General Discussion

Originally posted by kishe

Do you like...

 

A) DAoC/Shadowbane

Large open combat areas, massive keep warfare with dynamic pvp. Alot of large scale pvp to happen, meaning lag, lag, crashing, but fun.

B)WoW/Guildwars

 Relies on instances for PvP with little to no large scale PvP happening. Meaning a little lag but pvp always in same areas with fixed amount of enemies/allies.

...the best?

 

if you picked A, AoC is for you, if you picked B, WAR is for you.

 

The end.

I picked A, WAR is just totally rubbish. give it another year+ noobs will be complaining about WAR like they do about WoW

Originally posted by joejccva

1. Percentage of players that interested in solely hardcore PVP - 10%
2. Percentage of players that are interested in PVE with PVP when the time arises - 30%
3. Percentage of players that are pretty much only interested in PVE - 60%

69 normal servers of which 1 is full and 14 are high pop

120 pvp servers of which 2 are locked (lol), 14 full and 14 high pop

this would seem to indicate ppl actually want more "pvp when the time arises" (as stated above) then some think

If I may ask:

Which one of the two games caters more to the hardcore pvp scene ?

Or in other words: Which game comes closest to: death penalty, losing stuff when you die, open pvp, player skill is a factor ?

I think your use of the words "hardcore" and "carebear", dividing everyone ..... To me, AoC is not as PvP driven as a game like DAOC or Warhammer Online is for eksempel.

Originally posted by kishe

Do you like...

 

A) DAoC/Shadowbane

Large open combat areas, massive keep warfare with dynamic pvp. Alot of large scale pvp to happen, meaning lag, lag, crashing, but fun.

B)WoW/Guildwars

 Relies on instances for PvP with little to no large scale PvP happening. Meaning a little lag but pvp always in same areas with fixed amount of enemies/allies.

...the best?

 

if you picked A, AoC is for you, if you picked B, WAR is for you.

 

The end.

The "perfect" MMO would have to be equipped with Dark Age of Camelot's Realm vs Realm (RVR) concept though. Best PvP system out there. Warhammer Online is supposed to have that; being produced by Mythic (DAoC), I would expect it to have it.

Originally posted by Inf666

If I may ask:

Which one of the two games caters more to the hardcore pvp scene ?

Or in other words: Which game comes closest to: death penalty, losing stuff when you die, open pvp, player skill is a factor ?

 

Age of Conan will have free for all servers, you currently drop blood money when you die, but they are looking into and leaning toward making items lootable. Skill will be a factor in each game depending on you look at the word skill. In Age of Conan it will be knowing when to perform a combo, when to break a combo and start a new one, you actually have to aim at your target as there is no auto attack. In WAR the skill could easily be looked at as choosing which special move it best in a certain situation. Neither game has a real harsh death penalty though. Respawn at certain point and in AoC there is a shot we may lose items.

Everything that's being done in the "next gen" MMOs has already been done, usually much, much better, in multiplayer and single-player games. Here are the correct games that you should play according to the OP's criteria...

A) DAoC/Shadowbane

Large open combat areas, massive keep warfare with dynamic pvp. Alot of large scale pvp to happen, meaning lag, lag, crashing, but fun.

If this is your bag then you should probably be looking forward to Savage 2 or playing the single-player Mount & Blade. Both feature large scale combat and require just the right combination of strategy and twitch. AoC looks dull by comparison.

B) WoW/Guildwars

Relies on instances for PvP with little to no large scale PvP happening. Meaning a little lag but pvp always in same areas with fixed amount of enemies/allies.

My first question is why wouldn't you just play Guild Wars and call it day? If you're bored with it however, there's always Dawnspire and the DoTA Allstars mod for Warcraft 3.

I don't see the point in rushing to buy an MMO at launch unless it can deliver gameplay that is, at the very least, as engaging as single-player and multiplayer games. My advice is to not buy either of these games until you've played a free trial. Not that there won't be some morons that will buy at launch, play for 40 hours a week and then piss and moan about how bored they are after the first month. <sigh>

Don't buy anything that you haven't already played and decided that you like. It's really that simple.

Originally posted by Jimmy_Scythe

Everything that's being done in the "next gen" MMOs has already been done, usually much, much better, in multiplayer and single-player games. Here are the correct games that you should play according to the OP's criteria...

A) DAoC/Shadowbane

Large open combat areas, massive keep warfare with dynamic pvp. Alot of large scale pvp to happen, meaning lag, lag, crashing, but fun.

If this is your bag then you should probably be looking forward to Savage 2 or playing the single-player Mount & Blade. Both feature large scale combat and require just the right combination of strategy and twitch. AoC looks dull by comparison.

Heh, now that is both extremely funny and ironic. AoC's combat system was heavily inspired by Mount & Blade, and is in fact a significant;y more advanced version of the system in place there.

OMG you ppl still care about trivial things. Everyone knows who won and who lost, this is obvious.

Ppl which like AoC trying to compare WAR to AoC, pointless. Obviously these games have different scales, usually WAR compared to WoW and looks like this is the only game WAR can be compared to because of scale.

AoC should be compaded to Aion or Chronicles of Spellborn, those ones have the same scale as AoC.

Don't think wrong of me, I'm not trying to say AoC going to be a crap game or something. I hope this game will be fine as long as it's fun.

It's just the same as comparing McDonalds and some guy who sells hotdogs on the street.

Just quit comparing these games.