Profile: Maragold
Send PM  Forum Posts  Forum Topics 

Recent Forum Posts [more...]

• • Why this game will suck.

  • This game will suck because all the people who write complaints about games before even playing them won't be in the game to screw it up.

     

    Wait... sorry, that's a big positive.

  • Posted: 3/26/08 10:31 AM
    Citadel of Sorcery
• • First: Looks Cool

  •  

    Originally posted by aNgELfiRe_
    

    Well, it's just another fantasy MMO. It has nothing new really. Graphics and models are not exaclty professional. Let alone the grammar on the site :P

     The questing system they are talking about existed years ago ie. in KOTOR, or Baldurs series, or to go even further back in  Dark Sun, 15 years ago :) Just it was never put into an MMO yet, but no worries, Bioware is working for this system for the MMO title.

    Another thing is I can't let the thought go, that this game is just like Renessaince. And it looks preatty fishy, that they don't name any of the devs, when they are talking about shipped titles :o

     

    Wow, let's explore some of your comments.

     

       

    "The questing system they are talking about     existed years ago ie. in KOTOR, or Baldurs series, or to go even further back in  Dark Sun, 15 years ago :) Just it was never put into an MMO yet,"

     

    By your own comment this is new, as you state, it has NEVER been put into an MMO yet'.  I guess that's the WHOLE point.  However, even so you are incorrect.  KOTOR, Baldures and Dark Sun were linear RPGs.   Pretty good ones, yes, and I enjoyed playing them more than most MMOs.  BUT they were linear.  Everyone did the same thing.  The devs for CoS have clearly stated that this is a dynamic world where each person's story will be different, not a linear game like those you mentioned.

    As for personal details about themselves that they don't what to reveal to people like yourself, I certainly don't blame them.  I don't see you adding your real name to your posts.   This isn't 'fishy' its just smart.

  • Posted: 3/26/08 10:15 AM
    Citadel of Sorcery
• • Why are you looking forward to this game?

  • Originally posted by JK-Kanosi
    

     

    Originally posted by Maragold
    

     

    Originally posted by JK-Kanosi
    

    It's hard to get excited about a game with so little information on how exactly we are going to change the game world. I read the FAQ's and the majority of these threads and it still hasn't been explain.

    Say for instance you can destroy a village in the seamless part of the world (non-instanced), how do you know people won't exploit this ability and just destroy everything in the gameworld, leaving a barren place. If it is done instancely, how do the devs plan to solve the problem when one player saves that village in his instance, but another player fails to save it in theirs. Yet, those to decide to group together in the next instance. Which story does the devs decide to continue, the one whose village got destroyed or the other? If there isn't PvP, and two players arive at the village at the same time, one decides he wants to destroy it, while another decides he wants it to survive, who wins if there isn't PvP?

    There are so many questions I have on how a game that plans to support tens of thousands of players, plan to handle that many people changing the game world at the same time. If it is all instanced, how is the world truly going to change to other players? Will it only change for that one person and not another? If so, then what's the point of changing the gameworld when you're the only one who will see it?

    First of all, where did you read that you could destroy a village?  The devs never said that.  What they did say is that you could choose to help defend a town that was under attack (not by players, by NPC forces). 

     

    So this means, in your example, that two players arrive at a village under attack.  One decides to help the village, the other decides not to help.  The village may fall, it may not, but there will be an outcome.  I don't see your issue.  You're too hung up on PVP when this game is not about PVP.

    There are certainly plenty of questions left to answer, but the devs have stated that they are early in development.  Do you expect them to reveal all their plans now?  They would be crazy to do so in my opinion.  They have told us plenty, enough that I know I will try the game when it comes out.

    Why keep attacking a developer who is trying to give us something new?  If you don't want something new, go play WoW or one of the other clones.

    
    If you consider my post an attack, then you clearly are a fanboi. I may play DAoC, but I am not hung up on PvP. My issues are just as relevant as everyone elses issues. When I know more information, I can more accurately put hype into this game. Until then, I will wait and see like the majority of the people. I am not the type to jump on the hype bandwagon as soon as I hear the first little bit of information about it.

     

    Since you wanted to get nasty with me, I challenge you to highlight everything I said that was mean or nasty in my post. I just reread it, so I know there is nothing you can quote. Again, you are just being a fanboi when you attack someone like me, who only asked questions.

    Fine, let's not get nasty.  Instead let's just explore your statements in a discussion.

     

    You state, and I quote, "Say for instance you can destroy a village in the seamless part of the world (non-instanced), how do you know people won't exploit this ability and just destroy everything in the gameworld, leaving a barren place."

    Where did you get this piece of information?  I can't find it anywhere in the devs web site, their features or comments from Jatar.  No where does it say that players can destroy towns, villages, etc.  I'm asking you, so we can discuss your premise.  If, however, there is no backing for your premise, then your whole point about this is moot.

    Excuse me if I bristled in my previous post, but the statement you made was so strange it was like saying, "In WoW, if I use the planet buster bomb to remove a portion of the land, won't this ruin the game play for others?"  What planet buster bomb?  There isn't one.  Why are we then discussing this?  Has one of the devs at Blizzard said they have a new planet buster bomb? 

  • Posted: 3/23/08 1:02 PM
    Citadel of Sorcery
• • Why are you looking forward to this game?

  • Originally posted by JK-Kanosi
    

    It's hard to get excited about a game with so little information on how exactly we are going to change the game world. I read the FAQ's and the majority of these threads and it still hasn't been explain.

    Say for instance you can destroy a village in the seamless part of the world (non-instanced), how do you know people won't exploit this ability and just destroy everything in the gameworld, leaving a barren place. If it is done instancely, how do the devs plan to solve the problem when one player saves that village in his instance, but another player fails to save it in theirs. Yet, those to decide to group together in the next instance. Which story does the devs decide to continue, the one whose village got destroyed or the other? If there isn't PvP, and two players arive at the village at the same time, one decides he wants to destroy it, while another decides he wants it to survive, who wins if there isn't PvP?

    There are so many questions I have on how a game that plans to support tens of thousands of players, plan to handle that many people changing the game world at the same time. If it is all instanced, how is the world truly going to change to other players? Will it only change for that one person and not another? If so, then what's the point of changing the gameworld when you're the only one who will see it?

    First of all, where did you read that you could destroy a village?  The devs never said that.  What they did say is that you could choose to help defend a town that was under attack (not by players, by NPC forces). 

    So this means, in your example, that two players arrive at a village under attack.  One decides to help the village, the other decides not to help.  The village may fall, it may not, but there will be an outcome.  I don't see your issue.  You're too hung up on PVP when this game is not about PVP.

    There are certainly plenty of questions left to answer, but the devs have stated that they are early in development.  Do you expect them to reveal all their plans now?  They would be crazy to do so in my opinion.  They have told us plenty, enough that I know I will try the game when it comes out.

    Why keep attacking a developer who is trying to give us something new?  If you don't want something new, go play WoW or one of the other clones.

  • Posted: 3/22/08 6:20 PM
    Citadel of Sorcery
• • Citadel of Sorcery: CoS Introduction - Part Two

  • Originally posted by aurick
    

     

    ---

    Originally posted by Ozmodan

     

    Lately I have to wonder what is it about the 2nd "M" in MMORPG that developers don't get? Mutliplayer does not mean that complete solo play!
    You know when you put in mostly solo play you satisfy the kids and turn off everyone else. Problem with kids is they have a very short attention span, hence most subscriptions last only a short time.
    Without significant multiplayer features, games like this die on the vine very fast. I am suprised the people funding this have not pointed out that error to the developement team, seems to me you should always examine the problems encounted by previous games and attempt to alleviate them....not compound them.

    ---

     

    Respectfully, I have to disagree. I am 38 years old and play a lot of MMO's. My gaming friends are also in their 30's. We play a considerable amount together, but we also all have individual lives and commitments that prevent us from grouping. So we play grouped or solo depending upon the day.

    DDO is a game that really focused heavily on grouping. If your argument held true, then DDO would be a phenomenally successful game. Yet despite having great graphics and compelling dungeon adventures, it's only a mediocre success at best. My friends and I stopped playing it because grouping was the only choice that we had, and when we couldn't group up we had no choice but to play something else. There just wasn't any solo content available in DDO with which to occupy our time until our friends came on.

    If you have one game that focuses exclusively on group content and another that offers both options, where will you spend your monthly subscription fee? You'll naturally spend it where you can play whenever you want to. DDO learned this the hard way, and has slowly been introducing more solo content to the game.

    As a mature player, I want BOTH kinds of play. I want compelling content that I can enjoy with friends, as well as equally compelling content that I can experience when those friends aren't available. The "join a big guild" argument just doesn't hold water, in part because of the fact that we're mature players. We have developed a core group of solid friends that we work well together with. We don't like all the politics and cliques that form with big guilds. So we -- and many other mature players just like us -- will naturally gravitate toward games that cater to both solo and group playstyles.

    That being said, I'm not too sure about the use of instancing as it's described here. If the game world has as much space as the real world, yet that space is heavily instanced, it seems to me that the result would be a very dead world. It will be necessary to learn more about this aspect of the game as the devs make that info available. For now, I'm withholding my verdict.

    Excuse me, but your statements seem contradictory.  On the one hand you advocate letting the player choose between Solo and Group play, and how having the choice is always better than being forced to only one or the other  (and I couldn't agree more with you on this issue).

    However, on the other hand you state that you think having the choice of entering a fully instanced world, complete with all adventures, towns, NPCs, enemies... everything... or going into the world where there are other MMO players... is bad.   So you want to limit the game play choice to one of these, instead of having the game allow you to choose what type of game play you want at that time?

    Personally, there are times when other players are just annoying me.  I'm on my adventure with my group of friends and some other group of players 'takes' what I'm looking for or need.  I have to wait... I hate to wait.   What good are these other players to me when I'm already in a group on my adventure?  I'd rather have a world where my group was able to adventure without other groups getting in my way.

    That being said, there are also times when I might want to wander and maybe join another group of people.  If that were the case, I'd like an MMO area for grouping up and interacting.  I've read all the posts on this game, and read their Q & A section on their web site... they are offering both choices to me, much like offering Solo or Group play.  I want the choice, always, for both these things.

  • Posted: 3/21/08 1:04 PM
    General Discussion