|
|
12/21/06 3:46 PM
|
|
Viewed 389, Replies 12
|
|
|
Vanguard will be a grindfest and items will be important. DAoC is also a grindfest, where items are important. But the PvP and community are both good. You will need a good computer to run this though. Nothing worse than a Geforece 5 series, and no less than 1gig of RAM, because of the graphic updates. Community is small compaired to the largeness of the world. You do have twinks in the BG's however, but the community is nice enough to help you out if you find a nice guild, which isn't hard. Nightfall, I haven't played, but it remains the logical choice for you. But I have played Prophecies and I know enough to know that it is who you meet and form friendships with on whether or not you will like the game. Communities can make or break the game, as you've seen with WoW. No idea about UO, but if yo decide to play it, wait for the graphic update to buy the game. Then buy the package deal they will release. That is what I might do. From what I hear, there isn't really a grind, but it is a game that relies on what skills you choose to level up and how you use them. UO is more of a virtual world, than a game you just jump into like Guild Wars. DDO would be perfect for you if you have the time to look for groups, because this is a group only game. I liked the game, but I felt constricted only being able to travel within the city. I also like player housing and exploration. This game offers only one side of DnD. That is the side of dungeon crawls and character development.
So, finally, I suggest Nightfall. If Nightfall doesn't do it for you, I would wait until another game is released. Be prepared to upgrade your computer though.
|
|
|
|
12/21/06 3:19 PM
|
|
Viewed 2843, Replies 75
|
|
I am willing to debate with you, since it seems like you have a good head on your shoulders and won't get all emotional on me. So you and I can answer this question together. We both know that soloing is easier to get into, because you don't have to go through the effort of finding a group. Hell, I can admit that in DAoC I was happy to be able to solo while I looked for a group. But why would a person group if soloing reaped the same xp awards and allowed you to get to max level faster. I'm not saying we are all in a rush to get there, but we all want to keep advancing. Because essentially, not everyone is like me. Most people I have ran across, even though they were friendly and could carry on a good conversation while leveling, were mostly interested in getting to max level asap. So if soloing is easier to get into and also yeilds the same xp, why would someone who wants to advance now rather than later wait to get a group? This is why I feel that the xp must be better or come at a faster per hour pace if you group. A little off subject, but important nonetheless. I am against raid sized groups. I believe that you are no hero at all if you can't take down the strongest monster in a small group (3-4 people). In fact, I like the DnD group setup. A Caster, Tank, Rogue, and Healer. A group of 4 should be able to accomplish anything. In a RPing sense, the lone wolf is viable in most situations, but they rely heavily on merchants to supply their gear/food and local governments to cooperate with them. So a game like SWG where you could solo was good, because grouping was still fun, but what made the game was the reliance on non-combat professions. You had reasons to go back to a city or town...or of course you could pay a Doctor and Entertainer to come with you and you could just set up a camp in the wilderness. |
|
|
|
12/21/06 3:06 PM
|
|
Viewed 2843, Replies 75
|
|
I just wanted to reply and thank you for your maturity and that I did read the reply that took some meaningful effort to put together. Usually, I do not get that angry and my posts are not that harsh. Even reading back on this one, I can't believe I actually said some of that stuff. It doesn't mean I don't believe it or don't think it, I just usually am a civil type of person. I guess we all had different but valid experiences in the old games that lead us to where we are now. I obviously had a blast in the old games, whereas there were probably many things that got on your nerves. I guess it is time for people like me to face it and acknowledge that are days are over. I guess people like me should try our best to keep the old games running or go play DnD pnp games (not that I know how). Anyways, thanks for not losing your cool. |
|
|
|
12/21/06 2:30 PM
|
|
Viewed 356, Replies 17
|
|
Yup that and Pre ea ultima The difference is that UO still has a server dedicated for the UO oldtimers. The only person to blame for not taking advantage of that server is the person themselves. Also, it is also lame to force a person to play the way you want, so saying the one server sucks because you don't have the player base that doesn't want to get ganked is just wrong. |
|
|
|
12/21/06 2:28 PM
|
|
Viewed 356, Replies 17
|
|
|
Every MMORPG is technically a real MMORPG because it exists, but figuritively speaking a real MMORPG is a MMORPG that has player housing, player ran economy, some sort of advancement system, whether it be titles, levels or skills and a way to advance up that system. A reason to play, whether it be player driven or Developer driven, and it must make people depend on each other. As someone else said, SWG was a prime example. Ultima Online is another one. So is Shadowbane. DAoC and EQ were too. Hell, almost every pre-WoW game was. WoW is a lame MMORPG at best because other than Raiding, people do not have to depend on each other, raid gear is better than crafted gear, so there isn't a real player economy, and there isn't any player ran cities. |
|
|
|
12/21/06 2:17 PM
|
|
Viewed 2843, Replies 75
|
|
I keep using DAoC and SWG as an example, but they are both really good examples for just about every argument. In DAoC you could solo to 50 if you wanted, but it would be a lot faster to group to 50. This is the way it should be. Group players shouldn't necessarily get better gear for grouping, the crafters should make the gear anyways. Solo players could play the way they like, but people who would rather group would actually group, instead of soloing. There are groupers in WoW that will not group, because the pace is much slower than if you solo. This is the type of game mechanics that piss me off. Soloers in general don;t, unless the gameplay was designed around the soloer. WoW is an example of gameplay designed around the soloer (except for endgame) while DAoC was designed to reward people for grouping. But in DAoC the best gear was crafter made, not dropped off of raid bosses. |
|
|
|
12/21/06 2:08 PM
|
|
Viewed 2843, Replies 75
|
|
Hey, I played SWG too. I agree, one player per server is enough...for a skill based game where you can drop your professions and take on a different set anytime you want. But most game have a class system and each class is different and is interesting in their own way. That is why I create multiple characters per account. But on SWG, I was perfectly fine with one character and I prefer it that way. I prefer every game to be like that, but those games must have a skill based system. |
|
|
|
12/21/06 2:04 PM
|
|
Viewed 2843, Replies 75
|
|
|
I've kept my mouth shut on this subject editorial after editorial, but I can't do it anymore. This website is obviously ran by a bunch of casual players and will always support the point of view of solo players. Don't get me wrong, I am a casual player to, in the sense that I don't play but 20 hours a week, but I used to play a lot more back when DAoC was still new and SWG was still good. But I have a family of my own, married w/ a son of my own in school now. But I can still afford the time to meet people and form groups. The writer of this article is using extremes to persuade the readers to his point of view. This is utter bullshit, because in DAoC when I first started playing and even now, including SWG as well, before the NGE, 9 times out of 10 people weren't idiots that you grouped with and everyone was mature and had a good time. We all would chat and grind at the same time having fun hours upon hours. You keep using the extreme that you end up in bad groups, well how about stop playing WoW and play a more mature game. Then you won't get into bad groups like that anymore. Pick up groups generally suck in WoW and WoW is what most casual players know. WoW is also a poor excuse for a multiplayer game, because the quest content can be completed solo and has no benefit to grouping and is also too easy to do in groups. And no it is not like that in every game. Most games I have played (13 total, not counting F2P) have the ability to choose the challenge you will face instead of being spoonfed content in the form of stupid kill and fed ex quests. You may be able to solo white mobs easily, but in a group you fight the red and purple ones, because they are challenging. People like you are pushing me to the point to where I say the MMORPG market would have been better off for the players if casual solo players never started playing. That's right, because you keep pushing this view in our face, we are beginning to think that the MMORPG world would be a better place without you. Who needs some lame kill quests or fed ex quests when you can create content of your own through RPing. Yes, these are RPG's, so don't even try to argue the point. Just put out a crap ton of monsters out there, give them some good AI, and keep quests to a minimum. If you're going to do a quest, it should be epic. It should be a quest that spans several levels or the whole game and when you complete it, you are satisfied, because the quest took intelligence and patience to beat. Single player games have these sort of quests, so do DAoC. Hell even SWG had a back ground quest built into the lore. Rebels and Imperials are at war with each other and Neutrals and the Criminal faction are caught in-between. Try to stay alive and become the dominant faction. That in itself is epic in nature and doesn't need a bunch of kill quests. If a person can't keep themselves entertained in a virtual world, we really don't need that person in it. We need people who are dedicated to the game, who have imaginations, who have some social skills and have a good personality. We don't need people who don't have the time to form a group, who want developers to waste their time creating kill and fed ex quests, because they can't create a reason of their own to play, and people who are anti-social, or are borish. The MMORPG community was fine before WoW came along. We may have been small, but we socialized, and were dedicated to the game and we didn't need borish un-epic quests. We enjoyed being with each other and grouping and we depended on each other a lot. Those were the good ol' days and I've been pushed too far be people like you to hold my tongue any longer. The Devs may want your money, but the rest of the MMORPG community will never accept you as one of us and you will always be ostracized by people who are committed to someone other than themselves in game. |
|
|
|
12/20/06 10:42 AM
|
|
Viewed 182, Replies 7
|
|
|
I wanted to get a discussion going on MMORPG business models. I was laying down last night trying to go to sleep and all I could think about was the different business models out there and how some success stories are making other companies look real greedy. Please tell me what you think about my analysis and which would be your preferred business model. Please feel free to contribute your own ideas, because this is after all a discussion. So lets see what we already have out there: Guild Wars- This game proved that a company can make enough money off their box sales to support an online game. The downside is that we have to assume that the instancing helps, there isn't any real customer support, and there isn't any monthly content upgrades. It's also a smallish CORPG. F2P/Membership- Games like Runescape allow you to play for free, but playing for free isn't near as worth paying $5/mo to play it. So I think this business model sucks, because any acheiver will have to pay. And if you are going to pay for a MMORPG, why would it be Runescape? F2P/Item shops- So far this seems to be working out okay. Most items are available through drops, and the few that aren't will not make or break you character template. I find this to be a good business model, but how do we know the communities won't be permanently destroyed by all the 1337 kids that would start playing the better MMORPG's, not that they already aren't with the $15/mo model (cough...WoW). Monthly Fee model- Most MMORPG's go by this model, whether it is $9/mo or $15/mo. They usually charge around $49 for the box and then their monthly fee on top of that. In addition to the game itself, we have usually good customer support, GM's, moderated forums, monthly content patches, and about 1 expansion per year that we pay for. Monthly Fee model...Plus- I had to make a seperate category for SOE, because their model is different. I will make a seperate category for EvE and DDO as well. This model here SOE uses, which in my opinion is very greedy. They charge $15/mo for their MMORPG, and then they charge you $5-$7 for each adventure pack, which is equivalent to every other MMORPG's free content patches. They also push out 2 expansions a year that you have to pay for. This model makes SOE's games very expensive to maintain and keep up on. It is my belief that people should shun this practise and welcome SOE to the rest of the MMORPG world. Monthly Fee model...Minus- You first had the regular monthly fee games which charged for the box, subscription, and for expansions. The you had the Plus package which offers you a chance to pay for every last bit of content you will ever receive...no freebee's here. Now, last but not least, you have the Minus package which is the less greedy and probably best business model of them all. Here you have to buy the box and pay a subscription fee. But the content patches and the expansions are free. So this model weeds out there F2P kiddies, but offers the most bang for your buck to those who pay.
So from what I see here, SOE is the most greedy, ripping people off every chance they get, plus they change the game completely at will. Then you have the bandwagon MMORPG's that charge you for the box and monthly, because every other MMORPG is doing it. You also have the F2P MMORPGs that range from GW's model to Rappelz item shop model. This creates a gateway for kids to MMORPG's. Lastly, you have the P2P MMORPG's that are the less greedy, because they have found a way to be efficient with just the box fee and a monthly fee. People are glad to pay the montly fee to keep the kids out of the game, besides...we know how much it costs to keep servers running and to pay the salaries, but we also know that they are raking in the dough enough to give us free expansions and content patches, and they give it to us for free in return. So which model would you prefer and why. |
|
|
|
12/20/06 10:13 AM
|
|
Viewed 741, Replies 36
|
|
|
My wish list would be a good Star Wars sandbox MMORPG, a good DnD MMORPG that simulates the feel of pnp pretty closely, but with graphics. That's about it as far as IP's go. |
|
|
|
12/20/06 9:23 AM
|
|
Viewed 9111, Replies 167
|
|
I played much more than 30 quests. I did every single one of them, because I liked LOTRO at first and I didn't want to miss one bit. But as I played and as most people soloed and as I realized that the quests were no different from WoW, I grew sad. I no longer plan to buy this game. Now lets talk about LoTR and the classes for LoTRO. There weren't classes in the books. They had of course a wizard and a ranger, but both of those are rare. So here we have made up classes by Turbine, when some of them have no place in the game. Such as the Loremaster. The loremaster has no place in the game, and if you were arguing objectively, you would at least admit that. The other classes shouldn't be there as well. Because a person in the middle earth would shoot a bow if he wanted or would draw a sword or two swords if he wanted. They wouldn't of been restricted by class boundaries, because they don't exist in the middle earth. No, people like me are leaving this game, because it is too much like WoW. It is quest and solo oriented, and only a few classes. They do have a nice community going for them and I'm sure there will be plenty of roleplaying, which I like. But I prefer grinding over questing. I prefer having a wide variety of classes to choose from. And I want the chance to become a hero. In LoTR, there is the Fellowship. They are the hero's of the story, not you. I didn't feel like a hero one bit playing that game. I felt like an accomplice. That is not what I look for in a game. Glad you like it, but to strut around telling people who want an honest opinion that the quests don't include many kill and collect quests, than you are lying.
P.S.- Don't get me wrong, Vanguard will have kill quests too. That's why I am not entirely sure I want to play vanguard either. At least in Vanguard, I imagine people will group. Grouping in LoTRO was like grouping in WoW. People only grouped when they needed to. I'm an old MMORPG gamer and I am used to people grouping because they want to, not only because they need to. People now-days only want to solo and only group if the quest is too hard to solo. |
|
|
|
12/19/06 10:14 PM
|
|
Viewed 9111, Replies 167
|
|
Umm...you haven't played beta have you. The game is a quest theme park and most of the quests are kill x10 and fed ex quests. Now the main story line is good, but that only accounts for a very small percentage of the game. |
|
|
|
12/19/06 10:10 PM
|
|
Viewed 642, Replies 35
|
|
He said he wanted a game where you never solo and everyone teams. If you claim that about WoW, then you're a damned liar. WoW's instances only account for a small percentage of its content. Same with Elite bosses. Raiding is strictly group oriented, but that is just the end game. He also complained about having to wait around for an hour or so to form a party. WoW is not for him. Most of the content in WoW is better xp if you solo. There is no rewards for grouping and most people who play WoW are soloers. That is another reason WoW has trouble with raiding. You have a bunch of soloers trying to get along in a group. |
|
|
|
12/19/06 10:01 PM
|
|
Viewed 642, Replies 35
|
|
Then there isn't an MMORPG out there for you. Are you sure you like grouping games? Being able to commit enough time to form a group and do something with that group is part of it. You've trashed the only grouping games out there and there isn't another grouping game coming out in the next couple years. |
|
|
|
12/19/06 9:58 PM
|