I am of course referring to the U.S. audiance as comparing a games success on a world wide basis doesnt really work when the games are not released in the same markets. Lineage was in both but EQ, DAoC, and Shadowbane were not. EQ for one was not released to the Korean market at all so its success or failure there will never really be an issue. I dont believe DAoC was either.
Lineage 1 has been phenomonly successful in Korea, however it died horribly here in the U.S. however I think it was just dated by the time it arrived here, not a question of how good its pvp element was recieved.
From reading about WoW I have yet to see anything that makes me think it will provide much of an rvr element on par with DAoC. Its really too early to tell but what they have hinted at is a much smaller part of the game then what was done with DAoC.
As far as pvp games being succesful I dont mean that there is not an audiance for it, just that balancing and making an appealing pvp game that maintains a strong audiance has been a challenge for companies to date. Balance is much more of an issue in a pvp game and even in the pve games they have had difficulty accomplishing it.
Yes Shadowbane makes money but It is not near the success they predicted. UO did well with its original pvp elements but has changed conciderably leaving DAoC as the only pvp game (in the U.S.) that has come out as one of the top contenders.
ShadowBane is a bigger is Asia than it is here. I'll save the social commentary on why Americans do not care for PvP. http://shadowbane.en-tranz.com/
PvP in WoW. Let's review a few things. What market is the was the more copies of Star Craft sold than any other? Korean. Where were more copies of D2 sold? That's right Korea. Korea is Blizzard #1 market. What type of game is the #1 MMORPG in Korea? A PvP centric one.
Let's review. Blizzard - Korea - largest market - PvP hugely popular
I've posted messages in the General Discussion Board about the PvP in WoW, but it's not official. However, just knowing the above you can easily guess Blizzard will have allot of neat PvP type experiences. They won't disappoint their largest market.
I'm sure going foward balance will be much easier to maintain. Each new game has taken strides to leave behind the poor balance implementation of EQ.
"Yes Shadowbane makes money but It is not near the success they predicted."
You could say say this about any product from the matrix to toothpaste. Hype is Hype. It has little do with success.
-=-=-=-=- "Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=- Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Hmm, as we continue to discuss this you seem to be going further and further from anything we were talking about.
The point I have been making is that DAoC is one of the most successful U.S. pvp games based on subscribers and therefor money. This means they will likely lose less people to new mmorpgs that do not involve a substantial pvp element.
As to the rest...
As I was saying, the information released about WoW's pvp elements indicates a much smaller rvr element then DAoCs but also like I said before its really too early to tell. If they do add a large chunk of pvp content then thats great and as you said it would probably help them in the korean market as well as take a larger chunk of DAoCs followers. The thing is the current information they have released (that I have read anyway) does not indicate a very large pvp element to the game.
Balance seems elusive as ever. Many people, DAoC players and otherwise, would argue many games since EQ have had even worse balance. One of DAoCs worst early complaints was the class balance and it continues to be a topic to this day.
SWG and AC2 have also been heavily faulted for class balance. Shadowbane has its own group of class balance critics though they seem a smaller group then some of the other games.
As for the predictions of success there are games that do much better then they were predicted to, on the order of whole magnitude such as EQ. Many of the new mmorpgs have failed to reach their expectations but Shadowbane was one that fell far below the developers and publishers hopes.
Maybe it will recover in time and become one of the best, but my point is that DAoC currently holds the lion share of pvp mmorpg subscribers and they have not left to play SB so I highly doubt EQ2 will have more success with them with its almost non existent pvp.
WoW and EQ2 are going to be successful games regardless where their audiences come from. If they are horrid games they may not hold that audiance long but their names alone are likely to sell a huge volume of software. DAoCs future will be affected by them, but I expect on a much smaller scale then games like EQ.
Hmm, as we continue to discuss this you seem to be going further and further from anything we were talking about.
True, and I fear for our rating. I apologize.
The point I have been making is that DAoC is one of the most successful U.S. pvp games based on subscribers and therefor money. This means they will likely lose less people to new mmorpgs that do not involve a substantial pvp element.
Calling DAoC a PvP game is allot like calling Oreo's low fat. In both cases it isn't true. DAoC is a PvE game, with a PvP highend element.
According to Nike Yee's research on this topic, roughly 30% of DAoC view the PvP element as critical to the game. Meaning roughly 70% would probably still play if there wasn't RvR at all. As such, it's difficult to call DAoC a PvP game. You certainly can't say the same thing for SB or lineage.
As I was saying, the information released about WoW's pvp elements indicates a much smaller rvr element then DAoCs but also like I said before its really too early to tell. If they do add a large chunk of pvp content then thats great and as you said it would probably help them in the korean market as well as take a larger chunk of DAoCs followers. The thing is the current information they have released (that I have read anyway) does not indicate a very large pvp element to the game.
The reviews I've read and the posting buy Dev's on there message boards have suggested a greater PvP and RvR element than DAoC. sadly Blizzard is keeping a hush on the whole thing.
Balance seems elusive as ever. Many people, DAoC players and otherwise, would argue many games since EQ have had even worse balance. One of DAoCs worst early complaints was the class balance and it continues to be a topic to this day.
EQ = Shocking inequities between classes. SWG = VI. I'm sure why anyone expect any different.
AC2 = MS.
Granted I have not played either game, but I've sworn to never play any games made by 2 complains again. MS and VI.
Either way, measuring how much people complain is a poor standard for determining class balance issues.
As for the predictions of success there are games that do much better then they were predicted to, on the order of whole magnitude such as EQ. Many of the new mmorpgs have failed to reach their expectations but Shadowbane was one that fell far below the developers and publishers hopes.
ShadowBane took a stride forward on new thinking in game math, instead of using the standard methods. The result is fairly balance game. Sure everything needs a little tweaking. But it's a great step forward. I only hope other MMORPG will learn from simple change towards better game formulas.
Maybe it will recover in time and become one of the best, but my point is that DAoC currently holds the lion share of pvp mmorpg subscribers and they have not left to play SB so I highly doubt EQ2 will have more success with them with its almost non existent pvp.
SB Recover? So if VI says "We'll have 600,000 accounts by the end of the year" and they only have 500,000 would they be recovering also? Hypermasters stuffed there foot in the mouths. I fail to see why means anything to SB. I'm sure every game on the market did not live up to the highest hopes on someone in the company and/or press.
Not living up to the hype is completely different than not being successfull.
As much as I like DAoC they really don't hold a lions share of anything. They hold "Loins share" of PvPers compared to EQ (witch has very few). Not the market as a whole. As stated above DAoC isn't a PvP game, it's a PvE that has a PvP element.
WoW and EQ2 are going to be successful games regardless where their audiences come from. If they are horrid games they may not hold that audience long but their names alone are likely to sell a huge volume of software. DAoCs future will be affected by them, but I expect on a much smaller scale then games like EQ.
I would more or less agree with this summery
-=-=-=-=- "Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=- Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
I really am not too concerned with our ratings either, I was simply stating you were trying to argue points that had little to do with my original topic.
Calling DAoC a PvP game is allot like calling Oreo's low fat. In both cases it isn't true. DAoC is a PvE game, with a PvP highend element.
According to Nike Yee's research on this topic, roughly 30% of DAoC view the PvP element as critical to the game. Meaning roughly 70% would probably still play if there wasn't RvR at all. As such, it's difficult to call DAoC a PvP game. You certainly can't say the same thing for SB or lineage.
I would say you are horribly skewing the results from the survay you are using for a reference. If you look at it as it is posted, a 1 to 5 rating by players (with 1 being the least and 5 being most) on the importance of DAoC's pvp element an amazing 72% of the males rated it a 4 or 5. Even 45% of the females which are much less pvp inclined rated it a 4 or 5. Another 20% of the males put it at a 3 (middling importance) leaving only 27% giving it a rating of 1 or 2 (of little or no importance).
If anything your survay shows DAoC is clearly a pvp centric game in the eyes of the players at least. I do agree though that DAoC had done more to provide a pve environment then games like SB or Lineage.
If you were to do another survay showing the anticipation of the new rvr expansion compared to the ToA expasion, I bet you would also see a stagering difference with most people wanting the rvr expansion rather then the pve version. Saying DAoC is not pvp centric is simply ignoring the facts and views of the players of the game.
The reviews I've read and the posting buy Dev's on there message boards have suggested a greater PvP and RvR element than DAoC. sadly Blizzard is keeping a hush on the whole thing.
This just supports what I was saying before. They may very well have a substantial portion of the game directed toward pvp, but what has been released to the public so far does not say this currently.
EQ = Shocking inequities between classes. SWG = VI. I'm sure why anyone expect any different.
AC2 = MS.
Granted I have not played either game, but I've sworn to never play any games made by 2 complains again. MS and VI.
Either way, measuring how much people complain is a poor standard for determining class balance issues.
As before, a very large portion of the DAoC community, and these are the people enjoying and playing the game, feel its horribly unbalanced, worse then EQ in most cases since it is a pvp game where balance becomes even more essential in many peoples eyes. DAoC has gone through extensive class rebalancing by its developers. What else would you judge class balance on? I agree its not an exact science by any means.
Your own decision to not play MS or SoE games is no indication of how balance has improved or worsened in new mmorpgs. I am not trying to be rude by stating that, I just dont see how that advances your argument it, rather it only limits the exposure you have had and shows a tendancy to bias.
I can completely understand your desire not to play a game produced by a company you feel has wronged you or produces products you feel are inferior but it does not show any additional strength to your position on balance.
ShadowBane took a stride forward on new thinking in game math, instead of using the standard methods. The result is fairly balance game. Sure everything needs a little tweaking. But it's a great step forward. I only hope other MMORPG will learn from simple change towards better game formulas.
I agree with you completely about SBs approach to trying something new. I am very happy they did this and their vision was...well visionary. However the game was plagued by bugs which did adversly affect many players and resulted in lower sales and ongoing subscriptions (in the U.S.) then the producers anticipated. This is precisely what I mean by not being as successful as DAoC which far surpassed its anticipated sales and subscriptions early on and which has a far larger current player base.
DAoC simply is one of the most successful current pvp centric games in the U.S. This is not to say it is every pvpers dream or that there are not other successful pvp games, just that DAoC has the lion share in the U.S. currently.
As a final note, lets just watch and see as the new games come out, my prediction still stands as far as I am concerned, you will see a larger percentage of people leave EQ for EQ2, and possible WoW depending on what the final pvp element becomes, then will be leaving DAoC to play them.
I would say you are horribly skewing the results from the survey you are using for a reference. If you look at it as it is posted, a 1 to 5 rating by players (with 1 being the least and 5 being most) on the importance of DAoC's pvp element an amazing 72% of the males rated it a 4 or 5. Even 45% of the females which are much less pvp inclined rated it a 4 or 5. Another 20% of the males put it at a 3 (middling importance) leaving only 27% giving it a rating of 1 or 2 (of little or no importance).
You are correct I did skew the results, I was curious if you would bother checking the source. Kudo's for doing some footwork.
Never believe anything unless you already know it to be true or willing to do the research to find out.
If anything your survey shows Doc is clearly a pvp centric game in the eyes of the players at least. I do agree though that DAoC had done more to provide a pve environment then games like SB or Lineage.
However...
Yee's report is not forced on the PvP facet of MMORPG's. The question asked. "How important is the PvP element of an MMORPG". Just because someone may feel it's important doesn't mean they feel it's the most important facet. More questions would have to be asked to actually account for this. Such as "Would you be willing to play a game without PvP". I think PvP is extremely important yet played EQ for 3 years. Why? There are more facets to a game than one.
Allot depends on how you want to define "somewhat" I would define it when related to DAoC as "sometimes" meaning not all the time.
If anything the Yee's report shows players enjoy both PvP and PvE DAoC provides.
If you were to do another survey showing the anticipation of the new rvr expansion compared to the ToA expasion, I bet you would also see a stagering difference with most people wanting the rvr expansion rather then the pve version. Saying DAoC is not pvp centric is simply ignoring the facts and views of the players of the game.
Or is merely a matter of looking the entirety. As stated above DAoC has much to offer, I wouldn't be so quick to reduce it to a single facet. To called DAoC PvE or PvE isn't very accurate. DAoC and WoW will be hybrid games. Prehapes PvE+P or +P would be better?
DAoC has roughly 94 zones, only 21 are PvP.. about 20% (19.74). Can a game be PvP centric, when PvP is voluntary? This just supports what I was saying before. They (blizzard) may very well have a substantial portion of the game directed toward pvp, but what has been released to the public so far does not say this currently.
To quote Scott Adams "If you are a 'normal' person, you tend to believe anything that supports your current view and will ignore everything else"
No need to point out I'm normal. Yes, your normal also.
As before, a very large portion of the DAoC community, and these are the people enjoying and playing the game, feel its horribly unbalanced, worse then EQ in most cases since it is a pvp game where balance becomes even more essential in many peoples eyes. DAoC has gone through extensive class rebalancing by its developers. What else would you judge class balance on? I agree its not an exact science by any means.
Balance can only be achieved though objective standards. By mining the data in there character databases, it is possible to determine rather a accusation has merit. Let's say class A, is claimed to be doing less DPS and class B. By taken a large amount sample data and a little grinding will provide the results. If class C is accused of not being desired by groups, once again sample data can be taken to determine the truth of this claim and where the deficiency lies (if any).
Since we can see the internal game data, we have no means of measuring this for ourselves. conspiracy theories began. Before long dev's are handing out "candy" to make peace on a faulty perceived inequity.
The problem is many games are flawed at the core, they have created different standards for vairius skill and abilities. As such no balance can ever be achived under there current game mathmatics. DAoC suffers a small amount faulty game mathmatics, it will be interesting to see they catch on during the RvR revamp.
Your own decision to not play MS or SoE games is no indication of how balance has improved or worsened in new mmorpgs. I am not trying to be rude by stating that, I just dont see how that advances your argument it, rather it only limits the exposure you have had and shows a tendancy to bias.
So?
We are all bias, to say otherwise is arrogant or ignorant.
I can completely understand your desire not to play a game produced by a company you feel has wronged you or produces products you feel are inferior but it does not show any additional strength to your position on balance.
Nor does it weaken my point, only objective standards can be used to find balance. How much people complain is a poor indicator.
I agree with you completely about SBs approach to trying something new. I am very happy they did this and their vision was...well visionary. However the game was plagued by bugs which did adversely affect many players and resulted in lower sales and ongoing subscriptions (in the U.S.) then the producers anticipated. This is precisely what I mean by not being as successful as DAoC which far surpassed its anticipated sales and subscriptions early on and which has a far larger current player base.
I'm not saying SB is great or bug free, I'm merely saying they took a step in the right by centering the game around a new set mathematical principles rather and emulating it's predecessors. I only hope future games will learn from this advance in class balance.
All MMORPG have plagued by bugs on there initial release. Granted SB had some dozys, but so did every other game.
If I predict I'll sell 20 copies, and you predict you'll 40 and we both sell 50. Was I more successful than you? Predictions are just that.. predictions. They have little to do with reality. SB has is running in the black and growing it's user base, that is the true measure of success for a company.
DAoC simply is one of the most successful current pvp centric games in the U.S. This is not to say it is every pvpers dream or that there are not other successful pvp games, just that DAoC has the lion share in the U.S. currently.
DAoC is also in the black and expanding it's user base therefor successful. But it doesn't have a lion share of anything without additional delimiters. Why not say DAoC is the most successful game every made on earth that starts with "Dark" and ends with "age of Camelot"?
As a final note, lets just watch and see as the new games come out, my prediction still stands as far as I am concerned, you will see a larger percentage of people leave EQ for EQ2, and possible WoW depending on what the final pvp element becomes, then will be leaving DAoC to play them.
I really don't disagree with this. I'll once again re-enforce early statements, Each MMORPG has done a fair job of growing it's own user base rather than stealing others. I predict WoW will bring many new faces to the MMORPG genre, far more than it will steal from anther existing MMORPG. Thus a long future for DAoC
-=-=-=-=- "Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=- Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Clever you guys are missing the point. Daoc is not going to survive. why? because they dont have the subscribers.
Wow,and eq2, and Im thinking Horizons will play a role also in the demise of Daoc. The game is not growing its shrinking, go and look at the numbers of people thats logged on. its declined over the months. I can't say exactly by how much but it has for the last year at least. I know because i seen that board everyday.
Wow and eq2 will pull so many of the last subscribers away it will be impossible to keep the servers going and for them to make any money.
But ill tell ya something else thats hurt Mythic alot. and you can agree or disagree. For so long, ever since the game has come out, they have failed to address some terrible class imbalancing. if youve played the game you know what im talking about.
And the problem with that is that the majority of there customers that have expressed concerns over it have been ignored. they simply quit listening to the player base along time ago. I only spoke with one person out of hunderds who wanted toa expansion. everyone else wanted rvr fixes. and better quests.
Mythic went so far as to address the problem on ign message boards because it was causing such a problem in the playerbase. then they asked ign to freeze the link cause the players were really upset. they just simply didnt want it.
I think in the future that mmorpg companies will be alot more careful on how they address players needs. cause right now theres not to much competition in the market. in 2-3 years when companies are fighting tooth and nail to get subscribers youll see the best gaming start to emerge.
Granted Mythis has 13 games not just DAoC, but that's all more reason why DAoC will stay around longer than a it might if DAoC was there only game. In short they could eat a loss on DAoC if they really needed too. But the good news they don't have to. It's more popular than ever.
I don't see how you can think a company that has grown 3,198% is going to suddenly fail because you receive fewer users. When in fact, with ToA DAoC has a reached a all time high of accounts.
"Currently Dark Age of Camelot has more than 220,000 paying subscribers. The popularity of the game is evidenced by the fact that more than 60,000 people play simultaneously at peak times. " -http://www.mythicentertainment.com/press/atlantis.html
Your perceptions are based on a very small percent of the total user base. I'm not saying DAoC does everything right. But they are certainly doing far more right than wrong.
DAoC will have a long future. There is nothing factual that indicates otherwise.
-=-=-=-=- "Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=- Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Clever your kicking a dead horse. I dont care what kind of numbers you post on here, unless you get the actual bank account of mythic and post all the deposits game related made I wont believe you. This is the same company that said they add tons of new content each month via patches. which was and is a lie, the only thing i ever seen was patches to fix bugs or some sad attempt at unbalancing an unblanced game even more.
Where are these 60000 subscibers playing simoultaneously? there own baords dont show this. currently as of this post there are 24289 people playing worldwide(only 10000 in North America). I once seen 50000 people, but that was many moons ago. Now the places to hunt have a few people, never see any new players, most quit after a few days because theres no one for them to play with.
They have lost people left and right. and there only going to lose more. when i played at what i considered Daocs peak there were people everywhere, You couldnt go 10 feets in the game without running over someone. Now unless you got the most hunted spoits you dont find anyone.
And there doing it thereselves. there /level, lack of updates to the game(content and useful material) have all lead to its downfall.
Mark my words, when Wow comes out and eq2 Daoc will lose so many customers that it will be like a ghost town on most servers. Oh sure theyll have people playing till its death but not many.
When those games are out for a few months come back to this post and will see who was right.
That is silly. Not even a fraction of a fraction of the people who play these mmorpgs actively posts on these boards or answer polls in a spam forum to give you any inkling of which game will sell better then another.
I am sure both EQ2 and WoW will sell well based on name recognition alone but beyond that only time will tell.
Gotta admit SOE is smart to start a new series..kinda for the mmorpg stampede im sure WoW EQ2 and FF XI will have the best sales well ff xi is already out but still
The problem is, the setting for DAOC is BORING. There is just no mystery to the world, no hidden unexplored areas yet to be discovered like there was in EQ and will likely be in EQ2. Only reason I ever played DAOC was waiting for something better. It's a stopgap game at best, not an end all game.
No No the problem is that those gaming company always charge people to play theri games DAOC is doing fine i signed up today and rented the game from teh library i seen there were about 5000 players but not much as players on warcraft 3 so i suppouse that wow would go out with a bang beside DAOC there is a verison free for DAOC it called FungWan Online almost the same but DAOC has more char to pick from and more magic to pick from but harder to understand i don't understand what going on with those games one min this game is ok all right then the next min the company will try to steal the ideas and add more features to it isn't that stealing can't the company sue them for stealing their ideas? i hope WOW isn't the same as DAOC cuz then WOW would be setaling too
I have been playing DAoC for over two years and have put many, many hours into the game. I have seen it's evolution from the day it was released. Based upon that my conclusion is that DAoC is toast. People are leaving in mass numbers because they want a game where developers will listen to them and what they want. Mythic has successfully ruined its reputation because it didn't listen to the players. It barely even listens to team leads. I would guess that approximately 40% of the people playing DAoC are playing the game just waiting on Horizons, WoW, D&L, and EQ2 to be released. DAoC is the best of the worst right now, but when these new games are released, their subscriber base will diminish quickly and the realms will be sparse, save a few die hard fans that refuse to let the game die completely.
After these new games are released I expect DAoC to stay around fumbling through another year or so, until it finally closes its doors.
Yep, i bought DAoC 3 weeks ago just because i needed to pass the time until WoW. God knows how many months they will keep pushing the game back since it's blizzard.
________________________________ Peter : "Why did all the dinosaurs become extinct?" Teacher: "Because you touch yourself at night."
Originally posted by Clandestine Mythic has successfully ruined its reputation because it didn't listen to the players. It barely even listens to team leads.
This make me laugh, that has been said about every game I have ever played. Including EQ. Yet it's still around.
-=-=-=-=- "EQ was once a great game. I wont deny it, but so was Asteroids. And just like Pong, EQ is obsolete by newer game standards."
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=- Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Sure everyone complains about this, but Mythic has gone out of their way to make a game in their own image, not caring what the players want. Some of the primary complaints of two years ago are still in the game, and more pronounced than ever before.
As does every other game maker on the planet. I'm sure they will say the same about Rellic and Blizzard. (although I've played many other Blizzard game and read that same logic over and over)
-=-=-=-=- "EQ was once a great game. I wont deny it, but so was Asteroids. And just like Pong, EQ is obsolete by newer game standards."
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=- Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
My only complaint after playing DaoC for 2 years....Please stop nerfing/buffing charecters. I don't want that kind of game balance. choosing a specific class "should" make me different than other classes. If you have a test server and you test stuff before you implement it, then why do you feel the need to come back at a later date and change things again.
Well I actually have 2 complaints, though this is not isolated to Mythic - Dear Mr./Ms. developer, please create charecters that have more than 1 correct path of growth. Whats the point of having different specializations if after the player community dissects the math, one path deals more damage than others. for example: DAoC - suppression spirit masters - dime a dozen, smite clerics ( before the nerf) dime a dozen, shadowzerkers- dime a dozen etc...... We the players are not stupid. If your game mechanics are that simple to figure out, it won't be long before everyone knows how to spec to have the uber charecter. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having various specializations.
*note - for those of you who say, " well i am not interested in uber133tness so I don't care if one spec is more powerful than another" Thats a load of BS for 2 simple reasons - 1. Hunting groups know what specs are best and specifically look for those specs when forming a party. 2. there is enough pvp in DaoC to warrant you to pursue the spec that does the most damage. Otherwise you die alot.
Not saying others haven't made this mistake...just that the topic is DaoC.
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.
Amazing. I posted this 2 and a half months ago and it is still going strong. Well, I am retiring from DAOC now. Its not the game, its just me. There arent many raids anymore so there isnt much to do at 50.
Kiamde
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"
"When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman
I think DAoC will give the new games a run for its money. Because all the games that came out so far (SWG, AC2, FFXI, Shadowbane, Planetside) haven't really hurt DAOC's population.
Actually, the very problem with DAOC right now IS the growing world. When Shrouded Isles came out, players found themselves widely dispersed and grouping much more difficult to come across. With the new /20 level command (where players with level 50 characters can make new characters which start at level 20), the low end game was all but annihilated. Just create a new character in a near empty zone and run around by yourself for 20 levels and you'll see what I mean.
Many MMORPG's seem to solve the content problem by adding expansions, but I'm wondering if they should really just enrich existing content. What fun is a MMORPG when no one else is around?
Comments
I am of course referring to the U.S. audiance as comparing a games success on a world wide basis doesnt really work when the games are not released in the same markets. Lineage was in both but EQ, DAoC, and Shadowbane were not. EQ for one was not released to the Korean market at all so its success or failure there will never really be an issue. I dont believe DAoC was either.
Lineage 1 has been phenomonly successful in Korea, however it died horribly here in the U.S. however I think it was just dated by the time it arrived here, not a question of how good its pvp element was recieved.
From reading about WoW I have yet to see anything that makes me think it will provide much of an rvr element on par with DAoC. Its really too early to tell but what they have hinted at is a much smaller part of the game then what was done with DAoC.
As far as pvp games being succesful I dont mean that there is not an audiance for it, just that balancing and making an appealing pvp game that maintains a strong audiance has been a challenge for companies to date. Balance is much more of an issue in a pvp game and even in the pve games they have had difficulty accomplishing it.
Yes Shadowbane makes money but It is not near the success they predicted. UO did well with its original pvp elements but has changed conciderably leaving DAoC as the only pvp game (in the U.S.) that has come out as one of the top contenders.
ShadowBane is a bigger is Asia than it is here. I'll save the social commentary on why Americans do not care for PvP. http://shadowbane.en-tranz.com/
PvP in WoW. Let's review a few things. What market is the was the more copies of Star Craft sold than any other? Korean. Where were more copies of D2 sold? That's right Korea. Korea is Blizzard #1 market. What type of game is the #1 MMORPG in Korea? A PvP centric one.
Let's review. Blizzard - Korea - largest market - PvP hugely popular
I've posted messages in the General Discussion Board about the PvP in WoW, but it's not official. However, just knowing the above you can easily guess Blizzard will have allot of neat PvP type experiences. They won't disappoint their largest market.
Balance in MMORPG has been difficult for many because they started with poor ideas. Rather than repeat myself I'll just post a link where explain many of the common mistakes MMORPG's make when trying to create balance. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion/loadforum/51/loadthread/5403/setstart/1/loadclass/35
I'm sure going foward balance will be much easier to maintain. Each new game has taken strides to leave behind the poor balance implementation of EQ.
"Yes Shadowbane makes money but It is not near the success they predicted."
You could say say this about any product from the matrix to toothpaste. Hype is Hype. It has little do with success.
-=-=-=-=-
"Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Hmm, as we continue to discuss this you seem to be going further and further from anything we were talking about.
The point I have been making is that DAoC is one of the most successful U.S. pvp games based on subscribers and therefor money. This means they will likely lose less people to new mmorpgs that do not involve a substantial pvp element.
As to the rest...
As I was saying, the information released about WoW's pvp elements indicates a much smaller rvr element then DAoCs but also like I said before its really too early to tell. If they do add a large chunk of pvp content then thats great and as you said it would probably help them in the korean market as well as take a larger chunk of DAoCs followers. The thing is the current information they have released (that I have read anyway) does not indicate a very large pvp element to the game.
Balance seems elusive as ever. Many people, DAoC players and otherwise, would argue many games since EQ have had even worse balance. One of DAoCs worst early complaints was the class balance and it continues to be a topic to this day.
SWG and AC2 have also been heavily faulted for class balance. Shadowbane has its own group of class balance critics though they seem a smaller group then some of the other games.
As for the predictions of success there are games that do much better then they were predicted to, on the order of whole magnitude such as EQ. Many of the new mmorpgs have failed to reach their expectations but Shadowbane was one that fell far below the developers and publishers hopes.
Maybe it will recover in time and become one of the best, but my point is that DAoC currently holds the lion share of pvp mmorpg subscribers and they have not left to play SB so I highly doubt EQ2 will have more success with them with its almost non existent pvp.
WoW and EQ2 are going to be successful games regardless where their audiences come from. If they are horrid games they may not hold that audiance long but their names alone are likely to sell a huge volume of software. DAoCs future will be affected by them, but I expect on a much smaller scale then games like EQ.
Hmm, as we continue to discuss this you seem to be going further and further from anything we were talking about.
True, and I fear for our rating. I apologize.
The point I have been making is that DAoC is one of the most successful U.S. pvp games based on subscribers and therefor money. This means they will likely lose less people to new mmorpgs that do not involve a substantial pvp element.
Calling DAoC a PvP game is allot like calling Oreo's low fat. In both cases it isn't true. DAoC is a PvE game, with a PvP highend element.
According to Nike Yee's research on this topic, roughly 30% of DAoC view the PvP element as critical to the game. Meaning roughly 70% would probably still play if there wasn't RvR at all. As such, it's difficult to call DAoC a PvP game. You certainly can't say the same thing for SB or lineage.
Source - http://www.nickyee.com/codeblue/misc.html
As I was saying, the information released about WoW's pvp elements indicates a much smaller rvr element then DAoCs but also like I said before its really too early to tell. If they do add a large chunk of pvp content then thats great and as you said it would probably help them in the korean market as well as take a larger chunk of DAoCs followers. The thing is the current information they have released (that I have read anyway) does not indicate a very large pvp element to the game.
The reviews I've read and the posting buy Dev's on there message boards have suggested a greater PvP and RvR element than DAoC. sadly Blizzard is keeping a hush on the whole thing.
Balance seems elusive as ever. Many people, DAoC players and otherwise, would argue many games since EQ have had even worse balance. One of DAoCs worst early complaints was the class balance and it continues to be a topic to this day.
EQ = Shocking inequities between classes. SWG = VI. I'm sure why anyone expect any different.
AC2 = MS.
Granted I have not played either game, but I've sworn to never play any games made by 2 complains again. MS and VI.
Either way, measuring how much people complain is a poor standard for determining class balance issues.
As for the predictions of success there are games that do much better then they were predicted to, on the order of whole magnitude such as EQ. Many of the new mmorpgs have failed to reach their expectations but Shadowbane was one that fell far below the developers and publishers hopes.
ShadowBane took a stride forward on new thinking in game math, instead of using the standard methods. The result is fairly balance game. Sure everything needs a little tweaking. But it's a great step forward. I only hope other MMORPG will learn from simple change towards better game formulas.
Maybe it will recover in time and become one of the best, but my point is that DAoC currently holds the lion share of pvp mmorpg subscribers and they have not left to play SB so I highly doubt EQ2 will have more success with them with its almost non existent pvp.
SB Recover? So if VI says "We'll have 600,000 accounts by the end of the year" and they only have 500,000 would they be recovering also? Hypermasters stuffed there foot in the mouths. I fail to see why means anything to SB. I'm sure every game on the market did not live up to the highest hopes on someone in the company and/or press.
Not living up to the hype is completely different than not being successfull.
As much as I like DAoC they really don't hold a lions share of anything. They hold "Loins share" of PvPers compared to EQ (witch has very few). Not the market as a whole. As stated above DAoC isn't a PvP game, it's a PvE that has a PvP element.
WoW and EQ2 are going to be successful games regardless where their audiences come from. If they are horrid games they may not hold that audience long but their names alone are likely to sell a huge volume of software. DAoCs future will be affected by them, but I expect on a much smaller scale then games like EQ.
I would more or less agree with this summery
-=-=-=-=-
"Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
True, and I fear for our rating. I apologize
I really am not too concerned with our ratings either, I was simply stating you were trying to argue points that had little to do with my original topic.
Calling DAoC a PvP game is allot like calling Oreo's low fat. In both cases it isn't true. DAoC is a PvE game, with a PvP highend element.
According to Nike Yee's research on this topic, roughly 30% of DAoC view the PvP element as critical to the game. Meaning roughly 70% would probably still play if there wasn't RvR at all. As such, it's difficult to call DAoC a PvP game. You certainly can't say the same thing for SB or lineage.
I would say you are horribly skewing the results from the survay you are using for a reference. If you look at it as it is posted, a 1 to 5 rating by players (with 1 being the least and 5 being most) on the importance of DAoC's pvp element an amazing 72% of the males rated it a 4 or 5. Even 45% of the females which are much less pvp inclined rated it a 4 or 5. Another 20% of the males put it at a 3 (middling importance) leaving only 27% giving it a rating of 1 or 2 (of little or no importance).
If anything your survay shows DAoC is clearly a pvp centric game in the eyes of the players at least. I do agree though that DAoC had done more to provide a pve environment then games like SB or Lineage.
If you were to do another survay showing the anticipation of the new rvr expansion compared to the ToA expasion, I bet you would also see a stagering difference with most people wanting the rvr expansion rather then the pve version. Saying DAoC is not pvp centric is simply ignoring the facts and views of the players of the game.
The reviews I've read and the posting buy Dev's on there message boards have suggested a greater PvP and RvR element than DAoC. sadly Blizzard is keeping a hush on the whole thing.
This just supports what I was saying before. They may very well have a substantial portion of the game directed toward pvp, but what has been released to the public so far does not say this currently.
EQ = Shocking inequities between classes. SWG = VI. I'm sure why anyone expect any different.
AC2 = MS.
Granted I have not played either game, but I've sworn to never play any games made by 2 complains again. MS and VI.
Either way, measuring how much people complain is a poor standard for determining class balance issues.
As before, a very large portion of the DAoC community, and these are the people enjoying and playing the game, feel its horribly unbalanced, worse then EQ in most cases since it is a pvp game where balance becomes even more essential in many peoples eyes. DAoC has gone through extensive class rebalancing by its developers. What else would you judge class balance on? I agree its not an exact science by any means.
Your own decision to not play MS or SoE games is no indication of how balance has improved or worsened in new mmorpgs. I am not trying to be rude by stating that, I just dont see how that advances your argument it, rather it only limits the exposure you have had and shows a tendancy to bias.
I can completely understand your desire not to play a game produced by a company you feel has wronged you or produces products you feel are inferior but it does not show any additional strength to your position on balance.
ShadowBane took a stride forward on new thinking in game math, instead of using the standard methods. The result is fairly balance game. Sure everything needs a little tweaking. But it's a great step forward. I only hope other MMORPG will learn from simple change towards better game formulas.
I agree with you completely about SBs approach to trying something new. I am very happy they did this and their vision was...well visionary. However the game was plagued by bugs which did adversly affect many players and resulted in lower sales and ongoing subscriptions (in the U.S.) then the producers anticipated. This is precisely what I mean by not being as successful as DAoC which far surpassed its anticipated sales and subscriptions early on and which has a far larger current player base.
DAoC simply is one of the most successful current pvp centric games in the U.S. This is not to say it is every pvpers dream or that there are not other successful pvp games, just that DAoC has the lion share in the U.S. currently.
As a final note, lets just watch and see as the new games come out, my prediction still stands as far as I am concerned, you will see a larger percentage of people leave EQ for EQ2, and possible WoW depending on what the final pvp element becomes, then will be leaving DAoC to play them.
I would say you are horribly skewing the results from the survey you are using for a reference. If you look at it as it is posted, a 1 to 5 rating by players (with 1 being the least and 5 being most) on the importance of DAoC's pvp element an amazing 72% of the males rated it a 4 or 5. Even 45% of the females which are much less pvp inclined rated it a 4 or 5. Another 20% of the males put it at a 3 (middling importance) leaving only 27% giving it a rating of 1 or 2 (of little or no importance).
You are correct I did skew the results, I was curious if you would bother checking the source. Kudo's for doing some footwork.
Never believe anything unless you already know it to be true or willing to do the research to find out.
If anything your survey shows Doc is clearly a pvp centric game in the eyes of the players at least. I do agree though that DAoC had done more to provide a pve environment then games like SB or Lineage.
However...
Yee's report is not forced on the PvP facet of MMORPG's. The question asked. "How important is the PvP element of an MMORPG". Just because someone may feel it's important doesn't mean they feel it's the most important facet. More questions would have to be asked to actually account for this. Such as "Would you be willing to play a game without PvP". I think PvP is extremely important yet played EQ for 3 years. Why? There are more facets to a game than one.
Allot depends on how you want to define "somewhat" I would define it when related to DAoC as "sometimes" meaning not all the time.
If anything the Yee's report shows players enjoy both PvP and PvE DAoC provides.
If you were to do another survey showing the anticipation of the new rvr expansion compared to the ToA expasion, I bet you would also see a stagering difference with most people wanting the rvr expansion rather then the pve version. Saying DAoC is not pvp centric is simply ignoring the facts and views of the players of the game.
Or is merely a matter of looking the entirety. As stated above DAoC has much to offer, I wouldn't be so quick to reduce it to a single facet. To called DAoC PvE or PvE isn't very accurate. DAoC and WoW will be hybrid games. Prehapes PvE+P or +P would be better?
DAoC has roughly 94 zones, only 21 are PvP.. about 20% (19.74).
Can a game be PvP centric, when PvP is voluntary?
This just supports what I was saying before. They (blizzard) may very well have a substantial portion of the game directed toward pvp, but what has been released to the public so far does not say this currently.
To quote Scott Adams "If you are a 'normal' person, you tend to believe anything that supports your current view and will ignore everything else"
No need to point out I'm normal. Yes, your normal also.
As before, a very large portion of the DAoC community, and these are the people enjoying and playing the game, feel its horribly unbalanced, worse then EQ in most cases since it is a pvp game where balance becomes even more essential in many peoples eyes. DAoC has gone through extensive class rebalancing by its developers. What else would you judge class balance on? I agree its not an exact science by any means.
Balance can only be achieved though objective standards. By mining the data in there character databases, it is possible to determine rather a accusation has merit. Let's say class A, is claimed to be doing less DPS and class B. By taken a large amount sample data and a little grinding will provide the results. If class C is accused of not being desired by groups, once again sample data can be taken to determine the truth of this claim and where the deficiency lies (if any).
Since we can see the internal game data, we have no means of measuring this for ourselves. conspiracy theories began. Before long dev's are handing out "candy" to make peace on a faulty perceived inequity.
The problem is many games are flawed at the core, they have created different standards for vairius skill and abilities. As such no balance can ever be achived under there current game mathmatics. DAoC suffers a small amount faulty game mathmatics, it will be interesting to see they catch on during the RvR revamp.
Your own decision to not play MS or SoE games is no indication of how balance has improved or worsened in new mmorpgs. I am not trying to be rude by stating that, I just dont see how that advances your argument it, rather it only limits the exposure you have had and shows a tendancy to bias.
So?
We are all bias, to say otherwise is arrogant or ignorant.
I can completely understand your desire not to play a game produced by a company you feel has wronged you or produces products you feel are inferior but it does not show any additional strength to your position on balance.
Nor does it weaken my point, only objective standards can be used to find balance. How much people complain is a poor indicator.
I agree with you completely about SBs approach to trying something new. I am very happy they did this and their vision was...well visionary. However the game was plagued by bugs which did adversely affect many players and resulted in lower sales and ongoing subscriptions (in the U.S.) then the producers anticipated. This is precisely what I mean by not being as successful as DAoC which far surpassed its anticipated sales and subscriptions early on and which has a far larger current player base.
I'm not saying SB is great or bug free, I'm merely saying they took a step in the right by centering the game around a new set mathematical principles rather and emulating it's predecessors. I only hope future games will learn from this advance in class balance.
All MMORPG have plagued by bugs on there initial release. Granted SB had some dozys, but so did every other game.
If I predict I'll sell 20 copies, and you predict you'll 40 and we both sell 50. Was I more successful than you? Predictions are just that.. predictions. They have little to do with reality. SB has is running in the black and growing it's user base, that is the true measure of success for a company.
DAoC simply is one of the most successful current pvp centric games in the U.S. This is not to say it is every pvpers dream or that there are not other successful pvp games, just that DAoC has the lion share in the U.S. currently.
DAoC is also in the black and expanding it's user base therefor successful. But it doesn't have a lion share of anything without additional delimiters. Why not say DAoC is the most successful game every made on earth that starts with "Dark" and ends with "age of Camelot"?
As a final note, lets just watch and see as the new games come out, my prediction still stands as far as I am concerned, you will see a larger percentage of people leave EQ for EQ2, and possible WoW depending on what the final pvp element becomes, then will be leaving DAoC to play them.
-=-=-=-=-
"Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Clever you guys are missing the point. Daoc is not going to survive. why? because they dont have the subscribers.
Wow,and eq2, and Im thinking Horizons will play a role also in the demise of Daoc. The game is not growing its shrinking, go and look at the numbers of people thats logged on. its declined over the months. I can't say exactly by how much but it has for the last year at least. I know because i seen that board everyday.
Wow and eq2 will pull so many of the last subscribers away it will be impossible to keep the servers going and for them to make any money.
But ill tell ya something else thats hurt Mythic alot. and you can agree or disagree. For so long, ever since the game has come out, they have failed to address some terrible class imbalancing. if youve played the game you know what im talking about.
And the problem with that is that the majority of there customers that have expressed concerns over it have been ignored. they simply quit listening to the player base along time ago. I only spoke with one person out of hunderds who wanted toa expansion. everyone else wanted rvr fixes. and better quests.
Mythic went so far as to address the problem on ign message boards because it was causing such a problem in the playerbase. then they asked ign to freeze the link cause the players were really upset. they just simply didnt want it.
I think in the future that mmorpg companies will be alot more careful on how they address players needs. cause right now theres not to much competition in the market. in 2-3 years when companies are fighting tooth and nail to get subscribers youll see the best gaming start to emerge.
But Mythic wont be a part of it.
"Mythics CEO, Mark Jacobs, credits the ongoing success of Dark Age of Camelot with the companys 3,198 percent revenue growth over the past five years." - http://www.mythicentertainment.com/press/fast500.html
Granted Mythis has 13 games not just DAoC, but that's all more reason why DAoC will stay around longer than a it might if DAoC was there only game. In short they could eat a loss on DAoC if they really needed too. But the good news they don't have to. It's more popular than ever.
I don't see how you can think a company that has grown 3,198% is going to suddenly fail because you receive fewer users. When in fact, with ToA DAoC has a reached a all time high of accounts.
"Currently Dark Age of Camelot has more than 220,000 paying subscribers. The popularity of the game is evidenced by the fact that more than 60,000 people play simultaneously at peak times. " -http://www.mythicentertainment.com/press/atlantis.html
Your perceptions are based on a very small percent of the total user base. I'm not saying DAoC does everything right. But they are certainly doing far more right than wrong.
DAoC will have a long future. There is nothing factual that indicates otherwise.
-=-=-=-=-
"Playing EQ to the highend is like getting hit in the head over and over. When the hitting stops you start to miss the dizzy feeling. The lack of this "dizzy feeling" will ruin you to other MMORPG's"
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Clever your kicking a dead horse. I dont care what kind of numbers you post on here, unless you get the actual bank account of mythic and post all the deposits game related made I wont believe you. This is the same company that said they add tons of new content each month via patches. which was and is a lie, the only thing i ever seen was patches to fix bugs or some sad attempt at unbalancing an unblanced game even more.
Where are these 60000 subscibers playing simoultaneously? there own baords dont show this. currently as of this post there are 24289 people playing worldwide(only 10000 in North America). I once seen 50000 people, but that was many moons ago. Now the places to hunt have a few people, never see any new players, most quit after a few days because theres no one for them to play with.
They have lost people left and right. and there only going to lose more. when i played at what i considered Daocs peak there were people everywhere, You couldnt go 10 feets in the game without running over someone. Now unless you got the most hunted spoits you dont find anyone.
And there doing it thereselves. there /level, lack of updates to the game(content and useful material) have all lead to its downfall.
Mark my words, when Wow comes out and eq2 Daoc will lose so many customers that it will be like a ghost town on most servers. Oh sure theyll have people playing till its death but not many.
When those games are out for a few months come back to this post and will see who was right.
http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=8mj35887
That is silly. Not even a fraction of a fraction of the people who play these mmorpgs actively posts on these boards or answer polls in a spam forum to give you any inkling of which game will sell better then another.
I am sure both EQ2 and WoW will sell well based on name recognition alone but beyond that only time will tell.
http://www.kingsofchaos.com/recruit.php?uniqid=8mj35887
I have been playing DAoC for over two years and have put many, many hours into the game. I have seen it's evolution from the day it was released. Based upon that my conclusion is that DAoC is toast. People are leaving in mass numbers because they want a game where developers will listen to them and what they want. Mythic has successfully ruined its reputation because it didn't listen to the players. It barely even listens to team leads. I would guess that approximately 40% of the people playing DAoC are playing the game just waiting on Horizons, WoW, D&L, and EQ2 to be released. DAoC is the best of the worst right now, but when these new games are released, their subscriber base will diminish quickly and the realms will be sparse, save a few die hard fans that refuse to let the game die completely.
After these new games are released I expect DAoC to stay around fumbling through another year or so, until it finally closes its doors.
________________________________
Peter : "Why did all the dinosaurs become extinct?"
Teacher: "Because you touch yourself at night."
This make me laugh, that has been said about every game I have ever played. Including EQ. Yet it's still around.
-=-=-=-=-
"EQ was once a great game. I wont deny it, but so was Asteroids. And just like Pong, EQ is obsolete by newer game standards."
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
Sure everyone complains about this, but Mythic has gone out of their way to make a game in their own image, not caring what the players want. Some of the primary complaints of two years ago are still in the game, and more pronounced than ever before.
As does every other game maker on the planet. I'm sure they will say the same about Rellic and Blizzard. (although I've played many other Blizzard game and read that same logic over and over)
-=-=-=-=-
"EQ was once a great game. I wont deny it, but so was Asteroids. And just like Pong, EQ is obsolete by newer game standards."
A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50%
Games and players have a type. What type are you? click here
-=-=-=-=-
Achievers realise that killers as a concept are necessary in order to make achievement meaningful and worthwhile (there being no way to "lose" the game if any fool can "win" just by plodding slowly unchallenged). -bartle
Bartle: A: 93% E: 55% S:3% K: 50% The Test. Learn what it means here.
no
My only complaint after playing DaoC for 2 years....Please stop nerfing/buffing charecters. I don't want that kind of game balance. choosing a specific class "should" make me different than other classes. If you have a test server and you test stuff before you implement it, then why do you feel the need to come back at a later date and change things again.
Well I actually have 2 complaints, though this is not isolated to Mythic - Dear Mr./Ms. developer, please create charecters that have more than 1 correct path of growth. Whats the point of having different specializations if after the player community dissects the math, one path deals more damage than others. for example: DAoC - suppression spirit masters - dime a dozen, smite clerics ( before the nerf) dime a dozen, shadowzerkers- dime a dozen etc...... We the players are not stupid. If your game mechanics are that simple to figure out, it won't be long before everyone knows how to spec to have the uber charecter. Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having various specializations.
*note - for those of you who say, " well i am not interested in uber133tness so I don't care if one spec is more powerful than another" Thats a load of BS for 2 simple reasons - 1. Hunting groups know what specs are best and specifically look for those specs when forming a party. 2. there is enough pvp in DaoC to warrant you to pursue the spec that does the most damage. Otherwise you die alot.
Not saying others haven't made this mistake...just that the topic is DaoC.
Notice: The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of MMORPG.com or its management.
Amazing. I posted this 2 and a half months ago and it is still going strong. Well, I am retiring from DAOC now. Its not the game, its just me. There arent many raids anymore so there isnt much to do at 50.
"Whoever controls the media controls the mind..-'Jim Morrison"
"When decorum is repression, the only dignity free men have is to speak out." ~Abbie Hoffman
Actually, the very problem with DAOC right now IS the growing world. When Shrouded Isles came out, players found themselves widely dispersed and grouping much more difficult to come across. With the new /20 level command (where players with level 50 characters can make new characters which start at level 20), the low end game was all but annihilated. Just create a new character in a near empty zone and run around by yourself for 20 levels and you'll see what I mean.
Many MMORPG's seem to solve the content problem by adding expansions, but I'm wondering if they should really just enrich existing content. What fun is a MMORPG when no one else is around?
I agree, i have a level 29 reaver on the most populated server and it's hell trying to find someone to group with.
Plus the world is pretty dead, nothing really interesting.
________________________________
Peter : "Why did all the dinosaurs become extinct?"
Teacher: "Because you touch yourself at night."