Age of Conan

http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6306/seigeed1.jpg

"Each side is limited to 48 players...."

If this bothers you...then don't buy the game.  That simple.  Oh, and another thing, if you would have took the 15secs to look on the forums, you would have noticed that this info you just gave us, that you think is so vital.  Guess what, it was given to us already. 

I'm no stranger to not liking Age Of Conan but I must say, 48 vs 48 is more than enough.

What's wrong with that?

How many do you want to see in the screen at the same time? I thought alterac valley in WoW in terms of numbers was more than enough. When it got crowdad in the screen u didnt survive more than seconds. There is no synchronized attacks a la Lord of the Rings Moive. There is only zerg. 48 vs 48 is more than enough!

Yeah, "HUNDREDS OF PLAYERS" was the plan.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TTsDVeurU8

 I was expcting 100vs100 minimum, as Funcom was boasting many times how they manged to have 300+ people on screen at the same time.

<modedit>

I stated around this number yesterday...i said 50v50, how did i know with out this 'hidden information' because i read funcom official site and read this months and months ago.

This is not new...this is not news. This is another fail at stiring trouble.

Anyone who had a real interest and kept up at official forum should have been able to figure this out already.

Funcom said massive seige battles, this figures are just about right, anymore and people could be completely crushed by larger guilds, this gives a smaller tightghtly knit guild the chance to own a city and hire mercenaries to fill any numbers up come the time of a seige.

48 vs 48???

...while they can't even get 10 against  10 without frame drops to 5 FPsecond.

48 vs 48 of still picturres half of the time ....LOL

No wonder they didn't offer it yet. No need to Beta test I suppose.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

48 vs 48???

...while they can't even get 10 against  10 without frame drops to 5 FPsecond.

48 vs 48 of still picturres half of the time ....LOL

No wonder they didn't offer it yet. No need to Beta test I suppose.

Well, seeing as how your wrong, I suppose i'll let you go on your lack of information. I do suggest buying a computer that doesn't come out of a crackerjack box though.

Originally posted by pandrax

Originally posted by Zorndorf

48 vs 48???

...while they can't even get 10 against  10 without frame drops to 5 FPsecond.

48 vs 48 of still picturres half of the time ....LOL

No wonder they didn't offer it yet. No need to Beta test I suppose.

Well, seeing as how your wrong, I suppose i'll let you go on your lack of information. I do suggest buying a computer that doesn't come out of a crackerjack box though.

 I don't think that 1400 Euro portables with 8600GT, 3 GByte of Ram and 2x200 GB HD in Raid at 7200 RPM (!) are "crackerjack" boxes.

Answers it all...

48vs48 is pretty small but yeah it will probably crash for a year anyway so who will care.

Unless they put Sieges on a dedicated server?..maybe they have shrug.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

 

Originally posted by pandrax

Originally posted by Zorndorf

48 vs 48???

...while they can't even get 10 against  10 without frame drops to 5 FPsecond.

48 vs 48 of still picturres half of the time ....LOL

No wonder they didn't offer it yet. No need to Beta test I suppose.

Well, seeing as how your wrong, I suppose i'll let you go on your lack of information. I do suggest buying a computer that doesn't come out of a crackerjack box though.

Well did they offer it yet? No.

 

 I don't think that 1400 Euro portables with 8600GT, 3 GByte of Ram and 2x200 GB HD in Raid at 7200 RPM (!) are "crackerjack" boxes.

Answers it all...

For anyone who wishes to build or upgrade a new computer your best bet is worrying about processor/mobo/gcard/ram speed before even thinking about your "fast" 7200rpm harddrive.