All Posts by OBK1

But, what if I you want a decent soloer using ranged weapons (it is sci-fi after all)? What would be the class to choose then? Fixer? Soldier?

...and honestly fails at it, I mean if he wants to point out differences...

What you see in that video is two games with a very common art style, though one is newer than the other and has a higher polygon count. Not that it matters, what will make or break WAR is the features, gameplay, balance etc. not if it looks like WoW or not (or the other way around, I know Warcraft was built around the tabletop Warhammer).

Hmm, to be more clear on what I think is needed. Perhaps not a talent tree system, but more along the lines of the AA-xp in EQ1, that was a great system that did not change your class fundamentally but instead let you personalize your class and become unique!

WoW is not 5 years old, it launched in the US in november (or december?) 2004, so it is not even 4 years old yet. In Europe it launched in february 2005.

You also get to distribute your stat points. They increase every level from level 10. This allows a few different builds for the classes. But yes, I would really like a talent/AA system to be introduced.

Even if I personally don't particularly like the game I still think it will be around for 10-15 years. Anarchy online is still up and running after 7-8 years and Conan has enjoyed a much better launch than its cousin AO (Funcom you know).

Hard to predict dates for when MMOs shutdown, so far the two companies that seem suspect in this matter is NC-Soft (shut down AA) and EA (shut down Earth and Beyond, hm that was the name right?).

Look at the much hated SOE for example, they still keep games like Matrix online going eventhough the playerbase must be very small.

So far Conan must be counted as a success and if they can keep subs above 100 000 then I'm sure the playerbase can rest easy for a lot of years to come.

As topic says, would this game be of interest to a pve:er who likes the setting and the idea of a shipbased MMO, but who don't like pvp at all?

On the official webpage you can download the trial (original game and SI) and then you can download the various expansions as well. But it would be much much faster to install from the disks and then patch up.

Made me laugh!

Originally posted by pdxgeek

Originally posted by MasterPain55

You obviously fail to understand the point. This game has no name. Go out on the street and ask the first 50 people you see if they heard of potbs i bet you none of them have. So how could it have a bad name for itself if it doesn't have a name yet?

Hmmm...and who was responsible for marketing and distribution of PotBS?

On the other hand, all the major gaming sites and magazines have already reviewed it and they probably won't do that yet again.

I agree pretty much with Jackdog on this. I would like to add a couple of things though:

- To me the world feels very confined and not as living as it could have been.

- It is very much a theme park, as is WoW and Lotro but even more so than those games. I personally prefer more sandbox style games, such as Vanguard or Star wars galaxies.

- The sound in this game is nothing but superb, the best I have heard in any MMO!

- Graphics are great, but to me VG graphics are better/more pleasant. I also prefer Lotro graphics over AoC. However, this could also be due to my computer.

- As Jack said, very little interaction between players.

- If the endgame pvp with city vs city fights is good then that could make this a great game for those into that sort of thing!

Anyway, a good game with a decent launch but probably not for me.

If you choose VG there is a pvp server, which has open pvp. But otherwise it is only pvp by consent, like dueling. VG really is a very pve-centric game.

If pvp is what you really consider fun I would try AoC or wait for WAR.

I play both VG and AoC. They are both good games but very different. The one thing they have in common is that they both look beautiful but also that they need a decent computer (ok that's two things however connected).

AoC: Nice combat system, interesting start with Tortage and the single player part (first 20 or so levels but you can switch between multiplayer and single player whenever you wish to).

However also very very linear and lots of zoning. But zoning is ok since it takes about as much/little time as the "hitching" in VG.

No harvesting until lvl 20 and no crafting until lvl 40. I haven't tried crafting in AoC yet, but does not seem to be very well implemented from what I have read elsewhere.

PvP-centric game, guilds can build cities and fight against other guilds. On pvp-servers the pvp is completely open, meaning - expect griefing and camping, you might or might not like this (I play on a pve server to avoid this).

Vanguard: Also a nice combat system, but slower combat than in AoC, AoC is more action VG more tactical (not saying AoC battles don't feature tactics, cause they do).

Open world, much more of a sandbox MMO compared to most other titles out there. You are not handheld much at all in VG which you are in AoC (just two different ways to do things).

Crafting and harvesting from lvl 1 with a great crafting system.

Leveling speed in Vanguard is much slower than in AoC. Actually I would say Conan is probably the fastest MMO to lvl in that I have played (even faster than WoW).

PvE-centric game.

Vanguard has a lot of races and classes and is high fantasy. Conan has only humans as player characters but a decent set of classes and is low fantasy.

Hope that helps.

Originally posted by Ginaz

Theres a huge difference between what happened with Vanguard and AoC release.  Vanguard was a broken mess right from the beginning, extremely broken and unplayable for many people.  As well, the situation surrounding the development of Vanguard was a complete mess, with incompetent devs and douche bags like Brad McQuaid "leading" Sigil and everyone who worked there into the toilet.  In comparison, AoC's launch has gone fairly smoothly for an MMO.  This game hasn't been out for 2 weeks even and people expect it should be up and running as smoothly as an MMO thats been out for a few years.  I'm sure it must be similar to what happened with WoW in that Funcom probably wasn't prepared for how popular the game would be so its taken them longer to respond to problems than what we would like to see.  They seem to be addressing some of the issues they had (though maybe not as fast as we would like them to) so I'm willing to give them some slack for now.

 

I would hope that anyone that posts here on a regular basis would know that every MMO released goes through growing pains the 1st month or so.  I personally have had no in game problems so far.  Everything seems to be working as it should be.  However, I did have some problems accessing the official forums for about a week but after I found a way to contact Funcom I now have access.  The official forums are now available to be read by anyone too.  If the biggest problem I've had is accessing the forums then I'll consider things to be very satisfactory.

 

I'm certainly no fanboy.  I had a lot of doubts about this game and was expecting it to suck donkey balls.  However, after actually playing it with almost zero expectations I'm actually having a pretty good time and really dig the combat system.  If people would play things as they are and not on any expectations they might have had then you might find yourself enjoying it more.  I don't know how long I'll stick with it but for now I'm having lots of fun and I'll keep playing until I'm no longer having fun.

 

Both are good games by the way.

Wow, I am sure happy I chose a pve server! Carebear or not, the pvp servers seem to attract some real immature people.

No. You might get it to run but not very good. If I am reading the information correctly you are short on everything, 1gb ram - way way too little especially with Vista, the graphics card is weak but might run the game, the cpu I can't say much about.

Honestly, do you really feel this is a bad launch??? I am only a casual player and have only just left Tortage, but so far it has been a great ride and from what I can judge a very very smooth launch. Especially when you compare it with almost every other MMO launch.

From memory I can only remember two launches this smooth or smoother, Dark age of Camelot and  Lord of the rings online. WoW had a decent launch as well, perhaps comparable to this.

I play on the european servers, perhaps there are differences in how the launch have been in the different regions? Or it could be that I play on a pve server since I really don't care for pvp???

Also, perhaps there is a lack of content in the upper levels? I really can't say anything about that yet...

Why not try AoC until WAR releases and then compare them?

As I  said before, PvP with concequences and reason is great, what do I mean by this?

1. You should be able to be psychotic murderer (which really is what these gankers are), but they should pay for it, going around murdering innocents/randomly should make you an outcast in the world.

2. PvP has to make sense in the setting, even in Conan which is a very violent setting there are social rules of behaviour. If they made the PvP ruleset follow along the lines of the lore then it would be great.

3. Yesterday (which I did not play) was hardly a representation of how PvP will be at launch, how that plays out is yet to be seen.

I'm a carebear, mostly due to time constraints. Everything takes a longer time to achieve when getting killed all the time and with a full time job and young children you sort of want all the gaming time you get to actually be gaming time, not recovering from death time!

Anyway, if Funcom would just provide an RP-PvE server they could very well cater to most peoples tastes.