The competition for the castles

Hey guys, how u doing?
So... i really think that would be a great idea reducing to 150 or at MAX 200 members per guild, instead of 300. Why am i saying it? Let me explain. We know the top of the competitive guild content will be the castle sieges, a 250 v 250 battle. So.. we will have 5 castles, one guild dominating one castle. Just with this information we can see that we will need AT LEAST 1500 competitive players per server to occupy the five castles, but its not the end... the dispute should not be stagnant, so we will need another guilds that are looking for defeat the Castle owners. How many guilds we would need for a healthy and competitive scenario, with 300 members per guild? I'd say, 8, 9... disputing 5 castles. We are talkiing about around 3000 competitive players PER SERVER. And its not just a normal kind of competition, we are talking about LARGE SCALE competition, 250 v 250!!!. How many players are interest in it, instead of just joining some 2v2 or 3v3 arenas? I really don't think we will have this amount of players looking for the castles. The logistic that guild leaders and their officers will have to organize 250 persons at the same time once per month can make people think it's just not worth conquering a castle.... And im afraid of it.

Another suggestion to avoid it: you can give ABSURD ADVANTAGES to the guilds that are castle owners... this can make everyone want to be part of guilds that constantly fight for castles and thus make the competition healthy.

What do u guys think about it?
Cheers

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Noaani

Darknezzz wrote: »

Let me explain. We know the top of the competitive guild content will be the castle sieges, a 250 v 250 battle. So.. we will have 5 castles, one guild dominating one castle. Just with this information we can see that we will need AT LEAST 1500 competitive players per server to occupy the five castles

This is false logic, or perhaps a misunderstanding on your part.

Castles don't "require" a 250vs250, that is just what the initial goal is for a cap on sieges. They can be done with fewer people.

Darknezzz

Noaani wrote: »

Darknezzz wrote: »

Let me explain. We know the top of the competitive guild content will be the castle sieges, a 250 v 250 battle. So.. we will have 5 castles, one guild dominating one castle. Just with this information we can see that we will need AT LEAST 1500 competitive players per server to occupy the five castles

This is false logic, or perhaps a misunderstanding on your part.

Castles don't "require" a 250vs250, that is just what the initial goal is for a cap on sieges. They can be done with fewer people.

I understood it, but the ideal would be the guilds attacking and defending with their full power, what i guess its kinda impossible with the 250 v 250 mechanic envolving guilds with 300 players, even if they ''contract'' other players to attack and defend. New World for example, the member cap is 100 and you need 50 in the war, with the possibility to invite players that aren't in your guild... this guarantees that EVERY war will be a 50 x 50 war, as it was planned to be, and the logistic for the GMs isn't this hell...

Noaani

Darknezzz wrote: »

I understood it, but the ideal would be the guilds attacking and defending with their full power

It would be ideal, but as it is not necessary, that means any calculation of how many people are needed to fill and compete for castles is a futile act.

It is also worth noting that the 250v250 is only the initial target. They want to bring that up higher, with up to 500v500 being the actual eventual goal.

George_Black

Good points.

Darknezzz

Noaani wrote: »

Darknezzz wrote: »

I understood it, but the ideal would be the guilds attacking and defending with their full power

It would be ideal, but as it is not necessary, that means any calculation of how many people are needed to fill and compete for castles is a futile act.

It is also worth noting that the 250v250 is only the initial target. They want to bring that up higher, with up to 500v500 being the actual eventual goal.

Yeah... that makes me even more worried... 500 vs 500.. jesus.
I'm afraid that the castle sieges turns on a complete flop.

JustVine

The size is intend to make it so that no 1 guild can hold it alone, and encourages bigger intra-social coordination. Big guilds will have an easier time, but they will need to pay attention to various community factions to pull it off.

Darknezzz

JustVine wrote: »

The size is intend to make it so that no 1 guild can hold it alone, and encourages bigger intra-social coordination. Big guilds will have an easier time, but they will need to pay attention to various community factions to pull it off.

Yeah, this encourage interation, but castle sieges its not a mandatory content. The guild who holds the castle has some advantages and that's it. I'm afraid that most people think that the logistic and the hard work involved in organize a siege it's just not worth.

''Oh, ok, that guild has a castle, i don't care, i don't need one, let me join some 2s arenas''

mcstackerson

Darknezzz wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

The size is intend to make it so that no 1 guild can hold it alone, and encourages bigger intra-social coordination. Big guilds will have an easier time, but they will need to pay attention to various community factions to pull it off.

Yeah, this encourage interation, but castle sieges its not a mandatory content. The guild who holds the castle has some advantages and that's it. I'm afraid that most people think that the logistic and the hard work involved in organize a siege it's just not worth.

''Oh, ok, that guild has a castle, i don't care, i don't need one, let me join some 2s arenas''

This is kind of the risk with any content.

Castle sieges give you at least a dragon mount and the taxes of the castle's region so there is at least a major incentive right there do to them. There are probably some other perks that haven't been fleshed out yet.

Most people don't have to worry about the logistics, that's what the guild leaders have to do.

Enigmatic Sage

Noaani wrote: »

Darknezzz wrote: »

I understood it, but the ideal would be the guilds attacking and defending with their full power

It would be ideal, but as it is not necessary, that means any calculation of how many people are needed to fill and compete for castles is a futile act.

It is also worth noting that the 250v250 is only the initial target. They want to bring that up higher, with up to 500v500 being the actual eventual goal.

They said they were hoping to but there is no promise for the 500 vs 500. There could over 2000 entities with particle effects going off etc
Considering the amount of entities, particle effects, polygon usage etc it could just turn into a nightmare.
Large scale PvP tends to turn into zerg wars and AOE spamming.
With hard CC currently in design, sounds like a shit show of griefing.

Darknezzz

mcstackerson wrote: »

Darknezzz wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

The size is intend to make it so that no 1 guild can hold it alone, and encourages bigger intra-social coordination. Big guilds will have an easier time, but they will need to pay attention to various community factions to pull it off.

Yeah, this encourage interation, but castle sieges its not a mandatory content. The guild who holds the castle has some advantages and that's it. I'm afraid that most people think that the logistic and the hard work involved in organize a siege it's just not worth.

''Oh, ok, that guild has a castle, i don't care, i don't need one, let me join some 2s arenas''

This is kind of the risk with any content.

Castle sieges give you at least a dragon mount and the taxes of the castle's region so there is at least a major incentive right there do to them. There are probably some other perks that haven't been fleshed out yet.

Most people don't have to worry about the logistics, that's what the guild leaders have to do.

Hope you are right!

Noaani

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Darknezzz wrote: »

I understood it, but the ideal would be the guilds attacking and defending with their full power

It would be ideal, but as it is not necessary, that means any calculation of how many people are needed to fill and compete for castles is a futile act.

It is also worth noting that the 250v250 is only the initial target. They want to bring that up higher, with up to 500v500 being the actual eventual goal.

They said they were hoping to but there is no promise for the 500 vs 500. There could over 2000 entities with particle effects going off etc
Considering the amount of entities, particle effects, polygon usage etc it could just turn into a nightmare.
Large scale PvP tends to turn into zerg wars and AOE spamming.
With hard CC currently in design, sounds like a shit show of griefing.

Indeed - it is the eventual goal, not a guaranteed target for them to hit.

In terms of performance in combat like that, Intrepid have already said they are going to use standard character models - this could potentially cut the number of character models needed to be loaded in to the game from several thousand down to perhaps 12 (four races with two genders each, and a few generic pet/mount models).

Also, the game should be playable without particle effects on at all for people that want to do so - so they should be able to outright turn them off in such large scale combat.

If so, I am sure you can see how these two factors combined could potentially improve performance to more than acceptable levels.

Enigmatic Sage

Noaani wrote: »

Enigmatic Sage wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Darknezzz wrote: »

I understood it, but the ideal would be the guilds attacking and defending with their full power

It would be ideal, but as it is not necessary, that means any calculation of how many people are needed to fill and compete for castles is a futile act.

It is also worth noting that the 250v250 is only the initial target. They want to bring that up higher, with up to 500v500 being the actual eventual goal.

They said they were hoping to but there is no promise for the 500 vs 500. There could over 2000 entities with particle effects going off etc
Considering the amount of entities, particle effects, polygon usage etc it could just turn into a nightmare.
Large scale PvP tends to turn into zerg wars and AOE spamming.
With hard CC currently in design, sounds like a shit show of griefing.

Indeed - it is the eventual goal, not a guaranteed target for them to hit.

In terms of performance in combat like that, Intrepid have already said they are going to use standard character models - this could potentially cut the number of character models needed to be loaded in to the game from several thousand down to perhaps 12 (four races with two genders each, and a few generic pet/mount models).

Also, the game should be playable without particle effects on at all for people that want to do so - so they should be able to outright turn them off in such large scale combat.

If so, I am sure you can see how these two factors combined could potentially improve performance to more than acceptable levels.

very true and hopefully it works out.

even with lower graphics, several thousands entities and animations is still a lot on performance.

This is assuming mounts, summons, battle pets, key chain pets and the animations and abilities combined aside form just the particle effects. Then you got siege weapons and engines, environments, it all adds up. Shouldn't really have to lower the quality of the experience to accommodate it per se.

I know the sieges are going to be gating preventing people who are not part of them from entering the perimeter. Death on contact IIRC. That should help some of it.

Looking at their recent one with the 100 vs 100? they had mounts going on which showcase they are capable of supporting already up to almost 400 relatively smooth for its stage of development if those mounts counted as a player instead.

Child Item