|
|
7/07/08 10:29 PM
|
|
Viewed 1818, Replies 47
|
|
You are one ignorant MMOer. No, you don't just click on guy once. If you click on a guy once your weapon still stop firing because your weapon works like in an FPS (you click to fire). And you still have the entire movement and stance system and it's not just some B.S. "You're in the tiger stance! +33% damage, -33% speed!" It's an actual stance. You drop to one knee. And until recently there was no target lock in TR so if your target veared too far away from your cursor you lost your target. And on top of all that TR featured a weapon "beading" system which simulated accuracy like in most FPSs (basically exactly like Counter Strike's weapon beading). <Mod edit> |
|
|
|
7/07/08 10:35 AM
|
|
Viewed 580, Replies 8
|
|
Originally posted by Bunglermoose Ummm, are you on the dev team or something??? |
|
|
|
7/07/08 12:38 AM
|
|
Viewed 1253, Replies 33
|
|
Originally posted by vajuras
Could you please not be so pretentious as to presume my thoughts? You do not need to be a WoW fanboi to think EVE's skill advancement was a bad decision. Case in point I've never played WoW. If you look under my avatar at that train of acroynyms you can see every MMO I've ever played. EVE's skill advancement and combat system are poorly designed and implemented. It did other things right but those two ain't among them. |
|
|
|
7/07/08 12:08 AM
|
|
Viewed 1253, Replies 33
|
|
Originally posted by Squal'Zell
I don't advocate cookie cutter MMOs. I hate classes. I hate levels. I hate instances. I hate anything that isn't open PvP. The last game that came even remotely close to satisfying me was preCU SWG and even then just barely. And I also think EVE's skill advancement system is retarded. Sue me. I'd rather earn my skills the old fashioned then sit around with some stupid calculator and be like, "Yup, I'm worthless until two months from this day." This isn't a knock against the actual skills of EVE but just how they're earned. I think it was the worst decision CCP ever made with EVE. That and choosing RPG die-based combat for game based on spaceship combat. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 10:32 PM
|
|
Viewed 6332, Replies 33
|
|
|
Unless Destination Games pumps out more content then what was launched with the game over the next few months TR will probably be cancelled. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 10:29 PM
|
|
Viewed 1253, Replies 33
|
|
Originally posted by Squal'Zell Thanks for proving me right. The later one joins EVE the more and more disadvantaged they are. It's that simple. That's why their skill advancement blows. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 8:47 PM
|
|
Viewed 580, Replies 8
|
|
Originally posted by Bunglermoose Doesn't "momentum" imply they've done something positive previously? The "big feature" promised in D10, Clan Owned Control Points, was axed from D10 and pushed back. Destination Games hasn't established any momentum whatsoever. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 8:43 PM
|
|
Viewed 3190, Replies 33
|
|
|
According to MMOGChart.com TR is lucky to claim even 75k subs. Frankly, I've never found MMOGChart.com to be that far off the mark. I have no idea why people here give that guy so much shit. He doesn't pull his numbers out of thin air. It's important to keep in mind that TR has done so poorly, both in terms of boxes sold and active subscriptions, that NCSoft didn't even bother to mention the product once in their last fiscal report to shareholders. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 8:41 PM
|
|
Viewed 6332, Replies 33
|
|
|
Six months isn't even long enough before getting into this game (in fact nothing of importance was added in the six months after launch, or even until now; eight months later). I'd wait a solid year before giving this game a try so basically check back in October or November. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 8:38 PM
|
|
Viewed 3233, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by Thatim
Is there anything else you'd like to just assume with absolutely no evidence to support it? Let's stick with the facts, please. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 8:33 PM
|
|
Viewed 1253, Replies 33
|
|
Originally posted by mbd1968 EVE's advancement sucks though. I don't know WTF the devs were on when they decided to gimp every person who didn't start playing on launch day. One of the dumbest decisions I've seen an MMO company make. And please don't lecture me on how a two month old character can still contribute to combat. Fact of the matter is that anyone who begins now is forever and permanently disadvantaged when it comes to accumulating skills. |
|
|
|
7/06/08 1:44 AM
|
|
Viewed 1612, Replies 49
|
|
|
DAoC, EQ2, TR, PS, GW, et cetera... |
|
|
|
7/05/08 9:12 PM
|
|
Viewed 3467, Replies 101
|
|
Originally posted by -Jaguar-
ROFL, the LOTRO toons look like clowns. Seriously, they look... just plain stupid. |
|
|
|
7/05/08 9:07 PM
|
|
Viewed 5603, Replies 137
|
|
|
Let's not forget that when SWG launched it was the second most popular MMO in the western world behind only EQ1. The raping of Koster's vision is basically the biggest black eye the MMO industry has, and probably ever will, seen. And then there's EVE. Clearly sandboxes work. The only reason anyone would think they wouldn't is because of the industry's notoriously poor management of them and the fact that success is now measured in WoW terms so when devs make a game everything, even a 250-400k sub, is a failure by comparison which is an absurd notion. |
|
|
|
7/05/08 9:02 PM
|
|
Viewed 1818, Replies 47
|
|
|
Tabula Rasa. The game is god awful but the combat engine is extremely well done. A lot of RPG players were put off by the added twitchiness of it and FPSers were put off by how it was just a basic RPG combat system under the hood but all in all I thought it was extremely well done. It's fast, intuitive, requires a good deal of interaction and coordination, and unlike most RPG combat systems it won't put you into a coma after an hour. I'll be the first to say it. I absolutely hate RPG combat. It requires little to no skill and with such little differentiation between MMOs nearly all of them boil down to just state application, spiking your damage, and paying attention to timers. It just doesn't take very much skill to do that. Sorry RPG fans. Plus Tabula Rasa has a fantastic cover and stance system where you get damage reductions for hiding behind objects and damage bonuses for using stances (like kneeling). If they had just removed "sticky" targeting and target lock it would have basically had PlanetSide's combat system (FPS-ish except no locational damage, you hit or you don't). My only real knocks against it. |
|
|
|
7/05/08 5:00 PM
|
|
Viewed 3233, Replies 27
|
|
Originally posted by Thatim
You didn't read it anywhere because MastHead has never stated that the beta is being delayed. And you honestly think the Q1 2009 release date won't be made but you go so far as to say the game will be delayed an entire year? Where do you get this stuff? |
|
|
|
7/03/08 6:14 PM
|
|
Viewed 1344, Replies 39
|
|
|
Guild Wars |
|
|
|
7/02/08 10:46 PM
|
|
Viewed 1302, Replies 12
|
|
|
TR's graphics are actually pretty good at medium and above. Low looks like absolute shit though (obviously). |
|
|
|
6/30/08 11:55 AM
|
|
Viewed 1900, Replies 65
|
|
Originally posted by Clyptso
You so wrong. Graphics are important but gameplay is alot more important. Decent graphics with fun gameplay is what matters. I wander what game you are playing that has really top of line graphics and fun gameplay to go with it. Most of the most beautiful MMOs aren't that great in gameplay. The most popular game on the market right now only looks decent graphically but alot people enjoy the gameplay. So decent graphics at time of release but more importantly good gameplay is what truly counts. Thedrizzle has a very solid point. Ultima Online is the ultimate sandbox that would meet the criteria of most of the sandboxers around here, myself included. So why, when there is a game that fills every need for a seemingly huge tract of the population here that loves to lament linear MMOs, are they not playing it? Because it's a graphically ugly game. Same reason I don't play Anarchy Online right now but will return when the graphics get updated. I can handle sub-par graphics but only to a point. |
|
|
|
6/30/08 3:01 AM
|
|
Viewed 3356, Replies 37
|
|
Originally posted by thamighty213
SWG died in April of 2005, not November. |
|