While I have to agree that overall it is pretty good, there is some serious wtf in a few places there as well.

Care should be taken when fighting powerful creatures; they are now much more dangerous than you may remember.
No idea what this will mean in practice, other than combined with the combat changes nothing will be as it was balance-wise.

Many crafted critical armour pieces had slightly higher armor values than they were intended to have. All crafted critical armor pieces should now have correct armor values

Right...because crafted armour was sooo OP as it was? This one really baffles me.

Reduced the melee, ranged, and tactical offence rating bonuses found on all Battle Lore scrolls.
So a very marginal set of items become even more optional and marginal? gee thanks.

Maces will no longer stun monsters on random attacks. Instead they will apply a short duration slow effect.
Basically removing the primary reason most people used them

We have adjusted the costing models for many of the point-based ratings (Block, Parry, Evade, Melee Critical, Ranged Critical, Tactical Critical, Disease Resist, Poison Resist, Fear Resist, and Wounds Resist) found on items in the levels 1-50 range. These ratings should now more progressively mesh with level 51+ items that utilize the same point-based ratings.
I gather in practice this means that lots of pre-MoM items got their bonuses lowered across the board.

First off: I'd try fiddling with your in-game settings. Turn things down all the way and see if it still happens. If you are getting it on the lowest settings with that computer rig then it is probably an internet issue. (and yes, you could have it with *just* LotRO and not others - the exact route the packets take is different between different games, it is possible but unlikely that you have one or two bad links in your route to the LotRO servers)

If the problem goes away at lowest settings, it's some kind of graphics issue...could even be a conflict with that particular gfx card....which leaves you trying different drivers or maybe a card swap.

11pages late..but what the heck...

Main reason? There has not been a well done sandbox game released in years. DF is the closest right now and it is a steam pile for many reasons....

A well done themepark (and yes: WoW, LotRO are well done themeparks) beats the pants of a badly done sandbox for enjoyment.  

A better question is: "what reason do we have to believe the rebels are good?"

I'm not going to argue that the Empire was "good"...it wasn't; it was a totalitarian and often brutal regime...but it formed because of the weaknesses and faults of the "Old Repbublic". But what of the rebels?

What IS the rebel plan for a post-victory form of government? Nothing. A return to near total anarachy and constant warfare as the individual factions and power blocs fight over the remains of the empire. What legal or even moral justification does either Leia or Mon Mothma have as a new leader?

Likewise, consider the Jedi. The author of that article is completely right...what makes Jedi "good"? Because they say so? What gave the Jedi council the right to act as judge, jury and executioner...the STASI of the Old Republic.

The real answer is of course that Lucas never seriously thought about most of these issues or resolved them...he's flopped around over the years for various reasons...but he really left most of the moral questions unanswered because he never considered anything outside the main space opera plotline.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Blazz  My example above shows an 80% increase in the power of the melee strike skill at rank 5 - but if most people have, by default, 100 health points, two players will, if limited to those three abilities, always beat one player.

Kinda sounds like a zerg. Numbers always win.

 

And why is that a bad thing? Numbers *should* matter.

Anyone with a few brain cells to rub together or who has ever done any form of real world fighting (real or simulated; paint ball, martial arts, medieval combat, heck even a snowball fight) knows that numbers matter. Numbers don't generally garauntee a win (and shouldn't in game), but this "zerg" nonsense has always been nothing but the whiny elite complaining when their victims band together.

Back on topic: EVE does eliminate the grind....a skill based system with offline training IS one of the ways to get rid of it. I don't get better as a character for shooting belt rats or mission running, it may improve my RL skill at doing that activity, but my character only gains materially. Also, EVE does not force you to grind for ISK - many people do, but there are a myriad of ways to make money in game, many of which do not involve any grind.

Obviously a grind-less game would not be for everyone; I completely agree that a whole lot of players define themselves by the incremental metrics of the grind. Take away their ability to see little stat numbers incrementing upwards or a bubble bar filling and they would  be lost. However, I think - just like with many other issues - there are more than enough people who would like to just *play* a persistent world for the interactions and enjoyment without needing the grind.

Actually, the "grind" could be done away with fairly easily if devs actually wanted to...part of the "problem" is that many players want the grind. Take away the artificially measured and incremented aspects of an MMO and many players scream that it "lacks content" or that it is "too easy".

You want a game without grind?

Step ONE: Design a level-less system from the start; probably even a classless one which allows things like offline training.  Keep everything very incremental, gradual and casually paced - mechanisms that reward experiencing the game universe, not grinding and gimmicking.

Step TWO: Design a persistant and interactive world where doing the things you need to do are *fun* or at least interactive and immersive. This doesn't mean everything is fun for everyone, but that the systems are fun and appropriate for those using them...someone who wants to be a "hunter" should be able to go out and stalk deer in an enjoyable fashion; likewise forging a sword should be more than dropping 3 items in a container and hitting combine.

Step THREE: DO NOT focus the game on "endgame content"; in fact there should be no such thing! Things should be kept open ended enough that you never really feel "done". Part of this is combat balance, a more realistic skill-based system where one veteran knight might well get his arse kicked if that pack of villagers pounce on him is required.

Originally posted by ktanner3

Originally posted by TookyG

63 million people play FarmVille. There's a large enough audience for anything if done properly.  That's the key though.  You have to do it right.

 

Farmville is a false comparison. If Farmville was a MMORPG that charged $15.00 a month there wouldn't be 63 million people playing it. I like playing Mafia Wars which is also a free game on Facebook. But there is no way I would pay $15.00 a month for it nor would I imagine most people.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. The issue is one of price point, not interest. Those 63m (or however many people) are choosing to spend leisure time doing a certain activity...that indicates interest. Maybe they wouldn't all pay $15 a month for it, but would some of them?, would they pay $1? would they pay if it was done better or offered more options?

The point is that different types of people will pay to play vastly different games online. Just because you (or I) consider something boring or not worth paying for, doesn't make it universally true.

I will also freely admit that games can go too far trying to be all things to all people; Pirates of the Burning Sea is a prime example of how an otherwise well done game can crash and burn because no one at the top ever stood up and said "we are making a game for XX type of player". However it is a balancing act between being too narrowly focused and not having one at all.

I think Cryptic has narrowly focused in on the segment of the playerbase who enjoy fast-paced action; I see this as in line with what seems to be the overall design and marketing strategy of Cryptic as well. I think they *want* the audience they are aiming for...I think they have decided that the long term subscription model of MMOs is passing away and that the way to maximize profit as an MMO company is churn out (as quickly and cheaply as possible) very pretty, action-dominated, content-lite products that most players will buy, burn out on and ditch in ~ 3 months.  (And then dump the franchise on some MMO maintenance company that wants a large stable of games to sell bundled access passes)

Sadly, I even think they may be right from a business standpoint...I just find it personally depressing and a trend that is garaunteed to continue producing games I don't want to buy.

Couple of simple answers for why VG isn't bigger/more popular:

1. Botched launch - delays, confusion and lots of problems - always bad to start off that way

2. Over-saturation at launch: there were just too many other choices and VG did *nothing* in promotion to market itself as significantly enough different from the other fantasy MMOs available to attract a following.

3. Related to #2: Horrible marketing campaign, virtually a stealth release in some ways

Originally posted by heartless

Just because the game doesn't allow you to fully interact with others, doesn't mean that you regress cognitively.

So you don't think the lack of depth and context to the interactions can lead to people choosing more basic/simplistic responses? I'm not saying it actually permanently regresses you or makes you less capable of higher order thought in a real sense, just that it encourages superficial responses often based on earlier and simplistic modes of thought. You cannot perceive all the nuances and context that accompany a more normal interaction, so you revert to the most basic/simplistic interpretations of people's actions. 

Think about the differnence in how you interact with a close RL friend that you play a game with vs Joe Normal that you've just met in game. 

Anywyas, if you are interested in this stuff and haven't already spent years reading them, Nick Yee has an excellent series of articles on this sort of thing at the Daedalus project.

http://www.nickyee.com/daedalus/

Originally posted by Plasuma!!!

So yeah, I agree. We always function at the latest stage we achieve (unless our brains become physically damaged somehow), regardless of the environment.

 Our brains develop new functions / tools over time, our environment dictates how we use them, not whether we can use them.

I think that is what the OP is basically trying to get at.

The "environment" - in this case the medium through which players are interacting with each other; in some ways acts to retard or regress those functions. Players interact with other players in ways they never would in a setting of direct contact because the medium prevents them from fully acknowledging the "real" nature of the other player.

I'm not sure it has as much to do with how we think as it does with how we perceive and interact with other people online.

I didn't major or get a degree in it, but I did take far too much pyschology and related blather over various times.

The universal constant of all "cognitive theories" is that they are all long-winded oversimplifications of why whatever theorist wrote them is more advanced/evolved/devoped than you are.

PS Want to really honk off a "social scientist"? Ask them to prove even one problem or vice of the human condition that their "science" has eliminated from world society....

Originally posted by ktanner3

I guess we just have different opinions on what constitutes a success. For me, a game based on a popular IP which has made billions of dollars should do better than having a base of "tens of thousands of people."

I'm not trying to argue that SWG was a success by any means. I agree completely that they screwed up more things than can be easily listed from the begining. What I was getting at is that there are a lot of players who will pay to do seemingly "insignificant" things in games like this - I would never pay a sub fee to "run a mall" in a game, but people did. There may not be enough of them to support a game by themeselves, but you give them a way to be included...they will play. Also, SWGs mistakes had little to do with the "day in the life of" sandboxish experience; they never really supported it themselves and did a lot to move away from it long before the NGE.

First off, does DF deserve a very mediocre rating at best? Absolutely! Even many of us who would love a well done FFA PvP game stayed well clear of this steaming pile because of how unfinished and badly done it is. Does it have "potential" to eventually be a decent game, sure...in a year, two..five / who knows when they will actually "finish" it...by which point it will be even more badly dated in terms of graphics and gameplay.

The tiny detail that most of the official reviews on this site are nearly worthless because of how badly "vetted" the process is and the degree to which it is dominated by fanbois, shills or people with other agendas really doesn't somehow make DF finished or a better game than it is.

Originally posted by finaticd

.This game is a marketing campaign nothing else.

Truth...and the sad thing is it works...every indication is that FunComs next massive ripoff of a launch will have just as many rabid fanbois defending them and their record.

LIke all "reviews" it is a totally subjective bunch of opinion, nothing more; because there is no "objective" standard to any of the categories.

I gave AoC a try (twice now even) and I'd rate it more like a C- on graphics/appearance, D on gameplay and F on company (But I'll admit that last one is mostly because I hate FunCom), and a D+ or so overall at best...but that's just another worthless opinion...

BTW I *LOATHE* FunCom and even I will admit AoC is a functional game...a crappy one with lots of things I don't like/unresolved issues...but it's more playable than say Anarchy Online was this far after launch lol :)

All the major games out now have free trials...stop looking for answers from us forum warriors and just try them...a bit of time on a free download won't hurt much....

Honestly, I dislike this solution for a great many reasons.

I would *much* rather they changed two things:

1. If you've done the story chapter on any character, you are credited it for *all* characters (Not exp and items, but in terms of deeds and unlocks - having to do the "story" over and over on multiple characters just sucks)

2a. Made all the old content (pre-moria), available from say a storyteller series in Bree-->Rivendell/Evendim that let you play through all the old encounters in flashback mode to get storyline/deed credit for them.

or!

2b. made all the old group story credit accessible from storytellers in rivendell/moria/lothlorien and updated the "assist" system so you could earn the same tokens dropping from the skirmish or 60th+ dungeon system for helping others complete them.

Originally posted by ktanner3

Agreed. SOE tried that "A day in the life" approach with Star Wars and it failed miserably.

I'm sorry, but that is a totally flawed example and a misinterpretation of SWG. Tens of thousands of people did actually pay to play a "day in the life of"...that's a big part of what SOE didn't understand. The dev team screwed up a ton of things, but one of the first was cutting elements of that out late in beta and alongside the massive combat engine revamp that was half of the NGE, the other half was killing off the "day in the life of" elements totally.

Also, anyone who thinks Cryptic will be adding any significant game elements is really being optimistic. Given how badly they are rushing this out the door, it will launch horribly content-lite as is. They will be focussed 100% on trying to add enough expanding what will already be there, no time left for real new systems...insofar as they bother to support it all post-launch.

Right, then you are essentially saying that it is okay for you to form an opinion (a positive one) based on what we know now; but that anyone who disagrees isn't allowed to have formed an opinion (a negative one) from the same information?

Originally posted by Trowa_Barton

How can you make a judgment about a game with out even playing it?

How can you ignore the past history of the company making it? How can you ignore interviews and personal conversations with the dev team in which they clearly explain their plan for the game?

Performance doesn't matter at all...the consumers in this industry prove that over and over...

FunCom may be total incompetents when it comes to actually launching an MMO, but their PR and management types have always been able to talk a good game. I'm sure they had a good power point presentation ;)