All Posts by jimmyman99

Originally posted by Eschiava

Keep telling yourself that Jimmy.  I'll keep enjoying the game with my 2 characters newbie on 2 accounts. 

IMO, finding a place to thrive in EVE is much more about knowing what you want and going for it than it is about having as much SP as the next player. 

I've found many places to apply the limited SP I possess that are fun for me.  As I gain more SP the number of things I can do adequately increase, adding to the fun of the game.

I feel that many people look at the ships in EVE in a way that is detrimental.  Many see their ships as possessions that no one has a right to take from them.  I see them as tools to accomplish goals.  As long as the tools last longer than it takes to recoup the investment I made in them then I am always gaining in wealth, which means I am gaining in power.

If I am losing ships to the point where I am losing money, then I need to figure out how to do things diffently and revers the trend.

You keep misreading my point - Its not about who has more SPs and who has less - its about how a NOOB can utilize those SPs.

If you put everything in one sentence, the main discussion point of this thread was "Any noob with small  number of SPs is competitive with any other veteran who has ten's of millions of SP's". Am I right?

If so, that means I didnt misunderstood everybody else's posts. But I do not agree entirely with that statement. A "true" noob will not be able to utilize those SPs to be competitive. I believe the right phrase would be "Any veteran would be competitive with any other veteran who has ten's of millions of SP's"

The learning curve to learn all those skills necessary to be competitive is just too great. The number of skills themselves is too great (its not a bad thing, its a good thing - the more skills - the better, but also harder for the starting noob). When I started playing Eve, I had no clue which skill to start researching to be competitive: would it be missiles? or energy? or navigation for quick gettaway? I didn't know, and i still don't - nobody ever explained it to me. All you do is say you can kill a battleship with a bunch of frigs, well, I don't know how, and I bet any noob won't untill someone tells him the right configuration OR he spends months of researching skills until he finally finally gets the right configuration to take down a battleship.

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Yes, McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world. Its not the most healthiest, but its the best. Being best is not being healthy, or being tasty, or being expensive. Its a combination of those and other factors. McDonalds may not be the healthiest, but it is:

- very cheap
- very convenient
- very tasty
- has variety of food
- geographically available in many  places

Quality of food doesn't make a restaurant best. It only makes it healthy.

 

Hmm, MC sure got different things where you live from where I live...

15 kinds of burgers, fries and some MCnuggets is not what I would call very tasty and varied food. Quality of the food makes the resturang best, the price have nothing to do with it. If MC would be best we should see it in guide michelin?

I say it again: Price have nothing with quality to do. And "best" is a quality.

Oh, and the moron who said there was 600K AoC in a warehouse: 800K sold. The rest is in shops. Get your facts straight, is no way anyone would have more than half a mill lying around just for the heck of it.

McDonalds at my work has burgers, sandwiches, ice-cream, muffins, coffee, drinks and many other things.

"Price have nothing with quality to do" - did you even read my post? Where did I say that price = quality? Being "best" is NOT only quality. If you say "best", without anything else, implies MANY factors. If you say "best quality", only then do you specifically say that you are talking about food quality.

Is McDonalds quality one of the best? No
Is McDonalds one of the best? Yes

You keep implying that being best means only quality. You are wrong there, because being healthy or having a really good quality doesn't mean much. Take for example any research about quality of life. Do they take into consideration only the life expectancy of that country's population? Or just the salary? No, they weight in MANY factors - salary, type of government, length of life, prices, social services and who knows what else. Being best doesn't mean just having cheap prices or having quality food. It's much more then that.

Originally posted by Consensus
so acording to you the best mmo is WoW. the second best mmo is runescape. the best type of music is R&B. the best restaurant in the world is McDonalds. Asian MMOs are better than european ones. Buddism is the best religion.

 

Well good luck with that logic, I pity your tastes. Popularity != Quality.

Yes, McDonalds is the best restaurant in the world. Its not the most healthiest, but its the best. Being best is not being healthy, or being tasty, or being expensive. Its a combination of those and other factors. McDonalds may not be the healthiest, but it is:

- very cheap
- very convenient
- very tasty
- has variety of food
- geographically available in many  places

Quality of food doesn't make a restaurant best. It only makes it healthy.

Originally posted by Xennith

 

Originally posted by jimmyman99

How can someone with 100K skill points (player A) have a chance vs someone with 10mil points (player B) when player B has better ship, better weapons, better electronics, better items?

I mean player A does have a chance to kill player B, but only if player B is retarded or AFK.

 

... so in wow, my level 1 guy cant kill a level 70 guy with the best armour and weapons in the game?

 

that game sucks.

 

you actually can in eve, lets say that your player b is flying a vagabond (as everyone does these days) and your player a is flying a neuting, cap injected heavy missile blackbird with a web and point. (its a lolfit, but lets just think about it)... who would win?

 

im not sure, it comes down to player skill. now if player a had a mate in a thorax... its all going the newbies way.

Your point is a bit off because in Eve, your skills increase with time. They never stop. In WoW, you may not be equal to a level 70, but he cant level beyond that. So with time, you will catch up with him.  In Eve the difference will be less and less with time. But if I do join 1 year after you did, I will always be 1 year behind (in skill points), unless you stop paying for the game of course. I may be able to compete, but I will never be equal to that person ahead of me.

To other people who are afraid of  noobs flying frigs. Guys, a noob of 2 month will NOT know even 1/10th of what you know. His frig may be deadly vs your ship, but he wouldn't know how to do it. I played Eve (in total) about 3-4 months, and I still haven't figured out how to work with web. I didnt have a corp, I didnt have a friend with 5 years of experience to hold my hand and explain all the tricks. I spent most of my time experimenting  on rats. In 2 months, a noob will not figure out how to kill off a veteran. I never tried to engage anyone in PvP because:

a) I didnt know how to PvP well enough to risk loss of my ship;
b) I didnt have a corp behind me, I couldnt risk becoming a fugitive with a bounty on my head and half the galaxy hunting me down;
c) I dont know all the ships, all the items, what ship counters what, what item counters what. I wasn confident that I could kill my enemy, or at least get away with my ship intact if I fail. I could not risk my ship because one mistake will force me to spend days or even weeks recovering financially.

The only low level SP person who stands a chance to win against a high level SPer is

a) a veteran who created a new character, or
b) a new player who had extensive training from experienced players and financial support to recover his loss

So no, a real noob will stand no chance against a veteran. The learning curve is just way too steep for it to be true.

Originally posted by VultureSkull 

Rofl,  go and play WoW then!

You compare a game that is just released to a game that is four years old and then think you have said something worth while!

 

Does it really matter that WoW was released 4 years ago? Does that fact make it advanced or better ? If a passerby comes stumbling to AoC forum seeking for a new game, I would guess seeing both sides (good and bad) would help him to make a better decision which game to play.

Instead of saying "Go back to playing whatever game you like" you should of countered his facts with facts about AoC. If you cant, you may make an impression that AoC doesn't have any good sides to show so you are just snapping out in frustration at someone who is enjoying a better product for his money spent.

Originally posted by melmoth1

So much hate, so much hate and bitterness.

I don't hate the haters though - they just want the next big thing. They want to be addicted and immersed and a part of some mmorpg that has a buzz about it - a buzz that is retained beyond one month. They want to feel in control and they want to feel connected to a community of shared interest.

Thats the problem, a lot of people are not satisfied with games that used to make them gasp in the past. Remember EQ1? The first time I played it (after playing UO) I was mouth-open-drooling for hours. It was glorious! it was massive and it was 3d! These days, anything that is remotely EQ1 will be unworthy installation for me. As technology evolves, so do games and so do gamers. The biggest problem here is that gamers evolve much faster then technology and especially games. Game devs fall victims here because they try to simulate product that was fairly successful just a year ago, but it takes them several years to complete it. During those several years, some of those things that were revolutionary or interesting, are not anymore.

 

I think AOC is ok. I play casual as I'm busy. It has quests (gather, check, kill) like most other mmos, its has character customization, class and race choices etc. To hate it is to hate all fantasy mmos, no? There is nothing there to make it grossly better or worse than any other mmo. It seems pretty standard to my eyes. I enjoy it (for now) for the same reason I enjoyed other mmos: it feels a little more "real" and "connected" than single-player non-mmos.

I don't agree. If you don't like Honda, that doesn't mean you don't like cars. Each and every game (regardless how similar they are in style) have their unique traits.

Yes, that's it. I think the hate is against all fantasy mmos. I got mates who quit AOC and returned to WOW, City of Villians and EVE. They didn't like going back to those games, they just preferred some minor aspect of those games to AOC. Conversely, other mates have stuck with AOC, again for relatively minor attachments and preferences.

If you remove sentence in red, then you prove my statement above. Games like WoW, AoC, EQ or even CoX or EvE are very close in substance. I mean, if you remove all unique traits, it all comes down to advancing your virtual character by whatever means that game provides you with.

 

I prefer AOC, at least the content is new. But everything else just feels same old, same old. Maybe mmo's in general have a limited burn. After a time you become immune to the usual hooks of mmos? The first time I ever played an mmo, it was fricken amazing - I know I will never get that initial buzz back again and that's just life.

Agreed. You prove my point once again. The difference between you and I, however, is that for you, AoC was "new" enough to play it. For me, it wasn't. And there is nothing wrong with either of our opinions.

Do we expect too much? Maybe the hardcore mmo-ers need a second hobby in order to "keep it real"? I recommend fly-fishing and DIY for the crafter/gatherers, kick-boxing for the pvpers, and comic books/cool toys for the "exclusive gear" junkies.  Oh, and for the "open world exploration" junkies, a 3 month camping trip in Asia or South America ;)

Hehe, wish it was that easy in RL. Unfortunately, the only traveling that I can afford now (not because of money, but because of time) is in a virtual world.

Peace out

Melmoth

NB edited for punctuation/spelling errors

I like posts like these - informative and present a clear picture of likes/dislikes. I wish there were more posts like these from both sides, those who like AoC and those who don't. Please no more "AoC is the second messiah!" or "Anyone who says anything bad about AoC will burn in hell" posts.

Originally posted by LondonMagus

The reason I bothered to post was that like many other people who actually enjoy the game I am tired of block capital hysterical mud slinging masquerading as an argument. The reason I addressed his posting style rather than his argument is that it is extremely annoying & once you stripped away the drama there really wasn't much else left.

Did Funcom purposefully mislead people in the way described? I seriously doubt it. Beta tests are not respresentative of the released game so it doesn't matter whether Funcom issued all players with sequinned ballgowns at the end, unless you can prove that they definitively said that this was what would be in the game it is irrelevant.

Did Funcom lie? As any politician will tell you, it all depends on exactly how the original question was phrased, but I certainly don't feel like I was lied to as I didn't spend the weeks before launch building a check list of all the promised features. I just saw enough of the game to know that I was interested enough to try it out for myself. When I finally did get to play the game, whilst I could see quite a few things that were still 'rough around the edges', I enjoyed it enough to keep playing & still do.  

Presenting armor set at the end of beta (level 20) and implying that this would be attainable at that level (unless they specifically  mentioned that this armor is NOT attainable at 20) may not be lying, but definitely misleading. In my book, thats just as bad as lying. You will never get a 100% proof of them lying, unless it goes into court. Of course it will never happen. Its pointless to prove who is lying because everybody has different expectations. For some, FC did not mislead and they are satisfied with what they have. For others, they misled and they are angry that they spent money buying product not meeting their satisfaction criteria.

To read all this perpetual lynch mob hysteria you would think that Funcom had been swindling old people out of their life savings rather than just selling fairly inexpensive video games.

I don't find criticism of a game as a hysteria. If someone has an opinion of a game, but has valid arguments/reasons for it, then that person has all the rights to post his thoughts. If you were right, then any negative post to any game would be considered as a hysteria and nobody would post anything bad about anything. As long as there is a valid argument behind your post, its just as valid as anybody else's post.

It's been over a month now, why don't the people who didn't like the game just find something else to complain about rather than behaving like they are on a mission to protect the planet or something?

Well, if somebody complains elsewhere, then someone in that elsewhere would post something what you did and then that person has to come here... or elsewhere elsewhere.

Personally, I tried AoC in beta. I haven't played long or got far in-game - I found it to be bland and uninteresting. however, post like OP interest me a lot because when I read posts like "OMG THIS GAME RULZ !!11" I like to hear the other side for their views. I found OP's post to be valid and informative.

How can someone with 100K skill points (player A) have a chance vs someone with 10mil points (player B) when player B has better ship, better weapons, better electronics, better items?

I mean player A does have a chance to kill player B, but only if player B is retarded or AFK.

Originally posted by denshing

Originally posted by jimmyman99

Hmm, this info is a bit dubious. I mean, shipped boxes? Who cares about shipped boxes? SOLD boxes are $$$, shipped boxes is just an added cost for them, unless they sell it.

The way they fed us that story seems to indicate they want us to believe their game is very successful. The way they blurred factual data indicates that they are having problems there. After all, its not about shipped product, its about sold product.

Anyone has any data on relevant info? As in sold boxes or current active subs?

if ur some kind of conspiracy theorist i am sure there is data on it, but there have been large scale announcements on the likes of IGN.com ect yada yada, about 400k copies "sold" first week, 500k on updated total about 4 or 5 days ago. Its (Said) to be the fastest selling MMO next to WoW. Ill update with the article that states off of facts AOC being faster selling than bignames like WoW, COD4, and other bigname franchise... HERE YOU GO. http://pc.ign.com/articles/878/878987p1.html   --- http://pc.ign.com/articles/876/876591p1.html-- and there is another one i didnt feel like linking out of laziness something about AOC outselling GTA4 in germany. Sometimes you just half to look up the info yourself, but isnt it nice when you dont half to worry about looking like a fool?

Thnx for the links. I couldnt research this data myself, since I was at work and Im supposed to work at work, and not browse non-work related websites. Hmm, those numbers are fairly decent. 400K sold boxes isnt that bad at all. Still, curious why FC didnt post what you posted? Maybe because 1million shipped boxes sounds more impressive then 400K sold boxes? They knew there are blind fanbois who will take that data, attach a great "OMG AOC PWNZ!" sticker and spread the rumors around that AoC is outselling anything and everything. its all about the $$$

Hmm, this info is a bit dubious. I mean, shipped boxes? Who cares about shipped boxes? SOLD boxes are $$$, shipped boxes is just an added cost for them, unless they sell it.

The way they fed us that story seems to indicate they want us to believe their game is very successful. The way they blurred factual data indicates that they are having problems there. After all, its not about shipped product, its about sold product.

Anyone has any data on relevant info? As in sold boxes or current active subs?

Originally posted by Aka-Shadows

But AoC is still a Basically a Newborn

Just i don't understand if you dont like it then don't play and don't speak...the game is not that bad it needs alot of work i'm gonna stick it tough...and wait around to see what happens you never know you may soon regret your decision to leave

Same logic applies to you too. If you like AoC so much, why arent you playing it? Go play it, stop coming here and stop posting.

Originally posted by ttomm46

Hey All

 

As a 60 plus gamer(Old I Know) sometimes it gets discouraging to see all the anime style  grinders coming out..i think just the cutsey art style alone attracts the teen crowd(no bad aspersions to you teens).

but I feel kind of dumb playing when I'm so much older than the kids playing these games..almost makes me think about returning to UO(shudder)...I would just like to see a few with broader appeal to all age groups...

 

Anyone know of any I'd appreciate it

thanks guys

 

    U can try WoW. I know someone suggested to stay away from it, but I say try it. Yes, WoW has a lot of kids and grinders/farmers, but it isnt anime and ive met some of the best in-game friend in WoW - just gotta stay around and look around for them. A lot of people claim WoW has the worse playerbase - I disagree. It doesnt take much to ignore someone who is bothering you in private chat, or quit the group if there are immature people in it. But once you find a nice mature crowd, you can have tons of fun grouping with them.

I read a lot of Conan books but I found very little of that "Conan" spirit in the game. Maybe because Conan was a loner, a thief, a robber more often then someone would try and liberate villages. He does that too, but usually his main motivations are gold and girls.

I think AoC would be a lot closer to Conan lore if it were done The Witcher style.

Originally posted by Ravanos

 

Originally posted by Limit

casuals ruin mmos -_- sad but true !

 

casual influance leads to instanced servers ---> rubbish!

amen to that ... its amazing what this genre was like before the "I can only play for 5 minutes a day but i expect to be as uber as those that put in 40 hours a week" jackasses

 

If people were like you, then the humanity would of died out. Spending more time by your computer then in the outside world hurts you, your family, your friends and everyone around you (except the game developers you are paying subscription to).

@OP: A very nice review, almost reads like a review written by a professional journalist (some structural errors, nothing major). A must read for those who are interested in trying AoC.

AoC brought nothing new so far. The combat may technically be new, but its just a mindless button masher and is not as responsive as Id like it to be. Gameplay is at times ridiculous - ex. i was in this instance and It was too hard for me. What I did is kept dying over and over occasionally killing one mob out of the group. 2 hours later I finished it.

Stuff like that should not have been there. If the zone is too hard, you should not be able to finish it by mindless "kill 1 mob then die" grind. AoC was overhyped and it just doesnt hold my interest at all. Its just a same old generic MMORPG with a new skin. Its not bad, but its not great either.

Originally posted by Housam

 

---

Originally posted by ndpunch
Very beautiful pile of shit. With a cherry on top.


4/10

---

 

so what do you play then...let me guess...WoW

Seriously. Why in earth would you create a thread ASKING people to rate it if you cant handle low scores well? I understand if someone says "THIS GAME SUX" with no explanation. But if someone says "This game has no innovative combat" or "this game is very linear and holds your hand or even your weener when you wanna take a piss" then you shouldn't just go nuts on them. To you, this game maybe the 2nd coming of the Christ. For some, its just a piece of crap with a cherry on top.

Originally posted by thirdechelon

anyone who rates this 1-5 :

- hasnt played the game

- cant play the game cause of an old computer

- game runs poorly

- is having issues with vista/gpu

 

i give it a 'first day impression' score of 9.

- Intel core2 6600
    2gigs of dual RAM
    Nvidia 8800GTX vidcard
hmmm, i think thats a decent (if not really good computer).

- I played on constant 70fps outside, with 20-30 fps in the city. No complaints about FPS here.

- WinXP

So wait... u just called anyone who scored less then 5 a noob and gave 4 reasons 3 out of which cancel each other out! How clever of you! Well done, sir!

For the record, I scored AoC a 4 - its way overhyped, it doesnt have anything revolutionary (at lower levels anyway) and NO, im not gonna spend half of my life getting to higher levels just to experience that revolutionary content. In my book, if something doesnt grab my attention right off the start, its not worth of trying. I already h