| Username | plateau01 |
| Real Name | |
| Rank | Apprentice Member |
| Joined | May 1, 2006 |
| Gender | Male |
| Age | 35 |
| Location | Sydney, Australia |
| Last Visit | May 31, 2008 |
| Post Count | 86 |
| Biography | |
| Quote |
So Elikal, when can we expect the next thread or post comparing AoC to Vanguard replete with the witty play on Vanguard's full title? Tomorrow perhaps? Within a few hours?
If you could PM me with the time I'd be ever so grateful. I really wouldn't want to miss it.
Ah hi AOCtester. We've been waiting for you...
I agree. I recall the feedback in beta myself. I recall too that they said more armors would be available at launch but it seems they didn't exactly do a stellar job of distributing the extra sets. Good to see it's a top priority at least.
I'm not going to cite individual forum members lest I want to get my ass banned. An example that springs to mind however was a verbatim lifting of a few paragraphs from an official preview without citation. It was presented as their own opinion.
The person in question repeatedly interjects with their views of the game, often irrelevent to the discussion at hand, although they've admitted they've never played the game nor had any interest in doing so. And yet, their overbearing tone and repetition of falsehoods which often has nothing to do with the discussion continues. Thier posts aren't constructive. There are a handful of these individuals and yet their presence and the volume outweighs their numbers.
I've said, and if you care to check my forums posts, I've also demonstrated it, that I want to hear the opinions of those who've played the game and have a less than rosy view of it. I want to hear why they're not so taken with it. How clear do I have to make it to youY ou can quibble over my use of many but I've made it abundantly clear.
The OP's post was constructive and imformative but as it's a positive development it'd been ignored, whereas posts (often the same post we'e seen a dozen times before) from those who've never played the game garner 3 to 5 pages, even when those trlling posts are contradicted by information like this.
If say someone following this development proceeds to say that there are still X issues with itemisation or that even with greater diversity of gear they don't like the designs, I want to hear that. At least it's founded on information and experience. I'd characterize that as a constructive post.
This is pertinant. From the Gamespy review:
"In the two weeks since the game's launch, Funcom's been incredibly proactive when it comes to issuing patches and improving the game. Elements that were big issues in our "Out of the Box" impressions have already been greatly reduced or resolved by a dedicated programming team that must be working themselves like Stygian galley slaves. The game's chat system has been upgraded. Traders (NPCs who combine the function of auction house, guild bank, personal bank and post office) who were shut down to block a game-killing exploit are back on-line. Not-so-hot elements of the UI like party member indicators and blinking maps are gone or resolved. The game's client even runs better, matching an impressive record of smooth server performance that should finally eliminate the dread specter of Anarchy Online.
The result of Funcom's obvious dedication to the product and the impressive stream of fixes they've already issued give confidence regarding the future of the product. The game's major problems stem from missing or incomplete PvP and PvE content, not any lack of solid infrastructure or poor game design. Age of Conan as it stands today is a very enjoyable stew of wild bloodshed, sweaty decadence and the panicked realization that you've just gotten jumped by a group from an enemy guild. Age of Conan going forward should become a delightfully savage second home for plenty of howling on-line barbarians."