I think EQ and UO should have been one and two and WoW number three. Those three games each seem to be an era in the MMORPG genre. While UO was first, I think EQ has had the most overall influence. If EQ hadn't been the success it was, many of the games on that list (and many not on the list) likely would have most likely never existed.

I would have added DAoC as well. Not only did it have exciting and meaningful PvP, but it was also a very successful and polished game for it's era. While it was incomplete at launch, it was still one of the best launches of that time (and better than many to this day).

And add me to the list of those that misses the old SWG. I had a CH/BE and I have never seen a game with crafting anywhere near as interesting and exciting as bioengineering. From crawling up behind some creature that could kick your butt wearing nothing but some scent masking clothing to experimenting with recipes where no two creatures came out the same to testing out some of your creations yourself, it was by far the most rewarding crafting experience I have had to date. On top of that, it is the only game I have played where I had fun just hanging out in the bar listening to music and watching the dancers. I even had different outfits. I never did that in other games unless the outfits had some type of combat advantage. Just a unique game experience and I'm sad it's gone. Great, now I've managed to depress myself. ;)

Originally posted by baff

I'd rather let you post all the ones you have of them not.

 

 

 

 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert 

King of Morocco

Dick Cheney

Prime Minister Slovenia

President South Korea

President Kazakhstan

Prime Minister India

Vladimir Putin

How about Pokemon? Doubt I would play it, but with the collection aspect (PvE) and the duals it seems like an obvious choice for an MMO.

I would like to see something on the horror front and I think Underworld might be a good choice for an RvR game with Vampires vs Lycans vs Humans.

I'd put DAoC first. If they do ever remake it they will likely screw it up, but I would like to see them give it a shot. I would like to see fewer over powered abilities and gear, less tedious crafting, and more focus on RvR instead of 8v8.

I would also have SWG on the list. I was never a Star Wars junkie or anything, but that was my favorite game to just hang out and do nothing but listen to music in the cantina, decorate my house, go shopping for good deals on gear, or just play with my pets.

I would play DAoC right now if there were enough people to have regular massive RvR battles. I have some complaints with the game, but most of them aren't that hard to fix.

I loved the limited range on buffs so buff bots weren't needed. Do away with ToA gear and powers. All the best gear should be crafted and the best drops should be items for crafting. The need for crafted gear in DAoC was good as it was, but the crafting system itself was pretty tedious and could have used a serious overhaul. Tone down realm rank powers. Make massive RvR at least as rewarding as 8v8.

I think that covers most of my problems with DAoC as it was when I last played. None would be that hard to fix, but my guess is the designers would try to reinvent the wheel and end up with something that just wouldn't be fun.

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

The scary thing is that, in the Worlds.com vs NCSoft lawsuit, if this case is reviewed by a judge who has never played an MMO, much less knows the history of them, then there is the percent chance possibility of ruling in World's favor. Considering that there probably aren't many judges out there who have the time to play videos games at all, much less MMOs...yeah, chew on that...

The case should be presented by lawyers, and if NCSoft hires lawyers that aren't smart enough to present the history of MMOs to the judge then NCSoft deserves to lose.

Originally posted by Lansid

Earth and Beyond's debt system worked as such...

You die, and lose, for example... 5000 of your total 10,000xp that you had total towards your next level.

To gain that xp back, you could either :

A. Go kill/quest to regain xp

or

B. Simply log off and it would regenerate back the xp you lost over time.

 

This was an awesome concept for me... because back in the days of early Everquest, you could play for 5 hours grinding to get a few bars of xp, and lose it all with a failed pull, bad spawn, linkdead cleric... ect. You could actually DELEVEL if you lost enough XP, especially if your corpse was in a bad location, people ragequit before they could get your corpse, ect...

Basically it allowed you to feel like you weren't being punished, but let you log off and take some time off without the obligation to grind so much.

I loved that about EQ. Sometimes is sucked, but it is the only PvE game that ever gave me that rush. Even after death lost most meaning like in other MMOs, I still got a bit of a rush when things took a bad turn. Of course that was then and this is now and I don't think I will ever have the time or the drive to go through all that again.

I'd put SWG up to at least number three, but most likely at number one. I'm no SOE hater either. I loved EQ and had at least three good runs playing the game. I also played SWG off and on over the early years of the game. But to make the changes they did with the player base they had that late in the game (and right after an expansion at that) is somewhere on the border between complete stupidity and a flat out scam.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by n2sooners

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by n2sooners

I think what really has the left upset is that armed citizens are much harder for union thugs to bully and assault.

 

Oh yea, because we absolutely love it when thoe assholes bully someone.  It really helps our cause.  All much as most as the guys with guns help the rights cause.

 

Which is none at all.

 

Because the two are morally equal in the eyes of those you associate with?

 

Pretty much, yea.

 

self defense = bullying and assaulting people.

 

You know damn well that they're major reason for bringing the weapons wasn't self defense.

I don't know that and unless you are a mind reader, neither do you. After what the union thugs did, I would be as armed as legally possible when attending one of these events if union members were likely to be there. And while I would prefer to carry concealed, if open carry was the legal way to go then open carry it would be.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by n2sooners

I think what really has the left upset is that armed citizens are much harder for union thugs to bully and assault.

 

Oh yea, because we absolutely love it when thoe assholes bully someone.  It really helps our cause.  All much as most as the guys with guns help the rights cause.

 

Which is none at all.

Because the two are morally equal in the eyes of those you associate with?

I think what really has the left upset is that armed citizens are much harder for union thugs to bully and assault.

So it seems, from the outcome of previous town hall meetings, that guns are less dangerous than purple t-shirts. I think if I were going to a meeting where there was a good chance that SEIU members would be present, I would excersize any legal right I had to bear arms as well.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Dracus

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

I'd imagine anyone who can afford private insurance would rather not wait 2 months for that procedure. Conversely, if you are currently uninsured and suffering from kidney stones, unable to afford any procedure at all, relief in 2 months probably sounds like a godsend.

While that is true, that not having any insurance at least there something down the line.  However, a full government system would cause nearly everyone to go through with this.  Hence why there must be a private system remaining intact and can be competitive.

Well, it's a good thing we aren't talking about a government run health care system.

Nope, instead we are talking about a public option, which the CBO says will work in harmony with private insurers.

The CBO didn't say that, and saying things like that isn't in the CBO's job description. The CBO just estimates how much it would cost, and it said it will cost a lot.

Besides, there is no way there can be harmony when one side is being subsidized by the governmemt. They are basically taking money away from those with private insurance against their will and giving it to the government program in order to drive any cost it would have to individuals down. There is no way the private sector can compete with that over the long haul. And once there are no more options, the quality of care will decline while advancements grind to a hault just like in every other country which has socialized it's health care.

Nearly 37.8 million Americans watching at home viewed President Barack Obama’s oath of office and inaugural speech between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. ET on January 20, 2009.  This is the most viewed inauguration since the record of 41.8 million viewers who watched Ronald Reagan’s 1981 inauguration.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/media_entertainment/nearly-378-million-watch-president-obamas-oath-and-speech/

I agree with some, but I think a few got left off that might be great such as the worlds of Pern, Xanth, Shannara, and Landover (to name a few).

Originally posted by popinjay

It's official.

 

Gallup shows proof that the 21% Club is losing ground with just about everyone in America due to it's outdated model and out-of-touch policies. The Democratic party appears to be staying younger in age, while the Republican party appears to be staying elderly in age.

 

Excerpt:

 

---

"The decline in Republican Party affiliation among Americans in recent years is well documented, but a Gallup analysis now shows that this movement away from the GOP has occurred among nearly every major demographic subgroup."

 

Aside from education, for which the parties were basically at even strength in 2001, the Republicans' losses tend to be greater among groups that were not strong GOP supporters to begin with. These include self-identified liberals and moderates, church non-attenders, and lower-income and young adults.

 

In turn, the GOP has generally avoided significant losses among only its most loyal groups, including frequent churchgoers and self-identified conservatives. The Republican Party maintains majority support among these two groups.

 

The Republican Party clearly has lost a lot of support since 2001, the first year of George W. Bush's administration. Most of the loss in support actually occurred beginning in 2005, after Hurricane Katrina and Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court -- both of which created major public relations problems for the administration -- and amid declining support for the Iraq war. By the end of 2008, the party had its worst positioning against the Democrats in nearly two decades.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

Man, I really would like to see this party dissolve in my lifetime like the Whigs did, to be replaced with something better; non-capitalistic and less inherently greedy as thieves. It seems the only people holding onto these guys anymore are exactly who President Obama said they were, lol.

 

 

 

---

Said by President Obama:

 

"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

---

 

 

 

Bitterness? Check. Republican.

Cling to guns? Check. Republican.

Cling to religion? Check. Republican.

Intolerance to gays, anti-trade and anti-immigrant sentiments? Check. Republican.

 

 

The 21% Club. Now accepting members. Intolerance, fear and greed training provided; bring your own craziness.

Makes one wonder what kind of agenda they have at Gallup since they run a story made to make republicans look bad when their most recent polling has democrats and republicans all tied up at 32% and even tied up at 45% with leaners included (first time in about four years).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/Party-Affiliation.aspx

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by n2sooners

I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"

 

We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?

 

Perfect temperature for what? It's around 160 F (71 C) for Thermus aquaticus, Room temperature if you are a human, and around 30 F (-1 C) for Melosira arclica.

Stability in temperature flux and trends as temperature varyation by geograhical location is more important for determining the prognosis for a given ecosystem.  Luckily as we improve our understanding and technology, we can better evaluate these parameters.

I know what you mean about these silly scientists that can't get their story straight though.  I mean first the earth was flat, now the earth is ROUND.. next thing some bozo will be telling us that the earth isn't at the center of the universe. They really should pick one story and stick with it.

 

Actually what those silly scientists should do is quit claiming they know everything there is to know and declaring the debate closed because every time they do they it comes back to bite them in the butt.

I still have one question that has yet to be answered and that is "What is the perfect temperature for the earth?"

We were told in the 70s that there was a coming ice age and that all the oceans would be devoid of life by the year 2000. Then in the 80s it switched to global warming, and I just have to wonder which year in 70s or 80s was that perfect year that we passed to cause the switch from a global cooling disaster to a global warming disaster?

Most boring - EQ

Most fun - EQ

Okay, EQ wasn't the most boring most of the time, but there were days in EQ that were so boring and frustrating that I would have quit any other game. But those lows just made the highs that much better.

Most boring overall was probably Horizons (was in beta a long time), and D&D (was in beta a little while). D&D at least had some fun gameplay, but it got  boring for me kinda quickly.

Most fun PvP - DAoC

Most fun crafting (not much competition there) - SWG bioengineer after they fixed it but before the ruined the game. Crawling up to sample something that could kick your butt was a rush, and never getting the same result twice kept the crafting interesting.

I liked the gameplay in WAR I liked just about every class I played. It just seems to me they took the best parts of DAoC and then threw them out in favor of keeping the worst parts. You have to spend a lot of time in PvE in order to be effective in RvR and the worst part is that the final end game is more PvE, but to participate in that even more PvE is required. There doesn't seem to be the same kind of pride in keep ownership that DAoC had. And even though it was a serious grind, at least the DAoC crafting resulted in good gear that allowed you to customize your character somewhat.

Anyway, I don't think WAR was a dismal failure, but it darn sure wasn't a great success either. I'd go back if they ever ironed out their problems, but I don't see that happening. If Mythic ever makes a DAoC II then I would be willing to give it a shot as long as they concentrate on more RvR and less PvE.