Nice article. I totally agree with the lack of permanence in MMOs. It's a real immersion breaking and makes the games feel more arcade-like and less immersive.

One thing though; In the description on the front page it says, "Jaime Skelton wrote this article on the magic of video games and what MMOs can do to re-capture it."

At the end all you said is that MMOs need to be more innovative but that goes without saying. You didn't really mention even one specific thing that could be improved. And I think that's the problem with the MMO genre generally. We all look at single player games and all these cool things they can do... but they're all reliant on having just one player in that world. In an MMO they have to make it enjoyable for thousands of people all on one server. And that's the problem right there.

The magical all-consuming MMO will never exist due to the limitations of being in a multiplayer world. The only way to improve immersion is to go the way of World of Warcraft and other games and start using more phasing and instances. However, that separates the community and the world so I think we'll never have both MMO AND full immersion.

Very interesting article. It's good to hear the other side of the story.

I agree with the people saying nerfing is often a better option than buffing all the other classes. If one class has an advantage over all other classes, of course they need nerfed. If one class has a clear advantage over just one class then buffing the other class may be the option.

I've been on the receiving end of nerfs lots of times. While it's frustrating at first, I eventually enjoy the challenge of having to adapt to be as good as I was pre-nerf. In 9 out of 10 cases I usually do adapt. Overpowered class players tend not to focus as much (even if they don't realize it) because their class is easy to play. So when they're nerfed; rather than upping their game to compete, they feel they can't do what they did before using the same amount of effort and complain or quit.

Of course 1 out of those 10 times, the nerf was unjust and it's not just the players refusing to adapt.

I'm of the opinion that every class should have its anti-class so if there's a class I can't beat I just accept they're my anti-class.

Mage > Warrior
Warrior > Archer
Archer > Mage

As far as conventional MMOs go... this is the best bar none.

The real killer for me is the low population. I'm from Europe so if I go on the Euro server I get low population. If I go on Seradon, I get low population because I don't play at US peak times.

It's a catch 22 situation really. I (and I'm sure many others) don't play the game any more because not enough people play for me to enjoy it. I got in a few groups while I played and it really is a great team game. But when there aren't enough players to do dungeons with each session I play (at peak times), I don't think I can stand to play. So people who actually enjoy the game are put off by the low population... And don't play... Which doesn't help the low population problem.

Right now I'm playing WoW (a vastly inferior game to Vanguard...). But while WoW's gameplay is no where near as good, the population is great which means more overall fun. For myself at least.

Sounds great :-D

I haven't checked out Free Realms properly since Beta, I maybe have to check it out :-)

---

Originally posted by Malickie

---

Originally posted by NightCloak
I dont like how mobs in both Oblivion and FO3 scale with you. I like hard areas and easy areas.

---

 
Easy fix for this oscuros oblivion overhaul, simple mod to install (exe). Yet it fixes most issues people may have who prefer morrowind over oblivion. It adds quite a bit to the overall difficulty, and itemization (loot list). It rewards exploring much more as well as makes it much more dangerous. It also changes the way vendors work and adds tweaks like making drawers, barrells, boxes and chests open and close. It also changes flora and enemy spawns, higher lvl things spawn whenever rather than when you reach that level.

---

Yup, Oscuros Oblivion Overhaul is amazing. I use Martigen's Monster Mod with it as well. With those two mods, it totally transforms the game. You no longer have to try and beat the leveling system and it ramps up the difficulty big time. The extra mobs and loot are great as well. I just started a new Mage character. The first thing I did was try to join the Mage's guild. After 10 hours of play time I'm finally allowed into the university but I'm struggling to get the staff, the Necromancers are just so hard to kill.

It really makes you rethink combat and introduces a Risk / Reward system. You can go into a seriously hard dungeon and get some amazing stuff but it's gonna be very tough.

http://cyri.systemrequirementslab.com/srtest/

This might help you :-)

---

Originally posted by thexrated
Well, it is hard to say without knowing the gameplay.
For example, I hold EVE's system in a pretty high regard. I can't think of playing that game wihtout the risk aspect to it.
However, that is unlikely to work in many other settings. The gameplay as a whole makes it approriate in terms of risks and rewards.
In more traditional fantasy MMOs, I think there are two types of penalties - those that come from dying in PvE and those from PvP. Dying in PvE, in my opinion, does not have to be harsh, but PvP should be penalised depending on rewards. The only system that works in WoW is Arena - you die and you are out of the game. The rest of the PvP is mostly about zerg and usually a bore due to no risks. The risk needs to balanced on rewards.
If for example, dying in WOW battleground would mean that you would receive a pretty harsh negative bonus for 5-10 minutes, you would see a lot less zerging.
I can even see player looting as a viable option for certain type of PvP, but the goal needs to be rewarding enough as well. I am not satisfied by mindless killing. Ganking does nothing to me. Only time I feel adrenaline and excitement is when there is something to be risked in order to gain.
 

---

I think this guy is kinda on to something

I don't think there should be a physical penalty to dying, personally. I think the biggest penalty should be how long it takes you to be ready to fight again. That's a meaningful penalty in itself. Like thexrated said, if there were a 5-10 minute penalty when you died, people would be much more careful and tactical in their approach to PvP in WoW.

In PvP make it so that zerging isn't an option. In pre-CU SWG for example, you had to get Doctor and Entertainer buffs to get back in the battle which could take up to 10 minutes or more sometimes if you died in a remote place. This made you think twice before charging mindlessly. If you died, you'd have to get set up again. If you die, you're out the battle for quite a while. And if you're an adrenaline junkie, you don't want that!

In PvE I don't think XP loss is the worst idea. I think it just has to be kept reasonable. You don't want to lose a few weeks work but losing an hour or two of work would be reasonable. Nobody, hardcore or casual would want to lose 2 hours of work but it's not such a large amount that you would get suicidal over it :-P

---

Originally posted by Abrahmm
Because at the release of a game, the fanbois all rush to rate the game they love(without having played it) as high as possible. This happens with every game. Then, the normal people play the game, and rate it. After that, the majority of people don't go back and change their ratings. So even though you think that AoC is better than WAR NOW(I don't know haven't played either since launch), the majority of people, myself included, thought WAR was a better game than AoC at when they both launched. Does that help?

---

This guy pretty much hit the nail on the head. I played both from launch and WAR was a much much better game than AoC at launch. Tortage was fun but it got repetitive after Tortage and the quests even dried up.

I haven't played AoC since launch, I would play the veteran trial but I was put off by the 3GB patch... no thanks... I can download the whole of EVE Online (2GB) in less time...

Maybe AoC is better now, but I personally think WAR is better.

A Pokémon MMO is perhaps the ONLY game that could persuade me to buy a DS or Wii

I say, bring it on! :-D

Thanks a lot, that's all I wanted to here. As long as it's not just me :-)

Hi guys,

I can't post on the official AoC forums at the moment (maybe because I'm not subscribed, only a returning player) so I figured I'd post here.

When I run AoC at the moment, the patcher just says "Downloading Patch Information" and isn't doing anything. The EU servers are down at the moment but I wouldn't have thought they'd shut down the patch server as well. Is anyone else experiencing this? Or am I going to have to reinstall...?

Thanks in advance!

From the video's description:

"Most see the European Union of today as an inefficient conglomeration of states run by self-serving career politicians anxious to guarantee their survival by safely nesting in the EU’s cocoon of endless bureaucracies. Many don’t really see a threat at the moment. They believe that an integrated Europe makes sense; that it would prevent any chance of a third European war; that it is the modern, forward-thinking way to go. nothing could be further from the truth The European Economic Community (EEC) began as a free-trade agreement in 1972. Today’s European Union is well on its way to becoming a federal superstate, complete with one currency, one legal system, one military, one police force - even its own national anthem. In this shocking new documentary featuring EU insiders and commentators, independent author Phillip Day covers the history and goals of the European Union, as well as the disturbing, irrevocable implications this new government has for every citizen. Whether the viewer is for or against participation, this film asks the troubling questions the mainstream media has refused to confront."

---

Originally posted by popinjay

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

---

Originally posted by popinjay
Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law.

---

Ok, fair enough.

But there is still a grey area where if someone doesn't believe in any of the parties. They shouldn't feel it's their duty to vote anyway.

---

I think as it stands, its good enough. I don't think it should be a law. There are people I wish never knew how to operate a lever in the first place (mainly those idiots who voted Bush in for TWO terms). The U.S. and the world in general would have been a much better place socially and economically. But that's democracy for you of any type. It's why Hamas won, people thought it was a good idea over there and then all of a sudden, the U.S. didn't like the idea of voting for everyone.

Over here we have "jury duty". Everyone who is registered to vote is subject to serve on it and cannot be excused from doing it unless they have a valid reason. Now to me, jury "duty" isn't a duty.

I don't personally think it's a good idea to have my life or someone else's in the hands of twelve complete strangers who may have varying degrees of prejudice, idiocy or insanity. Most people over here hate jury "duty", but they go anyways. Why?

Not because they feel it's their duty. But it's the law. If it wasn't a law, half wouldn't even show up. I don't want voting to be that way or someone puts people in there they don't even care about.

---

Ok, I see the distinction.

We also have jury duty over here, and I agree, it shouldn't be the law.

---

Originally posted by popinjay
Saying its someone's duty is different from saying its the law.

---

Ok, fair enough.

But there is still a grey area where if someone doesn't believe in any of the parties. They shouldn't feel it's their duty to vote anyway.

---

Originally posted by popinjay

---

Originally posted by shad0w99
To the guy telling people it is their duty to vote...

---

To the guy not understanding the opinion, I didn't say it's YOUR duty to vote as a British citizen.

I said it's my duty to vote. I'm not quite sure how it works in the UK nor do I particularly care about your voting obligations.

---

It has nothing to do with the UK or the USA... but democracy in general.

If you don't want to vote, you shouldn't have to. For example in the most recent election if someone wasn't happy with any of the parties, they shouldn't have to vote. If you're voting for something you don't believe in, it's not truly democracy. Go look up Robert Mugabe.

To the guy telling people it is their duty to vote...

You don't have to vote. In fact, I'd prefer someone NOT to vote than to vote for a party they don't know enough about. I live in the UK and that's exactly what is happening at the moment. The British National Party, an undeniably fascist party, has been getting more votes recently because our two main parties (Labour and Conservative) are both just wishy-washy piles of crap. People feel they should vote for someone and the BNP have been taking advantage of that and have been capturing the votes of other fascists (which is fine... you can vote for who you like) but what is sad, is uninformed morons have been voting for them based on their propaganda. And unfortunately we have a lot of morons in this country. Like I said, if you're a fascist and you want to vote for the BNP, be my guest! However, it's not fair to trick people into thinking the BNP isn't fascist, racist, anti semetic etc etc And let's not forget it was formed from ex-members of the National Front, an openly neo-nazi party.

So no, you don't have to vote. I'd rather the uninformed morons who have been voting for BNP didn't vote at all. They don't fully know what the party stand for. Party of democracy, to me at least, is freedom to speak your mind, protest, the right to information and the FULL truth.

And back to the healthcare issue. As others have said... healthcare is a basic human right in this day and age. Why should you or I be allowed healthcare and someone else not, purely because we were born on the right side of the fence?

As I said, I'm from the UK where we have the National Health Service (NHS) which means everyone can have free healthcare. It's definitely not without its faults... and believe me there are plenty... But at least we don't have the corruption you have in countries where hospitals are privatized. Giving people pills they don't need, unnecessary surgery, people being refused treatment because of a mistake on their insurance forms etc etc

If I wasn't on holiday tomorrow then on tour with my band after that, I'd give it a go...

But to be honest, I can't imagine enjoying it any more than before. Tortage was brilliant but the game was just bland after that.

---

Originally posted by Trueth

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

 

---

---

 
I didn't say the playerbase was to blame for there only being a FFA server. I said the population is to blame.
Had the population not declined there would still be a team PvP server.

---

 
I'll just quote you to accentuate how lost you really are. 
Lemme guess, next you'll tell us the game is still buggy with poor performance because the population didn't support it properly, and had the players embraced the concept of viral marketing Vanguard would be a smash hit!
Try knowing something next time.
 
And before you get your Malibu Barbi panties all tangled up, try reading all 75 pages of /signed - Then you'll know.
 
 
 

---

And why do you think it was they needed to merge the PvP servers in the first place? Why would any company merge servers for that matter?

Judging by your previous posts it appears I have to spell things out for you. Otherwise I would leave my reply as rhetorical questions for you to work out for yourself.

The answer is... They needed to merge the PvP servers because a lot of people quit the game. It's all very well you showing me a petition signed by all the Team PvP players but had SOE retained what they would consider a reasonable playerbase (and by that I mean size, not quality) the Team PvP server would not have been merged in the first place.

Why they went with a FFA server as opposed to a Team PvP server despite a lot of people asking for it is a totally different matter.

---

Originally posted by Trueth

---

Originally posted by shad0w99

Vanguard is by far the best MMO around at the moment. The ONLY issue is the lack of population and lack of a faction-based PvP server (Not FFA). Although the population is to blame for not having a server of that type!
 

---

 
Hey, guy who doesn' know WTF he is talking about. All the PVP servers were merged into the FFA Server - The playerbase was not consulted. The playerbase did however ask that team pvp be kept, NOT FFA.
The reason SOE gave us FFA only is because it's the easiest form of PVP to maintain. There are no rules, and therefore its the perfect excuse to not actually have to do anything with it. Where as Team PVP would have issues with race/class restrictions leading to an OP side.
Next time don't post. kthx.

---

Hey! Guy who can't comprehend written English!

I didn't say the playerbase was to blame for there only being a FFA server. I said the population is to blame. I'm well aware there used to be a team PvP server. The reason it disappeared, along with a couple of others, was because the population wasn't large enough to justify having multiple PvP servers. Had the population not declined there would still be a team PvP server. Thus, the population (or lack thereof) is to blame for having only one PvP server.

Next time read carefully

kthxbye.

Vanguard is by far the best MMO around at the moment. The ONLY issue is the lack of population and lack of a faction-based PvP server (Not FFA). Although the population is to blame for not having a server of that type!

The game had a bad launch, but it's great in its current state. I prefer skill-based games to level-based but with Vanguard I don't really care because it's fun from level 1. As opposed to WoW, which isn't fun until level 40 or 50 or so (in my opinion)