Home › Game Forums › ArcheAge
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Siege system is lameeeeee!!!
I was really hyped about this game...but what I just read kills it. So,...the sieges are 50 vs 50...thats crap. Let clans represent them based on who they are. Also people get ported in to the siege area...that means its an instance. Great...the sieges are a pimp battleground...good job.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Comments
50v50 was chosen in game to test the mechanics. They had stated they wanted more, but even then like 100v100 or something. This is the beta number and mechanics and so all could change, but just from they many various factors they have in place it feels very much like they WANT sieges limited. The 2 hour time window, prior declaration, world/raid boss drop needed to initiate a siege, all these to me point to a desire to keep things tamer and limited. I am guessing that they also don't want the mass mindless zerg fest that some L2 sieges became, when it wasn't 1000v1000, but more like 1000v200, those are fun for no one.
Also, sieges aren't really instanced. Sieges take place in the 'real Arche Age world'
and can be seen by those outside the siege battleground. The thing is, those
trying to enter that battleground, while not part of the 50 participating members of
one of the two participating 'expeditionary forces' ('guilds') will get teleported backwards,
out of the battleground, so they cannot help any guild in order to make things fair ^^
Well, thats not as bad then...but still...I don't like limitiations.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
limitations were put in for beta for testing purposes.
be pretty hard to test group combat mechanics if its 100 on 30 or some number like that. the 100 would win even if all the classes of the 30 are Op'd
as one of the prior posters stated.
they could atleast increase the player limit. 50v50 seems a bit small imo. i think the whole 1 guild vs 1 guild element is kind of lame as well. they should make it so the multiple guilds can attack a single guild at one time. however this might lead to people forming alliances etc
This is why jumping to conclusions without clear understanding of the data is a bad idea.
Good thing you posted that...oops...looks like everyone ignored you.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
Just really hoping for this one to be a solid sandbox (some theme park elements) with owpvp. The second they start adding in limitatoins it kills the sandbox element.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
The system is designed to keep large guilds from dominating the continent and smaller guilds from not having any chance in the game. The system does limit large scale battles but it also allows for a large number of guilds to particapate and for more seiges to take place. There is always pros and cons to every feature, some people won't like it some people will or some people will play the game the developers gave them.
Not to point out the obvious or anything, but... aren't you a part of 'everyone'? So when you say "everyone ignored you," you don't really mean 'everyone' as in 'all people in existence.' Right?
I think it would have been better to just let his comment slide, because your response has only made it clear that you were annoyed - and that subtle flavor of lulzcow is probably enough to attract a troll or two.
Just saying.
Well zergs dominating and 3 FPS battles are lame too ... sooo pick your poison.
While completely open sandbox sieges sound fun in theory, the reality can be un-fun. Take Shadowbane for example, where anyone could show up to a bane (siege). You had people show up just to grief both sides. You had zergs overrun what might have been fun fights between two smaller guilds. You would have huge numbers (including those there just to be watch or ninja loot) whose weight would make graphics and skill lag horrendous.
So while I am not happy about it, its a trade off.
The game isn't even out yet, and you are whining about it already?
And here I thought there was finally a NA Beta....
Bah, useless thread instead.
I don't know why everyone ignored this post because it pretty much sums it up. Nobody wants one extremely op guild to rule everything. I think a limit on the amount of people is a good thing, of course there are some cons though. I think maybe they should implement a system based on how many players are in each guild. Like if one guild has 200 people and the other 125, it wouldn't exactly be a fair fight, but they should still give the bigger guild a slight advantage. Just so the smaller one isn't facerolled out of existance..
Yes I have a dream And its not some MLK dream for equality. I wanna own a decommissioned lighthouse And I wanna live at the top And nobody knows I live there. And theres a button that I can press, and launch that lighthouse into space.
Now that I think of it, limiting numbers to, say, 100 per side could have some great outcomes.
Now bear in mind, it sounds like they won't be mandating even numbers, just an upper limit. So what happens when the guild with 100 people sieges the guild with 10 people? 100 to 10 will be a massacre. That's when we see come into true flower the idea of allies and mercs. And of course politics.
A guild of ten can defend itself if it has a) friends who will come help them defend their castle; b) can hire others to come help them as mercs. Here are positive effects:
- a small guild that is well-liked won't have trouble getting friends to come help them in a pinch. A small guild made up of idiots who everyone hates - not so much. Treating others well will have political benefit
- there is a real incentive and role for true merc guilds to form. Guilds that are great at PVP who hire themselves out to one side or another at sieges will be in real demand - if they have skill. No one will want dead weight among those crucial 100 people you can bring to the siege
- there will be a limit to how dominating a single zerg can be. If you are limited to 100, then you will want quality players for that 100. It won't help you to just pad your numbers with open recruiting, if you end up with a skillless horde of 100 against another 100 that know their stuff
Best of all, once the fight starts, the people in the battle can enjoy those two hours without siege-crashers, ninja looters and griefers showing up.
So the more I think of this - thumbs up Archeage!
In Eve, having a third gang show up and turn the fight into complete chaos were some of the most memorable fights I had.
The unpredictability of battle is what I look forward to most. Once too many rules and limitations get put in place it degenerates into a run of the mill battlegrounds. I'm hoping ArcheAge will not go down that road.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
Complete chaos in some Eve fleet battle is different than complete chaos in a siege of a castle a guild spent a lot of time building.
Remember, people can still fight in open world however they want. You can have your huge come-one come-all fights. But when it comes to sieges, some rules make sense. Otherwise it will be ZergAge and you can say good-bye to small and medium guilds.
Has this game even been announced for North America/Europe?
No, not yet.
Still waiting . . .
I believe it was just announced in EU...thats the rumor.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
There is a good possibility this will make it to the States.
It's exactly that, just a rumor. : /