#1 was, at the time, the communications system which the AC developers INTENTIONALLY made as 'realistic' as possible. Limiting you to Shout, Say and Tell only. You could chat with your liege and your vassals but could not speak above your leige (except through tells) or below your vassals (except through tells) The communications system was deliberately limiting. Which, while it kept down chatter when hunting, limited people's ability to form groups, etc. Did YOU play for the first 4 months after release? If you did had you forgotten that little design flaw?
Uhmmm...You not liking something apart of the game...Does not make it a design flaw. Better yet...What was even the reason for your dislike of that "design flaw"? Did it make it too...Hard? Too realistic? Personally I enjoyed it. For me, it filled the purpose of realism; it helped immerse. So I'm curious as to why YOU don't like it; instead of just labeling it as a "design flaw."
Simple: MMO's are Massively Multiplayer Limiting people's ability to communicate is a bad idea. Finding ways to allow people to communicate freely without being obtrusive is GOOD design (tabs, allowing them to enable and disable channels as they see fit, etc). Disabling the ability to communicate is bad design because you've just alienated ANYONE who plays MMO's for the social interaction.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
I never said it was a bad MMO I said it's a FLOP, my definition of a "FLOP" is any MMO that, while it may be decent, is in danger of becoming unprofitable and winding up on the cancelled list.
Sorry if I correct you man, but Flop is not exactly what you describe. Flop is a product tha has been unsuccesful from start to end, which performed underpar to the hype and expectations.
AC was none of that. 100.000 Players at its peak is a great success for a game, made by unknown developers and 4 years old (keep in mind that The Matrix Online has 45K subscribers and has been launched this year and it s a famous movie franchise). Of course you can say that AC2 was a flop, because it was supposed to do better than AC, while in fact achieved far less subscriptions. If Turbine can afford to develope games such D&D and LoTR is thanks to AC, which gave them the financial indipendence and prestige to approach such big franchises.
I agree that AC is a dieing game, but I won't call it a flop
Originally posted by zaxtor99 There is a reason that games like AC1 and UO take so long to die. They are quality games that were made with heart and passion to make a top notch mmo game. Games like Blizzards "World of Warcraft" were not made this way. They have no passion for the game, instead the passion used to make a game like "World of Warcraft" only came from greed and the desire to make as much cash as possible, as quickly as possible. They care not about the true mmo players desires for a hard core mmo. They only want to make a main-stream mmo that people will like from all areas of the gaming community and cash in quickly. The kind of people that play games like GW and WoW and EQ2 are ummmm, nevermind. Just go play each game and discover which kind of people play each type of game. Sure there are random griefers and punks that play AC1. And there are a few people that are true mmo fans that play GW or WoW. But besides these rare exceptions, the type of people that play a game like AC are far different then what you'll see playing a game like WoW or EQ2. And their loyalty to each game will also reflect this. AC players loyalty, for the most part will last many, many years with a game world like what you find in AC. And ummm, we see all the threads constantly of how many people play a game like WoW and post how they played it for X weeks or X months and are bored to death of it looking for the next mmo with pretty and dazzling graphics.Another thing to keep in mind is this. I guarantee you, despite AC's much lower gaming population compared to WoW, there are many, many more players who play a game like AC, leave it for a while to go try WoW, and get bored and come back to AC then vice versa. Just not many WoW players out there stop and go try AC, then get bored with AC and come back to WoW thinking "man I shouldn't have ever left WoW for that dumb game". But I guarantee you that many thousands of AC players have returned to the better game after taking short breaks trying out one of the prettier, newer games like WoW and EQ2.- Zaxx
All very good points, Zaxx
Asherons Call is in my opinion as well simply the best mmorpg ever made! Nothing tops the dynamic world that Turbine put together so many years ago.
AC #1 and that's sad considering it is so old and still whipping the newer, younger, and more technologically advanced mmos today!
Originally posted by ste2000 Originally posted by Elnator I never said it was a bad MMO I said it's a FLOP, my definition of a "FLOP" is any MMO that, while it may be decent, is in danger of becoming unprofitable and winding up on the cancelled list. Sorry if I correct you man, but Flop is not exactly what you describe.Flop is a product tha has been unsuccesful from start to end, which performed underpar to the hype and expectations.AC was none of that.100.000 Players at its peak is a great success for a game, made by unknown developers and 4 years old (keep in mind that The Matrix Online has 45K subscribers and has been launched this year and it s a famous movie franchise).Of course you can say that AC2 was a flop, because it was supposed to do better than AC, while in fact achieved far less subscriptions.If Turbine can afford to develope games such D&D and LoTR is thanks to AC, which gave them the financial indipendence and prestige to approach such big franchises.I agree that AC is a dieing game, but I won't call it a flop
No problem, your definition and mine differ that's all. As I said perhaps flop was a bad term for AC. How bout: Failing MMO
AC has some awesome features and a lot of the problems it had at release have been corrected. But, as I said, unless they turn the trend around it's going to die. And with the competition it has now, as compared to what it was competing against at release, it's going to be hard pressed to turn the numbers around.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Simple: MMO's are Massively Multiplayer Limiting people's ability to communicate is a bad idea. Finding ways to allow people to communicate freely without being obtrusive is GOOD design (tabs, allowing them to enable and disable channels as they see fit, etc). Disabling the ability to communicate is bad design because you've just alienated ANYONE who plays MMO's for the social interaction.
Your personal preference does not make something a good or bad design...Don't be egotistical. It's all about personal preference.
In the end I even enjoyed it's lack of global communication. And I could explain the many reasons why globalization of chat is in fact bad design...But that in fact would be my personal preference and reasons, and nothing more.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Originally posted by Elnator Simple:MMO's are Massively Multiplayer Limiting people's ability to communicate is a bad idea. Finding ways to allow people to communicate freely without being obtrusive is GOOD design (tabs, allowing them to enable and disable channels as they see fit, etc). Disabling the ability to communicate is bad design because you've just alienated ANYONE who plays MMO's for the social interaction.
Your personal preference does not make something a good or bad design...Don't be egotistical. It's all about personal preference.
In the end I even enjoyed it's lack of global communication. And I could explain the many reasons why globalization of chat is in fact bad design...But that in fact would be my personal preference and reasons, and nothing more.
Ok let me get this straight: They implemented the game without global chat channels for those who *wanted* them. This caused a large number of people to note and complain about the lack of ability to communicate. Thus this is a "personal" preference?
Limiting choices in an MMO is 'good' design?
Please explain how you come to this interesting logic leap?
Limiting choices is BAD design... especially when they're so EASY to grant. They eventually added global channels that allow players who CHOSE to do so to communicate more easily. This alone should tell you that even the developers realized that while it was a novel idea their implementation of communications was flawed.
Good lord... yes, it was a decent game but it had some rather obvious flaws. Nothing is perfect and the lack of ability to communicate and build community was one of the things that prevented players from developing an attachment to the game.
Ask most MMO players why they play a game after a while. Eventually it's not about the game anymore, it's about the friends they've made and the community in the game. I developed and helped run MUDS for YEARS before UO and EQ and AC came out. Some tried the 'limited communications' approach. In every case those didn't do as well as MUDS that had global chat. So it's not personal preference it's practical experience in the industry. People who play online games typically want to be able to talk to each other. Limiting that ability while it may be 'realistic' is generally going to dissafect players.
I stand by my statement: Limiting communications the way they did initially was a neat concept but it was ultimately a DESIGN FLAW. Like it or not even the developers themselves eventually realized it and implemented better communications for the players.
Honestly, I am glad AC is still around because it was, and is, a testament that NEW ideas are better than going with the same old thing. I do hope they turn their subscription base around. I never said the game was a BAD GAME I said it was a DYING game. And that statement is also true whether you like it or not. If turbine cannot reverse the downward trend in subscribers it isn't going to be very long before the game starts losing money. At that point Turbine will be facing some tough decisions. As I said before this is going to be very difficult to turn around because of the competition coming out in the industry. Turbine is even releasing titles that will probably draw even more players away from AC at least initially when they release D&D and LOTR (though I suspect neither of those titles will really satisfy the true fans of those franchises).
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Originally posted by xantho10 try to deside witch is better lineage2 or wow or AC/AC2? as for as exploering and game play and stuff to do etc o and with people
None of the above
I concur. L2... c'mon read the reviews and boards. WoW is boring. AC/AC2 has been dead for years. AC2 actually never had a heartbeat.
Originally posted by brostyn Originally posted by ElnatorOriginally posted by xantho10try to deside witch is better lineage2 or wow or AC/AC2? as for as exploering and game play and stuff to do etc o and with people None of the aboveI concur. L2... c'mon read the reviews and boards. WoW is boring. AC/AC2 has been dead for years. AC2 actually never had a heartbeat.
LOL AC2 was stillborn... I'm surprised they even keep the servers running.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Ok let me get this straight: They implemented the game without global chat channels for those who *wanted* them. This caused a large number of people to note and complain about the lack of ability to communicate. Thus this is a "personal" preference?
I rarely saw this large number you spoke of; but yes, indeed, it is, and was, a personal preference.
Limiting choices in an MMO is 'good' design?
Well personally I don't want the ability to type in /godmode; or allow anyone else that choice, and end up ruining the gaming experience. So again...yes.
Please explain how you come to this interesting logic leap?
...Above for reference.
Limiting choices is BAD design... especially when they're so EASY to grant.
Many "carebears" would disagree with you. Ala...PvP being the easily granted concept, and open PvP, being the limitless choices of PvP involved activity. So uhh...You're gonna be fighting quite a few people on that belief. Though I am not a carebear, and I am for freedom of game; half of that freedom is for realism. Which globalization of chat completely impedes part of that process.
They eventually added global channels that allow players who CHOSE to do so to communicate more easily. This alone should tell you that even the developers realized that while it was a novel idea their implementation of communications was flawed.
Uhh...Right. Because developers know best.
Usually when developers cave in to those most loud and abrasive demands of the player; the game loses it's novelty. It becomes simplified, and easy. Most players choose the easy road, which is why for alot of singleplayer games, there is cheatcodes. Alot of players can't resist the urge to use those codes, but in the end, they simplify their gameplay, and it loses the fun factor that it once had.
A differing comparison, but in the end it comes down to the same thing. It comes down to casual, easy gaming. That for some is all fine and dandy. But AC1 was about the hardcore market, the niche market. And caving in to this...casual gaming, only alienates those dedicated fans(like myself).
Good lord... yes, it was a decent game but it had some rather obvious flaws. Nothing is perfect and the lack of ability to communicate and build community was one of the things that prevented players from developing an attachment to the game.
Really? Because I played 2 1/2 years after release. A total of about 3 including beta. And the inability for things like casual playing, and globlization of chat(look to casual playing) in fact...Made me grow to love that game. It in fact made the community around me more tightknit. It made you depend on those you knew previously.
Just because you didn't enjoy it, or get attached to it...Does not make it a design flaw.
Ask most MMO players why they play a game after a while. Eventually it's not about the game anymore, it's about the friends they've made and the community in the game.
Wow...And I guess you need globlization of chat to keep in touch with the friend's you've created...eh?
I developed and helped run MUDS for YEARS before UO and EQ and AC came out. Some tried the 'limited communications' approach. In every case those didn't do as well as MUDS that had global chat. So it's not personal preference it's practical experience in the industry. People who play online games typically want to be able to talk to each other. Limiting that ability while it may be 'realistic' is generally going to dissafect players.
And of course money means game goodness...Geez, Lord Almighty; you're like these people that just eat up the BS that games like WoW feed you.
I stand by my statement: Limiting communications the way they did initially was a neat concept but it was ultimately a DESIGN FLAW. Like it or not even the developers themselves eventually realized it and implemented better communications for the players.
Are you going to spout the same doctrine about things like open PvP because in america it doesn't have as big a following?
Global communication may mean more money...But so does making cookie cutter crap games like WoW. Does it make it a good game? Hardly. Would I say WoW is riddled with design flaws? Most definitely. But again...That's my opinion.
This "More money. And what I like, means better game design" attitude; is absurd and narrow viewed. Lineage 2 in america in comparison to other leading games...By all means is a failure. Compare it in Asia; it's a mind-blowing success.
Here, casual MMORPG's directed towards casual gamers means more money. To say that games like AC1 are a failure, or to say upcoming games like Roma Victor, Darkfall, etc. are going to be failures because of their hardcore, realistic gaming experience, will be failures, is absurd. Popularity, nor money, means failure of gameplay. A failure economically? Possibly...Of gameplay? No.
Alot of people like casual...Doesn't mean it's always the right way.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
I haven't played AC1 but not having full guildchat at launch was a real mistake. And it seems Turbine got that error strait. At least I know that Turbine is putting a lot of work into AC and even AC2. AC2 isn't a bad game it has just empty servers. AC1 perhaps didn't have a bad marketing but AC2 surely had and still has. 80% of my friends that also play games never heard of AC2 even now I know that there is an expansion and even the game sellers here haven't heard about it. If that isn't bad marketing I don't know what is. Hope Turbine will get it dented out and get their marketing up to gear, otherwise I see dark days comming for the upcomming releases as well.
"If all magic fails, rely on three feet of steel and a strong arm"
Originally posted by xplororor The main reason I decided to post in this thread is to comment on the silly idea that AC is a flop. AC (Asheron's Call aka AC1) is not a flop. It is one of the oldest, longest running, mmorpgs. It was the first 3-D MMORPG. Created before EQ, but released AFTER EQ released. For a while the ONLY major mmorpgs were EQ and AC. (Lin1 was popular only in Asia and Korea, not worldwide.) AC easily made enough profits to re-coup all its investment money. It now runs itself. Just like EQ, AC is a money machine. AC now costs almost nothing to run. AC cost roughly 5 million to make. It has made enough proft to allow Turbine to waste 25 million on making AC2, as well as make 2 more MMORPGs that cost roughly 20 million each - Middle Earth Online, and Dungeons Dragons Online. (Both are not out yet.) AC peaked at roughly 100k accounts. Which fulfills the definition of a HIT mmorpg. AC has been out for almost as long as EQ. AC currently has roughly 40k to 50k accounts. Still more than some brand new mmorpgs have! ---------------------------------
Reasons AC is not even bigger than it is: 1. It released in EQ's shadow. Early bird gets the worm. EQ was the "early bird". 2. AC was never aggresivly marketed. AC to this day has only had ONE free trial. EQ has litterally had roughly 25 free trials! LOL! AC is not advertised in any major computer magazines, nor on any gamer sites. 3. Parent company Turbine spent many years owned by MicroCrap... errr... MicroSoft. MC did nothing to increase AC's growth. Invested nothing into AC. In fact, MS pennypinched sooo much it is what resulted in AC2 failing. MicroSoft has the RECORD of most number of FAILED mmorpgs: - Mythica = 25 million wasted down the drain. - AC2 = 25 million wasted down the drain. Thbat is 50 million total bucks MicroSoft flushed down the drain. MS finally sold Turbine back to itself. 4. The mmorpg market went from having 2-3 major MMORPGs, to now having 10 - 20 major MMORPGs. There is far, far, far, more competition for players. And also far more newer MMORPGs. AC still has NICE game features, playability. But alas, its graphics and game engine, are outdated. This COULD be made up for IF AC were aggresivly marketed. EQ has outdated graphics, but it is aggresivly marketed and right now has roughly 200k accounts while AC has roughly 50k accounts.
I'm sorry. If AC flopped because of bad marketting how do you explain that it went from just over 100,000 users in December of 2001 to under 40,000 users now.
Marketing IS everything. In MMORPGs there is what is called a turnover rate. For example, EQ has had roughly 5 million players. They play, then leave. Marekting gets some old players back, and tons of new players to try the game. Because AC never aggresivly marketed itself, it had very little defense vs Turnover Rate. Every single year there is a new crop of hundreds of thousands of newbie gamers worldwide. How to get them? Marketing. Fresh newbie blood is what keeps a mmorpg healthy + taking care of the hardcore, loyal, players. AC is currently running on half of this formula by not engaging in aggresive marketing.
In September of 2001 it experienced it's first major drop in users then slowly recovered. That dip coincided with DAOC's release by the way.
I listed 4 major reasons. Why are you concentrating on just one of them? BTW, if you read my 4th reason, you will see we both are in full agreement with each other.
Like I said, it could come back, but they need to reverse the trend in subscriptions to do it. Right now? I wouldn't spend my money on it because it's in danger of dying and, frankly, isn't that much fun.
AC1 is not in danger of dying. It long ago re-couped all its investment money.
If AC1 went down to 10k subscribers it still would not die.
The ONLY way AC could die is if Turbine keeps using the profits from AC to further keep the flop, the failure, AC2 on lifesupport. AC2 is sucking the profits from AC1. Also IMHO DDO and MEO will both be flops when they release (IF they ever release LOL!). This tripple series of flops and failures could bankrupt Turbine. No way AC could make enough profits to float 3 other failed MMORPGs.
I never said it was a bad MMO I said it's a FLOP, my definition of a "FLOP" is any MMO that, while it may be decent, is in danger of becoming unprofitable and winding up on the cancelled list.
Then by your own definition, AC is NOT a flop LOL! Show us your proof that AC is unprofitable right now? Did you read my post on how much AC cost to be made? And how AC has long ago re-couped all its investment money? AC now costs almost nothing to run, just like EQ, and UO.
Now, that's not to say AC was a bad MMO. It wasn't. In a lot of ways it was better than EQ It was also better than UO in some ways.
Oh... another thing I heard a lot was: "AC is a fun MMO but it just doesn't have that magic that EQ does"
AC and EQ are very different from each other. This would help explain why most EQ players did not like AC. Next, AC got the majority of its players NOT from EQ. But from the new crop of newbie MMORPG players. And also from UO players. AC has more in common with UO than EQ. AC is more skill based, just like UO. EQ is more level based, and has almost zero skill based features.
Remember: The initial players of AC were,a large portion of them anyway, dissafected EQ players, many of whom returned to EQ after trying the game for a while.
If AC peaked at 100k players, how come EQ never lost 100k players? In fact, EQ lost no signifigant numbers of players during the first year AC was out.
Now, was the game a BAD game? No it wasnt.
Was the game a SUCCESSFUL one? You betcha, initially.
You better believe it! AC completly recouped ALL its investment money.
Is the game a SUCCESSFUL game now? No
You claim AC right now is not turning a profit. Please show your proof. Until you do this, you are incorrect - AC is still a successful game. It still generates more profits than costs.
Yeah, it's one of the longest running MMO's but it's below 40,000 users now.
And? So? AC is still turning in a profit. Numbers mean nothing as long as a MMORPG is turning in a profit.
And still dropping. If it continues on this downward trend Turbine will be forced to cancel it or really start cutting back on support in order to keep it profitable.
AC would still be making a profit even if it shrank down to 10k accounts. It will be a very long time before AC is in danger of being shut down. In other words, do not hold your breath.
They already have slowed down development for it drastically specifically because of the drop in revenue (and the fact that they're using what profits AC1 does make to keep AC2 on life support (god only knows why, they really should just let that one die... it's barely got 10,000 subscribers))
Hmm... you are now repeating what I said LOL! Yes, AC2 is an unofficially failed mmorpg. And since you are repeating what I said, you have now admitted AC is making enough profit to keep AC, and AC2 alive = AC is not in danger of dying off, = AC is not a flop or failure.
The game is a failing MMO
The game is still turning in a profit. The game has long ago re-couped all its investment money. Thus it has already succeeded. It is not failing. It is still alive and running.
Maybe I misspoke when I said "Flop" but it's definitely on a downward trend and is dangerously close to becoming unprofitable... and if that happens I don't see Turbine keeping it going.
Now you finally are leaning towards admitting you are missinformed. AC is not a flop. It is not a failure. Yes, it does not have as many accounts as it once did. Neither does EQ. EQ has lost 1/3 of its total accounts. Is EQ a failure now? AC has lost roughly 50k players. EQ has lost roughly 100k players. Are both games now suddently unprofitable?
AC right now is still NOT dangerously close to becoming unprofitable. AC cost 5 million to make. It long ago re-couped that money. AC has since generated enough profit to make three more brand new MMORPGs. That is roughly 75 million being invested!!! All the time while also making enough profit to keep the game itself running.
Be alarmed only when AC falls to 10k accounts - IF that ever happens. IF its current loyal playerbase ever suddently leave for no reason.
Originally posted by Elnator I never said it was a bad MMO I said it's a FLOP, my definition of a "FLOP" is any MMO that, while it may be decent, is in danger of becoming unprofitable and winding up on the cancelled list.
Sorry if I correct you man, but Flop is not exactly what you describe.Flop is a product tha has been unsuccesful from start to end, which performed underpar to the hype and expectations.AC was none of that.100.000 Players at its peak is a great success for a game, made by unknown developers and 4 years old (keep in mind that The Matrix Online has 45K subscribers and has been launched this year and it s a famous movie franchise).Of course you can say that AC2 was a flop, because it was supposed to do better than AC, while in fact achieved far less subscriptions.If Turbine can afford to develope games such D&D and LoTR is thanks to AC, which gave them the financial indipendence and prestige to approach such big franchises.I agree that AC is a dieing game, but I won't call it a flop
No problem, your definition and mine differ that's all. As I said perhaps flop was a bad term for AC. How bout: Failing MMO
AC has some awesome features and a lot of the problems it had at release have been corrected. But, as I said, unless they turn the trend around it's going to die. And with the competition it has now, as compared to what it was competing against at release, it's going to be hard pressed to turn the numbers around.
No AC is not a flop. It is not failing. It is simply an old MMORPG. It is also still pulling in a profit. And not barely, but a healthy profit.
Next, AC does have tons of indirect competition. But it has very little direct competition. Very few Swords and Sorcery MMOPRGs are skill based (UO, HZ, and..... that is it LOL!). The majority of them are Level Based. (EQ, DAoC, etc...)
AC needs to drop down to 10k players before it is in serious danger of NOT turning out a profit. It needs to lose 75% of its current players. The fact that AC has been stable at roughly 40k players at present time, even with the insane amount of MMORPGs oversaturating the market, shows it has a hardcore, loyal, playerbase. AC's playerbase will not suddently lose 30k players overnight. AC will not die. (At least, not because of anything wrong with AC. It will be years before we find out if DDO, MEO (or LotR Online) are also failures. If/When that happens Turbine will have abused the profits of AC on other games.)
Aldaron (cutting this portion out because this seems to be the only area we really, honestly, dissagree on)
Ok let me get this straight: They implemented the game without global chat channels for those who *wanted* them. This caused a large number of people to note and complain about the lack of ability to communicate. Thus this is a "personal" preference?
I rarely saw this large number you spoke of; but yes, indeed, it is, and was, a personal preference.
Limiting choices in an MMO is 'good' design?
Well personally I don't want the ability to type in /godmode; or allow anyone else that choice, and end up ruining the gaming experience. So again...yes.
Limiting choices is BAD design... especially when they're so EASY to grant.
Many "carebears" would disagree with you. Ala...PvP being the easily granted concept, and open PvP, being the limitless choices of PvP involved activity. So uhh...You're gonna be fighting quite a few people on that belief. Though I am not a carebear, and I am for freedom of game; half of that freedom is for realism. Which globalization of chat completely impedes part of that process.
Ok first off I am obviously miscommunitcating again. I never said that the game should have had mandatory global channels I said it should have had the option to use global channels. ESPECIALLY for guilds/kingdoms. Which they later added because they specifically saw it was a problem the original way. In no way do global guildchat channels detract from a game. In fact limiting that ability actually hampers the design and running of a guild. That was changed because the developers, not just me, realized that limiting communications within a guild type organization was a bad idea and was causing more problems than it was worth.
UO initially released without the ability to talk remotely easily even within guilds. Players got so frustrated with that inability that they turned to 3rd party programs like ICQ to allow them to reach each other quickly. IMO this is bad design. You shouldn't design a game that causes players to turn to 3rd party applications to provide basic functionality. UO developers recognized this as well and eventually added the ability to have global guildchat channels.
Your counter arguement that giving something as easy and unobtrusive and non-impacting as global guildchat is that PVP is "Easily" provided?
Are you high? Providing PVP is one of the most difficult things to do because while you can balance PVE classes fairly well balancing them in PVP is much much more difficult. You have to ensure that no one class is entirely too over powered (see archers at DAOC's initial release for a prime example). Class balance is difficult enough just for PVE... balancing for PVP is an entirely different animal. Also, granting PVP can ruin the entire concept of an MMO if it wasn't originally planned with PVP in mind. Granting PVP without proper forethought can alienate any player who doesn't like PVP (your carebear friends).
So how do you come up with "Granting PVP is easy"? And how do you feel that PVP is anywhere equivalent to adding global guildchat/factionchat/whatever?
I personally cannot think of an MMO that is currently on the market that doesn't provide global guildchat, at a minimum, and the vast majority provide global general chat (which I tend to agree is silly, and am glad that SWG doesn't have it as a default option though you can add planetary chat to your tabs if you so desire) and even more have a global "auction" chat so that players can more easily sell their items.
Now, I'll be the first to buy into the idea that global auction channels are probably bad programming. I really like the vendor system in SWG and the Personal Storefront system in EQ2... I think those are far better methods of allowing players to get their items up for sale and they also encourage pricing competition which keeps the economy under control. Allowing players to sell goods while on or offline.
But global guildchat is not just a "Good" idea it's a necessity. Guilds live and die by the ability of their members to communicate with one another. You and I both know that.
AC, at release, had NONE of them, including the most crucial, in my opinion, guildchat. They eventually implemented them which proves that they saw a need for them otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
As to the game holding steady at 40,000 subscribers I am not exactly certain that is correct. SirBruce has stated that as of March 2001 it was at 37,000
Now, others have stated that the game would have to drop down to 10,000 subscribers before it's in danger. Given that it's already recouped it's investment costs I would tend to agree with that but given that there are several Skill based MMO's on the horizon which are based on newer technology, will also offer PVP and will have superior crafting and trade systems... I think AC is going to be hard pressed to increase it's playerbase and it is very possible it will begin losing players again. Not saying it will for sure but it is very possible.
You can believe what you will but what killed Turbine was: 1) Poor marketting, I agree 100% they should have marketted this better. And with Microsoft as a Backer I'm not sure why they didn't. Microsoft is one of the best companies in the world at marketting... Even if Turbine didn't have the skillsets necessary for properly marketting the game they certainly could have asked their partner for assistance in that area. 2) Some design flaws at initial release that caused a large portion of the player base to be unable to establish an attachment to the game. Many, frustrated, returned to EQ or left for DAOC and other games as they came out. '
Some other facts: While AC started a steady downward trend when DAOC was released EQ & UO were both growing steadily. In fact, EQ didn't start a downward trend until the release of Star Wars Galaxies when UO also started a downward trend. FFXI didn't even affect the growth of either of those two titles initially.
I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's a solid MMO that is a little aged is all. Is it failed? Not yet. But at roughly 40k subscribers it is in dangerous territory. Added to that fact is that Turbine is using it to keep AC2 on life support which is a further drain on it's profitability. Personally if I was in charge over at Turbine I would do the following:
1) Dump AC2... it's obbiously a failure having never even reached 15k subscriptions and is also on a steady decline. 2) Redesign the AC1 website so it's easier to find real information 3) Take the money they've BEEN sinking into AC2 and throw it into a decent marketting campaign.
That MIGHT get their numbers to turn around. Either way they need to generate major interest in the game BEFORE several of the up-and coming titles start releasing this year. Because once that happens it's going to be even harder to grow their subscriber base.
I already said that using the word FLOP for AC1 was a bad choice of words. But given the current industry trend and the fact that several games that are going to be in direct competition with it's style of play are on the horizon I very strongly believe that it's in danger of failing if it doesn't increase it's subscriber base.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Ok first off I am obviously miscommunitcating again. I never said that the game should have had mandatory global channels I said it should have had the option to use global channels.
lol. Sort of getting into scemantics aren't you? No one game has it mandatory on any channels! You can usually turn off any chat, or squelch any player, you want. That is hardly what is being proposed.
ESPECIALLY for guilds/kingdoms. Which they later added because they specifically saw it was a problem the original way. In no way do global guildchat channels detract from a game. In fact limiting that ability actually hampers the design and running of a guild. That was changed because the developers, not just me, realized that limiting communications within a guild type organization was a bad idea and was causing more problems than it was worth.
Guildwise chat channels I don't have a problem with when you already have tells. Well actually...
Let me say that again, I do have a problem with it. Why? I was co-founder of a guild that reached 900 players. You know what kind of chaos that'd create?
But other then that, when you already have instant /tells, I see no problem with it. Of course though I'm for immersion and would like to put away all that false crap.
UO initially released without the ability to talk remotely easily even within guilds. Players got so frustrated with that inability that they turned to 3rd party programs like ICQ to allow them to reach each other quickly. IMO this is bad design. You shouldn't design a game that causes players to turn to 3rd party applications to provide basic functionality. UO developers recognized this as well and eventually added the ability to have global guildchat channels.
Or it could be because some people take shortcuts. You had players in AC1 use a certain program (I can't remember what it was called...I believe it was...Sixth sense?) that provided an inability for an extended radar. Same thing? I'd say so. Bending the game mechanics by either sidestepping them, or abusing them, for a advantage? I'd say so.
Just because players use outside programs for an advantage or convenience, does not make it an essential design flaw.
Your counter arguement that giving something as easy and unobtrusive and non-impacting as global guildchat is that PVP is "Easily" provided?
Are you high? Providing PVP is one of the most difficult things to do because while you can balance PVE classes fairly well balancing them in PVP is much much more difficult. You have to ensure that no one class is entirely too over powered (see archers at DAOC's initial release for a prime example). Class balance is difficult enough just for PVE... balancing for PVP is an entirely different animal. Also, granting PVP can ruin the entire concept of an MMO if it wasn't originally planned with PVP in mind. Granting PVP without proper forethought can alienate any player who doesn't like PVP (your carebear friends).
Uhh...I never said anything about balancing it. I never said implementing it properly...I just said implementing it; you know, the basics: having the ability to kill other players.
Hell, if we were going the "Can't implement unless it's balanced route" you wouldn't even have MMORPG's to begin with.
P.S.
You can say lack of good coding. But personally I think when games get more realistic, and more immersive; then they will become better games.
People may use outside programs to give themselves advantages; but people will exploit, cheat, and use 3rd party programs as well.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Aldaron it's obviously no use debating this with you. You're venturing into the realm of exploits when I'm talking about basic game items and balance.
Adding a global guildchat (that can be turned on/off at will) is not unbalancing. It doesn't require extensive testing to make sure it can't be exploited since everyone has equal access to it. It only enhances gameplay and does not hinder the game play of those who DONT want it.
*you* prefer a more immersive game without global chat channels. Well, I submit that if it's an OPTIONAL channel how is it harming YOUR gameplay by being there. But you, by wishing to deny it to other players who PREFER to have global chat available are hindering THEIR gameplay.
One of the golden rules of any MMO should be: The good of the game outweighs the good of the few, or the one.
In this case adding global guildchat is more beneficial to the game than denying them. Therefore they should go in. Why is it more beneficial? Because more people will enjoy the game because it's available. It won't hinder anyone who doesn't want the feature because they can just opt to turn it off, or not to turn it on, depending on what the default is set to.
You counter with an arguement that PVP is an equivalent addition when it plainly is not. You can't just implement PvP in a game without hindering the gameplay of other players. You would have to add the ability to turn off PVP in order to prevent those who don't want PVP to be able to avoid it. Now those who can turn off the PVP arguably have an unfair advantage over those who don't turn it off because they don't have to worry about someone killing them while they play. So PVP needs must be balanced. There should be equal reasons to be PVP active or PVP inactive.
And if you say 'well fine, we'll just force everyone to engage in pvp' you just bought into the fact that you MUST balance PVP so that it's fair for all and can't be taken advantage of.
So you see, your analogy is incorrect. Just "Turning PVP on" in a game is FAR more intrusive than giving players the capability to use a global chat chanel (of any kind).
You counter that tells are just as useful. Lets see you organize your army using tells sometime. I'd love to see how that turns out for you. Getting an entire guild together is hard enough as it is WITH global guildchat AND teamspeak AND message boards. Without global guildchat to coordinate?
And, point of fact, I've been in large guilds in various MMO's I have been in. I know quite well how chaotic guildchat can get but, in the end, you can always turn it off if nothing important is going on or you can have guild rules regarding it's use. And, as you mentioned, you can always squelch/ignore/whatever anyone who won't stop yammering when important things are going on.
Your analogy is bunk It's innaccurate and misleading. I understand that you prefer not to have global chat but I posit that by denying it they harm far more people than by allowing the option of having it since merely giving the option to use it harms nobody and allows others to enjoy the communications they desire without harming those who don't wish those type of communications.
Next you talk about 3rd party apps for extended RADAR, not only that it was extended radar that showed you people you couldn't have otherwise seen. I remember those days well, thank you. I told you I played the game. That's not the same as getting a basic function of communications. That is an Exploit. Again a totally unrelated item to the discussion of whether having a global chat channel is bad design or not. Adding a global chat channel that everyone has the ability to use is totally different than giving people a way to know where other players are in the game in a PVP environment. In a PVE environment it would be benign... but in PVP it gives an unfair advantage... again another balancing issue.
So you're trying to compare apples to grapefruit and, I'm sorry, your comparisons fall flat.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Aldaron it's obviously no use debating this with you. You're venturing into the realm of exploits when I'm talking about basic game items and balance.
Adding a global guildchat (that can be turned on/off at will) is not unbalancing. It doesn't require extensive testing to make sure it can't be exploited since everyone has equal access to it. It only enhances gameplay and does not hinder the game play of those who DONT want it.
ugh. Re-read my post...Please. You obviously didn't even grasp what I was saying.
*you* prefer a more immersive game without global chat channels. Well, I submit that if it's an OPTIONAL channel how is it harming YOUR gameplay by being there. But you, by wishing to deny it to other players who PREFER to have global chat available are hindering THEIR gameplay.
Hindering? Hrmm...I always felt that dieing in EQ and losing hours of time from loss of experience was hindering my gameplay; don't you think I should of had an option to turn off experience loss? I mean hey...Why not. It'd be hindering my gameplay. Although then I guess that'd defeat the purpose of it because then almost everyone would use it so no one had an advantage on them, and because of convenience...
Hrmm...
One of the golden rules of any MMO should be: The good of the game outweighs the good of the few, or the one.
In this case adding global guildchat is more beneficial to the game than denying them. Therefore they should go in. Why is it more beneficial? Because more people will enjoy the game because it's available. It won't hinder anyone who doesn't want the feature because they can just opt to turn it off, or not to turn it on, depending on what the default is set to.
You counter with an arguement that PVP is an equivalent addition when it plainly is not. You can't just implement PvP in a game without hindering the gameplay of other players. You would have to add the ability to turn off PVP in order to prevent those who don't want PVP to be able to avoid it. Now those who can turn off the PVP arguably have an unfair advantage over those who don't turn it off because they don't have to worry about someone killing them while they play.
So PVP needs must be balanced. There should be equal reasons to be PVP active or PVP inactive.
And if you say 'well fine, we'll just force everyone to engage in pvp' you just bought into the fact that you MUST balance PVP so that it's fair for all and can't be taken advantage of.
So you see, your analogy is incorrect. Just "Turning PVP on" in a game is FAR more intrusive than giving players the capability to use a global chat chanel (of any kind).
You counter that tells are just as useful. Lets see you organize your army using tells sometime. I'd love to see how that turns out for you. Getting an entire guild together is hard enough as it is WITH global guildchat AND teamspeak AND message boards. Without global guildchat to coordinate?
Erm...Why are we still argueing about this? Didn't I already explain that overall I'm for it when we already have tells? Sort of beating a dead horse for no reason aren't you?
And, point of fact, I've been in large guilds in various MMO's I have been in. I know quite well how chaotic guildchat can get but, in the end, you can always turn it off if nothing important is going on or you can have guild rules regarding it's use. And, as you mentioned, you can always squelch/ignore/whatever anyone who won't stop yammering when important things are going on.
900 people organizing is just as confusing as a few yammering...In fact more so confusing.
Your analogy is bunk It's innaccurate and misleading. I understand that you prefer not to have global chat but I posit that by denying it they harm far more people than by allowing the option of having it since merely giving the option to use it harms nobody and allows others to enjoy the communications they desire without harming those who don't wish those type of communications.
Repeat after me young padawan...immersion...Immersion...
Next you talk about 3rd party apps for extended RADAR, not only that it was extended radar that showed you people you couldn't have otherwise seen. I remember those days well, thank you.I told you I played the game.
I never said you didn't...getting a little defensive aren't you?
That's not the same as getting a basic function of communications.
Ohh. But it is when you don't have that unrealistic /tell /realm, /guild or whatever de hell type of chat that would be in the game; and then using outside programs to purposefully manuever around it.
That is an Exploit. Again a totally unrelated item to the discussion of whether having a global chat channel is bad design or not.
It's called an analogy...
Adding a global chat channel that everyone has the ability to use is totally different than giving people a way to know where other players are in the game in a PVP environment. In a PVE environment it would be benign... but in PVP it gives an unfair advantage... again another balancing issue.
And that is my EXACT point; it is not bad design, which you most aptly explained. It can be annoying, it can be a little nuisance, and it usually serves a fairly well purpose in PvE enviroments. But in PvP enviroments, which strive to make a closer creation to immersion, and roleplaying; it would be a bad move.
So as you see...It's not BAD coding, or idea's as you yourself proved; it's just a differing of taste, and opinion.
Now we're getting somewhere.
So you're trying to compare apples to grapefruit and, I'm sorry, your comparisons fall flat.
Analogies
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by Elnator Aldaron it's obviously no use debating this with you. You're venturing into the realm of exploits when I'm talking about basic game items and balance. Adding a global guildchat (that can be turned on/off at will) is not unbalancing. It doesn't require extensive testing to make sure it can't be exploited since everyone has equal access to it. It only enhances gameplay and does not hinder the game play of those who DONT want it. ugh. Re-read my post...Please. You obviously didn't even grasp what I was saying. *you* prefer a more immersive game without global chat channels. Well, I submit that if it's an OPTIONAL channel how is it harming YOUR gameplay by being there. But you, by wishing to deny it to other players who PREFER to have global chat available are hindering THEIR gameplay. Hindering? Hrmm...I always felt that dieing in EQ and losing hours of time from loss of experience was hindering my gameplay; don't you think I should of had an option to turn off experience loss? I mean hey...Why not. It'd be hindering my gameplay. Although then I guess that'd defeat the purpose of it because then almost everyone would use it so no one had an advantage on them, and because of convenience... Hrmm... One of the golden rules of any MMO should be:The good of the game outweighs the good of the few, or the one. In this case adding global guildchat is more beneficial to the game than denying them. Therefore they should go in. Why is it more beneficial? Because more people will enjoy the game because it's available. It won't hinder anyone who doesn't want the feature because they can just opt to turn it off, or not to turn it on, depending on what the default is set to. You counter with an arguement that PVP is an equivalent addition when it plainly is not. You can't just implement PvP in a game without hindering the gameplay of other players. You would have to add the ability to turn off PVP in order to prevent those who don't want PVP to be able to avoid it. Now those who can turn off the PVP arguably have an unfair advantage over those who don't turn it off because they don't have to worry about someone killing them while they play. So PVP needs must be balanced. There should be equal reasons to be PVP active or PVP inactive. And if you say 'well fine, we'll just force everyone to engage in pvp' you just bought into the fact that you MUST balance PVP so that it's fair for all and can't be taken advantage of. So you see, your analogy is incorrect. Just "Turning PVP on" in a game is FAR more intrusive than giving players the capability to use a global chat chanel (of any kind). You counter that tells are just as useful.Lets see you organize your army using tells sometime. I'd love to see how that turns out for you. Getting an entire guild together is hard enough as it is WITH global guildchat AND teamspeak AND message boards. Without global guildchat to coordinate? Erm...Why are we still argueing about this? Didn't I already explain that overall I'm for it when we already have tells? Sort of beating a dead horse for no reason aren't you? And, point of fact, I've been in large guilds in various MMO's I have been in. I know quite well how chaotic guildchat can get but, in the end, you can always turn it off if nothing important is going on or you can have guild rules regarding it's use. And, as you mentioned, you can always squelch/ignore/whatever anyone who won't stop yammering when important things are going on. 900 people organizing is just as confusing as a few yammering...In fact more so confusing. Your analogy is bunk It's innaccurate and misleading. I understand that you prefer not to have global chat but I posit that by denying it they harm far more people than by allowing the option of having it since merely giving the option to use it harms nobody and allows others to enjoy the communications they desire without harming those who don't wish those type of communications. Repeat after me young padawan...immersion...Immersion... Next you talk about 3rd party apps for extended RADAR, not only that it was extended radar that showed you people you couldn't have otherwise seen. I remember those days well, thank you.I told you I played the game. I never said you didn't...getting a little defensive aren't you? That's not the same as getting a basic function of communications. Ohh. But it is when you don't have that unrealistic /tell /realm, /guild or whatever de hell type of chat that would be in the game; and then using outside programs to purposefully manuever around it. That is an Exploit. Again a totally unrelated item to the discussion of whether having a global chat channel is bad design or not. It's called an analogy... Adding a global chat channel that everyone has the ability to use is totally different than giving people a way to know where other players are in the game in a PVP environment. In a PVE environment it would be benign... but in PVP it gives an unfair advantage... again another balancing issue. And that is my EXACT point; it is not bad design, which you most aptly explained. It can be annoying, it can be a little nuisance, and it usually serves a fairly well purpose in PvE enviroments. But in PvP enviroments, which strive to make a closer creation to immersion, and roleplaying; it would be a bad move. So as you see...It's not BAD coding, or idea's as you yourself proved; it's just a differing of taste, and opinion. Now we're getting somewhere. So you're trying to compare apples to grapefruit and, I'm sorry, your comparisons fall flat. Analogies
Forget it, not worth my time anymore.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Some other facts: While AC started a steady downward trend when DAOC was released EQ & UO were both growing steadily.
All sword and sorcery MMORPGs took a big hit when DAoC came out. UO, AC, and especially EQ. DAoC had the record of fastest ever growing MMORPG when it came out.
In fact, EQ didn't start a downward trend until the release of Star Wars Galaxies when UO also started a downward trend. FFXI didn't even affect the growth of either of those two titles initially.
EQ got pummeled by DAoC, looong before SWG released. DAoC smacked up EQ so hard, EQ stopped showing its exact server numbers, and stopped releasing official press about its server numbers. DAoC's growth mirrored EQ's downward trend. You mentioned Sir Bruce, browse his site in detail and look at his charts showing EQ when DAoC released. You will be shocked! DAoC is a perfect EQ clone, until one reaches highest levels in DAoC and can engage in RvR with the best chances to win. DAoC took roughly 50k players from EQ.... EQ peaked at roughly 400k players solid. EQ started its downward trend when DAoC released. Then started a second downward trend when EQ2 released.
SWG took a sizeable number of players from AO, and somewhat from EvE. The majority of SWG players were taken from the crop of virgin newbie MMORPG players. Players who never played a MMORPG before. Which is what SWG was aiming for. EQ suffered no signifigant drop when SWG came out. SWG exploded to 330k players while EQ still retained roughly 300k-400k players. The majority of EQ players hate SWG. SWG is 1,000,000,000% different from EQ.
I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's a solid MMO that is a little aged is all. Is it failed? Not yet. But at roughly 40k subscribers it is in dangerous territory. Added to that fact is that Turbine is using it to keep AC2 on life support which is a further drain on it's profitability.
Nice to see you accept my views which I posted first heheh. All past MMORPGs which released and later got shut down, all had 15k to 25k players. (MCO, EnB, etc...) AC still has roughly twice as many players as those MMORPGs which got killed off. In addition, those other MMORPGs were still only a few years old when they got killed off. AC is one of the oldest ever MMORPGs. Which means it has litterally spent years and years pulling in tons of profit. So if it ever sinks to 25k players, it still has a buffer of years of profits to cushion it. This is why I say 10k is the danger line for AC... the point where AC would not be making a profit anymore... IF it ever sinks down that far.
Personally if I was in charge over at Turbine I would do the following:
1) Dump AC2... it's obbiously a failure having never even reached 15k subscriptions and is also on a steady decline. 2) Redesign the AC1 website so it's easier to find real information 3) Take the money they've BEEN sinking into AC2 and throw it into a decent marketting campaign.
I fully agree with you here. Sadly, Turbine needs to fire their management. Back when I played AC, and AC2, Turbine showed they could care less about listening to their players. Turbine IMHO has far worse customer service than SOE, or any other company. Turbine went as far as to make it so that whenever anyone posted on their forums, one had to wait three days before their post would appear! LOL!
That MIGHT get their numbers to turn around. Either way they need to generate major interest in the game BEFORE several of the up-and coming titles start releasing this year. Because once that happens it's going to be even harder to grow their subscriber base.
AC2 will never get turned around. Browse the AC2 forums on this site, and read my posts on the threads from page 1-20. Everything I predicted came true. The main thing is... too many 4th generation MMORPGs have come out that are better than AC2 which is also 4th generation. AC2 has gotten left behind years ago. Too late to catch up now.
Could AC (AC1) get turned around? Yes. UO managed to recently (1-2 years ago) re-explode to 300k players! It currently sits at roughly 200k players. The fact that UO still has more than 100k players is beyond phenominal! AC could easily double its players by following what you, I, and AC players have suggested. The fact that they don't shows management at Turbine are..... incompetent!
I already said that using the word FLOP for AC1 was a bad choice of words. But given the current industry trend and the fact that several games that are going to be in direct competition with it's style of play are on the horizon I very strongly believe that it's in danger of failing if it doesn't increase it's subscriber base.
Please tell us the names of these up and coming Sword and Sorcery type games that will be Skill Based? (UO, SWG, are examples of Skill Based games.)
Originally posted by xplororor Elnator and Alderon, do you both LIKE AC? Did you both have fun when you both played AC? When was the last time you both played AC? For how long did both of you played AC? From these questions we, and you both, can see if you both ultimatly agree you both DID have fun in AC when you both played.
I tried AC when it first came out. It was ok but I had 3 major dislikes: I hated the complete lack of ability to communicate with my guild. I also hated the implementation of the casting/magic system. I also hated that you could thoroughly gimp your character with no way to change your template later on.
Played it for about 4 months and just couldn't get into it because of the above three facts, other than those items the game was pretty good. (Mind you I played UO and EQ before AC as well as numerous other games).
Now that they've fixed those things I would go back if I wasn't already very happy in SWG AC just can't compare to the value of my SOE Access Pass since I like PlanetSide and SWG and plan to give MxO a go once it's on the pass (and the box price drops a bit). I also still very ocassionally hop onto EQ2 to spend time online with my brother and his guild.
Whether it was a fun game or not isn't the issue here. What my point is is that the utter lack of decent communications was, in my opinion as a player and having experience with implementing online games (MUDS) myself, a design flaw. Aldaron disagrees with me. I also feel it's going to be hard pressed to turn it's slow downward subscriber trend around. It's not worth debating it anymore because we obviously aren't going to come to a mutual agreement so I decided to just drop it.
Oh, and you're wrong. If you go look at www.mmorpgchart.com you'll notice that DAOC didn't slow EQ's growth at all. In fact EQ continued to grow at a steady pace even when DAOC was experiencing rapid growth. EQ didn't experience its first dip in subscribers until SWG came out. Might want to check your facts.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Shame - We were finally starting to make progress.
Originally posted by xplororor Elnator and Alderon, do you both LIKE AC? Did you both have fun when you both played AC? When was the last time you both played AC? For how long did both of you played AC? From these questions we, and you both, can see if you both ultimatly agree you both DID have fun in AC when you both played.
Round summer of 2001. I played it for 2 1/2 years.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
AC2= great mmorpg but only on darktide pvp server in my opinion
EQ= prolly great mmorpg but dunno have not played it.
Lineage2=great grafics at first nice to play then annoying clones and those damn farmers ,BOTS:( BOTS:( and grind very annoying:(
WOW=great grafics well to my tasted first 2 months great fun game but for me BIGGEST FLOP!!! Why its to simple community sucks ive had 3 lvl60 chracters on 3 different servers and all sucks 90% 12year old idiots And boring battle grounds a joke:( No skill needed most EASY mmoprg out there thats WoW its succes for casual noobs and idiots!
Thats my 2 cents!
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77 CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now)) MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB PSU:Corsair AX1200i OS:Windows 10 64bit
Well, I can't comment on WoW. I never played it. The trailer for the game was awsome though. THen I saw a trailer using the actual game and I knew it just wasn't for me personally.
AC2, well I havent lept up-to-date on it. Tried it right after release and once again it wasn't for me.
AC1 I played for 5+ years. Loved this game till they began "dummying" it down. It went from an expansive game world to every player had 30 bind points so the map shrunk to nothing. Rare items became plentiful, magical items were dropped on nearly everything but bunny rabbits. A few exploited exploits also sorta of ruined it for me. Like the XP CHain. Made every char ingame nearly max level.
EQ1 I played this for a while. I never actually had my own account but played on a roommates. Was a good game I thought. But I was at this time already an AC junkie, and well, it's kinda like Snowborders and Skiiers, people who like AC don't like EQ and vice versa. But I did like it, just not as much.
EQ2 Never played.
L2 Never played, but heard some good stuff about it.
These are all my personal expierences and opinions. Most games have a free trail period so that YOU can test it and see for yourself. I highly reccomend this since no two people every see things the same way.
well wow is a good game it is fun to most teens until about lvl 30 then starts to slow down.. so for a good month ur happy playing.. but theres more hardcore teens that push themselves through the boringness just to look cool wih the lvl 60 behind there name... if there was a game that stayed fun from the beginning to the end that would be the awsome.. but there has yet to be one for me. i would say wow would be the best to play
Comments
Simple:
MMO's are Massively Multiplayer
Limiting people's ability to communicate is a bad idea. Finding ways to allow people to communicate freely without being obtrusive is GOOD design (tabs, allowing them to enable and disable channels as they see fit, etc). Disabling the ability to communicate is bad design because you've just alienated ANYONE who plays MMO's for the social interaction.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Flop is a product tha has been unsuccesful from start to end, which performed underpar to the hype and expectations.
AC was none of that.
100.000 Players at its peak is a great success for a game, made by unknown developers and 4 years old (keep in mind that The Matrix Online has 45K subscribers and has been launched this year and it s a famous movie franchise).
Of course you can say that AC2 was a flop, because it was supposed to do better than AC, while in fact achieved far less subscriptions.
If Turbine can afford to develope games such D&D and LoTR is thanks to AC, which gave them the financial indipendence and prestige to approach such big franchises.
I agree that AC is a dieing game, but I won't call it a flop
All very good points, Zaxx
Asherons Call is in my opinion as well simply the best mmorpg ever made! Nothing tops the dynamic world that Turbine put together so many years ago.
AC #1 and that's sad considering it is so old and still whipping the newer, younger, and more technologically advanced mmos today!
No problem, your definition and mine differ that's all. As I said perhaps flop was a bad term for AC. How bout: Failing MMO
AC has some awesome features and a lot of the problems it had at release have been corrected. But, as I said, unless they turn the trend around it's going to die. And with the competition it has now, as compared to what it was competing against at release, it's going to be hard pressed to turn the numbers around.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Your personal preference does not make something a good or bad design...Don't be egotistical. It's all about personal preference.
In the end I even enjoyed it's lack of global communication. And I could explain the many reasons why globalization of chat is in fact bad design...But that in fact would be my personal preference and reasons, and nothing more.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Ok let me get this straight:
They implemented the game without global chat channels for those who *wanted* them. This caused a large number of people to note and complain about the lack of ability to communicate.
Thus this is a "personal" preference?
Limiting choices in an MMO is 'good' design?
Please explain how you come to this interesting logic leap?
Limiting choices is BAD design... especially when they're so EASY to grant. They eventually added global channels that allow players who CHOSE to do so to communicate more easily. This alone should tell you that even the developers realized that while it was a novel idea their implementation of communications was flawed.
Good lord... yes, it was a decent game but it had some rather obvious flaws. Nothing is perfect and the lack of ability to communicate and build community was one of the things that prevented players from developing an attachment to the game.
Ask most MMO players why they play a game after a while. Eventually it's not about the game anymore, it's about the friends they've made and the community in the game. I developed and helped run MUDS for YEARS before UO and EQ and AC came out. Some tried the 'limited communications' approach. In every case those didn't do as well as MUDS that had global chat. So it's not personal preference it's practical experience in the industry. People who play online games typically want to be able to talk to each other. Limiting that ability while it may be 'realistic' is generally going to dissafect players.
I stand by my statement: Limiting communications the way they did initially was a neat concept but it was ultimately a DESIGN FLAW. Like it or not even the developers themselves eventually realized it and implemented better communications for the players.
Honestly, I am glad AC is still around because it was, and is, a testament that NEW ideas are better than going with the same old thing. I do hope they turn their subscription base around. I never said the game was a BAD GAME I said it was a DYING game. And that statement is also true whether you like it or not. If turbine cannot reverse the downward trend in subscribers it isn't going to be very long before the game starts losing money. At that point Turbine will be facing some tough decisions. As I said before this is going to be very difficult to turn around because of the competition coming out in the industry. Turbine is even releasing titles that will probably draw even more players away from AC at least initially when they release D&D and LOTR (though I suspect neither of those titles will really satisfy the true fans of those franchises).
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
None of the above
I concur. L2... c'mon read the reviews and boards. WoW is boring. AC/AC2 has been dead for years. AC2 actually never had a heartbeat.
LOL AC2 was stillborn... I'm surprised they even keep the servers running.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
I haven't played AC1 but not having full guildchat at launch was a real mistake. And it seems Turbine got that error strait. At least I know that Turbine is putting a lot of work into AC and even AC2. AC2 isn't a bad game it has just empty servers. AC1 perhaps didn't have a bad marketing but AC2 surely had and still has. 80% of my friends that also play games never heard of AC2 even now I know that there is an expansion and even the game sellers here haven't heard about it. If that isn't bad marketing I don't know what is. Hope Turbine will get it dented out and get their marketing up to gear, otherwise I see dark days comming for the upcomming releases as well.
"If all magic fails, rely on three feet of steel and a strong arm"
AC1 is not in danger of dying. It long ago re-couped all its investment money.
If AC1 went down to 10k subscribers it still would not die.
The ONLY way AC could die is if Turbine keeps using the profits from AC to further keep the flop, the failure, AC2 on lifesupport. AC2 is sucking the profits from AC1. Also IMHO DDO and MEO will both be flops when they release (IF they ever release LOL!). This tripple series of flops and failures could bankrupt Turbine. No way AC could make enough profits to float 3 other failed MMORPGs.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now you finally are leaning towards admitting you are missinformed. AC is not a flop. It is not a failure. Yes, it does not have as many accounts as it once did. Neither does EQ. EQ has lost 1/3 of its total accounts. Is EQ a failure now? AC has lost roughly 50k players. EQ has lost roughly 100k players. Are both games now suddently unprofitable?
AC right now is still NOT dangerously close to becoming unprofitable. AC cost 5 million to make. It long ago re-couped that money. AC has since generated enough profit to make three more brand new MMORPGs. That is roughly 75 million being invested!!! All the time while also making enough profit to keep the game itself running.
Be alarmed only when AC falls to 10k accounts - IF that ever happens. IF its current loyal playerbase ever suddently leave for no reason.
-Personal Website (A Work still in progress):
http://www.geocities.com/xplororor/index.html
-AC, AC2, AO, EQ, Freelancer, SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor
-More SWG:
http://community.webshots.com/user/captain_sica_xol
-More EQ, Dungeon Siege, *UXO*, Diablo II:Lords of Destruction:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_archives01
-EverQuest II, Horizons:
http://community.webshots.com/user/xplororor_eq2archives01
-EVE Online !!!
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives01
-DAoC
http://community.webshots.com/user/sica_xol_archives02
-Coming sooner or later... CoH, WoW, MXO, UO, GW, As3, RS
No problem, your definition and mine differ that's all. As I said perhaps flop was a bad term for AC. How bout: Failing MMO
AC has some awesome features and a lot of the problems it had at release have been corrected. But, as I said, unless they turn the trend around it's going to die. And with the competition it has now, as compared to what it was competing against at release, it's going to be hard pressed to turn the numbers around.
No AC is not a flop. It is not failing. It is simply an old MMORPG. It is also still pulling in a profit. And not barely, but a healthy profit.
Next, AC does have tons of indirect competition. But it has very little direct competition. Very few Swords and Sorcery MMOPRGs are skill based (UO, HZ, and..... that is it LOL!). The majority of them are Level Based. (EQ, DAoC, etc...)
AC needs to drop down to 10k players before it is in serious danger of NOT turning out a profit. It needs to lose 75% of its current players. The fact that AC has been stable at roughly 40k players at present time, even with the insane amount of MMORPGs oversaturating the market, shows it has a hardcore, loyal, playerbase. AC's playerbase will not suddently lose 30k players overnight. AC will not die. (At least, not because of anything wrong with AC. It will be years before we find out if DDO, MEO (or LotR Online) are also failures. If/When that happens Turbine will have abused the profits of AC on other games.)
AC - I played it for 3 years, but it's almost dead and is out of date game-engine wise. Great content, fun game... it's just old
AC2 - honestly, decent graphics, ok game play, just never got off the ground due to all the bugs.
L2 - great graphics, so-so game play, heavy level grind, too many farmers. B-
WoW - great graphics, excellent content, decent PvP system, decent crafting system, best of the 4 games.
EQ2 is also a decent game, no PvP, but still good graphics, good content.
_________________________________________
http://www.legionofchaos.net
Aldaron (cutting this portion out because this seems to be the only area we really, honestly, dissagree on)
Ok first off I am obviously miscommunitcating again. I never said that the game should have had mandatory global channels I said it should have had the option to use global channels. ESPECIALLY for guilds/kingdoms. Which they later added because they specifically saw it was a problem the original way. In no way do global guildchat channels detract from a game. In fact limiting that ability actually hampers the design and running of a guild. That was changed because the developers, not just me, realized that limiting communications within a guild type organization was a bad idea and was causing more problems than it was worth.
UO initially released without the ability to talk remotely easily even within guilds. Players got so frustrated with that inability that they turned to 3rd party programs like ICQ to allow them to reach each other quickly. IMO this is bad design. You shouldn't design a game that causes players to turn to 3rd party applications to provide basic functionality. UO developers recognized this as well and eventually added the ability to have global guildchat channels.
Your counter arguement that giving something as easy and unobtrusive and non-impacting as global guildchat is that PVP is "Easily" provided?
Are you high? Providing PVP is one of the most difficult things to do because while you can balance PVE classes fairly well balancing them in PVP is much much more difficult. You have to ensure that no one class is entirely too over powered (see archers at DAOC's initial release for a prime example). Class balance is difficult enough just for PVE... balancing for PVP is an entirely different animal. Also, granting PVP can ruin the entire concept of an MMO if it wasn't originally planned with PVP in mind. Granting PVP without proper forethought can alienate any player who doesn't like PVP (your carebear friends).
So how do you come up with "Granting PVP is easy"?
And how do you feel that PVP is anywhere equivalent to adding global guildchat/factionchat/whatever?
I personally cannot think of an MMO that is currently on the market that doesn't provide global guildchat, at a minimum, and the vast majority provide global general chat (which I tend to agree is silly, and am glad that SWG doesn't have it as a default option though you can add planetary chat to your tabs if you so desire) and even more have a global "auction" chat so that players can more easily sell their items.
Now, I'll be the first to buy into the idea that global auction channels are probably bad programming. I really like the vendor system in SWG and the Personal Storefront system in EQ2... I think those are far better methods of allowing players to get their items up for sale and they also encourage pricing competition which keeps the economy under control. Allowing players to sell goods while on or offline.
But global guildchat is not just a "Good" idea it's a necessity. Guilds live and die by the ability of their members to communicate with one another. You and I both know that.
AC, at release, had NONE of them, including the most crucial, in my opinion, guildchat.
They eventually implemented them which proves that they saw a need for them otherwise they wouldn't have done it.
As to the game holding steady at 40,000 subscribers I am not exactly certain that is correct. SirBruce has stated that as of March 2001 it was at 37,000
Now, others have stated that the game would have to drop down to 10,000 subscribers before it's in danger. Given that it's already recouped it's investment costs I would tend to agree with that but given that there are several Skill based MMO's on the horizon which are based on newer technology, will also offer PVP and will have superior crafting and trade systems... I think AC is going to be hard pressed to increase it's playerbase and it is very possible it will begin losing players again. Not saying it will for sure but it is very possible.
You can believe what you will but what killed Turbine was:
1) Poor marketting, I agree 100% they should have marketted this better. And with Microsoft as a Backer I'm not sure why they didn't. Microsoft is one of the best companies in the world at marketting... Even if Turbine didn't have the skillsets necessary for properly marketting the game they certainly could have asked their partner for assistance in that area.
2) Some design flaws at initial release that caused a large portion of the player base to be unable to establish an attachment to the game. Many, frustrated, returned to EQ or left for DAOC and other games as they came out. '
Some other facts: While AC started a steady downward trend when DAOC was released EQ & UO were both growing steadily. In fact, EQ didn't start a downward trend until the release of Star Wars Galaxies when UO also started a downward trend. FFXI didn't even affect the growth of either of those two titles initially.
I'm not saying it's a bad game. It's a solid MMO that is a little aged is all. Is it failed? Not yet. But at roughly 40k subscribers it is in dangerous territory. Added to that fact is that Turbine is using it to keep AC2 on life support which is a further drain on it's profitability. Personally if I was in charge over at Turbine I would do the following:
1) Dump AC2... it's obbiously a failure having never even reached 15k subscriptions and is also on a steady decline.
2) Redesign the AC1 website so it's easier to find real information
3) Take the money they've BEEN sinking into AC2 and throw it into a decent marketting campaign.
That MIGHT get their numbers to turn around. Either way they need to generate major interest in the game BEFORE several of the up-and coming titles start releasing this year. Because once that happens it's going to be even harder to grow their subscriber base.
I already said that using the word FLOP for AC1 was a bad choice of words. But given the current industry trend and the fact that several games that are going to be in direct competition with it's style of play are on the horizon I very strongly believe that it's in danger of failing if it doesn't increase it's subscriber base.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Aldaron it's obviously no use debating this with you. You're venturing into the realm of exploits when I'm talking about basic game items and balance.
Adding a global guildchat (that can be turned on/off at will) is not unbalancing. It doesn't require extensive testing to make sure it can't be exploited since everyone has equal access to it. It only enhances gameplay and does not hinder the game play of those who DONT want it.
*you* prefer a more immersive game without global chat channels. Well, I submit that if it's an OPTIONAL channel how is it harming YOUR gameplay by being there. But you, by wishing to deny it to other players who PREFER to have global chat available are hindering THEIR gameplay.
One of the golden rules of any MMO should be:
The good of the game outweighs the good of the few, or the one.
In this case adding global guildchat is more beneficial to the game than denying them. Therefore they should go in. Why is it more beneficial? Because more people will enjoy the game because it's available. It won't hinder anyone who doesn't want the feature because they can just opt to turn it off, or not to turn it on, depending on what the default is set to.
You counter with an arguement that PVP is an equivalent addition when it plainly is not. You can't just implement PvP in a game without hindering the gameplay of other players. You would have to add the ability to turn off PVP in order to prevent those who don't want PVP to be able to avoid it. Now those who can turn off the PVP arguably have an unfair advantage over those who don't turn it off because they don't have to worry about someone killing them while they play. So PVP needs must be balanced. There should be equal reasons to be PVP active or PVP inactive.
And if you say 'well fine, we'll just force everyone to engage in pvp' you just bought into the fact that you MUST balance PVP so that it's fair for all and can't be taken advantage of.
So you see, your analogy is incorrect. Just "Turning PVP on" in a game is FAR more intrusive than giving players the capability to use a global chat chanel (of any kind).
You counter that tells are just as useful.
Lets see you organize your army using tells sometime. I'd love to see how that turns out for you. Getting an entire guild together is hard enough as it is WITH global guildchat AND teamspeak AND message boards. Without global guildchat to coordinate?
And, point of fact, I've been in large guilds in various MMO's I have been in. I know quite well how chaotic guildchat can get but, in the end, you can always turn it off if nothing important is going on or you can have guild rules regarding it's use. And, as you mentioned, you can always squelch/ignore/whatever anyone who won't stop yammering when important things are going on.
Your analogy is bunk It's innaccurate and misleading. I understand that you prefer not to have global chat but I posit that by denying it they harm far more people than by allowing the option of having it since merely giving the option to use it harms nobody and allows others to enjoy the communications they desire without harming those who don't wish those type of communications.
Next you talk about 3rd party apps for extended RADAR, not only that it was extended radar that showed you people you couldn't have otherwise seen. I remember those days well, thank you. I told you I played the game. That's not the same as getting a basic function of communications. That is an Exploit. Again a totally unrelated item to the discussion of whether having a global chat channel is bad design or not. Adding a global chat channel that everyone has the ability to use is totally different than giving people a way to know where other players are in the game in a PVP environment. In a PVE environment it would be benign... but in PVP it gives an unfair advantage... again another balancing issue.
So you're trying to compare apples to grapefruit and, I'm sorry, your comparisons fall flat.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
Forget it, not worth my time anymore.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Elnator and Alderon, do you both LIKE AC? Did you both have fun when you both played AC?
When was the last time you both played AC? For how long did both of you played AC?
From these questions we, and you both, can see if you both ultimatly agree you both DID have fun in AC when you both played.
I tried AC when it first came out. It was ok but I had 3 major dislikes:
I hated the complete lack of ability to communicate with my guild.
I also hated the implementation of the casting/magic system.
I also hated that you could thoroughly gimp your character with no way to change your template later on.
Played it for about 4 months and just couldn't get into it because of the above three facts, other than those items the game was pretty good. (Mind you I played UO and EQ before AC as well as numerous other games).
Now that they've fixed those things I would go back if I wasn't already very happy in SWG
AC just can't compare to the value of my SOE Access Pass since I like PlanetSide and SWG and plan to give MxO a go once it's on the pass (and the box price drops a bit). I also still very ocassionally hop onto EQ2 to spend time online with my brother and his guild.
Whether it was a fun game or not isn't the issue here. What my point is is that the utter lack of decent communications was, in my opinion as a player and having experience with implementing online games (MUDS) myself, a design flaw. Aldaron disagrees with me. I also feel it's going to be hard pressed to turn it's slow downward subscriber trend around. It's not worth debating it anymore because we obviously aren't going to come to a mutual agreement so I decided to just drop it.
Oh, and you're wrong. If you go look at www.mmorpgchart.com you'll notice that DAOC didn't slow EQ's growth at all. In fact EQ continued to grow at a steady pace even when DAOC was experiencing rapid growth. EQ didn't experience its first dip in subscribers until SWG came out. Might want to check your facts.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Shame - We were finally starting to make progress.
Originally posted by xplororor
Elnator and Alderon, do you both LIKE AC? Did you both have fun when you both played AC?
When was the last time you both played AC? For how long did both of you played AC?
From these questions we, and you both, can see if you both ultimatly agree you both DID have fun in AC when you both played.
Round summer of 2001. I played it for 2 1/2 years.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
AC1= great mmorpg!
AC2= great mmorpg but only on darktide pvp server in my opinion
EQ= prolly great mmorpg but dunno have not played it.
Lineage2=great grafics at first nice to play then annoying clones and those damn farmers ,BOTS:( BOTS:( and grind very annoying:(
WOW=great grafics well to my tasted first 2 months great fun game but for me BIGGEST FLOP!!! Why its to simple community sucks ive had 3 lvl60 chracters on 3 different servers and all sucks 90% 12year old idiots
And boring battle grounds a joke:( No skill needed most EASY mmoprg out there thats WoW its succes for casual noobs and idiots!
Thats my 2 cents!
Hope to build full AMD system RYZEN/VEGA/AM4!!!
MB:Asus V De Luxe z77
CPU:Intell Icore7 3770k
GPU: AMD Fury X(waiting for BIG VEGA 10 or 11 HBM2?(bit unclear now))
MEMORY:Corsair PLAT.DDR3 1866MHZ 16GB
PSU:Corsair AX1200i
OS:Windows 10 64bit
Well, I can't comment on WoW. I never played it. The trailer for the game was awsome though. THen I saw a trailer using the actual game and I knew it just wasn't for me personally.
AC2, well I havent lept up-to-date on it. Tried it right after release and once again it wasn't for me.
AC1 I played for 5+ years. Loved this game till they began "dummying" it down. It went from an expansive game world to every player had 30 bind points so the map shrunk to nothing. Rare items became plentiful, magical items were dropped on nearly everything but bunny rabbits. A few exploited exploits also sorta of ruined it for me. Like the XP CHain. Made every char ingame nearly max level.
EQ1 I played this for a while. I never actually had my own account but played on a roommates. Was a good game I thought. But I was at this time already an AC junkie, and well, it's kinda like Snowborders and Skiiers, people who like AC don't like EQ and vice versa. But I did like it, just not as much.
EQ2 Never played.
L2 Never played, but heard some good stuff about it.
These are all my personal expierences and opinions. Most games have a free trail period so that YOU can test it and see for yourself. I highly reccomend this since no two people every see things the same way.
well wow is a good game it is fun to most teens until about lvl 30 then starts to slow down.. so for a good month ur happy playing.. but theres more hardcore teens that push themselves through the boringness just to look cool wih the lvl 60 behind there name... if there was a game that stayed fun from the beginning to the end that would be the awsome.. but there has yet to be one for me. i would say wow would be the best to play