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.

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...

Originally posted by Scriar

 

 

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

Originally posted by vajuras

 

Originally posted by Scriar

 

Originally posted by ryotian

 

Originally posted by Scriar

 

Originally posted by nomadian

 

---

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.

Originally posted by Oasis21

 

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

 

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 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

Originally posted by ryotian

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.

Originally posted by Scriar

 

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.

read the fAQs it only takes 5 mins.

It's a matter of opinion but a well-read unbiased opinion will say Warhammer. Why? First of all, Warhammer Online wont require as good of a computer as AoC. AoC has some seriously high system requirements and only people who just upgraded randomly and hardcore gamers usually have the 600$~ updated computers. I use the computer everyday and I barely meet the minimum. Secondly, Warhammer is a bit more well-rounded. It will have a few new things to offer but overall it's World of Warcraft but PvP oriented and most likely more polished upon release (i.e. already having the honor system and Dire Maul if you get my drift).

Age of Conan will also be more mature friendly. With boobs flying everywhere and the 18+ label, a lot of younger kids will really not be able to get the game whereas even though WAR might have an 18+, the nudity and drunken nature of AoC will probably sway them away. Either way, I wish both games success and foresee both getting great reviews. Warhammer has my vote.

Where is the WoW option.. we all know they will still have the most subs :P

I just hope that something is good. You know;

EQ good.

I wanna play 25 hours a day good.

I can't wait to get home from school/work/beating my wife to play good

The kids can go to sleep early good.

I hope my auction sold so I can buy XXXXXX good.

You know, GOOD.

Not mish-mashed IP sold re-sold and relicensed, oh fuck, lets just release the trash half done, system requirements will be fine in 10 years, non optimized false walled, GAH SOE BOUGHT IT, OH NO EA, zone portals will solve everything, lets just instance it, nerf that class, buff this class, TRASH that's out now.

Casue face it, we just want "the next big thing" to suck our lives away again. Or maybe it's just me.

America only supplies WoW with 2 million subscriptions. Seeing that people are starting to catch-on to the WoW grind and are leaving, that will dive lower soon. I don't see any problem with WAR or AoC topping 2 million in America. The Chinese goldfarmers follow whatever game is most popular, so if WAR, for example, had 2 million subs in America, you can expect it to have around 4 million Chinese subscriptions just like WoW does. It's really that simple.

Gave WAR a glance over, haven't looked into TCoS

My buddy is absolutely enthralled by AoC, he's read every 1930's conan book, has the cartoons, online stories etc.

On paper(devs) from what I've read of combat alone I would say AoC will have a lasting mark (IE the Oblivion style move hit duck dodge fire aim) but from the videos I've seen I can't be sure AoC is telling the truth.

Does anyone remember DDO? Nevermind what company that shall not be named, crushed a great legacy. On paper(devs) they told us Real-time Dodge/Aim fighting, and when it came out it was the same auto-attack 'if you are within 5meters and facing 180degrees in the right directionyou will hit based off calculations' ugh ugh UGH!!!

On a side note, I've only fallen for 1 game based off mmorpg.com and it's user's hype and thats PotBS because I have a soft spot for freedom pirating games (SEA DOGS FTW) So having said that I would have to say that I am most influenced towards a game by either it's official website or by friends, so if WAR and TCoS turn out to be great games then I will golfclap for them, but the only one I am going to try of the 3 is Conan

warhammer online? seems pretty weak, almost like wow.

spellborn? seems the typical canned fantasy bs.

Conan? living a life of barbaric decadence, chopping off opponents heads, raiding player cities in DX10?

ill take door number 3.

Warhammer I hope. I don't care if WoW modeled their world after WAR as long as the RvR is fun and there is a large enough playerbase.

If WAR flops, I'm done with MMOs until 40k maybe.

Spellborn doesn't even belong on this list.   I think it's going to be the Gods and Heroes of 2008.

Age of Conan has an Mature Rating but the XBox version could counter that.  I'm not saying there might not be some unusual game mechanics in AoC - how it does could change the MMORPG genre for the better but overall though Mature games have smaller player bases.

Warhammer Online will be the most likely to have the most subscribers out of this list. 

Not WAR.

Not TcoS.

And the way it's looking, certainly not AoC.