Hey, if it makes you sleep better at night... keep telling that to yourself. I'm just stating the obvious.
so am I. WoW has no relevance in this thread talking about upcomming games
Wrath of the lich king is an upcomming game... and hes right despite how crap wow is it will still have the most subs people are really delusional if they honestly think warhammer age of conan and spellborn combined will do anything to wow, they are pvp games wow is not a pvp game it has like out of the 10 million i think that play it now 1 million perhaps that pvp.
Even if all those gamers left they would still be at the top of the subscribers list, and sales charts. These mmos releasing will be lucky to reach 200k to 300k players, pvp is small niche of mmo gaming their just isn't enough people that enjoy pvp that would make it possible to be able to get even get half of wows subscriber numbers.
Theres fps gamers etc, but honestly who actually thinks a very casual fps gamer wants to pay to play a mmo when they can get the pvp and community aspect from free games with no grinding etc?
Edit: Btw undisa probably got that name wrong, even if darkfall is everything it says it is which is all it does talk nothing to show, then it will be at the most as successful as eve online, it is the smallest possible niche in mmo gaming, a sandbox pvp world with full loot, that alone garentees it will never even touch age of conan or warhammer, certainly to the extent where they are ignored lol
you really need to stop posting I dont think anything in this you said was remotely true.
#1 You thought Spellborn was a PVP game. why would you ever in god's green earth ever, ever think that
#2 You thought WAR was just a PVP game. No, it will have a lot of PVE content too
#3 You thought Age of Conan was a PVP game even though it has raiding. LOL, it has just as much PVE as PVP if not way, way more PVE content
please spend time reading the FAQs for games it only takes like 5 minutes. you should be banned for posting all this misinfo and imaginary figures
1) who cares? i havent been following it as i said.
2) war is a pvp game because it focuses on pvp, pve is there to influence the pvp and give you a alternative from when you are not pvping, the whole world is built around pvp not pve, therefore it is a pvp game.
3) So by this logic wow is a pvp game. Age of conan focuses on pvp, its pve is its side route, therefore it is a pvp game. WoW is a pve game because it focuses on pve and its side dish is pvp. Age of conan may have raiding but its the pvp that is being infacised on not the pve, same with warhammer. Therefore they are pvp games.
These games both offer pve so you have an alternative for when you don't feel like pvping, they are unlikely to be the main focus at end game for players and if they are they turn into pve games, you cant focus on both because they dont mix at the end of the day.
If a game focuses on pvp and has pve the pve always with out fail is linked to the pvp so that it works well, but it is never the games focus. Same with a pve game with pvp content, wow is a perfect example of why pvp and pve doesnt mix.
Please spend time learning what a pvp game is and a pve game is, instead of calling for bans like some little kid. Ive also read the faq and followed both age of conan and war and as i said havent been following tcos, and what i have seen made it seem like a pvp game was never interested enough to look into it.
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game.
Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game.
WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp.
If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it.
Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me.
No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. Hey there warboi I would make the argument that conan is more of a pvp game than warhammer is or ever could hope to be. Here is the reason why: after noob island on a conan pvp server ANYONE other than your guildmates is attackable. NO empire or chaos BS where half the population is UNKILLABLE. On top of this there are actual keeps to be taken which you can potentially hold forever no resetting city attack grind crap. ON top of this I have seen the war dev podcasts and they clearly state that you can get to max level in war without ever once engaging in pvp. Whereas in conan there are actual pvp levels 20 of them I believe that increase your dps abilities and can only be unlocked by engaging in pvp.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by siresper
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it. Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me. No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels without PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it. Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me. No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels with PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
Until you have actually seen all this stuff happen your talking about of aoc and actually played some of it you really cant support anything you say whereas some people actually got to play a tiny bit of War and have proof of it.
As for who will win is kinda hard a lot of ppl think that past wowers will go to war and anyone that actually plays the TT game of warhammer but AOC does look cooler. Making a poll for this kind of question would be a lot better?
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it. Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me. No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels with PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just said
But ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say.
Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. Hey there warboi I would make the argument that conan is more of a pvp game than warhammer is or ever could hope to be. Here is the reason why: after noob island on a conan pvp server ANYONE other than your guildmates is attackable. NO empire or chaos BS where half the population is UNKILLABLE. On top of this there are actual keeps to be taken which you can potentially hold forever no resetting city attack grind crap. ON top of this I have seen the war dev podcasts and they clearly state that you can get to max level in war without ever once engaging in pvp. Whereas in conan there are actual pvp levels 20 of them I believe that increase your dps abilities and can only be unlocked by engaging in pvp.
Oh, hello there Coneboi. Thank you for your response. Though I think you did not quite read my post before making yours.
The only way you can attack anyone other than your guildmates after noob island is by playing on a special rules server. Special rules servers are the exception to most servers and do not magically change the game. Is World of Warcraft a pvp game, or a pve game with pvp tacked on? World of warcraft has pvp servers you know, just like AoC. Sure its not FFA but that doesn't mean squat. If you think it does, than you aren't arguing over the core systems, just who the list of targets is. Pretty shallow concept of what pvp is and isn't though.
Point is, a special rule server that most people don't have to play under does not make a game a pvp game. Its a pve game with a special rules server tacked on. LOL.
As for getting to max level in WAR, please reread my first post carefully. I never said you couldnt hit max level, I said you couldn't hit max level without progressing slower (punished). AoC is very carebear because you aren't punished at all for never fighting other players. You could be the wimpiest little pissant in the world and be right at home in the AoC world (and they will!). However in WAR on the contrary, be prepared to advance slowly by playing the coward or only engaging in pve.
Also thanks to the AoC handholding system(tm), like you said they have seperated pvp levels from pve levels, so that you can go to level cap without being affected by pvp (just like our beloved UO trammel!). And the pvp levels and skills only benefit you in pvp, so no worries if you are the hiding type, it will most certainly not impact any other areas in the game!
But hey, if you think being able to totaly hide from pvp without repercussions makes a pvp game.. than I can see why you said the things you said.
As for the other things you said about keeps resetting.. that isn't arguing about pvp vrs non-pvp, which is what the subject was about. Its about different preferences of how to have pvp. Its certainly ok not to like the resetting (I don't like it either myself), however I would be daft to say it made the game not pvp because of a keep reset. FPS's are the most pvp style games around, and they reset. Does that make them less pvp? Counter Terrorists win.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Oasis21
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just said
But ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say. Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
AoC has been played by public and media since E3 2007, amongst alot of others, don't know if you knew?
A few of my guild mates played AoC at the last Dragon*Con
I support was has been spoken to me, and what has been shown (like mechanics) can you tell me if you can craft siege engines in warhammer? or actually make the cities you defend, from the ground up? We have confirmation of this in AoC.
How it plays out in the end is anyones guess atm, but the mechanics I havent lied about, what I've said about AoC is straight from the horses mouth. In my opinion it offers more meaning.
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just said
But ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say. Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
AoC has been played by public and media since E3 2007, amongst alot of others, don't know if you knew?
A few of my guild mates played AoC at the last Dragon*Con
I support was has been spoken to me, and what has been shown (like mechanics) can you tell me if you can craft siege engines in warhammer? or actually make the cities you defend, from the ground up? We have confirmation of this in AoC.
How it plays out in the end is anyones guess atm, but the mechanics I havent lied about, what I've said about AoC is straight from the horses mouth. In my opinion it offers more meaning.
oops sry then been awhile since i decided to check on the new stuff about these games just going off what ive heard.
Like I said though both games look extremely good but popularity wise because of all the people that play TT warhammer I'd say warhammer will be better game play and mechanics ill leave to the betas and actually playing them.
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just said
But ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say. Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
AoC has been played by public and media since E3 2007, amongst alot of others, don't know if you knew?
A few of my guild mates played AoC at the last Dragon*Con
I support was has been spoken to me, and what has been shown (like mechanics) can you tell me if you can craft siege engines in warhammer? or actually make the cities you defend, from the ground up? We have confirmation of this in AoC.
How it plays out in the end is anyones guess atm, but the mechanics I havent lied about, what I've said about AoC is straight from the horses mouth. In my opinion it offers more meaning.
What I think is really hilarious is that siege engines in AoC are built at preset locations. You can't actually choose where to place them. So there isn't a single bit of tactical thinking involved (yay handholding!). Completely meaningless. Its like a scripted siege engine spawn (funcom is an expert on that technique arent they). Even DAoC which is years old allowed you to place siege engines where you wanted to and move them around. Talk about de-evolution. Good job Funcom, blow us back to the stone age of mmorpg gaming why dont you.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by siresper
Oh, hello there Coneboi. Thank you for your response. Though I think you did not quite read my post before making yours.
The only way you can attack anyone other than your guildmates after noob island is by playing on a special rules server. Drunken Brawling PvP? Special rules servers are the exception to most servers and do not magically change the game. Special set rules inherently make the experience totally different, have you ever played on one from the get go, such as FFA, item loot loss?? Is World of Warcraft a pvp game, or a pve game with pvp tacked on? World of warcraft has pvp servers you know, just like AoC. Sure its not FFA but that doesn't mean squat. Oh yea, losing everything or alot doesnt mean anything, thats why warhammer is carebear ableit inclusion of "chicken System" . If you think it does, than you aren't arguing over the core systems, just who the list of targets is. Pretty shallow concept of what pvp is and isn't though. Point is, a special rule server that most people don't have to play under does not make a game a pvp game. Its a pve game with a special rules server tacked on. LOL. Game Mechanics are the same, meaning is different.. As for getting to max level in WAR, please reread my first post carefully. I never said you couldnt hit max level, I said you couldn't hit max level without progressing slower (punished). You Actually said: Your Opinion -"If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game." Your Opinion with reference to warhammer:"You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."So if you dont participate in PvP, because you dont have to you don't think you would call it a PvP game? AoC is very carebear because you aren't punished at all for never fighting other players. You loose BLOOD MONEY, item loot is in discussion, whether partial or full - you will loose something though, its being designed aroun that - want the quote? You could be the wimpiest little pissant in the world and be right at home in the AoC world (and they will!) - no offence but In an RvR system, I am stuck with idiots. I cannot throw them out of my faction. I cannot kill them, and they are free to annoy me with their childish behaviour. I don’t even get to chose who my "friends and allies" are. The Computer decides for me. And in return I get an ever repeating, yet senseless struggle of trying to compete and be a cohesive unit.Further thoughts here: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1643355 However in WAR on the contrary, be prepared to advance slowly by playing the coward or only engaging in pve. Also thanks to the AoC handholding system(tm), like you said they have seperated pvp levels from pve levels, so that you can go to level cap without being affected by pvp (just like our beloved UO trammel!). Oh in warhammer I can join an instance (if its not full and I might have t wait around) and then just hide or let others do the work for me - that is handhold! And the pvp levels and skills only benefit you in pvp, so no worries if you are the hiding type, it will most certainly not impact any other areas in the game! Perfect! keep it seperate, seperate crafted PvP gear, seperate feats only obtainable in PvP - awesome! PvE gear designed for PvE! You dont have to go after the uber sword for PvP, you can make it or buy it. But hey, if you think being able to totaly hide from pvp without repercussions makes a pvp game.. than I can see why you said the things you said. There is little to no accountability for behavior in RvR; punks, gankers, and smack talkers can fade into the anominity and safety of their faction. Not to mention leechers and people there for the ride doing nothing to help in a battle… Often such behavior is encouraged in RvR because the enemy is faceless and the consequences are few. No thanks RvR. As for the other things you said about keeps resetting.. that isn't arguing about pvp vrs non-pvp, which is what the subject was about. Its about different preferences of how to have pvp. Its certainly ok not to like the resetting (I don't like it either myself), however I would be daft to say it made the game not pvp because of a keep reset. FPS's are the most pvp style games around, and they reset. Does that make them less pvp? Counter Terrorists win.
Originally posted by siresper
What I think is really hilarious is that siege engines in AoC are built at preset locations. You can't actually choose where to place them. So there isn't a single bit of tactical thinking involved (yay handholding!). Completely meaningless. Its like a scripted siege engine spawn (funcom is an expert on that technique arent they). Even DAoC which is years old allowed you to place siege engines where you wanted to and move them around. Talk about de-evolution. Good job Funcom, blow us back to the stone age of mmorpg gaming why dont you.
Ever played SWG? You can position your cities how you like and siege engines can be placed in specific area's, you carry them around and pop them out of your inventory are specific points in range of the enemy. With freedom to move to a wide degree of left and right or back and forth. These specific area's are massive, could easily be 500 meters in length. I mean where else do you want to set up a trebuchet? 4 miles back?
Having the ability to craft them in the first place and use them in a RTS style way is what sieging is all about. Oh look the orcs just found a siege weapon on the floor! LOL lets use it, it won't break, we can't make another oh dear.
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it. Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me. No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels without PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
Wow! A whole 20 PvP levels. That sounds awesome and original *Cough WoW Grand Marshall*. I spend my entire game time slashing at enemies in PvE then get into PvP and sudeenly I am not as good as other people because I didn't get my PvP level? I mean seriously why do they have PvP levels? What do you get for each level? A nice title? From a logical point of view a person that fights lions all day would be just as hard of an opponent in PvP as a person who PvP's all day. WoW actually did a correct manner as far as rewarding each level of PvP. The system they used however should have been static instead of fluctuating with honor earned. Sorry but PvP levels is no longer a valid argument as WoW had them and it is clearly a PvE game.
As for AoC PvP having meaning? What meaning? By all means tell me what the meaning is. So you can craft stuff. SWG had that and the Bunkers were pretty much a joke(lol at turrets that didn't attack TKM attacking them). It causes more problems then it solves at this point. If you make them take to long to kill then it will be near impossible to take out larger cities. If you make them to easy to kill there will be no point in constructing them. Also unless there is a time frame that allows for attacks to happen then midnight raids will be the norm for taking a city. It means nothing except that you could field more people at 3am than your foe. However on the flip side if you do give a window for attacks then it makes it impossible to destroy cities because they will be defended.
So really what meaning is there to AoC pvp...We have more numbers than you do! Noob cities will get crushed and make new players want to quit. Those that do stick around will join the biggest guild giving rise to super guilds. Super Guilds will enter cold war with minor battles that accomplish nothing. One side will get lazy and bored and the other guilds will crush them and the players will quit. Sounds like a fabulous game to me. I play games to have fun, not to have my spirit crushed.
WAR is setup the way it is for a reason. FUN. You can join in and play immediately. You don't have to worry about your house being destroyed at midnight. You don't need to level up PvP levels. You just get in, play, and kill some bitches! The endgame of WAR has far more meaning that AoC ever will. When you finally do sack a city it will be a well deserved victory. It wasn't because your side had more players or that your side could field more people at 3am. It will be because you bested your enemy in battle. Sure it has some PvE, what game doesn't. It is there for a break from PvP and for those that want to explore/experience the Warhammer universe.
I am not saying AoC PvP won't be fun but sorry it is definitely not my type of PvP. I like my PvP a bit more, well less of a gankfest.
I still think WAR and AoC is just a box full of hot air with all the false promises the developers are making. I think quality wise Spellborn will be better because of the commitment of the company behind it and it has the development time behind it. It also revamps the 1 thing I hate about most mmos, the boring combat.
Clearly an objective opinion from an obvious fanboi.
AmazingAveryAge of Conan AdvocateMemberUncommonPosts: 7,188
Originally posted by Distaste
Wow! A whole 20 PvP levels. That sounds awesome and original *Cough WoW Grand Marshall*. I spend my entire game time slashing at enemies in PvE then get into PvP and sudeenly I am not as good as other people because I didn't get my PvP level? WRONG! you get buffed up if you are a lower level, you just don't have the feats available to the higher level, you know so they have a chance at least! I mean seriously why do they have PvP levels? What do you get for each level? FEATS, different combos, different gear etc etc you need to read up! A nice title? From a logical point of view a person that fights lions all day would be just as hard of an opponent in PvP as a person who PvP's all day. WoW actually did a correct manner as far as rewarding each level of PvP. The system they used however should have been static instead of fluctuating with honor earned. Sorry but PvP levels is no longer a valid argument as WoW had them and it is clearly a PvE game.
As for AoC PvP having meaning? What meaning? By all means tell me what the meaning is. So you can craft stuff. http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/1643355#1643355 SWG had that and the Bunkers were pretty much a joke(lol at turrets that didn't attack TKM attacking them). It causes more problems then it solves at this point. If you make them take to long to kill then it will be near impossible to take out larger cities. If you make them to easy to kill there will be no point in constructing them. Also unless there is a time frame that allows for attacks to happen then midnight raids will be the norm for taking a city. It means nothing except that you could field more people at 3am than your foe. However on the flip side if you do give a window for attacks then it makes it impossible to destroy cities because they will be defended. So really what meaning is there to AoC pvp...We have more numbers than you do! Noob cities will get crushed and make new players want to quit. Those that do stick around will join the biggest guild giving rise to super guilds. Super Guilds will enter cold war with minor battles that accomplish nothing. One side will get lazy and bored and the other guilds will crush them and the players will quit. Sounds like a fabulous game to me. I play games to have fun, not to have my spirit crushed. WAR is setup the way it is for a reason. FUN. You can join in and play immediately. What if an entire side (instance) is made up of one guild, how long do you sit around waiting for a game? What mechanics are present to stop this? in AoC you can join anytime as a Merc. You don't have to worry about your house being destroyed at midnight. Just like in AoC, there is a small timeframe to stop this. You don't need to level up PvP levels. Your rewarded for experience in AoC. You just get in, play, and kill some bitches! Yep same in AoC, with the inclusion of decapatations. The endgame of WAR has far more meaning that AoC ever will. When you finally do sack a city it will be a well deserved victory. It wasn't because your side had more players or that your side could field more people at 3am. System to prevent this in AoC It will be because you bested your enemy in battle. Pardon me, your saying warhammer has meaning because..... you bested your enemy? what the hell do you think its like in AoC, or any other game where you win? When you take over a BattleKeep say, in AoC it comes with benefits you know. Plus you have to graft to keep it - literally fortify it, build it back up to your own preferance, can you do that in war? NO, its the building are in the same place each and every time after the game resets, In AoC everything is changable to your wants. Thats the beauty of the system, the onus is on the player, not handed to you by the computer. Like I said before: Chess(AoC) to Painting by number (war) its a decent anolgy. You know where to go in warhammer everytime, every repetition of the map. It AoC its different, there is scope for difference each and every time making the fight at the high end different each and every time. In warhammer you will have the same objectives over and over and over again, you will know where to run, what to break first, where to stand (painting by numbers) in AoC the lay of the land is different each time presenting you with more defined "thinking" tactics. Sure it has some PvE, what game doesn't. It is there for a break from PvP and for those that want to explore/experience the Warhammer universe. I can't help but feel overall a GvG system offers the player all the familiarities the average gamer is used to and offers more freedom over an RvR system which imo lacks choice. You can choose to do many more things in GvG, the limits are pretty much unlocked. These options giving an edge in defining meaningful PvP. I am not saying AoC PvP won't be fun but sorry it is definitely not my type of PvP. I like my PvP a bit more, well less of a gankfest. You know To be honest RvR in war, I hope for the sake of fans deals with more realm interaction and that players understand the need for "us" instead of "me" at the end of the day, couple in a system that didn't promote ganking like DAoC did with gank ranks. AoC's PvP is done in a GvG system - quite popular you know! oh it isn't trademarked either...
The bottom line is that Aoc offers a new battle everytime you take the field. Whether its single combat out in the world against ANYONE not just the opposing faction or at a massive siege, the battles are always going to play out differently. How many times can you take the same city over and over again before you are bored out of your mind 50? a 100? You can pvp in Aoc for years and the sequence of events will never be the same. War will be the same thing all the time every time, no thanks.
I must admit hands down im more interested in AoC then anything else in the list. But maybe Spellborn is a serious possibility
AoC won me over with the open PVP server. secretely ive always been registered on Aoc forums for over a year now.
The GvG is also an awesome addition. The ability to build our own cities and have real wars I look forward to very much. im very happy with what im seeing and reading
Spellborn looks good to me too but the lack of PVP features is a turn off. in any case always been an AoC been registered on their official forums for a long time now and make posts every now and then
i guess for now id have to say,AOC.I really know very little of it however i do know WAR is a pitiful 2 realm pvp.Vanguard basically had hundreds of realms,that you had to gain a favour with in order to enter that realm,yet the majority scoffed that game soooo.I would say for war to have only 2 realms is a very weak effort in that direction.War reminds me alot of RF online,in that there is sorta one superficial gaol that soon gets real boring.Your goal is to fight to gain pts for your realm,for what reason? to control it?i think that gameplay would get old real fast as did rf online fighting for a mine that really no one cared much about or even needed to fight for.
Chronicles of spellborn ,again i didn't spend alot of time looking into it but it does look decent.The problem i have is if i am not mistaken ,this game is VERY old?wasn't this game in production several years ago then disbanded and brought back again?IDK maybe im confusing it with another game.
I would have to say WAR will have the subs to start outa sheer hype and marketing,AllA same ploy WOW used,but in the end AOC will be a better game.WAR realy has nothing to it other than a PC generated system that balances fights in instances.Other than that you fight RVR,whoopty do,it's still just boring PVP with really no content in the game outside of PVP.I would much rather play UT3 if i wanted a PVP only type game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
1) who cares? i havent been following it as i said. 2) war is a pvp game because it focuses on pvp, pve is there to influence the pvp and give you a alternative from when you are not pvping, the whole world is built around pvp not pve, therefore it is a pvp game. 3) So by this logic wow is a pvp game. Age of conan focuses on pvp, its pve is its side route, therefore it is a pvp game. WoW is a pve game because it focuses on pve and its side dish is pvp. Age of conan may have raiding but its the pvp that is being infacised on not the pve, same with warhammer. Therefore they are pvp games. These games both offer pve so you have an alternative for when you don't feel like pvping, they are unlikely to be the main focus at end game for players and if they are they turn into pve games, you cant focus on both because they dont mix at the end of the day. If a game focuses on pvp and has pve the pve always with out fail is linked to the pvp so that it works well, but it is never the games focus. Same with a pve game with pvp content, wow is a perfect example of why pvp and pve doesnt mix. Please spend time learning what a pvp game is and a pve game is, instead of calling for bans like some little kid. Ive also read the faq and followed both age of conan and war and as i said havent been following tcos, and what i have seen made it seem like a pvp game was never interested enough to look into it.
messed up post there you think just because a game tacks on PVP Arenas that makes it a PVP game? I'm sorry but you're posting from the point of view from someone very new to MMOs too me.
edit - Having played many games to level cap that had tacked on arenas I can tell you games like City of heroes and such are not PVP games. Especially when issue after issue releases there is no PVP content. You really need to gain more experience playing more MMOs.
its the typical sort of post I see from pve'ers that has yet to play a 100% pvp game like Fury. Take Fury and compare it to Spellborn then you'd realize your errors. I suggest you spent a lot more time playing PVP and get more exposure to MMOs. Notice, no one is agreeing with you.
Spellborn a PVP game? I've now read it all. this is what I get for coming here to 'general forums'
According to your logic EVE Online can't possibly do better then 100% PVE based games yet year after year we've seen it do way better subscription wise then many pure PVE MMOs like DDO and many others. it is not hard to checkout mmorpg data there's charts online that shows subscription values
Hey, if it makes you sleep better at night... keep telling that to yourself. I'm just stating the obvious.
so am I. WoW has no relevance in this thread talking about upcomming games
Wrath of the lich king is an upcomming game... and hes right despite how crap wow is it will still have the most subs people are really delusional if they honestly think warhammer age of conan and spellborn combined will do anything to wow, they are pvp games wow is not a pvp game it has like out of the 10 million i think that play it now 1 million perhaps that pvp.
Even if all those gamers left they would still be at the top of the subscribers list, and sales charts. These mmos releasing will be lucky to reach 200k to 300k players, pvp is small niche of mmo gaming their just isn't enough people that enjoy pvp that would make it possible to be able to get even get half of wows subscriber numbers.
Theres fps gamers etc, but honestly who actually thinks a very casual fps gamer wants to pay to play a mmo when they can get the pvp and community aspect from free games with no grinding etc?
Edit: Btw undisa probably got that name wrong, even if darkfall is everything it says it is which is all it does talk nothing to show, then it will be at the most as successful as eve online, it is the smallest possible niche in mmo gaming, a sandbox pvp world with full loot, that alone garentees it will never even touch age of conan or warhammer, certainly to the extent where they are ignored lol
you really need to stop posting I dont think anything in this you said was remotely true.
#1 You thought Spellborn was a PVP game. why would you ever in god's green earth ever, ever think that
#2 You thought WAR was just a PVP game. No, it will have a lot of PVE content too
#3 You thought Age of Conan was a PVP game even though it has raiding. LOL, it has just as much PVE as PVP if not way, way more PVE content
please spend time reading the FAQs for games it only takes like 5 minutes. you should be banned for posting all this misinfo and imaginary figures
1) who cares? i havent been following it as i said.
2) war is a pvp game because it focuses on pvp, pve is there to influence the pvp and give you a alternative from when you are not pvping, the whole world is built around pvp not pve, therefore it is a pvp game.
3) So by this logic wow is a pvp game. Age of conan focuses on pvp, its pve is its side route, therefore it is a pvp game. WoW is a pve game because it focuses on pve and its side dish is pvp. Age of conan may have raiding but its the pvp that is being infacised on not the pve, same with warhammer. Therefore they are pvp games.
These games both offer pve so you have an alternative for when you don't feel like pvping, they are unlikely to be the main focus at end game for players and if they are they turn into pve games, you cant focus on both because they dont mix at the end of the day.
If a game focuses on pvp and has pve the pve always with out fail is linked to the pvp so that it works well, but it is never the games focus. Same with a pve game with pvp content, wow is a perfect example of why pvp and pve doesnt mix.
Please spend time learning what a pvp game is and a pve game is, instead of calling for bans like some little kid. Ive also read the faq and followed both age of conan and war and as i said havent been following tcos, and what i have seen made it seem like a pvp game was never interested enough to look into it.
messed up post there you think just because a game tacks on PVP Arenas that makes it a PVP game? I'm sorry but you're posting nothing but pure misinfo. its the typical sort of post I see from pve'ers that has yet to play a 100% pvp game like Fury. Take Fury and compare it to Spellborn then you'd realize your errors. I suggest you spent a lot more time playing PVP and get more exposure to MMOs. Notice, no one is agreeing with you.
Spellborn a PVP game? I've now read it all. this is what I get for coming here to 'general forums'
And where did i write that exactly ( the bit about arenas )? learn to read. I said i havent been following spellborn so how am i supposed to know its a pve game when all i have read is like 1 paragraph about it and a small video showing off their combat system and their take on armour both of which are the kind of things you would associate for a game thats aiming towards pvp.
Oh and furys not an mmorpg, so why would i compare it to spellborn?
And your calling me a pve'r lol shows you haven't got a clue so stfu before making assumptions about others playstyle then bashing them for it. Oh and you and one other person actually responded to my post im sure its hard for you to grasp this but 2 people isnt everyone and i also answered why i thought tcos was a pvp game earlier which someone already corrected me on, so why dont you go pick arguments with someone else.
lastly, this is exactly the type of response id expect on the general forums, people trying to start arguments on a topic that has ended. Notice that after that guy who corrected me on spellborn posted we stopped talking about spellborn, and moved on to age of conan, and warhammer fanboy rants.
edit: also to add age of conan is both a pve and pvp game so i wont generalize it as a pvp game, since they have a system in place that allows them to focus on both equally( even though they advertise the pvp more from the looks of things). warhammer though is definitely a pvp game.
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game. Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game. WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp. If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it. Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me. No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels with PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just said
But ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say.
Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
I think people has gotten to play both games already if you mean 'public displays' whereas they are not bound by NDA. If you're discussing content still under NDA then you're in violation of the forum rules here and it cannot be discussed obviously
I always assume best case for upcoming games based on the FAQ and such. So I'm assuming both will be solid when they release
It all comes down to what you prefer. If you're a fan of RvR then you'll go with WAR. If you're a fan of Guild vs Guild then you'll most likely be attracted to AoC
I care nothing much for people on my own side in a Faction vs Faction game. I care bout my guild. I dont like PUGs (public groups). They're simply canon fooder for Guilds
Guild Wars was smart enough to disallow expert Guilds from joining the Random Arenas. I suspect WAR will do the same.
Both titles look very interesting for what they are. I hope both do well- but I'm atm more biased towards AoC based on released information
WAR will win if we're talking most subs because its watered down to the MAX for newbies: auto attack, classes, levels, no ganking, no griefing, no stealth, glowing NPCs, and they will escourt ya to next area too i read
Your right making it to where a high lvl that cant beat any1 in his lvl range keeping him from attacking lowbies is bad? also auto attack ok so u click ur mouse once and hit the buttons or you hit a bunch while u hit your buttons big difference huh? also i fali to see how classes and levels make it watered down. and who cares about stealth that is carebear being able to sneak up on some low lvl with a bunch of stealthed people o yeah i can see the fun in that.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
And where did i write that exactly ( the bit about arenas )? learn to read. I said i havent been following spellborn so how am i supposed to know its a pve game when all i have read is like 1 paragraph about it and a small video showing off their combat system and their take on armour both of which are the kind of things you would associate for a game thats aiming towards pvp.
Oh and furys not an mmorpg, so why would i compare it to spellborn? And your calling me a pve'r lol shows you haven't got a clue so stfu before making assumptions about others playstyle then bashing them for it. Oh and you and one other person actually responded to my post im sure its hard for you to grasp this but 2 people isnt everyone and i also answered why i thought tcos was a pvp game earlier which someone already corrected me on, so why dont you go pick arguments with someone else. lastly, this is exactly the type of response id expect on the general forums, people trying to start arguments on a topic that has ended. Notice that after that guy who corrected me on spellborn posted we stopped talking about spellborn, and moved on to age of conan, and warhammer fanboy rants. edit: also to add age of conan is both a pve and pvp game so i wont generalize it as a pvp game, since they have a system in place that allows them to focus on both equally( even though they advertise the pvp more from the looks of things). warhammer though is definitely a pvp game.
Fury is an MMORPG its listed right here on this site.....
in another thread you claimed how much you love LOTRO and its clear on all of your posts how you much you dislike PVP. Dont try to act all tough I'm sorry but "monster play" is not PVP lol.....
And yeah you realized you knew nothing about Age of Conan so now you're trying to correct yourself.
Comments
Wrath of the lich king is an upcomming game... and hes right despite how crap wow is it will still have the most subs people are really delusional if they honestly think warhammer age of conan and spellborn combined will do anything to wow, they are pvp games wow is not a pvp game it has like out of the 10 million i think that play it now 1 million perhaps that pvp.
Even if all those gamers left they would still be at the top of the subscribers list, and sales charts. These mmos releasing will be lucky to reach 200k to 300k players, pvp is small niche of mmo gaming their just isn't enough people that enjoy pvp that would make it possible to be able to get even get half of wows subscriber numbers.
Theres fps gamers etc, but honestly who actually thinks a very casual fps gamer wants to pay to play a mmo when they can get the pvp and community aspect from free games with no grinding etc?
Edit: Btw undisa probably got that name wrong, even if darkfall is everything it says it is which is all it does talk nothing to show, then it will be at the most as successful as eve online, it is the smallest possible niche in mmo gaming, a sandbox pvp world with full loot, that alone garentees it will never even touch age of conan or warhammer, certainly to the extent where they are ignored lol
you really need to stop posting I dont think anything in this you said was remotely true.
#1 You thought Spellborn was a PVP game. why would you ever in god's green earth ever, ever think that
#2 You thought WAR was just a PVP game. No, it will have a lot of PVE content too
#3 You thought Age of Conan was a PVP game even though it has raiding. LOL, it has just as much PVE as PVP if not way, way more PVE content
please spend time reading the FAQs for games it only takes like 5 minutes. you should be banned for posting all this misinfo and imaginary figures
1) who cares? i havent been following it as i said.
2) war is a pvp game because it focuses on pvp, pve is there to influence the pvp and give you a alternative from when you are not pvping, the whole world is built around pvp not pve, therefore it is a pvp game.
3) So by this logic wow is a pvp game. Age of conan focuses on pvp, its pve is its side route, therefore it is a pvp game. WoW is a pve game because it focuses on pve and its side dish is pvp. Age of conan may have raiding but its the pvp that is being infacised on not the pve, same with warhammer. Therefore they are pvp games.
These games both offer pve so you have an alternative for when you don't feel like pvping, they are unlikely to be the main focus at end game for players and if they are they turn into pve games, you cant focus on both because they dont mix at the end of the day.
If a game focuses on pvp and has pve the pve always with out fail is linked to the pvp so that it works well, but it is never the games focus. Same with a pve game with pvp content, wow is a perfect example of why pvp and pve doesnt mix.
Please spend time learning what a pvp game is and a pve game is, instead of calling for bans like some little kid. Ive also read the faq and followed both age of conan and war and as i said havent been following tcos, and what i have seen made it seem like a pvp game was never interested enough to look into it.
If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game.
Conan... is not a pvp game. It is a pve game with pvp tacked on. Your progress is not at all hampered by not participating in pvp. PvP is mostly end-game material or after significantly advancing your character first. You can avoid all pvp in conan if you want, and it will not affect anything but your performance in pvp. PvP is not integrated into any other non-pvp systems in the game.
WAR... is a pvp game. It has both pvp and pve throughout the game from the moment you start till the moment you hit max level. You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve). PvP affects all the core systems in the game and the game was designed from the ground up to be affected by what happens in pvp.
If all it takes is for a game to have pvp to be called a 'pvp game'.. then fine. But I don't know if im willing to use the term quite so loosely. There needs to be a certain level of something before you can give it that kind of title. Its like saying a nation that has a terrorist in it is a 'terrorist nation'. Why no.. no its not. Its a regular nation that happens to have a terrorist in it.
Of course there are some dirty politicians out there that might disagree with me.
No I did not just compare pvp to terrorism. But I did use an analogy that might get people riled up. Oh well, can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.
Is Guild Wars 2 coming out next year also?
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels without PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels with PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
Until you have actually seen all this stuff happen your talking about of aoc and actually played some of it you really cant support anything you say whereas some people actually got to play a tiny bit of War and have proof of it.As for who will win is kinda hard a lot of ppl think that past wowers will go to war and anyone that actually plays the TT game of warhammer but AOC does look cooler. Making a poll for this kind of question would be a lot better?
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels with PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just saidBut ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say.
Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
Oh, hello there Coneboi. Thank you for your response. Though I think you did not quite read my post before making yours.The only way you can attack anyone other than your guildmates after noob island is by playing on a special rules server. Special rules servers are the exception to most servers and do not magically change the game. Is World of Warcraft a pvp game, or a pve game with pvp tacked on? World of warcraft has pvp servers you know, just like AoC. Sure its not FFA but that doesn't mean squat. If you think it does, than you aren't arguing over the core systems, just who the list of targets is. Pretty shallow concept of what pvp is and isn't though.
Point is, a special rule server that most people don't have to play under does not make a game a pvp game. Its a pve game with a special rules server tacked on. LOL.
As for getting to max level in WAR, please reread my first post carefully. I never said you couldnt hit max level, I said you couldn't hit max level without progressing slower (punished). AoC is very carebear because you aren't punished at all for never fighting other players. You could be the wimpiest little pissant in the world and be right at home in the AoC world (and they will!). However in WAR on the contrary, be prepared to advance slowly by playing the coward or only engaging in pve.
Also thanks to the AoC handholding system(tm), like you said they have seperated pvp levels from pve levels, so that you can go to level cap without being affected by pvp (just like our beloved UO trammel!). And the pvp levels and skills only benefit you in pvp, so no worries if you are the hiding type, it will most certainly not impact any other areas in the game!
But hey, if you think being able to totaly hide from pvp without repercussions makes a pvp game.. than I can see why you said the things you said.
As for the other things you said about keeps resetting.. that isn't arguing about pvp vrs non-pvp, which is what the subject was about. Its about different preferences of how to have pvp. Its certainly ok not to like the resetting (I don't like it either myself), however I would be daft to say it made the game not pvp because of a keep reset. FPS's are the most pvp style games around, and they reset. Does that make them less pvp? Counter Terrorists win.
AoC has been played by public and media since E3 2007, amongst alot of others, don't know if you knew?
A few of my guild mates played AoC at the last Dragon*Con
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/151144 < first post shows you all the media related, alot from Hands On. read several peoples views on the game..
I support was has been spoken to me, and what has been shown (like mechanics) can you tell me if you can craft siege engines in warhammer? or actually make the cities you defend, from the ground up? We have confirmation of this in AoC.
How it plays out in the end is anyones guess atm, but the mechanics I havent lied about, what I've said about AoC is straight from the horses mouth. In my opinion it offers more meaning.
AoC has been played by public and media since E3 2007, amongst alot of others, don't know if you knew?
A few of my guild mates played AoC at the last Dragon*Con
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/151144 < first post shows you all the media related, alot from Hands On. read several peoples views on the game..
I support was has been spoken to me, and what has been shown (like mechanics) can you tell me if you can craft siege engines in warhammer? or actually make the cities you defend, from the ground up? We have confirmation of this in AoC.
How it plays out in the end is anyones guess atm, but the mechanics I havent lied about, what I've said about AoC is straight from the horses mouth. In my opinion it offers more meaning.
oops sry then been awhile since i decided to check on the new stuff about these games just going off what ive heard.
Like I said though both games look extremely good but popularity wise because of all the people that play TT warhammer I'd say warhammer will be better game play and mechanics ill leave to the betas and actually playing them.
AoC has been played by public and media since E3 2007, amongst alot of others, don't know if you knew?
A few of my guild mates played AoC at the last Dragon*Con
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/151144 < first post shows you all the media related, alot from Hands On. read several peoples views on the game..
I support was has been spoken to me, and what has been shown (like mechanics) can you tell me if you can craft siege engines in warhammer? or actually make the cities you defend, from the ground up? We have confirmation of this in AoC.
How it plays out in the end is anyones guess atm, but the mechanics I havent lied about, what I've said about AoC is straight from the horses mouth. In my opinion it offers more meaning.
What I think is really hilarious is that siege engines in AoC are built at preset locations. You can't actually choose where to place them. So there isn't a single bit of tactical thinking involved (yay handholding!). Completely meaningless. Its like a scripted siege engine spawn (funcom is an expert on that technique arent they
). Even DAoC which is years old allowed you to place siege engines where you wanted to and move them around. Talk about de-evolution. Good job Funcom, blow us back to the stone age of mmorpg gaming why dont you.
Ever played SWG? You can position your cities how you like and siege engines can be placed in specific area's, you carry them around and pop them out of your inventory are specific points in range of the enemy. With freedom to move to a wide degree of left and right or back and forth. These specific area's are massive, could easily be 500 meters in length. I mean where else do you want to set up a trebuchet? 4 miles back?
Having the ability to craft them in the first place and use them in a RTS style way is what sieging is all about. Oh look the orcs just found a siege weapon on the floor! LOL lets use it, it won't break, we can't make another oh dear.
Yea I love the look of Age of Conan just because there is so much content being offered it doesn't force you in PvP. It's more of a traditional mmorpg.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels without PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
Wow! A whole 20 PvP levels. That sounds awesome and original *Cough WoW Grand Marshall*. I spend my entire game time slashing at enemies in PvE then get into PvP and sudeenly I am not as good as other people because I didn't get my PvP level? I mean seriously why do they have PvP levels? What do you get for each level? A nice title? From a logical point of view a person that fights lions all day would be just as hard of an opponent in PvP as a person who PvP's all day. WoW actually did a correct manner as far as rewarding each level of PvP. The system they used however should have been static instead of fluctuating with honor earned. Sorry but PvP levels is no longer a valid argument as WoW had them and it is clearly a PvE game.
As for AoC PvP having meaning? What meaning? By all means tell me what the meaning is. So you can craft stuff. SWG had that and the Bunkers were pretty much a joke(lol at turrets that didn't attack TKM attacking them). It causes more problems then it solves at this point. If you make them take to long to kill then it will be near impossible to take out larger cities. If you make them to easy to kill there will be no point in constructing them. Also unless there is a time frame that allows for attacks to happen then midnight raids will be the norm for taking a city. It means nothing except that you could field more people at 3am than your foe. However on the flip side if you do give a window for attacks then it makes it impossible to destroy cities because they will be defended.
So really what meaning is there to AoC pvp...We have more numbers than you do! Noob cities will get crushed and make new players want to quit. Those that do stick around will join the biggest guild giving rise to super guilds. Super Guilds will enter cold war with minor battles that accomplish nothing. One side will get lazy and bored and the other guilds will crush them and the players will quit. Sounds like a fabulous game to me. I play games to have fun, not to have my spirit crushed.
WAR is setup the way it is for a reason. FUN. You can join in and play immediately. You don't have to worry about your house being destroyed at midnight. You don't need to level up PvP levels. You just get in, play, and kill some bitches! The endgame of WAR has far more meaning that AoC ever will. When you finally do sack a city it will be a well deserved victory. It wasn't because your side had more players or that your side could field more people at 3am. It will be because you bested your enemy in battle. Sure it has some PvE, what game doesn't. It is there for a break from PvP and for those that want to explore/experience the Warhammer universe.
I am not saying AoC PvP won't be fun but sorry it is definitely not my type of PvP. I like my PvP a bit more, well less of a gankfest.
Clearly an objective opinion from an obvious fanboi.
The bottom line is that Aoc offers a new battle everytime you take the field. Whether its single combat out in the world against ANYONE not just the opposing faction or at a massive siege, the battles are always going to play out differently. How many times can you take the same city over and over again before you are bored out of your mind 50? a 100? You can pvp in Aoc for years and the sequence of events will never be the same. War will be the same thing all the time every time, no thanks.
I must admit hands down im more interested in AoC then anything else in the list. But maybe Spellborn is a serious possibility
AoC won me over with the open PVP server. secretely ive always been registered on Aoc forums for over a year now.
The GvG is also an awesome addition. The ability to build our own cities and have real wars I look forward to very much. im very happy with what im seeing and reading
Spellborn looks good to me too but the lack of PVP features is a turn off. in any case always been an AoC been registered on their official forums for a long time now and make posts every now and then
i guess for now id have to say,AOC.I really know very little of it however i do know WAR is a pitiful 2 realm pvp.Vanguard basically had hundreds of realms,that you had to gain a favour with in order to enter that realm,yet the majority scoffed that game soooo.I would say for war to have only 2 realms is a very weak effort in that direction.War reminds me alot of RF online,in that there is sorta one superficial gaol that soon gets real boring.Your goal is to fight to gain pts for your realm,for what reason? to control it?i think that gameplay would get old real fast as did rf online fighting for a mine that really no one cared much about or even needed to fight for.
Chronicles of spellborn ,again i didn't spend alot of time looking into it but it does look decent.The problem i have is if i am not mistaken ,this game is VERY old?wasn't this game in production several years ago then disbanded and brought back again?IDK maybe im confusing it with another game.
I would have to say WAR will have the subs to start outa sheer hype and marketing,AllA same ploy WOW used,but in the end AOC will be a better game.WAR realy has nothing to it other than a PC generated system that balances fights in instances.Other than that you fight RVR,whoopty do,it's still just boring PVP with really no content in the game outside of PVP.I would much rather play UT3 if i wanted a PVP only type game.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Personally I don't know why Spellborn was even put on the list. The Hype for Spellborn is not nearly as high as Warhammer or AoC, not to mention WAR and AoC are both the *MOST* anticipated MMO's to date. Not to say spellborn isn't going to be a good game, but in terms of progression and hype, it's taking a backseat to the other two. http://pc.ign.com/articles/806/806820p1.html http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/awards/1484-WarCrys-E3-2007-Awards
Do anyone knows when WAR comes out? I might pick up the one depending on which ones comes out first...
messed up post there you think just because a game tacks on PVP Arenas that makes it a PVP game? I'm sorry but you're posting from the point of view from someone very new to MMOs too me.
edit - Having played many games to level cap that had tacked on arenas I can tell you games like City of heroes and such are not PVP games. Especially when issue after issue releases there is no PVP content. You really need to gain more experience playing more MMOs.
its the typical sort of post I see from pve'ers that has yet to play a 100% pvp game like Fury. Take Fury and compare it to Spellborn then you'd realize your errors. I suggest you spent a lot more time playing PVP and get more exposure to MMOs. Notice, no one is agreeing with you.
Spellborn a PVP game? I've now read it all. this is what I get for coming here to 'general forums'
According to your logic EVE Online can't possibly do better then 100% PVE based games yet year after year we've seen it do way better subscription wise then many pure PVE MMOs like DDO and many others. it is not hard to checkout mmorpg data there's charts online that shows subscription values
so am I. WoW has no relevance in this thread talking about upcomming gamesWrath of the lich king is an upcomming game... and hes right despite how crap wow is it will still have the most subs people are really delusional if they honestly think warhammer age of conan and spellborn combined will do anything to wow, they are pvp games wow is not a pvp game it has like out of the 10 million i think that play it now 1 million perhaps that pvp.
Even if all those gamers left they would still be at the top of the subscribers list, and sales charts. These mmos releasing will be lucky to reach 200k to 300k players, pvp is small niche of mmo gaming their just isn't enough people that enjoy pvp that would make it possible to be able to get even get half of wows subscriber numbers.
Theres fps gamers etc, but honestly who actually thinks a very casual fps gamer wants to pay to play a mmo when they can get the pvp and community aspect from free games with no grinding etc?
Edit: Btw undisa probably got that name wrong, even if darkfall is everything it says it is which is all it does talk nothing to show, then it will be at the most as successful as eve online, it is the smallest possible niche in mmo gaming, a sandbox pvp world with full loot, that alone garentees it will never even touch age of conan or warhammer, certainly to the extent where they are ignored lol
you really need to stop posting I dont think anything in this you said was remotely true.
#1 You thought Spellborn was a PVP game. why would you ever in god's green earth ever, ever think that
#2 You thought WAR was just a PVP game. No, it will have a lot of PVE content too
#3 You thought Age of Conan was a PVP game even though it has raiding. LOL, it has just as much PVE as PVP if not way, way more PVE content
please spend time reading the FAQs for games it only takes like 5 minutes. you should be banned for posting all this misinfo and imaginary figures
1) who cares? i havent been following it as i said.
2) war is a pvp game because it focuses on pvp, pve is there to influence the pvp and give you a alternative from when you are not pvping, the whole world is built around pvp not pve, therefore it is a pvp game.
3) So by this logic wow is a pvp game. Age of conan focuses on pvp, its pve is its side route, therefore it is a pvp game. WoW is a pve game because it focuses on pve and its side dish is pvp. Age of conan may have raiding but its the pvp that is being infacised on not the pve, same with warhammer. Therefore they are pvp games.
These games both offer pve so you have an alternative for when you don't feel like pvping, they are unlikely to be the main focus at end game for players and if they are they turn into pve games, you cant focus on both because they dont mix at the end of the day.
If a game focuses on pvp and has pve the pve always with out fail is linked to the pvp so that it works well, but it is never the games focus. Same with a pve game with pvp content, wow is a perfect example of why pvp and pve doesnt mix.
Please spend time learning what a pvp game is and a pve game is, instead of calling for bans like some little kid. Ive also read the faq and followed both age of conan and war and as i said havent been following tcos, and what i have seen made it seem like a pvp game was never interested enough to look into it.
messed up post there you think just because a game tacks on PVP Arenas that makes it a PVP game? I'm sorry but you're posting nothing but pure misinfo. its the typical sort of post I see from pve'ers that has yet to play a 100% pvp game like Fury. Take Fury and compare it to Spellborn then you'd realize your errors. I suggest you spent a lot more time playing PVP and get more exposure to MMOs. Notice, no one is agreeing with you.
Spellborn a PVP game? I've now read it all. this is what I get for coming here to 'general forums'
And where did i write that exactly ( the bit about arenas )? learn to read. I said i havent been following spellborn so how am i supposed to know its a pve game when all i have read is like 1 paragraph about it and a small video showing off their combat system and their take on armour both of which are the kind of things you would associate for a game thats aiming towards pvp.
Oh and furys not an mmorpg, so why would i compare it to spellborn?
And your calling me a pve'r lol shows you haven't got a clue so stfu before making assumptions about others playstyle then bashing them for it. Oh and you and one other person actually responded to my post im sure its hard for you to grasp this but 2 people isnt everyone and i also answered why i thought tcos was a pvp game earlier which someone already corrected me on, so why dont you go pick arguments with someone else.
lastly, this is exactly the type of response id expect on the general forums, people trying to start arguments on a topic that has ended. Notice that after that guy who corrected me on spellborn posted we stopped talking about spellborn, and moved on to age of conan, and warhammer fanboy rants.
edit: also to add age of conan is both a pve and pvp game so i wont generalize it as a pvp game, since they have a system in place that allows them to focus on both equally( even though they advertise the pvp more from the looks of things). warhammer though is definitely a pvp game.
But please explain:
Your Opinion - "If you can play a game from lvl 1 to level cap without ever once having participated in pvp and not progressing slower as a result of not partipating in pvp.... I don't know if I would call it a pvp game."
Your Opinion with reference to warhammer: "You WILL advance slower if you do not partipate in pvp (or pve)."
Are you saying you wouldn't call warhammer a PvP game, because you don't have to participate in PvP per se? Like you can go through all the levels with PvP'ing as I've read before, or maybe I was wrong?
Anyways, think you forgot to mention AoC has 20 levels of PvP and a further 5 Mercenary Levels (only via PvP). The 20 PvP levels were in the inital design btw. So AoC IS a PvP orientated game, it always seems to win PvP awards from the industry media.
It offers more meaning in PvP than warhammer, eg everything I craft in AoC Siege PvP is useable, and destroyable and repairable, in warhammer siege engines are just laying around you can't make them, same with cities, all handed to you on a plate.:P - Because lets face it, the high end of both games is siege PvP. Its just AoC caters in other traditional mmorpg area's (more so from released media), something which warhammer is lacking "so they say" compared to traditional styled mmo's.
You know how wow said so much about the pvp system and pve system and how ppl bragged how its so much better than any other game when it was coming out? looked what it turned out to be. No one has even gotten to play a little bit of AOC so you can hardly back up what you just saidBut ppl for WAR actually got to play a extremely small bit of WAR and have support for what they say.
Both games tho look really good...make a poll for this thread be even better?
I think people has gotten to play both games already if you mean 'public displays' whereas they are not bound by NDA. If you're discussing content still under NDA then you're in violation of the forum rules here and it cannot be discussed obviously
I always assume best case for upcoming games based on the FAQ and such. So I'm assuming both will be solid when they release
It all comes down to what you prefer. If you're a fan of RvR then you'll go with WAR. If you're a fan of Guild vs Guild then you'll most likely be attracted to AoC
I care nothing much for people on my own side in a Faction vs Faction game. I care bout my guild. I dont like PUGs (public groups). They're simply canon fooder for Guilds
Guild Wars was smart enough to disallow expert Guilds from joining the Random Arenas. I suspect WAR will do the same.
Both titles look very interesting for what they are. I hope both do well- but I'm atm more biased towards AoC based on released information
Your right making it to where a high lvl that cant beat any1 in his lvl range keeping him from attacking lowbies is bad? also auto attack ok so u click ur mouse once and hit the buttons or you hit a bunch while u hit your buttons big difference huh? also i fali to see how classes and levels make it watered down. and who cares about stealth that is carebear being able to sneak up on some low lvl with a bunch of stealthed people o yeah i can see the fun in that.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Fury is an MMORPG its listed right here on this site.....
in another thread you claimed how much you love LOTRO and its clear on all of your posts how you much you dislike PVP. Dont try to act all tough I'm sorry but "monster play" is not PVP lol.....
And yeah you realized you knew nothing about Age of Conan so now you're trying to correct yourself.
read the fAQs it only takes 5 mins.