| 975 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Housam2 What he said... beat me to it. 
Assuming that you do have everything else up to date, all you'd need to do is add an extra ghz. It's about 50 bucks for one at most stores, but newegg is a lifesaver if you're not afraid of shopping online (I particularly don't like it just because I like keeping credit card info safe, but that's just me). I saw a deal on NewEgg of 2ghz going for about $44.99 (40 bucks off it's original price). |
|
Originally posted by convict I can answer some of these, not all of them though... - At the moment we can merely assume that you can only have one gathering profession. To my knowledge Funcom has not given out too much information on the topic of professions, but someone may know a little bit more about this topic than either of us. - Yes, it's supposedly like SWG; the stats of the resource found effect the product created. - I'm not positive on this, but I'm pretty sure it takes ten (maybe 25, somewhere in between I'm sure)members to create a guild, and the number of people it takes to create a guild city depends. You need various resources and people to create a city and I'm pretty sure you could technically do it with one person, but the time it would take and the cities quality would not be good at all. There was a video covering the topic of guilds, raids, and city building but I don't know it by heart - Yes, classes and races are as far as we know are equal, at least when it comes to actual questing and etc. Classes may gain certain debuffs or benefits over others but races are equal other than lore. - With the games unique combat system, it's given Funcom a great way to make gameplay really diversive, and make things a little more complicated ( for the better). I can assume that the game has taunts, but from my knowledge, the manual blocking and dodging skill will prove pretty handy, especially in PvP. For example, if you have multiple tanks you can create a wall to protect the healer while melee damage dealers flank and rangers stay from reach near the priest (if the enemy attempts the same). - As far as I know, yes, there will be the possibility to make alliances, at least between already large guilds. There will also be the addition of mercenary guilds; temporary alliances that are paid for helping you defend. - I'm not positive about how the economy of the game will work, but there's a section on the games official site about what they're planning to do with it. If it doesn't answer your question, then I'm clueless as well. - There will be no decay. - I'm not sure how the devs will handle controlling the abuse of constantly crafting the same item to sell at a high rate... it can either prove to be a good thing for the game's economy or just cause inflation and give gold spammers an excuse to join this game. - From my understanding, rangers will need to buy arrows. - I'm unsure on how food will work, but I can assume that they will introduce something with it. There's my two cents.
|
|
|
I am still unaware of the major differences myself. The people over at Funcom haven't really discussed much about how their servers are going to work yet, just a bunch of tiny tidbits. I'm aware that there are different naming policies for the RP-PVP server, vice-versa the regular PVP server. My assumption of what the game is trying to introduce to PvP with the RP-PVP servers is chivalry, something not too familiar to standard MMORPG PVP play. For example, in Border Kingdoms, you see two people in the distance. They are fighting. According to chivalry, you would not interfere and let the best man win. Let's take it into the games perspective; say you're max level, and you run into someone of much lower level than you. It would be considered unchivalry to kill that person just for shits and giggles (although, I honestly admit, I have done the same in previous games that I've played). My guess for the main differences between the two different types of servers are that you get PvP debuffs for performing unchivalry acts in the RP-PVP server while the regular PVP servers consider "all is fair in war". I can imagine the RP-PVP servers starting out as the more popular servers.... |
|
|
What kind of day/night cycle would you prefer in AoC
General Discussion « Age of Conan 4/11/08 4:34:45 PM
Originally posted by Travizty I wouldn't see that working because, even though the game is still a game, they're trying to make things a little more realistic. A set timeline would make things a little more indulging and realistic for the players... not only that, but I could imagine a huge amount of people would be against this if it was implemented. I think what you're suggesting is that the day and night cycles were random, which wouldn't exactly work too well. I agree that it sounds interesting though |
|
|
What kind of day/night cycle would you prefer in AoC
General Discussion « Age of Conan 4/10/08 6:32:52 PM
I'd prefer a number of hours that are not divisible by 24, like a nine hour cycle, so the time cycle is just a little more randomized. With this, the time cycle would slowly change over time. So instead of something like a 12 hour, where you would see a similar amount of times, it would be a little bit more contingent, which is what I prefer... so instead of being part of a 24 hour base, it would be constant to a 72 hour base, making things a little bit more interesting for everyone. this is just a nut jobs opinion though EDIT: I also wanted to mention my support for the above post of this one. I like the idea where day and night actually effect an MMORPG. Like assassins and rangers gain a specific benefit from the night time outdoors or shadows inside while priests of mitria gain benefits from sunlight. And weather benefits would be pretty cool as well, such as tempests of set would gain benefits when it rains or conquerors gaining benefits on certain terrains. |
|
|
...I use a 5200 graphics card, got it for like 20 bucks a year ago, and it can run the game at the medium settings just fine (atm I'm playing the beta). You'll do perfectly fine at 8600GT. Like someone else already mentioned, the game is not phenomenal graphics wise. Think "Elder Scrolls: Oblivion" for a comparison. The game doesn't have the greatest graphics but they're certainly impressive enough. |
|
|
Well, a poll isn't really that good of an idea for a video game... each of the games you selected are good in their own ways, it's all personal taste and what kind of game you prefer. Here's my opinion on each: WoW: at the current moment the best P2P (pay-to-play) you can find, yet this year seems that they will be giving WoW some seriously needed competition. Generally nice graphics that don't require a high system req, somewhat balanced classes, decent PvP. Overall WoW is a very clean game technically-wise, but has an extremely poor community of players. If you're looking for an "MMO" game then you might want to wait for some games to come out like Age of Conan or Warhammer Online later this year (AoC coming in merely more than a month from now). Cabal: Well, in my opinion you're rarely going to find a decent F2P (free-to-play) game. This game is actually pretty good for being so. No matter what F2P game you find, you're going to get a lot of lag and a lot of spammers. And this game's graphics somewhat add to it, but if you have a good computer this game would definitely be worth a try if you don't want to pay for any games or just want to try something new without loss of hard earned cash. One thing I have to say that's really nice about this game is that it has a really great combat system. Very smooth motion and the combo system adds something new to generic MMORPGs. Guild Wars: A very good game if you prefer PvP over PvE. The game is basically centered around PvP... you're going to find very little content for PvE. Though, the PvE content you get is pretty decent. You'll definitely get some entertainment and each campaign should take you about a month or less to complete the storyline. It's short but not extremely over-extended, which I hate in most online games where I just want to finish the story. The graphics are very impressive with a low system requirement. The combat is very unique to most current MMORPGs. And like I've already stated, the PvP as a whole is probably the best currently out there. Which I play now: Today, out of all these the only one I still have installed on my computer is Guild Wars, and I play it on occassion, but not as much as I used to. WoW was fun for me while it lasted, but got tiring fast. I could never reach past lvl 46... it all just felt like the same grind over and over. But the game doesn't have such a huge fanbase for no reason, so they're doing something right. Chances are it will appeal to you for at least a little while. I would suggest at least trying it. Cabal is a good game if you're just getting into online games. It's free, basically, which makes it a good game to start with. I myself got tired of this game and uninstalled it after about a week of playing it, but it's worth a try. Some people like it and some don't, and if you're going to try any F2P, this is definitely one that actually isn't absolutely dreadful. Guild Wars, basically, is the only game I have installed still because I'm an MMORPGer who likes PvP. The fact that this game has no subscription and is focused on PvP goes hand in hand. I get tired of PvP in the same game after while, and I take game breaks frequently, so I don't have to let my money drain. I've owned this game for over a year and still am not completely tired of it, which says a lot for me. So, if you're basing your poll on our own personal experiences, Guild Wars is probably the best for it's worth. |
|
|
The game runs differently than most MMORPGs you'd be used to. Your surroundings are greatly detailed, but the tiny details are not 3 dimensional. Usually you'll find a lot of things around you in the game if you look really really closely to be flat. It's a really smart aprroach, though, one of the most beautiful games I've played but runs extremely well. It also goes towards the fact that 99% of the game is instanced, the worlds in PvE are your own seperate maps (meaning the game doesn't have to use random calculations for non-NPC characters), and like I already mentioned, the way the game is engineered is very distinct. My graphics card I think is a 6200 or 6600, something along those lines. My computer is about 5 years old. I run the game on max graphic settings and it runs fine, excluding alliance battles in PvP, which are 12 versus 12 fights... that's when my computer will experience one or two lag punches. That's pretty much it though. Your computer should run fine... the system req is very very low. |
|
|
Why you won't being playing Warhammer?
General Discussion « WAR (Warhammer Online) 4/08/08 5:33:43 PM
Originally posted by Sinnahis Oh don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying WoW was the first MMORPG ever. What I should have made clear with my post was the fact that WoWs MMORPG was before WARs, not the game itself. I am aware that WoW has, mainly, made a lot of it's successes by using the features that people liked in previous successful game and combining them together (which they did very successfully, even if I hate to say it). But yes, I still stand by what I say about what WAR is trying to do. I see little new to the next generation of MMORPGs being added to WAR. RvR and TOK have been in games before, nothing special to be honest... and I'm not sure where you're getting the idea of customization other than their classes or appearances, which really aren't significant changes if you ask me (appearances are preset other than gear and race, and the classes are the same, just different names if you ask me. Yet that's nothing that WAR can really help; I don't think any MMORPG will be able to break that generic class mold successfully for another couple years). Like I said, the only thing that looks like WAR will be able to get a better grip of are just improvements over things that have already been done (graphics, classes, PvP, and the likewise). |
|
Originally posted by skeptical I agree with the above comment. Maturity is more of an issue than the age that the game appeals to. Funcom, for the most part, is being extremely intelligent so far marketing-wise. It's appealing to both the adult and young adult population, particularly the majority of the general public doesn't realize this. It's called "sub-instinctual" advertising. The M-rating and the addition of more gore and "boobies" appeals greatly to the adult public, considering 1.) it's offering more, simply put, and 2.) It gives a sense that it will allow a more mature community. The M-rating appeals and the addition of more gore and "boobies" appeals greatly to the young adult public, considering 1.) it's offering more, simply put, and 2.) It gives the sense that it will allow a more young adult community. See what's going on here...? If you're going to be playing any sort of online video game, expect young people to play. The young adult gaming population is much more vast than that of it's 18+ counterpart, simply towards the fact that they (or should I say we... I'm a minor myself) have more free time and also because we generally know our way around technology more than the adult public, when counting statistics. what I'm ultimately trying to say is, don't expect any sort of truly "mature" game until about 20 years from now, when the generations become much more aware with growing technologies and with a larger (possibly even) amount of adult and young adult players... that is, if you consider age to be a factor for maturity. If you don't believe age makes the difference over maturity (like myself), don't expect to have any differences EVER. If you want me to explain WHY there's such an immature gaming community in most MMORPGs, that's a completely different subject. Mob Mentality, and several other factors, prove important factors to this that would take me another huge amount of typing to explain. Not that maturity should be a big issue in the first place... what I'm about to do is going to make my entire speech completely obsolete. /ignore the BOOM HEADSHOT LULULULULULZ! Problem solved. I'm just a genius I guess for being one of the few to discover such a mechanism. |
|
|
Well, one thing I want to add about what I like about this game is the diversity of the classes. As they've (Funcom) stated, they're trying to make all their classes some way or another a type of "hybrid", so that no class is somewhat better at completing a task for a group than the other. So far they seem to be accomplishing that, through the various interviews over each class and their descriptions of each. But in my opinion, although the game is trying, it's going to be very difficult to break the mold. Like almost all MMORPGs, there are classes designed for PvP and classes designed for PvE. The hybrid classes usually serve well as PvP classes as they have a better survivability rate and more diversitility when needed. These classes fail in PvE because they don't perform a certain task to the best of their ability. For example, mage classes are, in all MMORPGs generally, the best ranged damage dealers out there, so they are very sought out for group play in PvE, as they do one certain task best. The same goes for the priest classes, as their main goal is to heal and they can do it the best. But they fail in PvP because they lack any sort of diversity when the time calls for it. You can't just constantly heal yourself without having a damage output to win in PvP. And you can't just deal damage without having any defenses to win in PvP either. You need a little of both damage and protection of some sort (be it healing, armor, dodging, etc.). This is because the majority of PvP is solo play, it's as simple as that. Though, considering the game seems to have a huge focus on player-made city raiding, these classes might prove useful in PvP, as it will be team efforts to take over/defend a city. Assassin, Herald of Xotli, Dark Templar, and the Tempest of Set seem to be the more solo-oriented classes, therefore they'll probably be the easiest to play when it comes down to end-game solo PvP. The Bear Shaman would probably be an extremely valuable group player, PvE and PvP wise. The ranger might be decent too, depending on it's abilities (yet we still know little yet). The Barbarian as is seems to have little protection, along with the demonologist and necromancer. Guardians, Conquerors, and Priests of Mitria seem more like group play PvE classes if you ask me. But I'm sure the game will find a way to allow any class you play to serve a valuable purpose in PvP, as the game definitely seems to going for a more balanced approach to it's classes. There's my full two cents!
|
|
|
Why you won't being playing Warhammer?
General Discussion « WAR (Warhammer Online) 4/05/08 10:49:32 PM
heh, just saw this thread... think it's kind of interesting to see all the people giving comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, which simply asks why you will not be playing WAR. Well for one, the main reason being, I'm burned out on WoW. I'm sorry to inform you guys, but WoW the MMORPG was first. It does not take an idiot to realize that WAR is basically focusing it's aim on people playing WoW who are getting tired of it. I'm not bashing WAR... in fact, I find this extremely intelligent of them. This is probably the perfect time for them to steal away WoW customers (or at least, the time once it's released). And they are adding in some interesting stuff that seems slightly unique to its WoW counterpart, such as specific classes for each race... which when you think about it isn't really that spectacular Also, the second reason being what the post author originally wrote in his/her first post. I'm just sick of the typical rock paper scissors fighting, it really gets dull after a while. One more thing I want to add about WAR's marketing plan; it'll seem good at first... considering you're merely counting population and not the overall community of players. I can expect a lot of young people to play this... which is what I'm liking about this game. It will sort of act as a magnet, especially with all this promotion for the game WAR is going through. So finally, these three main reasons are basically why I'll try to avoid WAR. I'll most likely stick to EVE... not that much seems absolutely breath-taking this year, yet I might try AoC and CoSB on their betas. |
|
|
So, Age of Conan fans, what class(es) do you want to be?
General Discussion « Age of Conan 4/05/08 4:36:16 PM
I'm not sure yet, myself. In WoW (the game I've been playing just to kill time) the class I played was a Rogue, but only got as far as lvl 46 until I just couldn't take the game anymore (the entire freakin' game is just reaching max lvl as fast as possible, and once you get there, if you even play long enough to get there, the PvP gets tiring fast). The assassin seemed kind of neat in this game but I'm somewhat sick of the "rogue" types. Then I looked at the Barbarian, and he definitely seemed pretty decent, yet I'm not sure why it's classified as a "Rogue", as it's probably the least stealthy character in the game. But I didn't like the fact that they have such low armor and (judging from the site's description of them and various interviews on the class) they'll have no way of healing themselves. They need at least some way of protecting themselves if their job is to basically attract the most aggro (adding to the fact that they're supposed to be the best melee AoE damagers in the game). Then I saw the bear shaman. I've always liked playing a healer of sorts but I was never really good at it in previous games that I've played, so I stuck with melee classes (which are pretty much my preference and specialty). Looks like the winner for me. Medium armor, and from what they describe possible damage outputs equal to a Rogue, and heals done through damaging opponents(!). I always liked the "hybrid" classes in all games, because they offer the most diversity. I think it will be a nice change for me to switch to this sort of dmg dealer/healer instead of the regular bash and smash type. Some other classes that interest me are the DT (in a way, the "evil" version of the bear shaman), xotli (mage/soldier sounds sweet), and set (healer/mage, which just seems like something different for me for a change). The game is definitely pumping out some diversity for it's classes, which I like a lot. If the barbarian proves itself to have at least some sort of survivability without a healer having to protect it, then I'll probably try that one out too. |
|
Originally posted by waverat81 I'm not sure if you were asking me or Krytical, forgive me but I don't use forums very often... ...I was merely making an assumption based off of the videos, interviews, and articles about the game released from the developers working at AoC, though I haven't been able to play the beta yet, so it's really just trusting what the devs are saying about their own game. I never said "it will be this" or "it will be that", it's really just an educated guess of what I think they plan on doing with the game. |
|
|
This is my first post on this forum... usually I just pass by forums on this website to just get the basic jist of a game (in this case whether or not to go with AoC or WAR when it comes out) but this topic is really interesting to me. The reason free roaming works for a game like WoW is because the graphics are very simplistic and mapped in their own seperate ways. As for example, characters are not "unique"; they follow an exact design. The same goes for their environment, like the trees, and the terrains. Therefore the game runs almost seamlessly on almost any platform, yet the graphics aren't "too" flawless (I actually applaud Blizzard for their simplistic yet somewhat detailed designs, they're very intelligent). What I feel AoC will be like is similar to how games like City of Heroes/Villains works. They had a highly immersive character design and greatly detailed environments. Because of this, they had to make different "zones". The zones were certainly not small (if comparing to WoW it would be somewhere along the lines of the size of the Barrens for each) and if you wished to continue onward, all that you really needed to do was just wait for the load screen, which usually was a very short wait. The only difference between "free-roaming" and "zones" is that for zones, everything has much more detail and runs at the same quality, your computer just has to go through more preparation to get through certain areas, which to me is worth it. I'm still not sure whether I'm going with AoC or WAR but atm I'm leaning more towards AoC, simply because it looks a lot more beautifully detailed graphic-wise and I absolutely adore the character creation system... not to mention I'm just sick of WoW and anything really similar to it (I realize WAR technically came before WoW, but I've just burnt out on elves and midgets, kthxbai). |
|
to be perfectly honest the amount of daylight/night time is not one of the biggest issues for me.
What I can simply expect from everything given out about the product so far is that it will be a WoW2. Nothing really "new" or exciting to the next generation of MMORPGs, other than, I'll admit, seemingly great graphics.