Flying siege weapons, battleships, cannons, the whole number.
It's a great idea.
Give us a WAR!
Aalric
s0m31
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
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
^^
I and others posted a way to avoid this.
I and others posted a way to avoid this.
DrSLUGFly
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
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
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
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.
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
Sorry, but I don't want my precious Radeon X800 to explode while I'm playing in one of these battles. 
PieXags
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.
http://www.guildwarsguru.com/forum/s...ighlight=arena
Don't let these threads die peoples.
RTSFirebat
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...
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
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.
|
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. |
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. |
Quote:
|
People are just scared of new ideas...
|
----------
To me, this sounds like an awesome idea, as long as it's completelly optional.
RTSFirebat
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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
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. |
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
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.
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
point...
I would looooooooove if they implemented wars
I would looooooooove if they implemented wars
rii
i wants a 32 man monk team.
Bajamba
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.
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.
Swarnt Brightstar
good, concept though, and if you divide it into multiple teams of 4-or 8-then it wont be overpowered! (I was a bit tired so I didnt do de math)
)
Sir Skullcrasher
i think its possible for A-net to open the bandwidth for the server to allowed a HUGE battle like 20 to 64 people at the same time! Also we should all get to use the catapul which kick butts!!
Mister Pie
I think there would be lag considerations with such a large group (as well as performance problems for a large amount of players). The maps would also have to be carefully designed (imagine 32 players running down the same windy road cause you can jump off edges). This seems like something they'd possibly implement in an expansion.
It sounds like it would be an absolute blast though.
It sounds like it would be an absolute blast though.
elvhen
32 man would be a plus, but when are you going to find 32 guild members or friends on that want to have an organized pvp or GvG?
Perhaps have alliance with other guilds? in guild battles 2v2 gvg?
Perhaps have alliance with other guilds? in guild battles 2v2 gvg?
kaya
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by elvhen
32 man would be a plus, but when are you going to find 32 guild members or friends on that want to have an organized pvp or GvG?
Perhaps have alliance with other guilds? in guild battles 2v2 gvg? |
yes! this would be heaps of fun... but it would be a challenge getting tha many to join a group. geez! i have hard enough time getting 8
drowningfish999
To prevent the 32 man monk team, they should make a different goal. Something like a CTF thing, otherwise the monks would last forever.
Swarnt Brightstar
good point...
Like something creative... (consequently I have no Ideas because frankly, I'm not)
Like something creative... (consequently I have no Ideas because frankly, I'm not
)
Shinryu
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kaya
yes! this would be heaps of fun...
|
Zonzai
What you're asking for is DAoC. Go play that instead. Mass combat makes it less about skill and more about numbers.
/NOT singned
/NOT singned
DrSLUGFly
no no no, not numbers, skill.
Think of the size of the Old Ascalon instance. Now wouldn't it be cool for like, 50 people to start out of Sardelac and 50 to start out of Ascalon and clash in the center? Numbers count for little if one side has strategy. I think it's a safe gamble that 25 could easily beat 50 if the 50 rushed in and the 25 had tactics.
Think of the size of the Old Ascalon instance. Now wouldn't it be cool for like, 50 people to start out of Sardelac and 50 to start out of Ascalon and clash in the center? Numbers count for little if one side has strategy. I think it's a safe gamble that 25 could easily beat 50 if the 50 rushed in and the 25 had tactics.
EmperorTippy
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bajamba
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. |
Swarnt Brightstar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrSLUGFly
no no no, not numbers, skill.
Think of the size of the Old Ascalon instance. Now wouldn't it be cool for like, 50 people to start out of Sardelac and 50 to start out of Ascalon and clash in the center? Numbers count for little if one side has strategy. I think it's a safe gamble that 25 could easily beat 50 if the 50 rushed in and the 25 had tactics. |
Exactly!
good point, also if you could at least choose what region you want to battle in (if you've already been to that region in PvE)or you have to do SOMETHING... or just automatically are able to select the region you want
Ancalagon06
That's a real good example, Slugfly. The team of 25 could slowly tear apart the team of 50 with sniping, pulling, baiting, feints, hit and runs, etc.
Zonzai
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by DrSLUGFly
I think it's a safe gamble that 25 could easily beat 50 if the 50 rushed in and the 25 had tactics.
|
goku19123
Because all 25 people are monks.
d4nowar
Read first two posts, figured out what ugly opinion I had to give, skipped to the bottom. (Basically, I apologize if this has been said 30 times).
Guild Wars isn't that type of game. WoW pulled it off because it is massive, GW won't because the game simply isn't set up to handle 64 people all casting and fighting and dying and ressing all at the same time in the same instance.
Guild Wars is about strategy and a 32 man air-spike build would be rather pointless strategywise.
(I know that the servers can handle massive pressure due to the fact that at the end of the April BWE we had infernal wurms attacking the entire game at the same time, but you all remember the lag.)
Guild Wars isn't that type of game. WoW pulled it off because it is massive, GW won't because the game simply isn't set up to handle 64 people all casting and fighting and dying and ressing all at the same time in the same instance.
Guild Wars is about strategy and a 32 man air-spike build would be rather pointless strategywise.
(I know that the servers can handle massive pressure due to the fact that at the end of the April BWE we had infernal wurms attacking the entire game at the same time, but you all remember the lag.)
Lampshade
That would be awesome!!
I wouldnt personally care the first couple times if it was chaos just being able to see 64 ppl hacking each other would be great!
Can anyone say Meteor Storm? >
I wouldnt personally care the first couple times if it was chaos just being able to see 64 ppl hacking each other would be great!
Can anyone say Meteor Storm? >
Luna Thirteen
32 man team? You don't play as a monk, do you? I'm about to cry just thinking about the party list :'-(
Swarnt Brightstar
32 man team broken up into teams of 4 or 8.
Ancalagon06
this game can handle 6 teams of 8. Why can't 3 of those teams be allied? Why can't each side have one extra team, making it a grand 32 v. 32 melee?
And, to the question everyone asks, we've already figured out that the individual squads will be limited to 8 in size, and they will be allied with all the other squads (4 each).
And, to the question everyone asks, we've already figured out that the individual squads will be limited to 8 in size, and they will be allied with all the other squads (4 each).