As it has been said, the gameplay is fun, good ideas/concepts, the classes play well off of each other. AvA is not worth the monthly fee though, in this persons opinion. Not going to say why or whyt not, just saying it is NOT worth even 5.99 a month. Let alone 12.99 or whatever. You would be better off waisting your money on planetside, even though not many people play that anymore, it still might be a better investment than GA.
Awww... Somebody got rolled by GS/CTC
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
As it has been said, the gameplay is fun, good ideas/concepts, the classes play well off of each other. AvA is not worth the monthly fee though, in this persons opinion. Not going to say why or whyt not, just saying it is NOT worth even 5.99 a month. Let alone 12.99 or whatever. You would be better off waisting your money on planetside, even though not many people play that anymore, it still might be a better investment than GA.
Awww... Somebody got rolled by GS/CTC
Naw, I never really did. I did some mercenary work, and got rolled by whoever we were fighting. Just wasn't the game for me, I am more of a persistent world kind of guy, though I do enjoy the non-monthly fee stuff. The AvA just isn't worth 12.99 for me.
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
having fun completely depends on your agency, very very much like EVE. whenever i played that game without a good corp, i felt i was wasting my money. GA is the same thing. sure, EVE has a ton of recently added pve content that might make solo play worth the sub, but this wasnt the case about a year ago. remember that GA is a brand spankin new MMO, so naturally it will be a little thin in the content department. right now, there's enough content to make most people happy for at least a month or two without AvA, longer with it. but within 6 months, they'll have a ton of new content churned out.
I'm not yet convinced by the AvA subscription model they have yet but there is more than enough content to justify the purchase price and just play the free part for however long. GA would be my perfect game on the side. Quick to jump online straight into fast, fun pvp/pve while able to be played casually and not worry about not being competitive enough gear/level wise or falling behind friends.
Now if only someone would release my perfect mmo i'd be happy......
Ok, So I am going to pick this game up for the "free" portion.
It sounds good and I might go for the AvA, but I want a shooter that I can play and enjoy that doesn't take a lot of time that has RPG elements to it. Currently the shooters that have persistance to it are mostly item shop based(which sucks since they either have the items OP in the shop or make it difficult to keep pace/momentum in the F2P).
I just wanted to add, this game has given me the most fun i had in a looong time, and it covers more then just 1 game genre and i really like that, i am without doubt gonna pay monthly fee for this game.
I hope my posts weren't too misleading. I would suggest buying the game for the free aspect, it is a lot of fun!
But as I say and keep saying, 12.99 or whatever for the AvA isn't worth it to me. Unless they open up the maps for bigger battles, say 20 on 20 or 25v25. 10v10 is just too smallscale for me.
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
Originally posted by dodgetigger For example Shadowbane. That is the only game I can think of that I would label as a game with a true persistant AND open world.
EVE, WWIIOL, PS.
Though PS not so much since after a while you realize the map changes so fast (in a matter of hours) that any gains from one evening pretty much never carried over to the next night.
EVE's Sovereignty system is the stuff of legends in MMOs. The implosion of BoB from a highly placed Goon turncoat rocked the entire EVE population for months afterwards.
WWIIOL had campaigns that lasted 2-6 weeks. Gains/losses from one night were certainly felt the next.
I kinda like the GA model, really. The above three had territory vulnerable 24/7. GA's hybrid model of areas being vulnerable during certain time frames means gains/losses from one night will carry to the next. It avoids the problem Planetside had.
As for the "Zerg" effect mentioned elsewhere (not you, dodge) I think that is a non-issue. The poster saw it as a problem that a group of 10 couldn't hold more than a hex or two of territory. It ignores the fact that the very same system is what allowed them to take that hex or two in the first place. Yes, multiple hexes require a larger force to defend. This, too, is a good thing. Having large swaths of the map held by a relative minority is not good for the game as a whole. I think they system will work fine. It allows small groups to have an impact on the map while allowing groups of all sizes to have an impact on the map in proportion to their size. Larger groups can have a larger impact on larger swaths of the map but individually sections they are equal.
Comments
Awww... Somebody got rolled by GS/CTC
after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...
Awww... Somebody got rolled by GS/CTC
Naw, I never really did. I did some mercenary work, and got rolled by whoever we were fighting. Just wasn't the game for me, I am more of a persistent world kind of guy, though I do enjoy the non-monthly fee stuff. The AvA just isn't worth 12.99 for me.
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
having fun completely depends on your agency, very very much like EVE. whenever i played that game without a good corp, i felt i was wasting my money. GA is the same thing. sure, EVE has a ton of recently added pve content that might make solo play worth the sub, but this wasnt the case about a year ago. remember that GA is a brand spankin new MMO, so naturally it will be a little thin in the content department. right now, there's enough content to make most people happy for at least a month or two without AvA, longer with it. but within 6 months, they'll have a ton of new content churned out.
I'm not yet convinced by the AvA subscription model they have yet but there is more than enough content to justify the purchase price and just play the free part for however long. GA would be my perfect game on the side. Quick to jump online straight into fast, fun pvp/pve while able to be played casually and not worry about not being competitive enough gear/level wise or falling behind friends.
Now if only someone would release my perfect mmo i'd be happy......
Ok, So I am going to pick this game up for the "free" portion.
It sounds good and I might go for the AvA, but I want a shooter that I can play and enjoy that doesn't take a lot of time that has RPG elements to it. Currently the shooters that have persistance to it are mostly item shop based(which sucks since they either have the items OP in the shop or make it difficult to keep pace/momentum in the F2P).
I just wanted to add, this game has given me the most fun i had in a looong time, and it covers more then just 1 game genre and i really like that, i am without doubt gonna pay monthly fee for this game.
I hope my posts weren't too misleading. I would suggest buying the game for the free aspect, it is a lot of fun!
But as I say and keep saying, 12.99 or whatever for the AvA isn't worth it to me. Unless they open up the maps for bigger battles, say 20 on 20 or 25v25. 10v10 is just too smallscale for me.
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.
EVE, WWIIOL, PS.
Though PS not so much since after a while you realize the map changes so fast (in a matter of hours) that any gains from one evening pretty much never carried over to the next night.
EVE's Sovereignty system is the stuff of legends in MMOs. The implosion of BoB from a highly placed Goon turncoat rocked the entire EVE population for months afterwards.
WWIIOL had campaigns that lasted 2-6 weeks. Gains/losses from one night were certainly felt the next.
I kinda like the GA model, really. The above three had territory vulnerable 24/7. GA's hybrid model of areas being vulnerable during certain time frames means gains/losses from one night will carry to the next. It avoids the problem Planetside had.
As for the "Zerg" effect mentioned elsewhere (not you, dodge) I think that is a non-issue. The poster saw it as a problem that a group of 10 couldn't hold more than a hex or two of territory. It ignores the fact that the very same system is what allowed them to take that hex or two in the first place. Yes, multiple hexes require a larger force to defend. This, too, is a good thing. Having large swaths of the map held by a relative minority is not good for the game as a whole. I think they system will work fine. It allows small groups to have an impact on the map while allowing groups of all sizes to have an impact on the map in proportion to their size. Larger groups can have a larger impact on larger swaths of the map but individually sections they are equal.
Not just another pretty color.