Main question you could ask yourself is... Would you like to quench you thirst for blood at any time, day or night? Or would you like Conan to look at his watch and tell you it wouldn't be fair to attack a village while they sleep?
See ya in WAR
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Fikroc
Main question you could ask yourself is... Would you like to quench you thirst for blood at any time, day or night? Or would you like Conan to look at his watch and tell you it wouldn't be fair to attack a village while they sleep?
See ya in WAR
That probably because Funcom will have Global Servers... Would you like your BattleKeep attacked when you were asleep and loose alot that you have worked for? So you have to ask yourself, is that the main reason why alot of people gave up on Shadowbane?? hmmm. AoC does appeal to the casual gamer you know.
Ok what happens in Warhammer when you don't have a full team to go fight with? Are you stood around waiting for the computer to check different area's for people looking for PvP? and are you forced into a team with unknowns?
Will EA give global servers with warhammer? hmmmm. Can someone from the US play with someone from Europe?
As for Oceanic servers in AoC, there is no point in them commenting on. they haven't said yes or no... yet.
Sorry there is just too much fake crap going on in this thread... If people expect to slate the game and spread fake shit around then you will get responses to the contrary.
My question to ask is would you prefer the potential for a total epic "war" with 75 - 100 people per side in a situation that changes everytime due to the lay of the land and near limitless accountability for tactical scope of the field of war, all within a system that gives imo more skill with directional attacks, formation mounted combat, collision detection, and a new combo style fighting for mmorpg's?
or would you prefer to play the same maps again and again in a viscious never ending tirade, with repetitive known objectives (imagines Guild Wars Alliance Battles with more defined objectives, in a longer fight), with less that half the numbers mentioned above in a situation where you shortcut a key to nearest opponent and press your buttons to reel off your attacks, as seen before in many games, Complemented by an obvious graphic art style which will appeal to people more to a certain type of demograph?
Now did I lie in anything above? I don't think so. imo. Just being honest, so I'll say we don't know how things like server latency and overall lag issues will play out yet, hypothesize sure but its not fact yet in argument for either way, there is potential for massive lag and AoC won't be fluid, but there is also potential that their game engine will be optimized enough that this wont be an issue. I'll also say that AoC aims for realism more and with that in regard the animations based on a human as opposed to an orc are inherently harder to pull off. Some people might wanna call doom and gloom on this, but it has to be said..
I'll also say I wish AoC would have something like the Tomb of Knowledge, and Im not sure on the whole Public Quest thing yet, I do have some reservations, but it does intrigue.. Just being honest again.
Both games do look like they could present some fun challenges, but AoC offers a far more complex challenge in mainstream PvP imo. Hence why "Pro Warhammer" website Ten Ton Hammer voted AoC best PvP and Warhammer Best Online game at a recent convention showing. But you have to ask yourself if Warhammer Online is marketed as 80% PvP and 20% PvE, what does that say for PvP when comparing both games?
Both styles of gameplay will appeal to different people, but there will also be a group of people who will be drawn to both and guess what.. there is nothing wrong in that! AoC is more mainstream mmorpg and Warhammer is basically a PvP game with some nice touches in a limited PvE side. Both games have strong lore attachments too, you can't fit everything into a video game so we have lore elements that are missing probably more in Warhammer Online than in AoC. Both games are from makers that have both had good press and bad press about their games beforehand. Aoc isn't like the infamous Arnie movies either, WO isn't like the tabletop game that has such a large following, but both belong to the lore by its very nature, they are intrinsic. AoC can be deemed as appealing to a very distinct segment of the market, it's trying to be different with its different take on game matters, this might not be everyones "cup of tea" but on the other hand its also what alot of people look forward to in a stale over done fantasy market, Warhammer Online on the other hand is complemented by appealing to a larger audience, buy the very nature of its graphic art style, its familar combat, familar classes and races, all seen before in many mmo's and most probably the cause for the "Wowhammer" comments. Saying that though Warhammer Online is also trying to be different by introducing a couple of of unique approaches such as Public Quests.
At the end of the day I have to say, with hype aside from both games, I do actually prefer the diversity that a GvG approach gives to an RvR one, and I also prefer a mature themed approach in a game, and soon we will have both in AoC.
Now when this kind of post pops up on the AoC boards every now and then (as well as here), we see half the people in this thread trying to shit from a great height on AoC for all sorts of reason, and being honest again I tend to go all fanboy and defend it, and I also forget to mention some parts that I don't think AoC is looking "up to par" on, so this time, I've tried to put it how I see it with the pluses and the negatives. I might get a few nasty replies back, but hey, thou has given, thou can taketh..
Originally posted by jor8888
yep really no point to quote something DEV said b/c we all know about 50% of the stuff wont make it anyway.
I hope you remember Paul Barnets words when after release some things that were promised might not be actually what they seem to some people too. Going by that assumption would be deadly for WO followers.
Originally posted by harg
WoW is not and has never been an RvR game, It is a PvE game with end-game raiding and if you get bored of that there is tacked on Pvp with battlegrounds. In WoW fighting the enemy faction in world PvP or battlegrounds never benefited your side ever. WoW doesn't have an ounce of RvR it only has watered down PvP with a points system to get loot.
A good basis for a game like Warhammer to flourish then wouldn't you say? Sharing very real similarities and appealing to such a large portion of disgruntled player from said game, but with offering a different take on it with it being RvR and small team seiging?
Originally posted by jor8888
Let see if I am right: WAR u can go pvp/rvr any time u want. AoC u have to join a big guild to have a piece of pvp action.
Wrong AoC appeals to the casual gamer by offering the Merc system, a tell can go out on a server anytime, and players get teleported in instantly into the fight once a fee has been agreed upon by the hiring guild. In AoC seiging you don't have the computer on your team or pick your players either.
Originally posted by Euthorus
Dont forget lots of boobie play in endgame !!!!
Boobs are around all throughout the game, but in AoC the world doesn't reset, or you aren't forced back to the same instance to do the same objectives in the same way you did last week, for example.In AoC you defend your terrority on your own terms in situations which will be very different each time, facing competition from all types of guilds, all with different classes and races, in AoC the same race or class can be played on either side in battle, no limitations.
Originally posted by Battlekruse
Jorgen promise and tell lies. It was the same with Anarchy Online. Jorgen promise that he would fix the PvP system. Let me tell you something; AO PvP is horrible, and has been so thoroughly hacked up to where it bears almost no resemblance to the pvm side of the game) mechanics, and slow updates and lack of new content. Most of the bugs and glitches have been fixed, but the imbalanced pvp and lack of fresh content remains. So I don't have much fate in what Jorgen are saying, he is promise the moon. You should check the forum more like me.
Firstly is I hear that PvE raiding is going to be a large part of their "End Game"
Secondly that large scale battles will suffer the fate that most other PvP MMOS have with regards to Laggg and playablity.
Thirdly ... And most importantly ... So far No support for Oceanic players...
Aussies and Kiwis are people to ya know
Loads of people loved AO's Combat, why did you play for 3 years if you hated it so much? So now you didnt like it and therefore assume that AoC will be fluff. If I used your basis and spoke about DAoC and ToA and the ability for a company to make mistakes but also have the ability to correct them in the eyes of the general gaming public wouldn't that be fair?
Main question you could ask yourself is... Would you like to quench you thirst for blood at any time, day or night? Or would you like Conan to look at his watch and tell you it wouldn't be fair to attack a village while they sleep?
See ya in WAR
That probably because Funcom will have Global Servers... Would you like your BattleKeep attacked when you were asleep and loose alot that you have worked for? So you have to ask yourself, is that the main reason why alot of people gave up on Shadowbane?? hmmm. AoC does appeal to the casual gamer you know.
Ok what happens in Warhammer when you don't have a full team to go fight with? Are you stood around waiting for the computer to check different area's for people looking for PvP? and are you forced into a team with unknowns?
Will EA give global servers with warhammer? hmmmm. Can someone from the US play with someone from Europe?
As for Oceanic servers in AoC, there is no point in them commenting on. they haven't said yes or no... yet.
Sorry there is just too much fake crap going on in this thread... If people expect to slate the game and spread fake shit around then you will get responses to the contrary.
My question to ask is would you prefer the potential for a total epic "war" with 75 - 100 people per side in a situation that changes everytime due to the lay of the land and near limitless accountability for tactical scope of the field of war, all within a system that gives imo more skill with directional attacks, formation mounted combat, collision detection, and a new combo style fighting for mmorpg's?
or would you prefer to play the same maps again and again in a viscious never ending tirade, with repetitive known objectives (imagines Guild Wars Alliance Battles with more defined objectives, in a longer fight), with less that half the numbers mentioned above in a situation where you shortcut a key to nearest opponent and press your buttons to reel off your attacks, as seen before in many games, Complemented by an obvious graphic art style which will appeal to people more to a certain type of demograph?
Now did I lie in anything above? I don't think so. imo. Just being honest, so I'll say we don't know how things like server latency and overall lag issues will play out yet, hypothesize sure but its not fact yet in argument for either way, there is potential for massive lag and AoC won't be fluid, but there is also potential that their game engine will be optimized enough that this wont be an issue. I'll also say that AoC aims for realism more and with that in regard the animations based on a human as opposed to an orc are inherently harder to pull off. Some people might wanna call doom and gloom on this, but it has to be said..
I'll also say I wish AoC would have something like the Tomb of Knowledge, and Im not sure on the whole Public Quest thing yet, I do have some reservations, but it does intrigue.. Just being honest again.
Both games do look like they could present some fun challenges, but AoC offers a far more complex challenge in mainstream PvP imo. Hence why "Pro Warhammer" website Ten Ton Hammer voted AoC best PvP and Warhammer Best Online game at a recent convention showing. But you have to ask yourself if Warhammer Online is marketed as 80% PvP and 20% PvE, what does that say for PvP when comparing both games?
Both styles of gameplay will appeal to different people, but there will also be a group of people who will be drawn to both and guess what.. there is nothing wrong in that! AoC is more mainstream mmorpg and Warhammer is basically a PvP game with some nice touches in a limited PvE side. Both games have strong lore attachments too, you can't fit everything into a video game so we have lore elements that are missing probably more in Warhammer Online than in AoC. Both games are from makers that have both had good press and bad press about their games beforehand. Aoc isn't like the infamous Arnie movies either, WO isn't like the tabletop game that has such a large following, but both belong to the lore by its very nature, they are intrinsic. AoC can be deemed as appealing to a very distinct segment of the market, it's trying to be different with its different take on game matters, this might not be everyones "cup of tea" but on the other hand its also what alot of people look forward to in a stale over done fantasy market, Warhammer Online on the other hand is complemented by appealing to a larger audience, buy the very nature of its graphic art style, its familar combat, familar classes and races, all seen before in many mmo's and most probably the cause for the "Wowhammer" comments. Saying that though Warhammer Online is also trying to be different by introducing a couple of of unique approaches such as Public Quests.
At the end of the day I have to say, with hype aside from both games, I do actually prefer the diversity that a GvG approach gives to an RvR one, and I also prefer a mature themed approach in a game, and soon we will have both in AoC.
Now when this kind of post pops up on the AoC boards every now and then (as well as here), we see half the people in this thread trying to shit from a great height on AoC for all sorts of reason, and being honest again I tend to go all fanboy and defend it, and I also forget to mention some parts that I don't think AoC is looking "up to par" on, so this time, I've tried to put it how I see it with the pluses and the negatives. I might get a few nasty replies back, but hey, thou has given, thou can taketh..
Originally posted by jor8888
yep really no point to quote something DEV said b/c we all know about 50% of the stuff wont make it anyway.
I hope you remember Paul Barnets words when after release some things that were promised might not be actually what they seem to some people too. Going by that assumption would be deadly for WO followers.
Originally posted by harg
WoW is not and has never been an RvR game, It is a PvE game with end-game raiding and if you get bored of that there is tacked on Pvp with battlegrounds. In WoW fighting the enemy faction in world PvP or battlegrounds never benefited your side ever. WoW doesn't have an ounce of RvR it only has watered down PvP with a points system to get loot.
A good basis for a game like Warhammer to flourish then wouldn't you say? Sharing very real similarities and appealing to such a large portion of disgruntled player from said game, but with offering a different take on it with it being RvR and small team seiging?
Originally posted by jor8888
Let see if I am right: WAR u can go pvp/rvr any time u want. AoC u have to join a big guild to have a piece of pvp action.
Wrong AoC appeals to the casual gamer by offering the Merc system, a tell can go out on a server anytime, and players get teleported in instantly into the fight once a fee has been agreed upon by the hiring guild. In AoC seiging you don't have the computer on your team or pick your players either.
Originally posted by Euthorus
Dont forget lots of boobie play in endgame !!!!
Boobs are around all throughout the game, but in AoC the world doesn't reset, or you aren't forced back to the same instance to do the same objectives in the same way you did last week, for example.In AoC you defend your terrority on your own terms in situations which will be very different each time, facing competition from all types of guilds, all with different classes and races, in AoC the same race or class can be played on either side in battle, no limitations.
Originally posted by Battlekruse
Jorgen promise and tell lies. It was the same with Anarchy Online. Jorgen promise that he would fix the PvP system. Let me tell you something; AO PvP is horrible, and has been so thoroughly hacked up to where it bears almost no resemblance to the pvm side of the game) mechanics, and slow updates and lack of new content. Most of the bugs and glitches have been fixed, but the imbalanced pvp and lack of fresh content remains. So I don't have much fate in what Jorgen are saying, he is promise the moon. You should check the forum more like me.
Firstly is I hear that PvE raiding is going to be a large part of their "End Game"
Secondly that large scale battles will suffer the fate that most other PvP MMOS have with regards to Laggg and playablity.
Thirdly ... And most importantly ... So far No support for Oceanic players...
Aussies and Kiwis are people to ya know
Loads of people loved AO's Combat, why did you play for 3 years if you hated it so much? So now you didnt like it and therefore assume that AoC will be fluff. If I used your basis and spoke about DAoC and ToA and the ability for a company to make mistakes but also have the ability to correct them in the eyes of the general gaming public wouldn't that be fair?
Hmmm, I spent 15 minutes typing up a well thought out and informed reply filled with corrections and positive reinforcement. But my computer crashed for some reason and this is all you guys are getting. See you chumps tommorow.
didn't read your whole post b/c i'm lil drunk. but, if I lose something in pvp it means there is even more reason to gain it back than the first time I took it over. so all in all no time limits = win. I want a more "world" fell or even "sandbox" to some people and if that means not dumb time limits then i'll take it.
WAR is going to be a revolutionary game. This being, because what game have you known that is mostly directed towards the PvP aspect of it? None right? AoC is just going to be another Everquest / WoW / etc., in a different setting. Yes, the combat in AoC may be different, but the overall concept has not changed. Kill npcs, get gear, be great, blah blah. WAR is going to have some actual STRATEGY in that you're going to be playing against people that may actually have some brains, and if they don't, they're going to get mowed over and quit. Every action in WAR has a consequence that effects both sides positively and negatively, and this type of game style has been seen in LOTRO, if anyone has played the monster play. They had a really good concept, but because the game is mainly geared toward PvE, the devs didnt put enough time into it, and lost/is losing the PvP playerbase. This is where WAR comes in. WAR takes what I believe made LOTRO somewhat of a good game, and uses that to make an entire game, which i believe is going to be the best PvP that anyone has ever seen. Anyways, I could talk forever about how revolutionary WAR is going to be, or how I believe it is going to be. But, think of this for a minute. The way PvE games lose their playerbase is because there's no end game content right? And everyone sort of leans towards PvP toward the end game. Well, WAR is going to be this solution. All the hardcore pvpers(the people who are going to play this game) aren't going to quit, because since you're playing w/ and against other players, it wont get boring. Every battle is different. People naturally play games for longer periods of time when things are different. Why do you think people play FPS games for years and years? Because it takes skill to play, and skill and knowledge of the game is what is going to drive WAR. Well, that's my two cents, and noone can really tell anything until each of the game's are in their final stages towards completion. Later
WAR is NOT revolutionary. It is EVOLUTIONARY. PvP is not the core game, but a large portion of it. WAR will be more like WoW than AoC. It's not opinion it's the intentions of the games. WAR is going to be WoW but with major and minor game play tweakes and adjustments. That might not be the most accurate way of depicting it. But my point remains the same, WAR gameplay is based on the WoW formula. The structure may be changed but the foundations, as well as my point remain the same . As far as I can tell, about 50% of WAR is going to be PvP territory. With the PvP content leaning towards the higher levels. Whereas in AoC, in a regular server, roughly 25% will be PvP. And on a RPvP server, about 90% more or less will be PvP (A rough estimate). AoC's core is going to be PvE, but there will still be PvP, and lots of it. Sorry if this is all kind of jumpy, but I think faster than I type, but I think in circles so bear with me. Now both games are going to have "Kill npcs, get gear, be great, blah blah". Don't think that I'm bashing WAR, it's just that you had your expectations up so high you made this game sound like the second coming or something. I'm just trying to keep the game's hype at where the game is actually around.
You are wrong though. I'm not saying the game didn't borrow things from other games, but WoW is just as much borrowed from games present. The game mechanism however, is purely based on the Table-top game called Warhammer and not the Warhammer clone called Warcraft. Notice the clone part, hence they might seem alike.
I'll give you a couple fundamental changes, that will make WAR so much more than what WoW is. First of all, PvP is often amazingly fun. Which is the obvious reason why so many people play FPS, RTS and why so many spineless people enjoy ganking and corpsecamping so much.
The game progresses on PvP. You get rewards for you and for your guild. You unlock bonusses for you or your guild and you gain experience for you or your guild through PvP.
PvP in WAR, is not PvP in WoW. The main reason for this, is collission. You can no longer simply run through your opponent to put down that healer, you will have come up with a plan, or solid strategy to be able to take down well-coordinated PvP groups.
In WoW, you might have had people with skill, but mostly it came down to hearing one guy shouting commands over vent and making sure you have the right gear.
In WAR, you might have to put up a front of Black Orcs, rushing towards your opponent, smashing their bodies into theirs, while right behind them, away from enemy fire, Choppas rush in to emerge as soon as the first line hits the enemy, ravaging the enemy troups. In the back, Shamans and Squighunters pin down single targets to kill them quickly. Possible smartasses that go for the healers will need to be blocked off by bodyguards(probably black orcs) that protect your healers.
Not to mention that the abilities given so far ( and I'm not in beta) seem to really give the possibility for combo's, such as :
Eeeek!
Action Points: 130
You and all enemies within 20 feet of you are knocked back 20 feet.
Gork's Breath Morale
Morale: 60%
Range: 0-100 ft
Builds Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 20 seconds, causing occasional damage to themselves and all other enemies within 30 feet of them. Any enemy damaged by this ability also becomes Rooted for 2 seconds, making them unable to move.
Mork's Breath Morale
Morale: 20%
Range: 0-100 ft
Spends Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 10 seconds, which periodically heals any of your allies close to them. Spends Waaagh! to increase duration.
You cast Gork's Breath on a group of enemies. You zerg in and cast Eeeek!. The enemy group is knocked back and rooted to the ground.
Your group charges the closest enemy, while many of his comerades can only watch this for several seconds. During this event, you cast Mork's Breath on the enemy they're soon, or already, facing and your allies are now being healed, while killing their opponents efficiëntly and not recieving alot of damage themselves. If this would work, pretty nice move.
I don't care about AoC, or about AoC fanboys. I've seen a very limited amount of gameplay videos and they were probably all Alpha, but it didn't appeal to me in the slightest bit and I also hate WoW. I'm just giving the one thing, that is in my opinion, the greatest difference, in terms of gameplay.
Amazing Avery, I agree that some people here are being very biased.
You did get one thing wrong though. War will support epic battles with more than 75 - 100 people per side in fact it is a major feature.
- Campaigns: The invasion of enemy lands culminating in the assault on their capital city
These campaigns will be huge.
Otherwise you made some good points, but the post could have been shorter and just as effective. I think AOC will be an interesting game, I will certainly check it out, but I am expecting WAR to be the game for me.
Its quite funny that both sets of potential players gunning for their game seem to rate the highest value upon its hyped pvp. Yet in doing so are reducing its subs numbers massively. PvP games have historically failed unless they find a niche. While its true that a game doesn't need massive numbers to be excellent (Planetside die hard here) it is equally true that having enough subs for the game to actually be developed is nice.
It seems to me if I were a dev of either game and both were as PvP centric as all the fanbois here seem to think they will be, I would be pushing my PvE content like there's no tomorrow praying my own fanbase doesn't kill my game before it's released.
PvP fans in MMO's are a minority and historically not a big one. You can buff them all you want, on any forum anywhere, the awards can goto whoever they please, but experience has demonstrated time and time again that the massive majority of sub paying players are PvE'ers. Has WoW changed this? I'm not sure seeing as how most seem to continually point out how WoW isn't PvP at all.
Anyhow roll on PotBS will pwn them both
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Its quite funny that both sets of potential players gunning for their game seem to rate the highest value upon its hyped pvp. Yet in doing so are reducing its subs numbers massively. PvP games have historically failed unless they find a niche. While its true that a game doesn't need massive numbers to be excellent (Planetside die hard here) it is equally true that having enough subs for the game to actually be developed is nice. It seems to me if I were a dev of either game and both were as PvP centric as all the fanbois here seem to think they will be, I would be pushing my PvE content like there's no tomorrow praying my own fanbase doesn't kill my game before it's released. PvP fans in MMO's are a minority and historically not a big one. You can buff them all you want, on any forum anywhere, the awards can goto whoever they please, but experience has demonstrated time and time again that the massive majority of sub paying players are PvE'ers. Has WoW changed this? I'm not sure seeing as how most seem to continually point out how WoW isn't PvP at all. Anyhow roll on PotBS will pwn them both
Oh share your sources with us, please, oh great one
There currently are no examples of failing PvP games, other than games where PvP was "free" or in other words, a ganker-game.
And of course, WAR wil have plenty of PvE, with equal rewards, up till the last part of the game, where slightly better rewards will be given out by city-raiding.
I don't have a damn clue why people are so confident about the size of battles in Conan. We haven't even seen more than a few players on screen at once in all of the footage they have released. I always thought that was a bit strange. They have only but to show a single case of a real player siege going on with lots of players and SOO many people would jump on board the fan train.
Frankly I've yet to even see *Jehova's Witnesses* display such a blind leap of faith as what I've seen from the Conan Camp.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Its quite funny that both sets of potential players gunning for their game seem to rate the highest value upon its hyped pvp. Yet in doing so are reducing its subs numbers massively. PvP games have historically failed unless they find a niche. While its true that a game doesn't need massive numbers to be excellent (Planetside die hard here) it is equally true that having enough subs for the game to actually be developed is nice. It seems to me if I were a dev of either game and both were as PvP centric as all the fanbois here seem to think they will be, I would be pushing my PvE content like there's no tomorrow praying my own fanbase doesn't kill my game before it's released. PvP fans in MMO's are a minority and historically not a big one. You can buff them all you want, on any forum anywhere, the awards can goto whoever they please, but experience has demonstrated time and time again that the massive majority of sub paying players are PvE'ers. Has WoW changed this? I'm not sure seeing as how most seem to continually point out how WoW isn't PvP at all. Anyhow roll on PotBS will pwn them both
Oh share your sources with us, please, oh great one
There currently are no examples of failing PvP games, other than games where PvP was "free" or in other words, a ganker-game.
And of course, WAR wil have plenty of PvE, with equal rewards, up till the last part of the game, where slightly better rewards will be given out by city-raiding.
On the contrary there are examples, my main source of proof could simply be that list on your left and your reply. Some of those are PvP subbed games there mere fact that you don't know that is good enough no?
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I don't have a damn clue why people are so confident about the size of battles in Conan. We haven't even seen more than a few players on screen at once in all of the footage they have released. I always thought that was a bit strange. They have only but to show a single case of a real player siege going on with lots of players and SOO many people would jump on board the fan train. Frankly I've yet to even see *Jehova's Witnesses* display such a blind leap of faith as what I've seen from the Conan Camp.
To be totally fair, there are fanboys on both sides of the fence ranting about the merits of both games sight unseen. However, IMHO, Mythic seem to be doing a much better job than Funcom in terms of communicating clearly with their fanbase and allowing for plenty of demo opportunities and direct contact with the development teams at the various expos and conventions. Some of the claims Funcom has made still seem to be floating out in the virtual nether somewhere, whereas Mythic tends to be more upfront with their progress, e.g. "We've created the High Elves and Dark Elves" and BAM! at Leipzeig fans got a taste of High Elves and Dark Elves.
I don't have a damn clue why people are so confident about the size of battles in Conan. We haven't even seen more than a few players on screen at once in all of the footage they have released. I always thought that was a bit strange. They have only but to show a single case of a real player siege going on with lots of players and SOO many people would jump on board the fan train. Frankly I've yet to even see *Jehova's Witnesses* display such a blind leap of faith as what I've seen from the Conan Camp.
I don't have a damn clue why people are so confident about the size of battles in Conan. We haven't even seen more than a few players on screen at once in all of the footage they have released. I always thought that was a bit strange. They have only but to show a single case of a real player siege going on with lots of players and SOO many people would jump on board the fan train. Frankly I've yet to even see *Jehova's Witnesses* display such a blind leap of faith as what I've seen from the Conan Camp.
You've got to believe in something
Hoping at least..
Indeed... I do believe they'll pull it off quite well and when they are ready, they'll show off... speaking of believing/hoping, just look at my sig lol talk about a leap of friggin fatih huh? We all just kinda hope for better... but no one should be a zelot about anything that isn't factually 'supreme'. So far though, from what I've seen of both games my personal preferences would tilt me towards AoC over WAR. WAR however will probably be a huge hit with PVPers because it's system of play is pretty much tried, tested and true...er... than what AoC is shooting for. Those willing to take the leap of faith in AoC run the risk of wasting time/money... then again, AoC's truly competitive real time player controlled combat may prove to be awesome. Only time will tell...
Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.
Aoc by far looks 100x better than Warhammer (graphics and gameplay wise) in my opinion but it is all about taste, For pve it is Aoc and for pvp it is Warhammer.
WAR is not original and isn't gonna revolutionize the genre but it will be a very fun PvP focused game. The graphics are fine, not great, the game play is familiar to all mmo players and the RvR will be lots of fun. The game has nothing to worry about imo and is the better of the two.
AoC will make or break depending on the combat. Myself i'm unconvinced that you can have thousands of people on a server all fighting with the combat system it has. There is a reason in battlefield games why you only have up to 64 players in a server. I'm no expert but it does sound a little far fetched that they can pull this off without game crippling lag. But maybe they will what do i know, i'm not in beta. Good luck to them.
WAR is not original and isn't gonna revolutionize the genre but it will be a very fun PvP focused game. The graphics are fine, not great, the game play is familiar to all mmo players and the RvR will be lots of fun. The game has nothing to worry about imo and is the better of the two.AoC will make or break depending on the combat. Myself i'm unconvinced that you can have thousands of people on a server all fighting with the combat system it has. There is a reason in battlefield games why you only have up to 64 players in a server. I'm no expert but it does sound a little far fetched that they can pull this off without game crippling lag. But maybe they will what do i know, i'm not in beta. Good luck to them.
I'm looking forward to how Conan turns out, but I can't help but feel like the project has a bit of an identity crisis. I think Funcom has to realize that no game can be all things to all people. It's already transitioned from being PvP-centric to more PvE-centric and I think the fact that its single player until level ten might turn off some hardcore MMOGers. These contrasting elements can make it either a great, revolutionary game, or a very watered down, confused game being pulled in too many different directions. As long as it's fun though, I don't care what direction they take it in.
I hope both WAR and AOC are very successful. Competition will only create more and improved game updates, patches, customer service and an overall greater gaming experience. This will also raise the bar for quality standards for future MMORPGs.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Lucifrank
I'm looking forward to how Conan turns out, but I can't help but feel like the project has a bit of an identity crisis. I think Funcom has to realize that no game can be all things to all people. It's already transitioned from being PvP-centric to more PvE-centric and I think the fact that its single player until level ten might turn off some hardcore MMOGers. These contrasting elements can make it either a great, revolutionary game, or a very watered down, confused game being pulled in too many different directions. As long as it's fun though, I don't care what direction they take it in.
Hmm I would say having game elements that appeal to a wider range of gamers isnt a bad thing or an "Identity Crisis". AoC will have large PvP battles (and objectives with scaling numbers), Raiding for those who like it, a crafting system that isn't based on experience, and lots of PvE content. This has kind of been clear from the start, I don't think its trying to be all things to all players as thats kind of "out there". Gamer's playstyles often involve more that one particular type of play, having variety is not a bad thing in this case. No one is saying that any part of the variety AoC offers will be the be all or end all, its the whole package that is up for grabs, don't like one thing try another and so on, this flexibility is awesome! You see AoC's identity to me is its distinctiveness, exclusivity, and characteristics in different area's of the game, with talking about W.O I feel I kinda loose this with the whole recurrence, duplication and replication of classes/ races seen and done before, if your into that then your be in heaven in W.O. its just not my thing sorry. WoW has already tarnished the image for me.
As you may be aware games often go through transitional phases through development, sometimes with AoC, when information is released people assume this "info" is the next big thing and therefore parts of the game are stated as the main element.
To me if your a hardcore mmo'er 2-4hrs at the start of the game isn't a big deal, its set up lke this to "tell a story" and get a feel for your character, giving you the option to create you own path, just like if you were to write a book about yourself in the "Age of Conan" Kinda clever. Oh and you can group at the start of the game
I'd have to say as its aimed at a mature market an with a large percentage of players playing an mmorpg before, I'd say the word isn't confused, more as giving the player options. The preferance is therefore on the player to make the decisions and take advantage of opportunities presented and available. Thats hardly watered down, in limiting a players options I would consider "watering down" more an apt term.
But your absolutley right, as long as its fun at the end of the day, thats what counts.
I hope both WAR and AOC are very successful. Competition will only create more and improved game updates, patches, customer service and an overall greater gaming experience. This will also raise the bar for quality standards for future MMORPGs.
I'll drink to that! Cheers!
Why do I write, create, fantasize, dream and daydream about other worlds? Because I hate what humanity does with this one.
Its quite funny that both sets of potential players gunning for their game seem to rate the highest value upon its hyped pvp. Yet in doing so are reducing its subs numbers massively. PvP games have historically failed unless they find a niche. While its true that a game doesn't need massive numbers to be excellent (Planetside die hard here) it is equally true that having enough subs for the game to actually be developed is nice. It seems to me if I were a dev of either game and both were as PvP centric as all the fanbois here seem to think they will be, I would be pushing my PvE content like there's no tomorrow praying my own fanbase doesn't kill my game before it's released. PvP fans in MMO's are a minority and historically not a big one. You can buff them all you want, on any forum anywhere, the awards can goto whoever they please, but experience has demonstrated time and time again that the massive majority of sub paying players are PvE'ers. Has WoW changed this? I'm not sure seeing as how most seem to continually point out how WoW isn't PvP at all. Anyhow roll on PotBS will pwn them both
Oh share your sources with us, please, oh great one There currently are no examples of failing PvP games, other than games where PvP was "free" or in other words, a ganker-game. And of course, WAR wil have plenty of PvE, with equal rewards, up till the last part of the game, where slightly better rewards will be given out by city-raiding.
On the contrary there are examples, my main source of proof could simply be that list on your left and your reply. Some of those are PvP subbed games there mere fact that you don't know that is good enough no?
I've played, although some very short, about 90% of the games to the left ( Those not in development) Safe to say that most of the PvP games, if any worth mentioning, in that list, are PK centric and games such as Lineage haven't exactly flopped. People move on, that's all there's to it.
Taking that list and what I played though...
wow - pve with side pvp swg - pve , didn't play long enough to find pvp silkroad - korean grinder , all asian games have suck ass pvp shadowbane - It's an old one, I've played it for a bit, grinder. Second Life - Definitely PvP, try to bankrupt the other player, or rape them in the gaybar! Ryzom .. some people enjoy it, no clue about endgame, I just recall 24 levels of pure boring grinding. Ragnarok - PvE with pvp elements(although very active ) RF online - same as silkroad, cabal, korean grinder. Matrix online - whatever, dont make me even recall that. MapleStory - 2D pvp carnage, my cute avatar facepalms you to death! totally pvp LoTR ... debated PvP..tops Lineage - PK pvp Guild Wars - succesful game <------------ PvP endgame, PvE supports further progress of your character. FFXI - I think mostly PvE EVE - PvE for a large part, that is, the part I'm currently in, has pretty decent PvP and it has a loyal but not extremely significant playerbase. (Great game btw) DAOC - Wait..who were the guys doing that again ?? Oh yeaah..that game everyone loved for its RVR and is now going to be followed by WAR... D&D online - PvE focussed , instanced play. City of V/H - PvE focussed, fun for a while, in the long run pvp is disappointing, but that's not the mainfocus of the game.
That's pretty much the games I've played, some more intense than others, but the core stands.
WAR is going to be a revolutionary game. This being, because what game have you known that is mostly directed towards the PvP aspect of it? None right? AoC is just going to be another Everquest / WoW / etc., in a different setting. Yes, the combat in AoC may be different, but the overall concept has not changed. Kill npcs, get gear, be great, blah blah. WAR is going to have some actual STRATEGY in that you're going to be playing against people that may actually have some brains, and if they don't, they're going to get mowed over and quit. Every action in WAR has a consequence that effects both sides positively and negatively, and this type of game style has been seen in LOTRO, if anyone has played the monster play. They had a really good concept, but because the game is mainly geared toward PvE, the devs didnt put enough time into it, and lost/is losing the PvP playerbase. This is where WAR comes in. WAR takes what I believe made LOTRO somewhat of a good game, and uses that to make an entire game, which i believe is going to be the best PvP that anyone has ever seen. Anyways, I could talk forever about how revolutionary WAR is going to be, or how I believe it is going to be. But, think of this for a minute. The way PvE games lose their playerbase is because there's no end game content right? And everyone sort of leans towards PvP toward the end game. Well, WAR is going to be this solution. All the hardcore pvpers(the people who are going to play this game) aren't going to quit, because since you're playing w/ and against other players, it wont get boring. Every battle is different. People naturally play games for longer periods of time when things are different. Why do you think people play FPS games for years and years? Because it takes skill to play, and skill and knowledge of the game is what is going to drive WAR. Well, that's my two cents, and noone can really tell anything until each of the game's are in their final stages towards completion. Later
WAR is NOT revolutionary. It is EVOLUTIONARY. PvP is not the core game, but a large portion of it. WAR will be more like WoW than AoC. It's not opinion it's the intentions of the games. WAR is going to be WoW but with major and minor game play tweakes and adjustments. That might not be the most accurate way of depicting it. But my point remains the same, WAR gameplay is based on the WoW formula. The structure may be changed but the foundations, as well as my point remain the same . As far as I can tell, about 50% of WAR is going to be PvP territory. With the PvP content leaning towards the higher levels. Whereas in AoC, in a regular server, roughly 25% will be PvP. And on a RPvP server, about 90% more or less will be PvP (A rough estimate). AoC's core is going to be PvE, but there will still be PvP, and lots of it. Sorry if this is all kind of jumpy, but I think faster than I type, but I think in circles so bear with me. Now both games are going to have "Kill npcs, get gear, be great, blah blah". Don't think that I'm bashing WAR, it's just that you had your expectations up so high you made this game sound like the second coming or something. I'm just trying to keep the game's hype at where the game is actually around.
You are wrong though. I'm not saying the game didn't borrow things from other games, but WoW is just as much borrowed from games present. The game mechanism however, is purely based on the Table-top game called Warhammer and not the Warhammer clone called Warcraft. Notice the clone part, hence they might seem alike.
I'll give you a couple fundamental changes, that will make WAR so much more than what WoW is. First of all, PvP is often amazingly fun. Which is the obvious reason why so many people play FPS, RTS and why so many spineless people enjoy ganking and corpsecamping so much.
The game progresses on PvP. You get rewards for you and for your guild. You unlock bonusses for you or your guild and you gain experience for you or your guild through PvP.
PvP in WAR, is not PvP in WoW. The main reason for this, is collission. You can no longer simply run through your opponent to put down that healer, you will have come up with a plan, or solid strategy to be able to take down well-coordinated PvP groups.
In WoW, you might have had people with skill, but mostly it came down to hearing one guy shouting commands over vent and making sure you have the right gear.
In WAR, you might have to put up a front of Black Orcs, rushing towards your opponent, smashing their bodies into theirs, while right behind them, away from enemy fire, Choppas rush in to emerge as soon as the first line hits the enemy, ravaging the enemy troups. In the back, Shamans and Squighunters pin down single targets to kill them quickly. Possible smartasses that go for the healers will need to be blocked off by bodyguards(probably black orcs) that protect your healers.
Not to mention that the abilities given so far ( and I'm not in beta) seem to really give the possibility for combo's, such as :
Eeeek!
Action Points: 130
You and all enemies within 20 feet of you are knocked back 20 feet.
Gork's Breath Morale
Morale: 60%
Range: 0-100 ft
Builds Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 20 seconds, causing occasional damage to themselves and all other enemies within 30 feet of them. Any enemy damaged by this ability also becomes Rooted for 2 seconds, making them unable to move.
Mork's Breath Morale
Morale: 20%
Range: 0-100 ft
Spends Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 10 seconds, which periodically heals any of your allies close to them. Spends Waaagh! to increase duration.
You cast Gork's Breath on a group of enemies. You zerg in and cast Eeeek!. The enemy group is knocked back and rooted to the ground.
Your group charges the closest enemy, while many of his comerades can only watch this for several seconds. During this event, you cast Mork's Breath on the enemy they're soon, or already, facing and your allies are now being healed, while killing their opponents efficiëntly and not recieving alot of damage themselves. If this would work, pretty nice move.
I don't care about AoC, or about AoC fanboys. I've seen a very limited amount of gameplay videos and they were probably all Alpha, but it didn't appeal to me in the slightest bit and I also hate WoW. I'm just giving the one thing, that is in my opinion, the greatest difference, in terms of gameplay.
Well I have no doubt in my mind that the rewards for PvP will differ a lot from those in WoW. But my major gripe about WAR is this, all evidence is pointing PvP rolling out the same as WoW's. It seems that WAR is going to be gear dependent to a large degree. And that it's not going to require as much skill as strategy. None of these abilities you've listed are skill based, it's all strategy. FPSs are skill based, that's not really what I'm looking for in an MMO. None the less though. WAR PvP is in all likely hood, is going to unravel into the squad that's got the best strategy, "paper > rock"s the other squad, or has the most people is going to trump the other team. All all for loosing is it comes down to strategy or skill. Zerging though (albeit in AoC just as much) is just a major piss off. At least AoC's combat system is going to have skill. I mean if WAR had the AoC combat system and a border kingdoms environment with mounted combat I'd hop on that band wagon before it even left the station. In all honesty though, I'm probably going to end up playing WAR because it seems much more stable. If I hear AoC turned out good from enough people, their arguments are valid, and none of the problems that seem small to them are deal breakers for me. Then I'll end up in WAR. If so I'll see you there, just try to keep an open mind.
P.S. Just because WoW is comprised of borrowed ideas. Doesn't mean that it cannot be borrowed from. Every games seems to do it to some degree.
I'm looking forward to how Conan turns out, but I can't help but feel like the project has a bit of an identity crisis. I think Funcom has to realize that no game can be all things to all people. It's already transitioned from being PvP-centric to more PvE-centric and I think the fact that its single player until level ten might turn off some hardcore MMOGers. These contrasting elements can make it either a great, revolutionary game, or a very watered down, confused game being pulled in too many different directions. As long as it's fun though, I don't care what direction they take it in.
Hmm I would say having game elements that appeal to a wider range of gamers isnt a bad thing or an "Identity Crisis". AoC will have large PvP battles (and objectives with scaling numbers), Raiding for those who like it, a crafting system that isn't based on experience, and lots of PvE content. This has kind of been clear from the start, I don't think its trying to be all things to all players as thats kind of "out there". Gamer's playstyles often involve more that one particular type of play, having variety is not a bad thing in this case. No one is saying that any part of the variety AoC offers will be the be all or end all, its the whole package that is up for grabs, don't like one thing try another and so on, this flexibility is awesome! You see AoC's identity to me is its distinctiveness, exclusivity, and characteristics in different area's of the game, with talking about W.O I feel I kinda loose this with the whole recurrence, duplication and replication of classes/ races seen and done before, if your into that then your be in heaven in W.O. its just not my thing sorry. WoW has already tarnished the image for me.
As you may be aware games often go through transitional phases through development, sometimes with AoC, when information is released people assume this "info" is the next big thing and therefore parts of the game are stated as the main element.
To me if your a hardcore mmo'er 2-4hrs at the start of the game isn't a big deal, its set up lke this to "tell a story" and get a feel for your character, giving you the option to create you own path, just like if you were to write a book about yourself in the "Age of Conan" Kinda clever. Oh and you can group at the start of the game
I'd have to say as its aimed at a mature market an with a large percentage of players playing an mmorpg before, I'd say the word isn't confused, more as giving the player options. The preferance is therefore on the player to make the decisions and take advantage of opportunities presented and available. Thats hardly watered down, in limiting a players options I would consider "watering down" more an apt term.
But your absolutley right, as long as its fun at the end of the day, thats what counts.
I tend to be a PvE gamer who dabbles in PvP and that, personally, is one of the things that intrigues me about AoC thus far. I wouldn't say that any profession-based game is doing anything revolutionary with the class based system at this point in MMORPG history, since it all comes down to is archetypes that fill particular slots in raid/PvP scenarios. Funcom seems to have a lot of great things to offer, don't get me wrong, I'd just like less of their "boobies + gore = mature" schtick that they've been touting at recent game conferences and have them show off the depth and complexity of the game, which at the end of the day, is what really equals mature.
I'd just like less of their "boobies + gore = mature" schtick that they've been touting at recent game conferences and have them show off the depth and complexity of the game, which at the end of the day, is what really equals mature.
I completely agree with this. Many AoC fans cite one of its strengths as being "mature." Then you ask why that is. The answer is usually that it is a gritty world with blood, gore, violence, and nudity.
I fail to see what makes that so mature. It makes it require a Mature (M) rating, but that in and of itself does not make it any different at the core than a game like WoW. It is just visual maturity.
Ultimately, it is the players that will make the atmosphere mature or not, and I remain unconvinced that the AoC community is any different on this front than any other. If anything, the inclusion of boobs and sex buffs is going to force it in the opposite direction, but time will tell. I just really do not see why giving men the chance to dance topless as female characters and look at tits will help any cause.
Comments
Main question you could ask yourself is... Would you like to quench you thirst for blood at any time, day or night? Or would you like Conan to look at his watch and tell you it wouldn't be fair to attack a village while they sleep?
See ya in WAR
That probably because Funcom will have Global Servers... Would you like your BattleKeep attacked when you were asleep and loose alot that you have worked for? So you have to ask yourself, is that the main reason why alot of people gave up on Shadowbane?? hmmm. AoC does appeal to the casual gamer you know.
Ok what happens in Warhammer when you don't have a full team to go fight with? Are you stood around waiting for the computer to check different area's for people looking for PvP? and are you forced into a team with unknowns?
Will EA give global servers with warhammer? hmmmm. Can someone from the US play with someone from Europe?
As for Oceanic servers in AoC, there is no point in them commenting on. they haven't said yes or no... yet.
Sorry there is just too much fake crap going on in this thread... If people expect to slate the game and spread fake shit around then you will get responses to the contrary.
My question to ask is would you prefer the potential for a total epic "war" with 75 - 100 people per side in a situation that changes everytime due to the lay of the land and near limitless accountability for tactical scope of the field of war, all within a system that gives imo more skill with directional attacks, formation mounted combat, collision detection, and a new combo style fighting for mmorpg's?
or would you prefer to play the same maps again and again in a viscious never ending tirade, with repetitive known objectives (imagines Guild Wars Alliance Battles with more defined objectives, in a longer fight), with less that half the numbers mentioned above in a situation where you shortcut a key to nearest opponent and press your buttons to reel off your attacks, as seen before in many games, Complemented by an obvious graphic art style which will appeal to people more to a certain type of demograph?
Now did I lie in anything above? I don't think so. imo. Just being honest, so I'll say we don't know how things like server latency and overall lag issues will play out yet, hypothesize sure but its not fact yet in argument for either way, there is potential for massive lag and AoC won't be fluid, but there is also potential that their game engine will be optimized enough that this wont be an issue. I'll also say that AoC aims for realism more and with that in regard the animations based on a human as opposed to an orc are inherently harder to pull off. Some people might wanna call doom and gloom on this, but it has to be said..
I'll also say I wish AoC would have something like the Tomb of Knowledge, and Im not sure on the whole Public Quest thing yet, I do have some reservations, but it does intrigue.. Just being honest again.
Both games do look like they could present some fun challenges, but AoC offers a far more complex challenge in mainstream PvP imo. Hence why "Pro Warhammer" website Ten Ton Hammer voted AoC best PvP and Warhammer Best Online game at a recent convention showing. But you have to ask yourself if Warhammer Online is marketed as 80% PvP and 20% PvE, what does that say for PvP when comparing both games?
Both styles of gameplay will appeal to different people, but there will also be a group of people who will be drawn to both and guess what.. there is nothing wrong in that! AoC is more mainstream mmorpg and Warhammer is basically a PvP game with some nice touches in a limited PvE side. Both games have strong lore attachments too, you can't fit everything into a video game so we have lore elements that are missing probably more in Warhammer Online than in AoC. Both games are from makers that have both had good press and bad press about their games beforehand. Aoc isn't like the infamous Arnie movies either, WO isn't like the tabletop game that has such a large following, but both belong to the lore by its very nature, they are intrinsic. AoC can be deemed as appealing to a very distinct segment of the market, it's trying to be different with its different take on game matters, this might not be everyones "cup of tea" but on the other hand its also what alot of people look forward to in a stale over done fantasy market, Warhammer Online on the other hand is complemented by appealing to a larger audience, buy the very nature of its graphic art style, its familar combat, familar classes and races, all seen before in many mmo's and most probably the cause for the "Wowhammer" comments. Saying that though Warhammer Online is also trying to be different by introducing a couple of of unique approaches such as Public Quests.
At the end of the day I have to say, with hype aside from both games, I do actually prefer the diversity that a GvG approach gives to an RvR one, and I also prefer a mature themed approach in a game, and soon we will have both in AoC.
Now when this kind of post pops up on the AoC boards every now and then (as well as here), we see half the people in this thread trying to shit from a great height on AoC for all sorts of reason, and being honest again I tend to go all fanboy and defend it, and I also forget to mention some parts that I don't think AoC is looking "up to par" on, so this time, I've tried to put it how I see it with the pluses and the negatives. I might get a few nasty replies back, but hey, thou has given, thou can taketh..
I hope you remember Paul Barnets words when after release some things that were promised might not be actually what they seem to some people too. Going by that assumption would be deadly for WO followers.
A good basis for a game like Warhammer to flourish then wouldn't you say? Sharing very real similarities and appealing to such a large portion of disgruntled player from said game, but with offering a different take on it with it being RvR and small team seiging?
Wrong AoC appeals to the casual gamer by offering the Merc system, a tell can go out on a server anytime, and players get teleported in instantly into the fight once a fee has been agreed upon by the hiring guild. In AoC seiging you don't have the computer on your team or pick your players either.
Boobs are around all throughout the game, but in AoC the world doesn't reset, or you aren't forced back to the same instance to do the same objectives in the same way you did last week, for example.In AoC you defend your terrority on your own terms in situations which will be very different each time, facing competition from all types of guilds, all with different classes and races, in AoC the same race or class can be played on either side in battle, no limitations.
Loads of people loved AO's Combat, why did you play for 3 years if you hated it so much? So now you didnt like it and therefore assume that AoC will be fluff. If I used your basis and spoke about DAoC and ToA and the ability for a company to make mistakes but also have the ability to correct them in the eyes of the general gaming public wouldn't that be fair?
That probably because Funcom will have Global Servers... Would you like your BattleKeep attacked when you were asleep and loose alot that you have worked for? So you have to ask yourself, is that the main reason why alot of people gave up on Shadowbane?? hmmm. AoC does appeal to the casual gamer you know.
Ok what happens in Warhammer when you don't have a full team to go fight with? Are you stood around waiting for the computer to check different area's for people looking for PvP? and are you forced into a team with unknowns?
Will EA give global servers with warhammer? hmmmm. Can someone from the US play with someone from Europe?
As for Oceanic servers in AoC, there is no point in them commenting on. they haven't said yes or no... yet.
Sorry there is just too much fake crap going on in this thread... If people expect to slate the game and spread fake shit around then you will get responses to the contrary.
My question to ask is would you prefer the potential for a total epic "war" with 75 - 100 people per side in a situation that changes everytime due to the lay of the land and near limitless accountability for tactical scope of the field of war, all within a system that gives imo more skill with directional attacks, formation mounted combat, collision detection, and a new combo style fighting for mmorpg's?
or would you prefer to play the same maps again and again in a viscious never ending tirade, with repetitive known objectives (imagines Guild Wars Alliance Battles with more defined objectives, in a longer fight), with less that half the numbers mentioned above in a situation where you shortcut a key to nearest opponent and press your buttons to reel off your attacks, as seen before in many games, Complemented by an obvious graphic art style which will appeal to people more to a certain type of demograph?
Now did I lie in anything above? I don't think so. imo. Just being honest, so I'll say we don't know how things like server latency and overall lag issues will play out yet, hypothesize sure but its not fact yet in argument for either way, there is potential for massive lag and AoC won't be fluid, but there is also potential that their game engine will be optimized enough that this wont be an issue. I'll also say that AoC aims for realism more and with that in regard the animations based on a human as opposed to an orc are inherently harder to pull off. Some people might wanna call doom and gloom on this, but it has to be said..
I'll also say I wish AoC would have something like the Tomb of Knowledge, and Im not sure on the whole Public Quest thing yet, I do have some reservations, but it does intrigue.. Just being honest again.
Both games do look like they could present some fun challenges, but AoC offers a far more complex challenge in mainstream PvP imo. Hence why "Pro Warhammer" website Ten Ton Hammer voted AoC best PvP and Warhammer Best Online game at a recent convention showing. But you have to ask yourself if Warhammer Online is marketed as 80% PvP and 20% PvE, what does that say for PvP when comparing both games?
Both styles of gameplay will appeal to different people, but there will also be a group of people who will be drawn to both and guess what.. there is nothing wrong in that! AoC is more mainstream mmorpg and Warhammer is basically a PvP game with some nice touches in a limited PvE side. Both games have strong lore attachments too, you can't fit everything into a video game so we have lore elements that are missing probably more in Warhammer Online than in AoC. Both games are from makers that have both had good press and bad press about their games beforehand. Aoc isn't like the infamous Arnie movies either, WO isn't like the tabletop game that has such a large following, but both belong to the lore by its very nature, they are intrinsic. AoC can be deemed as appealing to a very distinct segment of the market, it's trying to be different with its different take on game matters, this might not be everyones "cup of tea" but on the other hand its also what alot of people look forward to in a stale over done fantasy market, Warhammer Online on the other hand is complemented by appealing to a larger audience, buy the very nature of its graphic art style, its familar combat, familar classes and races, all seen before in many mmo's and most probably the cause for the "Wowhammer" comments. Saying that though Warhammer Online is also trying to be different by introducing a couple of of unique approaches such as Public Quests.
At the end of the day I have to say, with hype aside from both games, I do actually prefer the diversity that a GvG approach gives to an RvR one, and I also prefer a mature themed approach in a game, and soon we will have both in AoC.
Now when this kind of post pops up on the AoC boards every now and then (as well as here), we see half the people in this thread trying to shit from a great height on AoC for all sorts of reason, and being honest again I tend to go all fanboy and defend it, and I also forget to mention some parts that I don't think AoC is looking "up to par" on, so this time, I've tried to put it how I see it with the pluses and the negatives. I might get a few nasty replies back, but hey, thou has given, thou can taketh..
I hope you remember Paul Barnets words when after release some things that were promised might not be actually what they seem to some people too. Going by that assumption would be deadly for WO followers.
A good basis for a game like Warhammer to flourish then wouldn't you say? Sharing very real similarities and appealing to such a large portion of disgruntled player from said game, but with offering a different take on it with it being RvR and small team seiging?
Wrong AoC appeals to the casual gamer by offering the Merc system, a tell can go out on a server anytime, and players get teleported in instantly into the fight once a fee has been agreed upon by the hiring guild. In AoC seiging you don't have the computer on your team or pick your players either.
Boobs are around all throughout the game, but in AoC the world doesn't reset, or you aren't forced back to the same instance to do the same objectives in the same way you did last week, for example.In AoC you defend your terrority on your own terms in situations which will be very different each time, facing competition from all types of guilds, all with different classes and races, in AoC the same race or class can be played on either side in battle, no limitations.
Loads of people loved AO's Combat, why did you play for 3 years if you hated it so much? So now you didnt like it and therefore assume that AoC will be fluff. If I used your basis and spoke about DAoC and ToA and the ability for a company to make mistakes but also have the ability to correct them in the eyes of the general gaming public wouldn't that be fair?
Hmmm, I spent 15 minutes typing up a well thought out and informed reply filled with corrections and positive reinforcement. But my computer crashed for some reason and this is all you guys are getting. See you chumps tommorow.
didn't read your whole post b/c i'm lil drunk. but, if I lose something in pvp it means there is even more reason to gain it back than the first time I took it over. so all in all no time limits = win. I want a more "world" fell or even "sandbox" to some people and if that means not dumb time limits then i'll take it.
WAR is NOT revolutionary. It is EVOLUTIONARY. PvP is not the core game, but a large portion of it. WAR will be more like WoW than AoC. It's not opinion it's the intentions of the games. WAR is going to be WoW but with major and minor game play tweakes and adjustments. That might not be the most accurate way of depicting it. But my point remains the same, WAR gameplay is based on the WoW formula. The structure may be changed but the foundations, as well as my point remain the same . As far as I can tell, about 50% of WAR is going to be PvP territory. With the PvP content leaning towards the higher levels. Whereas in AoC, in a regular server, roughly 25% will be PvP. And on a RPvP server, about 90% more or less will be PvP (A rough estimate). AoC's core is going to be PvE, but there will still be PvP, and lots of it. Sorry if this is all kind of jumpy, but I think faster than I type, but I think in circles so bear with me. Now both games are going to have "Kill npcs, get gear, be great, blah blah". Don't think that I'm bashing WAR, it's just that you had your expectations up so high you made this game sound like the second coming or something. I'm just trying to keep the game's hype at where the game is actually around.
You are wrong though. I'm not saying the game didn't borrow things from other games, but WoW is just as much borrowed from games present. The game mechanism however, is purely based on the Table-top game called Warhammer and not the Warhammer clone called Warcraft. Notice the clone part, hence they might seem alike.
I'll give you a couple fundamental changes, that will make WAR so much more than what WoW is. First of all, PvP is often amazingly fun. Which is the obvious reason why so many people play FPS, RTS and why so many spineless people enjoy ganking and corpsecamping so much.
The game progresses on PvP. You get rewards for you and for your guild. You unlock bonusses for you or your guild and you gain experience for you or your guild through PvP.
PvP in WAR, is not PvP in WoW. The main reason for this, is collission. You can no longer simply run through your opponent to put down that healer, you will have come up with a plan, or solid strategy to be able to take down well-coordinated PvP groups.
In WoW, you might have had people with skill, but mostly it came down to hearing one guy shouting commands over vent and making sure you have the right gear.
In WAR, you might have to put up a front of Black Orcs, rushing towards your opponent, smashing their bodies into theirs, while right behind them, away from enemy fire, Choppas rush in to emerge as soon as the first line hits the enemy, ravaging the enemy troups. In the back, Shamans and Squighunters pin down single targets to kill them quickly. Possible smartasses that go for the healers will need to be blocked off by bodyguards(probably black orcs) that protect your healers.
Not to mention that the abilities given so far ( and I'm not in beta) seem to really give the possibility for combo's, such as :
Eeeek!
Action Points: 130
You and all enemies within 20 feet of you are knocked back 20 feet.
Gork's Breath Morale
Morale: 60%
Range: 0-100 ft
Builds Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 20 seconds, causing occasional damage to themselves and all other enemies within 30 feet of them. Any enemy damaged by this ability also becomes Rooted for 2 seconds, making them unable to move.
Mork's Breath Morale
Morale: 20%
Range: 0-100 ft
Spends Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 10 seconds, which periodically heals any of your allies close to them. Spends Waaagh! to increase duration.
You cast Gork's Breath on a group of enemies. You zerg in and cast Eeeek!. The enemy group is knocked back and rooted to the ground.
Your group charges the closest enemy, while many of his comerades can only watch this for several seconds. During this event, you cast Mork's Breath on the enemy they're soon, or already, facing and your allies are now being healed, while killing their opponents efficiëntly and not recieving alot of damage themselves. If this would work, pretty nice move.
I don't care about AoC, or about AoC fanboys. I've seen a very limited amount of gameplay videos and they were probably all Alpha, but it didn't appeal to me in the slightest bit and I also hate WoW. I'm just giving the one thing, that is in my opinion, the greatest difference, in terms of gameplay.
Amazing Avery, I agree that some people here are being very biased.
You did get one thing wrong though. War will support epic battles with more than 75 - 100 people per side in fact it is a major feature.
- Campaigns: The invasion of enemy lands culminating in the assault on their capital city
These campaigns will be huge.
Otherwise you made some good points, but the post could have been shorter and just as effective. I think AOC will be an interesting game, I will certainly check it out, but I am expecting WAR to be the game for me.
WAR is not WOW - http://javairasfolly.jandell.net/?page_id=377
www.afkcafe.com
Its quite funny that both sets of potential players gunning for their game seem to rate the highest value upon its hyped pvp. Yet in doing so are reducing its subs numbers massively. PvP games have historically failed unless they find a niche. While its true that a game doesn't need massive numbers to be excellent (Planetside die hard here) it is equally true that having enough subs for the game to actually be developed is nice.
It seems to me if I were a dev of either game and both were as PvP centric as all the fanbois here seem to think they will be, I would be pushing my PvE content like there's no tomorrow praying my own fanbase doesn't kill my game before it's released.
PvP fans in MMO's are a minority and historically not a big one. You can buff them all you want, on any forum anywhere, the awards can goto whoever they please, but experience has demonstrated time and time again that the massive majority of sub paying players are PvE'ers. Has WoW changed this? I'm not sure seeing as how most seem to continually point out how WoW isn't PvP at all.
Anyhow roll on PotBS will pwn them both
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Oh share your sources with us, please, oh great one
There currently are no examples of failing PvP games, other than games where PvP was "free" or in other words, a ganker-game.
And of course, WAR wil have plenty of PvE, with equal rewards, up till the last part of the game, where slightly better rewards will be given out by city-raiding.
I don't have a damn clue why people are so confident about the size of battles in Conan. We haven't even seen more than a few players on screen at once in all of the footage they have released. I always thought that was a bit strange. They have only but to show a single case of a real player siege going on with lots of players and SOO many people would jump on board the fan train.
Frankly I've yet to even see *Jehova's Witnesses* display such a blind leap of faith as what I've seen from the Conan Camp.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
Oh share your sources with us, please, oh great one
There currently are no examples of failing PvP games, other than games where PvP was "free" or in other words, a ganker-game.
And of course, WAR wil have plenty of PvE, with equal rewards, up till the last part of the game, where slightly better rewards will be given out by city-raiding.
On the contrary there are examples, my main source of proof could simply be that list on your left and your reply. Some of those are PvP subbed games there mere fact that you don't know that is good enough no?
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
To be totally fair, there are fanboys on both sides of the fence ranting about the merits of both games sight unseen. However, IMHO, Mythic seem to be doing a much better job than Funcom in terms of communicating clearly with their fanbase and allowing for plenty of demo opportunities and direct contact with the development teams at the various expos and conventions. Some of the claims Funcom has made still seem to be floating out in the virtual nether somewhere, whereas Mythic tends to be more upfront with their progress, e.g. "We've created the High Elves and Dark Elves" and BAM! at Leipzeig fans got a taste of High Elves and Dark Elves.
I won't be getting either, but to me the winner here would be AoC by a landslide... but that's just me.
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
Hoping at least..
Hoping at least..
Indeed... I do believe they'll pull it off quite well and when they are ready, they'll show off... speaking of believing/hoping, just look at my sig lol talk about a leap of friggin fatih huh? We all just kinda hope for better... but no one should be a zelot about anything that isn't factually 'supreme'. So far though, from what I've seen of both games my personal preferences would tilt me towards AoC over WAR. WAR however will probably be a huge hit with PVPers because it's system of play is pretty much tried, tested and true...er... than what AoC is shooting for. Those willing to take the leap of faith in AoC run the risk of wasting time/money... then again, AoC's truly competitive real time player controlled combat may prove to be awesome. Only time will tell...
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
Aoc by far looks 100x better than Warhammer (graphics and gameplay wise) in my opinion but it is all about taste, For pve it is Aoc and for pvp it is Warhammer.
WAR is not original and isn't gonna revolutionize the genre but it will be a very fun PvP focused game. The graphics are fine, not great, the game play is familiar to all mmo players and the RvR will be lots of fun. The game has nothing to worry about imo and is the better of the two.
AoC will make or break depending on the combat. Myself i'm unconvinced that you can have thousands of people on a server all fighting with the combat system it has. There is a reason in battlefield games why you only have up to 64 players in a server. I'm no expert but it does sound a little far fetched that they can pull this off without game crippling lag. But maybe they will what do i know, i'm not in beta. Good luck to them.
I'm looking forward to how Conan turns out, but I can't help but feel like the project has a bit of an identity crisis. I think Funcom has to realize that no game can be all things to all people. It's already transitioned from being PvP-centric to more PvE-centric and I think the fact that its single player until level ten might turn off some hardcore MMOGers. These contrasting elements can make it either a great, revolutionary game, or a very watered down, confused game being pulled in too many different directions. As long as it's fun though, I don't care what direction they take it in.
I hope both WAR and AOC are very successful. Competition will only create more and improved game updates, patches, customer service and an overall greater gaming experience. This will also raise the bar for quality standards for future MMORPGs.
As you may be aware games often go through transitional phases through development, sometimes with AoC, when information is released people assume this "info" is the next big thing and therefore parts of the game are stated as the main element.
To me if your a hardcore mmo'er 2-4hrs at the start of the game isn't a big deal, its set up lke this to "tell a story" and get a feel for your character, giving you the option to create you own path, just like if you were to write a book about yourself in the "Age of Conan" Kinda clever. Oh and you can group at the start of the game
I'd have to say as its aimed at a mature market an with a large percentage of players playing an mmorpg before, I'd say the word isn't confused, more as giving the player options. The preferance is therefore on the player to make the decisions and take advantage of opportunities presented and available. Thats hardly watered down, in limiting a players options I would consider "watering down" more an apt term.
But your absolutley right, as long as its fun at the end of the day, thats what counts.
I'll drink to that!
BOYCOTTING EA / ORIGIN going forward.
Taking that list and what I played though...
wow - pve with side pvp
swg - pve , didn't play long enough to find pvp
silkroad - korean grinder , all asian games have suck ass pvp
shadowbane - It's an old one, I've played it for a bit, grinder.
Second Life - Definitely PvP, try to bankrupt the other player, or rape them in the gaybar!
Ryzom .. some people enjoy it, no clue about endgame, I just recall 24 levels of pure boring grinding.
Ragnarok - PvE with pvp elements(although very active )
RF online - same as silkroad, cabal, korean grinder.
Matrix online - whatever, dont make me even recall that.
MapleStory - 2D pvp carnage, my cute avatar facepalms you to death! totally pvp
LoTR ... debated PvP..tops
Lineage - PK pvp
Guild Wars - succesful game <------------ PvP endgame, PvE supports further progress of your character.
FFXI - I think mostly PvE
EVE - PvE for a large part, that is, the part I'm currently in, has pretty decent PvP and it has a loyal but not extremely significant playerbase. (Great game btw)
DAOC - Wait..who were the guys doing that again ?? Oh yeaah..that game everyone loved for its RVR and is now going to be followed by WAR...
D&D online - PvE focussed , instanced play.
City of V/H - PvE focussed, fun for a while, in the long run pvp is disappointing, but that's not the mainfocus of the game.
That's pretty much the games I've played, some more intense than others, but the core stands.
Your point fails.
WAR is NOT revolutionary. It is EVOLUTIONARY. PvP is not the core game, but a large portion of it. WAR will be more like WoW than AoC. It's not opinion it's the intentions of the games. WAR is going to be WoW but with major and minor game play tweakes and adjustments. That might not be the most accurate way of depicting it. But my point remains the same, WAR gameplay is based on the WoW formula. The structure may be changed but the foundations, as well as my point remain the same . As far as I can tell, about 50% of WAR is going to be PvP territory. With the PvP content leaning towards the higher levels. Whereas in AoC, in a regular server, roughly 25% will be PvP. And on a RPvP server, about 90% more or less will be PvP (A rough estimate). AoC's core is going to be PvE, but there will still be PvP, and lots of it. Sorry if this is all kind of jumpy, but I think faster than I type, but I think in circles so bear with me. Now both games are going to have "Kill npcs, get gear, be great, blah blah". Don't think that I'm bashing WAR, it's just that you had your expectations up so high you made this game sound like the second coming or something. I'm just trying to keep the game's hype at where the game is actually around.
You are wrong though. I'm not saying the game didn't borrow things from other games, but WoW is just as much borrowed from games present. The game mechanism however, is purely based on the Table-top game called Warhammer and not the Warhammer clone called Warcraft. Notice the clone part, hence they might seem alike.
I'll give you a couple fundamental changes, that will make WAR so much more than what WoW is. First of all, PvP is often amazingly fun. Which is the obvious reason why so many people play FPS, RTS and why so many spineless people enjoy ganking and corpsecamping so much.
The game progresses on PvP. You get rewards for you and for your guild. You unlock bonusses for you or your guild and you gain experience for you or your guild through PvP.
PvP in WAR, is not PvP in WoW. The main reason for this, is collission. You can no longer simply run through your opponent to put down that healer, you will have come up with a plan, or solid strategy to be able to take down well-coordinated PvP groups.
In WoW, you might have had people with skill, but mostly it came down to hearing one guy shouting commands over vent and making sure you have the right gear.
In WAR, you might have to put up a front of Black Orcs, rushing towards your opponent, smashing their bodies into theirs, while right behind them, away from enemy fire, Choppas rush in to emerge as soon as the first line hits the enemy, ravaging the enemy troups. In the back, Shamans and Squighunters pin down single targets to kill them quickly. Possible smartasses that go for the healers will need to be blocked off by bodyguards(probably black orcs) that protect your healers.
Not to mention that the abilities given so far ( and I'm not in beta) seem to really give the possibility for combo's, such as :
Eeeek!
Action Points: 130
You and all enemies within 20 feet of you are knocked back 20 feet.
Gork's Breath Morale
Morale: 60%
Range: 0-100 ft
Builds Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 20 seconds, causing occasional damage to themselves and all other enemies within 30 feet of them. Any enemy damaged by this ability also becomes Rooted for 2 seconds, making them unable to move.
Mork's Breath Morale
Morale: 20%
Range: 0-100 ft
Spends Waaagh!
Your enemy is surrounded by a cloud for 10 seconds, which periodically heals any of your allies close to them. Spends Waaagh! to increase duration.
You cast Gork's Breath on a group of enemies. You zerg in and cast Eeeek!. The enemy group is knocked back and rooted to the ground.
Your group charges the closest enemy, while many of his comerades can only watch this for several seconds. During this event, you cast Mork's Breath on the enemy they're soon, or already, facing and your allies are now being healed, while killing their opponents efficiëntly and not recieving alot of damage themselves. If this would work, pretty nice move.
I don't care about AoC, or about AoC fanboys. I've seen a very limited amount of gameplay videos and they were probably all Alpha, but it didn't appeal to me in the slightest bit and I also hate WoW. I'm just giving the one thing, that is in my opinion, the greatest difference, in terms of gameplay.
Well I have no doubt in my mind that the rewards for PvP will differ a lot from those in WoW. But my major gripe about WAR is this, all evidence is pointing PvP rolling out the same as WoW's. It seems that WAR is going to be gear dependent to a large degree. And that it's not going to require as much skill as strategy. None of these abilities you've listed are skill based, it's all strategy. FPSs are skill based, that's not really what I'm looking for in an MMO. None the less though. WAR PvP is in all likely hood, is going to unravel into the squad that's got the best strategy, "paper > rock"s the other squad, or has the most people is going to trump the other team. All all for loosing is it comes down to strategy or skill. Zerging though (albeit in AoC just as much) is just a major piss off. At least AoC's combat system is going to have skill. I mean if WAR had the AoC combat system and a border kingdoms environment with mounted combat I'd hop on that band wagon before it even left the station. In all honesty though, I'm probably going to end up playing WAR because it seems much more stable. If I hear AoC turned out good from enough people, their arguments are valid, and none of the problems that seem small to them are deal breakers for me. Then I'll end up in WAR. If so I'll see you there, just try to keep an open mind.
P.S. Just because WoW is comprised of borrowed ideas. Doesn't mean that it cannot be borrowed from. Every games seems to do it to some degree.
As you may be aware games often go through transitional phases through development, sometimes with AoC, when information is released people assume this "info" is the next big thing and therefore parts of the game are stated as the main element.
To me if your a hardcore mmo'er 2-4hrs at the start of the game isn't a big deal, its set up lke this to "tell a story" and get a feel for your character, giving you the option to create you own path, just like if you were to write a book about yourself in the "Age of Conan" Kinda clever. Oh and you can group at the start of the game
I'd have to say as its aimed at a mature market an with a large percentage of players playing an mmorpg before, I'd say the word isn't confused, more as giving the player options. The preferance is therefore on the player to make the decisions and take advantage of opportunities presented and available. Thats hardly watered down, in limiting a players options I would consider "watering down" more an apt term.
But your absolutley right, as long as its fun at the end of the day, thats what counts.
I tend to be a PvE gamer who dabbles in PvP and that, personally, is one of the things that intrigues me about AoC thus far. I wouldn't say that any profession-based game is doing anything revolutionary with the class based system at this point in MMORPG history, since it all comes down to is archetypes that fill particular slots in raid/PvP scenarios. Funcom seems to have a lot of great things to offer, don't get me wrong, I'd just like less of their "boobies + gore = mature" schtick that they've been touting at recent game conferences and have them show off the depth and complexity of the game, which at the end of the day, is what really equals mature.
I completely agree with this. Many AoC fans cite one of its strengths as being "mature." Then you ask why that is. The answer is usually that it is a gritty world with blood, gore, violence, and nudity.
I fail to see what makes that so mature. It makes it require a Mature (M) rating, but that in and of itself does not make it any different at the core than a game like WoW. It is just visual maturity.
Ultimately, it is the players that will make the atmosphere mature or not, and I remain unconvinced that the AoC community is any different on this front than any other. If anything, the inclusion of boobs and sex buffs is going to force it in the opposite direction, but time will tell. I just really do not see why giving men the chance to dance topless as female characters and look at tits will help any cause.