Originally posted by greed0104

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by greed0104

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by hidden1 

Had to add my 2 cents here... but I thought the major reason to play in a "massive 'MULTIPLAYER' online role playing game"
 

is to play with other players.

 

For the sane, yes.

For some, and it has nothing to do with sanity. I play to play with "people" to, but those people are people I know in person. I have no interest in playing with you or the next random guy.

MMOs offer a different experience for everybody, those experiences might not always include other people being part of their interest.

Well unfortunately some of us don't have people we know in person that like mmo's.  I have to make due with in-game party friends.  The process can be tedious, but I usually right down the names of players who I thought were good party players vs. reckless party wipers.  So I guess some of us have no choice but to choose to play "the next random guy" as you put.
 

It is indeed unfortunate and I consider it a luxury, but my point is, people that prefer to solo have no mental sickness. I understand you have no other option to choose that random guy. And to be honest even if none of my friends played the same game, I still would not group with the next random guy. So that would still make me a solo player, and I'm quite sane.

I'm curious, why is it that you won't even try random guys to party with?  I personally find it tedious, but since I prefer parties I go through the process of judging them good or bad players.  In all this you haven't stated why you would not group with the next random guy.  Again, I'm just curious type.  Hope you don't mind the question.  :)
 

Intrestinlgy enough I see G4Aion.com spammed from time to time as a gold spammer in-game.  I take it this is one and the same?

God I hate spammers. >.<

Originally posted by greed0104

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by hidden1 

Had to add my 2 cents here... but I thought the major reason to play in a "massive 'MULTIPLAYER' online role playing game"
 

is to play with other players.

 

For the sane, yes.

For some, and it has nothing to do with sanity. I play to play with "people" to, but those people are people I know in person. I have no interest in playing with you or the next random guy.

MMOs offer a different experience for everybody, those experiences might not always include other people being part of their interest.

Well unfortunately some of us don't have people we know in person that like mmo's.  I have to make due with in-game party friends.  The process can be tedious, but I usually right down the names of players who I thought were good party players vs. reckless party wipers.  So I guess some of us have no choice but to choose to play "the next random guy" as you put.
 

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by Shannia

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

Originally posted by madeux

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Shannia

 

The XP penalty in WoW is a lie.  For the same hours played, a group can go to 70-80 in 2-3 days tops where a solo player would take a week or more.  That is a fact.  So this XP penalty by grouping is a myth.

 

It's not a myth. You can see it on each kill you get when grouped. You get far less xp for a kill when grouped.

The example of instance grinding? Oh, what fun! I REALLY want to run the same exact content dozens of times in order to move on to the next instance to grind dozens of times.

 

Are you that slow, or are you just pretending in order to force an argument?  Of course you get less XP per kill in a group, because it is shared, just as it should be.  However, in a group, you will be able to kill more things in the same time, thus evening out the XP.

 

You are only counting combat time.

Groups require more time that just combat time.

Solo players do not require the non combat time that groups require.

So no, it doesn't "even out".

 

Yet at the same time in four hour play session a solo player may have to go back to the bank once or twice but the group had to summon people back 4 and 5 times because they kill so much more than the solo player.   Please, don't sit here and insult us like this.  Groupers do just fine and don't need extra compensation because of down time.  And I said this to you yesterday, extended downtime for a group is group management issue, not a unfair solo advantage.

 

 

This is like trying to convince me my favorite color is blue, not green.

You are advocating a solo friendly game. Of course you believe my group efforts in a game like WoW, pre raid, are already adequately rewarded. I would expect you to think so.

I disagree. But it is not an objective argument either of us can win. It is a preference.

I understand you like the set up in WoW and think that's fair. I'm glad there are games like WoW which you can play that are solo friendly.

I think the set up in WoW does not adequately compensate group play. I would like a game that I enjoy, just as you enjoy your solo friendly game. I would not try to convince you to play it, any more than I would try to convince you what your favorite color is.

 

You already stated buried in your OP, your true intentions.  Like it or not, you said SCREW the solo player.  Your words, "On my server, solo play will be a long hard difficult struggle, at least 4x longer than taking on the content in a group."  So you see, you are not for happy players for all.  You already admitted, SCREW the solo play.

 

Had to add my 2 cents here... but I thought the major reason to play in a "massive 'MULTIPLAYER' online role playing game"
 

is to play with other players.  There are plenty of good single player games if you want to solo.  But don't get me wrong, I know there are time when one needs to solo, just for variety's sake or because there aren't too many players or parties going on due to time zone factors.

Edit:  I guess another reason is that players may want to farm for crafting materials and such, and in some cases that can slow down a party...  I think those would be my only legitimate reasons for solo'ing (along with my other reasons as stated above.

I think I understand what you mean Ihmotep.  I miss that about Hellgate.  The game not only scales up to your level when solo in Stonehenge and the Wilds area, but would also scale up in difficulty for mob A.I. but also the mobs automatically gained more HP and dealt more WAY more damage depending on the party size.  So if it was a 2 man party, the damage/difficulty would scale up just a tad (and so not too noticeable from solo'ing).  However, if it was a full party, man would all the players would have to play we utter PERFECTION or cause a party whipe.  Yeah so party to me was more fun for that reason.  We all had to step up our game or cause a party wipe with just normal mobs (not even mentinoning Rare/Epic/Bosses).

One more factor made it exciting for me... me and my guild only played Hellgate in Hardcore mode and always were in full party for the hardest difficulty scaling. :)

Fun times.

I would have to agree with some of the posters on here that this is no different the L2.  However its' quite rude to get whispers from them. 

All I have to say is /ignore is my best friend.

Originally posted by Loke666

Seems different and new thinking to me.

If it is actually fun or not is still the question but I will keep my eyes on this game, as I will with all non EQ copies.

The graphics looks very good from what I seen :)

I am a bit careful about korean games since it seems like the koreans like a slightly different kind of gameplay generally speaking but I am not so stupid that I think that it goes for every game. Hopefully this game will not have that Lineage feel that so many korean games have.

Hi Loke, well if you look at their Alpha footage, and you can see that the game probably will play like Hellgate, as that it's not a point-n-click-lock on target, but the user will have to manually aim at their respective targets.  Personally I like this form of gameplay as it immerses me more into the game.  Just check out youtube and I think you can find it by typing TERA boss fight... or something like that.  The footage is months old, and I still can't believe that I'm impressed still today w/ an early Alpha gameplay footage.

I will good luck to Blue Hole Studios, as it's already looking sharp right from the get go.

Edit:  change I "will" to I "wish".

Originally posted by mrroboto40

Um, as far as I know, doesn't this game currently only have plans to release in Korea?

EDIT: They seem to have an english webpage now, this is exciting.

When the Boss fight Alpha footage was released a few months ago, I read on Blue Hole Studios' site that they were planning on an Internationally brining this game globally, and that it would most likely be a p2p model (and not f2p as some are speculating).  However this was months ago, and as time goes by things are subject to change.

Either way I've been excited about this title since seeing that early Alpha footage. :)

Originally posted by gortic

I got to level 16 in aion, then I could not stand it anymore! It was just not for me... now im playing Fallen Earth and it is AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have found my home.

Wow talk about opposites here... well I quit FE during it'a beta and didn't look back.  Started AION, got my toon 21, and I find myself a bit addicted... however, just to add, AION is just my "tide-me-over game".  I'm really excited and waiting on TERA online.

After working for SCEA for 7 years, I'd say anything SoE, SCEA, and/or Sony related products.  It's personal thing.  Let's just say I"m glad I don't work for them anymore.

Originally posted by dalestaines1

This will be a great class to play. 

I'm not sure about the wings until I see them in game, but another healing class is always good.

I think you will need 2400+ Favor to unlock this class.  Meh it took me forever to just unlock the 32 point build to make a slightly stronger toon (750 favor I think).

I'm really not looking forward to the f2p model.

Originally posted by Czzarre

<grabs popcorn>

I hear that Atari will ask the judge to dismiss the lawsuit because turbine lost it's saving throw

LOL, perhaps this is due to Turbine being only 2HD company while Atari is a 4HD company.  Clever Czzarre, very clever.

Originally posted by BaneShade

From what I remember, DDO isn't distgustingly bad at all. It's quite competent as an MMO where you can explore and actually go dungeon crawling. Remember Dungeons & Dragons?

At least the first several levels were nice. I don't know about the rest of the game content.

Can anyone name any other MMOs with similar freedom when it comes to exploring, climbing, jumping, swimming? And not just as a gimmick either, but as a necessary part of the game that rewards you?

A large world might be cool, but it seems it's something they could add if they wanted to / had the resources. No need for the game to be completely trashed and remade.

 

You bring up some good points, and no I can't think of any MMO that had exploring (or searching skill i think), climbing, jumping, swimming?  And not just a gimmick.... yes I did like that aspect of the quests that utilzed those skills/actions, and used them quite well.  Some quests you would need like high skill points into swimming... The Crucible is one quest that I beileve needed a high swim skill to pass a certain part (and usually one member of the party would be selected for that part).  Well you make a good point.  I currently have one level 16, 3 level 14's, and enjoy this game in many ways.  But it would be nice to see Atari do something different.  However, they should still incorporate the aforementioned skills, and not just as a gimmick.  Whatever they do, and given that they win in court, they should utitlze those skills in the same way as is current, and make D&D more a persistent world instead of just instancing everything.  Howerver that's not to say that everything should be persistent.  Perhaps a good and balanced blend of the two?

Well I guess I'm jumping the gun on this, as this is all hypothetical and speculative since it's in the court process...

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Originally posted by Lobotomist

Wow...this is bad for Turbine. And bad for DDO :(

I just hope Turbine wins this one, and maybe even close damn Atari ... but than again Atari just bought Cryptic...

Serves them well for going down with Bill Roper...that guy just invites catastrophies...

 

 

Anyway, rotten news

 

 

Oh crap! If Atari bought Cryptic, and the rumor is that Cryptic's "other MMO" they are working on is DnD based, then this makes sense, lol! It's not right, but it makes sense.

Incredible... is this The Curse of Bill Roper at work on games not even associated with him?  Will is somehow and mysteriously spread across to board to unrelated titles?  Being "flagshipped" once was bad enough.  O.o
 

Originally posted by Khalathwyr

Yeah, it was a shady thing to do on Atari's part. But what is the underlying message here? I think it's that Atari realizes that DDO in it's iteration isn't a very viable MMO. If the heavily instanced game as it was made (granted I haven't played it since a few months after it's release) was in such a state they had to open up a F2P portion to their business model, well they're hurting for subscriptions in my opinion.

I bet Atari wants to see the DnD license in a more traditional MMO setup, with a large world and multiple cities and such. To be honest, I do too. Granted, it'd have to be 3.5 ruleset or below.

Yes, you propose an interesting scenario of how things could play out.  On the one hand, I feel bad for Turbine and am tempted to boycott all Atari future products... However, on the other hand, if Atari does win, they could do whatever they want w/ the IP, and maybe hopefully make a new MMO with it that's possibly in a persistent world as apposed to instanced.  Maybe this could work out to the advantage of D&D fans overall.

If Atari does win, well maybe it would be in the best interest of the IP to shut down D&D and make a new MMO from scratch... well who knows at this point.

I guess we'll all find out soon enough what will happen after the court's decision.

Two things this game has with Hellgate:

1)  Lifetime Subs

2)  Bill Roper

I feel sorry for those ppl who payed lifetime sub for hellgate.  Don't get me wrong I liked Hellgate, just very disappointed with Bill's handling of his company and misshandling of Hanbitsoft.

I hope things don't go the route of Hellgate, but Lifetime sub idea sorta struck a cord with me... deja vu ?

Originally posted by thexrated

Originally posted by hidden1

Originally posted by Mrbluray

In order to be truly max level in Aion, you not only need to reach level 50 in PvE, but you must also be number 1 in terms of your PvP rank, (which gives massive stat buffs)

The PvP ranking scheme however follows a pyramid scheme, with the top rank having only 1 player slot.   What this means is that in the entire server, only 1 person can fill the top rank slot.   So in order to be max level, you must not only master the PvE by reaching level 50, but you must also obtain the one available player slot and be rank 1 in PvP.   Only person in the entire server (for your side) can do this.

 

I wish more games were like this.  If it were up to me, I'd make it go even further by extending it to PvE and having only a certain percentage of people allowed to be level 50, 40, 30, and so on.

 

Interesting design on the pvp part, but the pve statement that only some players can reach those levels... I'd say it's unfair to any new subscribers.  However I can only see that work if the game was Hardcore mode only... meaning perma-death. 

You lose ranks every time you purchase items with those points. Maintaining highest ranks will be hard, because of that competition.

Then that's not good, if this scheme works, it will play on the human psychology of compettion... almost seems sneaky and underhanded to take advantage of potential players.  So this is not a subscription p2p model?  it's f2p?
 

It almost seems as similar what Hanbitsoft did to FSS over Hellgate.  Well I'm a sub for D&D and have never been a fan of f2p models.  Though in this case I hope it works out.  If the article is true however, I might consider a boycott of Atari products all together.  Just doesn't seem fair.

Originally posted by Mrbluray

In order to be truly max level in Aion, you not only need to reach level 50 in PvE, but you must also be number 1 in terms of your PvP rank, (which gives massive stat buffs)

The PvP ranking scheme however follows a pyramid scheme, with the top rank having only 1 player slot.   What this means is that in the entire server, only 1 person can fill the top rank slot.   So in order to be max level, you must not only master the PvE by reaching level 50, but you must also obtain the one available player slot and be rank 1 in PvP.   Only person in the entire server (for your side) can do this.

 

I wish more games were like this.  If it were up to me, I'd make it go even further by extending it to PvE and having only a certain percentage of people allowed to be level 50, 40, 30, and so on.

 

Interesting design on the pvp part, but the pve statement that only some players can reach those levels... I'd say it's unfair to any new subscribers.  However I can only see that work if the game was Hardcore mode only... meaning perma-death.
 

Yeah that happened on Hellgate... but we all got flaggshipped in the end. :(