Originally posted by Dojo

Hello Gamers,

I played EQ2 right after launch and though I found it fun and loved the graphics I stalled out around 20 because there was nothing for me to do if I couldn't find a group.   Don't get me wrong... I LOVE grouping but I don't want to be in the cold if I only have time to play solo every now and then.

I keep hearing the game has changed a lot and is much better which has gotten me curious.   My problem is I am scared that I will be wandering deserted cities as a newbie because everyone will have already "been there and done that".   I am a big kid in my 30's and I don't have time to raid hardcore but I would really like a game I can play to unwind after work.

I guess what it comes down to if you made it this far is whether this game can be enjoyed casually and if I am too far behind the curve to really have a satisfying play experience.

Thanks for your time!

-Dojo

I came back right after Ruins of Kunark in November.  I have just finished my run to level 80.  Great Content.  Great community on Antonia Bayle.  The Kunark Zones are eye candy. 

Everquest2 quite simply has more content than you could ever want.  I mostly solo'd to level 80 because I have babies, but when I have had the opportunity to group, I had just as much fun.

Originally posted by Sarge994

I've been under the impression that with my 7950 gx2 I can not use dx10, is this true or false? If it is true, I fail to see how upgrading to vista helps me in any way.

I do not believe Your card supports DX10.   The tech specs only list DX9.  I haven't looked recently, but last time I did the only card that supported it from Nvidia was the 8800.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

Google 'fair use' moron.  ROFL.

  

So apparently you believe this site is only seen IN THE UNITED STATES.

30- Love

Your serve again.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

 

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy. 

 

 

 

And again because of your assumptions, you'd be wrong  on both counts.  Rather than assume, check your facts. 

 

How so?  The public BETA, or demo as it where, is not out and the BETA testing that is available is under NDA.  Even that link you posted says so in bold type: "This is a closed beta under NDA. You may not share any information related to the beta. Please refer to the beta NDA for further information.".

 

 

 

But lets say for S&G it is a violation.

HEY POT! This is Kettle!  YOU ARE BLACK! 

It is comepletely and utterly hipocritical for someone with your  avatar (using copyrighted material) to even suggest impropriety in someone else.  You are a poster that twists and schemes everything so that you can be RIGHT.  I don't mean you try "to get to the right answer." I mean you try to avoid seeming wrong.  You would make a great lawyer, but you are an untrustworthy poster.

Nice try. Your serve!

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

 

The public BETA is not out, Crytek just announced a delay until next month.  As for the current BETA, since it is under NDA I assume anyone commenting publicly on it is either full of crap about having played or since they are breaking a legal agreement they made they are untrustworthy. 

 

 

And again because of your assumptions, you'd be wrong  on both counts.  Rather than assume, check your facts. 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

Originally posted by T3hpwn

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Crysis didn't really impress me to be truthful, regardless, fact of the matter is, Vista really, right now, is a piece of crap.  I wish it weren't so, I bought the freaking business version for my PC at the office.  Even running basic programs, outlook, word, internet, you need a minimum of 2 gigs for it to even act like running 512 MB on XP.  Now all in all it doesn't matter too much now, I mean you can get 2 gigs nowadays for roughly around the price as you could have gotten 512 MB not too long after XP came out.  Even still, it really sucks to sap performance on a game that could truly be amazing.

I have had no performance problems.  Zero.  My only problem with Vista is interoperability.  I have one customer that uses a version of Citrix Secure Access that does not work with Vista.   I have to VPN in using a Virtual PC running XP.  No big deal really, but it can make for some interesting work arounds.

 

 

I have only had problems with old programs.  it's annoying that the application developers can't keep up, but not the end of the world.

Agreed, that pretty much echos my experience. And I've already blacklisted the hardware companies that haven't kept up with drivers for Vista (over a year later, after betas and such). Good riddance HP printers!

 

 

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that Vista can't run these programs, but in purchasing a budget system for my office HP decided that 1GB of RAM would suffice in running these programs. A MINIMUM of 2 GBs for vista, just for common programs is necessary.  For a Gaming rig 4 GB of RAM and a dual core is a must.

Now I'm not saying that Vista is worthless, but don't expect everyone to accept Vista with open arms. Personally I still prefer XP just on performance alone, (and thats on my gaming rig at home which could handle vista no problem.)  But again in a situation like this, a dual boot is ideal for sure.

I understand the arguments against though.  I also understand the "hating."  Everyone jumped too fast for Vista.  It was a mistake for pc vendors to start making "standard users" switch early.    I tried to tell people to stay away awhile, but they got caught up in "deals" and got themselves a pc they couldn't use.  Now, those same people are MAD MAD MAD.  I also know one company that got caught up in a "toshiba" laptop deal.  They tried to buy the laptops with vista and then reverse upgrade to XP.  They didn't know that Toshiba hadn't created any XP drivers for the pcs.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

Crysis didn't really impress me to be truthful, regardless, fact of the matter is, Vista really, right now, is a piece of crap.  I wish it weren't so, I bought the freaking business version for my PC at the office.  Even running basic programs, outlook, word, internet, you need a minimum of 2 gigs for it to even act like running 512 MB on XP.  Now all in all it doesn't matter too much now, I mean you can get 2 gigs nowadays for roughly around the price as you could have gotten 512 MB not too long after XP came out.  Even still, it really sucks to sap performance on a game that could truly be amazing.

I have only had problems with old programs.  it's annoying that the application developers can't keep up, but not the end of the world.

Originally posted by Thillian

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

Originally posted by Thillian

I'm really curious about the general knowledge of a WoW subscriber. So im starting this poll to find out how many WoW subscribers actually know what was the first MMORPG and what is considered first 2nd generation MMORPG.

I guess I am confused.  I would think the answer youa re looking for is Ultima Online being the first "first generation" and WoW being the First "Second Generation."   However, I would say that is wrong.

 

EQ2 shipped on the 8th november 2004 and WoW shipped on the 23rd of November 2004.  That would make EQ2 the first "Second Generation." MMORPG. 

 Now, I may be wrong about how you would answer this question, but I would assume you are not including MUDS or BBS.  This is the category that I would place Neverwinter Nights, the AOL version.  (I played it so I can categorize it anyway I please)

No the correct answer is there, your assumption is wrong :>

not confused anymore.

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

Originally posted by midwestnets

 

 

 

  I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw) 

 

 

 perhaps you don't notice or don't mind the issues but when MS is even acknowledging them and even publicly states an expected 5% to 10% performance drop in games and other performance applications it is fair to call it a fact.  And as the Crysis BETA is not out, and won't be out until next month so I don't see how you have tried it.

 

Crysis Beta is not out?    

http://www.fileplanet.com/promotions/crysis/beta/

Now I know you are just an Idiot with an AXE to grind.  Just shut up..

Originally posted by Thillian

I'm really curious about the general knowledge of a WoW subscriber. So im starting this poll to find out how many WoW subscribers actually know what was the first MMORPG and what is considered first 2nd generation MMORPG.

EQ2 shipped on the 8th november 2004 and WoW shipped on the 23rd of November 2004.  That would make EQ2 the first "Second Generation." MMORPG. 

Now, I may be wrong about how you would answer this question, but I would assume you are not including MUDS or BBS.  This is the category that I would place Neverwinter Nights, the AOL version.  (I played it so I can categorize it anyway I please)

Originally posted by MMORPDEATH

The thing is, PVP in mmo's in my opinion is only good BECAUSE of the inherent RP and immersion in MMo's. The combat sucks ass, if you want good team based combat play Battlefield 1942 or something if the combat is all youre looking for.

The competitive level of PVP in MMO's has been raised beyond that originally intended imo by voice-chat.

I agree.  "Killing that evil dark elf with my law loving paladin" has turned into "pwning noobs."   It seems to me to be an attitude for another genre of game.  I remember when the conversation about role playing games jerked to a halt when someone asked "who won."  To tell people that "winning" isn't really the point didn't seem to get through. 

I think you inadvertantly hit on the culprit, too.  Once you make something "team-based," there are gonna be good teams and bad teams (And then their is going to be the Detroit Lions).  I think when EQ required us to maximize the healer, tank, DD, CC model, it was only so long before the "competition" began. 

Originally posted by AgtSmith

 

You can spin and twist things all you want but the statement above, what I called BS on, is clearly suggesting the key to making Vista flawless is using at least 4Gs of RAM - an impossibility as I have outlined (without going to x64 which is not a pleasant environment now for games).

I need you to explain this.  I run Vista x64 right now.  I have not run many games (being busy) but I have run  a good slew of betas, and LORTO, EQ2, and Vanguard.   They have all run near flawless on my PC.  (well except vanguard and it don't run any worse than it did on XP)  I even tried the recent Crysis beta to see what DX 10 looked like. (pretty flashy btw) 

No problems on Vista x64.

So I need you to explain that statement.

Anything more on the RoK performance changes?

Originally posted by Elikal

It must happen. Only if we let it die, the lesson is learned.

If you are trying to teach developers something, they will miss the lesson.  They will see a game die and assume MMO's aren't as foolproof a business model as they thought.

the end result will be less choice.  Sorry about your experiences. I've done it twice myself. 

Interesting that as this poll starts to age, the numbers are getting closer and closer to the numbers in the lotro forum. 

http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/147579

I wonder if the original numbers were just backlash to the other thread.

Originally posted by Alenna

any difference when you attack or cast where the target is infront of you or no

 

tnx

You going botting? jk.  Yes, there is a difference.  You do need to be facing your target in most cases. 

Originally posted by Vidir

Wow's player base is not 8 million,that are sold copies,playerbase is somwere between 500 000 - 700 000 active accounts.

You are just plain wrong.  It is active subscriptions, pre-pay cards and free first month people.

http://www.blizzard.com/press/070724.shtml

Originally posted by Thrage

 

Another problem people have is that right now, there is nothing better than World of Warcraft on the market for MMOs.  This frustrates people who are dying for a breath of fresh air, but all of the other MMOs out at the moment just aren't nearly as fun as World of Warcraft.  It's like going from dating a supermodel to only being able to pick up fat chicks.  Sure, they're nice, and they're kind of fun, but it's not going to compare to previous experience, and you probably won't stay with them long.  Other MMOs are unfamiliar, with less community, likely less features, and tend to be 'meaner' to players (experience debt, forced grouping, long grinds, etc.).

I think people don't try other MMO's because of the high "barriers to entry."  Let me explain.  First, you have to decide to give up on that max-level night-elf you are carrying around and start over with a level 1.  Next, you have to convince a major portion of your guild or group of friends to do the same.  I could stop right there.  It's a tall order at that point. 

But there is more.  You have to learn new gameplay and a new crafting, questing, Min/Max system.   Finally, we come back to psycology again.  You feel like you are already behind the pre-order / beta test people and in an old game, you are WAY behind everyone. 

I think it is an over simplification to say, "people don't leave WoW because every other game is teh sux."

It's success is really simple.  It take a successfull computer RTS and makes it into a MMO.  RTS everyone has played + the most fun genre of Video games = success.  

Just curiuos.