AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by solareus
For me I have a lot of the info I need, the game is in an avenue I want to play in, the thing that is really annoying at this point is the fanboi's. The ones who can't let people have a opinion on something read, or seen. The game has performance issues, but apparently it doesnt , because the fanbois say it doesn't ? Sorry but I been through this smoke and mirror routine once with VG, and it is the exact same way it seems to be playing out here for this game, Hype Hype Hype Hype, great viideos, great interview , build up the fanboy armry to repell any naysayers or even a person with a little doubt and march on to release with a product that may or may not be full working. The Fanboys need to realize that people have gotten burned already with Vanguard last year and they should respect the skepticism that ANY game being release will get.
Depends how you put your concerns across.
You personally do it very poorly.
You bring a concern to the table, countless people answer it for you, then you try to move on to attack elements of a game in beta by thinking its ok in justifying a comparison to completed games, where as you take this game as final. When that argument is thrown out of the window you point your greasy finger at the game directors English speaking capabilites, and then onto saying things weren't shown that were (mounting animations) yet again pointed out to you by lots of people were there... trying to argue that the horse mount waits for the larger mounts to go thru a passage because of clipping - did you stop to think its because of the collision detection? guess not - then you hurry, backtrack and edit posts.
I respect skepticism when its put across in a decent way. 3 seconds of a horse skating in a demo where graphics are turned up so high on a beta, untuned, unoptimized game engine and calling out Doom - just gets you laughed at buddy. Like I said before look for the "lets be honest" thread...
Oh and I can say that I have played the game before, I watched a dev crank the speed up of a character some 300% and run thru an area without any graphical glitches.
Let me ask you - why did Funcom fly out all expenses paid 18 press guys for 3 days if they weren't confident of their product and not under NDA? did you fucking see that with VG (at the time 3 months from launch)? No fucking way.
For me I have a lot of the info I need, the game is in an avenue I want to play in, the thing that is really annoying at this point is the fanboi's. The ones who can't let people have a opinion on something read, or seen. The game has performance issues, but apparently it doesnt , because the fanbois say it doesn't ? Sorry but I been through this smoke and mirror routine once with VG, and it is the exact same way it seems to be playing out here for this game, Hype Hype Hype Hype, great viideos, great interview , build up the fanboy armry to repell any naysayers or even a person with a little doubt and march on to release with a product that may or may not be full working. The Fanboys need to realize that people have gotten burned already with Vanguard last year and they should respect the skepticism that ANY game being release will get.
Depends how you put your concerns across.
You personally do it very poorly.
You bring a concern to the table, countless people answer it for you, then you try to move on to attack elements of a game in beta by thinking its ok in justifying a comparison to completed games, where as you take this game as final. When that argument is thrown out of the window you point your greasy finger at the game directors English speaking capabilites, and then onto saying things weren't shown that were (mounting animations) yet again pointed out to you by lots of people were there... trying to argue that the horse mount waits for the larger mounts to go thru a passage because of clipping - did you stop to think its because of the collision detection? guess not - then you hurry, backtrack and edit posts.
I respect skepticism when its put across in a decent way. 3 seconds of a horse skating in a demo where graphics are turned up so high on a beta, untuned, unoptimized game engine and calling out Doom - just gets you laughed at buddy. Like I said before look for the "lets be honest" thread...
Oh and I can say that I have played the game before, I watched a dev crank the speed up of a character some 300% and run thru an area without any graphical glitches.
Let me ask you - why did Funcom fly out all expenses paid 18 press guys for 3 days if they weren't confident of their product and not under NDA? did you fucking see that with VG (at the time 3 months from launch)? No fucking way.
What I want to know, how many of these so called "press guys" were members of The Acolytes guild? LOL With all do respect Avery, there is a HUGE difference of sitting in the offices of Funcom playing AoC on their servers vs playing AoC from home. No kidding the game should/does run like a well oiled machine on their home servers. 3 months from launch OPTIMIZING for different machines should be done already. If it hasn't been done by now, there is little chance of it being done by the time the game goes live. I've seen over 100 different MMOGs and been involved with over 300 game titles. The one thing that is guaranteed in the MMOG business is what you see in beta is almost always what you get for the first year the game goes live. Doesn't matter if you are Blizzard, SoE, EA, Turbine, or Furcom... It takes years to fix most of the things you see people bitching about with AoC.
Add to that the cluster phuk crafting is in AoC, and I don't care if AoC succeeds or not. Funcom has highly disappointed me with regards to their lack of care of direction of the crafting system.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Shannia
Originally posted by AmazingAvery
Originally posted by solareus
For me I have a lot of the info I need, the game is in an avenue I want to play in, the thing that is really annoying at this point is the fanboi's. The ones who can't let people have a opinion on something read, or seen. The game has performance issues, but apparently it doesnt , because the fanbois say it doesn't ? Sorry but I been through this smoke and mirror routine once with VG, and it is the exact same way it seems to be playing out here for this game, Hype Hype Hype Hype, great viideos, great interview , build up the fanboy armry to repell any naysayers or even a person with a little doubt and march on to release with a product that may or may not be full working. The Fanboys need to realize that people have gotten burned already with Vanguard last year and they should respect the skepticism that ANY game being release will get.
Depends how you put your concerns across.
You personally do it very poorly.
You bring a concern to the table, countless people answer it for you, then you try to move on to attack elements of a game in beta by thinking its ok in justifying a comparison to completed games, where as you take this game as final. When that argument is thrown out of the window you point your greasy finger at the game directors English speaking capabilites, and then onto saying things weren't shown that were (mounting animations) yet again pointed out to you by lots of people were there... trying to argue that the horse mount waits for the larger mounts to go thru a passage because of clipping - did you stop to think its because of the collision detection? guess not - then you hurry, backtrack and edit posts.
I respect skepticism when its put across in a decent way. 3 seconds of a horse skating in a demo where graphics are turned up so high on a beta, untuned, unoptimized game engine and calling out Doom - just gets you laughed at buddy. Like I said before look for the "lets be honest" thread...
Oh and I can say that I have played the game before, I watched a dev crank the speed up of a character some 300% and run thru an area without any graphical glitches.
Let me ask you - why did Funcom fly out all expenses paid 18 press guys for 3 days if they weren't confident of their product and not under NDA? did you fucking see that with VG (at the time 3 months from launch)? No fucking way.
What I want to know, how many of these so called "press guys" were members of The Acolytes guild? LOL With all do respect Avery, there is a HUGE difference of sitting in the offices of Funcom playing AoC on their servers vs playing AoC from home. No kidding the game should/does run like a well oiled machine on their home servers. 3 months from launch OPTIMIZING for different machines should be done already. If it hasn't been done by now, there is little chance of it being done by the time the game goes live. I've seen over 100 different MMOGs and been involved with over 300 game titles. The one thing that is guaranteed in the MMOG business is what you see in beta is almost always what you get for the first year the game goes live. Doesn't matter if you are Blizzard, SoE, EA, Turbine, or Furcom... It takes years to fix most of the things you see people bitching about with AoC.
Add to that the cluster phuk crafting is in AoC, and I don't care if AoC succeeds or not. Funcom has highly disappointed me with regards to their lack of care of direction of the crafting system.
I understand your concerns Shannia, as we have talked a bit over the past year and a bit. I share them too you know! Point being from that trip, we could actually see the improvements of the cheetah 2 engine upgrade from the footage shown before - in an offical capacity or otherwise. I think that Turbine did a great job with lotro in optimizing the game in the final 3 months, it ran better than ever when it went gold and you could see the differences upon release. I hope that Funcom can do the same with the minor graphical skating and such like. Its not impossible.
Of course there are differences from home play to in office play, I dont dispute that its just you could visually see the difference. Sure there are going to be bugs, but these aren't game breaking things. The core of the game was slick, the fighting slick the animations smooth, the sound was all there all compete in the version I played I was told. Heck I still skate in Guild Wars when "locked" onto someone with auto attack and chasing them from one skill to another.
The crafting my not be totally to your preferance or taste and could be beefed up a bit, more akin to what the public wants, but the game itself ran pretty much great.
Shannia even you back your concerns up properly and pretty much deliever them right. When one thing pisses you off, you don't automatically retaliate with misinformation or game attacks at other area's just for the sake of it, you don't stoop low to critize a persons English accent for the sake of it.
Btw it was just me there from my guild. Other press guys in other guilds were Sanguiphoria and Primal Fury (Weezer) rest were the most established gaming sites on the net.
I agree with you. The other poster does have a valid point. In one year alone we saw Vanguard, Gods and Heroes, Star Trek Online, Fury, HG:L, and others give us all the hype in the world just to either not launch (or cancel) or release and suck so bad they are void of players or sold to SoE within the first six months. The other guy did a piss poor job of saying it, but what the community wants is for game companies to hold back the hype and deliver quality for once. As a whole, the community is tired of companies hype machines being driven by fanbois. There needs to be more honesty and transparency in the community.
And yes, Turbine did deliver on LoTRO. It was well done. It was too bad they flopped on DDO. As they say, you can tell Turbine learned it's lesson from DDO in the job it did with LoTRO.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
The user and all related content has been deleted.
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Shannia
There needs to be more honesty and transparency in the community.
I think that they are feeling something like this statement.
We have Athelan's blog here for feedback and the recent community questions again on past fridays update and before then Gaute's feedback post along with the crafting feedback post.
Lets see what else comes in the next 3 months and beyond, on the public front, but its a start.
Undoubtidly there are also a bunch of people from the accumilated 15k beta testers having opportunites for dialogue with the developers out of the public eye too.
Wise old owls can see past the hype for what is really there. I like to talk about the game because it interests me, thats both the bad and the good stuff.
Just want to let you on something, What Turbine did in 3 months, no other Developer could ever do. Not only did the game get a revamp leading up to open beta, they redid animations , pathing, graphic optimization and ect. No developer has ever worked so hard in 3 month then Turbine"." You are correct, I make my points poorly , but I am no grammer wizard so take it for it is. The fact that yourself is a fanboy hype bot of this peice of software really helps no one in judging the game. Your opinion is biased as well as diluted to some of the issues that are rising. I've watched the LIVE out of the office dmo of the game, it studdered , lagged and skated on TV , it looked like a very shiny alpha apple in the garden of eden. Until the trial , or even an open beta stress test is available, I'll continue to heed the words, don't eat the apple .
Well I find a post like this odd in a Fanboi thread. Or what turned into one.. it was the last post when I hit "quote". So that's why you got quoted and not someone else.
Why do I find it odd?
You are talking about someone being a fanboi hype bot...
Well I was in the lotro beta from its first public phase... right up till launch day.
When exactly did this huge 3 month turn around before open beta happen? The things you describe.. the drastic nature and huge radical change.. somehow slipped by me while I was there.. beta testing that product.
Maybe it slipped my mind.. then again I was deleting so many "if people would just log in and test they'd have a chance to win this prize" emails from Turbine.. I might have been distracted.
I just think that this fanboi thing you speak of.. works as a two way street.
I'm also fairly certain that plenty of people would have a pile of crap to drop on lotro... but if you'd stuck with Brad McVanguard as an example... you would have had it locked up pretty tight.
There is quite a flood of misinformation presented as "matter of fact". Lots of hate too. It seem that people prefer to see nothing new coming out instead of at the very least have developers attempt and fail. Then you have the same (or people with similar mentality) complain about the lack of choices and "nothing new coming out".
In my opinion Funcom has a good game in their hands. I don't know and honestly, I don't care if they will pull the massive numbers. I'm not their accountant or investor. For all matters affecting me as a player, one full server is enough. It may not be enough for Funcom or enough for nitpickers, but it's enough for me. AO had only two servers and I was having a blast back in the days. It didn't prevent Funcom from producing expansions either (although I must say I really hated the original implementation of the Shadowlands).
As far as the graphics engine preventing people from playing the game, I too think it's a personal thing for each one individually. First of all it depends on what everybody thinks as an acceptable level of graphics quality and secondly on how far one is determined to go to achieve it. If people can't afford a better computer and can live with the lower settings of the game, more power to them. If not, then the choice is always there on the already established games. It's all a matter of available choices. Right now we have less than what we'll have when the new games get released. Even if people decide to not move due to graphic performance, it's better to have the choice and make it than not have it at all.
The game has a mature rating. That will hinder the sales due to the artificial bar imposed on teenagers.
The game has a mature rating. It is therefore targeted towards people with a more solid economic base. It's safer to assume that a self supported adult can afford to spend more money on PC upgrades than a teenager.
It's all about balance again and how much thought Funcom put into their targeted player base. But again, for me as a gamer, the above is irrelevant. The game will be playable (and enjoyable) or not on my personal machine. It is not my job or worry to care whether the game will play equally well on other people's machines, or whether others will derive the same enjoyment I do given equally configured graphics.
Again though it's a balance related issue. People prefer to tone down the graphics to have a smooth experience in PvP for example. The balance here relies more on gameplay than looks. On the other hand, when exploring, people seem to raise the graphics bar to enjoy the visuals. Again the balance is shifted towards another direction. People talk about bugs and how they tolerate them in MMOs, when in reality they mean that the balance of positive things overscale possible negative things caused by bugs. At this point we don't know if Funcom will manage to provide the necessary balance to make their game enjoyable. We need the end product for that. They are willing to push back the release dates, even the seemingly rigid ones, for the sake of ingame quality. These are good signs for the positive balance of things.
Yes, if people could ask specifics and if beta testers could afford to reply, people could report negative things as well. Looking however at the greater picture and how the balance of the game shifted towards the positive side (at least for me), all the extra time (provided the dates don't get moved again) will only help to further shift the balance towards positive. I also take the nay-sayers and doom-sayers blatant misinformation posts and nitpicking as a positive sign. When the rational concerns are replaced by irrational hate, things are going great in the camp of common sense.
A holywood movie is earning its refunds on the first two weekends in USA cinemas after release. If not, the movie is considered a failure. Even if the movie is making profit from worldwide rental to cinemas and from selling DVDs it considered a failure if it didnt make its refund on the first two weekends. This is why they hype the movies.
There is similar in calculating a mmo. The game has to make X% refund from selling pre-order and retails. Thats why there is a hype. It also has to keep Y% buyers for one month and Z% of them for 3 months. The financial plan "ends" when the game is completely refunded and making profit. Funcom has won me already. Even if i leave the game after 6 weeks playing i definately will buy the retail. (I think its worth it, but thats a different story)
The game will be not complete on purpose. It will be a game to fit the financal plan. Actually they have to release an uncomplete game, because they need to wait after release for whats happening. They most probably have plan A, B and C allready in their drawers. They will choose one of ther plans on the fly, depending how community evolves. Gaute standart answer is always: This probably will be in game after release. And he is no liar. He just doesnt know. If PvE is a huge success they will patch housing and stuff first, if PvE is a failure there wont be any housing for a very long time. If capture-the-skull minis are the big blast, they will patch in a lot of them. If PvP is going completely mad (mad to a point where people leave the game from frustration) they will do something about it.
I wrote an answer but unfortunately there is no way to reply to you without breaking the NDA myself.
The game still has issues for sure. That's why it's still in closed beta and that's why it got pushed further back. The situation is not as dire as you describe it however. Unfortunately I can't go point by point towards your remarks, sorry.
Don't know about you but I derive more fun from a certain beta, regardless of the flaws, than from whatever is currently out there. Perhaps it's just boredom from my side, perhaps not.
Don't take my word for it when deciding what to play. Make up your own mind.
That's a serious question and it's related to certain decisions. FFA PvP servers die from the early implementation and attrition with the passage of time. First of all you need to entice people to endure the extra pain that a FFA PvP server implies on the early stages. Also make sure that the established player base does not kill the server by alienating every new player coming into the game by imposing impossible odds.
So for launch you need a good launching area that will be fun and not game breaking when every single player rushes through the same areas to progress.
Once you go past that and you start having an established PvP community (guilds in this game), then you need a way to prevent the asshats from preventing the new blood from entering the game. At least until the new blood manages to secure a foothold on the server.
In order to achieve those two you need a) a server wipe and get all testers start from zero, b) leave the community establish itself and c) inject fresh testers and see how the old ones react.
At least that's what I would do to get an idea of a server maturing. It shouldn't take much time either. What it will take time is class balance and how each class play in relation to the rest.
Rangers ... you make me smirk due to what they can't do ... at this point in time.
Please enlighten me, how is WAR a WoW clone.It's an item centric, quest driven game. Based upon 2 factions (good and evil), with three races each where the 4 classes have narrowally defined roles and abilities. They have similar game play whithch is an auto attack with a few abilities set on rechargers and I will bet they will have similar advancement systems that basically just redress the same abilities over and over every 10 levels. WAR is WOW with smilar lore. I don't say that to be negative, but it's not a next generation game, it brings nothing new to the industry.
Lol, this thread is about misinformation and look at this wonderful piece of "everbody knows it" flat statement.. Let us analyze this piece of popular folk wisdom, statement by statement:
It's an item centric, - FAIL, reapeatedly stated by devs, WAR is not item-centric. Item collecting is not the "goal" of the game by far and the items themselves will have much less of an impact on character power than other stuff (skills, tactics, player skill etc)
quest driven game. -FAIL, it is not quest-driven. There are quests in there but the major emphasis is on RvR (look it up) meaning public quests (freee-to-join events) and open world PvP.
Based upon 2 factions (good and evil), with three races each where the 4 classes have narrowally defined roles and abilities. - correct, however it remains to be seen how much you can customize your character's advancement.
They have similar game play whithch is an auto attack with a few abilities set on rechargers.... - correct, I have no problem with that. One of the very few things about WoW which I actually like.
and I will bet they will have similar advancement systems that basically just redress the same abilities over and over every 10 levels - FAIL, nope the devs explicitly stated that you won't "upgrade" skills and abilities. Each skill you get is brand, shining new but its power scales with your level automatically... and there is to be quite a bit of skill/ability collecting like in GW but we need more info on how much impact it will have over standard flat level skills and abilities.
WAR is WOW with smilar lore. I don't say that to be negative, but it's not a next generation game, it brings nothing new to the industry. - well I wouldn't say that...
These discussions which is more "next-gen", WAR or WoW are getting tiresome... Sadly they both have cool next-gen as well as tired last-gen features. The way I see it, and I've been following both quite closely since their development started is:
AoC: Next gen in graphics, combat and UI department. Quite reactionary old-school regarding almost everything else - emphasis on levels, gear... end-game instance raiding . Guild-based warfare with RTS elements is cool but it's restricted to a certain area. No guild alliances and guild-play/max-level requirement for meaningful group PvP kinda turns me off I have to say. Though I love sandboxes more than anything this restriction makes the game Not That Awesome for me.
WAR: Next gen primarily in core game concept. The emphasis is shifted from solo motivation to group motivation. You're not fighting that much for your own advancement or that of your several pals but primarily for the larger group goal - even if doing solo PvE only. The Entire tier 4 areas are a kind of "hybrid controlled sandbox" environment (read up if you want to know more) which heavily influences all other aspects of the world - including purely PvE stuff such as dungeons.
Other WAR next-gen features are: revamping the traditional quest mechanics from ground-up: Public Quests, Tome of Knowledge... Living Guild System: guilds have levels with attendant benefits - AoC has something like it I concur, but WAR does beat it with alliance system and making guild play quite optional. End-game from level 1 - you can participate in all "endgame-like" activities from the very start - even in capital city sieges if you like. You don't have to level through PvE to your max level so you can start meaningful PvP... Lateral rather than vertical advancement in gear and abilities - no "tier x pwns tier y" crap... Leveling through PvP as well as Pve. No artificial PvP vs PvE game styles separation - everything is RvR: your PvE influences world PvP and vice-versa.
On the other hand WAR's combat, gfx an UI are very much WoW-like. However I see nothing wrong with that since these thre are probably the only things i like about WoW. This is a personal opinion so.. To each his own - if you don't like it AoC is promising to completely revolutionize those.
So, imo WAR is more "next gen" regarding core game concepts such as leveling, player motivation and dynamic world setup while AoC is more "next gen" in in-your-face gameplay mechanics such as combat, graphics and UI. In my humble opinion AoC "looks" more next-gen but under the hud it is WAR which is more original. My dream next-gen would have AoC's gfx and combat with WAR world setup and emphasis on other stuff rather than personal advancement through gear. I still haven't made the decision which one to play but I have to admit I'm leaning towards WAR atm... We'll see, I'll probably decide based on the amount of instancing - the one with less instances and more open-world will win for me.
Under this logic the only AAA PvP game with no levels is EVE. And even that you can strike out since you need to level your skills to a certain degree to be minimally effective. Congratulations, there is no PvP game out there, for you.
You're keep repeating the "heavily instanced" argument. I hope you understand the difference between zones and instances. I would also like you to give me an example of a "small" zone, but that would mean me asking you to break NDA (if you're a beta tester that is), so don't. Size anyway is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like vast areas of nothingness, others like smaller areas filled with content. Both appeal to different people, both are equally valid game options.
PvP is a primary game content. Sieges of keeps are there to provide more entertainment value than player owned cities, at least in my opinion. I've seen videos of keeps getting constructed, so it's hard to argue that end game PvP will lack them. I would also like unmounted troops to have a distinct advantage over mounted ones on certain situations (by employing formations for example). Regardless, even no mounted combat was present, this would still be a solid game for me.
I just can't see anything substantial pointing towards the direction of PvP being an afterthought. It's like arguing that WAR will have a crappy PvE game because it got less initial public exposure. You are trying to make an educated guess according to the order of the features being added (more likely according to the order of exposure these features receive). Any project needs goals and a timeframe of implementation. If something is scheduled first, doesn't make it the most important. Also, ever considered that PvE content is way more time consuming to create than PvP content?
From my point of view AoC is a game that tries to balance both PvE and PvP content. I'm concerned that they try to put just too much content. They could have played it safe and follow LOTRO's example of a launch. The end product will tell us if they bitten more than they can chew.
Under this logic the only AAA PvP game with no levels is EVE. And even that you can strike out since you need to level your skills to a certain degree to be minimally effective. Congratulations, there is no PvP game out there, for you. Okay, you should maybe go find out what is the difference between a level based game and a skill based game. If we talk about EVE, a fresh noobie has a chance to kill a vet there, maybe not alone but still. In a level based game the thumb rule is no amount of newbs could make a dent to a high level character. At least no level based game comes to mind thatwould break this rule. A level based PVP game always ends up as a gankfest, FFA at least. You're keep repeating the "heavily instanced" argument. I hope you understand the difference between zones and instances. I would also like you to give me an example of a "small" zone, but that would mean me asking you to break NDA (if you're a beta tester that is), so don't. Size anyway is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like vast areas of nothingness, others like smaller areas filled with content. Both appeal to different people, both are equally valid game options. Errmm... in case you haven't noticed, I've been breaking NDA for the last 4 or so posts. { Mod Edit }
PvP is a primary game content. { Mod Edit }
I just can't see anything substantial pointing towards the direction of PvP being an afterthought. It's like arguing that WAR will have a crappy PvE game because it got less initial public exposure. You are trying to make an educated guess according to the order of the features being added (more likely according to the order of exposure these features receive). Any project needs goals and a timeframe of implementation. If something is scheduled first, doesn't make it the most important. Also, ever considered that PvE content is way more time consuming to create than PvP content? { Mod Edit }
From my point of view AoC is a game that tries to balance both PvE and PvP content. I'm concerned that they try to put just too much content. They could have played it safe and follow LOTRO's example of a launch. The end product will tell us if they bitten more than they can chew.
This is a level based game clearly stated before the game even launched. If you don't like this particular system, fine. This is a free world, you can go and play whatever skill based system game is currently available. You may not like the system. It's ok.
You still failed to produce a single name of a restrictive territory. Since you're a beta tester you should know them, right?
Since they hidden the PvP game from beta testers, how do you know that it sucks? You can't have knowledge of something you have no exposure on. Unless you're speculating. Are you?
As for PvP, I'm not talking about how much time you spend on it. I'm talking about how much time it takes for the developers to produce it. For all purposes, you can place a wall at some point and have team A of 100 people defend one side and team B of 200 people try and capture it and have a blast. PvE is more time consuming to create, so much as to become impossible to create enough to keep up with players demands.
I don't find spellweaving a gamebreaking omission. Perhaps we'll see it, perhaps not.
Big scale PvP needs an established player base first, among other things. I intend to wait and see how things are going to progress instead of waiving the doom banner around.
The opinion on the melee system is too biased to form unless somebody tries it.
Magic corruption was a stupid idea and I'm glad it's gone. Seriously.
Take a deep breath. Relax. Keep in mind that if AoC doesn't launch in a good state, the world will not stop spinning. There are other good games developed out there.
Keep also in mind that they can push the launch date further back. March launch seemed pretty solid and was pushed. I don't see why the May one can't get pushed again if they feel they need more time.
There is no difference between a level system and a skill system in regards to veterans ganging new people. None. In one people are lacking levels, in the other skills. If you don't have either, you're going to get owned by somebody who has them and also has a clue. Name me one skill based game where somebody with undeveloped skills can beat somebody with fully developed skills.
I understood what you said. It's just that the thing that you mention doesn't exist.
In PvP the most important part is the mechanics. Given solid ones, you can throw people in a round room and they can still have a blast. In PvE, a random room hitting bots won't cut it for long. That's the reason you have games with a couple battlegrounds that can satisfy the PvP crowd, while you need ten times the amount of PvE "battlegrounds" to produce the same effect.
As for what betas are for, perhaps you should check the definition yourself. Its sure as hell are not about appearing on random forums proclaiming your subjective opinion as the ultimate truth.
As far as sieges go, you can test the fight between guilds relatively easy and I'm sure it's been done internally. Add to the mix random guilds however, mercenaries and curious bystanders and you have a more dynamic environment in the mix.
I can't comment on game size without breaking the rules myself. Sorry. I respect your opinion. You feel restricted. That's how you feel and noone can argue or dispute it.
Magic corruption would be great if caster classes had a huge advantage over the rest, thus actually using the spell would be dangerous. While it would be fun the first times, I'm sure teams would avoid casters if it meant a wipe for using their spells. Unless you enjoy becoming a bow user with the rare casting in between. I won't comment on how unbalanced that would be for PvP.
"The thing that really pisses me off is the amount of horseshit you hear Funcom spouting out about the games state"
Turbine never had to sugar coat my opinion to get me to like a game, they didn't need me to fly out to the studios to get a full smooth test of the game, they didn't have to stuff my pockets with free merchindise to make me speak positive of the game. I think there is a huge difference between the way I fan a game, and someone who pampers a game.
i dont personally know the guy you are implying, and i m not his advocate but what you say is way beyond rude.
i know there is a huge difference between slating and carping.
I need more vespene gas.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Falfeir
Originally posted by solareus
Turbine never had to sugar coat my opinion to get me to like a game, they didn't need me to fly out to the studios to get a full smooth test of the game, they didn't have to stuff my pockets with free merchindise to make me speak positive of the game. I think there is a huge difference between the way I fan a game, and someone who pampers a game.
i dont personally know the guy you are implying, and i m not his advocate but what you say is way beyond rude.
i know there is a huge difference between slating and carping.
Don't worry Falfeir, it's really obvious solareus has a problem with AoC and some posters here. Whats funny is the past year people like him have all been chased off, they come, whinge, then vanish.
@ Solareus ~ For the record it was a competition I won for the community event, secondly if you read the press reports including mmorpg.com's they all had a pretty much similar theme - they liked what they saw and i'm deeply sorry if that bothers Solareus. And thirdly, if you was a regular here you would of already known that I'm a fan for a whole year pus before winning that comp.
I just take comfort in that i'm more informed than Solareus is, otherwise he would be able to
A. Provide better argumentative / critical concerns, and
B. And wouldn't feel the need to Imply negative personal attributes about me. Nor attack the accent of the game director.
OMG!!! News in, I just heard that you'll only be able to play as Leppers, all mount designs will be replaced with pack mules, and it will only be released in Xbox form... lol JK. Please dont make preemptive judgements on a great game before its release date. That would be like accusing a child of future Grand Theft.
LOTRO is a great game and does very well what's meant to be doing To Bulveigh: You're trying to tell me that a fresh character can beat a veteran? Right.
No,
i am trying to tell you that a char with much lesser skills, can beat a capped char.
shure, a 10 mins old char cannot kill a completely outleveled char in UO and in no other game else.
But the point is, when you are really skilled u can kill "max level" chars with a completely crap char.
0 resi 80 magery mage vs 100 resi 100 magey mage for example. Player Skill >>>> char skill, thats the point. In the most games its "playerskill gives you the last 5% what u need to win."
Comments
Depends how you put your concerns across.
You personally do it very poorly.
You bring a concern to the table, countless people answer it for you, then you try to move on to attack elements of a game in beta by thinking its ok in justifying a comparison to completed games, where as you take this game as final. When that argument is thrown out of the window you point your greasy finger at the game directors English speaking capabilites, and then onto saying things weren't shown that were (mounting animations) yet again pointed out to you by lots of people were there... trying to argue that the horse mount waits for the larger mounts to go thru a passage because of clipping - did you stop to think its because of the collision detection? guess not - then you hurry, backtrack and edit posts.
I respect skepticism when its put across in a decent way. 3 seconds of a horse skating in a demo where graphics are turned up so high on a beta, untuned, unoptimized game engine and calling out Doom - just gets you laughed at buddy. Like I said before look for the "lets be honest" thread...
Oh and I can say that I have played the game before, I watched a dev crank the speed up of a character some 300% and run thru an area without any graphical glitches.
Let me ask you - why did Funcom fly out all expenses paid 18 press guys for 3 days if they weren't confident of their product and not under NDA? did you fucking see that with VG (at the time 3 months from launch)? No fucking way.
Depends how you put your concerns across.
You personally do it very poorly.
You bring a concern to the table, countless people answer it for you, then you try to move on to attack elements of a game in beta by thinking its ok in justifying a comparison to completed games, where as you take this game as final. When that argument is thrown out of the window you point your greasy finger at the game directors English speaking capabilites, and then onto saying things weren't shown that were (mounting animations) yet again pointed out to you by lots of people were there... trying to argue that the horse mount waits for the larger mounts to go thru a passage because of clipping - did you stop to think its because of the collision detection? guess not - then you hurry, backtrack and edit posts.
I respect skepticism when its put across in a decent way. 3 seconds of a horse skating in a demo where graphics are turned up so high on a beta, untuned, unoptimized game engine and calling out Doom - just gets you laughed at buddy. Like I said before look for the "lets be honest" thread...
Oh and I can say that I have played the game before, I watched a dev crank the speed up of a character some 300% and run thru an area without any graphical glitches.
Let me ask you - why did Funcom fly out all expenses paid 18 press guys for 3 days if they weren't confident of their product and not under NDA? did you fucking see that with VG (at the time 3 months from launch)? No fucking way.
What I want to know, how many of these so called "press guys" were members of The Acolytes guild? LOL With all do respect Avery, there is a HUGE difference of sitting in the offices of Funcom playing AoC on their servers vs playing AoC from home. No kidding the game should/does run like a well oiled machine on their home servers. 3 months from launch OPTIMIZING for different machines should be done already. If it hasn't been done by now, there is little chance of it being done by the time the game goes live. I've seen over 100 different MMOGs and been involved with over 300 game titles. The one thing that is guaranteed in the MMOG business is what you see in beta is almost always what you get for the first year the game goes live. Doesn't matter if you are Blizzard, SoE, EA, Turbine, or Furcom... It takes years to fix most of the things you see people bitching about with AoC.
Add to that the cluster phuk crafting is in AoC, and I don't care if AoC succeeds or not. Funcom has highly disappointed me with regards to their lack of care of direction of the crafting system.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
Depends how you put your concerns across.
You personally do it very poorly.
You bring a concern to the table, countless people answer it for you, then you try to move on to attack elements of a game in beta by thinking its ok in justifying a comparison to completed games, where as you take this game as final. When that argument is thrown out of the window you point your greasy finger at the game directors English speaking capabilites, and then onto saying things weren't shown that were (mounting animations) yet again pointed out to you by lots of people were there... trying to argue that the horse mount waits for the larger mounts to go thru a passage because of clipping - did you stop to think its because of the collision detection? guess not - then you hurry, backtrack and edit posts.
I respect skepticism when its put across in a decent way. 3 seconds of a horse skating in a demo where graphics are turned up so high on a beta, untuned, unoptimized game engine and calling out Doom - just gets you laughed at buddy. Like I said before look for the "lets be honest" thread...
Oh and I can say that I have played the game before, I watched a dev crank the speed up of a character some 300% and run thru an area without any graphical glitches.
Let me ask you - why did Funcom fly out all expenses paid 18 press guys for 3 days if they weren't confident of their product and not under NDA? did you fucking see that with VG (at the time 3 months from launch)? No fucking way.
What I want to know, how many of these so called "press guys" were members of The Acolytes guild? LOL With all do respect Avery, there is a HUGE difference of sitting in the offices of Funcom playing AoC on their servers vs playing AoC from home. No kidding the game should/does run like a well oiled machine on their home servers. 3 months from launch OPTIMIZING for different machines should be done already. If it hasn't been done by now, there is little chance of it being done by the time the game goes live. I've seen over 100 different MMOGs and been involved with over 300 game titles. The one thing that is guaranteed in the MMOG business is what you see in beta is almost always what you get for the first year the game goes live. Doesn't matter if you are Blizzard, SoE, EA, Turbine, or Furcom... It takes years to fix most of the things you see people bitching about with AoC.
Add to that the cluster phuk crafting is in AoC, and I don't care if AoC succeeds or not. Funcom has highly disappointed me with regards to their lack of care of direction of the crafting system.
I understand your concerns Shannia, as we have talked a bit over the past year and a bit. I share them too you know! Point being from that trip, we could actually see the improvements of the cheetah 2 engine upgrade from the footage shown before - in an offical capacity or otherwise. I think that Turbine did a great job with lotro in optimizing the game in the final 3 months, it ran better than ever when it went gold and you could see the differences upon release. I hope that Funcom can do the same with the minor graphical skating and such like. Its not impossible.
Of course there are differences from home play to in office play, I dont dispute that its just you could visually see the difference. Sure there are going to be bugs, but these aren't game breaking things. The core of the game was slick, the fighting slick the animations smooth, the sound was all there all compete in the version I played I was told. Heck I still skate in Guild Wars when "locked" onto someone with auto attack and chasing them from one skill to another.
The crafting my not be totally to your preferance or taste and could be beefed up a bit, more akin to what the public wants, but the game itself ran pretty much great.
Shannia even you back your concerns up properly and pretty much deliever them right. When one thing pisses you off, you don't automatically retaliate with misinformation or game attacks at other area's just for the sake of it, you don't stoop low to critize a persons English accent for the sake of it.
Btw it was just me there from my guild. Other press guys in other guilds were Sanguiphoria and Primal Fury (Weezer) rest were the most established gaming sites on the net.
I agree with you. The other poster does have a valid point. In one year alone we saw Vanguard, Gods and Heroes, Star Trek Online, Fury, HG:L, and others give us all the hype in the world just to either not launch (or cancel) or release and suck so bad they are void of players or sold to SoE within the first six months. The other guy did a piss poor job of saying it, but what the community wants is for game companies to hold back the hype and deliver quality for once. As a whole, the community is tired of companies hype machines being driven by fanbois. There needs to be more honesty and transparency in the community.
And yes, Turbine did deliver on LoTRO. It was well done. It was too bad they flopped on DDO. As they say, you can tell Turbine learned it's lesson from DDO in the job it did with LoTRO.
Fear not fanbois, we are not trolls, let's take off your tin foil hat and learn what VAPORWARE is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware
"Vaporware is a term used to describe a software or hardware product that is announced by a developer well in advance of release, but which then fails to emerge after having well exceeded the period of development time that was initially claimed or would normally be expected for the development cycle of a similar product."
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
I think that they are feeling something like this statement.
We have Athelan's blog here for feedback and the recent community questions again on past fridays update and before then Gaute's feedback post along with the crafting feedback post.
Lets see what else comes in the next 3 months and beyond, on the public front, but its a start.
Undoubtidly there are also a bunch of people from the accumilated 15k beta testers having opportunites for dialogue with the developers out of the public eye too.
Wise old owls can see past the hype for what is really there. I like to talk about the game because it interests me, thats both the bad and the good stuff.
Why do I find it odd?
You are talking about someone being a fanboi hype bot...
Well I was in the lotro beta from its first public phase... right up till launch day.
When exactly did this huge 3 month turn around before open beta happen? The things you describe.. the drastic nature and huge radical change.. somehow slipped by me while I was there.. beta testing that product.
Maybe it slipped my mind.. then again I was deleting so many "if people would just log in and test they'd have a chance to win this prize" emails from Turbine.. I might have been distracted.
I just think that this fanboi thing you speak of.. works as a two way street.
I'm also fairly certain that plenty of people would have a pile of crap to drop on lotro... but if you'd stuck with Brad McVanguard as an example... you would have had it locked up pretty tight.
There is quite a flood of misinformation presented as "matter of fact". Lots of hate too. It seem that people prefer to see nothing new coming out instead of at the very least have developers attempt and fail. Then you have the same (or people with similar mentality) complain about the lack of choices and "nothing new coming out".
In my opinion Funcom has a good game in their hands. I don't know and honestly, I don't care if they will pull the massive numbers. I'm not their accountant or investor. For all matters affecting me as a player, one full server is enough. It may not be enough for Funcom or enough for nitpickers, but it's enough for me. AO had only two servers and I was having a blast back in the days. It didn't prevent Funcom from producing expansions either (although I must say I really hated the original implementation of the Shadowlands).
As far as the graphics engine preventing people from playing the game, I too think it's a personal thing for each one individually. First of all it depends on what everybody thinks as an acceptable level of graphics quality and secondly on how far one is determined to go to achieve it. If people can't afford a better computer and can live with the lower settings of the game, more power to them. If not, then the choice is always there on the already established games. It's all a matter of available choices. Right now we have less than what we'll have when the new games get released. Even if people decide to not move due to graphic performance, it's better to have the choice and make it than not have it at all.
The game has a mature rating. That will hinder the sales due to the artificial bar imposed on teenagers.
The game has a mature rating. It is therefore targeted towards people with a more solid economic base. It's safer to assume that a self supported adult can afford to spend more money on PC upgrades than a teenager.
It's all about balance again and how much thought Funcom put into their targeted player base. But again, for me as a gamer, the above is irrelevant. The game will be playable (and enjoyable) or not on my personal machine. It is not my job or worry to care whether the game will play equally well on other people's machines, or whether others will derive the same enjoyment I do given equally configured graphics.
Again though it's a balance related issue. People prefer to tone down the graphics to have a smooth experience in PvP for example. The balance here relies more on gameplay than looks. On the other hand, when exploring, people seem to raise the graphics bar to enjoy the visuals. Again the balance is shifted towards another direction. People talk about bugs and how they tolerate them in MMOs, when in reality they mean that the balance of positive things overscale possible negative things caused by bugs. At this point we don't know if Funcom will manage to provide the necessary balance to make their game enjoyable. We need the end product for that. They are willing to push back the release dates, even the seemingly rigid ones, for the sake of ingame quality. These are good signs for the positive balance of things.
Yes, if people could ask specifics and if beta testers could afford to reply, people could report negative things as well. Looking however at the greater picture and how the balance of the game shifted towards the positive side (at least for me), all the extra time (provided the dates don't get moved again) will only help to further shift the balance towards positive. I also take the nay-sayers and doom-sayers blatant misinformation posts and nitpicking as a positive sign. When the rational concerns are replaced by irrational hate, things are going great in the camp of common sense.
A few thoughts...
A holywood movie is earning its refunds on the first two weekends in USA cinemas after release. If not, the movie is considered a failure. Even if the movie is making profit from worldwide rental to cinemas and from selling DVDs it considered a failure if it didnt make its refund on the first two weekends. This is why they hype the movies.
There is similar in calculating a mmo. The game has to make X% refund from selling pre-order and retails. Thats why there is a hype. It also has to keep Y% buyers for one month and Z% of them for 3 months. The financial plan "ends" when the game is completely refunded and making profit. Funcom has won me already. Even if i leave the game after 6 weeks playing i definately will buy the retail. (I think its worth it, but thats a different story)
The game will be not complete on purpose. It will be a game to fit the financal plan. Actually they have to release an uncomplete game, because they need to wait after release for whats happening. They most probably have plan A, B and C allready in their drawers. They will choose one of ther plans on the fly, depending how community evolves. Gaute standart answer is always: This probably will be in game after release. And he is no liar. He just doesnt know. If PvE is a huge success they will patch housing and stuff first, if PvE is a failure there wont be any housing for a very long time. If capture-the-skull minis are the big blast, they will patch in a lot of them. If PvP is going completely mad (mad to a point where people leave the game from frustration) they will do something about it.
To sisikaka:
I wrote an answer but unfortunately there is no way to reply to you without breaking the NDA myself.
The game still has issues for sure. That's why it's still in closed beta and that's why it got pushed further back. The situation is not as dire as you describe it however. Unfortunately I can't go point by point towards your remarks, sorry.
Don't know about you but I derive more fun from a certain beta, regardless of the flaws, than from whatever is currently out there. Perhaps it's just boredom from my side, perhaps not.
Don't take my word for it when deciding what to play. Make up your own mind.
... so far PvP seems to be the least of their concerns ...
Can you please elaborate on this a bit more? From where I'm standing it looks like the complete opposite holds true.
Do you want FFA PvP servers?
That's a serious question and it's related to certain decisions. FFA PvP servers die from the early implementation and attrition with the passage of time. First of all you need to entice people to endure the extra pain that a FFA PvP server implies on the early stages. Also make sure that the established player base does not kill the server by alienating every new player coming into the game by imposing impossible odds.
So for launch you need a good launching area that will be fun and not game breaking when every single player rushes through the same areas to progress.
Once you go past that and you start having an established PvP community (guilds in this game), then you need a way to prevent the asshats from preventing the new blood from entering the game. At least until the new blood manages to secure a foothold on the server.
In order to achieve those two you need a) a server wipe and get all testers start from zero, b) leave the community establish itself and c) inject fresh testers and see how the old ones react.
At least that's what I would do to get an idea of a server maturing. It shouldn't take much time either. What it will take time is class balance and how each class play in relation to the rest.
Rangers ... you make me smirk due to what they can't do ... at this point in time.
Please enlighten me, how is WAR a WoW clone.It's an item centric, quest driven game. Based upon 2 factions (good and evil), with three races each where the 4 classes have narrowally defined roles and abilities. They have similar game play whithch is an auto attack with a few abilities set on rechargers and I will bet they will have similar advancement systems that basically just redress the same abilities over and over every 10 levels. WAR is WOW with smilar lore. I don't say that to be negative, but it's not a next generation game, it brings nothing new to the industry.Lol, this thread is about misinformation and look at this wonderful piece of "everbody knows it" flat statement.. Let us analyze this piece of popular folk wisdom, statement by statement:
It's an item centric, - FAIL, reapeatedly stated by devs, WAR is not item-centric. Item collecting is not the "goal" of the game by far and the items themselves will have much less of an impact on character power than other stuff (skills, tactics, player skill etc)
quest driven game. - FAIL, it is not quest-driven. There are quests in there but the major emphasis is on RvR (look it up) meaning public quests (freee-to-join events) and open world PvP.
Based upon 2 factions (good and evil), with three races each where the 4 classes have narrowally defined roles and abilities. - correct, however it remains to be seen how much you can customize your character's advancement.
They have similar game play whithch is an auto attack with a few abilities set on rechargers.... - correct, I have no problem with that. One of the very few things about WoW which I actually like.
and I will bet they will have similar advancement systems that basically just redress the same abilities over and over every 10 levels - FAIL, nope the devs explicitly stated that you won't "upgrade" skills and abilities. Each skill you get is brand, shining new but its power scales with your level automatically... and there is to be quite a bit of skill/ability collecting like in GW but we need more info on how much impact it will have over standard flat level skills and abilities.
WAR is WOW with smilar lore. I don't say that to be negative, but it's not a next generation game, it brings nothing new to the industry. - well I wouldn't say that...
These discussions which is more "next-gen", WAR or WoW are getting tiresome... Sadly they both have cool next-gen as well as tired last-gen features. The way I see it, and I've been following both quite closely since their development started is:
AoC: Next gen in graphics, combat and UI department. Quite reactionary old-school regarding almost everything else - emphasis on levels, gear... end-game instance raiding
. Guild-based warfare with RTS elements is cool but it's restricted to a certain area. No guild alliances and guild-play/max-level requirement for meaningful group PvP kinda turns me off I have to say. Though I love sandboxes more than anything this restriction makes the game Not That Awesome for me.
WAR: Next gen primarily in core game concept. The emphasis is shifted from solo motivation to group motivation. You're not fighting that much for your own advancement or that of your several pals but primarily for the larger group goal - even if doing solo PvE only. The Entire tier 4 areas are a kind of "hybrid controlled sandbox" environment (read up if you want to know more) which heavily influences all other aspects of the world - including purely PvE stuff such as dungeons.
Other WAR next-gen features are: revamping the traditional quest mechanics from ground-up: Public Quests, Tome of Knowledge... Living Guild System: guilds have levels with attendant benefits - AoC has something like it I concur, but WAR does beat it with alliance system and making guild play quite optional. End-game from level 1 - you can participate in all "endgame-like" activities from the very start - even in capital city sieges if you like. You don't have to level through PvE to your max level so you can start meaningful PvP... Lateral rather than vertical advancement in gear and abilities - no "tier x pwns tier y" crap... Leveling through PvP as well as Pve. No artificial PvP vs PvE game styles separation - everything is RvR: your PvE influences world PvP and vice-versa.
On the other hand WAR's combat, gfx an UI are very much WoW-like. However I see nothing wrong with that since these thre are probably the only things i like about WoW. This is a personal opinion so.. To each his own - if you don't like it AoC is promising to completely revolutionize those.
So, imo WAR is more "next gen" regarding core game concepts such as leveling, player motivation and dynamic world setup while AoC is more "next gen" in in-your-face gameplay mechanics such as combat, graphics and UI. In my humble opinion AoC "looks" more next-gen but under the hud it is WAR which is more original. My dream next-gen would have AoC's gfx and combat with WAR world setup and emphasis on other stuff rather than personal advancement through gear. I still haven't made the decision which one to play but I have to admit I'm leaning towards WAR atm... We'll see, I'll probably decide based on the amount of instancing - the one with less instances and more open-world will win for me.
Under this logic the only AAA PvP game with no levels is EVE. And even that you can strike out since you need to level your skills to a certain degree to be minimally effective. Congratulations, there is no PvP game out there, for you.
You're keep repeating the "heavily instanced" argument. I hope you understand the difference between zones and instances. I would also like you to give me an example of a "small" zone, but that would mean me asking you to break NDA (if you're a beta tester that is), so don't. Size anyway is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like vast areas of nothingness, others like smaller areas filled with content. Both appeal to different people, both are equally valid game options.
PvP is a primary game content. Sieges of keeps are there to provide more entertainment value than player owned cities, at least in my opinion. I've seen videos of keeps getting constructed, so it's hard to argue that end game PvP will lack them. I would also like unmounted troops to have a distinct advantage over mounted ones on certain situations (by employing formations for example). Regardless, even no mounted combat was present, this would still be a solid game for me.
I just can't see anything substantial pointing towards the direction of PvP being an afterthought. It's like arguing that WAR will have a crappy PvE game because it got less initial public exposure. You are trying to make an educated guess according to the order of the features being added (more likely according to the order of exposure these features receive). Any project needs goals and a timeframe of implementation. If something is scheduled first, doesn't make it the most important. Also, ever considered that PvE content is way more time consuming to create than PvP content?
From my point of view AoC is a game that tries to balance both PvE and PvP content. I'm concerned that they try to put just too much content. They could have played it safe and follow LOTRO's example of a launch. The end product will tell us if they bitten more than they can chew.
{ Mod Edit }
To sisikaka:
This is a level based game clearly stated before the game even launched. If you don't like this particular system, fine. This is a free world, you can go and play whatever skill based system game is currently available. You may not like the system. It's ok.
You still failed to produce a single name of a restrictive territory. Since you're a beta tester you should know them, right?
Since they hidden the PvP game from beta testers, how do you know that it sucks? You can't have knowledge of something you have no exposure on. Unless you're speculating. Are you?
As for PvP, I'm not talking about how much time you spend on it. I'm talking about how much time it takes for the developers to produce it. For all purposes, you can place a wall at some point and have team A of 100 people defend one side and team B of 200 people try and capture it and have a blast. PvE is more time consuming to create, so much as to become impossible to create enough to keep up with players demands.
I don't find spellweaving a gamebreaking omission. Perhaps we'll see it, perhaps not.
Big scale PvP needs an established player base first, among other things. I intend to wait and see how things are going to progress instead of waiving the doom banner around.
The opinion on the melee system is too biased to form unless somebody tries it.
Magic corruption was a stupid idea and I'm glad it's gone. Seriously.
Take a deep breath. Relax. Keep in mind that if AoC doesn't launch in a good state, the world will not stop spinning. There are other good games developed out there.
Keep also in mind that they can push the launch date further back. March launch seemed pretty solid and was pushed. I don't see why the May one can't get pushed again if they feel they need more time.
To sisikaka:
There is no difference between a level system and a skill system in regards to veterans ganging new people. None. In one people are lacking levels, in the other skills. If you don't have either, you're going to get owned by somebody who has them and also has a clue. Name me one skill based game where somebody with undeveloped skills can beat somebody with fully developed skills.
I understood what you said. It's just that the thing that you mention doesn't exist.
In PvP the most important part is the mechanics. Given solid ones, you can throw people in a round room and they can still have a blast. In PvE, a random room hitting bots won't cut it for long. That's the reason you have games with a couple battlegrounds that can satisfy the PvP crowd, while you need ten times the amount of PvE "battlegrounds" to produce the same effect.
As for what betas are for, perhaps you should check the definition yourself. Its sure as hell are not about appearing on random forums proclaiming your subjective opinion as the ultimate truth.
As far as sieges go, you can test the fight between guilds relatively easy and I'm sure it's been done internally. Add to the mix random guilds however, mercenaries and curious bystanders and you have a more dynamic environment in the mix.
I can't comment on game size without breaking the rules myself. Sorry. I respect your opinion. You feel restricted. That's how you feel and noone can argue or dispute it.
Magic corruption would be great if caster classes had a huge advantage over the rest, thus actually using the spell would be dangerous. While it would be fun the first times, I'm sure teams would avoid casters if it meant a wipe for using their spells. Unless you enjoy becoming a bow user with the rare casting in between. I won't comment on how unbalanced that would be for PvP.
"The thing that really pisses me off is the amount of horseshit you hear Funcom spouting out about the games state"
This works both ways.
Ultima Online
"Freedom is just another name for nothing left to lose" - Janis Joplin
.jpg)
LOTRO is a great game and does very well what's meant to be doing
To Bulveigh:
You're trying to tell me that a fresh character can beat a veteran? Right.
i dont personally know the guy you are implying, and i m not his advocate but what you say is way beyond rude.
i know there is a huge difference between slating and carping.
I need more vespene gas.
i dont personally know the guy you are implying, and i m not his advocate but what you say is way beyond rude.
i know there is a huge difference between slating and carping.
Don't worry Falfeir, it's really obvious solareus has a problem with AoC and some posters here. Whats funny is the past year people like him have all been chased off, they come, whinge, then vanish.
@ Solareus ~ For the record it was a competition I won for the community event, secondly if you read the press reports including mmorpg.com's they all had a pretty much similar theme - they liked what they saw and i'm deeply sorry if that bothers Solareus. And thirdly, if you was a regular here you would of already known that I'm a fan for a whole year pus before winning that comp.
I just take comfort in that i'm more informed than Solareus is, otherwise he would be able to
A. Provide better argumentative / critical concerns, and
B. And wouldn't feel the need to Imply negative personal attributes about me. Nor attack the accent of the game director.
OMG!!! News in, I just heard that you'll only be able to play as Leppers, all mount designs will be replaced with pack mules, and it will only be released in Xbox form... lol JK. Please dont make preemptive judgements on a great game before its release date. That would be like accusing a child of future Grand Theft.
No,
i am trying to tell you that a char with much lesser skills, can beat a capped char.
shure, a 10 mins old char cannot kill a completely outleveled char in UO and in no other game else.
But the point is, when you are really skilled u can kill "max level" chars with a completely crap char.
0 resi 80 magery mage vs 100 resi 100 magey mage for example. Player Skill >>>> char skill, thats the point. In the most games its "playerskill gives you the last 5% what u need to win."
The persons behind the character are assumed to be equally skilled, right?