Curse

Aalric · Jun 23, 2005, 07:18 AM // 07:18

Flying siege weapons, battleships, cannons, the whole number.

It's a great idea.

s0m31 · Jun 23, 2005, 07:24 AM // 07:24

this idea is alrdy in the game.. in the 2nd part of tomb is a war against like 2-6 teams or so.. only thing is its free for all.. so its a group of 8 ppl going against 5 other groups of 8 ppl.. i like the idea of 32vs32 tho but theres some downsides to that.. the party bar wouldnt fit the screen making healing a pain.. would be nice to have like still a group of 8 but instead of being free for all.. the groups of 8 would be allies making a team of 32 people fighting another of 32 people.. this way the strategic part of it will still be kept while in addition is the fun of killing a huge number of people and being chased by a huge mob urself.. jst my opinion tho =)

Edit: seems like this idea has been posted too but i jst didnt spot.. its a nice idea to work around tho and it would be cool if it was added in the game

EmperorTippy · Jun 23, 2005, 08:08 AM // 08:08

^^
I and others posted a way to avoid this.

DrSLUGFly · Jun 23, 2005, 08:32 AM // 08:32

yeah, but alliances in this major battle are needed. As for the "heal party" thing, as i stated earlier and somebody reiterated later, we could have allied teams of max 8 players. No cap on how many people in each team, just 1 to 8, and no cap on how many teams are allied, as long as the total doesn't exceed 16 (or 32, whatever)

Swarnt Brightstar · Jun 24, 2005, 01:52 AM // 01:52

I would love this...

just to get a screenshot of the thing for petesake, it would look so friggin tight seein two armies charge at each other on my backround when I boot up m'comp

Dan Mega · Jun 24, 2005, 04:36 AM // 04:36

16 v 16?
32 v 32?
100 v 100?

Forget that. I have ALWAYS wanted a game like GW or WoW to be even bigger when it comes to battles.

Think Helm's Deep in Lord of the Rings 2. I'm talking thousands versus thousands. Maybe just have 1 expansion where you can be in a group of 8 at the most, however in total there are 3,000 players in all defending the castle from 10,000 Charr below. My archer would be at the front of the lines trying to kill off as many enemies as possible before they completely breach the wall.

Of course, its all a dream. I'm sure Anet could pull something like this off, but it would take a LONG time to develop.

And just imagine how big of a server would be needed. Or just how slow your frame rate would be with everything going on.

Magus · Jun 24, 2005, 04:50 AM // 04:50

Sorry, but I don't want my precious Radeon X800 to explode while I'm playing in one of these battles.

PieXags · Jun 24, 2005, 06:48 AM // 06:48

Bah of course they need to add this, only problem is the threads of this idea keep getting shut down, I started one that got a few pages and now it's off somewhere in the backend of the board.

http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ighlight=arena

Don't let these threads die peoples.

RTSFirebat · Jun 24, 2005, 07:20 AM // 07:20

Lets thik more logically about these ideas:

10v10 or 15v15 would be more ideal.

Now people say what about the lag and frame loss... well I say hard luck and go get a better computer.

in a 10v10 battle... or 15v15 battle, 20 or 30 people running about the screen is hardly going to result in that much lag... we already can have about 20 mobs on the screen with no lag.

In old Ascalon I ran about the map and got about 30 Earth Elements following me about before I blasted them... no lag, no fuss.

Battles like this would be fun, seen a flat mate play in WoW battlegrounds and it works well... sure there is lag, but its not that bad.

People are just scared of new ideas...

BlaineTog · Jun 24, 2005, 09:04 AM // 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by RTSFirebat

Now people say what about the lag and frame loss... well I say hard luck and go get a better computer.

That's rather callous. Not everyone can afford to go out and just buy a new computer whenever they find a game that needs higher specs, nor can everyone afford to upgrade.

Quote:

in a 10v10 battle... or 15v15 battle, 20 or 30 people running about the screen is hardly going to result in that much lag... we already can have about 20 mobs on the screen with no lag.

If you're computer is at the minimum, even 4v4 PvP can cause terrible lag.

Quote:

In old Ascalon I ran about the map and got about 30 Earth Elements following me about before I blasted them... no lag, no fuss.

Yeah, because that's PvE. The server is controlling those. In PvP, however, the server has to shuttle all the various commands and numbers around from everyone to everyone. All in all, it causes much more severe lag. I can tell you from personal experience that while my computer rarely lags badly during instances, even in the middle of huge battles, even Ascalon-level PvP can cause unplayably bad lag.

Quote:

People are just scared of new ideas...

True, but not applicable in this situation since there are very real problems assosciated with this specific idea. If you don't have a pretty good computer and a pretty good connection, 16vs16, 32vs32, or 64vs64 are going to give you really bad lag.

----------

To me, this sounds like an awesome idea, as long as it's completelly optional.

RTSFirebat · Jun 24, 2005, 09:52 AM // 09:52

Sadly it only a matter of time till game companies stop making games to run on low spec machines...

As you said it they were optional, the servers could warn the user that their PC and/or connection is not up to it.

Just a throught.

Swarnt Brightstar · Jun 24, 2005, 11:30 AM // 11:30

Good call

I love this stuff

blast the snot out of 3000 friggin charr as teh buggers are all tryin to beat the snot outta you

jasondragon · Jun 24, 2005, 11:38 AM // 11:38

What about starting simple? Like allowing guildmates to play from the guild hall all kinds of matches? Ie 1v1, 2v2, or 1guildie +7 hench vs 1guildie + 7 hench.

Technically you could do this now if you simply joined team arena and had 6 people quit, for a 1 on 1. There should be game options for a pvp match.

Xellos · Jun 24, 2005, 11:39 AM // 11:39

It could work, as long as people are willing to keep their perspectives wide and not narrow. It's not that it won't work, it's just that for it to still be balanced and varied for replayability, it needs alot and I mean alot of work. Most people have no idea what a step in this direction would even begin to mean in impacting the playstyle and mindset of the game. It doesn't hurt the core designs, rather, it forces the scenario and such to be molded around the core design to adapt to such a high player field.

Paladin_Adoni · Jun 24, 2005, 03:45 PM // 15:45

8 squads of 4 men verse 8 squads of 4 men!

organisation would be easier. each "leader" can see what other leaders are drawing on there maps to be able to non-verbally coordinate (colored lines too!)

activatable or controllable trap areas (pouring tar into a long pit to slow enemy advance that type of thing)

hydrak · Jun 24, 2005, 03:51 PM // 15:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ancalagon06

Perhaps they already thought of this, but, I really think Arena.net should take the next logical step in the PvP section.

Make a true massively PvP map. 32 people to each side. A plethora of siege equipment. Tunnels that you can "unlock" to go under the enemie's walls by gathering rare red iris flowers (yeah, I know, a weird item, but it'd work) to give to a collector so he'd turn it into an explosive to blast open the jammed shut door.

Well, there are other ways to go about it, but, seriously, a 64 man battle would ROCK. I'd love to see a Aeromancer-Monk team of 32 people go head to head with War/Necs and Mesmers. With observation mode on the way, it would be awe inspiring to watch.

Sound good, most of us may need to upgrade graphic cards again for this though.

You can have something like America vs Europe, America vs Korea, or Korea vs Europe in a big 60-100 players arena. Wait... They will probably make different game for this, and it's called World War.

Ancalagon06 · Jun 24, 2005, 03:55 PM // 15:55

This game, guild wars, can handle 6 teams of 8 guys at once on a single map. There's no reason why 3 of those teams can't be allied with each other. If someone's machine can't handle that, well, it wouldn't have been able to handle some of the Tombs battles as it is. Guild wars cost $50 brand new. Getting a video card that would be more than capable of handling it's graphical needs would cost a maximum of $80. I, if I needed a new card, would have bought the new video card first, and then gotten Guild Wars.

If the graphical requirements for low end users is really such a big concern, why aren't you making a thread about this in the sanitarium demanding that A.net remove the 6 teams of 8 people map, because that clearly sucks on a 56k modem.

--------------------------------------

Anyway, this will present a series of problems we should solve. I was thinking, make the general a non-player. Someone who's not actually there with a character, but an observer. But he has to be attached to one player at a time. He'll be able to access each team's chat based on what player he's currently sellecting. Only the general would be able to draw on the map.

Swarnt Brightstar · Jun 24, 2005, 05:17 PM // 17:17

point...

I would looooooooove if they implemented wars

rii · Jun 24, 2005, 05:23 PM // 17:23

i wants a 32 man monk team.

Bajamba · Jun 24, 2005, 05:35 PM // 17:35

They might need to do something different about how your parties and stuff work.
Because think of actually having a 32 monk party...
If all the monks had 12 healing prayers and had heal party, they would be able to heal each person in their party 2144 health every 2 seconds depending if they have the energy.
And that is without any skills to boost the effects of healing.