Originally posted by Zorndorf

OP: 10/10.

And I like playing PvP - the WOW (and I hope soon ST) way. The tactical challenge you have just like FPS games but with the added world behind it and the progression of the avatar.

World PvP is a little nice diversion but hardly worth any investment as "challenge" in world PvP  -on a personal basis - is non existent.

So called "hardcore world PvP players" would last 10 matches in ladder based arena games as their egos would explode through their eyes when they have to acknowlegde: "God I am not the best in the world".

Better to hide in the masses of greyed out world PvP fights where you can boast the pride you have instead of  swallowing the humiliation of single defeat in hard measured competitions.

That's why the "pure" PvP player only exists in their own maxed out ego eyes.

And so these games are no succes indeed.

I guess it comes down to wanting to be part of a bigger community or not.

WoW has smaller communities, DAoC had an awesome big community.

 edit : Before you say that WoW has more players, sure, but in the Realms of DAoC we had 1 big community, not alot of standalone guilds as in WoW. And with the new cross server instances and insta groups, even that is nearly gone, and WoW community is almost reduced to Diablo II levels ( not that I did no have fun with Diablo II :p ).

Originally posted by daeandor

So I am going to build a new rig.  I have had the same rig for over 6 years, basically upgrading bits and pieces on a XP Pro 32 bit machine.  This is going to be a "low-cost" machine with good scalability through the next couple years.

 

I still have a retail copy of Win XP Pro that I could use for this build, however I am thinking I will jump up to Win7 64 bit this time.  So the questions are:

• Should I go to Win7?  Everything I have read from overclockers.net is that Win7 is actually an easy OS for builds and actually very nice for overclocking.  Anyone have experience?
• Should I go with an OEM copy of Win7 Home Premium 64-bit or should I choose Pro / Ultimate?
• Is there a reason to use a retail copy vs OEM?  OEMs are running around $104 while retails are running close to $190 and it would drop my costs down below $600.

 

Thanks in advance.

As a serious gamer, there is no other choice but Windows 7 64bit imho.

- DirectX 10 and 11

- More then 4GB adressable space, so you don't have 2,75GB RAM left if you get a VGA card with 1GB VRAM, not even talking about Dual GPU solutions.

- The improved AREO / UI over Vista is great, it was nice in Vista, but now it is more usefull.

Originally posted by Agricola1

Originally posted by dfan

After those 3 activations you can activate oem using a phone, no new key is required and no limitations given how many times you can do it. 

 

OEM versions of Windows 7 are identical to Full License Retail versions except for the following:

- OEM versions do not offer any free Microsoft direct support from Microsoft support personnel

- OEM licenses are tied to the very first computer you install and activate it on

- OEM versions allow all hardware upgrades except for an upgrade to a different model motherboard

- OEM versions cannot be used to directly upgrade from an older Windows operating system

Changing the CPU does not affect activation.
The reactivation threshold is about 3 I believe.
Replacing the hard disk does not affect Windows Activation.

If you change the motherboard, it invalidates the OEM License all together.
- OEM versions allow all hardware upgrades except for an upgrade to a different model motherboard
The license is tied to motherboard when its installed and activated. 

 MS is not obliged to activate your OEM copy of windows when you call in so don't forget that either, once you call in your OEM license has been made invalid.

Also the retail version comes with the 32bit and 64bit versions.

I'm just saying these are the differences and shit tends to happen if you know what I mean, so the extra $90 doesn't seem like a waste when you're calling MS to re activate and someone is dicking you about and maybe has had a row with his wife and tells you to get bent.

It is nice of you to list the pro's, personally I could care less tho.

- I don't need MS support, so far I have been able to handle everything myself, and better.

- Sure they are "officialy" tied to the first computer you installed it on, and you have to install it on a computer you bought with less than 3 months difference to the OEM, but I really don't give a damn :p

- MS does not allow MOBO upgrade on OEM? Whatever, it still works.

- I never upgrade an OS, always clean install ( less potential problems and a faster fresh system ).

- Reactivation is indeed limited to 3, but after that if you don't touch it for 1 month, then you can reactivate again. And if you need to reinstall your OS more then once a month, then you can still call MS, and they will give you the key. And they ARE obligated to give you a key, it is automated btw, so you don't actually get someone on the phone. So unless you start reactivating 100 times per month, you are safe.

So for me personally, I choose OEM, MS takes too much money already.

Originally posted by wowfan1996

 

---

Originally posted by Hrayr2148
There seems to be a general consensus that certain games, by either design or shear luck have a more mature community.

---

No, there's no such consensus. The fact that so many haters and trolls repeat this nonsense w/o any proof doesn't add to its credibility.
 

---

The games I hear are FFXI and LOTRO.

---

ROFL. FFO is a mature game? I would... argue... but can't... stop laughing. :-)
 

---

there are a lot more elitist douche bags than other games...

---

...says the same person who claimed that "the community in FFXI was light years ahead of WoW's". So who's the elitist (yes, fail elitist, but still) douchebag here?
 

---

For example, I hated the introduction of DPS Meters.

---

Ahh, I see. You failed to deliver an appropriate amount of DPS. And now, instead of trying harder, you, like every other hater, come here and whine. So very mature. So very adequate.

 

P.S. And people still wonder why I call WoW haters sore losers. Well, because they are.
 

You made me laugh, thanks :p

Originally posted by Skooma2

No Guild Wars?  Are you kidding me?

Even tho WoW is included, it seems the auther made a list of real MMO's, not advanced Diablo clones :p

Besides WoW, each of the mmo's had meaningfull PvP one time or another.

Originally posted by WesKhan1

I won't be a blind WoW hater, maybe WoW deserves to barely be on that list at #5, and maybe not.  But WAR?  /facepalm   You've got to be kidding me.  That MMO has some of the most bland PvP I have ever witnessed.  Replace it with something like Shadowbane.  I'm sorry but you have low ass standards if WAR is on your top 5 list of PvP MMOs.

After Mythic realized their mistake with Battlegrounds ( err Scenario's :p ) and boosted world RvR, the world RvR had it's moments, just enough for me to want to play DAoC pre-ToA-NF again.

Well I agree with the list if you look at the games in their glory days.

Actually, I would set DAoC at number one, with EVE at 2 and then everything else.

DAoC Pre-ToA-NF was the greatest, but honestly, the realm pride you speak off has since then been long gone. Due to various mistakes that Mythic made along the road, and the final deathblow : clustering servers with no realm timer, so you can switch realms instantly and join the winning side.

Also SWG had some nice PvP, I really like the overt / covert system.

Anyway, just wanted to add that DAoC lost the number 1 sport a long time ago.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

Blizzard is adapting the mmorpg industry of the future right under your noses

And you don't even see it.

:)) And then people wonder or don't understand why Blizzard's WOW has all that money.

If you would play it, at least you would understand SOME basics.

24/7 group play on YOUR terms... where and whenever.

And it's only beginning guys, it is only beginning.

I am not saying you all have to play Blizzard MMO's, I only say that I can predict a LOT in this industry with a fresh clean view on WHAT "people" like to play anno 2010...

An advantage I might say. It saves me time and money.

Throw away those old basement thoughts. Those times passed (luckily), because those products just were aweful.

 

I think that is a bad example, and probably a bad development in the mmo industry ( at least to me personally ).

Basically you are paying a premium monthly fee to play an advanced form of Diablo or Guildwars, and on top of that some microtransaction fees too. ( Changing your name and gender, so where does that leaves the community ? )

That is one of the things I personally don't like too much from WoW, they are taking out the Massive out of the MMORPG.

The quick go in go out even appeals to me, but I can play online shooters, Diablo II or even Guildwars for that.

My friends that play WoW acknowledge this, but don't have a problem with it. They like it they can play any instance whenever they like, they also agree that casual guilds have little place in WoW anymore and that they play with strangers all the time. And reputation does not matter " because I only have to wait a few minutes to get another group ".

In retrospect, the PVE in DAoC was simple, but the community made it pretty damn good, because it could take like 30 minutes to an hour to make a good group, and when you finally had this good group you sticked together. Reputations and friends were made while we grinded hours on the same spot. These reputations and friends then carried over to RvR, where you could do things that had some meaning with server wide effects ( relics, keeps and access to Darkness Falls ). DAoC pre-TOA-NF, hard to explain if you weren't there.

One of the reasons why WAR failed so hard is because they looked too much to WoW and took the wrong elements from it. Instead of taking WoW's UI, Combat mechanics and overall polish, they took over battlegrounds ( scenarios ), which is excatly what an RvR game does not need. They removed all death penalty completely in WAR, so RvR encounters had less meaning. And the RvR zones were way too small.

I guess that is one of the reasons why people "hate" WoW, because all the Devs think that is the way to do it.

But fact is that more people like WoW, because it is easy to get into, both in your weekly schedule, in complexity and in system requirements.

I don't hate WoW, and it certainly has alot of good points, but some people want something different, and that is hard to get because Devs think WoW is the only way to go. Just look at SWG and how SoE ruined it to make it more like WoW. And you shouldn't blame WoW for it, but people do it anyway :p

Originally posted by jph12

Its the biggest MMORPG ever made, most popular, highest earning, and by far the most dominant. It'll be a long time before an MMORPG overpowers WoW, and with the new graphical update with Cataclysm, add a few more years onto that. The Lore of WoW also makes the limit of expansions quite high indeed. Why would Blizzard stop making a game that makes them billions? Only when WoW becomes very unpopular will that "crime" be dealt. So basically, I'm wondering why that with everyone thread posted, someone comes along and insults WoW. With 13 million active members, all paying £10 per month, it can't be that bad a game, can it? So why dis it as frequent as people do?

Thanks!

13 million? Since when? Last number I got is 11,6 million, you must have some good sources ... perhaps you have a link?

And just fyi, not everyone pays £10 per month, in China they pay around 5$ for a month of play time.

But that are just details I guess. Your point, if so many people do it, then it must be good, mkay ...

Originally posted by LynxJSA

Originally posted by Einstein-DF

Originally posted by Zerackus

 

If Shadow Bane was launched right, polished, and run and supported correctly, we would still be playing the game this very day. It truely was the only PvP game since UO for us PvPers!

 

Zerackus

Undead Lords

 

 

You just sunk water with that ridiculous statement. 

 

Darkfall is what Shadowbane should of been without the game crippling bugs.

 

How is it ridiculous? Darkfall didn't exist when SB came out, thus his statement that it was (past tense) "the only PvP game since UO for us PvPers" is a reasonable one. If anything I would have clarified the type of PvPer being referred to, which is the group interested in having relatively high material risk (territory, city, items, gear).

I really don't think that comment was serious :p

Originally posted by pencilrick

In trying to explain to some folks on this board the importance, in regards to immersion and risk and reward, for having a death (or failure) penalty, I think I have finally come up with an analogy:

Imagine playing poker with play money.  Doesn't really hurt when you lose, but doesn't really mean as much when you win.

Now, imagine playing poker (small stakes) with real money.  Losing sort of stings, but winning has a thrill; gets the adrenaline pumping.  Such a game would draw a person in more than the former example.

A penalty for failure is critical for MMO's to have immersion and for rewards to fully be appreciated.

I think it is a perfect analogy.

And while you mention WoW I will mention WAR. There it was way too easy to get back into combat, the RvR areas were just too small compared to DAoC.

So a death penalty does not have to be loss of XP per se ( even tho DAoC had that too ), but a long walk thru the dangerous frontier, back to the place where you need to be, now that was a good death penalty. It made the fights more thrilling and meaningfull.

But it all depends on what you want in a game, if you wan't to get quick into battle and gain something before your 1 hour gaming shift ends, then death penalties are to be avoided.

Currently WoW is more a quick multiplater game, opposed to more involving mmo's with death penalties and where you have to plan carefully and look harder for a fight.

At times I have to urge to actually resub to WoW, so I can jump into the instant action. Then again, it is clear the social bonds in WoW are becomming less important, and that is still part of why I want to play mmo's.

p.s. I could never play poker without real money, it just doesn't work imho.

Originally posted by paulscott

Games with an endgame tend to bore me pretty quickly.   A part of it might be from developers forced to split their developement resources on two BIG parts that are completely NOT mutual.

Depending on what you consider an endgame.

The endgame in DAoC pre-ToA-NF never bored me, of course it was open ended RvR with real goals, with a 3 way fight, it was very dynamic.

The endgame in SWG for me was part socializing part achieving.

Pure PvE raids as fulltime endgame got boring faster for me, thats part of why I left WoW, WoW did entertain me for a good time tho.

Still I think endgames like DAoC pre-ToA-NF or EVE Online have alot more longetivity, because you are conquering and defending against human players. On the other hand, I also had alot of fun with road to the endgame in DAoC pre-ToA-NF and SWG-pre-CU-NGE, and now having fun with the game in EVE Online.

To add to this, the only visionaries that have not failed me yet are CCP, I am sure there are others, but I talk about personal experience.

Mythic ( with DAoC and WAR ), SOE ( with SWG ), EA ( with UO ), ... All have failed miserably in long term vision, imho.

Even WoW is not doing so great I think, however their next expansion is more horizontal in nature, so I applaud that, and perhaps are the changes in latest patch not so detrimental after all, and probably even in line with what most people want from Blizzard, on the other hand, everyone familiar with the mmo scene knows you should not always give what people ask, because they don't always know what they actually want :p

Anyway, just wanted add that.

p.s. Yes Dust514 scared me, and I still think it is a wrong turn, but I hope the damage won't be too big and a PC version will be released soon enough.

I think the problem is that the Vision is often just wrong. Look at a tight controlled game like Warhammer, Mark Jacobs had a vision, just the wrong one. The game should have been DAoC in the Warhammer world with a WoW interface and combat system. Instead it took too much elements from WoW, like battlegrounds.

They lost tons of players due to exhaustion on the battlegrounds aka scenario's, later on RvR was alot more fun, but the damage had been done. I still remember taking a 1 week break and when I got back it looked like half the server left, seriously. And that was in the second month after release I believe, so people liked the game at first, just as I did.

So after a while this vision was adjusted in a good direction, RvR was promoted and when I rejoined the game I had alot of fun in very active RvR. But now a new problem arises, everyone is doing RvR and no PVE, so PQ's were a ghost town ...

DAoC had PvE and RvR nicely balanced pre-ToA-NF, most DAoC vets will agree with me, I don't understand why Mythic did not try to work on their strong points instead of trying to compete with WoW.

WAR did bring a couple of nice things into the genre, like PQ's and the ToK, but that was not enough.

I really think producer(s) messed up the game with a wrong vision and not learning from the mistakes in the past.

I can give more examples of just plain bad vision, but I'll leave it at this for now.

My top 3 :

1. There were many memorable events in DAoC pre-SI-NF, but one of the best times I had was when there was a relic raid ( I believe Mids attacked excalibur if I remember correctly ), and we had a big raid doing cear sidi. We decided to get out of the dungeon and go defend. That was pure realm pride, leaving an ongoing raid halfway in favor of defending a relic keep from your realm. I can't remember if we won or lost, but those were the glory days of DAoC.

2. Guild ( Ara Veritas ) RvR moments in DAoC, like claiming our first keep, roaming hib and mid frontiers, defending keeps, and messing with hibs and mids in Darkness Falls trying to avoid mob agro. Pure epicness all of it.

3. SWG pre-CU-NGE, just the complete social experience.

Originally posted by Malcanis

New PCU record today; 54,030 when I logged in just now.

Yah, they actually went up to 54181 : http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=3620&tid=1

Originally posted by ChinaCat

Originally posted by Bree'ah

Originally posted by ChinaCat  

EvE is a completely different game where your avatar is a spaceship, but if you want to believe they are the same go right ahead.

There are numerous class builds in Darkfall, and if you don't know this, you are not playing the game or keeping up with it.  Due to specializations, this isn't a subject worthy of debate, as any one who is playing knows I am correct and you are wrong.     You can't benefit by a number of advantages in Magery, Archery or Melee without giving up some thing.   This promotes multiple builds.    There is one character slot, not one class.  You are totally wrong.

-CC

 

For some reason, I just had to quote that... Made me laugh. Nothing like a cheap laugh.

 

heh.. granted, it does sound a bit arrogant, but the reply was to a person posting DFO has one class.  Even if one were to completely ignore all evidence to the contrary, still, one class would be so versatile, it would be similar to rolling all the classes in other games in to one character.     So even assuming no one specializes and reaches maximum skills in all 10 (TEN) magic schools, masters all 8 (EIGHT) melee schools, masters shield, masters archery, switches between the Cloth, Leather, Bone, Chain, Scale, Plate, all the armors that have their benefits and weakness,  it should be obvious in a PvP game, you can't possibly use all of those skills and armor variables in one fight.   With global cool-downs, one must pick a play style.     So yes, to say there is "one class" in DFO is absolutely wrong, when the above is understood and the discussion occurs within context of the game play.

I won't argue the innovative points further, but stand-by my original post on the subject.   I shall of course admit there are definately elements of prior MMO's in DFO, like 100% of every MMO made, even the ones listed.    I played UO from release in Sept. 97', loved it, but we couldn't build and own cities, or engage in sea warfare.     DFO has taken many of the elements of UO and AC-Darktide; it's true, and sure Shadowbane had ctiy building and sieges, but DFO is its own game and on the aggregate, quite unique 

 There has never been a game like DFO where all the elements it contains can be found in one game, and to all you EvE fans, I'm sure you have a great game pvp game there too, but you can only compare in theory.   EvE is a Space Sim where your avatar is a spaceship.   So while I recognize the open PvP and a few other aspets in common with DFO, they are very different games;; more like cousins, but certainly not twins.

-CC

What innovations does DFO has that EVE does not?

I'll list a few that EVE has that DFO does not : 

Single shard where everyone plays on the same server, no payed expansions so everyone is on the same page, offline skill training, regulated RMT that blends nicely in the game and economy ( aka plexes ), CSM which is a counsil elected by the players that advice the developer face to face what should be fixed, changed or improved on the game, ...

Now DFO has alot of sandbox elements you can find in EVE and UO, making it nice, breaking the mold of EQ, WoW, LOTRO, ... but not making it that special imho.

The games listed here are very special, not good per sé.

I do believe that EVE has more right to belong in this list than DFO, MO, FE or any of the latest sandboxes out there, still I am fine with it that it is not on the list, because like I said, the listed games are pretty out of the ordinary.

Originally posted by Sovrath

Originally posted by metalhead980

I'm kind of worried that Dust wont be good. We've seen a whole mess of Fps games release the last couple years that suck so much.

What happens if Dust stinks? what happens to planetary conquest (the eve simcity mechanic that lets us take over regions of planets using dust players)?

They say Dust will have and effect on Sov? Well Sov is kind of messed up right now and is going through changes.

I don;t know if linking these two games is the right move right now.

Eve needs Sov worked on, we need planetary conquest and incarna in game beofre Dust even comes out (since they link to dust). These features need to be out long enough that Eve players actually use the features like any other sandbox mechanic.

It seems like too much imo.

I have faith in CCP but I'm worried that they may be taking on a bit too much.

What if Dust isn't popular at all on consoles? will they port to PC to try to save it since Eve players will probably pick it up?

I don't know about all this.

I don't like features in Eve being linked to a game that has a very good chance of failing. CCP is an unproven console developer.

 

Those are all good questions.

But it seems to me that this is the crux of what people think is wrong with the mmo industry: devs don't take chances.

Now we have a dev taking a chance and you can feel the reverberance of "what if it is a failure". Now imagine that you are an investor or a developer who is employing x amount of employees.  Perhaps it is a bit more understandable as to why Developers don't take chances.

I applaud ccp for taking the chance and doing something different. They have been successful thus far and I think this will be a good offering. If not then they will go back to the drawing board and make the appropriate changes. The one nice thing about eve is that is is very apparent that it is here to stay.

Well, CCP is taking a chance with an existing popular and solid mmo, so it is only logical people have their reservations imho.

At first I was pretty negative about this risk, but in the end, I gave CCP the benefit of the doubt, as they yet have to disappoint me.

I hope it all works out well and if it fails, it hopefully gets shut down fast with as little negative impact on EVE as possible.

Originally posted by Wingma

WHY DO PEOPLE STILL SAY WOW HAS 11 MILLION?!

 

seriously, its just unprofessional. wow in china as far as i know is dead, blizzard doesn't release ANY numbers anymore because they know this. at most wow is 6million, but i personally dont think it is any more then 5mil

 

get with the times, PLEASE

Perhaps you should do some research first and then make bold statements imho.

WoW is back in commercial operation in China since late september 2009 after aprovel by the MoC. They are still trying to get WOTLK approved by MoC. And, the GAPP did not agree with the commercial relaunch, but so far the GAPP has not been able to stop operations.

http://www.jlmpacificepoch.com/newsstories?id=156852_0_5_0_M 

There is a power struggle between MoC and GAPP ( 2 Chinese governemental organisations ) and WoW is inbetween, still it is up and running. So unless you have a link  with new information, please get with the time.

On top of that Blizzard income from WoW is increasing, probably in part due to the much larger royalties they are getting from the new Chinese provider Netease compared to the old provider The9. And if income is increasing, then subs can't be dropping as dramatically as you try to claim.

Last number with 11,6 million subs was from June, not THAT long ago Blizzard guinness world record

It is clear that WoW subs are slowly stagnating, but saying that they dropped more than 6 million between now and June is wild speculation.

If you half the numbers of China and keep stagnating numbers worldwide in mind, you still come up with at least 9 million subs.

So back on track now :p

I think Ryzom and EVE definatly have a host of unique features, still I think the list was nice.

EVE Online, which is one large sandbox on a single shard, but has some features not everyone can get into ( combat system, harsh PvP, politics, drama, etc. ).

Ryzom, a cute little mmorpg, lacking some features, like having only a basic player housing system, but also boasting some cool fatures, like a living world with seasons and migrating animals, customizable spells, a unique setting, timeless graphics, and player created missions.

Fallen Earth, not as sandboxy as some may want it to be, still a nice blend of sandbox and linear elements.

DFO, was too much hassle to get the game in the first place, and after that there was too much talk of hacking and exploiting, so I did not want to touch it. Then they created a second server while their 1st was not even fully populated and even charged people again to get the US client. All of these things gave me bad vibes, even tho I followed the game for years and was optimistic at first.

So these are my suggestions.