From what I've read in this thread, I'll have to be kicking LotRO out of the running, nothing in it I can't get in the other two, and the other two have more beyond that.
I may just have to flip a god damned coin. The one thing I didn't really like about EQ2 would have been lack of pvp and the armors seem to be lacking in imagination, and in AoC I've disliked the siege lag and that the melee are a little gimped.
Which leaves 2 more questions. How many dungeons are in end game AoC? and how is the PvP in EQ2?
Which leaves 2 more questions. How many dungeons are in end game AoC? and how is the PvP in EQ2?
There have been quite a few changes to AoC since launch, so I am not sure, but certainly content-wise AoC wouldn't scratch 25% of EQ2 and it's 5 expansions. As for EQ2, pvp is non-existent outside the couple of pvp servers (or maybe they merged them to one server?) and even on those servers it's pretty much pointless. AoC has at least whole mechanics dedicated to it, land control, etc.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
Which leaves 2 more questions. How many dungeons are in end game AoC? and how is the PvP in EQ2?
There have been quite a few changes to AoC since launch, so I am not sure, but certainly content-wise AoC wouldn't scratch 25% of EQ2 and it's 5 expansions. As for EQ2, pvp is non-existent outside the couple of pvp servers (or maybe they merged them to one server?) and even on those servers it's pretty much pointless. AoC has at least whole mechanics dedicated to it, land control, etc.
Baw, the mechanics mean little to me. Whoopty do, I control a little more land than X, and the seige pvp in AoC is still to laggy for melee classes to do anything.
From what I've read in this thread, I'll have to be kicking LotRO out of the running, nothing in it I can't get in the other two, and the other two have more beyond that. I may just have to flip a god damned coin. The one thing I didn't really like about EQ2 would have been lack of pvp and the armors seem to be lacking in imagination, and in AoC I've disliked the siege lag and that the melee are a little gimped. Which leaves 2 more questions. How many dungeons are in end game AoC? and how is the PvP in EQ2?
When you try the other two and get fed up make sure to go to LotRO so you see what could of saved you that time.
EQ2 is alright but it has a smaller population then LotRO by far. It also is very tedious, especially crafting. It was a very slow boring game when I tried it.
AoC has it's fans hitting forums everywhere trying to get the population up, so the information is a bit skewed. But I think you will get bored of it very quickly if you decide to try it.
LotRO contrary to one of the posters actually has some of the best MMO art out there right now, assuming you have any decent computer. (The guy who posted it might also have done the streaming download and not realized that the high res files are a seperate download since they're not needed to play, but they are a major difference from the standard texture files). And it does have quite a few unique looking places. I am actually not sure where he traveled at all but it couldn't of been too far.
LotRO has the best community I've ever seen, the chat isn't filled with vile spam from immature kiddies all day .You ask a question in the advice channel and get tells and responses in the channel within seconds. The game allows you to do a ton solo while leaving open plenty of options the group. There are just so many quests that if you don't want to you never have to touch the group ones to advance. The skirmishes are fun for mixing it up once you get to a higher level, and you also get hirelings you can level up and bring in there.
It's crafting is far less tedious then EQ2.
Some people don't like monster play but I think most of those people are the ones who think of PvP=ganking unexpecting people. It is fun to play a monster and it's fun to fight them. It's basically a battleground that you'd see in other games.
I'm sure you'd see a lot different responses if you took this same question and asked it in each game's forums on here, a lot of people just never look in the LFGame thread to give accurate answers. It's mostly filled with people who want to try to recruit into their slowly dying games. I myself only saw it the first time (and again now that I forgot all about it) because it was on the recent threads list.
All of these games have free trials (AoC has a free trial right?) so the easiest thing is to try each one, go in talk to the community and run around and do some quests. Pick the one you had the most fun in the trial and sub for a month and see if it stays with you once you progress past the newbie area. If not try again. But in the end I doubt you'll stay with EQ2, you might stay with AoC if you want to grief people, but most likely you'll stay with LotRO after giving it a month.
Well, I'll make this clear, I'm an indecisive prick, so lotro is back in the running and AoC is out (I was able to talk someone into letting me use their account to try some pvp, and god it was horrible for a melee person. they really need to either up the melee power or gimp the range power, and I only play melee in mmorpg)
I'll give it that EQ2 and LotrO on the PvE and PvP side aren't all that much different to be able to choose which one, they both are more or less dead in lowbie areas, they both have active RP communities.
So I guess I'll give it to dungeons n what not, the diversity. From what I saw on their own site, most lands in LotRO are either forests, plains, snowy mountains, and any of the previous three with evil thrown in. And dungeons are all either evil caves or evil towers. Is this accurate? 'cause what I saw from eq2 screens was all sorts of interesting places.
Well, I'll make this clear, I'm an indecisive prick, so lotro is back in the running and AoC is out (I was able to talk someone into letting me use their account to try some pvp, and god it was horrible for a melee person. they really need to either up the melee power or gimp the range power, and I only play melee in mmorpg) I'll give it that EQ2 and LotrO on the PvE and PvP side aren't all that much different to be able to choose which one, they both are more or less dead in lowbie areas, they both have active RP communities. So I guess I'll give it to dungeons n what not, the diversity. From what I saw on their own site, most lands in LotRO are either forests, plains, snowy mountains, and any of the previous three with evil thrown in. And dungeons are all either evil caves or evil towers. Is this accurate? 'cause what I saw from eq2 screens was all sorts of interesting places.
Well, PvP in LotRO is Monster Play, where you either play a monster fighting other players, or are a player fighting player controlled monsters, so I'd figure there's quite a diff between LotRO and EQ2.
These folks saying that LotRO looks the same everywhere/is soulless, etc are on crack. You can't tell me Bree- looks like Moria- looks like Lothlorien- Looks like Mirkwood. Lothlorien at night just makes you want to leap into your monitor and stay there forever.
Pure nonsense. No doubt they were trialers comparing Bree to the Shire.
That said, if PvP is important to you, your best bet will be EQ2. I've never tried MPVP in LotRO, and I've never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Much of anything at all, really.
But you should really trial both games to be sure, after all, you were bent on AoC for a good while there. If you trial LotRO, make sure you at least head through the old forest and barrows in Bree before you make your decision. They give the best hint of what's to come regarding the atmospherics of the higher level zones.
This is quite a difficult choice but I would suggest:
AOC - Not for me. I think the game is very light on lore and quests that you feel involved with. Its quite a large but barren play area and I think I am one of the few that thought the starting Tortage zone was quite boring and far too long winded.
EQ2 - Love this game. The world is huge and has the benefit of a number of years of evolution. The lore is deep and fun and the only piece holding me back is I do not know what the population is like for supporting new players.
Lotro - Quite similar to EQ2 but, for me at least, the zones are quite similar and it feels more of a trudge as a solo player to work up the levels. I rarely see other people running around so this is a game where I think being in a good guild is essential to enjoy the experience.
Overall I would try both EQ2 and Lotro and see which one sticks with you as the most fun.
Well, I'll make this clear, I'm an indecisive prick, so lotro is back in the running and AoC is out (I was able to talk someone into letting me use their account to try some pvp, and god it was horrible for a melee person. they really need to either up the melee power or gimp the range power, and I only play melee in mmorpg) I'll give it that EQ2 and LotrO on the PvE and PvP side aren't all that much different to be able to choose which one, they both are more or less dead in lowbie areas, they both have active RP communities. So I guess I'll give it to dungeons n what not, the diversity. From what I saw on their own site, most lands in LotRO are either forests, plains, snowy mountains, and any of the previous three with evil thrown in. And dungeons are all either evil caves or evil towers. Is this accurate? 'cause what I saw from eq2 screens was all sorts of interesting places.
Well, PvP in LotRO is Monster Play, where you either play a monster fighting other players, or are a player fighting player controlled monsters, so I'd figure there's quite a diff between LotRO and EQ2.
These folks saying that LotRO looks the same everywhere/is soulless, etc are on crack. You can't tell me Bree- looks like Moria- looks like Lothlorien- Looks like Mirkwood. Lothlorien at night just makes you want to leap into your monitor and stay there forever.
Pure nonsense. No doubt they were trialers comparing Bree to the Shire.
That said, if PvP is important to you, your best bet will be EQ2. I've never tried MPVP in LotRO, and I've never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Much of anything at all, really.
But you should really trial both games to be sure, after all, you were bent on AoC for a good while there. If you trial LotRO, make sure you at least head through the old forest and barrows in Bree before you make your decision. They give the best hint of what's to come regarding the atmospherics of the higher level zones.
The problem with trials is that you can't really experience all that much dungeon and pvp wise since most of that doesn't start getting good till the mid to upper mids levels in almost any MMORPG. Hell, I didn't know about how badly done AoC pvp was till I was able to use someone elses account (he had a 80 conq and 80 'barb to all those AoC fanboys who will tell me I just played a bad class)
Saw some more youtube vids on Lord of the Rings online, will give it that their is more variety to the scenery, which just leaves me at square freaking one again. Though looking at the two's growth cycle, LotRO is always adding more interesting things, like skirmishes and the leveling weapons, while EQ has barely changed at all since launch. I suppose I'll have to ask this again, why is it that LotRO is so amazing in PvE, everywhere I go it's called the holy grail of pve yet am given no explanation on this.
And how is the monster play? From the looks of it, I can't quite understand why it wouldn't be a great system. The problem with most other MMO pvp is they have to balance classes made for PvE, for PvP, but in LotRO you have a distinct PvP faction that does nothing but pvp against a faction that does both, so it should be stupidly easy to balance 'cause you really only have to touch the pvp faction when balancing it. Is it just people being butt hurt that they can't have their elf behead a hobbit?
Yes most of the complaints about LotRO PvP are people who want to run around the shire as an Orc killing people. Plenty of people use the system so clearly there are plenty of people who enjoy it.
Whoever said that is was tough to solo up is crazy. I've soloed up 3-4 different classes in LotRO very easily. Also I'm not sure what server he was playing but I play Brandywine and there's always people running around. He might of been a trial person and not realized the first couple levels you're in essentially an instanced landblock (only time landscape wise this happens in game). This is so people who are streaming the download can download that fast and do the first few levels while the game downloads the rest. There usually aren't many people in this area because once you've done it with one character the area quests can be completed very fast with a reroll and then you're out into the real world with everyone else.
Just pick up a trial of both games and see what you enjoy, sitting around not making a decision doesn't help you have fun faster.
There are some restrictions to LotRO trials like not being able to send tells, so keep that in mind.
Well, I'll make this clear, I'm an indecisive prick, so lotro is back in the running and AoC is out (I was able to talk someone into letting me use their account to try some pvp, and god it was horrible for a melee person. they really need to either up the melee power or gimp the range power, and I only play melee in mmorpg) I'll give it that EQ2 and LotrO on the PvE and PvP side aren't all that much different to be able to choose which one, they both are more or less dead in lowbie areas, they both have active RP communities. So I guess I'll give it to dungeons n what not, the diversity. From what I saw on their own site, most lands in LotRO are either forests, plains, snowy mountains, and any of the previous three with evil thrown in. And dungeons are all either evil caves or evil towers. Is this accurate? 'cause what I saw from eq2 screens was all sorts of interesting places.
Well, PvP in LotRO is Monster Play, where you either play a monster fighting other players, or are a player fighting player controlled monsters, so I'd figure there's quite a diff between LotRO and EQ2.
These folks saying that LotRO looks the same everywhere/is soulless, etc are on crack. You can't tell me Bree- looks like Moria- looks like Lothlorien- Looks like Mirkwood. Lothlorien at night just makes you want to leap into your monitor and stay there forever.
Pure nonsense. No doubt they were trialers comparing Bree to the Shire.
That said, if PvP is important to you, your best bet will be EQ2. I've never tried MPVP in LotRO, and I've never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Much of anything at all, really.
But you should really trial both games to be sure, after all, you were bent on AoC for a good while there. If you trial LotRO, make sure you at least head through the old forest and barrows in Bree before you make your decision. They give the best hint of what's to come regarding the atmospherics of the higher level zones.
The problem with trials is that you can't really experience all that much dungeon and pvp wise since most of that doesn't start getting good till the mid to upper mids levels in almost any MMORPG. Hell, I didn't know about how badly done AoC pvp was till I was able to use someone elses account (he had a 80 conq and 80 'barb to all those AoC fanboys who will tell me I just played a bad class)
Saw some more youtube vids on Lord of the Rings online, will give it that their is more variety to the scenery, which just leaves me at square freaking one again. Though looking at the two's growth cycle, LotRO is always adding more interesting things, like skirmishes and the leveling weapons, while EQ has barely changed at all since launch. I suppose I'll have to ask this again, why is it that LotRO is so amazing in PvE, everywhere I go it's called the holy grail of pve yet am given to explanation on this.
And how is the monster play? From the looks of it, I can't quite understand why it wouldn't be a great system. The problem with most other MMO pvp is they have to balance classes made for PvE, for PvP, but in LotRO you have a distinct PvP faction that does nothing but pvp against a faction that does both, so it should be stupidly easy to balance 'cause you really only have to touch the pvp faction when balancing it. Is it just people being butt hurt that they can't have their elf behead a hobbit?
Haven't tried MPvP so I can't comment from personal experience. But normal PvP was ruled out by the IP holder. Monster Play was the compromise. IMO, the PvE experience is richer because of it, as development time isn't used up on PvP balancing issues.
On PvP, I guess LotRO's trial will give you the best shot at experiencing theirs, because all you have to do is get one toon to level 10 to unlock it, and your monster starts at level 50. Keep in mind though, the level cap is 65, so you'll probably still be doing alot of dying...
On the PvE side, you have alot of tactical options that most MMO's I've played don't have. Different types of wounds, damage types, DoT's. In most MMO's I've played, it's often been a matter of picking a few attacks to repeat over and over once they recharge. In LotRO, each toon just seems to have alot more tricks up their sleeve. This may not seem quite as apparent if you play a Champ, as they tend to just hack stuff up quickly with a few manuevers. The Warden and Runekeeper are highly tactical, however. I'd try one of them if you're into that sort of stuff.
Tack onto this, the deed/traits system, where you complete deeds which give you a number of options for stat boosts and special ability mods, and sometimes new special abilities in themselves. You can only slot so many at a time, but you can always switch them around to fit your playstyle. You also have racial and legendary deeds, which are often pretty powerful special abilities, at least on the latter.
That's before you even get going on item advancement at lvl 50.
Lastly, while there are no shortage of "bleh" kill/get/use X Y's missions, but there are plenty of variations of rewards, particularly on the high end. Crafting quests, for example, which net you materials to create purple or better gear. Item experience quests, etc. And, simply put, there are plenty more quests than you need to level, especially now with skirmishes. Now that I know this, I plan to skip a number of the old "Find X widget" quests and stick with the more interesting story based quests.
As you've probably already heard, the instanced quests are some of the best in the genre; no doubt from Turbines experience from DDO.
In the end, it's difficult to tell you something which will just have you jabbing the "buy" button, as taste is personal. Like you, I thought AoC was exactly what I was looking for, and it was great for about 2 months. I can tell you I trialed LotRO 3-4 times over the years, not really been impressed, before finally giving it a solid go last Summer. I've been playing about 8 months now, and have no plans whatsoever of quitting.
It's not a game that won me over by describing itself, it only won me over by me giving it a shot, playing it, and actually trying to figure out how all the customization worked. The feeling was like walking into a car dealership looking for a SUV, leaving with a car and being glad you did, even months later. Sometimes, something can be better than what you originally wanted.
Going LoTRO, mainly beacuse I've got about as far in all three trials that I can get and can't decide. But it seems to me that LotrO has a more active and creative team behind it.
Going LoTRO, mainly beacuse I've got about as far in all three trials that I can get and can't decide. But it seems to me that LotrO has a more active and creative team behind it.
Come back in a month or two and let us know what you think!
Going LoTRO, mainly beacuse I've got about as far in all three trials that I can get and can't decide. But it seems to me that LotrO has a more active and creative team behind it.
As an active 5 year EQ2 vet and given what you're looking for, I think you made a good choice. Have fun!
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall Currently Playing: ESO
What i dont understand is when OP says he will not take AoC bcs the PvP isnt good.
There is no PvP in Lotro so it can not be a reason - how to compare booth games when one is missing it at all (Monster play doesnt count).
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
What i dont understand is when OP says he will not take AoC bcs the PvP isnt good. There is no PvP in Lotro so it can not be a reason - how to compare booth games when one is missing it at all (Monster play doesnt count).
Ok pvp over broken pvp.
AoC is broken pvp, melee, even skilled melee, are nothing compared to a range class. The combo system may be fun, but it's shitty for pvp.
If you need pvp then AoC is your only real option. EQ2 and LOTR the limited pvp options they do have suck. For PVE EQ2 offers by far the most content and race/class options but LOTR offers a much better story line.
These games each offer some tweaks that are different however in the end it is the same old level up killing mobs and doing quest which is just hidden grinding anyway. So basically you are choosing which look and feel you want to do the exact same thing in.
For me I really did not like EQ2, not even sure why but for some reason it just never clicked with me and wasnt something that could hold my interest for longer than 10 minutes.
AoC I actively enjoy, it is a solid mmo that has a few issues here and there, but still manages to deliver a lot of content for you to enjoy. Its also one of the few remaining games with any sort of full open world PvP which some like and other dont.
LOTRO is one of the best pve games out there, but lacks really any sort of PvP. It does have monster play, but if your looking for a lot of pvp, MP wont do it for you.
Well even though the OP obviously chose, for me the choice was quite easy:
Steam had EQ 2 + all the expansions for $5 over new years [30 days playtime free and all that too]. I must say -nothing- beats that .
Anyhow i played AoC, while the graphics are amazing and the initial 20 levels have a nice single player RPG ring to it, ultimately you'll be "done" with the PvE content within a month or two. All that remains then is the Sieges/PvP content which if you're NOT at least 90% PvP orientated by that time, will mean AoC will actually "end" for you (like Dragon Age ends).
Compared to EQ2 which have like how many expansions and add-ons? 14? This implies you most likely won't run out of PvE content as fast as with AoC.
I guess you have to ask yourself, how LONG do you want to play your MMO? Are you only waiting for SWTOR/Cataclysm/STO ? In which case, i would recommend AoC because well, you'll get a good solid 2-4 months out of it and at the same time feel you covered most of the game. EQ2 on the other hand, looks like you might need a longer time investment...
Can't comment on LOTRO, but it also got a headstart on the PvE content compared to AoC....
I guess my issue with alot of the latest crop of MMOs are how they juggle PvE and PvP content. So you play an MMO initially to do the PvE, what makes Developers think i want to solely PvP endgame? If you make a PvP game, make a freaking PvP game, don't pull a warhammer and make me wade through inferior PvE to PvP or vice versa.
Well even though the OP obviously chose, for me the choice was quite easy: Steam had EQ 2 + all the expansions for $5 over new years [30 days playtime free and all that too]. I must say -nothing- beats that . Anyhow i played AoC, while the graphics are amazing and the initial 20 levels have a nice single player RPG ring to it, ultimately you'll be "done" with the PvE content within a month or two. All that remains then is the Sieges/PvP content which if you're NOT at least 90% PvP orientated by that time, will mean AoC will actually "end" for you (like Dragon Age ends). Compared to EQ2 which have like how many expansions and add-ons? 14? This implies you most likely won't run out of PvE content as fast as with AoC. I guess you have to ask yourself, how LONG do you want to play your MMO? Are you only waiting for SWTOR/Cataclysm/STO ? In which case, i would recommend AoC because well, you'll get a good solid 2-4 months out of it and at the same time feel you covered most of the game. EQ2 on the other hand, looks like you might need a longer time investment... Can't comment on LOTRO, but it also got a headstart on the PvE content compared to AoC....
I guess my issue with alot of the latest crop of MMOs are how they juggle PvE and PvP content. So you play an MMO initially to do the PvE, what makes Developers think i want to solely PvP endgame? If you make a PvP game, make a freaking PvP game, don't pull a warhammer and make me wade through inferior PvE to PvP or vice versa.
Absolutely right. It's flat out nutty. PVE will always want to stay PVE.
My lame prediction is that companies will realize that PvP advancement through PVE is worthless, and PvP advancement through PvP will be slightly less so.
Then they'll be smart and move on to RTS and fighting games.
rune of magic .they polsihed the game a lot since september.i ve been playing most of the day today ,and they fixed their own dowload no need to use mirror or whatever
downloaded at 1150kb /sec my max connection speed.dont know how this works out but a tech told me it roughly my 10mb/sec speed its not the same number .anyway the game wow lot of little detail that made the gem a diamond .dont know later but so far they improved a lot the game better look for me !cant say if its tweak to the game or my window 7 but i think rune of magic did polish it a lot.
was alreadfy best f2p game.im going against the flow warden/druid isnt rolled a lot it seems i i understood correctly
hard to play we ll see anyway .if you look for a f2p game this is one if not the top right now .it will get more sub i believe
no wonder some site chose this game as their 2009 game of the year they really deserve it.
I started playing EQ2 about ten days after launch. I have been playing EQ2 on and off since then, as it has been MY MMO. Between launch and now I had the chance to play both AoC and LotRO.
First off, AoC was fun as hell (I played at launch). The graphics are great and the PvP is fun. I leveled a Herald of Xotli to level max 80 and was the main HoX and a key founder in the most prestigious raid guild Vendetta on the server Shadowbane. My class was AMAZINGLY fun and great at the time (not sure how it is now). I also was the master Architect who built our guild city. The game was great till all the way through...but at about level 60 or so is when the lack of content became more noticeable. Each level seemed like a decline in content. I'm not sure how the game is now, but that's my opinion on AoC.
LotRO. It was not fun at all. I'm not going to lie, I could never get into WoW..no matter how hard I tried. This game is so similar to WoW that I couldn't get into it. The gameplay was slow paced and boring. The graphics aren't good, but aren't horrible either. It does have a better artistic feel than EQ2 though. I played beta/launch and it wasn't for me. It was kind of sad because I love Tolkien's work, and seeing as this game was pretty much a WoW in Tolkien's world is such a disappointment.
EQ2. Like I said above, I have been playing since a week or so after launch. It's a great game and with each update comes new content and overall improvements. Graphics are good, but the artwork and overall artistic feel isn't great. I've done solo, group, and raid zones/dungeons and for the most part the PvE is superb. I am also on the PvP server, and while people say EQ2 PvP sucks, I beg to differ. I believe it has one of the best open world PvP systems compared to a lot of other games (mostly because of better restrictions). On the other hand, EQ2 has a horrible Arena (battleground) system. I've never seen anyone play in one (although it is going to be re-introduced/revamped the next expansion in February).
I know for a fact there's a trial for EQ2 that you get try out to form opinions, so I suggest going to Everquest2.com for more information. I'm not sure there's a trial for the others though, otherwise I'd tell you.
With all that said, no one can really tell you what to think. I suggest getting each one of these games and try them out for yourself. Personally, I'd say either EQ2 or Aoc.
Friend talked me into trying AoC again, and I'll say that I may have judged the game a little harshly.
I didn't know about double tapping directions giving you buffs, or even blocking. After a few minutes learning those, I jumped back into the pvp and it alot more satisfying, granted, range classes still had an obvious advantage over pretty much everyone melee, being able to take out some of that advantage helped greatly.
Comments
From what I've read in this thread, I'll have to be kicking LotRO out of the running, nothing in it I can't get in the other two, and the other two have more beyond that.
I may just have to flip a god damned coin. The one thing I didn't really like about EQ2 would have been lack of pvp and the armors seem to be lacking in imagination, and in AoC I've disliked the siege lag and that the melee are a little gimped.
Which leaves 2 more questions. How many dungeons are in end game AoC? and how is the PvP in EQ2?
There have been quite a few changes to AoC since launch, so I am not sure, but certainly content-wise AoC wouldn't scratch 25% of EQ2 and it's 5 expansions. As for EQ2, pvp is non-existent outside the couple of pvp servers (or maybe they merged them to one server?) and even on those servers it's pretty much pointless. AoC has at least whole mechanics dedicated to it, land control, etc.
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
There have been quite a few changes to AoC since launch, so I am not sure, but certainly content-wise AoC wouldn't scratch 25% of EQ2 and it's 5 expansions. As for EQ2, pvp is non-existent outside the couple of pvp servers (or maybe they merged them to one server?) and even on those servers it's pretty much pointless. AoC has at least whole mechanics dedicated to it, land control, etc.
Baw, the mechanics mean little to me. Whoopty do, I control a little more land than X, and the seige pvp in AoC is still to laggy for melee classes to do anything.
When you try the other two and get fed up make sure to go to LotRO so you see what could of saved you that time.
EQ2 is alright but it has a smaller population then LotRO by far. It also is very tedious, especially crafting. It was a very slow boring game when I tried it.
AoC has it's fans hitting forums everywhere trying to get the population up, so the information is a bit skewed. But I think you will get bored of it very quickly if you decide to try it.
LotRO contrary to one of the posters actually has some of the best MMO art out there right now, assuming you have any decent computer. (The guy who posted it might also have done the streaming download and not realized that the high res files are a seperate download since they're not needed to play, but they are a major difference from the standard texture files). And it does have quite a few unique looking places. I am actually not sure where he traveled at all but it couldn't of been too far.
LotRO has the best community I've ever seen, the chat isn't filled with vile spam from immature kiddies all day .You ask a question in the advice channel and get tells and responses in the channel within seconds. The game allows you to do a ton solo while leaving open plenty of options the group. There are just so many quests that if you don't want to you never have to touch the group ones to advance. The skirmishes are fun for mixing it up once you get to a higher level, and you also get hirelings you can level up and bring in there.
It's crafting is far less tedious then EQ2.
Some people don't like monster play but I think most of those people are the ones who think of PvP=ganking unexpecting people. It is fun to play a monster and it's fun to fight them. It's basically a battleground that you'd see in other games.
I'm sure you'd see a lot different responses if you took this same question and asked it in each game's forums on here, a lot of people just never look in the LFGame thread to give accurate answers. It's mostly filled with people who want to try to recruit into their slowly dying games. I myself only saw it the first time (and again now that I forgot all about it) because it was on the recent threads list.
All of these games have free trials (AoC has a free trial right?) so the easiest thing is to try each one, go in talk to the community and run around and do some quests. Pick the one you had the most fun in the trial and sub for a month and see if it stays with you once you progress past the newbie area. If not try again. But in the end I doubt you'll stay with EQ2, you might stay with AoC if you want to grief people, but most likely you'll stay with LotRO after giving it a month.
Well, I'll make this clear, I'm an indecisive prick, so lotro is back in the running and AoC is out (I was able to talk someone into letting me use their account to try some pvp, and god it was horrible for a melee person. they really need to either up the melee power or gimp the range power, and I only play melee in mmorpg)
I'll give it that EQ2 and LotrO on the PvE and PvP side aren't all that much different to be able to choose which one, they both are more or less dead in lowbie areas, they both have active RP communities.
So I guess I'll give it to dungeons n what not, the diversity. From what I saw on their own site, most lands in LotRO are either forests, plains, snowy mountains, and any of the previous three with evil thrown in. And dungeons are all either evil caves or evil towers. Is this accurate? 'cause what I saw from eq2 screens was all sorts of interesting places.
Well, PvP in LotRO is Monster Play, where you either play a monster fighting other players, or are a player fighting player controlled monsters, so I'd figure there's quite a diff between LotRO and EQ2.
These folks saying that LotRO looks the same everywhere/is soulless, etc are on crack. You can't tell me Bree- looks like Moria- looks like Lothlorien- Looks like Mirkwood. Lothlorien at night just makes you want to leap into your monitor and stay there forever.
Pure nonsense. No doubt they were trialers comparing Bree to the Shire.
That said, if PvP is important to you, your best bet will be EQ2. I've never tried MPVP in LotRO, and I've never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Much of anything at all, really.
But you should really trial both games to be sure, after all, you were bent on AoC for a good while there. If you trial LotRO, make sure you at least head through the old forest and barrows in Bree before you make your decision. They give the best hint of what's to come regarding the atmospherics of the higher level zones.
This is quite a difficult choice but I would suggest:
AOC - Not for me. I think the game is very light on lore and quests that you feel involved with. Its quite a large but barren play area and I think I am one of the few that thought the starting Tortage zone was quite boring and far too long winded.
EQ2 - Love this game. The world is huge and has the benefit of a number of years of evolution. The lore is deep and fun and the only piece holding me back is I do not know what the population is like for supporting new players.
Lotro - Quite similar to EQ2 but, for me at least, the zones are quite similar and it feels more of a trudge as a solo player to work up the levels. I rarely see other people running around so this is a game where I think being in a good guild is essential to enjoy the experience.
Overall I would try both EQ2 and Lotro and see which one sticks with you as the most fun.
To err is human....to play is divine
Well, PvP in LotRO is Monster Play, where you either play a monster fighting other players, or are a player fighting player controlled monsters, so I'd figure there's quite a diff between LotRO and EQ2.
These folks saying that LotRO looks the same everywhere/is soulless, etc are on crack. You can't tell me Bree- looks like Moria- looks like Lothlorien- Looks like Mirkwood. Lothlorien at night just makes you want to leap into your monitor and stay there forever.
Pure nonsense. No doubt they were trialers comparing Bree to the Shire.
That said, if PvP is important to you, your best bet will be EQ2. I've never tried MPVP in LotRO, and I've never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Much of anything at all, really.
But you should really trial both games to be sure, after all, you were bent on AoC for a good while there. If you trial LotRO, make sure you at least head through the old forest and barrows in Bree before you make your decision. They give the best hint of what's to come regarding the atmospherics of the higher level zones.
The problem with trials is that you can't really experience all that much dungeon and pvp wise since most of that doesn't start getting good till the mid to upper mids levels in almost any MMORPG. Hell, I didn't know about how badly done AoC pvp was till I was able to use someone elses account (he had a 80 conq and 80 'barb to all those AoC fanboys who will tell me I just played a bad class)
Saw some more youtube vids on Lord of the Rings online, will give it that their is more variety to the scenery, which just leaves me at square freaking one again. Though looking at the two's growth cycle, LotRO is always adding more interesting things, like skirmishes and the leveling weapons, while EQ has barely changed at all since launch. I suppose I'll have to ask this again, why is it that LotRO is so amazing in PvE, everywhere I go it's called the holy grail of pve yet am given no explanation on this.
And how is the monster play? From the looks of it, I can't quite understand why it wouldn't be a great system. The problem with most other MMO pvp is they have to balance classes made for PvE, for PvP, but in LotRO you have a distinct PvP faction that does nothing but pvp against a faction that does both, so it should be stupidly easy to balance 'cause you really only have to touch the pvp faction when balancing it. Is it just people being butt hurt that they can't have their elf behead a hobbit?
Yes most of the complaints about LotRO PvP are people who want to run around the shire as an Orc killing people. Plenty of people use the system so clearly there are plenty of people who enjoy it.
Whoever said that is was tough to solo up is crazy. I've soloed up 3-4 different classes in LotRO very easily. Also I'm not sure what server he was playing but I play Brandywine and there's always people running around. He might of been a trial person and not realized the first couple levels you're in essentially an instanced landblock (only time landscape wise this happens in game). This is so people who are streaming the download can download that fast and do the first few levels while the game downloads the rest. There usually aren't many people in this area because once you've done it with one character the area quests can be completed very fast with a reroll and then you're out into the real world with everyone else.
Just pick up a trial of both games and see what you enjoy, sitting around not making a decision doesn't help you have fun faster.
There are some restrictions to LotRO trials like not being able to send tells, so keep that in mind.
Well, PvP in LotRO is Monster Play, where you either play a monster fighting other players, or are a player fighting player controlled monsters, so I'd figure there's quite a diff between LotRO and EQ2.
These folks saying that LotRO looks the same everywhere/is soulless, etc are on crack. You can't tell me Bree- looks like Moria- looks like Lothlorien- Looks like Mirkwood. Lothlorien at night just makes you want to leap into your monitor and stay there forever.
Pure nonsense. No doubt they were trialers comparing Bree to the Shire.
That said, if PvP is important to you, your best bet will be EQ2. I've never tried MPVP in LotRO, and I've never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Much of anything at all, really.
But you should really trial both games to be sure, after all, you were bent on AoC for a good while there. If you trial LotRO, make sure you at least head through the old forest and barrows in Bree before you make your decision. They give the best hint of what's to come regarding the atmospherics of the higher level zones.
The problem with trials is that you can't really experience all that much dungeon and pvp wise since most of that doesn't start getting good till the mid to upper mids levels in almost any MMORPG. Hell, I didn't know about how badly done AoC pvp was till I was able to use someone elses account (he had a 80 conq and 80 'barb to all those AoC fanboys who will tell me I just played a bad class)
Saw some more youtube vids on Lord of the Rings online, will give it that their is more variety to the scenery, which just leaves me at square freaking one again. Though looking at the two's growth cycle, LotRO is always adding more interesting things, like skirmishes and the leveling weapons, while EQ has barely changed at all since launch. I suppose I'll have to ask this again, why is it that LotRO is so amazing in PvE, everywhere I go it's called the holy grail of pve yet am given to explanation on this.
And how is the monster play? From the looks of it, I can't quite understand why it wouldn't be a great system. The problem with most other MMO pvp is they have to balance classes made for PvE, for PvP, but in LotRO you have a distinct PvP faction that does nothing but pvp against a faction that does both, so it should be stupidly easy to balance 'cause you really only have to touch the pvp faction when balancing it. Is it just people being butt hurt that they can't have their elf behead a hobbit?
Haven't tried MPvP so I can't comment from personal experience. But normal PvP was ruled out by the IP holder. Monster Play was the compromise. IMO, the PvE experience is richer because of it, as development time isn't used up on PvP balancing issues.
On PvP, I guess LotRO's trial will give you the best shot at experiencing theirs, because all you have to do is get one toon to level 10 to unlock it, and your monster starts at level 50. Keep in mind though, the level cap is 65, so you'll probably still be doing alot of dying...
On the PvE side, you have alot of tactical options that most MMO's I've played don't have. Different types of wounds, damage types, DoT's. In most MMO's I've played, it's often been a matter of picking a few attacks to repeat over and over once they recharge. In LotRO, each toon just seems to have alot more tricks up their sleeve. This may not seem quite as apparent if you play a Champ, as they tend to just hack stuff up quickly with a few manuevers. The Warden and Runekeeper are highly tactical, however. I'd try one of them if you're into that sort of stuff.
Tack onto this, the deed/traits system, where you complete deeds which give you a number of options for stat boosts and special ability mods, and sometimes new special abilities in themselves. You can only slot so many at a time, but you can always switch them around to fit your playstyle. You also have racial and legendary deeds, which are often pretty powerful special abilities, at least on the latter.
That's before you even get going on item advancement at lvl 50.
Lastly, while there are no shortage of "bleh" kill/get/use X Y's missions, but there are plenty of variations of rewards, particularly on the high end. Crafting quests, for example, which net you materials to create purple or better gear. Item experience quests, etc. And, simply put, there are plenty more quests than you need to level, especially now with skirmishes. Now that I know this, I plan to skip a number of the old "Find X widget" quests and stick with the more interesting story based quests.
As you've probably already heard, the instanced quests are some of the best in the genre; no doubt from Turbines experience from DDO.
In the end, it's difficult to tell you something which will just have you jabbing the "buy" button, as taste is personal. Like you, I thought AoC was exactly what I was looking for, and it was great for about 2 months. I can tell you I trialed LotRO 3-4 times over the years, not really been impressed, before finally giving it a solid go last Summer. I've been playing about 8 months now, and have no plans whatsoever of quitting.
It's not a game that won me over by describing itself, it only won me over by me giving it a shot, playing it, and actually trying to figure out how all the customization worked. The feeling was like walking into a car dealership looking for a SUV, leaving with a car and being glad you did, even months later. Sometimes, something can be better than what you originally wanted.
Going LoTRO, mainly beacuse I've got about as far in all three trials that I can get and can't decide. But it seems to me that LotrO has a more active and creative team behind it.
Come back in a month or two and let us know what you think!
As an active 5 year EQ2 vet and given what you're looking for, I think you made a good choice. Have fun!
"Id rather work on something with great potential than on fulfilling a promise of mediocrity."
- Raph Koster
Tried: AO,EQ,EQ2,DAoC,SWG,AA,SB,HZ,CoX,PS,GA,TR,IV,GnH,EVE, PP,DnL,WAR,MxO,SWG,FE,VG,AoC,DDO,LoTRO,Rift,TOR,Aion,Tera,TSW,GW2,DCUO,CO,STO
Favourites: AO,SWG,EVE,TR,LoTRO,TSW,EQ2, Firefall
Currently Playing: ESO
mm i m biased a bit toward lotr since it will be dx11 in first quater of 2010.witch is a big plus i believe!
What i dont understand is when OP says he will not take AoC bcs the PvP isnt good.
There is no PvP in Lotro so it can not be a reason - how to compare booth games when one is missing it at all (Monster play doesnt count).
"Torquemada... do not implore him for compassion. Torquemada... do not beg him for forgiveness. Torquemada... do not ask him for mercy. Let's face it, you can't Torquemada anything!"
MWO Music Video - What does the Mech say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF6HYNqCDLI
Johnny Cash - The Man Comes Around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0x2iwK0BKM
Ok pvp over broken pvp.
AoC is broken pvp, melee, even skilled melee, are nothing compared to a range class. The combo system may be fun, but it's shitty for pvp.
If you need pvp then AoC is your only real option. EQ2 and LOTR the limited pvp options they do have suck. For PVE EQ2 offers by far the most content and race/class options but LOTR offers a much better story line.
These games each offer some tweaks that are different however in the end it is the same old level up killing mobs and doing quest which is just hidden grinding anyway. So basically you are choosing which look and feel you want to do the exact same thing in.
For me I really did not like EQ2, not even sure why but for some reason it just never clicked with me and wasnt something that could hold my interest for longer than 10 minutes.
AoC I actively enjoy, it is a solid mmo that has a few issues here and there, but still manages to deliver a lot of content for you to enjoy. Its also one of the few remaining games with any sort of full open world PvP which some like and other dont.
LOTRO is one of the best pve games out there, but lacks really any sort of PvP. It does have monster play, but if your looking for a lot of pvp, MP wont do it for you.
My Guild Wars 2 Vids
Well even though the OP obviously chose, for me the choice was quite easy:
Steam had EQ 2 + all the expansions for $5 over new years [30 days playtime free and all that too]. I must say -nothing- beats that
.
Anyhow i played AoC, while the graphics are amazing and the initial 20 levels have a nice single player RPG ring to it, ultimately you'll be "done" with the PvE content within a month or two. All that remains then is the Sieges/PvP content which if you're NOT at least 90% PvP orientated by that time, will mean AoC will actually "end" for you (like Dragon Age ends).
Compared to EQ2 which have like how many expansions and add-ons? 14? This implies you most likely won't run out of PvE content as fast as with AoC.
I guess you have to ask yourself, how LONG do you want to play your MMO? Are you only waiting for SWTOR/Cataclysm/STO ? In which case, i would recommend AoC because well, you'll get a good solid 2-4 months out of it and at the same time feel you covered most of the game. EQ2 on the other hand, looks like you might need a longer time investment...
Can't comment on LOTRO, but it also got a headstart on the PvE content compared to AoC....
I guess my issue with alot of the latest crop of MMOs are how they juggle PvE and PvP content. So you play an MMO initially to do the PvE, what makes Developers think i want to solely PvP endgame? If you make a PvP game, make a freaking PvP game, don't pull a warhammer and make me wade through inferior PvE to PvP or vice versa.
Absolutely right. It's flat out nutty. PVE will always want to stay PVE.
My lame prediction is that companies will realize that PvP advancement through PVE is worthless, and PvP advancement through PvP will be slightly less so.
Then they'll be smart and move on to RTS and fighting games.
rune of magic .they polsihed the game a lot since september.i ve been playing most of the day today ,and they fixed their own dowload no need to use mirror or whatever
downloaded at 1150kb /sec my max connection speed.dont know how this works out but a tech told me it roughly my 10mb/sec speed its not the same number .anyway the game wow lot of little detail that made the gem a diamond .dont know later but so far they improved a lot the game better look for me !cant say if its tweak to the game or my window 7 but i think rune of magic did polish it a lot.
was alreadfy best f2p game.im going against the flow warden/druid isnt rolled a lot it seems i i understood correctly
hard to play we ll see anyway .if you look for a f2p game this is one if not the top right now .it will get more sub i believe
no wonder some site chose this game as their 2009 game of the year they really deserve it.
I started playing EQ2 about ten days after launch. I have been playing EQ2 on and off since then, as it has been MY MMO. Between launch and now I had the chance to play both AoC and LotRO.
First off, AoC was fun as hell (I played at launch). The graphics are great and the PvP is fun. I leveled a Herald of Xotli to level max 80 and was the main HoX and a key founder in the most prestigious raid guild Vendetta on the server Shadowbane. My class was AMAZINGLY fun and great at the time (not sure how it is now). I also was the master Architect who built our guild city. The game was great till all the way through...but at about level 60 or so is when the lack of content became more noticeable. Each level seemed like a decline in content. I'm not sure how the game is now, but that's my opinion on AoC.
LotRO. It was not fun at all. I'm not going to lie, I could never get into WoW..no matter how hard I tried. This game is so similar to WoW that I couldn't get into it. The gameplay was slow paced and boring. The graphics aren't good, but aren't horrible either. It does have a better artistic feel than EQ2 though. I played beta/launch and it wasn't for me. It was kind of sad because I love Tolkien's work, and seeing as this game was pretty much a WoW in Tolkien's world is such a disappointment.
EQ2. Like I said above, I have been playing since a week or so after launch. It's a great game and with each update comes new content and overall improvements. Graphics are good, but the artwork and overall artistic feel isn't great. I've done solo, group, and raid zones/dungeons and for the most part the PvE is superb. I am also on the PvP server, and while people say EQ2 PvP sucks, I beg to differ. I believe it has one of the best open world PvP systems compared to a lot of other games (mostly because of better restrictions). On the other hand, EQ2 has a horrible Arena (battleground) system. I've never seen anyone play in one (although it is going to be re-introduced/revamped the next expansion in February).
I know for a fact there's a trial for EQ2 that you get try out to form opinions, so I suggest going to Everquest2.com for more information. I'm not sure there's a trial for the others though, otherwise I'd tell you.
With all that said, no one can really tell you what to think. I suggest getting each one of these games and try them out for yourself. Personally, I'd say either EQ2 or Aoc.
Hope this helped,
drago.
Friend talked me into trying AoC again, and I'll say that I may have judged the game a little harshly.
I didn't know about double tapping directions giving you buffs, or even blocking. After a few minutes learning those, I jumped back into the pvp and it alot more satisfying, granted, range classes still had an obvious advantage over pretty much everyone melee, being able to take out some of that advantage helped greatly.