Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Jeff Anderson hits at moving away from a subscription-based model
Crash86
Member Posts: 125
From the Boston Globe:
There are a lot of issues discussed here, but squirrelled away on page 2 of the above is this quote:
"Turbine already seems to be considering how it might capitalize, perhaps by eliminating or reducing its monthly subscription fees, and selling items to players à la carte, for about $1 to $5.
Anderson, Turbine's CEO, believes that business model could ``open up the gaming market to a much larger audience, where today's monthly subscription price is a barrier."
But Anderson knows that getting into the business of selling cloaks and swords will be a high-wire act for Turbine and other game developers."
Comments
Errrrr.
Monthly pricing is a barrier? No the quality of your product is a barrier, the pricing is just a deterent.
- Scaris
"What happened to you, Star Wars Galaxies? You used to look like Leia. Not quite gold bikini Leia (more like bad-British-accent-and-cinnamon-bun-hair Leia), but still Leia nonetheless. Now you look like Chewbacca." - Computer Gaming World
As long as I can still get the items I want the old fassioned way I'm all for them going Free to play with purchased items available
It's not a PVP game so it wouldn't be unbalancing
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
Lol, gotta love the spin -
"today's monthly subscription price is a barrier"
Yeah, go tell that to Blizzard. The sub price isn't the barrier, the lack of content to justify it is.
"selling items to players à la carte, for about $1 to $5"
Can you even imagine anything more ass backwards than this bit of logic? The whole freaking point of adventuring in D&D is to grow and strengthen your character, through hard fought battles that bring a sense of accomplishment. What kind of accomplishment is it to fork over real world cash for gear?
That they would even consider something like that, tells me right there they have no fucking clue what it's all about.
Me? If I can play free because some bonehead is willing to pay $100 for a Longsword of Doom and Ultimate Destruction? COOL
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Dude I thought all the fanboy left this place. Please don't tell me gervik is still here. Graphics aren't even 3D for the monster, they are animated and poorly done. Character designs are limit even with different color and hair styles. That's said for a game that's known for character and gameplay diversity. Range combat is horrible, you can't even keep your enemies at bay and you don't any good feats for the weapon. As a magic user, you can't even stay in long range as most monster go straight for the back. Melee is retarded (riding the bus retarded) and EASY if you have good armor. This game doesn't have the monk class and the level cap is stuck at level 10, and you're saying this superb. Lastly, the dungeons repetitive...I mean A.D.D repetitive. Every dungeon requires you to do the same thing over and over again.
Oh, to add insult to injury, they added PvP to DnD Online when the magic, range and melee system aren't even balanced. AND they are adding the drow who didn't even exist in this campaign. Dude, get freaking life, my 8-bit nintendo has more qualities then this sh!tty game. There's no reason to play this game when you can play NWN or NWN 2 for free online play and BETTER DnD mechanics.
Yeah the game as qualities but its not a godd game
why?
Failure to meet the expections of its customers
You can easily see the game is missing a vast amount of content, and even feels half done
i.e. the longer and harder it is to aquire weapons trough adventuring, the greater would the incentive be to buy the weapons with $.
it s not a far fetch to see where gamedesign would be headed: grind on a scale that we have only seen in korean MMOs so far..... that already use this very business model lol.
Not my kinda deal /shrugs.
-W.
The endgame items in WoW as well as the item in GW are a perfect example.
I will not pay 15 a month for the game though, it's not even 1/10th as good as GW.
Seriously they need to fire the people that "produced" it, I hate to harp on how bad it is but seriously wtf. It is a shame.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
Hey Jeff, it's not the monthly fee keeping me away from this game.
Joined 2004 - I can't believe I've been a MMORPG.com member for 20 years! Get off my lawn!
Errr..... what???? I'm not subscribing to the game because I agree it's not currently worth a monthly fee but uhh... have you played it? The monsters absolutely are 3D.... Everything in the game is 3D the only thing that isn't is the splash pages when you're loading into an instance. (I still think they should have done cutscenes but hey, that's just me).
I play a Ranger/Rogue and I have no problem with ranged combat at all. If you're in a group you shouldn't either. D&D isn't about solo play.... Again, the game isn't worth a monthly fee but you're complaining about an AD&D feature. Rangers in AD&D don't get a 'snare' ability. And the feats you can get as a ranger are actually superb compared to other MMO's. (Increased ROF, Ability, if you have high enough strength, to fire more than 1 arrow at a time, Shot-on-the-Run, Etc.) If you're complaining about archery ability as a non-ranger? Sorry, no sympathy for you. If you want to play ranged, be a ranger, or deal with not having as many feats as Rangers do. They're the ranged class in AD&D (Fighters do get some nice ranged feats as well and using the repeating Heavy X-Bow is just damn fun as a fighter).
Sounds like you've been in some bad groups, that or you don't have a clue how to run a wizard. My wizard has no problem at all keeping mobs at range, even solo: 1) Web and/or Hypnotize. 2) Select target. 3) Nuke into oblivion.
ALL wizards and sorcerors have access to Hypnotize, Otto's Resitable Dance, Web, etc. Clerics have access to Hold Person and other spells as well. There is a veritable Plethora of ways for casters to keep enemy mobs at bay and also function as crowd control. Hypnotism is very effective. And you can get it at level 1.
Not saying it's perfect but you are making a completely untrue statement. I play a wizard and have never died in a group. If a mob makes a break for me it gets webbed or hypnotized or charmed or dazed. Then I leave it for the tanks and return to nuking the one we're currently working on.
Again, I am not planning to subscribe due to lack of content and variety in the game. But what is IN the game is very well done indeed.
I agree here. Monk should have been included but.... it was never a hugely popular class in AD&D... even at Gen Cons back when I went you rarely saw people playing Monks
But, that said, yes, leaving core classes out of the game was a mistake, as was leaving out core playable races. And, yes, the dungeons can be repetitive. One of my biggest complaints is that the adventures in the game aren't really balanced with one another. At each level there are 1 or 2 extremely popular adventures and the rest wallow in anonymity because the rewards don't even come close to comparing. That said, there IS a wide variety of quests... I've had fun in most that I've tried. The trick is finding groups that will break out of the rut of doing the same 3 or 4 quests over and over again.
Yesterday, for example, I joined a group (PuG) and quickly wound up leaving because they were doing the same two starter (harbour) quests over and over first on normal, then on hard, then on elite just to get 'better xp and rewards'. I was like "uhh... can't we just go do a different quest?" They had the classic 'grinder' mindset: Take the fastest possible path to level and loot. If you can escape those people the game isn't bad. I had a ball last night in a couple of quests with the guild I joined. We were doing quests I've never even seen before (granted that'll eventually run out because, as I said, there IS a lack of content).
But yeah, the quests can become repetitive. Also the fact that the starter quests don't vary at all based on your race, gender or class. Matter of fact the text dialog doesn't even vary if you're female or male toon
Actually they haven't added PVP yet. I did see that they're planning to though. As to the Drow, they are doing that because it's easy to tweak the racial bonuses of an existing char model and just add black skin as an option to the character build
Overall I agree the game is not yet worth a monthly fee. However, I think some of the people posting in here are making it out to be a LOT worse than it really is. Play it past 4th level before you criticize it too harshly. It's basically missing 3 or 4 things:
1) Crafting as an option
2) A non-instanced explorable area where you could, possibly, kill mobs for minor XP (standard MMO style). But mostly for exploration and travel to other cities
3) More cities than just stormreach and player housing.
4) Player Vendors (To go with the housing possibly). So that players can sell items directly to one another. Right now there is no player driven economy at all. Items people get stay within a small circle of friends or get sold to vendors at 10% of value, which is sad. And sold BACK to players at a huge markup. Adding player vendors would allow players to sell items to each other instead of getting robbed by the NPC markup/markdown syndrome.
Those are the big 4 I always think of right away in DDO. And they're the reason I am not subscribed to the game (though I am playing the 30 days on the game I was given). But the reasons that CaptainRPG gave are completely false, from the perspective of someone who a) isn't going to subscrube but b) gave the game an honest try before flaming it.
I don't recommend purchasing it. Play free trials till you're blue in the face though
Because what little there is to the game IS fun... it's just not finished yet. Figure 3 or 4 modules down the road it'll be worth subscribing to.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
1. No, the 3D animation is Ol'School Doom style. For example the spider's body is always facing you no matter what side you are on. The monsters are not 3D animated like the monsters of GW or WoW.
2. Range sucks and I'm talking about the range attacking as a stand-alone ability. Mentioning a group is COMPLETELY irrevelant since anyone and almost every ability is useful undergroup conditions. And you must be on crack to say the ranger superior towards other games. Every fantasy based game has taken the ideas of DnD and made them WAAAAAAAAY better. Give you example is the Ranger abilities with Range attacks in GW. The Ranger in GW can shot an arrow that can knock you down, poison you, set you on fire, or do extra damage.
The DnD Ranger can only shoot on the run and rapid shot. Shoot on the run sucks since most of the areas are crapmed and can only affect shoot an opponent while moving backwards. You can't snare the enemies so it's all to easy for the enemy to close the gap unless you are in a group with a melee character to gain aggro. But Range as a stand alone ability sucks. After reading your post, I could tell you being a fanboy because every other mmorpg has done what DnD has done and done it better.
3. If you're a high level Wizard then yes, it'll be easy to keep your opponent far away. But most of the time, you will get an enemy in your face. Not to mention you can't rest. Yes, you get Hypo, but you're fighting up to 2 to 3 enemies at level 1.
And what's even more funny is that you say nothing about melee.
4. They are doing because they want to lose customers and the players kept whining about it.
5. We don't need crafting because there isn't anything to craft. Unlike most games, DnD is working with a small list of weapons and armor to forge.
Again, I've said this before, everything DnD has done, other rpgs have done it better. Turbine should have just BASED this game on DnD instead of trying to make an actual translation of the game because the contents of DnD are SOOOOOOOOOOOOO outdated that it's hard to make a really good game out of it.
No it isn't. Again, do you play? Have you played since beta? Or are you just making it up as you go along? The objects are NOT always facing you. I play a ranger/rogue... which means that when I melee I attempt to be behind or beside the creature rather than directly in front. I think I'd notice if the body was 'always facing me'. And I've done waterworks and Tangleroot (and several other dungeons with spiders in them) enough times that it'd be painfully obvious to me if what you said was true. It is not. They are full 3D objects and face appropriately. Heck they even run away if they're 'scared' or whatever. Sorry, you're wrong. Actually... the monsters are BETTER 3D animated than GW or WoW.... no offense to either game but this is just a false argument. I don't know where you're getting this information from, but it's wrong. I currently PLAY the game (albeit I do not subscribe, but I DO play, currently...)
Again, play past level 4 please. Rangers in DDO can do all of the above except knock you down. (which is unrealistic as hell. No way in hell is an arrow going to knock someone down. And remember: This is AD&D, not GuildWars. Please show me the AD&D ruleset that allows for ranged weaponry (asside from siege weapons) to knock someone down? And bringing "group play" into the arguement IS relevent because AD&D is built for GROUP play, not solo. DDO allows for SOME solo play. If you multi-class as say... ranger/wizard or Ranger/Cleric you can get web or hold person to lock people down at range if you want to solo. Web you get at level 3 wizard I believe hold person is a level 5 cleric spell (could be wrong there, I don't play a cleric) So, yes, there absolutely ARE ways to get exactly the same functionality you're talking about. You just haven't explored them.
I love that I'm a fanboy despite the fact that I flat out tell people the game isn't worth buying
Might want to think about what you're saying here. I'm arguing game mechanics with you. AD&D is NOT WOW it is NOT Guild Wars and it is NOT EQ. Remember that all those games are, ultimately, based on AD&D. This isn't "Lets make an online game loosely based on AD&D" this is "AD&D Online" in other words: Turbine implemented, as much as they could, the exact 3.5 ruleset (yes, there are gaps, and those of us who know the 3.5 ruleset have griped, moaned and complained on the official boards multiple times about it).
Complaining that an AD&D ranger can't snare in an AD&D game is silly. Because an AD&D ranger CANT snare. (well... then again... at 4th level we get a few spells that let us do fun things, maybe you should take my advice... AGAIN... and play a ranger past level 4, oh and try multiclassing because, again, in your example above, both a ranger/cleric and a ranger/wizard could do exactly what you're bitching about not being able to do)
Archery Skills rangers can get, just off the top of my head:
Not to mention the enhancements they get which are ranger specific through Action points.
High Level????? Obviously you have NOT played this game despite you bashing it:
1st Level: Hypnotize: Locks down multiple opponents in a mez state "until damaged". They'll just stand there (for a long ass time) waiting for you to hurt them. Then hit your intended target with Otto's Dance (another 1st level spell) and then break out your crossbow (or longbow if you're elven wizard) and plunk them to death. Or use magic missile if you wanna waste spell points at this point. If they close in (even multiple targets) torch them with burning hands (FAOE)
Also 1st: Hypnotise: Lock them all down.... then Grease on the target you want to kill... then use your bow/crossbow or magic missile. If they close in, torch them with burning hands (FAOE).
Also 1st: Charm one of them. Mez the others. Let your charmie take them down.
Also 1st: Summon Monster. Let him tank while you nuke from a distance.
3rd Level: Web, Daze, etc. Even more fun ways to lock your opponent down. New pets, etc.
(note: You can reach 4th level easily without ever leaving "the harbor" (lowbie zone). Solo even, if you so desire.)
Get the picture? Have you even PLAYED? Or are you just regurgitating false statements you are reading from some website? All of the above tactics work. I play solo typically in the low level game till 2nd level, typically till almost 3rd level actually. And even as a PURE wizard I have no trouble except in some specific dungeons that lack shrines to regenerate in. Matter of fact I have an easier time than some melee classes
What about melee? They're fine. They fill their role well. They have taunt, Detaunt, Break Armor (Rend) which lowers AC, Trip, abilities to boost their damage output or AC, etc. What exactly do they need done? They're FAR from overpowered. A good wizard is essential to a group, as is a good tank.
Turbine was CONTRACTED to make this game true to AD&D by WOTC. If you don't like it that's fine but Turbine is jut the developer here. Yes, I agree, they aren't a very good one because many key features that would really make the game fun, interesting, and still be true to pure AD&D are not implemented. But they don't have the ability to say "oh we'll just toss out this ruleset because it's not as cool as WoW"
DDO is Dungeons & Dragons Online.
While I agree the game is NOT worth buying, currently, it is true to the core rules of AD&D, and 90% of the complaints you've mentioned are either outright false or hugely exaggerated. Everything you complain about can be adressed by either 1) *gasp* playing in a group (which is what AD&D is all about) or 2) *gasp* multi-classing (which only Guildwars does right now besides DDO)
If you want to solo be a melee/caster hybrid of some kind. Ranger7/Wiz3 is a very strong combination for solo play, just as an example.
The difference between you and I is that before I critique or slam a game I actually PLAY it and give it an honest try before I try commenting about it. I readily agree, even shout about it, to the fact that DDO is NOT worth purchasing. But your statements, made as if they were written in granite, are so untrue that it's not even laughable... it's just sad. We agree: It's not worth paying to play it. But your statements are outright wrong and you obviously haven't played the game more than a few minutes. Because even 3-4 hours of /played time will get you to level 2, possibly level 3 if you're hard-core about it. And you would immediately see just how wrong you are.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
1. First off, beta doesn't have to dick with how the game plays now. I've played the Free-Trial and you've gonna cop out and say you I would have to buy the game to get the real experience then you full of sh@$ because you don't need to buy this game to how horrible it is.
Secondly, when you kill the spider, the body is always facing you so don't try to tell me what I see or lie to these people haven't played the game. Doom has that exact animation. You can't even tell isn't 3D by the lack of shadowing on both the monsters and the enivornment.
2. As I said about PvP, Range and other system of fighting are poorly done. If Range is not a good stand alone ability then there is no reason to have a Ranger in your group. Had you played Guild Wars or World of Warcraft, you would know exactly what I'm talking about because explain this would be a trial indeed.
3. You have precision shot, which increase ab by +1 and allows you to shot upclose without penalties. You get Many shot, which is rapid shot. You get shoot on the run that, which is self-explantory. Power shot for a slight damaging shot and triple shot for shooting 3 enemies at the same time. All the feats suck without a snare and you can't even bleed from a distance. Yet, early you said these moves are superior to other games. I have to see that seeing how these moves are better than setting your enemies on fire, bleeding them, snaring them or knocking them. Hell, the power shots in other games have more weight than these crappy moves in this game. Oh, by the way, there is reason why your a range/rogue. Because if the ranger was any good in this game, you wouldn't to cross class.
Again, other games off better and more sh#$ than this.
4. I was level 6 paladin hang out with a level 6 wizard since we both level 3. I've seen all the spell how they can lock them down. Unfortunately, if you lower level, the greater the chances your opponent will save against what you do. And at level 1 before and after the harbor, you fighting up to 2 to 3 enemies at a time. Unless the eneimes stay in one place, you may only get one.
5. Melee is more than fine. It's overpowered. Having played a paladin up to level 6 and branded armor early with a tower shield, tanking was not a problem for me. As a matter of fact, we've had this discussion before how OVERPOWERING melee is because there is no armor and weapon balance restriction. Yet, Turbine wants to add a pvp aspect to this game? Can imagine the number of complaints Turbine is going to get for melee characters?
6. No, Sh#%, sherlock. We know they were contracted or should I say they contracted themselves to the project. It's not like they were slaves force to do it. They could have always put a new spin on an old genre. But like every other company who has try to tackle DnD, they have utterly failed to do it right. Both Baldur's Gate games failed to translate the game right. Even NWN failed because of overpowerness of certain classes or class combinations (which were constantly abused), the lack of animation and the lack of feats. Hell just to make the game more fun, players had to introduce hakpacks (player made material) to make the game more more fun. The DnD itself lacks content to keep people interested unless you're playing PnP. You can make thousands of quests in a game, but those quests are pointless to do if you don't have material objective some of kind or if it doesn't have some kind of effect on the story.
Again with putting words in my mouth? What is with you? And no, I have never said you would have to buy it. How many times do I have to say I do NOT recommend buying it for you to get it through your thick frigging skull that I don't think the game is worth buying??? The only reason I own it is because a friend GAVE it to me. I don't subscribe and won't be subscribing when the free 30 days runs out. Unless by some miracle they address most of my issues before that time runs out.
A mob's death position has nothing to do with whether it's 3D or not. Probably, just a code problem on their part that has it die facing whomever killed it. (sort of an 'I look at whoever killed me'). No idea. But what direction it faces when it is dead has nothing to do with whether it's 3D or not. Just shows a lazy coder for animating it's death properly. Combat animation, movement, etc, is fine. I'll watch for that next time I play though, I honestly never noticed it.
I have played more MMORPG's than I care to think of. Including WoW and GuildWars both. Sorry you're not grasping the concept: This isn't WoW and it isn't Guild Wars. It's Dungeons and Dragons online. And Range *is* a good stand-alone ability, you obviously haven't played a ranger much. I've told you time and again that it's a very good ability and even listed at least 7 abilities that rangers get access to as they level up (there are more) specifically for ranged combat. Also they add their strength bonus to their bow damage (which is a huge benefit in AD&D. It effectively makes their bow damage as good or better than melee).
Again, I have to point out. This is AD&D online. Turbine stayed true to the AD&D core ruleset. If you don't like AD&D that's fine. But complaining about them making it "too true" to AD&D when that is EXACTLY what they were hired to do, is silly. I would argue, however, that Rangers ARE very effective and, in fact, in demand in most groups. AD&D is NOT a solo game. No class is designed to be able to solo at mid to high level. Mages don't have enough power, warriors don't have a way to heal themselves, clerics can't do enough damage, paladins lack both, barbarians will eventually run out of health, rogues lack staying power and bards have no real damage output OR hitpoints.
AD&D is GROUP oriented. The fact that people complain that you can't solo in it baffles me. The entire game mechanic is built around a GROUP of players working together. It's possible to solo a bit if you multiclass. But no single-class can solo well on it's own beyond the first few levels unless you're soloing content far far below your level. Even most multi-classes can't. AD&D is not designed for solo play. Thus DDO, because it adheres to the AD&D ruleset, is not either.
Um... "if you're lower level the greater the chance they will resist". That would be why you shouldn't be trying to fight content higher level than yourself (ESPECIALLY NOT SOLO). Duh. If you're in a group this isn't as much of a consideration because the group works together. But even still a wizard class (even bards for that matter) has very effective crowd control (cleric as well but not as good).
And yes, if you don't watch what you're doing and pay attention you MAY only get 1. Playing a caster in DDO takes a bit of skill to make sure you place your spells for their best effect. That's true in the tabletop game as well. You can't just toss an AOE and have it blanket an entire room like in EQ or WoW or DAOC. The radius is relatively small (compared to those games). Using web takes skill as well, knowing WHERE to place the web is important. So if you're only getting one guess who's fault it is? Not the class, not the spell... that leaves you.
Wait... there's no armor and weapon balance restriction? What are you discussing? This is an AD&D mechanic. And Turbine doesn't WANT to add PvP. The PLAYERS demanded it evidently. Turbine was AGAINST adding PVP from day one. Or have you forgotten that? Matter of fact MOST of the AD&D purists on the forums are AGAINST PvP being added to the game. Turbine is making a mistake by listening to players about PvP but ignoring them about additional content FEATURES (like crafting, etc).
Listen to me carefully: They were contracted to write Dungeons and Dragons Online. To remain TRUE to the AD&D rulesets. This is what they did. If you don't like DDO I'll lay you 100 to 1 odds that you wouldn't like AD&D PnP either. Because it does NOT cater to solo play. Matter of fact most DM's wont DO solo play. Even NWN played in solo mode you get NPC party members to help you along because classes just can't solo effectively in the AD&D ruleset environment. You keep comparing DDO to "other MMORPG's" but ignoring the fact that the AD&D mechanics, which are a requirement of their contract by the way, do not allow for solo play.
Same reason PVP won't work: PvP is not a feature of AD&D. Turbine stuck to it's guns for a long time on this, who knows why they're adding it now. I think that is a huge mistake. There are other things the game needs more.
As to your arguement about storyline? Right there with you. And yet another reason I won't subscribe to the game.
Our only dissagreement here is that you seem to think it's ok for them to make "Dungeons & Dragons Online" but to toss out all the AD&D core rulesets so that they can make it appeal to your solo play mentality. I'm sorry if they did that it wouldn't BE Dungeons & Dragons. It would be "EQ3".
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
1. Sigh
2. Okay
3. If you had played WoW or GW, you would know that Hunters and Ranger had piss poor time getting a group. Why? Because their abilities were not stand alone. The Hunter were a long-range class that did physical damage from a distance and slowed people down. Their abilities at the time made them no different from a Mage so people took any class except a Hunter with them on endgame raids. Also another reason, they weren't getting into groups is because Warrior could use range weapons too so they weren't need to pull monarwe. It wasn't until Blizzard upgrade their damage and abilities that they became force to be reckoned with.
Same thing happen with Ranger GW. It wasn't until Rangers starting making groups of their own that people started to recognize them as a threat. Same thing with the Ranger in this game. I don't need to play a Ranger because I play a Rogue or Warrior with bow and still play as good if not better than a Ranger.
The point I was trying to make with the stand alone ability is if I'm making a group what reason would I need to put a Ranger in my group when any class can perform the same function and do it better. There isn't because the Ranger doesn't have many feats exclusively for their class that makes them any different or any better. It doesn't matter if this is WoW, FFXI or GW. If a class doesn't have a stand-alone ability why would people play that class? It's also the reason why you are a Ranger/Rogue and not just a Ranger.
While were at it, you don't need barbarian or fighter, you don't sorcerer and you don't need fight bard because they either have abilities that can be found on other classes or other class can do their job way better than them. A well-alarmed paladin a better warrior than fighter and can last longer in battles thanks to their saves and enchanting spells.
You don't need a Ranger because Rogue gets more skill points, can do everything the Ranger can do including shoot arrows. The only exception is that a Rogue can't handle animals, but would you want to have a pet when you can get a team?
4. The feats still suck and trying to diverge from the point that you said these feats were superior to that other games. You still fail to provide that information. Plus, you can't put enough attributes in both Strength and Dex and expect to be a good archer.
5. No one said anything about soloing. I don't know where you got that from.
6. Doesn't fawking matter, the players can demand all they want. It's up to Turbine whether or not they want install it. It was added because population in DnD is dropping and they have no attractive content in their game. It's not a matter of them not having a choice because they DID have a choice on whether or not to add PvP. They choose it to maintain a declining player base.
But you're trying to diverge from the real point, which is the combat system: Melee, Range and Magic, is very flawed right now, especially for pve and putting pvp isn't going to help Turbine population much.
7. Listen to me carefully: They did not have to sign that contract. I know your just a kid, but right before grown people sign contracts, they have what adults call a business meeting. And during that business meeting, companies discuss how they want the produce to be made and new spins they put on idea to adapt to a new audience as well as attract old ones.
Bioware did this NWN and add moves and as well as classes not seen in other DnD games. Turbine as well as WotC thought they could sell an old idea to a new generation without changing and put it on MMORPG market. Boy where they wrong because since DnD appear 30 years ago, gaming companies have taken their ideas and improved on them. Most of the content in DnD was provided by the book, provided by the DM's imagination and provided by the DM's catering to a player's class.
The reason players can beat this game in a few weeks to a month is not because of the level cap, it's because the game has little content. Even if you had a level 20 cap, you'd only keep the players on for an extra month. I love DnD and I've played both PnP and game version and the PnP version will always be better because the today gaming generation expect more from DnD not less.
Because you play without the restriction of a DM or when play in real time and not turn based, when you play aren't force to roll all the time trying to see something or detect a trap, you find that DnD is really a short game with little to offer. The goes by pretty fast. In PnP, it can take weeks to years to get to level 10, but it only takes one hardcore weekend to reach max or near max level in almost every DnD carination because the developers fails to see that players were the ones responsible for the one giving the game longevity not the company.
A rogue with a bow can't even come CLOSE to a ranger of equal level because they're on different to-hit tables. Rangers use the fighter to-hit table and rogues use the rogue to-hit table (which is only barely better than a mage). At higher levels the disparity is tremendous. Even by level 5 you will start noticing that the rogue is +2 or +3 behind the ranger (which is big in encounters with high AC mobs). Dissagree here as well. A high level berzerker, with their innate damage reduction abilities, is far superior to a fighter as a pure tank. The fighter is better as a heavy hitter. The berzerker, on the other hand, can absorb massive ammts of damage in comparison. They innately ABSORB damage rather than trying to deflect it (though if you pick the right stats at the beginning they aren't bad at that either). A paladin isn't even in the same class of tank as a fighter or barbarian at higher levels. They're a support tank. They don't deal as much damage by any means. They do a great job helping the cleric heal... they're amazing against undead and they are very good at peeling nasties off the casters if they get through the crowd control.
Rangers are pure DPS. They aren't really tanks (though they can do so if things get desperate) they are either melee DPS or Ranged DPS. See above recarding to-hit tables (formerly known as THAC0 in 2.5 and below). A Rogue absolutely can shoot a bow. They can even get a comparable (or better) Dex bonus if the ranger didn't spec for bow fighting. But they will never have as easy a time hitting as a ranger will. Nor do they have the hitpoints to handle the aggro they garner if they DO piss off a mob. (diplomacy doesn't work at range). This is absolutely not true. Run a elf ranger and, with items, you can have 18str/25 dex easily. You're forgetting you've never played past level 4. Up till level 3 or so you really won't see a difference between classes much because the class bonuses/penalties don't start taking affect right away. At level 4 the differences start to show... by 6th they're blatantly obvious. By 10 any rogue who thinks he can out-archer a ranger is smoking crack. You're arguing against the core mechanics that they were hired to implement. They chose to sign the contract and, in doing so, are bound to implement what the producer (WOTC & Atari) want them to. Absolutely. And neither you nor I know what went on in the meeting. I suspect it went something like this: WOTC contacted Atari and asked them to produce an MMORPG of AD&D. Atari said 'ya know... we really don't have that expertise so let's subcontract it out. What specs do we want to use?'.... WOTC probably said "lets make it as 100% true to the PnP game so we can draw that huge crowd of fans into the MMO community and drive profits for our game. Atari goes "okiedoke" and makes that part of the subcontract they farmed out to Turbine.
Sure, Turbine could have said 'no' but let's be real here: They were desperate for titles to work on. AC2 was dead/Dying... AC1 was in major decline... if they didn't get a big title under their belt they'd tank before they could finish LOTRO, which has seen numerous delays and the producer (Tolkien Foundation) isn't shy about yanking licensing if they don't like what they see. DDO was just the safety net that Turbine needed. M y guess? They didn't quibble much. Agree. Level cap has zero to do with it. It's perfectly possible for them to continue adding meaningful content to the game. I've said numerous times that the game hasn't got enough content. Where did I bring up the level cap? Level caps mean nothing to me. If they raise it? So what. If they don't? Don't really care there either. I don't play 8 hours a day so i'll never see level 10 before my 30 days are up. And even if I were to go absolutely insane and subscribe I still wouldn't see level 10 within the next several months. Because I play many different characters. I've played multiple toons to level 3 or 4 at this point (did free trials for a month+, after all, and been in the retail 30 day period for almost 10 days now so 40 days or so
That said:
There's not enough content.
There's not a big enough variety of things to do. (Doing quest after quest after quest does get boring)
There's no crafting.
There's no player housing.
There's no story
There's very little character diversity (Need to be able to dye clothing/armor. Need to be able to customize gear with more than the 3 generic looks each armor type drops in).
There's nothing to see outside the city except if you're in a quest.
Etc.
The game isn't worth a fee. We both agree on that. It's not even worth buying (though the 29.95 would be tempting... if that's a true rumor. But your arguements are based on the assumption that DDO is allowed to deviate in major ways from the core rules. And from everything I've seen that is not the case. IMO Turbine made many m istakes in the production of this game. Biggest of which was rushing it out the door when it's not really finished. The ammt of money they spent on the game there should be 3-4x the ammount of content in it than there is.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
1. Warrior can use a bow and still have +20 to 21 to his ab. A warrior only needs to range to pull the monsters. A rogue can sneak attack while using bow, doing more damage with their bow than a Ranger. I said this earlier that a Ranger has no stand alone abilities except for his Favored enemy abilities and animal handling abilities. Again, you're diverging from the fact that Rangers aren't really need. Outside of fighting, Rogue can do all of your skills except one and those skills count the most in a dungeons.
2. Berserker or do you mean barbarian? Fighters have no good saves, gets a lot useless feats, can wear heavy armor and can use melee weapons. Barbarians can use a lot of melee weapons, gets two useful class feats and gets berserker rage that decreases their armor. Paladins get the same armor and weapons a Fighter, less feats, get a lot of good class feats that increase their saves and damage against evil characters. They get spells that allows them to enchant themselves as well as remove poison and lay on hands. The paladin was built for one-on-one, tanking and survival. A paladin was built for support, but can out-tank a fighter and barbarian and is capable of being a good effective warrior since they can support themselves with their own abilities.
3. The only time a ranger will be able to show their superiority with a bow is if the fight being fought at distance and out of sneak attack bow range.
4. It's amazing how Bioware used the same core mechanics and came up with more balanced game this crap. It has nothing to do with mechanics but the failure to program the game to make the game effective. And by the way, DnD Online is going by the 3.5 rules, which means ranger should be able to choose between Bow Mastery and Close Combat fighting. They only put in bow mastery. Cleave and Great Cleave are not suppose to be activated unless you kill a target yet that's not how they work in this game so please stop with your silly fanboy bs, stop acting like a child and just accept there was no contract involved how they are suppose to on this game because if they were going by the book the mechanics of these won't be so different in the game.
5. I got to level 4 in one day with my ranger, playing for 2 hours. A hardcore play can probably get 5 level to 6 level in twice that time. I stop at level 5 with my ranger.
LOL-
I almost laughed my coffee up all over the monitor. Thanks for the good laugh-
Lath