The spirit of this review was simply this: Bugs-a-plenty... but show me something else that fits my needs and the needs of those that want a sandbox... Show me something that is trying to be more like UO than this game. Show me something better.

Be honest... you can't. How could you know what I want or like? Sure there are some games coming out in the future, other indie projects, but... what? Stop playing this game until those come out?

Or perhaps I should demand perfection... Supporting games that do not meet a certain standard only encourage developers to make crappy games... Right?

With all the patches and fixes this team is trying to do, they certainly seem to be trying to avoid a crappy game...besides... waiting for a future game, or demanding a high level of quality means only one thing:

I don't get to play.

We don't get together to elect winners. We all want more games, we want different types of games, and we want to encourage improvements in the games we play.

UO-Everquest-DAoC-WoW-LotRO-WAR... and so many in-between and around... Look what the industry has progressed to. A certain level of quality is expected, but then we don't really get anything different.

When someone says a game is good, yet buggy, and writes fairly detailed review about it... why call them liars, or try to discredit them? What is the problem? What is your goal?

Is one game the right game? or... if one does not match up to certain expectations... does that make it wrong? Are we supposed to protect people from that? Are we supposed to condemn those that say differently?

Are we extremists here?

Zealotry for a game is one thing, but when zealots attack others for simply having a different perspective and belief, nothing good can come from it.

This place has not really changed...

Been playing Mortal Online and NO this patch is not the "Blessing from Above", but it is an improvement. Which is all i've ever seen from this game... one improvement after the next.

A group of  people managed to push out a game without major backing or the countless teams of developers that one always seems to expect from an MMO these days... and it appears to be working.

I'm hoping to see this happen more often in the future.

With Epic Games and SV working together to upgrade and improve the Atlas Technology, you'll not only see improvements in Mortal Online, but future MMOs that choose to go with Atlas and the Unreal engine will also be better off.

Mortal Online Customer Information
June 9th 2010

Auto-subscription

Today Mortal Online goes live!
You are receiving this email because of your Mortal Online pre-order purchase. The initial free month you received with your game purchase begins today, and regular billing will begin one month from today.

----------------------------------

This wasn't a newsletter.

They used the email attached to the account that purchased the game. Individuals were informed their free month was starting, but the option to cancel the subscription was available before June 9th.

1. You did not cancel your subscription when the option became available.

or

2. You are one of the very few people in the world who did cancel their subscription when the option became available, and somehow got reactivated.

Individuals in my guild who canceled their account before release did not get charged... so which is it, 1 or 2?

I stopped large raiding because my favorite fantasy stories were about small groups of people, sometimes even solo, defeating epic evil and accomplishing amazing feats of strength.

I put-up with 10 people requirements at max... mainly because I know that many people who i would invite on any type of adventure with... but I do not agree there should EVER be a "required number"

A "raid" should be doable by as few as 3 people, and as many as 200... with the encounter scaling and adjusting to accomodate the number. Yeah... that would be terrible to program for, and would "cheapen" the rewards if everyone could get the same loot.

But loot and epeen be damned... i'm there to enjoy time with my friends, however many that might be, and I do not believe my party size should be the limit to what I can do.

Particularly in a fantasy setting.

In this thread, there is alot of:

No! My life is ruined!

Now all the other kids in school will make fun of me and i'll never be cool again. It's all your fault!

I hate you, I hate you, I hate you!

*slams door*

Then... in a few days they come back asking for some money to go to the mall.

Originally posted by Nebless

Originally posted by AgtSmith

VIPs who get a monthly stipend of points that is miniscule compared to the demand they are trying to create for the cash shop stuff.

 and

than the points they give VIPs, and with more and more 'new' stuff being insane grind or cash shop clearly they are giving VIPs far less in points each month than the game's design is intending to be spent each month.

 Nr. 1 you do know that those points can be saved up each month, they're not 'use it or lose it' points.

Also I'm unclear on your comment "less in points each month than the game's design is intending to be spent each month". 

As a DDO player there's very little in the store that you have to spend points on (I'd actually say nothing from a personal point of view), especially on a monthly bases.

What do you see as must have items (that can't be bought in game via vendors or the AH)? - and I'll give you Adventure packs since without them you would have to do an isane amount of grinding the same dungeons and just to keep the game fresh.

Quoting to elaborate

AgtSmith,

as a VIP, you do not have to spend points to obtain content. All dungeons, zones, areas, quests, activities, festivals, and systems are included in the $15 per month. The points you get every month are bonus so you can buy some XP boost, running speed buffs, extra bag/bank/housing space, character slots, and cosmetic capes/clothing. They roll-over and do not expire.

Expansions might be excluded... everyone will have to spend the $20/$30 dollars on that. I do not believe they will sell the expansions for points, as that would mean VIP's could save up points and get them for "free". This might mean the end of the traditional meaning of expansions too... as that just clashes a bit too much with the model. If you cancel your subscription you drop down to F2P status but keep your points.

Now... all this is still speculation as they have to actually release the system.

When that happens they could change it however they want... but following their DDO model... this is what, sure bet, will happen.

Turbine is doing a good thing to this game by making it F2P, but providing a benefit to subscribing/buying... as any company that wants to make money should do.

When I read the complaints, i'm seeing alot of "this game isn't as free as it should be. I don't like the limits they put in for free players."

Screw off.... it's free.

Hell... I don't even like to call it free, it's a new subcscription model that allows you to play for free with limitations.

They essentially gave people who didn't want to pay MORE access... and some of those individuals get all butt hurt because they still have a problem with it.

As for Pay to Win... Win what? It's not like this game was PvP-oriented.

You could walk into most dungeons with zero traits equipped and probably do just fine on your own. if you want to top damage or healing charts... if that is your "Win"... then pay for it.

And... as always... go play something else that suits your wallet.

Originally posted by Codenak

Have turbine stated that lifetimer VIP's will have unlimited access to future expansion content?

If they have made that claim, how many believe that they willl uphold it after they stated that LOTRO will not go F2P previously?

You are going to need to link something where turbine says: "LotRO will not go F2P." and not just "We have no plans to make LotRO F2P at this time."

I'm fairly certain Turbine used the second phrase.

In that presentation by Turbine...

They use X-fire to show "on the way up" - Does that say X-Fire is a feasible method to show how well a game is doing, or does it show Turbine just likes how X-Fire shows them doing better?

--

Overall I found the presentation to be very interesting, and i'm all for F2P/Subs hybrid games. I don't think Turbine has done a bad job here... but i do believe they could do a few things better with the system.

Then again... Things could always get better no matter what. :)

Level-Based System vs Skill-Based System

It is nice to see a developer's viewpoint on the topic... and though he is absolutely correct on his examples, and how a skill-based system can lead to bizarre forms of leveling...

Essentially all his comments and posts boiled down to this:

I don't want to to code it.

Which is perfectly understandable... It is far easier to build a theme-park that follows the rules you set forth and generate profit for the makers.

It is far more difficult to build a world that grows, changes, and allows players to pretty much do whatever they want... and still be profitable.

If there were no limits in technology, you'd still be hard-pressed to find someone who is going to create a world where the inhabitants are allowed to do whatever they wanted.

Why? Because honestly... who would want to take care of something like that?

Just look at our own real world.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Yamota

PS. There are no other games to my liking. I want FFA PvP, sandbox MMOGs and since Darkfall and Mortal Online is lacking in quality Eve is the only one out there. But 1-2 hours downtime for one death in a battleship (or more for T2 Cruisers), feels more like work than a game. Really shouldnt have to be like that and I doubt very much that it would "destroy" anything if they toned it down a bit to say maybe 20 mins downtime? Still penalizing enough to not wanna die but not devestating.

 

---

Do not fly what you can't afford to lose.

Why do you risk something you do not want to lose in first place?

Part about EVE is ISK management.

 

You say you want a sandbox but then you do what is not really sandboxy. You want the game adjust to your play style instead of you adapting to the game.

To quote off this...

If you have a ship you think you might lose... have a second one fully fitted out and loaded up with ammo/supplies ready to go wherever you might be.

Originally posted by amadman

Originally posted by Slapshot1188

  Current votes show about a 60-40 split for people that feel beta testers deserve an edge at launch. 

Actually the poll was

"Should SV shuffle recipies at launch?"

"Yes - Everyone should start launch day on even footing"

"No- I think existing players and guilds should have an edge on launch day"

I voted No to the poll question and in doing so was forced to be counted as someone who thinks beta testers should have an edge.  When I dont think knowing something that is mostly listed on the games wiki is really an edge.

Anyone that reads the poll can see that its total trash.

No reason to shuffle recipies when the information is available on the wikis, and when it will become known over-time.

If someone is worried about another individual having an edge, they were probably already in the beta.

Many in the Covenant of the Phoenix have always found Vanguard to be an exceptionally GOOD MMO that never quite boomed due to a poor launch. Personally I believe Vanguard had great PvE and crafting, but my favorite was the Diplomacy system.

Originally on Sartok, the Covenant of the Phoenix  has recently decided to do a re-start of our Vangaurd chapter on Seradon. Though we enjoy PvP, we have come to find that Sartok has too low of a population for our liking.

From all reports, Seradon is still thriving well, and I see Vanguard continuing to truck on forward... large population or no :)

If you are interested in joining our Vanguard chapter, please visit our website at: http://covenantofthephoenix.com/forums/

You can also view the games we are involved in, and plan to be involved with in the future.

Every day I get closer to resubbing to Vanguard, but my recent re-activation of my LotRO account is staying my hand. However, once the Vanguard chapter has been brought up, I will more than likely activate that game as well and jump into Vanguard. My evenings and weekends have free'd up considerably for the next few months. :)

Hope to see you in game!

Originally posted by MikeB

Oh, and if you're going to comment to make fun of my computer's specs for being so dang old I would have you know my brand new PC gets here tomorrow!

My computer has exactly the same specs. I have not replaced a part on it since the 8800GTX came out.

It has turned out to be the longest lasting machine I have ever built.

I might upgrade my video card for Fallout: New Vegas... but I'm also looking at a whole new computer.

Originally posted by Calind0r

First off its not a true MMO, its a CO game (similar to Guild Wars), the Payment method is ridiculous, this is not the kind of game you want to pay a subscription for, it's a game you want to have on your shelf that you can start it up and play it any time you want without have to worry about setting up a subscription...I personally don't think it's the type of game like World of Warcraft where you can put your life into it...It seems like they are just throwing a subscription on top of the game because they can...

 

I think too many people will be pushed away by a subscription system for this, and the game doesn't have enough hype going for it to get a healthy population otherwise.

You forgot one:

Because I, Calind0r, want it to flop.

If people don't want something to fail, it typically never does. Your push for failure might be the very last bit needed to push it over the edge.

Stand firm in your beliefs and desires!

Originally posted by Lizard_SF

Would it be TOO much to ask that people understand the basics of Trademark and Copyright law before posting? (First, Trademark and Copyright aren't the same thing, and while they're both in the category of "Intellectual Property" law, and there's some overlap, there's a lot of differences.)

Warning: Gross oversimplification follows.

It is not illegal to "make money" using someone else's Trademark. I can start a company which competes with Games Workshop and I can use their trademarks in my advertising, to advertise either comparisons or compatailibility. That is, "These miniatures are 100% compatible with Warhammer 40K!" is legal to say. So it "This game is way better than Warhammer!" I *do* have to acknowledge that those are trademarks and they are used without permission, but GW cannot sue me for violating their trademark if I follow the rules. (I also cannot replicate their logo or "trade dress", as those images are COPYRIGHTED. You cannot copyright a word or phrase, but you can copyright a distinctive image, such as a logo.)

Trademark law was originally intended not to protect corporations, but to protect consumers -- to keep me from selling "Tilenol" or "Kentucki Fried Chicken", for example, using subpar ingredients and taking advantage of the trust consumers had in the brands I'm imitating. The benchmark there is "confusion", that a "reasonable" consumer might mistake the shoddy knockoff for the real thing. Obviously, this does benefit corporations, too, which is fine -- if you've spent years building a quality product under a brand name, you have a right to be upset when someone uses a nearly identical brand name to produce an inferior product and destroy your reputation. Trademarks are also limited to specific businesses -- "McDonalds" is a trademark for a restaraunt, but I could start "McDonalds Plumbing Supplies" and not be in violation.

Now, what complicates things are some annoying changes made a few years ago to the Lanham act, which allows for suits due to "trademark dilution" -- a corporation can claim that their trademark is "diluted" if it is used in a way which weakens the trademark, even if there's no chance of customer confusion. The language of the law is very vaguely worded and the court cases dealing with it are all over the map, so it has become the favorite cudgel for corporations looking to gain more control over their trademarks than the law actually allows.

IANAL, but I do not think GW has any real case here. There is no chance of a reasonable consumer "confusing" WarhammerAlliance.com for an "official" site. The "dilution" argument would be extremely weak. I think this is purely a case of corporate lawyers looking to justify their existence by finding something to do. However, it is also likely, given how poorly WAR is doing, that fighting in court to preserve the domain is not going to be worth it for the domain owners, and they will likely settle out of court.

I have noticed, BTW, that a large majority of the posters to this thread don't seem to perform any kind of legal analysis of the issue; instead, they take sides based on whether or not they like the Warhammer game, or WAR, or GW, or Mythic. There's a word for this kind of thinking: Stupid. Law is not about feelings or what you WANT or what you think someone "deserves". Law is about law, and if you're going to hold forth on whether or not a lawsuit is justified, why not study the laws involved and make a judgment based on THAT, instead of what you wish "should" happen? Is that just too much work?

Good Post.

I hope others take the time to read it.

Originally posted by Benthon

Originally posted by LiquidWolf

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I know guilds in WOW that are going to be bigger than the entire population of MO.

Wow, that's pretty sad.

That you know guilds in WoW that are that big?

I'd kind of agree too.

or... how about....

I'm pretty sure you have plenty of things in your life that can make you happy. Why spend all your time concerned about this one MMO if it just makes you sad?

-----

On a serious note...

What games in development are you currently hoping will turn out well? Together, i'm certain we can bring happiness back into your life.

 Hey you're so worried about what other people do with their time, why don't you spend that time doing something else.

What an interesting thought...

If a person is worried about what other people do with their time... wouldn't doing something else mean they probably are not all that worried?

You are better off rephrasing that I think... or just directly telling me something like:

"Go spend your time doing something else instead of posting in these forums."

Which, if you look at the forum we are in and that I kind of like MO, wouldn't make sense.

I think i'll continue to kindly offer to show people (who do not have anything nice or constructive to say about MO) the door out. I'm certain there are other MMOs in this world that won't make them so unhappy.

Originally posted by HerculesSAS

I know guilds in WOW that are going to be bigger than the entire population of MO.

Wow, that's pretty sad.

That you know guilds in WoW that are that big?

I'd kind of agree too.

or... how about....

I'm pretty sure you have plenty of things in your life that can make you happy. Why spend all your time concerned about this one MMO if it just makes you sad?

-----

On a serious note...

What games in development are you currently hoping will turn out well? Together, i'm certain we can bring happiness back into your life.

I've never seen a finished MMO that charges monthly... as far as I can tell most of them still patch bugs, add in content, adjust old content, and patch more bugs the previous patches created...

The concept of a "finished" MMO isn't one I embrace, unless it truly is finished like Tabula Rasa or Hell-Gate London... and even that one is supposedly coming back in some incarnation.

"Should MMOs that don't contain a certain amount of features, bug-freeness, and performance charge monthly" is a better title.

and... No, I still don't think so.

A free market is a free market... whatever you want to produce, and whatever price you want to sell it at. Any restrictions and you start to create a mess of rules, requirements, verification, and monitoring.

Effective as it seems, I am fairly certain you'd choke innovation. If a game ever wanted to do something new they'd have to make sure it qualifies on on the list of features, which means it probably has to be added first.

Just think of the beauracracy.

Best to let the customer handle things.

I see alot of people pointing out flaws and problems with the Harry Potter MMO suggestions and points...as if that is hard to do...

It's very easy to complain, but it takes some balls and intelligence to solve those problems.

The concept of daily quests, tasks, or problems is EXACTLY what a classroom setting is. Learning a spell, making a potion, or taming/battling animals is what we already do in most mmos... twist it into something for Harry Potter.

How about money/Gold... while I doubt the teachers would give money to students, they were very quick to give out points to each house. It would take some modification to the story, but suddenly you could have points being the currency between houses. Not something I personally like, but it works a little bit better than teachers giving money to students :)

Years, Levels. DDO did something where they took 20 levels and spread them out a bit more. Probably not that difficult to do something similar with the years.

Quidditch could definately be a form of PvP. Just cause people didn't use spells during a match in the books, doesn't mean they can't.

AND... this is just talking about the School... we could very well see a "Harry Potter Universe" MMO instead. Perhaps training/tutorial IS Hogwarts. Heck... we have multiple schools inside the universe, you could potentially have multiple training/starting areas.

I would definately want more "Harry potter Universe", but I also realize that it would need to be called something different and try to remove "Harry Potter" from the point of the game.

Sure, he was THE main character since he was a baby, but there definately other great people out there in that world.

My main concern, is that it is very easy to alienate fans of the series from the MMO. Particularly "Purists"...