I am looking forward to the progression server. These more recent games are boring. EQ is the only game that mixes grouping/solo/raiding at an acceptable level for me. I won't quit my other game, but I'll definitely cut my time dedications to it dramatically to play on the progression - hopefully in a guild that is willing to do ALL the content and not skip stuff.

---

Originally posted by declaredemer

---

Originally posted by UbahNecro

 
EverQuest has been a raid-focused game balanced around raid progression since Kunark.

---

 
You are right and wrong.
 
You are right that EQ began to become a raid-focused game beginning with Kunark, but you were still able to progress effectively, and in a meaningful way, without having to raid.  Even epic Quests required raid elements to them, which forced people to either (1) give-up on the Quest or (2) join a raid guild.
 
The game became so raid focused, however, probably with Velious in which it became undesireable to even play without joining some sort of guild that at least raided, successfully, some of the time.  The game became so raid-focused with PoP and GoD that many people, INCLUDING THE RAIDERS, quit.

---

It had nothing to do with the game being raid-focused, and more to do with the fact that even a full guild of hardcore raiders with top gears not being able to beat a zone that isn't even end-game. Uqua is a mid-GoD progression Zone. It was not supposed to be that damn difficult...

Vxed/Tipt -> Kod'Taz -> Ikkinz -> Yxxta -> Uqua (Sorry, Cannot Pass) -> Qvic -> Inktu'ta -> Txevu -> Tacvi

See... Uqua... Right in the middle. There was issue with other expansions and bosses being unbeatable in the past also. People just got fed up with SOE releasing expansions with unbeatable bosses until they could fix the encounters in them.

GoD was a hard expansion. I honestly think SOE underestimated how fast guilds would progress through GoD content. It was really challenging, and fun. But they dropped the ball @ Uqua. They should have put the roadblock in Tacvi at the first boss. That would have given them enough time to get the expansion out. They could have kept the difficulty up a bit high to slow down guild progression a bit, but unbeatable mid-progression content is not acceptable.

---

Originally posted by andy3080
If they would have stopped at the last patch they did for velious and never came out with luclin or any of that other junk. They would still be the #1 game on earth. I mean what kind of crap is that when you can click on a book and be on the other side of the world. Anways they should have stopped at velious.

---

The only reason why people are still playing, is cause SOE is still providing them with new content to play.

Games that aren't expanded are boring to play after a certain set of time, that is why most of the people in favor of progression servers are 90% against a progression server that forces to play expansions for 6 month spans of time, or even 3 month spans of time.

EverQuest has been a raid-focused game balanced around raid progression since Kunark. If you didn't see it, you simply weren't looking.

Kunark, Velious, and Luclin actually had pretty similar design when it comes to Raid Progression. Luclin had many PvE/non-raid zones. GoD was designed similar to Luclin, also. PoP was a raid-focused expansion, and you couldn't even get level 65 spells without killing raid-level mobs or buying them from the Bazaar.

LDoN caused the game to go to crap, because they went instance crazy thereafter. People only like it because they are carebears, and not many raiders post here. The best thing EQ has had going for it from Kunark to now has been Raiding. SOE has developed some really innovative scripts/rings/encounters in this game. It's the most brilliant aspect. They are running out of innovation, though, but that's to be expected in a 10 year old game.

If you weren't a raider in EverQuest, you are also missing out on a huge part of the game, which actually shaped the game. It was a whole new level of fun. Anyone can go PvE/RP/Quest/whatever, in any game. But the EQ raiding experience was and is one of a kind. That is what made that game great.

The rest is nostalgia through foggy glasses, unfortunately.

---

Originally posted by Wakygreek

---

Originally posted by rat4pay

  I started EQ when Luclin expansion came out and I loved EQ.  After more epansions came out, a big amount of EQ started to suck, like the LDON dungeons and at the time, hard to get LDON spells.  I see a lot of people her only like Vanilla,Kunark, and Velious and a lot of people do not like POP.  What expanisions and changes with the expansions made you feel that SOE ruined the game?

---

 
EQ was one of the best games ever created, the game rocked my socks untill Luclin came out which was the expansion past Ruin of Kunark.  Luclin and the nexus made it hard for alot of the vets to continue the game not just because the high graphical requirements for some of the zones, but it also killed the Wizard and Druid classes for transportation income with the stupid books allowing you to get to specific zones faster.  I actually liked looking for a druid or wiz or even running to my location through different zones, made it feel more of a real/large world.
EQ came out with way too many expansions that ruined the game and it sucks because it was soooooo gooooooood.

---

Luclin = Nexus and Spires (that took several minutes to activate).

Planes of Power = Plane of Knowledge. They made PoK a core feature of the game several expansions later...

Get the info straight! :)

---

Originally posted by Xiliaro
I think Everquest 3 is a great idea that will never happen.  Everquest I had so many features that are honestly just gone in todays market.  Even EQ I itself has lost thoes features somewhere in those 20 expansions, and depending on how picky you are I owuld pin point it somewhere from Shadows of Luclin to Omens of War.  The game had so much content that you were welcome to ignore or embrace.  In EQ2 I feel required to do every quest to get achievement levels, whereas in modern MMOs like Warhammer or Warcraft you are nearly required to level alone because of how much more efficient it is.  I remeber when I first got WoW I thought you were supposed to group and just did instances over and over to level >_<.  Resultingly I was removed from my guild for leveling too slowly...  EQ also had dungeons in a way that is not embraced as much.  The everybody wins mentaility takes away the magic of Everquest.  When 10 groups are battling their way through The Hole, its truely amazing compared to the 8000 guilds that would down Ragnaros on any given week (and on top of that they make it easier and easier).  Everquest woulds till have this appeal in my mind if they undid at least every expansion since Gates of Discord, but a new realease would be even better.

---

In EQ2 that translates to level alone, because you will be doing solo questlines more than anything. Those get boring. With only 1/3 the quests the game has, and more XP from mobs (and AA from mobs), it would be loads funner TBH. People would actually group up and XP more instead of running solo quest lines with combat XP turned off.

Lol, I had never really heard of that before, until I played this game (I have heared of turning it off to level with friends while they catch up in other games, though).

---

Originally posted by drag9999

---

Originally posted by UbahNecro

Hi, I brought EQ2 TSO Expansion All-In-One pack and have been playing it for a few weeks. I don't think I will continue since SOE is releasing a new progression server for EverQuest II, but maybe my thoughts and experiences would be helpful to other players.
I thought the game was very nice. I have upgraded my computer nicely, and get absolutely no lag on the balanced settings. I didn't try any higher settings, since I'm not a graphics geek, but I'm guessing it could run lagless on the next higher quality setting. The game ran very well, though. Over two weeks, and I have not had the client crash on me. There is a bit of server lag, but nothing too discouraging.
Character models look nice, although the overall feel of the in-game enviroment does feel like you're running through a painting. Not a bad painting, but not a particularly stunning one, either.
Targetting is very difficult. If you have multiple mobs on you and need to target one of them, you may have trouble since there seems to be a very small box (relative to the MOB's size) that you have to click in to target it.
I played on the highest population server, and getting groups wasn't actually that difficult. I grouped quite a bit today, gaining 3 levels mostly from mob kills (1 quests completed in the dungeon, and a few named killed) during that party.
There are way too many classes, so the balancing of some other classes is off. I played a started a Necromancer. It wasn't really anything like the EQ Necro. It pretty much sucks, TBH. It's very tedious to play. Feels like I'm working at a bank punching numbers. In a party, it's extremely tedious. It almost drove me to just log off, but I had to "work" through it. The game mechanics for DoT classes are very bad, and Summoners' pets are somewhat underpowered.
Getting XP from mobs can be done at a reasonable pace, but SOE commited the cardinal sin by forcing people to run quest after quest after quest by restricting AA XP to Quests, Named MOB kills, new items picked up, and discovering new areas (maybe a few other things in addition). This means that if you do not run quests all the time, you will be severely underpowered as you level up, and it will get worse and worse since the higher level you get, the more "behind the curve" you will be, since you will have little to no AA Points. Almost everyone runs a parser in this game, so if you don't perform accordingly (i.e. have your AAs) you will probably stop getting groups by the time you really need/want to look for them.
I have played EQ1, VG, WoW, and L2. This the first game that has literally required me to do quests and pretty much nothing but quests from start to finish to actually level/progress my character. Since in other games I am used to taking "quest breaks" where I will spend a few days and level off mobs/instance parties/farming gear/etc. this is pretty much unacceptable to me.
That's pretty unfortunate. As a new player who actually has to find everything (not a reroll who knows the quests back and front) I can actually camp an area and level off mobs about 25% slower than the quests (which is a respectable pace), but the lack of AAs severely underpower you becasue they are actually needed. SOE should have implemented a system that gave players certain # of AAs per level, and then switched them to 100% AA XP from everything (MOBs, Quests, whatever) at level cap and 100% XP.
This form of restrictive gameplay is not entertaining for me.
Game is fun, though, cause there are some really nice people playing it. Any game can boast that, so it's nothing special.
I'd prolly give it a 6.5|10, because of the restrictive game play and the number of extremely uninteresting quests that you have to run through to level. Makes it boring after a while. Also because of the class balance and designs.

---

There is a reason for this game being called EverQUEST 2. It seems like you wanted EverGRIND, in which case, just return to Lineage 2.

---

To the person below: It's not 1999 anymore. People like choices and diversity in gameplay. I don't mine questing, but I do mind when I am forced to do nothing but questing. EverQuest means you can quest forever, not "we will force you to quest even when you are burnt out and bored of if". Most modern MMOs use the same "Quest-to-XP" approach, but this is the first one that I've played, which has given Questing as the one and only viable choice for leveling and progressing your character.

EverQuest had long quest lines and epic quests also, but at least it didn't force you do to nothing but that.

Leveling in this game by killing mobs is not much slower than leveling with quests, so I don't know how you can call it EverGrind. The Grind in EverQuest II is extremely softcore in comparison to Lineage II, or even EverQuest before they nerfed it down a lot.

I can prolly grind my toon to level 80 on MOBs in about a month in this game (with my rather hardcore playtimes), when it would take about 1 year to do it in Lineage II, with one account.

Your tone, and comments, boggle me.

Maybe you understand why solo quest lines every day all day is boring. But maybe you are just content with it, in which case responding to my post is a waste of both of our time.

I have the playtimes to play more than one MMO at once, so I don't really need to return to anything. I just choose what I want to play and do it :) Game feels really empty when you're forced to solo all the time, though, which is basically what the dependence on solo quest lines for AAXP is... Do you understand how this MMORPG would feel a lot less massive or multi-player, than many others, to some players?

---

Originally posted by Greyflame11
I was saddened when Luclin came out and the EC auction ended.  I can recall fondly many times after a session of camping different mobs and looking forward to selling the loot I found or trying to get that great deal for that item I needed.
One of my good friends made a fortune buying low and selling high.  He definately had a knack to the EC auctions.

---

Bazaar is still loads more interpersonal than the Auction House in WoW, or the Auction thingie in EQ2, though.

---

Originally posted by SpectralHunt

---

Originally posted by Laiina

---

Originally posted by SpectralHunt
No matter what people say, the newer MMOs have removed a lot of the annoying factors that were in EQ1.

---

 
That is true, but they also took out a lot of the good things.
All the early games had tons of annoyances, but many of the new games seem to have gotten rid of teh good parts also.
About two weeks ago when playing WOW, I found myself suiciding just because I was too lazy to run out of the dungeon. I think that pretty much says it for lack of challenge.

---

I understand the need of some players wanting a bit more challenge.  I used to be like that too.  And if I had more time, I wouldn't mind it either.  But time has passed and I just don't have the time to grind out like the older MMOs.
I would like to see more sandbox games though.  Even with limited time, I enjoy building my character the way I want it and not having to follow some template or talent trees.

---

That sounds pretty flipping stupid.

Your opinion matters about as much as theirs.

EQ1 has many things that later games could learn from. Even EQ2 can learn a lot from EQ1. EQ2 is a bit of a failure to me. It's even worse than some of the other easy-mode games out there.

I actually heard it wasn't always this carebear, but they had to lower the barriers for a lot of the players to compete with WoW (lol, why embarass yourself and kill you game trying to compete with that?).

To the people talking about Corpse Runs, when I fell down the well in Befallen and died, I had a Necromancer come and Summon my corpse. I did have very long corse runs in Ocean of Tears and Butcherblock Mountaints (Dark Elf KOS to Dwarves), but that actually taught me something about the game.

"If you're KOS in an area, it's probably a good idea to buy and use your Invisibility spell when you travel!" :)

That woman at the Ocean of Tears dock did not like Dark Elves :( Got me more than a few times standing on the boat, Lol.

Hi, I brought EQ2 TSO Expansion All-In-One pack and have been playing it for a few weeks. I don't think I will continue since SOE is releasing a new progression server for EverQuest II, but maybe my thoughts and experiences would be helpful to other players.

I thought the game was very nice. I have upgraded my computer nicely, and get absolutely no lag on the balanced settings. I didn't try any higher settings, since I'm not a graphics geek, but I'm guessing it could run lagless on the next higher quality setting. The game ran very well, though. Over two weeks, and I have not had the client crash on me. There is a bit of server lag, but nothing too discouraging.

Character models look nice, although the overall feel of the in-game enviroment does feel like you're running through a painting. Not a bad painting, but not a particularly stunning one, either.

Targetting is very difficult. If you have multiple mobs on you and need to target one of them, you may have trouble since there seems to be a very small box (relative to the MOB's size) that you have to click in to target it.

I played on the highest population server, and getting groups wasn't actually that difficult. I grouped quite a bit today, gaining 3 levels mostly from mob kills (1 quests completed in the dungeon, and a few named killed) during that party.

There are way too many classes, so the balancing of some other classes is off. I played a started a Necromancer. It wasn't really anything like the EQ Necro. It pretty much sucks, TBH. It's very tedious to play. Feels like I'm working at a bank punching numbers. In a party, it's extremely tedious. It almost drove me to just log off, but I had to "work" through it. The game mechanics for DoT classes are very bad, and Summoners' pets are somewhat underpowered.

Getting XP from mobs can be done at a reasonable pace, but SOE commited the cardinal sin by forcing people to run quest after quest after quest by restricting AA XP to Quests, Named MOB kills, new items picked up, and discovering new areas (maybe a few other things in addition). This means that if you do not run quests all the time, you will be severely underpowered as you level up, and it will get worse and worse since the higher level you get, the more "behind the curve" you will be, since you will have little to no AA Points. Almost everyone runs a parser in this game, so if you don't perform accordingly (i.e. have your AAs) you will probably stop getting groups by the time you really need/want to look for them.

I have played EQ1, VG, WoW, and L2. This the first game that has literally required me to do quests and pretty much nothing but quests from start to finish to actually level/progress my character. Since in other games I am used to taking "quest breaks" where I will spend a few days and level off mobs/instance parties/farming gear/etc. this is pretty much unacceptable to me.

That's pretty unfortunate. As a new player who actually has to find everything (not a reroll who knows the quests back and front) I can actually camp an area and level off mobs about 25% slower than the quests (which is a respectable pace), but the lack of AAs severely underpower you becasue they are actually needed. SOE should have implemented a system that gave players certain # of AAs per level, and then switched them to 100% AA XP from everything (MOBs, Quests, whatever) at level cap and 100% XP.

This form of restrictive gameplay is not entertaining for me.

Game is fun, though, cause there are some really nice people playing it. Any game can boast that, so it's nothing special.

I'd prolly give it a 6.5|10, because of the restrictive game play and the number of extremely uninteresting quests that you have to run through to level. Makes it boring after a while. Also because of the class balance and designs.

---

Originally posted by Blazenfury
It's about time! I'll be voting for a slow moving progression server if given the option!

---

More than 2 months of Classic/Kunark would be enough to make my quit, so I will not waste the money to resubscribe. I think alot of people crying for a classic/slow server didn't actually play the game back when those expansions exist.

It is not viable to do this, when most people already know how to level up as fast as possible. I know I'd probably be 50 in under 2 weeks for sure.

So I'll pass :)

Also, programming languages are all cross platform (except for Assembly languages which are processor-dependent). All you need is a suitable compiler or interpreter for the language (i.e. Borland ported their ObjectPascal/Delphi and C++ compilers to Linux).

Borland had to write an entirely different Library called the Component Library [for] Cross-Platform (CLX) when they developed Kylix, cause the VCL was too Win32 Dependent to port - it would have basically required them to rewrite large parts of it to take advantage of Linux Libraries.

They chose Qt, because it was Win32/Linux cross platform and the new Library [CLX] would facilitate single-source recompilation on both platforms regardless of which platform the application was developed on. If anyone using Delphi 6 (which included both VCL and CLX) used VCL to develop a new application, the applications would have to be rewritten to CLX for all the UI-related elements for it to be able to compiler for Linux, since VCL was a Win32-only framework.

I did Linux development (client-side) and know how hard it is to port applications between both especially when a GUI or system-level interface (as DirectX is) is involved. There are big issues that can stop other types of applications also. Note that PostgreSQL didn't have a Native Win32 version of their RDBMS until version 8 - until then it ran on top of the Cygwin Linux Emulation Layer (which you could somewhat equate to what WINE is on Linux for Windows applications).

Any game developer who wants their game to be cross platform will do the smart thing: use OpenGL for graphics rendering and use 3rd party [cross platform] solutions to fill in the gaps. It's dumb to have a game that is Linux-only since Linux's market share will not recoup the development costs of an MMO-type game. So you're pretty much doing ONLY Windows or BOTH Linux and Windows. Linux-Only is not a good business decision at this point in time for an MMO or pretty much any game that costs alot to develop.

Apple is also a UNIX-type OS (with different Libraries, they have Cocoa instead of Win32 :) ) and would be a better bet. Win32 + Apple > Win32 + Linux > Apple Only > Linux Only.

Can probably sell more games for a cell phone than for only Linux.

Anyawys I am going AWOL again from the forums as I am a bit busy :)

See you next month?

100% wrong about what exactly?  You may be right that it's to difficult to make Directx available for other OS as it would cost Microsoft to much money, but you have also be wrong on some of the points you made.  It seems like you think you know a lot, but in actuality you know about as much as  I do.

Do you work for Microsoft? I don't, I know for sure you don't. Cuase if you did, you'd know better. All I know is that you are wrong. Anything beyond that isn't really a factor in the context of what this discussion has become. If you are still trying to prove me wrong after having given you MUCH proof of how you are (and you have given me nothing?), I would have to say you are dumber than I had thought you were...

My comment about ComSci I was a bit in jest, but also quite serious. Indeed, most people around here who go into Computer Science or related fields (Engineering, e.g.) do take several ComSci-related courses in High School. In other words, this know this shit before they graduate high school. 5 Computer Science courses in High School, Years of ComSci-related training in the Navy (alot of that Targetted at UNIX but also includes custom/embedded systems), and years of College later (I didn't graduate yet, but almost there!) - it would be a travesty to have your line of thinking after all I have learned.

You are the type of programmer that cause start-ups to fail and go bankrupt. These ideas you have aren't realistic, that is the reason why they weren't implemented.

Apart from the fact that it would be incredibly and exceedingly difficult to port DirectX to Linux/UNIX - those OSes have such non-factor Desktop Market-shares (speaking of computer desktop users, what gamers fall into) that it wouldn't be worth the investment anyways.

Borland International, Inc. has two programming tools called Delphi and C++Builder. In 2001 they ported Delphi to Linux and named it Kylix. By the time 2003 came along the project was cancelled. They had to rewite their entire Visual Component Library for Linux to use Qt (CLX it was called there) and it was buggy. By that time both Delphi and C++Builder were ported to Linux. Part of the biggest issue, however, was the existence of 10-20 popular Linux distros in use which made it near impossible to support Linux as a host OS for a native application (Jave and web applications are fundamentally different).

The entire VCL had to be REWRITTEN to be cross-platform because of the Win32 dependencies of it. They rewrote it to use Qt as an underlying graphics framework: CLX was only an abstraction of Qt which was only an abstraction of Win32/Xlib. This is only an application framework - nothing on the level of a system component like DirectX (so much of a system components that it can't even be uninstalled after you install it). Please do tell me how DirectX can be ported to Linux/UNIX more easily than Borland's VCL. Those are hundreds of thousands - millions (developers, licenses, marketing, support, etc.) of USD wasted in this product. Microsoft is not stupid - they tried it with Macintosh - an infinitely better Consumer OS than Linux, especially, now that it's a UNIX-type also with more marketshare. Good Luck.

Reference: Borland sold the DevTools devision off: http://www.codegear.com for information on the projects they have that didn't fail horribly.

  Then you fling insults around at people like it's no big deal to do so.  I think if you take this attitude with you it's goign to be difficult finding a job in programming.

Lol? Don't be stupid, and you won't be called out as stupid...

Not may people know everything about how a computer works or how each programming langauge works or how each operating system works.

No, I just know how the Operating Systems I have studied work. I administered a Unix network in the Navy (HP-UX). I know how UNIX works (and Linux also). Programming languages only differ in semantics and the scope of capabilities that their developers or standards committee wishes for them. We can get rid of programming languages and use 1's and 0's and what I said still makes sense as long as the Windows and UNIX/Linux platforms differ.

This is not like porting something that was originally coded for Windows Vista to Windows XP (back porting), this is a cross platform port of a system component and it is difficult. It's like saying you can go recompile Windows a device drive on Linux - an ignorant statement to make, at best.

In any case, this has very little to do with what the discussion was about. DirectX is not portable to Linux, and making it portable to Linux would require several extensive rewrites of it. The Linux and Windows driver models aren't even equivalent. Do you know what DirectX encompasses? It is only partly comparable to OpenGL (which is quite limited in scope, comparatively).

Most people specialize in a certain aspect of it and these people are the ones likely to know the best answers.  Not us who are for the most part are guessing based on some general knowledge that we have gained through reading some programming books or taking some computer/programming classes. 

Disagree. I am not guessing. I am telling you the facts. If that is the way you think about what you are saying, then you really don't have the right to post anything in this thread. At least have a little faith in what you're telling people. Know what you're talking about, or shut the hell up.

Yes, there are Domain Specialties, but these concepts are domain-independent and do not require any experties (i.e. if you don't have a Ph.D. and are an expert in AI, STFU). Let's not go there.

Lol. Pwn yourself some more, sir.

You're still 100% wrong, and don't change the subject.

Lol.

Looks like you skipped ComSci 101...

MFC is not the Windows API. There is no reason to rewrite the Windows API in C++, since the C code is callable from C++. Lol. Where the hell do you get these retarded ideas from. MFC is a wrapper around the Windows API. It is what we call an Application Framework. There were other frameworks. For example, Borland's ObjectWindows Library used to compete with MFC. Now Borland has the Visual Component Library for Delphi and C++Builder. There is also Qt, wxWidgets, FOX, etc. Anything that can be done with these frameworks can be done with the Windows API. They are just there to ease development and make applications easier to maintain and structure (they are object oriented frameworks)
Think what you want. I'm tired talking to you. This is beyond rediculous, and you definitely aren't a software developer (like I am) because you wouldn't even think twice about embarassing youself posting this dribble.

You were not accurate on your points. All of your points are incorrect and WRONG. You actually have no damn clue what the hell your talking about. Go to Wikipedia or something and get a clue, IMO. I just realized that I never really met a stupid person before, until I started posting on this forum in this thread.

ROFL. Win32 has nothing to do with how much RAM windows can access. That is a design in the OS, not the API. DID YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE 32-BIT VERSIONS OF WINDOWS SERVER (WIN32) THAT CAN ACCESS UP TO AND OVER 4GB RAM? Please, continue to talk this shit and own yourself on pretty much every point. Win64 is not all that different from Win32 except it includes functions that are exclusive to 64-bit architectures. Same for Win32, it included functions that were not included in 16-Bit Windows. All Windows OSes are backwards compatible, for the most part (Win32 can run Win16 Apps, Win64 can run Win32 Apps).

Also, Windows XP 32-Bit can access almost 3.5 GB of RAM. Please be more incorrect. Maybe you can only access 2GB because you have a crappy MOBO with only 2 DDR RAM slots for 2GB Max.

The way you are explaining this is not only wrong, but beyond rediculous. You are pretty much incomprehensible of this so I will have to say farewell and quite reading and posting in this thread.

Bye Bye friend. Hope you learn something soon.

P.S. I used to think no one was stupid until I started participating in this thread. First the Linux shit (which the person never replied to my posts on that cause he knew he was dead wrong) and now this dreadfully obvious Windows stuff which doesn't even relate to the topic of the thread...

Win32 API is Windows API. It is a term that sprung up in the mid-90s to differentiate it from the Win16 API. One is for 32-bit applications and one is for 16-bit applications. There is also Win64 which includes APIs that can be used neither in 16 nor 32 bit applications.

If you don't understand any of this, that is the reason why you disagree.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

I don't laugh at you, but I did write these essays to hopefully educate you on some of these things.

If you still believe that Windows API and Win32 API are different things than you need more help than I can give you.

I didn't read the rest of your post, because I would only end up writing another essay trying to debunc the false stsatements in your post. Everything that needs to be said are in my other posts. Feel free to read them.

Must be getting desperate if you are now trying to argue that Windows API and Win32 API is not the same thing. Windows 16/32/64-Bit Application Programming Interfaces = Windows API.

I'm suprised you would even go along with this argument. It's a rhetorical question to ask any distinction between the two (beyond the obvious i.e. you can't use 32-bit functions in Win 3.1x except for those supported by Win32s subsystem).

Just stop... This is beyond educational and bodering on the rediculous.

Had to uninstall this game.

It has the worst PvP I've ever experienced.

WoW PvP is a bad DAoC ripoff.

---

Originally posted by Flyte27

---

Originally posted by UbahNecro

 

---

Originally posted by Flyte27
Directx should not be dependent upon the Windows API.  it is it's own API that uses C++.  The only reason the API can't work on other OS is because Microsoft writes it so that it will only istall under certain OS.  For instance Directx 10 can only install under Vista.  Being that all Windows are based on the orginal Windows API I'm sure that Microsoft could have made it installable on Windows XP, but they want everyone to buy Vista so they make it only for Vista. 

---

Please, shut up. <- Seriously, you have no clue what you're talking about.
 
You're getting fanatic about the whole Microsoft wants you to buy Vista.
Boo... Hoo...
DirectX has Windows API dependencies, many. To claim otherwise just makes you look stupid. You are basically claiming that DirectX can be compiled on other platforms with minimal changes, which is highly ambitions and quite retarded. You actually are trying to tell us that Microsoft refused to use its own [rather comprehensive] Win32 API when writing DirectX, in favor of reinventing the wheel?
Even .NET libraries have comprenensive and heavy Win32 API dependencies, and it offers its own libraries that are seemingly aimed at replacing it... DirectX isn't a productivity application written with a 3rd party [portable] windowing library like Qt or GTK, it's is system level software designed by Microsoft for the Windows Operating System.
If you want cross-platform graphics, Windows/Visual Studio comes with OpenGL libraries - use those instead. Stay away from DirectX. DirectX is not the way to go if you are developing a game for both Windows and Linux. In fact, it's quite a stupid decision and most other developers [period] would laugh at you for even thinking it is not dependent on Windows.

---

 
I don't agree.  I believe anything that was written in C/C++ can be used on another OS.  Yes there will need to be changes made to the runtime to make it work on another OS, but that doesn't mean it can't or shouldn't be done.  .NET is surposed to be Microsofts answer to Java, but how can it be if it's not capable of making applications for other OS then Windows?  As for directx 10 I do believe they could have easily made it installable on Windows XP.  The two OS and in fact all Windows OS are built on the same code that was written in the C language.  You can even see the way Microsoft milks the money out of their current OS.  Look at how many versions they have split it up into.  Some programs can only be installed with Buisness or Ultimate editions.  I like to use the Windows OS a lot, but I find that Microsoft is getting rediculous with their money making schemes. 

---

Java has different JVMs coming from different vendors, and not the same codebase.

Microsoft even had J++ which was certified for some early levels of Java (the libraries and syntax, disregarding the proprietary extensions).

.NET being cross platform is achieved by the standard that dictates how .NET works under the hood. The Common Language Runtime and it's type system, etc. Just because something is written in C or C++ doesn't guarantee cross platform. The only thing cross platform about C and C++ are the syntax and the standard libraries - that is why these libraries are standardized.

That is like saying that MFC should be able to run on Linux because it is a C++ class library, even when it is so tightly coupled to the Win32 API.

Do you think Linux kernel drivers should be able to run on Windows because they are cross platform? Have you ever wondered why driver support is so horrible on Linux for so many consumer hardware devices even though the code contains alot of C or C++?

Java runs on different platforms because it is C++ and also because the necessary modifications have been made to facilitate that - also, all of Java's libraries are written in Java (the Runtime and compiler are written in C/C++) - just like Microsoft .NET (Libraries written in C# maybe with some C++ interop code, I haven't looked at the code).

The problem with cross platform .NET isn't what language it is written in. That is a fundamental misunderstanding of this that you have. The fundamental problem with .NET is the library dependencies that it has. It is tightly coupled to the Win32 API and that requires such a large portion of it to be rewritten for other platforms (a HUGE portion of the BCL) that porting it would be a bad.

This is the same as Borland's Visual Class Library. When Borland released Kylix (Delphi for Linux) they had to rewrite their VCL using Qt because the VCL is tightly coupled to the Win32 API. Why would .NET be any different, when it is much bigger than that. In the end the investment proved to be too much for the little benefit that was gotten from that project. It was filled with bugs and there were 1000 Linux distros out there with users bugging Borland about problems when they didn't want to pay for a commercial (i.e. supported) Linux distro (SuSE, RHEL, Mandrake).

Stop assuming that C/C++ code is instantly portable, when there are 3rd party library dependencies involved. If there is a library only available on Linux, then the software simply will not compile on Windows. That is why these cross platform and open source libraries are so popular. The Win32 API, however, is not one of them.

Most of the Mono libraries as well as pretty much the entire toolset [that mirrors what they have that is comparable to Microsoft .NET] is pretty much a complete rewrite and re-implementation of the existing solution on Windows.

C/C++ != cross platform. The only time you can guarantee cross platform compilation is when you are using the standard libraries. That is where the protection of the language standard ends. That doesn't even include the fact that almost all compiler vendors have proprietary extensions that prevent software from compiling with other compilers (which can impede cross-platform compilation). There was a LONG time when the Linux kernel was impossible to compile with other Linux compilers (like Intel's compiler) because they were dependent on proprietary extensions. I don't know what the state of that is today, since Intel supports now a large number of GCC extensions, but that is the way things used to be for alot of Linux software and libraries developed with GCC.

Again I don't care for your Anti-Microsoft stuff. You have proven in this thread to lack fundamental knowledge about the design of Linux, Windows, and the various characteristics and libraries in dicussion.

There is no way Microsoft .NET or DirectX can be recompiled on Linux with "a few changes". The changes required would be so huge that it would probably be easier to rewrite it. The CLR and C#/VB standards are there to aid other vendors in providing solutions that would offer compatibility with the Microsoft offerings. People who want them are free to write their own and/or support a solution already in development (e.g. Mono). Please do tell me that you would be willing to rewrite system components for your Operating System, or something as huge as the .NET Framework/platform to run on an incompatible operating system that offers little to no benefit (or even competition) to you business strategy. Microsoft is a business, not the Goodwill. They are not there to provide solutions to competing platforms, especially given how they have released more than enough information to aid them in providing their own solution.

If you want DirectX and .NET for Linux, you are more than encouraged to form a business/corporation and pay developers 6-8 figure salaries to develop it for you, and those who want it - like they have.

This is not a Linux vs. Windows or Microsoft vs. The World discussion. I am just setting the record straight because what you say is false to the point of laughable.

Yea, I am quite anti-WoW because I do not completely agree with it's design philosophy. I do get a bit nauseous when I read their WoTLK page and they say "Quest to level 80"...

But, I think I will reactivate my account that I quit 3 weeks into the free month because it seem to be the best and more balanced MMO on the market these days. Lineage II is pretty much dying with the market collapsing worse than the US Housing Market, so there isn't really much choice.

I did the Open Beta and Head Start to Warhammer Online and it is too tunnel vision for my likes. WoW, unfortunately, is pretty much the best MMO on the market right now and I guess I have to deal with it... Maybe if I find a more active guild that groups more in my level range (like 40ish I got to before I stopped playing) it will be a different experience this time...

LOL @ Vanguard. Don't mention that game, it's a non-factor. Let it die in peace.

---

Originally posted by Aguitha
Absolutly, just play on a populated server like Antonia Bayle, lots of peoples constanttly rerolling.   I just came back to the game a few days ago after almost a year in WOW and i forget how fun is EQ2.   One thing i like the most about this game is the economy.  Even as a newbie you can make good money harvesting and collecting shinies (some are worth several gold).

---

---

Originally posted by theratmonkey
Really, I can't have any sympathy for the people who are getting sued. They knew what they were doing wasn't accepted, and they did it anyway.
 
And Blizzard reacted as they should. It's their game, they don't want it hurt by a bunch of tards who have to make a program just to lvl up.
 

---

Hopefully others like NCSoft and SOE follow suit, because this can be quite a revolution in the MMO community!