Originally posted by Vladarion

Well...I see the MMORPG.com community has gotten...aggressive for lack of a better word.  If you noticed I posted this at 2:52 AM last night.  I got into the CB around 1:00 and the first two installations I figured I just had downloaded a corrupted client.  Therefore I made a post on here before I went to bed hoping someone would have the answer by the time I got on the next day. 

You see, it was the night before thanksgiving, I had a lot to do today, yatta yatta yatta, so I was just looking for a helping person which I got.  Thank you Dzoni87, I appreciate your generous help.  For those who decided to waste 30 seconds of your life to bash me, well I hope you had fun because it doesn't phase me.  Remember, when you assume it makes an ass out of you and me.

The only lesson I think you should have gotten out of this is not that the MMORPG community is unfriendly, but rather you shouldnt post before taking one second of your time to research. No one cares about your rant or frustrations... you do realize that right? The lesson learned here is to know when to make new topics and when not to. You should know better.

Originally posted by Polarisation

And in my opinion, will be the downfall of this game, assuming that SV are able to sell enough new beta slots to fund the game development to the point of release.

Leaving aside the well-known bad/dodgy aspects of the game -- the fact most of the touted features of the game are still not even in the game after months of beta, the generally very slow pace of development in the beta, and the fact that SV is having to sell off another 10K beta slots to continue the game's development -- I just don't think that FP-only view works very well at all for a MMORPG.

The main reason why FP-only view doesn't work is that in real-life, we all have peripheral vision allowing us to perceive motion and limited detail out to almost 180 degree frontal arc. FP view necessarily retricts the viewing arc to closer to 90 degrees, or as in MO's case, extends a bit further, resulting in the (IMO, disturbing) "fish-eye" effect seen in MO videos.

IMO, archery works quite well as FP, magic doesn't feel quite right as FP, and FP melee is downright terrible. FP magic loses a lot of immersion and wow factor due to magic animations being restricted to a "glowy hands" effect. FP melee is (IMO) particularly bad - the restricted viewing angle doesn't work well with the wide swinging arcs of medium to large hand-held weapons, leaving the FP melee feeling restricted, closed in, and claustrophobic - the precise opposite of what the experience should be like. Darkfall's approach of keeping archery and magic as FP but melee in 3rdPV in my opinion was the best possible compromise, though I would have preferred to have been able to manually flip between 1stPV and 3rdPV at all times.

Feel free to share your thoughts.

If you are using "real life" as the basis of your argument, then third person wouldnt work either... you realize that right?

Second you say that magic wouldnt work in FP... there are tons of games that show that this is not the case. I suggest you play Arx Fatalis for an interesting first person magic mechanic. In fact, start with youtube videos. Oblivion also uses magic well in first person. You are aware that Mortal Online uses the Unreal engine right?

Third, Target audience. A little secret about video game development.... target audience. Not every mmorpg tries to be the next WoW. Blizzard intentionally designed their game for a broad market. Mortal Online is made for a niche market. Sometimes when your budget or team will not be able to compete with big titles such as WoW, you then have to provide a specialized product that appeals to a smaller but dedicated market.

That is what Mortal Online is doing. You say it wont work, then clearly you are not part of the target audience they are making the game for.

Do you understand?

Originally posted by Angelof2070

 

Do you want me to goto other websites solely just to ask a simple question which many gamers probably already know?

If one day you took out the Thidranki instance battleground, 10 level 24 players, stripped them of all their gear and gave them all the same gear (Plate for tanks, Cloth for wizards, npc store-bought gear) and then that was the entire game- do you think it would be any less DAoC?

Thidranki is a map.
Battleground is an instance completely separate from the rest of the world.
Max level is 24.
All same gear, except Armor Class %.
Turned off XP and turned off RPs.

What would be the difference if it played exactly the same?

Would it be any less DAoC? Most Thidranki players would agree it would be the same.

Now, upgrade the graphics to Crysis. Upgrade the spell affects, animations, etc.

The fun part of DAoC without the boring grind, without the unfair unbalanced populations, without twinks, newbs (lvl 20-23's), and a completely balanced, fair, INSTANT-action fight.

 

It might change if you add a mini-map, give everyone Radar, change the auto-attack to click-to-attack, and take away one or two abilities (or keep them... whatever...)

You may not be able to release it with all classes if you want to release it when it's "done" or you could wait and add ALL the classes, or at least the original ones.

 

It may not encompass everything about DAoC, but it would definitely be a BETTER (in every way you wanted) version of DAoC's Thidranki instance.

No. the fun part about DAOC is that it is a mmorpg, not a fps high fantasy counter strike game. The mechanics you want are already used with unreal tournament as well as half life 1-2. All you are suggesting is changing the art assets to be DAOC themed. Nothing more. Do you understand what you are asking? Art assets are anything you want them to be. If the mechanics already exist, then your answer is already answered. If you do not want a mmorpg, then why post here and not request a mod on mod-db or one of unreals websites (forums). If you are asking if someone can take DAOC art assets and convert them into unreal, then unless you want a bunch of low poly models... the artist would have to recreate them. It would still not be DAOC nor DAOC like you hope. It is very hard to get the same experience when switching engines and going indy/modding.

Originally posted by Angelof2070

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Originally posted by Angelof2070

 

---

Originally posted by nickelpat

 

The combat is definitely possible. Look at some of the mods already out like Age of Chivalry for Half Life 2.

---

---

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

 

yes its possible, many mmorpgs today use FPS engines. The question is really then, is it realistic? if you are talking about an indy group or mod team, then no. If mythic decides to remake DAOC and license the unreal engine, then sure.

---

Okay... so which is it?

 

Impossible for an mod team- or completely possible?

These are two exact opposite answers.

 

The mods mentioned by nicklepat are merely fps mods. They face eachother on a map, two sides, duking it out.  This is a mod working off an existing engine, scripted simply.

In order to add the mmorpg element into the mix, you suddenly lose the "simplicity" (not to say its simple) of it. You have to understand there is a difference between modding and actually buying the license to an engine and building an mmorpg from it.  Remember there is scripting involved, math, systems set up, dynamic gameplay to be added... the project is just too much. Mods take work that has already been done and tweak it (though adding their own assets at times), something like an mmorpg would not be just a simple "tweaking", unless you are modding an existing mmorpg with similar mechanics. That is unlikely.

 

What are you talking about???

 

No one is talking about taking Crysis and making an MMORPG.

 

We're talking about making a ( max server pop / 3 ) server where 3 teams fight each other, and instead of choosing "Spy, Engineer, Heavy Weapons Guy, Pyro, Scout" you're choosing "Warrior, Knight, Wizard", making it 3rd person instead of 1st person,  and making most things melee or targetted ranged instead of mouse aim + gun.

No items. No equipment. No levels. Simple mathematics (compared to MMORPG's).

 

By the sound of it, it appears you think I'm asking "Can we make DAoC using the crysis engine?" instead of the real question "Can we make a mod with a "DAoC" feel that plays in 3rd person kindof like DDO?"

I am in part confused because I did not think you meant merely a mod that ripped of something like team fortress or unreal tournaments assault mode. What would make it Daoc? Just the name of the sides? It is just, from my perspective such an obvious and no offense but "noob" question that I didnt actually think you meant that. What would be the point of such a mod if others exist already exactly like what you mentioned?

Furthermore, why ask this on a MMORPG focused website?

Originally posted by Angelof2070

 

---

Originally posted by nickelpat

 

The combat is definitely possible. Look at some of the mods already out like Age of Chivalry for Half Life 2.

---

---

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

 

yes its possible, many mmorpgs today use FPS engines. The question is really then, is it realistic? if you are talking about an indy group or mod team, then no. If mythic decides to remake DAOC and license the unreal engine, then sure.

---

Okay... so which is it?

 

Impossible for an mod team- or completely possible?

These are two exact opposite answers.

The mods mentioned by nicklepat are merely fps mods. They face eachother on a map, two sides, duking it out.  This is a mod working off an existing engine, scripted simply.

In order to add the mmorpg element into the mix, you suddenly lose the "simplicity" (not to say its simple) of it. You have to understand there is a difference between modding and actually buying the license to an engine and building an mmorpg from it.  Remember there is scripting involved, math, systems set up, dynamic gameplay to be added... the project is just too much. Mods take work that has already been done and tweak it (though adding their own assets at times), something like an mmorpg would not be just a simple "tweaking", unless you are modding an existing mmorpg with similar mechanics. That is unlikely.

yes its possible, many mmorpgs today use FPS engines. The question is really then, is it realistic? if you are talking about an indy group or mod team, then no. If mythic decides to remake DAOC and license the unreal engine, then sure.

Originally posted by Shohadaku

This issue has nothing to do with knowing if someone is really a girl when you play. It's about invading peoples right to privacy because of a GAME!  What business is it of any game company what someones true identity is. That's like McDonalds asking for ID to buy a hamburger.

Other then billing info a game company has absolutely no right to invade your privacy. This is WAAAAAY overstepping boundries.

Soon we will all have our RFID chips anyways and all transactions will already have our full ID info.

Wake up people. STOP accepting things like this or just bend over pull the wool over and "baaaaa" for your handlers.

Every person effected by that insane rule should leave and speak up with their cash. If NO person accepts this in that game, it will be overturned.

I truely hope people resist this. It's only 1 more step in a terrible direction our world is heading.

So wait, are you suggesting that people are being forced to purchase this mmorpg and have their privacy invaded? Really? Did you know the latest anti-piracy protection software does that already? Thats besides the point. Marketing... if a game sells its product and markets it with the idea that "guys are really guys and girls are really girls"... then is that wrong? Its their product, their marketing strategy, and for all you know, it is going after the exact target audience they desired. This can actually be a good thing for them. You seem to think of it as though someone is spying on you. On the contrary, it is a product that people do not have to buy if they dont like its marketing strategy and rule set. In this case the game is a play environment the developers created and the rules of that play environment are true to gender. That is the PLAY environment, it doesnt have to be for everyone.

Jon Wood, I think you are over reacting a bit, rather not looking at the larger picture. First, we have to accept and understand there is a thing called a cultural model. This decision by the developers and or publisher falls under china's cultural model. Second we have to accept that games and society are worth analyzing. We cannot say it is a bad move on their part because we do not understand all the facets of that decision within society or how it will affect the game play experience. I personally love the decision. For one, it can set the game apart from a pure marketing stand point. No one is forcing anyone else to play the game, therefore that decision might attract a target audience instead. You also have to look at females in gaming. Would girls like to play with girls? Is this decision above reinforcing that by being able to identify a fellow female? Same with males. Games and society, even if decisions seem absurd, can reveal much about who and how games appeal to their target audience, who their target audience really is and if it works. Can we not claim that gender restriction is merely part of the rule set? The game mechanic? I think its absurd to dismiss their move as bad. It is neither good nor bad, unless you give value to doing something different. Remember, MMO's are largely social games. Studies have shown the average female is attracted to social games. How do you think that might play into this decision? Can it change the play experience and for the better? These are questions to ask, not dismiss.

This isnt anything new, developers and academics have been saying for awhile now that the Sims, whose main player base is females, targeted both male and female gamers, though mostly female. It is a reflection on society. IN fact one could argue all of Will Wrights games have done so. What it comes down to is mechanics and aesthetics. Specific challenges with the right mechanics and a gender neutral aesthetic accomplish this. Good luck seeing females being a large part of star trek, but the sims, which reflects on society, social and creative aspects as well as the maintaining of daily life, is much different.

In fact some behavioral scientist have claimed that certain aspects of this behavior are hard wired into us. Meaning, the normal female would be attracted to the challenges and identifyable household chores (challenges), the aspect of maintaining and socializing life itself, become more enjoyable. It is also said that females are actually the best FPS players when it come to targeting and accuracy but lose it in the face of chaos, meaning when a lot is going on in the game world or screen. Yet males on the other hand operate well under chaotic situations. It has something to do with the eye and brain identification and reaction.

Very few of these game titles will really hit a gender neutral audience. The only one that is really acceptable on this list is the sims. Everything else is debatable and given statistics, not really open to get a new demographic which is really only old people and females. The average gamer is 35 years old, children have always been targeted and successfully drawn into games. This leaves just females and older folk. Did you know the most played game in the world by females is solitaire? Not just by females though it is the most played highest selling game ever. Crazy when you think about it.

Originally posted by Kordesh

Originally posted by Oyjord

I agree with the OP about EVERY point except the combat.  It still feels clunky and poorly coded and the animations need a lot more work to engross the player in the fight.

Honestly, I felt that way at first, and I would probably agree entirely if we're talking about melee (the double fisted ice cream cone stance for dual wielding is terrible =p) but rifles are pretty awesome as is (with the exception of crossbow which I wish they would sync the reload animation with the delay). 

all in due time. Once half a year has passed since release, then you can get anal about it, but given the nature of the company (its size and budget), they did very well. They have a list of priorities and sadly, sometimes the visual fixes such as you mentioned are often low on that list.

Unless the free to play game is asking for a credit card just to sign up and play, then no its not incorrect or unethical. Look, the whole point of f2p games is that they are accessable for free, and, if you like what you play then you can pay for the otherstuff, but under no circumstance is the player forced to pay to use the game. No credit card is required even.

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

If raiding in mmo's is so great, why do player solo?

Raiding should never be done on the same level of soloing. Who would want to grind raids all day? That is one of the problems WoW faced early on. The point is, games like mmo's should offer variety, any gamer who believes you should only stick to one mode of play is an ignorant gamer. Soloing requires no group, no planning, no special situation. It is the most accessible form of play. Not everyone wants to deal with other players all the time. However, raiding should be the option that exist in light of soloing. Raiding isnt an accessible mode of play, nor is it efficient at all times. PUGs tend to be nightmares, and can often add less enjoyment to a game than soloing. In otherwords, you cant go wrong soloing, raiding is more complex and a lot can go wrong. 

 

 

Different players like different games. I enjoy PUGs im MMORPGs more than anything else in the game. I almost never find PuGS to be nightmares, but then I'm not playing to get elite gear or to race to the level cap. I've never had more fun soloing an MMORPG than in playing in a PUG.

I'd rather have a PUG that gets me wiped and lose xp, than solo and gain xp in an MMORPG. Why? Because I'd have MUCH more fun in the PUG, and that's why i'm playing the game.

I guess you don't like PUGs, and that's fine we all like different things.

There are no games that don't allow you to solo, or dont' allow you to group.

We are never discussing EITHER Or in these threads.

The discussion is about the balance.

In WoW you are encouraged, IMO, to solo to the cap.

In EQ you are encouraged, IMO, to group to the cap.

You can group in WoW, you can solo in EQ.

BOTH games offer a choice, BOTH games have options.

I prefer being encouraged to group pre-raid, apparantly you prefer to be encouraged to solo pre -raid. Which is fine, why not make games for both of us?

Well that is your opinion certainly, though Pugs by nature, statistically as anyone can see, are more open to disaster than anything else. Not everyone in a Pug will work towards the same goal, some may even have the goal to ruin the Pug. There is always the issue of compatibility via Pugs. However, this is only one part of the greater discussion.

You think WoW encourages soloing to cap, I would argue otherwise. WoW is the mmorpg definition of accessibility. This is a word that is used often in the industry, it is the holy mantra in which AAA mmorpgs chant. WoW developers understand that solo play is the most accessible form of play, and to you it seems like they cater towards it, rather what you are seeing is just how accessible soloing is. WoW gives the option for all modes of play, grouping will lvl you faster to cap, it will allow raids and dungeons to be completed and it keeps you safer in pvp zones. They have not created a solo game, but a game in which many are seen soloing. The option is there, and it is popular.

Did you know statistically female gamers are most likely to solo? Behavioral studies revealed that many female gamers shy away from conflict or interaction with other players. MMORPGs also tend to have a large female player base, even if it does not appear that way.

Again it all comes back to accessibility. You ask "why not make a game for both of us", and that is exactly what WoW did, even if you dislike the game, it is made for all modes of play. This is why it is so popular, still.

Originally posted by warmen_faith

Sounds like a brand of liquid detergent lol

You were thinking the same thing? There are two detergent brands here, one is called dawn, the other is called tide.

If raiding in mmo's is so great, why do player solo?

Raiding should never be done on the same level of soloing. Who would want to grind raids all day? That is one of the problems WoW faced early on. The point is, games like mmo's should offer variety, any gamer who believes you should only stick to one mode of play is an ignorant gamer. Soloing requires no group, no planning, no special situation. It is the most accessible form of play. Not everyone wants to deal with other players all the time. However, raiding should be the option that exist in light of soloing. Raiding isnt an accessible mode of play, nor is it efficient at all times. PUGs tend to be nightmares, and can often add less enjoyment to a game than soloing. In otherwords, you cant go wrong soloing, raiding is more complex and a lot can go wrong. 

Bill Roper dropped the soap on a rope, hes just waiting for you to bend over and pick it up. That sums up the kind of business model Cryptic is using.

Originally posted by Veryth

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Not sure what pnp you have been playing, but I have yet to see an official campaign that has dungeons stacked right next to eachother and epic fights in every NPC's bedroom much less their toiletry.

... I think the people of Waterdeep would whole-heartedly disagree.

 

Waterdeep was one of the largest cities in Faerun, which was built on top off a vast network of tunnels which were part of the underdark, as well as having another city below it. Needless to say, there wasnt a dungeon every few steps, rather you had two entire cities build on top of one another, one more prone to evil than the other. Huge difference, especially when comparing it to DDO.

"Originally posted by Dibdabs

As far as I'm concerned, an "illusion of a certain feature" is just a meaningless game concept. Some games take the illusion further, some less so, but it's all just fakery no matter how well it is done and ultimately a fake is a fake.

If it's fun, I like it, whether it's Eve Online, Aion, Anarchy Online, Wow, Guild Wars or whatever. How they give the illusion of "reality" and to what degree they take it to is irrelevant, because I know I'm merely playing a game, a piece of amusement.

I started playing computer games when, for example, Star Trek was played on a 10 X 10 grid using ASCII characters, so my Suspension Of Disbelief muscles are pretty well developed."

Illusion is the greatest, least meaningless "game concept" one can use during game design. The idea is to give the impression of something going on visually, when its completely different, often more simple under the hood. Random features in games for example mostly use a number generator, its as simple as that.

For many developers, certain game concepts are not feasible given the budget, the time, or technology. IN that case you have to "cheat" in order to get the same results. A magician has to trick the user into thinking magic is taking place, or at least, prevent them from seeing what would ruin the show, aka alienate the audience. Games are not an exception from that either, for the most part.

Hey people use to think kicking cans was fun... times change, the boundaries are pushed. The more visual the medium, the more detail involved, the harder a developer has to work to get it right. You can make a vague game on a vague platform, but once you start adding in details, more responsibility is added. It is one of the pros and cons when considering how game development has changed with technology. No longer are games developed by 1 lonely programmer at his kitchen table, now they are made with teams of 30-50 people and budgets that surpass the 10 million dollar mark.
 

Originally posted by Dibdabs

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

In DDO, you are surrounded by "epic dungeons" which just so happen to be right next to eachother in a small space. Even an NPC's bedroom turns into a freaking dungeon... i mean give me a break. 

I take it you'd rather your character had to walk, at a realistic pace, 10 to 20 miles to get to every dungeon or quest?  Wow, that would take an hour or three out of your gaming time right there, but whatever floats your boat.

'Dungeons almost within walking distance' was part of the charm of the pencil and paper game, even back when I played AD&D over 30 years ago, in the Blackmoor Campaign. (Anyone else played using the white A5 boxed rulebooks?)  None of the later modules were in any way "realistic" either, what with abandoned temples full of undead right next to a happy village, smugglers through a hatch in the floor in a tavern, monsters of all kinds in the town sewers...

Even in other games you will have played, there will be hostile groups of bandits or skeletons 20 yards from the town gates, and people who's eternal goal  is to have you - and every other player in the game - bring them 10 Rats Tails, kill 10 Goblins or deliver a package to someone a mere 300 yards away that no courier has somehow ever been able to deliver.  That's the genre for you, no matter what the game.  You just turn up the Suspension of Belief up a notch, kick back and enjoy the ride, be it Eve Online, DDO, Wow, Aion, AoC, LotR, whatever.

In a "real" RPG or MMORPG (there never will be a "real" one, but you know what I mean) your character would take one hit from a longbow arrow and that would be game over, even if you didn't actually die.  As for getting Fireballed - that staple of fantasy games - you'd have 3rd degree burns, seared lungs and loss of vision at the least.

Games are games.  Reality is in abeyance for just a short, blessed while.  Don't anguish over it.  Just say "what the hell" and have fun.

The key word here is "alienation". People dont realize that it carries just as much weight in game design as it does with film production. Good designers will work to actively create the illusion of a certain feature, even if it doesnt exist. Take Fallout for example, you travel across the west coast and while it connotes the actual travel, in reality it only takes a few seconds. There is really no excuse for illogical dungeons being scattered around everywhere within a small confined space. This is just Turbine being untalented and lazy.

They really are, there is nothing respectable about the company imo. They do not manage to do anything well, which is a bad when you consider the types of franchises they get. In other words, they spend more time and money acquiring a license than actually producing a good product to match it. To them, they let the name sell the game, not the actual quality. This is the result. Shoddy game design.

Not sure what pnp you have been playing, but I have yet to see an official campaign that has dungeons stacked right next to eachother and epic fights in every NPC's bedroom much less their toiletry.

You seem to mistake what games are... Games by definition are rule sets in which a challenge is created. Multiple types of challenges often help define the genres. With any visual medium, immersion and the lack of alienation builds on top of the challenge, giving it substance. If the substance is bad, regardless of the challenge, the game will not be great. Immersion is one of the most key factors in the RPG genre. Given the way DDO is designed, again its nothing more than a glorified hack n slash. If thats what you enjoy, its what you enjoy... its not for everyone, nor would it be very true to the pnp D&D experience.

What i pointed out earlier, was that you do not realize DDO does have the collect/kill X amount quests, and that grinding dungeons from a small hub over and over is no better, some might argue worse, than grinding individual enemies in a larger and open world.

Originally posted by Rokurgepta

Originally posted by Rabenwolf

Its kind of silly to say how it will be deleted, how its stupid to post it, how you will probably get banned. Just leave it out unless you WANT that to happen.

As for the topic... part of the problem was that DDO was just another hack n slash in that regard... yes might work for some... but its supposed to be Dungeons and Dragons though... and while they already lost the true D&D fans with such a horrible product, they might lose the DDO fans (not to be associated with D&D fans imo). Oh well, they already made their money, now DDO is a test project for them.

 

DDO was far from another hack and slash and always had been. Many of the people left playing this game are true D&D fans.

 

As for making their money, you must be kidding me right? DDO has not turned a profit and unless the F2P hybrid is a big hit never will. Well if they sue Atari for enough maybe they can call it even.

It is a hack n slash, the type of classes the majority play are an indicator of this play style. Solo melee types that just swing their weapon at anything that moves. Furthermore, there is no indicator that DDO players are true D&D fans. I separate the two because they are two different groups. Ebberon is one of the worst D&D campaigns, it was created during a contest in which to appeal to a different type of group. So far turbine has been good at getting blockbuster franchises, expecting the names to sell their games while providing horrible and low quality games. If you have a 10 million dollar franchise for example, you better make a 10 million dollar game. In other words, blockbuster franchises deserve blockbuster products. 

As for DDO's profits, they have nothing left to lose. The entire game was a mess to begin with.

Originally posted by Dibdabs

"By the way DDO is the first MMO I ever played that actually doesn't reward you for killing mobs at all, and that's quite an innovation. The progression and the experience your character gains are entirely objective based. That means you can choose to play a stealthy character that is going to skip most of the encounters to go directly to the main objective and it's totally fine...."

"Neither has some npc asked me to bring him back 10 wolf tails."

 

Two of the features I LOVE TO BITS!  Sorry, I get carried away there.  Every other game I have played had these stupid features and, strangely enough, after playing WoW and especially after trying Spellborn, I never want to see another "Collect 10 of this" quest ever again.

Excellent review, and a good game.  Like you, this puts me in a quandary, because Aion will e dropping through my letter box shortly, too.

"I never want to see another "Collect 10 of this" quest ever again." Unfortunately for you, DDO has those too.

Not only that, but you get to do those quests in INSTANCES... fun. In fact, the entire game is summed up by farming instances over and over and over and getting some magical treasure chest to appear at the end. How is this any different from "WoW"? One of the biggest beef people had with WoW was grinding the dungeons over and over. In DDO, you do that from the beginning all the way to end game and more. In other words, they managed to take the thing people liked least about WoW and put it in every part of the game.

Furthermore, the only time you see other players is in hubs that link the dungeons, ala failed feature found in Hellgate London. Another problem people had with the single player game OBLIVION, is that every few steps there was another dungeon. Quite illogical really. In DDO, you are surrounded by "epic dungeons" which just so happen to be right next to eachother in a small space. Even an NPC's bedroom turns into a freaking dungeon... i mean give me a break. DDO is by far one of the worst designed games I have ever been able to play. Guild Wars uses instances and at least they got it right. Might as well play that instead, its more populated and cost no sub. It also actually has a thing called good pvp.

Its kind of silly to say how it will be deleted, how its stupid to post it, how you will probably get banned. Just leave it out unless you WANT that to happen.

As for the topic... part of the problem was that DDO was just another hack n slash in that regard... yes might work for some... but its supposed to be Dungeons and Dragons though... and while they already lost the true D&D fans with such a horrible product, they might lose the DDO fans (not to be associated with D&D fans imo). Oh well, they already made their money, now DDO is a test project for them.