Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[AoC] Their priests fell by the sword, and their widows made no lamentation

2456761

Posts

  • girlgamer23girlgamer23 Registered User
    edited November 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    Seg wrote: »
    I didn't get that from Inquisitors post at all.

    I agree. Although, I did notice a good bit of troll from 'Girl Gamer, the Twenty Third'.

    I think it's a cool concept, but don't find a bunch of Cimmerian Barbarians and Bear Shamans hooked up in a Zama Formation very.. barbaric.
    To be frank, I'm not going to take anything said by someone with a number and the need to point out that they are a girl in their user name very seriously.

    You don't have to enter a formation, and I'm sure some units would do a lot better due to the mobility from operating outside of a formation. I can see horse mounted barbarians making a wedge formation to plunge into the thick of things before everything turns into an all out brawl.

    And remember, just because you are a barbarian doesn't mean you have no grasp of tactics. I mean, look at Genghis Kahn, he was considered a barbarian by those he fought.

    And I don't take anything written by someone with a crappy anime avatar seriously : P

    My name dosn't not make anything I said less true.

    The formation idea is just that, its an idea and one that won't be used by gamers. All the sieges will be is just people charging into combat with a few people hitting and running because they are affraid to die.

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    And what? No snide remark about the Hunter S. Thompson quote for my title and location? Might as well bring out the big guns here.

    What your saying isn't true, because it's wrong, and retarded. The formation system isn't just an idea, it's an in game mechanic that provides tangible benefits to the sides that employ it judiciously and intelligently. A side that runs around willy-nilly like chickens with their heads cut off would easily find themselves dashed upon the rocks by cavalry riders in a tight formation. It's simply a concentration of power issue. If you can bring a larger force against a smaller force, you will win, do so repeatedly, and you will route their whole army.

    However, said cavalry force would easily be repelled or halted by a group of infantry men with pikes or spears in a formation. Allowing the cavalry force to be whittled down by archers or spell casters as they attempted to maneuver around said pike formation.

    Being in a formation increases your attack, your defense, and grants you special abilities based on the nature of the formation. Players create for the formations, assigning certain players to certain locations. And no, once your in a formation you don't just autofollow and get to zone out. You must make sure you maintain your proper place in the formation and act accordingly, listening to orders from your leader to properly ensure you move with your unit.

    Of course, all of what I said would be readily apparent if you even did a modicum of research about the game, but I guess that's just too much to ask of some people, who would rather just make baseless claims about a games mechanics.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Sarcastic rebuff:

    Hey guys! Guess what? My e-peen is HUGE!

    @===8

    See? That's a pretty big gun!

    Admonishing observation:

    Have you ever tried to lead an Alterac Valley battleground? Formations would be quite useful in that situation, but for the most part you can't even get them to attack or defend the same location; it's like herding cats.

    I agree with the concern that, while formations would be cool in theory, they would be very difficult to implement in-game, and thus would only be practical only for the AoC equivalent of hardcore raiding guilds. If you make the "cool" content too hard to access for the average joe player, then that player will get frustrated and move on to something else.

    Also, each character is supposed to be a badass in AoC, so why make them useless in PvP unless they join a formation? Individual duels on the field of battle should be the name of the game, with formations granting a small advantage in very specific situations.

    Edit: Also, timeline-wise, this game predates even the Greek phalanx, so from a fake historical perspective, formations aren't really even appropriate. So throwing around pseudo-historical excuses for your perspective while calling everyone else retarded really will do nothing to get your point across.

    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Actually, leading and co-ordinating an Alterac Valley battleground was VERY easy, when it allowed players to join as a group, thus making your entire alterac valley team all willing to listen to each other and all on the same vent.

    It was, in fact, SO successful, even without formations, that Blizzard decided to NOT let players join as groups anymore, because the side that was all one guild would rape the other one so hard.

    And uh, of course the formations are more for hardcore PvP guilds. They are for large scale PvP, hardcore PvP guilds are the guilds that will be the ones participating in hardcore PvP guilds, because they will be the ones with the time and the resources to build, manage and defend their player made towns. Smaller guilds can be hired as mercenaries by larger guilds for money to help bulk out their attacking or defending force.

    No one said players would be useless out of formation. Formations just provide good benefits, and when use intelligently they should help a lot. There are still duels, small skirmishes, bar room fights and other such scenarios where formations really don't have a place. And I'm sure plenty of time in large scale PvP the formations will break down, either through the chaos of combat or through a need for greater mobility and freedom for when the situation demands it.

    And uh, I'm not throwing around any sort of psuedo-historical anything. Most of what I said is either from the devs mouths, or ideas that logically follow from what the devs had said. They said themselves that a formation of people using spears will be key in defeating a formation of cavalry. Unless you were referring to the "larger force defeats a smaller force" bit of what I said? But that's just simple logic really, and was how my guild use to own up Arathi Basin back when I still played WoW.

    Like I said, pretty much everything I said would be quite apparent if people would just do an ounce of research on the game before trying to trash mechanics they have no clue about.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Actually, leading and co-ordinating an Alterac Valley battleground was VERY easy, when it allowed players to join as a group, thus making your entire alterac valley team all willing to listen to each other and all on the same vent.

    It was, in fact, SO successful, even without formations, that Blizzard decided to NOT let players join as groups anymore, because the side that was all one guild would rape the other one so hard.

    The bolded portion makes a pretty good argument against formations, not for them.
    And uh, of course the formations are more for hardcore PvP guilds. They are for large scale PvP, hardcore PvP guilds are the guilds that will be the ones participating in hardcore PvP guilds, because they will be the ones with the time and the resources to build, manage and defend their player made towns. Smaller guilds can be hired as mercenaries by larger guilds for money to help bulk out their attacking or defending force.

    Here's a thought: instead of designing a game with an exclusive system, where you have to play with only the very best or you are SOL, how about we have a game that ISN'T a chore to play, one that actually encourages experienced players to take noobs under their wing?
    No one said players would be useless out of formation. Formations just provide good benefits, and when use intelligently they should help a lot. There are still duels, small skirmishes, bar room fights and other such scenarios where formations really don't have a place. And I'm sure plenty of time in large scale PvP the formations will break down, either through the chaos of combat or through a need for greater mobility and freedom for when the situation demands it.

    So, if combat is just going to degenerate into chaos anyways, why make formations the focus of combat? Why not focus instead on 1v1 abilities that you can use in the chaos of battle, and instead relegate formations to being some minor side perk? Sacrificing the quality of individual gameplay for the sake of rewarding the hardcore PvP guild will serve only to piss off the mainstream player. And it's not like AoC has some godlike budget with which to throw money at their game. It has to be catching out of the box, or it will be doomed to mediocrity, if not outright failure, and being that "Hardcore" guilds generally make up less than 5% of the population of current MMO's, you can't design a game that caters to them and expect it to do well.

    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • DogDog Registered User, Administrator, Vanilla Staff admin
    edited November 2007
    delroland wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Actually, leading and co-ordinating an Alterac Valley battleground was VERY easy, when it allowed players to join as a group, thus making your entire alterac valley team all willing to listen to each other and all on the same vent.

    It was, in fact, SO successful, even without formations, that Blizzard decided to NOT let players join as groups anymore, because the side that was all one guild would rape the other one so hard.

    The bolded portion makes a pretty good argument against formations, not for them.


    Well you have to think that formations would see the most use in guild vs guild and siege combat, some place where you would, infact all be willing to follow orders and use the mechanic (or atleast one would hope)

  • Kevin CristKevin Crist I know you love me I am loving you more.Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I see Formations as an extension of the idea that in pretty much every team based game, the group who is working together and coordinating actions will succeed over a group of lone wolves.

    The game looks interesting, and the combat sounds like D&DO (playing like an 3rd person action game) which I liked. I'll wait for the 360 version since my computer won't do this justice. An USB keyboard will handle everything the controller can't.

    And every MMOG need drunked bar fights. Especially the Sci-fi ones.

    acpRlGW.jpg291.gif
    Steam: cristke| Battlenet: SkinnerSweet#1401
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    delroland wrote: »
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Actually, leading and co-ordinating an Alterac Valley battleground was VERY easy, when it allowed players to join as a group, thus making your entire alterac valley team all willing to listen to each other and all on the same vent.

    It was, in fact, SO successful, even without formations, that Blizzard decided to NOT let players join as groups anymore, because the side that was all one guild would rape the other one so hard.

    The bolded portion makes a pretty good argument against formations, not for them.


    Only if your goal for the PvP in which formations will be viable is something for all players to grind through, or some sort of team vs team mini game that doesn't normally require pre-arranged planning or what not. The reason it raped in AV was because one side was people doing that and one side was people not. By this reasoning you listed here, the same thing could be said about level 70. Level 70 could routinely rape level 50s in a 5v5 vs match. The reason that is not a problem is there is rarely a reason for five level 70s to be fighting five level 50s. So there might not be a reason for a hardcore pvp guild to be fighting a lot of unorganized people.

    In fact, if you think about it one way, that could be preferred to the TDM style of fighting. If you can just get on the forums and say, "Hay, the top pvp guild has been top pvp guild too long, lets zerg their keep", and the guild has no bonus from being organized, then how is that fair? There needs to be an advantage for defense just like there needs to be one for offense.

    Blizzard doesn't want organized guilds to win AV because there are more unorganized people and that makes them bored when they routinely lose their pvp thing and have trouble getting their pvp gear. But is that the point of PVP combat in AoC? Is it gunbound-style point reward minigame system**, or is it something else?


    footnote
    Spoiler:

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    delroland wrote: »

    So, if combat is just going to degenerate into chaos anyways, why make formations the focus of combat? Why not focus instead on 1v1 abilities that you can use in the chaos of battle, and instead relegate formations to being some minor side perk? Sacrificing the quality of individual gameplay for the sake of rewarding the hardcore PvP guild will serve only to piss off the mainstream player. And it's not like AoC has some godlike budget with which to throw money at their game. It has to be catching out of the box, or it will be doomed to mediocrity, if not outright failure, and being that "Hardcore" guilds generally make up less than 5% of the population of current MMO's, you can't design a game that caters to them and expect it to do well.

    My friend, you keep jumping the gun and assuming too much, and taking things to the very extreme.

    Formations aren't the sole focus of combat. They are a part of large scale guild vs guild combat, especially when it comes to sieges.

    Players have PLENTY of moves that work 1 v 1 or in a skirmish type situation. In fact, they have MORE moves that work in a 1v1 situations then moves that work exclusively in a formation.

    Remember, I said the side the uses formations judiciously and intelligently will be the one that comes out on top. That means that knowing when, and equally importantly knowing when NOT to use formations will play a key role in the sucess or failure of large scale PvP (assuming the devs behind AoC make things the way they promise).

    Also, remember, that siege warfare and guilds owning cities and rampant PvP only exists in the clearly defined lawless area of the game. The area owned by King Conan is a much more stable environment. For crying out loud man, Age of Conan has an entire system in place for drunken bar room brawls where you can smash a chair over someones head. Bar room brawls have no lasting consequences, how is that not casual player friendly? And don't worry about new players being scared off early by conan's PvP. The first 20 levels (or maybe less, it's been a while) of the game are single player. You do your instanced missions during the day, and can socialize in taverns at night (or vice versa, can't remember) and talking to an NPC will change day to night. That means new players can take their time learning and exploring early on, with no fear of ganking and harassment.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I haven't paid too much attention to this game over the months, but I was under the impression that formations provided tangible, important benefits, like players in a formation do a ton more damage, or move faster, or recover endurance faster or something

    I thought this was what was going to encourage players to use the formations, because formations made you fucking kick ass

    Am I wrong? Did they get more complicated while I was paying attention to other games?

    7u0YG.gif
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | SCREENED | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Olivaw wrote: »
    I haven't paid too much attention to this game over the months, but I was under the impression that formations provided tangible, important benefits, like players in a formation do a ton more damage, or move faster, or recover endurance faster or something

    I thought this was what was going to encourage players to use the formations, because formations made you fucking kick ass

    Am I wrong? Did they get more complicated while I was paying attention to other games?

    There are formations that provide tangible benefits when used; what they are, what they give and how they are utilized are all still under wraps. Anything we've read about it other that it does, in fact, exist is rumors or unconfirmable NDA breakage.

  • SnarfmasterSnarfmaster Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I must be missing something, The new videos i've seen look like the old videos as far as combat goes. which is pretty much swing your sword around and hope to hit something in front of you. The new videos posted on the previous page are so dark i can't see anything other than traces of movement.

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I must be missing something, The new videos i've seen look like the old videos as far as combat goes. which is pretty much swing your sword around and hope to hit something in front of you. The new videos posted on the previous page are so dark i can't see anything other than traces of movement.

    Uh, how is that now every hack and slash action game ever?

    It's a big step above current MMOs, right click and watch your character swing your sword around and hope you hit something in front of you.

    As you do different swing types, you perform combos, that can let you end in finishes like hamstrings and whatnot.

    I don't know much about the melee combat, as I plan to use a crossbow.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • TransporterTransporter Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Look, all I am saying, si that, I am going to buy AOC, and roll a chick, and bathe in the blood of my enemies.

    Also, how much is the fine for Necrophilia in Conan?

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Look, all I am saying, si that, I am going to buy AOC, and roll a chick, and bathe in the blood of my enemies.

    Also, how much is the fine for Necrophilia in Conan?

    Depends if your Stygian or not.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I don't see how formations can even work without being group-follow.

    To maintain a formation, people have to be moving .... in formation. The only way this works is if they only move a certain way, dictated by whoevers in charge of the formation. Hence, it's just putting your whole group on follow.

  • delrolanddelroland Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    That depends on how formations work. They may not even be formations in the traditional sense. It could very well be just a stacking aura that each character with a particular formation skill radiates. So, for example, if you have the "cavalry charge" formation skill active, you would get a small bonus with lances while on horseback, and if you were in close proximity to a teammate with the same skill, the bonuses would stack.

    This is just one of what I am sure are many possibilities for a formation system that doesn't require group-follow. Then again, maybe formations will require group-follow. But at this point, who knows? Besides the devs, of course.

    EVE: Online - the most fun you will ever have not playing a game.
    "Go up, thou bald head." -2 Kings 2:23
  • shrykeshryke Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Hmm, interesting idea I hadn't thought of. I like it. It encourages people to group together and attack as a unit.

  • Fartacus_the_MightyFartacus_the_Mighty Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I'm too lazy at this hour of the morning to look for videos, so correct me if I'm wrong. I have a very strong feeling that formations are going to be more like a "group tactics" setting rather than a group of players all marching in lockstep. For example, you might have an anti-cavalry formation for spearmen. It wouldn't actually require you to form a perfect wall with other players, but rather it'd be a general combat bonus vs. cavalry as long as the spearmen stayed sorta close to each other.

  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Carnarvon wrote: »
    Olivaw wrote: »
    I haven't paid too much attention to this game over the months, but I was under the impression that formations provided tangible, important benefits, like players in a formation do a ton more damage, or move faster, or recover endurance faster or something

    I thought this was what was going to encourage players to use the formations, because formations made you fucking kick ass

    Am I wrong? Did they get more complicated while I was paying attention to other games?

    There are formations that provide tangible benefits when used; what they are, what they give and how they are utilized are all still under wraps. Anything we've read about it other that it does, in fact, exist is rumors or unconfirmable NDA breakage.

    And lets not forget the other benefit of formations. They allow you to protect your healing dudes. Having a wall of warriors around the guy or guys healing would be a noticeable advantage.

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Oh my good god.

    They really have done a lot with the animations.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • girlgamer23girlgamer23 Registered User
    edited November 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Oh my good god.

    They really have done a lot with the animations.
    they are nice but the humans still have that plastic eq 2 look to them

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Yeah, they do a bit. At least it's not nearly as bad as it looked in EQ2, but hopefully they can iron it out some before release.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    They just released new information on mounts. There are a large variety of mounts, ranging from horses to mammoths to rhinos. Each behave differently. Horses are very fast, and turn quickly, while a mammoth takes time to accelerate and decelerate and wheels around slowly.

    You can fight while mounted, but if you die, your mount dies with you, and if your mount dies, you die too. Slower mounts like the mammoth have lots of health, give you a health bonus, and have their own powerful attacks like goring people on their tusks.

    While mounted on a horse you do more damage the faster you are moving. If you swing too soon or too late as you ride by, you'll miss, and will have to wheel back again for another pass.

    I can definitely see a 1 on 1 between a mounted and guy on foot quickly turning into that classic movie stereotype.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • OlivawOlivaw good name, isn't it? peach treesRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Are mounts permanent or am I going to have to find a new one after they die every battle?

    This is important

    7u0YG.gif
    PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | SCREENED | STEAM ID | BUY SOME STUFF!
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    It doesn't say. But I'm assuming either they don't die permanently, or they are very inexpensive if they do.

    My guess is they don't die permanently though, because then you can't have a trusted and loyal steed.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    How are people not super excited about this game?

    Just look at this fucking combat and atmosphere.

    Look at the knife in the back of that guys neck.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • TheLawinatorTheLawinator Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I call a mammoth, or a bear. I'd really love to set up some kind of bear cavalry.

    My SteamID Gamertag and PSN: TheLawinator
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I would have never guessed that you would enjoy the concept of bear cavalry from your avatar or signature, good sir.

    Bear cavalry would be awesome though. I mean, who do you attack? The bear or the rider? And in that moment of indecision is when you are dashed upon the rocks.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • TheLawinatorTheLawinator Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I need to find that Russian bear cavalry picture again...

    My SteamID Gamertag and PSN: TheLawinator
  • piLpiL Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Bear cavalry would be awesome though. I mean, who do you attack? The bear or the rider? And in that moment of indecision is when you are dashed upon the rocks.

    Yourself--that's the only way to avoid the subsequent mauling/painful death.

  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I need to find that Russian bear cavalry picture again...

    This one?

    bear_calvary.jpg

  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    That's awesome.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • MorskittarMorskittar Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    I've been reading a lot of Howard lately.

    It makes me want to play this more. Probably while drunk.

    snm_sig.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Morskittar wrote: »
    I've been reading a lot of Howard lately.

    It makes me want to play this more. Probably while drunk.

    Preferably get yourself and your character drunk at the same time.

    Then have a bar fight.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • ZzuluZzulu Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    This games features sound just fantastic. I'm not sure I'm feeling the look of the game just yet though. But I've alwas wanted a PvP centric game with better combat like they are describing in Conan.

    It'll be interesting to see how it'll turn out

    t5qfc9.jpg
  • InquisitorInquisitor Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    The graphics seem to get better with every new video they release. Though, sometimes it does look a little bit Everquest 2-ish.

    But come on, you can't tell me that area with those statues with blood pouring out of their mouths into their hands doesn't look awesome.

    afaossig.jpg~original
  • CarnarvonCarnarvon Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
  • AxenAxen My avatar is Excalibur. Yes, the sword.Registered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Holy crap. Has anyone else seen the siege video?

    edit- Also, MOTHER FUCKING WHOLLY MAMMOTH mounts can be used to knock down walls!

  • captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    edited December 2007
    Who is developing this and where are their accents from? Are they German or Northern Europe or what?

    sig.gifSteam | D3: captaink#1674 | 3DS: 2466-1914-7679
This discussion has been closed.