 6 months from release. Even Shadowbane only had about 20 vs 20 videos before the game was released. Yet in SB we had 200+ people fighting regularly. Just because they didn't show it in their ADVERTISEMENT videos doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.
Just because they advertises, doen't mean they can do it. Especially when they actually have to script something to show how it could work.
If the developers are shooting for 100-200 people in a battle then they will most likely achieve it over the next 6 months. If they haven't already.
Or not, depends on what the devs have done in their code to optimize code. If you desgn a plane, you better not hope to go to the moon.
3. DaOC had pre-release ADVERTISEMENTS that showcased about 20-30 people attacking a keep. I guess using your logic that means that it wasn't possible to have bigger battles after the game was released because of crappy "network skills" as you would say.
Different game, different code, different goals. How can you compare them ?
4. Any trouble that AoC has with getting 200+ people on screen at once is going to be because of an unoptimized game client when it comes to rendering large numbers of people on screen at once (down scaling). It will have absolutely nothing to do with the networking code or formations.
Ever played a game in PvP where people just blinked around when it begun to lag ? Let me tell you, it had nothing to do with an unoptimized game client. In WoW you could fit 100-200 people in the same frame without a problem. Put the same toons in AV and you will get lag from hell.
5. Again, we have no idea how the "formation" skill will actually work, but I would doubt it's little more then a buff to the party members that stay close to you. Most game developers know that their players don't want someone else controlling their characters & Funcom is definitely not new to the genre.
Okay, again I saw formation in the video but if that is just scripted bots, we'll see how this "feature" works out.
Trying to say one of the game's highest selling points (the large scale PvP battles) is not going to be possible because of the formation skill is like saying your car won't start because the tires are on the ground.
I'm not saying it will not work, I say you may expect alot of lag and sucky gameplay if you don't take the network layer into account. It's like buying a big Volvo Trailer with a small fiat engine.
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE
Um... this video is not indicative of how real PvP combat will look. It is a purely pre-scripted demonstration of a small part of the siege system that will be found in AoC.
I get that...now
I see PvP mechanics as basics that should be in place before the polishing can start. I would be worried that they cannot even demostrate a 20 vs 20 siege battle withiout scipting by now.
How on earth do you come to the conclusion that a prestige class having an ability to create formations (and honestly, no one really knows what that means yet) equals bad network code?
I saw a bucnh of people running in formation in the video. But if that is scripted and not a demostration of formation. I'll grant you that. Formation, as i saw it, is that you only need to keep track of one player, instead of 20. 1:20 will hugely improve performance.
I'm glad it makes sense to you, because I believe that you are the only one that understands it.
Ever heard about latenncy and retransmissions in TCp/IP ? Come back to me when you do.
Here are a few things you might want to remember.
1. The game is 6 months from release. I had to say this to preface the other points.
This game was supposed to release in 2006. 4 delays later basic stuff as PvP and siegeplay should be in place.
2. I can not recall any game that showed 100 vs. 100 PvP battles to showcase it's game 6 months from release. Even Shadowbane only had about 20 vs 20 videos before the game was released. Yet in SB we had 200+ people fighting regularly. Just because they didn't show it in their ADVERTISEMENT videos doesn't mean it wasn't possible or didn't happen.
Just because they advertises, doen't mean they can do it. Especially when they actually have to script something to show how it could work.
If the developers are shooting for 100-200 people in a battle then they will most likely achieve it over the next 6 months. If they haven't already.
Or not, depends on what the devs have done in their code to optimize code. If you desgn a plane, you better not hope to go to the moon.
3. DaOC had pre-release ADVERTISEMENTS that showcased about 20-30 people attacking a keep. I guess using your logic that means that it wasn't possible to have bigger battles after the game was released because of crappy "network skills" as you would say.
Different game, different code, different goals. How can you compare them ?
4. Any trouble that AoC has with getting 200+ people on screen at once is going to be because of an unoptimized game client when it comes to rendering large numbers of people on screen at once (down scaling). It will have absolutely nothing to do with the networking code or formations.
Ever played a game in PvP where people just blinked around when it begun to lag ? Let me tell you, it had nothing to do with an unoptimized game client. In WoW you could fit 100-200 people in the same frame without a problem. Put the same toons in AV and you will get lag from hell.
5. Again, we have no idea how the "formation" skill will actually work, but I would doubt it's little more then a buff to the party members that stay close to you. Most game developers know that their players don't want someone else controlling their characters & Funcom is definitely not new to the genre.
Okay, again I saw formation in the video but if that is just scripted bots, we'll see how this "feature" works out.
Trying to say one of the game's highest selling points (the large scale PvP battles) is not going to be possible because of the formation skill is like saying your car won't start because the tires are on the ground.
I'm not saying it will not work, I say you may expect alot of lag and sucky gameplay if you don't take the network layer into account. It's like buying a big Volvo Trailer with a small fiat engine.
Just to note, they have had 20 vs 20 fights in different events (Players not scripts) and people who got to play has said it's been flawless lag wise.
They used scripts because showing large scale pvp with beta testers involved on day to day basis in events would have been VERY difficult to coordinate...and they couldnt use devs because devs who werent on events had to work on the game.
Can you provide a link to this information? Largest I've heard of was from that french site... and that one reported severe lag issues from many people. Not to mention.. none of them have actually been recorded... word of mouth FTL.
What is difficult to coordinate massive pvp, unless you are trying to fake something which is not in the game ?
This thread was presented as an example of Siege Warefare, large PVP combat. In truth there were no siege warfare, no large PvP combat, just alot of bots and fanbois pretending they could.
Also;
just to note, 20v20 don't actually impress me much.
---
And when we got more women on the team, it was like No, no, no. We need puppies and horses in there.
John Smedley, SOE