Originally posted by DeserttFoxx Does it really matter? I hate people who ask these questions, that start these pointless debates, it doesnt matter what game is better then another. People will play what they want, what the like for any reason they like, decide on your own what is better and choose to play it.
How are you going to start a debate on what is better then what when both games are still in devolpment, not even beta stage yet. This question is always pointless.
Never once said better. At any given time I play at least 2 games. at some point I hope it's conan AND Warhammer.
I love RvR pvp. mass battles with tons of real folks killing each other, not mobs. Warhammer will gimme that.
Imersive play with a reason to move forward will be conan. There will be pvp but nowhere near on the same scale of carnage.
I'm not a fanboi for anything, these are just two games I know I will play. if one hooks my interest it will become a continuing sub. otherwise pfffft...need I say more?
Originally posted by Fion Remember also that there isn't just the keeps to fight over. The boarderland has specific objectives to get done and accomplish to help gain control over the area for your guild.
Yes! Lumber mills, gold mines, scout towers, and a few other installations are going to be fought over day in day out.
Originally posted by BladeMage3 As much as both games look awesome (the guy in the vidio playing sucked by the looks of it) age of conans fight system has been done before...raikon, gunz online. No big if you ask me, and if things happen like Gunz onine (like somone creating "styles") I will probably not play this game...but I would rather play WAR anyways.
First of all, it has NOT been done before in MMORPG's. Gunz and Rakion are not MMORPG's
second of all, if you did some research, you would know the combat is entirely diffrent then Rakion and Gunz. for one, Rakion and guns use keyboard movement and mouse click to attack, which is NOT the case in AoC. combat will have a very diffrent feel in AoC then the titles you mentioned, I can promise you that. for one, take a look at the E3 movie I posted. those diffrent swings are not 3x same mouse click. they are assigned to buttons on they keyboard, so unlike Rakion, in AoC, you make your own combo's
OP, This is actually one of the best question asked in a long time on the forums. Both games look really great and have a lot of potential. I will be trying both games and making whatever choices I make based on that. Here is hoping they are both so good that we want to keep playing both!
AoC for pvp. and WAR for large scale real like battles of RvR. It just depends. RvR was a hoot in DAOC. and idk what people are saying nothing new in WAR. RvR is a mythic thing. only people who did it. they created it. so what do you mean nothing new? and of course your going to get AoC support. its in a AoC forum..
From the dev comments I've read so far, Warhammer wins hands down. Apparently in AoC, the best gear is going to come from PVE raiding while according to what devs have said about Warhammer you'll be able to gear up entirely by PVP. I rank any game where you have to raid to be on equal footing in PVP a 0 for PVP compared to any game where you don't, so as far as I'm concerned WAR will have infinitely better PVP than AoC (though I admit I don't entirely trust the people who inflicted TOA on DAOC not to pull the same thing again).
Originally posted by Wisdom Warhammer = A 100 % full PvP.
AoC = Can play PvE, PvP, RP-PvP +++
Warhammer and AoC are both full PvE & PvP with plenty of RP opportunities, they are conceptually very much alike in that they have PvP areas, PvE areas and so forth and that PvP will be consensual since you will need to actively enter PvP. Personally I love this, it's the only way to do it that allows both casual and hardcore players to enjoy end game content in a challenging way without getting griefed continously.
The games differ in a lot of things as well, graphics style, combat style, guild vs faction focus and any number of things. In the end we will have an idea of which each of us prefer when we play the beta/playable demo in early 2007. Unless one of the games falls through and completely fails to realize its potential we won't know which game appeals to each of us until they have both been out for long enough to see if end game PvE/PvP is as good as it should be and even then the game can be completely destroyed by bad content patches (a repeat of ToA doesn't seem that far fetched with EA in the picture for WAR, I haven't followed FunCom long enough to have an opinion on AoC's patch future)
In the end we have two very promising games and if one of them ends up actually being FUN to play for more than a couple of days that game will be the next big thing in MMO's for the US and european markets at least.
Originally posted by Alanthus Originally posted by Wisdom Warhammer = A 100 % full PvP.
AoC = Can play PvE, PvP, RP-PvP +++
Warhammer and AoC are both full PvE & PvP with plenty of RP opportunities, they are conceptually very much alike in that they have PvP areas, PvE areas and so forth and that PvP will be consensual since you will need to actively enter PvP. Personally I love this, it's the only way to do it that allows both casual and hardcore players to enjoy end game content in a challenging way without getting griefed continously.
The games differ in a lot of things as well, graphics style, combat style, guild vs faction focus and any number of things. In the end we will have an idea of which each of us prefer when we play the beta/playable demo in early 2007. Unless one of the games falls through and completely fails to realize its potential we won't know which game appeals to each of us until they have both been out for long enough to see if end game PvE/PvP is as good as it should be and even then the game can be completely destroyed by bad content patches (a repeat of ToA doesn't seem that far fetched with EA in the picture for WAR, I haven't followed FunCom long enough to have an opinion on AoC's patch future)
In the end we have two very promising games and if one of them ends up actually being FUN to play for more than a couple of days that game will be the next big thing in MMO's for the US and european markets at least.
Well - For my meaning, it is 100 % allow to pvp in Warhammer online.
AoC have a limit of PvP, i.e. War in Border Kingdom.
yeah. i just think WAR is going to provide more. and what the hell do you mean by "its about skill, not button mashing" lol it sounds like your the guy who sells guild wars (good game tho). I have full trust with mythic. and from what ive seen from friends inside mythic, and trailers, WAR beats the crap outa AoC. imho. AoC dosnt even look intersting. in WAR you dont even have to "move" to some far of land to pvp (instaned battlegrounds) its all real time/place. like in RL the borders shift. and you can lay siege to towns and areas. So WAR will be the one to look for if you want a good quallity online RvR game. if you wanna solo for 20 lvls then go pvp with some PUG. go ahead.
Originally posted by Wisdom Originally posted by Alanthus Originally posted by Wisdom Warhammer = A 100 % full PvP.
AoC = Can play PvE, PvP, RP-PvP +++
Warhammer and AoC are both full PvE & PvP with plenty of RP opportunities, they are conceptually very much alike in that they have PvP areas, PvE areas and so forth and that PvP will be consensual since you will need to actively enter PvP. Personally I love this, it's the only way to do it that allows both casual and hardcore players to enjoy end game content in a challenging way without getting griefed continously.
The games differ in a lot of things as well, graphics style, combat style, guild vs faction focus and any number of things. In the end we will have an idea of which each of us prefer when we play the beta/playable demo in early 2007. Unless one of the games falls through and completely fails to realize its potential we won't know which game appeals to each of us until they have both been out for long enough to see if end game PvE/PvP is as good as it should be and even then the game can be completely destroyed by bad content patches (a repeat of ToA doesn't seem that far fetched with EA in the picture for WAR, I haven't followed FunCom long enough to have an opinion on AoC's patch future)
In the end we have two very promising games and if one of them ends up actually being FUN to play for more than a couple of days that game will be the next big thing in MMO's for the US and european markets at least.
Well - For my meaning, it is 100 % allow to pvp in Warhammer online.
AoC have a limit of PvP, i.e. War in Border Kingdom.
WAR is also planned to have PvE areas, you will be able to find PvP areas from start levels though so if you want to PvP you can always do so, if you wish to PvE you will be able to do that too, the focus of the game is PvP but that's not all there is to it (good thing too, PvP'ing with baby daughter in my lap after she wakes up doesn't work too well...)
Originally posted by Fion That it is, neither game is 100% open PvP. Both have PvP limited to specific areas.
As to AoC combat being player skill based. If you check out the details on the combat system. It's not based upon using your characters earned abilities that do set specific things and the only involvement by the player is which skill you use when etc. In AoC you actually swing your weapon and set up combos and use special moves and let the combat flow enough that someone who has player skill (not character skill) will do a lot better in PvP.
"the Combat System: Melee attacks are controlled directly by the character in real time, no more turn based combat. You can control the direction of your swings using the 4-9 keys on the numpad, each corresponding to a different area of attack, downwards from the upper right or left, lower right and left, a lunge for the torso, and a swing at the head. Instead of hitting the target, weapon returns to its "normal" position ready for the next blow, instead combat is fluid, each blow linking into the next. Followthrough and momentum is important, if you are skilled you can attack much faster and with more effect than some gorilla punching buttons."
Not to mention in AoC combat wont be as above, just swinging your weapon or making combos, but mounted.. swinging your swords on your horse in realistic war-like combat. You've got formation combat to do shield walls, cavalry, archery barages, spellweaving mage circles, pikeman forming a wall to destroy enemy cavelry. Zone PvP with various objectives, resource control, keeps to be controlled and sieged.
If you look into AoC's combat systems you'll see they are really unique when it comes to MMOGs and promise to bring a game that is truly different from the button mashing simplicity of every other MMOG out there. I mean for how long have people been asking for PvP based on actual player skill, tactics and meaning? AoC is where you'll be finding that.
I can't wait!
I hope to be able to do spinning attacks for extra damage and cut people in half. Now that would be hardcore!
After reading this entire thread i've come to conclusion that most people saying AoC better then WAR obvsiously has never read anything about WAR. IF you have you would realise that you can PVP the entire way in WAR or PVE. Also WAR is skilled based not Level based.
I don't know much about AoC but i do know all the statements being thrown out about WAR are mostly not true.
Originally posted by Onoma I think both are going to focus to much on graphics and not enough "fun"
But WAR isn't going to have Normal Mapping for the sake of putting more characters on screen. They recently described Skirmishes and Battlefields (which take place in the RvR part of zones and are not instanced) as having as much as 500 people involved. Highly doubt they can use normal mapping and state of the art AoC/EQ2 graphics if they want to induce that much mayhem. So I think you're "fun" will be there.
--------------------------------------------- I live to fight, and fight to live.
Originally posted by iduums After reading this entire thread i've come to conclusion that most people saying AoC better then WAR obvsiously has never read anything about WAR. IF you have you would realise that you can PVP the entire way in WAR or PVE. Also WAR is skilled based not Level based. I don't know much about AoC but i do know all the statements being thrown out about WAR are mostly not true.
So you will be able to control the way you swing your weapon and how you aim your bow... and even cast spells?
I don't think so. It's going to be "I will cast root, then bolt, then root, then nuke.." Just like every other MMORPG. While the melee is going to actually be fluid and you are going to control the actual swinging and direction of your weapon.
PvP from the start is neat, but I already can tell it's going to be filled with "He has higher level gear... he was rushed to the end..." bla bla bla.
This is the mistake people are making. WAR IS NOT PVP, it is RVR. Stop comparing the 2, they are not even alike. On that note, make a list of all PVP MMO games that have been successful.
They Are .........Correct the list is slim to none.
Mythic implemented RVR in DAOC and by far has been the best type of PVP i have ever played, even to this day people still say DAOC has the best PVP out there.
An example of pvp would be the Mordred server in DAOC. The pvp was great there, the community was horrible, part of the reason why these PVP games suck and do miserable is the uber l3333ts haxorz, griefing community.
Comments
Never once said better. At any given time I play at least 2 games. at some point I hope it's conan AND Warhammer.
I love RvR pvp. mass battles with tons of real folks killing each other, not mobs. Warhammer will gimme that.
Imersive play with a reason to move forward will be conan. There will be pvp but nowhere near on the same scale of carnage.
I'm not a fanboi for anything, these are just two games I know I will play. if one hooks my interest it will become a continuing sub. otherwise pfffft...need I say more?
OP, This is actually one of the best question asked in a long time on the forums. Both games look really great and have a lot of potential. I will be trying both games and making whatever choices I make based on that. Here is hoping they are both so good that we want to keep playing both!
From the dev comments I've read so far, Warhammer wins hands down. Apparently in AoC, the best gear is going to come from PVE raiding while according to what devs have said about Warhammer you'll be able to gear up entirely by PVP. I rank any game where you have to raid to be on equal footing in PVP a 0 for PVP compared to any game where you don't, so as far as I'm concerned WAR will have infinitely better PVP than AoC (though I admit I don't entirely trust the people who inflicted TOA on DAOC not to pull the same thing again).
www.tesof.com
Warhammer and AoC are both full PvE & PvP with plenty of RP opportunities, they are conceptually very much alike in that they have PvP areas, PvE areas and so forth and that PvP will be consensual since you will need to actively enter PvP. Personally I love this, it's the only way to do it that allows both casual and hardcore players to enjoy end game content in a challenging way without getting griefed continously.
The games differ in a lot of things as well, graphics style, combat style, guild vs faction focus and any number of things. In the end we will have an idea of which each of us prefer when we play the beta/playable demo in early 2007. Unless one of the games falls through and completely fails to realize its potential we won't know which game appeals to each of us until they have both been out for long enough to see if end game PvE/PvP is as good as it should be and even then the game can be completely destroyed by bad content patches (a repeat of ToA doesn't seem that far fetched with EA in the picture for WAR, I haven't followed FunCom long enough to have an opinion on AoC's patch future)
In the end we have two very promising games and if one of them ends up actually being FUN to play for more than a couple of days that game will be the next big thing in MMO's for the US and european markets at least.
Warhammer and AoC are both full PvE & PvP with plenty of RP opportunities, they are conceptually very much alike in that they have PvP areas, PvE areas and so forth and that PvP will be consensual since you will need to actively enter PvP. Personally I love this, it's the only way to do it that allows both casual and hardcore players to enjoy end game content in a challenging way without getting griefed continously.
The games differ in a lot of things as well, graphics style, combat style, guild vs faction focus and any number of things. In the end we will have an idea of which each of us prefer when we play the beta/playable demo in early 2007. Unless one of the games falls through and completely fails to realize its potential we won't know which game appeals to each of us until they have both been out for long enough to see if end game PvE/PvP is as good as it should be and even then the game can be completely destroyed by bad content patches (a repeat of ToA doesn't seem that far fetched with EA in the picture for WAR, I haven't followed FunCom long enough to have an opinion on AoC's patch future)
In the end we have two very promising games and if one of them ends up actually being FUN to play for more than a couple of days that game will be the next big thing in MMO's for the US and european markets at least.
www.tesof.com
Warhammer and AoC are both full PvE & PvP with plenty of RP opportunities, they are conceptually very much alike in that they have PvP areas, PvE areas and so forth and that PvP will be consensual since you will need to actively enter PvP. Personally I love this, it's the only way to do it that allows both casual and hardcore players to enjoy end game content in a challenging way without getting griefed continously.
The games differ in a lot of things as well, graphics style, combat style, guild vs faction focus and any number of things. In the end we will have an idea of which each of us prefer when we play the beta/playable demo in early 2007. Unless one of the games falls through and completely fails to realize its potential we won't know which game appeals to each of us until they have both been out for long enough to see if end game PvE/PvP is as good as it should be and even then the game can be completely destroyed by bad content patches (a repeat of ToA doesn't seem that far fetched with EA in the picture for WAR, I haven't followed FunCom long enough to have an opinion on AoC's patch future)
In the end we have two very promising games and if one of them ends up actually being FUN to play for more than a couple of days that game will be the next big thing in MMO's for the US and european markets at least.
WAR is also planned to have PvE areas, you will be able to find PvP areas from start levels though so if you want to PvP you can always do so, if you wish to PvE you will be able to do that too, the focus of the game is PvP but that's not all there is to it (good thing too, PvP'ing with baby daughter in my lap after she wakes up doesn't work too well...)
I can't wait!
I hope to be able to do spinning attacks for extra damage and cut people in half. Now that would be hardcore!
neither
www.thronesofchaos.com
neither
www.thronesofchaos.com
So why post in a thread if you're not waiting for either? Complete trolling.
neither
www.thronesofchaos.com
How about you age of mourning scammers stay in your own forum?
After reading this entire thread i've come to conclusion that most people saying AoC better then WAR obvsiously has never read anything about WAR. IF you have you would realise that you can PVP the entire way in WAR or PVE. Also WAR is skilled based not Level based.
I don't know much about AoC but i do know all the statements being thrown out about WAR are mostly not true.
But WAR isn't going to have Normal Mapping for the sake of putting more characters on screen. They recently described Skirmishes and Battlefields (which take place in the RvR part of zones and are not instanced) as having as much as 500 people involved. Highly doubt they can use normal mapping and state of the art AoC/EQ2 graphics if they want to induce that much mayhem. So I think you're "fun" will be there.
---------------------------------------------
I live to fight, and fight to live.
So you will be able to control the way you swing your weapon and how you aim your bow... and even cast spells?
I don't think so. It's going to be "I will cast root, then bolt, then root, then nuke.." Just like every other MMORPG. While the melee is going to actually be fluid and you are going to control the actual swinging and direction of your weapon.
PvP from the start is neat, but I already can tell it's going to be filled with "He has higher level gear... he was rushed to the end..." bla bla bla.
They Are .........Correct the list is slim to none.
Mythic implemented RVR in DAOC and by far has been the best type of PVP i have ever played, even to this day people still say DAOC has the best PVP out there.
An example of pvp would be the Mordred server in DAOC. The pvp was great there, the community was horrible, part of the reason why these PVP games suck and do miserable is the uber l3333ts haxorz, griefing community.