Anyone who equates grinding CTF instances = "badass commander" ........................well I guess I cannot even comprehend your thought process
quit trying to compare it to the honor system in WoW...if you suck in pvp in AoC you will never be high level no matter how many hours you sink into
Probably a hard concept for you to grasp , but that post had nothing to do with WoW , it had to do with the fact that I consider someone who hangs out in CTF and wins the same map repeatedly all day to earn points as fast and efficiently as possible as anything but a "badass commander" , you apparently revere the CTF king , good for you
This from IGN ---------------------------- - "Funcom has implemented a priority structure. Whichever guild has members that fare better in the PvP minigames gets priority when determining who gets to lead a siege assault" ----------------------- - I like the game Funcom , but turn it into a CTF grind requiring instance PvP over world PvP and it will be a temporary game at best
At face value it makes sense to me. More experienced at pvp get to lead. On the other hand if leading is just in name only like in WoW then it really doesn't matter.
No offense OP, but this post seems to be a little silly. If you want to LEAD a siege, you SHOULD be a badass battle commander. And in order to be a badass battle commander, you would've had to proven yourself in actual combat.
Pvp mini games are NOT actual combat and anyone that knows anything about pvp will tell you world pvp and staged pvp are nothing alike. Further more there is absolutly no comparison to sieging and pvp mini games.
Don't confuse a players ability, with a class being Over Powered.
Anyone who equates grinding CTF instances = "badass commander" ........................well I guess I cannot even comprehend your thought process
quit trying to compare it to the honor system in WoW...if you suck in pvp in AoC you will never be high level no matter how many hours you sink into
Probably a hard concept for you to grasp , but that post had nothing to do with WoW , it had to do with the fact that I consider someone who hangs out in CTF and wins the same map repeatedly all day to earn points as fast and efficiently as possible as anything but a "badass commander" , you apparently revere the CTF king , good for you
Actually, proving yourself in combat repeatedly would not only give you a one-up on others gunning for the head position, but would probably earn you the title 'badass' considering you wtf own peoples faces like clockwork in the minigame combat. Now, just because someone plays pvp minigames allday it doesnt make them a demigod who takes less damage or moves faster than everyone else, they're still a regular guy, which works, they have the most *assuming atleast* skill in pvp combat because of how often they play the pvp minigames, pvp minigames generally require some type of teamwork and strategy so it is also fair to assume they have that knowledge aswell. It is basically just a way for funcom to give the most qualified *on paper* player the ability to lead a siege, as opposed to relying on sparatic tracking at best open-world pvp combat where strategy and skill don't necessarily dictate who wins because it can be 1on1 1on5 5on10 10on10 20on20, it is far too unpredictable to base recorded stats on to choose a leader, so out of the 2, if they have to pick one to use stats to choose, i'd say pvp minigames everytime. and I hate pvp minigames.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies." Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Some people have no buisness running groups or directing PvP. Just because they want to doesn't mean they are able.
Hence I'd rather follow a guy who's blood drunk mad about doing PvP, and knows his stuff, then to follow some nitwit who just logged on the game decides to start a PVP group without knowing what he/she is doing.
So to see this feature. I am all for it. though i'd like to see if the system works for those who have little time to play vs those that do. If a player only has 10 hours to play a week, but has high PvP rating fine, he should get his stance in line bumped just as some one who plays 80 hours and has simular rated statistics.
I see this as a filter. Some people have no buisness running groups or directing PvP. Just because they want to doesn't mean they are able. Hence I'd rather follow a guy who's blood drunk mad about doing PvP, and knows his stuff, then to follow some nitwit who just logged on the game decides to start a PVP group without knowing what he/she is doing. So to see this feature. I am all for it. though i'd like to see if the system works for those who have little time to play vs those that do. If a player only has 10 hours to play a week, but has high PvP rating fine, he should get his stance in line bumped just as some one who plays 80 hours and has simular rated statistics.
Although I agree with you, the reality of a MMO is if your paying $15/month you have as much business as anyone to do what ever you want (with out violating the eula) even if that is leading a group in pvp and not knowing what your doing. In which case I think the followers would be at fault for not recognizing the noobs lack of ability
Don't confuse a players ability, with a class being Over Powered.
Its still a crappy system.....and you really can't judge someone's PvP skills by running a capture the flag map. What happens in an instanced scenario with specific objectives is completely different than world pvp.
The game is gold this feature is in the disks being burned for release...hopefully if the outcry is continued enough they'll find a better way to rank guilds for priority than Mini games. Who wants to be regulated to farming a guilds Ranking in Mini games just to get high priority?! No one! You know thats whats going to happen they'll be half the guild just for instanced pvp and the other half will do crafting and building up cities and pve.
Well my fingers are crossed and I hope this system gets changed post launch for the AoC PvP fans.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
What happened to the next gen PVP this game was hyped up for lol?? They have not even shown anything of substance of the siege features, yet they just keep saying stuff about pvp mini games.
So much for the all conquering pvp game this was hyped up to be, just another instanced pvp grind game lol gj Funcom. When you cant think of anything else just go with the same old standard model lol.
Even in wow, in world pvp if someone who does pvp minigames and always tops the list with either the most captures or the most kills, is in the fight, guaranteed they're gonna rock everyone in world pvp just as hard in pvp battlegrounds, unless its 1vs5
Seriously, before anyone replies, think of your favorite games with world and instance pvp, the last time you saw an instance pvp master in world pvp, did he just fall over and die? did he do as good/bad as everyone else? probably not. That person probably hit hard and fast calculating who dies in what order and knowing what to throw at you based on your class and visible level/gear.
Besides the fact this arguement is mute, it only affects battle Keeps not anything else in world pvp, and it doesnt stop your guild from attacking a battle keep, Funcom doesn't want multiple guilds attacking the same keep, thats why the first guild gets 2 hours, if they fail, the next guild can step up.
People in this thread seem to be so focused on not being able to do whatever they want, that they aren't noticing funcom is only doing this because of how their sieging system was designed. If you don't like it, stop complaining and go somewhere else.
AoC owns, PvE and PvP. If you disagree then why are you playing the game.
P.S. This isn't DAoC. It's AoC. When you make your game you can name it DAoC and do whatever you want with it.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies." Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
The real question is why couldn't they do this with world pvp instead of pvp minigames? For example the guild with the most world pvp kills? Or to prevent ganking the guild with the most world pvp xp would get first crack.
Wouldnt this make more sense as well as encouraging more world pvp witch it would see more people prefer?
The real question is why couldn't they do this with world pvp instead of pvp minigames? For example the guild with the most world pvp kills? Or to prevent ganking the guild with the most world pvp xp would get first crack. Wouldnt this make more sense as well as encouraging more world pvp witch it would see more people prefer?
There are a lot of PvE players, lowbies, and newbies, in the open world. Going by world pvp stats is unreliable. Thats the only reason I can think they use pvp minigames, besides getting more people to play them. Atleast in a pvp instance, the players are there specifically to kill other players. Even if you do say kill 50 lvl 80s in world pvp, half of them could've been afk hiding behind a tree, or fighting another mob, or even jumped by multiple people.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies." Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
The real question is why couldn't they do this with world pvp instead of pvp minigames? For example the guild with the most world pvp kills? Or to prevent ganking the guild with the most world pvp xp would get first crack. Wouldnt this make more sense as well as encouraging more world pvp witch it would see more people prefer?
There are a lot of PvE players, lowbies, and newbies, in the open world. Going by world pvp stats is unreliable. Thats the only reason I can think they use pvp minigames, besides getting more people to play them. Atleast in a pvp instance, the players are there specifically to kill other players. Even if you do say kill 50 lvl 80s in world pvp, half of them could've been afk hiding behind a tree, or fighting another mob, or even jumped by multiple people.
This is why world pvp xp would be a better idea because pvp xp works similar to mob xp ganking and zerging would earn less then group vs group.
If requiering minigame prowess would force people to grind and play minigames more this type of system would encourage groups roaming and fighting in world pvp and that to me would be excellence.
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?
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.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Lets wait for an official dev comment on the article.
This is not the first time the press has got something not quite right.
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?
If I were given options, Id do it like Lineage 2. The way being discussed , if that is truely what is in store doesn't sound great. Im in to world pvp not an fps mini game that gets run over and over and over the same way till your bored out of your skull.
I dunno, Im not going to bash it till I try it though. 1 more week to check out some stuff .
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.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
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.
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.
Comments
quit trying to compare it to the honor system in WoW...if you suck in pvp in AoC you will never be high level no matter how many hours you sink into
Probably a hard concept for you to grasp , but that post had nothing to do with WoW , it had to do with the fact that I consider someone who hangs out in CTF and wins the same map repeatedly all day to earn points as fast and efficiently as possible as anything but a "badass commander" , you apparently revere the CTF king , good for you
At face value it makes sense to me. More experienced at pvp get to lead. On the other hand if leading is just in name only like in WoW then it really doesn't matter.
Pvp mini games are NOT actual combat and anyone that knows anything about pvp will tell you world pvp and staged pvp are nothing alike. Further more there is absolutly no comparison to sieging and pvp mini games.
Don't confuse a players ability, with a class being Over Powered.
-T
quit trying to compare it to the honor system in WoW...if you suck in pvp in AoC you will never be high level no matter how many hours you sink into
Probably a hard concept for you to grasp , but that post had nothing to do with WoW , it had to do with the fact that I consider someone who hangs out in CTF and wins the same map repeatedly all day to earn points as fast and efficiently as possible as anything but a "badass commander" , you apparently revere the CTF king , good for you
Actually, proving yourself in combat repeatedly would not only give you a one-up on others gunning for the head position, but would probably earn you the title 'badass' considering you wtf own peoples faces like clockwork in the minigame combat. Now, just because someone plays pvp minigames allday it doesnt make them a demigod who takes less damage or moves faster than everyone else, they're still a regular guy, which works, they have the most *assuming atleast* skill in pvp combat because of how often they play the pvp minigames, pvp minigames generally require some type of teamwork and strategy so it is also fair to assume they have that knowledge aswell. It is basically just a way for funcom to give the most qualified *on paper* player the ability to lead a siege, as opposed to relying on sparatic tracking at best open-world pvp combat where strategy and skill don't necessarily dictate who wins because it can be 1on1 1on5 5on10 10on10 20on20, it is far too unpredictable to base recorded stats on to choose a leader, so out of the 2, if they have to pick one to use stats to choose, i'd say pvp minigames everytime. and I hate pvp minigames.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies."
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
I see this as a filter.
Some people have no buisness running groups or directing PvP. Just because they want to doesn't mean they are able.
Hence I'd rather follow a guy who's blood drunk mad about doing PvP, and knows his stuff, then to follow some nitwit who just logged on the game decides to start a PVP group without knowing what he/she is doing.
So to see this feature. I am all for it. though i'd like to see if the system works for those who have little time to play vs those that do. If a player only has 10 hours to play a week, but has high PvP rating fine, he should get his stance in line bumped just as some one who plays 80 hours and has simular rated statistics.
Although I agree with you, the reality of a MMO is if your paying $15/month you have as much business as anyone to do what ever you want (with out violating the eula) even if that is leading a group in pvp and not knowing what your doing. In which case I think the followers would be at fault for not recognizing the noobs lack of ability
Don't confuse a players ability, with a class being Over Powered.
-T
i am forced to agree with that part, but again all i am saying is this featur seems to be a filter of sorts.
I am sure all in all there will be people who progress in the mini-games, and those in the world pvp
Its still a crappy system.....and you really can't judge someone's PvP skills by running a capture the flag map. What happens in an instanced scenario with specific objectives is completely different than world pvp.
The game is gold this feature is in the disks being burned for release...hopefully if the outcry is continued enough they'll find a better way to rank guilds for priority than Mini games. Who wants to be regulated to farming a guilds Ranking in Mini games just to get high priority?! No one! You know thats whats going to happen they'll be half the guild just for instanced pvp and the other half will do crafting and building up cities and pve.
Well my fingers are crossed and I hope this system gets changed post launch for the AoC PvP fans.
Please Refer to Doom Cat with all conspiracies & evil corporation complaints. He'll give you the simple explination of..WE"RE ALL DOOMED!
What happened to the next gen PVP this game was hyped up for lol?? They have not even shown anything of substance of the siege features, yet they just keep saying stuff about pvp mini games.
So much for the all conquering pvp game this was hyped up to be, just another instanced pvp grind game lol gj Funcom. When you cant think of anything else just go with the same old standard model lol.
Now i could be mistaking skill for gear... but
Even in wow, in world pvp if someone who does pvp minigames and always tops the list with either the most captures or the most kills, is in the fight, guaranteed they're gonna rock everyone in world pvp just as hard in pvp battlegrounds, unless its 1vs5
Seriously, before anyone replies, think of your favorite games with world and instance pvp, the last time you saw an instance pvp master in world pvp, did he just fall over and die? did he do as good/bad as everyone else? probably not. That person probably hit hard and fast calculating who dies in what order and knowing what to throw at you based on your class and visible level/gear.
Besides the fact this arguement is mute, it only affects battle Keeps not anything else in world pvp, and it doesnt stop your guild from attacking a battle keep, Funcom doesn't want multiple guilds attacking the same keep, thats why the first guild gets 2 hours, if they fail, the next guild can step up.
People in this thread seem to be so focused on not being able to do whatever they want, that they aren't noticing funcom is only doing this because of how their sieging system was designed. If you don't like it, stop complaining and go somewhere else.
AoC owns, PvE and PvP. If you disagree then why are you playing the game.
P.S. This isn't DAoC. It's AoC. When you make your game you can name it DAoC and do whatever you want with it.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies."
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
The real question is why couldn't they do this with world pvp instead of pvp minigames? For example the guild with the most world pvp kills? Or to prevent ganking the guild with the most world pvp xp would get first crack.
Wouldnt this make more sense as well as encouraging more world pvp witch it would see more people prefer?
There are a lot of PvE players, lowbies, and newbies, in the open world. Going by world pvp stats is unreliable. Thats the only reason I can think they use pvp minigames, besides getting more people to play them. Atleast in a pvp instance, the players are there specifically to kill other players. Even if you do say kill 50 lvl 80s in world pvp, half of them could've been afk hiding behind a tree, or fighting another mob, or even jumped by multiple people.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies."
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
There are a lot of PvE players, lowbies, and newbies, in the open world. Going by world pvp stats is unreliable. Thats the only reason I can think they use pvp minigames, besides getting more people to play them. Atleast in a pvp instance, the players are there specifically to kill other players. Even if you do say kill 50 lvl 80s in world pvp, half of them could've been afk hiding behind a tree, or fighting another mob, or even jumped by multiple people.
This is why world pvp xp would be a better idea because pvp xp works similar to mob xp ganking and zerging would earn less then group vs group.If requiering minigame prowess would force people to grind and play minigames more this type of system would encourage groups roaming and fighting in world pvp and that to me would be excellence.
I so regret ordering this game by watching this, instanced pvp-farmers all over again those sieges? they're gonna be as rare as world-pvp in wow.
Spoils of War - The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.
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.
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?
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
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.
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.
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?
If I were given options, Id do it like Lineage 2. The way being discussed , if that is truely what is in store doesn't sound great. Im in to world pvp not an fps mini game that gets run over and over and over the same way till your bored out of your skull.I dunno, Im not going to bash it till I try it though. 1 more week to check out some stuff .
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?
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.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.
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.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
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.
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.