All Posts by Orthedos

DAoC has siege/keep taking/defending.  It has limited siege weapons and defensive weapons as well.  DAoC is fun at the PVP grounds where you go take a keep or defend it.  It starts after level 10 and cumulates in the endless RVR after level 40s.  Level 7, well you did not get to see that part of the game yet.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

 

Originally posted by Orthedos

 

Take a look at LOTRo, people solo, people also group.  It depends on what they are doing.  When people zone into the PVMP they usually group up, unless they are the stealthers who wander around looking for the unwary soloist.  When they do epic chapters they always group.

 

Take a look at CoX.  People almost automatically recruit people LFG, as the game is scaled in such a way that large group means more fun and badder bad asses.

So it depends on games, and it might also depend on the reputation of the player in question.  Sometimes during late nights, most of the players still online are the night owls, who are more used to soloing, or who are less able to group due to fatigue, RL issues, and thus more incline to solo and AFK a lot.

I agree, LOTRO did strike a good balance, which is probably why its the only MMO since original EverQuest that I've got a character to the maximum level and through multiple raids. It did have a little too much solo content, in my perspective, but the Books were good for grouping as were some of the tougher instances. Tomb of Elendil being a memorable one.

 

From what I've seen though, they've started dumbing it down again. The raids we did with 4 groups were very good, but with the new books they've lowered raids down to 2 groups which is very weak. Only 12 players against a Balrog? Please..

The quest system was a bit 'carrot on a stick' too, leading you from one place to the next with no real option to go elsewhere. It was nice when I reached a higher level, because I could choose to follow quests in either the North Downs or the Lone Lands, which meant I could get a feel for the size of the world by running back and fore.

And 24 man version is not really automatically better.  Its the content, the tricks the novelty, or the story, the gameplay.  If you want it to be harder, try do helegrod with 19 as we once did.  That makes it hard enough.  If you think 12 vs a balrog is too easy do it with 7.

The point is 12man raid provides an alternate when its late at night, when you cannot find 24 trusted players on hand, and do not want to try helegrod with PUG members.  I do not.

Originally posted by UsualSuspect

 

Originally posted by Aethios

You can solo all the way to the end, or you can group all the way to the end, or you can mix it up and do both. This way people feel free to do whatever they want and aren't pigeon-holed into whatever the developers decide is the flavor of the month.

A good idea in principle, but we all know that people will go the solo route every time. Take a look at EQ2, people are soloing all the way to maximum level since Kunark. I've been playing there for the last month and even though I ask for groups, I've never got into one.

 

I think people prefer the idea of being 'uber' and not needing the help, that their toon is so strong that they can defeat everything in their path. But how does that fit into the idea of a multiplayer game? Like I've said before, if something is advertised as a multiplayer game, I fully expect to be joining up with other players to tackle the content. That isn't happening anymore.

Take a look at CoX.  People almost automatically recruit people LFG, as the game is scaled in such a way that large group means more fun and badder bad asses.

So it depends on games, and it might also depend on the reputation of the player in question.  Sometimes during late nights, most of the players still online are the night owls, who are more used to soloing, or who are less able to group due to fatigue, RL issues, and thus more incline to solo and AFK a lot.

There is nothing wrong if I can solo in the game, there is nothing wrong if I can group in the game.  There is nothing wrong if there are quests, there is nothing wrong if mobs are around for me to grind.  There is nothing wrong if there is crafting, if there is ... 

There is something wrong if I must solo, or if I must group to get anything done.  There is something wrong if there are must do quests, or that I must grind to get to certain effects (say a skill or a level).  There is something wrong if I must this or that ...

Having options are good, especially if there are equally viable and desirable alternative.

Originally posted by Milky

I'm not a hardcore raider.  I used to do that stuff in the original EQ.  Right now I'm more interested in non-combat activities.  In other words MMORPGs that offer other things to do (like crafting, diplomacy, socializing)  other than dungeon crawling, raiding, and running around the world killing mobs over and over.

While crafting has become a standard alternative to combat, I am looking for a stable and evolving economy to craft in.  I am also seeking much more than just crafting.  i.e. diplomacy, roleplaying, or other activities that still immerse me in the game world.

What MMORPG would you suggest and why?  Or would you just suggest I be patient and wait another 3-5 years because what I'm looking for doesn't exist yet?

If you can go back in time, pre-CU SWG has everything you asked for.  Nostagia again, sorry.

Originally posted by staracker

sony found a way to stop KSing when the game first came out, sadly though people chose not to

play on the server where it was fixed. the fix was called PvP and people chose KSing bah...

Good idea, lets invite the griefers and gankers to deal with the KSers.

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Why cant you just make you post when this happens?

The first post from the OP sounds like another attempt to break NDA.

To the OP: You feel good ganking and griefing people who do not welcome your PVP moves any more? (your signature)  That is why the game die, not the whinners.  WoW has more whinners than any games by the sheer size of its player population.  It is not yet dying.  Open PVP without any limits?  None of the games really capture any sizable population.

SWG is good not b/c of the PVP, its good b/c it has a good overall design, and PVP is consensual.  I do not need to PVP unless I want it.  EQ PVP is crap.  Total crap.

Originally posted by Shannia

 

Originally posted by eugam

Lets collect some money and buy him a pre-order

 

Heh, thank you, but that is ok.  Avery has been kind enough to offer me a buddy key when his collector's edition gets in.  I appreciate you thinking of me anyway.

Oh, and ya, you can pick on me.  Us fence sitters are up high for all to see.  Not good in a PvP environment, but all is good.  No perma death or full looting around these parts (unless of course you really upset a forum mod).

 

Heh, hope we will meet in game.  I am still waiting on news of my pre-order.

Originally posted by MetaSeven

If you like the good old stuff, Warhammer is right there for you and it is raw. Combat is like as it was ten years ago and it's raw as in half-baked. That doesn't prevent them from hyping it to the max. And there is Age of Conan, the even more hype title. The most people probably still believe it has the features, it aggressivly agitated daily for ages, because they missed the meek statements that their action combat won't have that much action because of technical problems and such. You get more some more blood, but no drunken brawling. Both games have been delayed several times. And then you have Spellborn. The comparing is almost odd. Two big hype gorillaz with hordes of fans and the puny arty game from europe in between. It indeed looks suspicious that they always seem to push the date back, when the release day comes closer. But, they also announce that they found publishers and such, so they seem to grow everytime, where the gorilla titles always have worldwide partners built-in anyway.

Its apparently true, people stick to heavy advertisement of even scapped features and extolments of how great and über-next-gen their game is, especially when there is the US label sticking somewhere (IP or company). If a game ramps up, without that much false promises and vapour features, like TCOS, it has to make its way first. People = Dumb Sheep. Devs learn: lie, manipulate, hype, announce vapour features. People gonna buy that.

To the OP: too bad games are being delayed.  If only we can play WAR and TCoS and AoC now.  If only.  Now that we have to accept the fact, and the likelihood that delays will keep coming, what about one of the existing games as a stop gap measure.  Or you do it like me, find a life elsewhere till the good game comes.

Take a corollary.  You have a date with June the fair lady and she promised to meet you on 1st June.  Suddenly yesterday she called explaining that she has to do XYZ in June and postpone the date to July.  What do you do?  Maybe you date May the neighbor, or maybe you go watch NBA till July and hope June is ready then.

Thank you Avery, you helped tremendously.

Wish I can see you in game someday.

Originally posted by styl3s

ive been trying to run this trial for like 20 hours now, i downloaded the high resolution one, i never had this problem with the beta but when i start it up my monitor goes to a blue screen saying NOT SUPPORT!

 

im using a intel 3.4ghz cpu, 2gb ram, ati x850xt on a 24" vizio lcd

 

like i said i played the beta with 0 problems.. any suggestions?

Your ATI card is not the best, that I know.  The 24" LCD should be OK.  I used an ATI 1950 and it works.  I only have the 19" samsung LCD that also works.

Its a bit rash to say I will buy GW2, b/c there is so little information about it.

Given the fame of GW, and my goodwill about GW, its almost certain I will try GW2.  Its worth $50, as a token of support.

Originally posted by Elikal

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

Prob any time after 10am EST I reckon up till around 8pm EST.

Prepare for long download!! No whinging allowed!

With prolly so many the download will last longer than the beta; I am always suspicious about weekend-only invites. The time it takes to download and install and get into it, its all over anyways, so why bother...

Its not that bad, even with a terrible ISP from a poor country (I am living in now), I can still enjoy the week end events in the past.  Well we seems to have more and more on board as time progresses, so it might get worse with each round.

Originally posted by Thunderous

 

...

 

I'd rather wait another year to play Darkfall than wait 1 day to play a nerfed AoC that clearly isn't ready for launch.  The longer that NDA stays up the more it shows how badly this game is progressing.

You would think for a simple, linear, non-innovative game like AoC (which I was really excited about playing until recently) that the kinks might be worked out by now...  but nope.

 

You seem to have issues with an NDA, but you are comformtable with DF which has absolutely nothing but a list of promised features.  Is that odd?   You think AoC is hiding something b/c it imposed an NDA (while showing the entire game to thousands of players).  On the other hand, you think that DF is very cool and top notched hiding behind a smoke screen of words, and denying everybody on earth from looking at its products, b/c of what?  Hmm I do not know.

You criticise AoC as simple, linear, non-innovative, as compared to what?  Comparing an actual product like AoC to a virtual list of wishes like DF?  Hmm is that fair?

Not that I have any idea what DF is all about, or what it will be eventually (come on, who on earth knows?), but its unfair to use DF as a yardstick to measure anything.  Simply put, we know nothing about DF as a product.  Nothing.  A list of wishingful thinking, with no solid information on how the list is implemented, cannot pass as a final product.

To Anofalye

Kudos for a great idea.  Couldn't agree more.