Originally posted by siji

Real shame about AoC. Played really well in Beta, and I actually quite enjoyed the game for the first few weeks of release. Seems that Funcom have imploded since then. Maybe they didn't plan for the level of subscription or server strain, they definitely never got close to it with Anarchy Online.

 

Let's hope it gets back to the game that was being developed in Beta and that it gets back on track before Warhammer Online is released (if it ever is).

hahahaha to the highlighted statement.  The game's only been in development for 3 years compared to AoC's what 5?  And you're already assuming it's vaporware?

I think any beta testers would laugh at this as well. hahaha "if it ever is" hahaha.

To be on topic.  I really was hoping AoC would plane out and become a solid game within a couple months of launch.  i guess we'll see what happens to them down the road.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by Elrynduil

I am fully aware of the monetary cost of keeping an MMO going. 200k subscribers is more than enough. Look at UO, a successful but very much niche game that never had a massive player base.

 

AoC was always a niche game. It won't have millions of players. If you're too shallow and immature to play a game because of that fact then go elsewhere.

 

This is so much untrue. AoC is currently placed second in the amount of money spent on advertisment (after WoW). AoC is mainstreamed MMORPG with plans to keep 300-400k subscribers otherwise they have to start kicking half of the dev team.

Ouch.  It's looking like bye bye dev team then.

Originally posted by miagisan

GreenChaos: Please email me for instructions on how to deposit my earnings

my prediction: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2002285#2002285

Greenchaos' bet: www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/2002341#2002341

 

can't wait for my money!

Wow.  I wonder what Greenchaos thinks of the game at this point? 

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Originally posted by checkthis500

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Originally posted by Jackdog

 Going back to Turbine for a example of coding done correctly. If I try and attack a mob from a perched situation, perched = I can attack mob using ranged but it cannot attack me back due to it being melee or whatever, the mob is unattackable and a icon appears over it's head to let me know that my attacks will always fail.

 

 

 

Turbine, lotro has been down for nearly 16 hrs of the last 48hrs - correct coding :) longest stretch ever..

If you had played AoC you would know that  attacking "mobs" from a perched position would result in the "Mob" evading and healing faster.

Because AoC offers PvP servers they have a rule that as Combat is disabled during a cutscene (tortage) a player attacking you during this cutscene puts you at an un fair dis-advantage and therefore is punishable.

What would be a better idea is to either put shield of the risen or the evading stance on you automatically when you enter a dialogue cutscene.

As its a stated punishable offence, the community is the reporter in this situation, and if you have been to Tortage lately you will have seen plenty of ARK's around. Also when a quest is taken in a populated area and one player attacks another an NPC will attack the attacking player.

But while you troll a games forum that you no longer play for  "entertainment value" becauase your game of choice is broken, those that play AoC are doing just that.

I would recommend clicking on Patiences sig to join her Facebook link as a friend if your that bored.

 

ouch Avery, I wouldn't go the way of attacking other developers like Funcom does.  It's not in good taste, and when you attack developers with stable games that are honest with their customers, it's going to backfire.

I'd stick to pointing out AoC's good points, and not trying to say:

"Oh yeah, well Turbine did this, so THERE." *sticks out tongue*

 

Actually Jackdog did in his first post...  and it was a good point.

Those kinds of points are good on the playground. 

And you're now saying "Jackdog did it, so I did it back."

Be the adult Avery.  come on, I know you're better than that.

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Originally posted by Jackdog

 Going back to Turbine for a example of coding done correctly. If I try and attack a mob from a perched situation, perched = I can attack mob using ranged but it cannot attack me back due to it being melee or whatever, the mob is unattackable and a icon appears over it's head to let me know that my attacks will always fail.

 

 

 

Turbine, lotro has been down for nearly 16 hrs of the last 48hrs - correct coding :) longest stretch ever..

If you had played AoC you would know that  attacking "mobs" from a perched position would result in the "Mob" evading and healing faster.

Because AoC offers PvP servers they have a rule that as Combat is disabled during a cutscene (tortage) a player attacking you during this cutscene puts you at an un fair dis-advantage and therefore is punishable.

What would be a better idea is to either put shield of the risen or the evading stance on you automatically when you enter a dialogue cutscene.

As its a stated punishable offence, the community is the reporter in this situation, and if you have been to Tortage lately you will have seen plenty of ARK's around. Also when a quest is taken in a populated area and one player attacks another an NPC will attack the attacking player.

But while you troll a games forum that you no longer play for  "entertainment value" becauase your game of choice is broken, those that play AoC are doing just that.

I would recommend clicking on Patiences sig to join her Facebook link as a friend if your that bored.

ouch Avery, I wouldn't go the way of attacking other developers like Funcom does.  It's not in good taste, and when you attack developers with stable games that are honest with their customers, it's going to backfire.

I'd stick to pointing out AoC's good points, and not trying to say:

"Oh yeah, well Turbine did this, so THERE." *sticks out tongue*

The only issue I have with it is that he never actually answered that guy's question.  And poor excuse for an answer that he did give made it sound like you couldn't go back and that you shouldn't, not just that there wasn't any reason to. 

He was acting like a typical forumite towards someone who was wanting information.  Extermely unprofessional and I know there are companies out there that would fire a mod for something like this. 

You can be professional and snarky/clever at the same time.

Originally posted by elvenangel

Dude don't damn bump crap threads from Trolls you know thats what Ano is.

Looks like 3 years ago he wasn't.  interesting.  :p

Originally posted by banthis

Originally posted by sanders01

We'll I signed up for beta about 20 or so days ago, and never  got a newsletter. Am I not signed up for it? And If im not can I still get in beta?

 

Signing up for the newsletter does not get you into beta.  It doesn't even put you on the beta list.  You have to create a beta entry account and then you MIGHT randomly get chosen for beta (just like every game there is no gaurenteed way into a close beta).

The newsletter comes at the End of Every month and Every month not 'occasionally'  We should see the July newsletter sometime next week.

QFT.  What's this talk about occasionally?  They let one newsletter slip in over 2 years, and that was over a year ago.  They always come the last week of the month.

Originally posted by thexrated

Originally posted by jerlot65

Its obvious you cannot grasp the concept of REALM vs REALM.  If your clinging to the ways of the tabletop, where each race has their own army then you will be disappointed. If you get your head out of your ass, maybe to can comprehend what is going on.

 

Actually, there is established lore behind Warhammer IP that has been around 20 years in both games and books. And since you brought up the tabletop miniature games, which I sell btw, and I can quote a customer here, "WAR seems like a fantasy MMO with Warhammer look, but not feel."

Perhaps people do not get the idea of realm vs. realm because not many who will try this game have played DAoC.  I personally did not like RvR in that game and ended up playing it only briefly.

I highlighted the word that is key to your customers quote.  SEEMS.  Obviously he hasn't played the game, or he would have said IS or IS NOT. 

According to people that played the game at previous Gamesdays.  (I'm sure you're aware of what that is)  They say the game looks AND feels like Warhammer. 

I believe those people that actually played the game at a Gamesday event over your customer. No offense to them.

Originally posted by Blitzkreig75

You're implying that my question was useless and went against forum rules.

It was niether. I was asking for community input. Same as I am here.

You should probably read the forum rules.  Most forums have strict rules about questioning moderation.  This goes for fansites as well.  Basically, moderation should be complained about to the moderators.  I'm not surprised you got your thread deleted. 
 

If you sit there and just autoattack in any game it looks slow.  Go into WoW, and equip a 2-hander and just autoattack.  The attack speed on their 2-handers is 3 seconds as well.

Unless you've played WAR, I wouldn't comment about it being slow or fast or anything.

Just pay attention to the orc's power bar in the upper left corner.  Now logic says if he were spamming everything he had, that bar would be diminishing.  The fact that it stays at full should tell you something.

All of the people saying the game is broken now or saying that Mythic lied are making me laugh. 

1. You were never promised any of these things, since the game isn't out and MBJ and others have consistently said "Everything is subject to change"

2. You can't say the game is broken or gimped or anything like that because it's not out and you haven't played it to find out.

3. MBJ said in the interview, if these 4 classes don't work out, then they'll replace them with others.

4. the cities are going to be in as well.

5. Thank GOD, Gork, Mork, Sigmar, Tzeentch, and Khaine that they didn't go the way of Funcom and not tell the fanbase until launch day that these things weren't going to be in the game.

Originally posted by funnylumpy

Originally posted by Thedrizzle

Are most of the people who frequent these forums new to the MMORPG genre? I mean really?

I would like to know which game hit the market flawless with all that was intended in the game implemented?

Are the people that are posting pointless threads like this aware that the companies who prduce these games are actually a business, a  business with investors who put pressure on them to release a game because they want to see a return?

Are there anymore sane peole out there that play MMO's? Back in the day it seemed like it was just a bunch of us computer geeks playing, but now the MMO market has attracted the shut-ins, socialy inept, and psychologically unstable.

Ahhhhh nostalgia!

 

hehe it seems to appear that either people posting here has a very short term memory regarding previous releases.. and I posted in another topic I want anyone to list me any single mmo that didn't have gltiches and bugs when it was released... and no reply... I recon it said it all...

Most mmo's need time to away bugs, some games improve some doesn't.. AoC is in baby stadium after release... let's see how it does in a couple of months.

Whats hilarious to me is people still think it's bugs and glitches that has injured the game.  You really think it's the bugs and glitches?
 

Compare bugs and glitches to whole chunks of missing game systems, and the bugs and glitches are nothing.

AoC isn't getting trashed and put down by people because of some graphical glitches and lack of content.  You should read more from the aoc forum or even here.  AoC is getting trashed because they didn't put the things in the game that they promised.  Had they even "warned" customers that these systems wouldn't be in the game, they'd be in a better position, but since with no warning you're buying half a game (literally) people are pissed about it, as they should be.

Had AoC released with all of the promised features, people wouldn't even be phased by the bugs and glitches.  That's of course common place and more than ok.

To add.  I think the game has HUGE potential, it just bothers the hell out of me that they could actually not test things, and leave out things, and people still be ok with it. 

I'm sure the game will do great down the road once everything that should have been in by now is in, but as a company they should learn to be more honest with their player-base about what's going to make it and what isn't.

Originally posted by woody1974

I don't pay any attention to people that post links and stats about any game. If you think everything you find on the internet is true, then I have a few islands off the coast of Florida I want to sell someone for $100.

While for most of the internet that's true, sales figures for sites like Amazon.com and the other gaming place mentioned here, are not going to be lies.

If Amazon is lying about what they're selling online, then they're going to be in some seeeeerious trouble down the road.

Originally posted by Volkmar

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Beta.... subject to change ring a bell?

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? especially considering all the moaning on how fast it is to level up?

Too much Drama! It was beta

 

of course, but this was quite the bad change... and the hidden motives of the move are undeniably suspicious.

Everyone knows that OPEN beta is more an advertisement tool than else. Most of the people coming on board at that stage want to see the game, not test it. So seen in that light, looks like bad advertisement.

Not surprisingly as my local gamestore still has the "Blood! Violence! BarFights!" banners.... and guess what... 1 of those three is not in the game as of now...

Beta.... subject to change is right.

Beta... subject to removal and not making it into the game for months.  Is quite different.

Funcom did the latter and didn't let anyone know that's what they were doing.

It was, and still is beta.  Considering that if the game shipped with all the pieces missing that were promised to customers that means they never hit "gold."

Originally posted by woody1974

Originally posted by checkthis500

Originally posted by jusomdude

Originally posted by Antarious

Originally posted by Banok

AGAIN

who cares about subscriber numbers!

we are players not stock holders. we are players and should care about game play. and the reviews prove its a incomplete but very fun game.

 

They need a minimum number of subscribers to:

1) operate the game and make a profit

2) the 'profit' won't be a profit at first as they have to pay off the cost of development

3) They borrowed at least $30 million from outside the company that also has to be paid back.

4) obviously the number of subscribers matters.. if you can't understand why yet.. then there is no hope.

oh and

5) I make no attempt to claim they have any paticular number of subscribers (high or low) I was just trying to answer your question as to why it would matter.

They already made that 30 mil back on box sales. Plus if they keep half the purchased boxes as subscribers they'll be making 3.75 mil a month, minus their operating costs which I hope aren't anywhere near 3.75 mil a month.

It's already passed the first month since release and I still see plenty of players online.

Not true.  500k x $50 = 25Mil.  Math FTW. (Assuming they sold half of the 1Mil shipped boxes)
 

 

Sorry to disappoint you bud, but it is not 500k x $50. The game isn't the same price in every country for 1, second thats just for the basic copy, thats not even for the collectors edition ($79.99). Getting Faqs straight FTW.

Meh.  Mine was a general guesstimate.  Math is still FTW since mine's still correct. :p

It just might not be accurate.  FAQs aren't going to help me with that.  And if it's more in other countires that means it costs more for Funcom to sell them to other companies, so it balances out.  But I didn't take into account the Collectors edition, and oh well. 

Still that's only the money they recently borrowed.  I'm not even going to guess the true total expenses of making this game for 4-5 years.

Originally posted by Battlekruse

Originally posted by Laserwolf

I paid 1.5K for a new computer to play AoC. I like it. I am going to play it right now.

 

What about the people there paid 2K for a brand new machine just to play AOC and now dislike it?

Dislike is subjective, so that doesn't matter.  Then they can go buy Crysis or any other new game and have fun.

However the people that bought AoC and spent 2k on a computer and the game had nothing in it that they were paying for.  Those are the people that can bitch and moan.

Originally posted by Inzra

forums-eu.ageofconan.com/showthread.php

Seriously, to all the whiners out there you really need to get a move on, and actually accept that there ARE plenty of people enjoying the game despite all issues - which I don't really find that major.

You bought the game, you signed an agreement, you didn't like it. Is that Funcom's fault? No.

So, find a game to your liking or do something else.

 

AoC is interesting in that it has something both for the haters and the lovers, but focusing on the dislikes only wont make you want to play the game any more...

I think you've missed what people are whining about.  It has nothing to do with liking/disliking the game.  Most of the people complaining have said that they like the game.

The issue is Funcom said "this, this, and this will be in the game and will set it apart from all other MMOs."

Then on launch, with no warning, this, this, and this are not in the game.

It's called a "bait and switch" and with everything except MMOs apparently it's actually illegal.

You display a picture (or in this case a video) of something, then you sell that something to the person, only for them to find out it's something completely different.

In this case, we were all shown glorious videos of sieging, PvP, Player Cities being attacked by NPC cities, etc. etc. and none of that was in the game.

Originally posted by aka_mythos

I have to go back to the idea I was describing before. I think too much of the number play gets in the way even with pen and paper games I think calling a +5 sword breaks down the role play element though it is acceptable because it serves the purpose of distinguishing the relative power of the item. Having a description of what abilities items have is fine, knowing how it fits into the equations in the background is invasive to a computer based RPG; knowing how all the numbers work and being obsessed with it eliminates the advantages that a computer based game has over a pen and paper one. I think most MMORPG ignore this inherent advantage to the roleplay experience by putting it all out there.

I do strongly agree with markoraos in saying that an MMORPG's game system should be developed enough to play that it could be converted to pen and paper, its just when we play on PC we shouldn't have to bother with dealing with all the numbers. By dealing with a number-centric game play we take the all the weaknesses of both PC and pen and paper based with only some of the advantages.

I don't think the point is about knowing what's happnening exactly and dealing with numbers.

The point is that "if" the people that do that sort of thing can't do it because they can't figure it out, there's an inherent problem with how FC did it.

Also if there's no intelligible way to nerf/buff classes across the board, or to alter sets of skills, then you can kiss any attempt at balance goodbye for months.

Originally posted by jusomdude

Originally posted by Antarious

Originally posted by Banok

AGAIN

who cares about subscriber numbers!

we are players not stock holders. we are players and should care about game play. and the reviews prove its a incomplete but very fun game.

 

They need a minimum number of subscribers to:

1) operate the game and make a profit

2) the 'profit' won't be a profit at first as they have to pay off the cost of development

3) They borrowed at least $30 million from outside the company that also has to be paid back.

4) obviously the number of subscribers matters.. if you can't understand why yet.. then there is no hope.

oh and

5) I make no attempt to claim they have any paticular number of subscribers (high or low) I was just trying to answer your question as to why it would matter.

They already made that 30 mil back on box sales. Plus if they keep half the purchased boxes as subscribers they'll be making 3.75 mil a month, minus their operating costs which I hope aren't anywhere near 3.75 mil a month.

It's already passed the first month since release and I still see plenty of players online.

Not true.  500k x $50 = 25Mil.  Math FTW. (Assuming they sold half of the 1Mil shipped boxes)