All Posts by eric_w66

Originally posted by BodyBuilder

It was fun... it was having skill, MEETING NEW PEOPLE *COUGH* (People are so scared of actually doing this in new MMORPGs), becoming friends and enjoying each others company... 

The problem is that 90% or more of the people you meet are idiots/griefers/scammers/loot thieves.

So most people find a group of friends and stick with it, and won't group with anyone they don't know because:

The risk is not worth the reward from grouping.

Forced Grouping is a big no-no.

These games can be fun if you have a core group of friends that play 20 hours a day, 7 days a week, but otherwise, the pain in the ass it is to find groups of non-idiots of the appropriate classes/and or skills and levels is a titanic nightmare.

Grouping doesn't necessarily  take more skill than soloing, often, the reverse is true. Only when you truly challenge the group does grouping require much skill at all. A level 50 soloing level 50 stuff is more difficult than a group of level 50's grinding level 50 stuff to gain xp at a maximum rate with no chance of death.

I was given a free month of Vanguard here this month and because of its "Vision" (tm) system, I'm almost stuck at level 18 because 95% of my quests are group only and I can't find a group (I've managed to group *gasp* twice in 18 levels for a quest).

Sure, it isn't as much of an issue in a hugely popular (or at least, populated) game when it comes out (AoC and LOTRO come to mind), but if you fall behind the leveling curve, you're doomed.

Grouping should be a fun alternative for a challenge, not a requirement. It should be faster than soloing IF you are going up against challenging content, not just grinding easy stuff with no fear of wiping. But often, game companies CAN'T reward groupers with more than just the better loot drops because of the botters out there will do 6 chars at once to maximize their xp gain, etc.

I don't see Bioware making a sandbox game as that just limits the profitability potential. People like story driven games, games that provide goals and ways to accomplish them. Even Oblivion had "goals" people could achieve. Sure, a few people in the world like wandering around aimlessly grinding different skill sets over and over (What they call sandbox), but most people like a goal in mind when they play a game.

It's one thing for a producer to talk about how "reusing content" is bad (aka grinding in a zone), but that only lasts until they see the cost of producing new content and all of a sudden, the reusing of a zone or area suddenly appeals to them...

I mean, I'd love a game where I could keep encountering new content non-stop all the way to the "end", but the amount of effor that'd take would mean a) the game would take 20 years to complete and b) cost billions to produce.

Not likely to happen any time soon.

UO had classes, they were just called "Templates of the Month".

Eve has classes, they're just not labeled as such, and there's no limit on the number you can be except for that small thing of "Time played". Which of course sucks for newbies.

And that "having to respec" thing, it makes me laugh. Make a new character if you feel the desire to play something different. I've never understood why people think being able to lobotomize yourself is desirable gameplay. At least in Eve you don't have to give up the knowledge already gained, but then, Eve is a spreadsheet with a nice space background screen saver on top as far as gameplay goes.

Skill systems are always abused into making the "optimal" templates, which of course, are called "Classes" by most people. And in fact, the skill based games typically have fewer choices to play (if you want to be competitive) than a class based system. AC1 basically had the tank, tank mage, and mage. UO was similar... till they get nerfed, in which case you grind the next "template of the month"...

It is an illusion of "choice" that skill based systems give. They end up having less freedom than class based systems in the end.

I'm patching it now...

The odd part is I only beta tested it, never bought it...

Heh.

Almost all heals in the game are "Heals over time" and area based so you don't have to worry about micromanaging health bars (So I'm told anyways, I'm not in the beta).

Bear Shaman: Likes to melee with big 2 handed weapons (I believe). The more he melee's the better his heals become.

http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=publish.show&template=content&func_id=2273&table=CONTENT

http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/22025

Priest of Mitra: The most "healing" oriented version, the more he heals, the better his damage (spell) output becomes. He also has several ways of "Crowd control" as well, more than the other 2 healers I believe.

http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=publish.show&template=content&func_id=2266&table=CONTENT

http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/28421

Tempest of Set: This is the druid, stormcaller, and Scion of Set all mushed together as one. Sorta the reverse of the Priest of Mitra, the more spell damage this one does, the better the healing becomes. One of the best "AE" damage classes in the game apparently.

http://community.ageofconan.com/wsp/conan/frontend.cgi?func=publish.show&template=content&func_id=2264&table=CONTENT

http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/28965

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Originally posted by markyturnip

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

I cant quote about half a dozen game mechanics from AoC that might not generally be new or innovative, but have essentially been copied by other games due out.

The game director said on Norweigan TV that beta will be by invite only (open beta) and that it might start around May 1st and run for 2 weeks or so. There might be a special beta weekend before this though coming up soon.

what does the open in open beta mean if it's invite only? surely an invite-only open beta is inherently contradictory.

Depending on the agreement in place for the period known as Invite only Open beta, there 'Might' not be an NDA in place. What the agreement to sign is we will have to wait and see. Its the same principle that warhammer online are doing. So it might be Open as in Open to talk during this time (argreement permitting) but not neccessarily Open as in anyone can download the client and play. I have a Sneaky feeling we will find out 4 weeks from today ( just a feeling!)

And Funcom better learn from SWG and Vanguard and drop the NDA soon. Those who keep it up till release are hiding something, and it isn't trade secrets. The game excites me, but I am leery of Funcom after AO's release. Sure they MIGHT have learned something from it, but seeing how all the other came companies don't, Funcom might not have as well. Or at least, not enough.

I just hope that, at least while the only way to play AoC is through paying subs, that the ads won't exist. Once it goes "free to play" (at least partially) like AO, then you can sneak the ads in for those people who aren't paying.

AoC better not stink, or this will smack them hard in the face double if they put ads into the game AND that the game is poopy.

Originally posted by Netzoko

 

Originally posted by eric_w66

Player housing and player cities do not bring much bang for the buck, especially player cities.

Outside of the simplistic UO and SW:G's vast stretches of emptiness, MMO's are about content. In most games there is no room for player cities and player houses. There are thousands of players on every server and they'd each have a house.... where do you put them all? And your engine has to be able to handle houses sprining up from the terrain, and you have to worry about them being planted in places with terrain in the way (say a stream crossing the middle, or a large rock).

Lots and LOTS of work for a bullet point on a wish list that won't draw or keep many players. How many people keep playing a game because their house rocked while the rest of the game sucked? Not too many I suspect.

 

How is an advanced city system with player controlled environment not content? I fail to see how more linear dungeons qualifies as content but a player created world it not.

MMO's are not about playing through what the designers made (What you call 'content'), they are about living in and altering a virtual world as you please.

You comment about ' wont draw many players' is horribly false. Just read this thread and see how many agree. Also, go look up the popularity of SWG and UO, then tell me these player structures are not desired.

 

Advanced city system: Lots of empty, barren ghost towns. See SWG for good examples of this.

Dungeon = content for everyone. Some guild's empty city? Content for them, when they're online, if they're still playing.

MMO's are about having fun. Guild cities that can be plopped down in the middle of no where? Not much fun for most people. They cause urban blight, ruining the landscape for most people.

You want the Sims, not a MMORPG.

And this thread has some people who like houses (I like houses, but having them instanced is the better solution), and a few who think urban blight is a good thing. Hardly a convincing argument. I'm looking at the popularity of UO and SW:G, and it tells me... they aren't that popular. SW:G was never as popular as EQ1 which didn't have houses or cities. UO? It was only popular because it was the only one around for a while. And I seem to remember the screams of people who complained about there being nothing but vast stretches of player housing ruining the game.... funny, that.

Player housing and player cities do not bring much bang for the buck, especially player cities.

Outside of the simplistic UO and SW:G's vast stretches of emptiness, MMO's are about content. In most games there is no room for player cities and player houses. There are thousands of players on every server and they'd each have a house.... where do you put them all? And your engine has to be able to handle houses sprining up from the terrain, and you have to worry about them being planted in places with terrain in the way (say a stream crossing the middle, or a large rock).

Lots and LOTS of work for a bullet point on a wish list that won't draw or keep many players. How many people keep playing a game because their house rocked while the rest of the game sucked? Not too many I suspect.

May 1st IGN? Open beta? Has this been confirmed anywhere else?

Hmm.....

Not much time to download a huge client and actually get to see more than a couple levels of the game prior to the pre-release people already starting to play for real...

I was suckered by Funcom on AO's launch... don't make me regret this one Funcom. If you need the time to make the game complete, take the time. Its less than 2 months to release, but it isn't too late if you need to... unless EIDOS is breathing down your necks and wants their money back.

I play games to have "fun". If I want to show off my skills, I can do that while having "fun" in games, or I can do that at work programming applications. But games are about "fun", not showing off skills for the most part for me.

Team based PvP combat is merely one subset of a much larger game design where people who want to do the various flavors can if they choose, or not, if they don't. "Team Based" non-objective PvP combat sounds like just a deathmatch kind of thing, and that'd get old quick to me. That's why they added CTF and the other forms of team based PvP because team deathmatch is the simplest and least "stimulating" of the team based PvP formats. The only objective is to kill the other side. The other modes include that object AND other tasks to make it more "team" oriented.