WoW Reviews Compilation Thread

[dusematic]

I would like to make a few points.  Firstly, I have seen very few people labeling WOW a revolutionary game.  I have lurked the boards a bit, and the consensus is that WOW is just like every other game out there, but manages to "get things right."  I take what they mean by this are things such as style, interface, and minor gameplay enhancements or features.  This is just like any other Blizzard game I would argue, where they approach a genre and do it their way, for good or ill.  

Secondly, this whole milieu where everyone is a jaded gamer seems silly to me.  Personally, I have played UO, EQ, DAOC, FFXI, and WOW.  I enjoyed them all, with UO and EQ being my favorites.  There aren't going to be any revolutions in this genre, at least not anytime soon.  What I'm trying to say is I liked EQ style gameplay, I liked UO style gameplay, I like MMORPG style gameplay.  Sure, I got tired of EQ, but only after 2 years of playing it.  These games will evolve and become more immersive, but most people can only agree on the fact that old UO was the pinnacle of MMO's.  These games at their heart, are all the same.  Just like all RTS games share certain elements.  

Lastly a MMORPG must have a social hook, this is what keeps people playing for the long haul, so we should all stop fooling ourselves.  SirBruce, your movie theatre analogy was a good explanation of why you enjoy these games despite your apparent consummate anti-social beahavior.  Still, this is the social hook that keeps you playing, or at least, I would argue it is.  That's totally cool too, but there will never be a game specifically tailored for that style of play.  Unless you count single player games.  I don't give a shit about WOW, but it is more than possible, arguably optimal, to max out the level cap in WOW strictly through soloing.  I apologize if this would seem pedantic, cheers.

[MrHat]

Stress Test extend till Sunday.

[Xilren's Twin]

Lastly a MMORPG must have a social hook, this is what keeps people playing for the long haul, so we should all stop fooling ourselves.  SirBruce, your movie theatre analogy was a good explanation of why you enjoy these games despite your apparent consummate anti-social beahavior.  Still, this is the social hook that keeps you playing, or at least, I would argue it is.  That's totally cool too, but there will never be a game specifically tailored for that style of play.  Unless you count single player games.  I don't give a shit about WOW, but it is more than possible, arguably optimal, to max out the level cap in WOW strictly through soloing.  I apologize if this would seem pedantic, cheers.

But here's the rub; there is a difference between a social hook and having the majority of your gameplay require other people.  That's not a hook, that's a shackle to some of us.  Why?  Simple, just like everything else in these games, forced social interaction requires TIME, something which is already at a premium for the non catass crowd.  Take EQ or DAoC, both games I played and enjoyed for a while.  If I had an hour to play, spending half of that time just trying to find a group to play with drove me nuts, yet you had pretty much had to do it b/c while solo gameplay was technically possible, it was slow as molasses flowing uphill in winter.

I love playing these games, yet my playtime is limited and I'm not alone. I believe if we want the mmorpg market to keep expanding games will have to appeal to those players who don't average 20 hours a week in game; more like 1-10. The largest part of that is being able to play effectively by yourself so no matter how much time you have, you can log and PLAY immediately, not log on and spam guildchat for a group or go LFG while you twiddle your thumbs for 20 minutes before action.

In this way I want what bruce wants; a game that gives me access to lots of other people, but I choose when I want to make use of that potential, not the game.  Right now that game for me is CoH.  Now, it can certainly be argured that CoH needs to add more social hooks to keep people playing long term, but it seems to be doing quite well despite it's cried lack of depth (besides, they can and are adding in that direction).  It's a far different cry to take a game that begins with forced social interaction and seeks to reduce it.

As to WoW, it sound like it's getting mixed reviews on the easy of soloing vs grouping front.  IMHO an end game of pvp and high level raiding screams only catasses need apply.

In the long view, when mmorpg's are treated just like any other mass form of entertainment, be able to deliever fun NOW will be critical which mean all the elements of a game design which "waste" time will be negatives.  B/c these game are still niche, they can get away with it more.

Xilren

[Tairnyn]

While I think it's a sad reflection on the MMORPG industry, I feel my support for this game is accurately depicted by the statement: "If I have to settle, this will do." I've given up on innovation.. the players in the insustry have proven that there is no innovation on the horizon. A successful formula has been devised and anyone with half a business mind will follow what they know will work. I find it likely the first true innovation in the MMOG industry will be a colossal failure, with a good portion of the population looking for another EQ to play.

I like playing MMOGs, not because I find them particularly challenging or complex, but because they are an entertaining distraction I can play with my friends. I've learned not to expect well-written, deep storylines or complex character systems that would take years to navigate completely. I play to enjoy the content with others, and then try to enjoy it as long as possible. I know full well that there probably won't be a game *ever* that can keep me entertained for longer than a few months straight.

As a player with odd hours, I give a lot of credit to any game that can making soloing viable for any class. Nothing makes me tire of a game quicker than sitting around waiting for people to log on so I can do a quest, or worse yet, camp somewhere for a few hours. Every game should be a single-player-friendly game.. because sometimes you're going to be a single player.

I want a game I can log on for an hour on a weeknight and actually achieve something meaningful. It shouldn't require extensive planning just to advance my character, only to sit around waiting for everyone to be fully prepared.

They've taken the best features of current MMOGs and refined them into a system that provides a niche for most every type of player, and that'll have to do for me. I don't have the patience to wait for the killer MMOG that will innovate and engross us all. In fact, I'm guessing the expectations for these games have outgrown the reality of the implementation. The most innovate ideas have fallen flat for various reasons, leaving only the time-tested EQ-esque ontology.

When the ultimate MMOG shows up on the radar you can bet I'll be watching it, but my faith in business-driven online gaming has faltered, so I'll take what I can get. In my humblest of opinions this is as good as it gets. When (not if) I get sick of it, I'm thinking it's time to write off the MMOG genre.

[Mesozoic]

My question is simple:  How much character individualization is there?

Are all Warriors the same, save for level?  Once I decide on, say, a Rogue, how many different directions can I take him in?

[Alluvian]

I am curious what the spread on this board of WoW vs EQ2 will be.

I am guessing from what I know of them that WoW will win maybe 3 out of 5 with at least 1 out of 5 saying neither even if not given that option in a survey.

My guesses on differences:
-EQ2 will have technically better graphics which will also strain computers more.  Graphics preferences will end up being personal taste.
-Looks like wow will have fewer, but more rewarding quests (in terms of advancement).
-Looks like wow will have less downtime for the solo player
-EQ2 will PROBABLY end up more group dependent but also probably have better group dynamic
-WoW will probably have more differentiated classes, but that will be a strength and a weakness depending on point of view and the most recent balance pass.
-EQ2 will have smaller scale (in terms of players involved) endgame raid content
-WoW will have some sort of limited PvP where none will be present in EQ2
-EQ2 will have more in depth crafting, but whether it is more rewarding/fun/or useful ingame has yet to be determined.



edited to add:
I think both EQ2 and WoW will be good INCREMENTAL games.  Neither is going to blow the roof off the genre.

[MrHat]

Just read this morsel:

http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-stresstest&t=67552&p=1#post67552

9. Re: Leveling is TOO FAST. Game won't last.... | 9/9/2004 7:45:04 AM GMTDT        
 
 
The rate of leveling is still in flux and there is a possibility the rate will be decreased for retail service.  
 
 

Fucking lovely.  I don't know why people complain about this shit....  Just enjoy the damn game and not rush through it you fucktard.  Some real morsels in there to read, fucking idiots all of them.

I think that the XP curve needs to change from a gradual increase to an exponential increase after level 40. Thus it should take you all of your exp you gained to get from 1-40, twice, to get to level 41.

This ensures that a level 55 player will indeed be a rare and yes, coveted and prestigious position, somewhat akin to a level 50 diablo classic player. Right now I don't feel that max level is any bit prestigious or rare. There are oodles of people that have max level on the beta server.

It is not at all what gamers demand from a leveling curve. This game has social aspects of a competative, level based nature and making it too easy for everyone to hit max is just asking for trouble.

God Damn.  That's the reason I stopped playing DAoC.

[geldonyetich]

World of Warcraft is definately lacking that "epic" feeling that makes for a good MMORPG.  

However, increasing the length of the treadmill is the absolute worst way to establish this.

A pity the developers will not realize they're adopting the misinformed player's suggestion instead of realizing the true problem.

[dusematic]

Lastly a MMORPG must have a social hook, this is what keeps people playing for the long haul, so we should all stop fooling ourselves.  SirBruce, your movie theatre analogy was a good explanation of why you enjoy these games despite your apparent consummate anti-social beahavior.  Still, this is the social hook that keeps you playing, or at least, I would argue it is.  That's totally cool too, but there will never be a game specifically tailored for that style of play.  Unless you count single player games.  I don't give a shit about WOW, but it is more than possible, arguably optimal, to max out the level cap in WOW strictly through soloing.  I apologize if this would seem pedantic, cheers.

But here's the rub; there is a difference between a social hook and having the majority of your gameplay require other people.  That's not a hook, that's a shackle to some of us.

Excellent point(s) you bring up.  I completely understant time constraints, my schedule is hellacious.  What I would say to you however, is to keep in mind that people like you and me are not in the majority.  Sure, it can be legitimately argued that if the market is to grow, then an effort needs to be made to produce a more casual gameplay for MMOG's.  But let's not forget the inescapable fact that all games geared towards the casual fan to date, scanty as they may be, have failed.  I personally believe that the MMOG market will be a niche market for the forseeable future, the once heralded revolution or explosion in numbers of subscribers will not happen for quite some time, if ever.  

Personally, I like catassing when I have time, I'm a big fat catass.    These games don't require the skill of chess, or produce the excitement of football, they just produce a mania in most people to reach the next carrot.  I have no problem with this, it's how it has always been, and is how it always will be.  Also, some of your post was a tad inaccurate as the majority of content in WOW is indeed soloable.  I understand how this could be annoying, as I believe I am largely in the same boat with you time-wise, but once again I must stress, that I think to be successful a MMOG simply cannot afford to abandon the hardcore players, as those create the bulk of MMOG constituents.  Perhaps instead of wondering  whether or not ALL content in a game must be soloable, including the singularly powerful creatures and dungeons (assuming, as I would argue that most players want to group) we might make slightly better use of our time exploring the channel SirBruce exposed; and that is, is their a better aleternative?  

As it is, people have argued that soloing is the most efficient path, and the game is too short/easy.  Now what is wrong with having content designed for groups, and if there is something wrong with that, would instancing/killing more monsters in a shorter period of time, or anything else really effectively solve this problem, or simply alienate the majority?

[Morfiend]

Just read this morsel:

I think that the XP curve needs to change from a gradual increase to an exponential increase after level 40. Thus it should take you all of your exp you gained to get from 1-40, twice, to get to level 41.

This ensures that a level 55 player will indeed be a rare and yes, coveted and prestigious position, somewhat akin to a level 50 diablo classic player. Right now I don't feel that max level is any bit prestigious or rare. There are oodles of people that have max level on the beta server.

It is not at all what gamers demand from a leveling curve. This game has social aspects of a competative, level based nature and making it too easy for everyone to hit max is just asking for trouble.

Wont happen. The devs have already stated they have the EXP curve about where they want it. They cant go messing with it, with out adding a WHOLE SHIT LOAD of quests. I mean, if they added that much exp needed to level, they would have to increase the amount of quests post 40 by about 1000%, not happening.

Dont worry about what stupid people on the boards are saying, from the look of development so far, Blizzard isnt.

[Merusk]

I understand how this could be annoying, as I believe I am largely in the same boat with you time-wise, but once again I must stress, that I think to be successful a MMOG simply cannot afford to abandon the hardcore players, as those create the bulk of MMOG constituents

And your evidence to back this up is?  If you define hardcore as the upper-end catasses, then the most public study of MMO player demographcs says otherwise.  Of course, the data is 3 1/2 years old now so things have changed.  I dobut, however, they've changed enough that the 60+ hour a week player is the majority.  

The average was ~20 hours a week then. The industry insiders who hang out around here kick ~20 hours a week out as the average when they respond.  Most of these games are achiever-personna havens, and if achievers don't bother averaging more than ~20 hours to reach goals, it'll take a lot more than virtual carrots to keep the others around.

If you define hardcore as min/maxers, then you're still wrong.  If the majority was min/maxers then games would be filled with Necros, Fire Tankers, Fire Blasters and other flavors of the week with few other character types.  At the start of a game it certainly appears this way, but after the first month or two when the min/maxers have gotten bored and the fans of a game are left, it's amazing how the classes spread-out.

So how, exactly, are you defining hardcore here?

[Faust]

My guesses on differences:
-EQ2 will have technically better graphics which will also strain computers more. Graphics preferences will end up being personal taste.
-Looks like wow will have fewer, but more rewarding quests (in terms of advancement).
-Looks like wow will have less downtime for the solo player
-EQ2 will PROBABLY end up more group dependent but also probably have better group dynamic
-WoW will probably have more differentiated classes, but that will be a strength and a weakness depending on point of view and the most recent balance pass.
-EQ2 will have smaller scale (in terms of players involved) endgame raid content
-WoW will have some sort of limited PvP where none will be present in EQ2
-EQ2 will have more in depth crafting, but whether it is more rewarding/fun/or useful ingame has yet to be determined.

You had me at PvP.

[NiX]

-WoW will have some sort of limited PvP where none will be present in EQ2

I've heard differently.

[Riggswolfe]

My guesses on differences:
-EQ2 will have technically better graphics which will also strain computers more.  Graphics preferences will end up being personal taste.

EQ2 will have better graphics from a realistic standpoint while WoW's will be more...artistic for lack of a better term.

-Looks like wow will have fewer, but more rewarding quests (in terms of advancement).

I don't think this is accurate. I constantly have to delete quests because my quest log is full. Every level I have ever made it to has been largely quest-driven. The only time I get non-guest XP is impulse kills or if I decide to farm some loot.

-Looks like wow will have less downtime for the solo player

Very, very little downtime in WoW.

-EQ2 will PROBABLY end up more group dependent but also probably have better group dynamic

I am interested to see how the archetype thing plays out to be honest. If it works right it could conceivably mean all classes have roles in groups. My guess is that some will still end up being preferred despite the current Marketing hype Sony is putting out. On another note, WoW becomes almost totally group dependent at higher levels. Don't believe the hype. From around 35ish on, most quests are very, very hard to do solo.

-WoW will probably have more differentiated classes, but that will be a strength and a weakness depending on point of view and the most recent balance pass.

The archetype thing does have potential to limit differentiation. WoW has an odd problem in beta where it is possible to differentiate but the playerbase discourages it. IE, if you don't build a warrior who is made to be a tank from the ground up you will not be invited into groups. It could be said this is also partly a game fault, since it relies so heavily on the aggro control model of combat.

-EQ2 will have smaller scale (in terms of players involved) endgame raid content

For me this is a mixed blessing. Honestly, I give EQ2 the edge here. I don't really have much interest in needing to devote 6 hours of my life to doing something with my 100 closest friends.

-WoW will have some sort of limited PvP where none will be present in EQ2

Again I give EQ2 the edge. I don't believe that PvE and PvP can be successfully mixed for many reasons. In WoW it's already an issue because the opposing side can kill ride NPCs and quest NPCs.

-EQ2 will have more in depth crafting, but whether it is more rewarding/fun/or useful ingame has yet to be determined.

WoW's crafting is pretty indepth. what are you basing the EQ2 being indepth on?

edited to add:
I think both EQ2 and WoW will be good INCREMENTAL games.  Neither is going to blow the roof off the genre.

I am going to play EQ2. Though fair warning. If it turns out to be the painful clusterfuck that was SWG I will be firebombing Sony HQ.

[Merusk]

-WoW will have some sort of limited PvP where none will be present in EQ2

I've heard differently.

EQ2 won't have PvP . So says Moorgard

[Alkiera]

WoW's crafting is pretty indepth. what are you basing the EQ2 being indepth on?

Reportedly EQ2's crafting is mini-game based.  I don't follow much in the way of EQ2 sites, or news, or anything, but I do recall them saying crafting was going to be based on a minigame.

IIRC, WoW crafting is the fairly typical method of harvest X, turn X into Y in device R, use device P to turn 3 Ys and a Z into useful item A...  Where by 'device' I mean a window with a list of recipies, possibly tied to an in-world or in-inventory object, like to SWG or Horizons.  If it's changed since the 'guide to WoW crafting' thing I read awhile ago, I appologize.

--
Alkiera

[Riggswolfe]

[

Reportedly EQ2's crafting is mini-game based.  I don't follow much in the way of EQ2 sites, or news, or anything, but I do recall them saying crafting was going to be based on a minigame.

IIRC, WoW crafting is the fairly typical method of harvest X, turn X into Y in device R, use device P to turn 3 Ys and a Z into useful item A...  Where by 'device' I mean a window with a list of recipies, possibly tied to an in-world or in-inventory object, like to SWG or Horizons.  If it's changed since the 'guide to WoW crafting' thing I read awhile ago, I appologize.

No offense, but a minigame does not imply depth to me. It does sound kind of cool depending on how it's implemented but it's not depth. WoW has quite alot of crafting options and each of those has alot of recipes in them. That to me is depth.

Maybe it'd be more accurate to say EQ2 crafting might be more fun?

[NiX]

So says Moorgard

I see him saying it may or may not be in. The only definite thing he says is...

There are no plans for a PvP server at release

[Register]

So says Moorgard

I see him saying it may or may not be in. The only definite thing he says is...

There are no plans for a PvP server at release

Key is, PVP balancing is an extremely difficult process that need to evolve over testing and time.

There is already extensive testing for WOW pvp beta. In the PVP test server zones are divided into friendly / contested / and hostile, and players can engage other players of the oppositing faction so long as they are in a contested or friendly zone to them.

So far, there have already been extensive class balancing when certain class/skill/race combos are discovered to be overpowered. NPCs are also being tweaked to fit into the framework of the global conflict betwen the horde and alliance faction that makes up the world of WOW.

Even after all these, Blizzard is considers the existing PVP framework to be largely work-in-progress - issues like PVP rewards and penalties are still under planning.

While I agree that a great balance of PVE and PVP is extremely difficult to achieve, I feel that a reaonable balance will make a very attractive MMORPG - far more attractive than a pure PVP or PVE game, especially if there is good content woven in.

Since EQ2 have yet to even decide upon going PVP, much less actually starting a framework for player testing - I would tend to conclude that PVP for EQ2 is nowwhere on the horizon, and maybe nowwhere ever likely to appear.

[Sable Blaze]

No PvP = a better PvE game.

So far no developer has been able to balance the two gamestyles with level based advancement and a statistically based combat system. Blizzard isn't going to be the first, either.

That alone make EQ2 a viable choice. You may enjoy WoW, but it'll be in spite of the PvP, not because of it. Or vice-versa. If they're going to rely on PvP as their end game, they're going to have lots of trouble...just like Mythic. One is going to push the other into the background sooner or later.

CoH or Guild Wars may be able to pull this one off. Maybe. Can WoW (EQ1.5)? I very seriously doubt it.

[Jain Zar]

As to EQ2 vs WoW?

I won't be playing either.  Ill stick with CoH and play all the great (I hope) games coming out for all systems for the next 4 or 5 months that I won't all be able to buy anyhow.  I mean, X Men Legends, Metroid Prime 2, Warhammer 40K Dawn of War, Phantom Brave, Mech Assault 2, Megaman Command Mission, Paper Mario:Thousand Year Door, Midway Arcade Treasures 2, Civilization 3 Complete (Ok its a repack, but I don't have the game and they have a Warhammer Fantasy Total Conversion I HAVE to play!), Gradius 5, Metal Slug Collection PS2, Mortal Kombat Deception, Robotech Invasion, Bard's Tale, and almost as many other games I haven't gotten to buy that are out right now or are early 2005 releases.

Who the hell has time to spend catassing and spamming LFG?

Ive got GAMES to play, not to mention lots of live tabletop gaming with friends.  If I don't convert Eldar to Heroscape, who the heck will?

[Elil]

I am a registered Blizzard fanboy, so I might be able to fill in some of the info you are looking for.

The current plan is to have instanced faction-based consensual PvP (with NPCs involved) on standard serevers. They haven't put any into the beta so we can't judge them yet. The standard servers have no non-consensual PvP. The thing with killing NPCs without retaliation was basically a design flaw that has been fixed.

am confused about the warrior report. On the one hand I hear that WoW has done great things to give warrior options for combat. On the other hand, given the way taunt is set-up, the warrior has to use all his rage just to hold aggro. He becomes a defecto EQ style "taunt bot" since there is not enough rage to utilize his extra strategic options.

I have a level 50 warrior. She spends most of her time soloing, which she does just fine. She also does very well in a duo. For these she stays with her dual axes and battle stance (no taunt, more damage). In a full group (5), she switches to defensive stance and uses taunt. The funny thing is, getting hit generates rage, so if the mob is hitting her, she has plenty of rage to taunt with. One more thing to add, playing a warrior in a full group can be HARD. Against multiple enemies you need quick reflexes and good judgement, and you can always do a better job.

Druids don't have a very good taunt. They are best at healing. They do have the ability to fill any "gaps" you have in a group though.

At this point I don't even think Paladins have taunt. Correct?

I think every class has some form of aggro management (including palas), but paladins suck right now, so I wouldn't evaluate them just yet. The classes that are ready for criticism are the ones with talents: Warrior, Mage, Priest, Rogue

WoW is halfway to getting a thumbsdown from me due to near impossibility of soloing, particularly for Elite quests

You can't do elite quests solo. At least not in any reasonable level range or amount of time. Elite quests are really something special. They are very difficult and you feel you have accomplished something when you finish them. Part of the specialness is that they are completely optional. If you find your log filling with elites just move to another area. Though I am guessing you were horde, in which case there are some gaps where it is hard to find quests. Blizzard has promised to fix this.

Rogues have sick evasion. I saw a level 13 warrior fight an equal leveled rogue and the rogue barely squeaked it out because the warrior was missing almost every other time. The warrior had something like 2.5 times the AC of the rogue.

AC in WoW reduces damage taken. Dodge and parry are special abilites. Misses are from defense, which is based mostly on level, though some abilities/items give bonuses.

Grouping is pretty much required from level 35-40 on. Almost all quests are difficult if not impossible to solo at that level. Even the non-elite ones.

Warriors in early levels are great fun to play. In later levels they are expected to be nothing but taunt-tanks at all times. People literally will kick a warrior out of a group if that is not how he wishes to play.

As I mentioned above I disagree with your asessment of the warrior at high levels.  I solo a lot. I've also been in groups where I effectively use berserker stance (which isn't even fully implemented yet). As with any class I switch strategies based on the monsters I am fighting and the party I am grouped with. Someone who refuses to switch strategies when the current one isn't working is just being an idiot. They should be off soloing where it won't bother anyone else.

So basically your party will let you do whatever you want as long as it effectively kills monsters. If your strategy isn't working, it is quite reasonable of them to request that you change your strategy.

I dnot have enough hot bar spaces, even with the hotbars switching when I change stances. I have a 3rd party program call thottbott, that add one hotbar on each side of the screan, and another one above the vurrent one. Blizzard is learning from thottbott, and slowly implementing most of the features. At release, expect to have the option to add sidebars.

Some background. The UI for WoW is completely customizable. It is written in XML and Lua, and we have full access to change/add files. People have set up things like the game connect 4, automatically shareed quest info, or even a global auction system, all in custom interfaces. The biggest collection of interface mods is called "Cosmos". Thottbot is a part of Cosmos that automatically reads some information from the game, and uploads it to a central database, which is then displayed on the web.

For example here is my character, the info is from the last time someone with Thottbot did a /inspect on her:   http://www.thottbot.com/index.cgi?p=Bonita

I think this has interesting implications all its own, but I won't talk about them here.

No, that's not my response. My response is "make content accessible to everyone." The elite, group-only content isn't really available to me as a soloist. At least in City of Heroes, the group-only content was segregated into very limited and specific areas, which I could still choose to accomplish but which were not required for me to enjoy the other missions in the game.

If you play through the game to 60 with one character, you will skip most of the content. Seriously, you CAN'T do all of it unless you do the quests after you stop getting exp for them. So just choose to skip the elite quests.

Can anyone enlighten me on how the design of the world is done? I found DAOC way to drab and lifeless after a time. EQ presented such variation in design of its zones and was one of the reasons I stuck with it for more than a few months.

WoW is incredible in this area. You will not be disappointed.

I would like to make a few points. Firstly, I have seen very few people labeling WOW a revolutionary game. I have lurked the boards a bit, and the consensus is that WOW is just like every other game out there, but manages to "get things right." I take what they mean by this are things such as style, interface, and minor gameplay enhancements or features. This is just like any other Blizzard game I would argue, where they approach a genre and do it their way, for good or ill.

I agree. Personally I would prefer that accusation of reinventing the wheel are premature if no working wheel has been made yet.


[/quote]

[Mesozoic]

My question is simple:  How much character individualization is there?

Are all Warriors the same, save for level?  Once I decide on, say, a Rogue, how many different directions can I take him in?

Going twice...

[Merusk]

My question is simple:  How much character individualization is there?

Are all Warriors the same, save for level?  Once I decide on, say, a Rogue, how many different directions can I take him in?

Going twice...

www.thottbot.com  Look under classes and check out the talents section. They're only imlemented for warriors, priests, rogues and mages, right now though.  The talent system is what differentiates one character from another.  You get a total of 50 talent points (One per level starting at 10.) but the thottbot planner lets you put in more than that so just keep checking totals.

Arguably, there's a few score builds you can do for warriors.  Of course, powergaming munchkins and min/maxers will tell you that if you do anything other than a 'defensive' based warrior, you're gimp and useless.  Having not played a warrior beyond 8, I can't comment beyond saying the powergaming min/maxers always shout about the holy-trinity being the only viable group as well, which I've found is only the case if taking on things well above your level. (5+ levels)

[HaemishM]

I think that the XP curve needs to change from a gradual increase to an exponential increase after level 40. Thus it should take you all of your exp you gained to get from 1-40, twice, to get to level 41.

This ensures that a level 55 player will indeed be a rare and yes, coveted and prestigious position, somewhat akin to a level 50 diablo classic player. Right now I don't feel that max level is any bit prestigious or rare. There are oodles of people that have max level on the beta server.

It is not at all what gamers demand from a leveling curve. This game has social aspects of a competative, level based nature and making it too easy for everyone to hit max is just asking for trouble.

God Damn.  That's the reason I stopped playing DAoC.

Oh... My... FUCKING... GOD.

I just had to post after reading this. I don't know why I'm continually amazed every time I see people like this, but I know most MMOG executives just love these little fuckers.

Do these people not realize that it really takes no skill other than patience to achieve the levels in these type of games? And that no matter how many cockblocks you put in place, if you give the entire player base enough time, EVERYONE will be level 55. Or 60. Or 890 bajillion.

Repeat after me. LEVELS DO NOT TAKE SKILL.

So long as these kind of retards are buying time-based gameplay, Diku-mud level fests will continue to be made.

Oh, WoW... I've seen it played, I've read a lot about it, and have yet to see anything to excite me. We've seen this all before.

[Mesozoic]

Thanks Merusk.   The options look better than I thought.

Sadly, it looks like there are no (existing) talents for my planned thief.  Which is to say, a stealth/pickpocket/traps variant of the Rogue, AD&D-style.

[Sable Blaze]

Yah, a Diablo lvl50 didn't mean diddly. You were effectively done at about lvl44. Grinding (and I do mean GRINDING) the last few levels didn't mean anything to your character advancement. Not_a_thing. You did just to be 50. No other benefit (it was about impossible to find decent games post-40 even in Diablo's heyday).

Again, to max your levels only took time; nothing else. The only reason people bother in DAoC and EQ is the endgame (and I didn't bother in DAoC since I had no interest in PvP). I have a high boredom quotient, but mindlessly grinding away at levels isn't something I can tolerate for long.

One hurrah for Blizzard for at least getting armor function correct. All armor does is reduce damage once you've been hit. It's pure mitigation and has nothing to do with avoidance. Now, if they could figure out that you don't parry to block, I"d be developing a modicum of enthusiasm.

Does anyone really believe this game will ship in November? I seriously don't see this until early 2005 at best.

[kidder]

Oh, WoW... I've seen it played, I've read a lot about it, and have yet to see anything to excite me. We've seen this all before.

Yes, we have seen it all before.  We've also(most of us) read a book before.  We continue to read books because usually the story is different.

I'll admit that I was disappointed when the combat in WOW didn't jump up and tickle me silly, but I've taken all of the other nice things that exist and I genuinely like it.  Every little feature is done well, I catch myself saying, "oh that is nice" and "this is cool".  I can't really explain one little thing that makes it better than another MMOG, but taken as a whole it is a huge improvement.

New story, new characters, and a new world to explore.  I'll try it out.

[Alluvian]

-Looks like wow will have fewer, but more rewarding quests (in terms of advancement).

I don't think this is accurate. I constantly have to delete quests because my quest log is full. Every level I have ever made it to has been largely quest-driven. The only time I get non-guest XP is impulse kills or if I decide to farm some loot.

I am taking this from the fact that there is no max number of quests you can have in EQ2 and information firsthand of having seen a friends beta character with 30+ quests complete at level 10 and some 40 more active.  The quests probably are front loaded as I guess a newbie can enter all the other newbie areas and get all the quests from all the areas.  Friend claims the higher level players still say they have dozens of active quests at any given time.  EQ2 is drowning in quests.

I have taken 2 classes to level 8 in WoW and they have had what seemed to be far less quests, but hard to say.  Some of what EQ2 would consider 1 quest WoW would break up into a bunch.  It is hard to count when WoW breaks each individual step into a separate quest.

Either way, it seems EQ2 has far more quantity at any given time.  I like the quality of SOME of the WoW quests.  I really cannot comment on the EQ2 ones.  Mixed bag I am sure.

edited to add:
If WoW has a quest where you visit 5 people trying to find a certain object or some info, WoW breaks that into 5 quests each with a different name.  Each step ends one quest and begins the next step.  In EQ2 that is all the same quest.  Steps get added to the same quest and when complete it is still listed as only one quest.

[HaemishM]

Oh, WoW... I've seen it played, I've read a lot about it, and have yet to see anything to excite me. We've seen this all before.

Yes, we have seen it all before.  We've also(most of us) read a book before.  We continue to read books because usually the story is different.

All books read the same way (right to left, English) for the most part. The story IS the book.

Whereas, in games, the gameplay is the thing. Unlike books, different games require me to learn an entirely new method of playing with each iteration. When they don't, it doesn't take long before I feel like I've played this before. With MMOG's, I can usually watch the game being played to figure out how much or little I will enjoy it.

[kidder]

Oh, WoW... I've seen it played, I've read a lot about it, and have yet to see anything to excite me. We've seen this all before.

Yes, we have seen it all before.  We've also(most of us) read a book before.  We continue to read books because usually the story is different.

All books read the same way (right to left, English) for the most part. The story IS the book.

Whereas, in games, the gameplay is the thing. Unlike books, different games require me to learn an entirely new method of playing with each iteration. When they don't, it doesn't take long before I feel like I've played this before. With MMOG's, I can usually watch the game being played to figure out how much or little I will enjoy it.

Good point.  Innovative gameplay WOULD be nice, which is why I was a bit disappointed with the combat. (I don't really know what I want in that department though.)  Other than that I am excited about the new story.

[Alkiera]

[

Reportedly EQ2's crafting is mini-game based.  I don't follow much in the way of EQ2 sites, or news, or anything, but I do recall them saying crafting was going to be based on a minigame.

IIRC, WoW crafting is the fairly typical method of harvest X, turn X into Y in device R, use device P to turn 3 Ys and a Z into useful item A...  Where by 'device' I mean a window with a list of recipies, possibly tied to an in-world or in-inventory object, like to SWG or Horizons.  If it's changed since the 'guide to WoW crafting' thing I read awhile ago, I appologize.

No offense, but a minigame does not imply depth to me. It does sound kind of cool depending on how it's implemented but it's not depth. WoW has quite alot of crafting options and each of those has alot of recipes in them. That to me is depth.

Maybe it'd be more accurate to say EQ2 crafting might be more fun?

There's a set of Q&A between EQTrader's Corner (penultimate EQ tradeskills site) and a dev here.

Similar to Horizons, you have a crafting class as well as an adventuring class, but the archetype/class system works similarly to the adventuring system, meaning you eventually specialize in one craft.  Some might see that as a limitation, I look at is as a guarantee of no 8th shawl/10th ring style 'you personally must master every tradeskill' quests, which is a Good Thing.  You can also advance in a tradeskill independant of adventuring, there are apparently quests similar to DAoC's crafting quests that give you exp for your tradeskill level, or something similar.

Anyhow, the system looks pretty interesting, and looks to prevent some issues I had with EQLive, namely the _requirement_ to master annoying tradeskills to complete quests for incredibly desirable equipment.

--
Alkiera

[Alakhai]

I'll just reiterate that I find it humorous that people are so hard on MMOs.  Other games are exactly the same.  In a racing game, I either use A/X/Right Trigger for gas, and then I steer.  But people continue to buy those as well.

Now, as I mentioned before, MMOs are intended to be played for a long period of time, so they should try and take larger steps.  But in general, the gaming industy as a whole takes tiny little steps that barely amount to any real changes.

Therefore, I still think WoW can be minorly applauded at taking a few small steps in the quest-based progression area, and for cleaning up some of the bad things in previous MMOs.  The PvP also seems rather fun for the amount I've play (I'm level 17, and I've attacked/killed a few Alliance guys that invaded the Barrens, and I went to Teldrassil once to kill Night Elves), and it is nice to have combat chains (Gouge + Backstab for a rogue, for example.) that make combat less boring.

I think one of the big things the MMO community should do is try and 'prod' developers in the right direction.  Praise them when they've done things right, and let them know it is disappointing that they didn't fix bad things.  But, the entire game doesn't suck just because it isn't 100% new ideas (and if it was, would they be implemented well enough for you to consider it a good game?)

[Alkiera]

But, the entire game doesn't suck just because it isn't 100% new ideas (and if it was, would they be implemented well enough for you to consider it a good game?)

Given SWG as evidence, odds aren't good.  Incremental changes work because the developers can start with a pretty good idea of how the system works in practice, and make small changes to improve the situation in the way they want to.  Whereas with a completely new system, devs don't neccessarily understand how it's supposed to work, nevermind how players will (ab)use it once they have access to it.  Once they have the new system coded, they have to let people play with it, and then learn all the things they already knew about the older system, and then adjust it just like they would have had to if it was an older system.

Basically, new systems are a lot more work than they seem, which I think is what Raph discovered in the development of SWG.  It's alot easier to stand on other's shoulders than to try to reach the heights by yourself.

--
Alkiera

[kuro]

'll just reiterate that I find it humorous that people are so hard on MMOs. Other games are exactly the same. In a racing game, I either use A/X/Right Trigger for gas, and then I steer. But people continue to buy those as well.

What you don't realize is that racing games have changed dramatically. Pole position was using a steering wheel and a gas/break combo to race from checkpoint to checkpoint.  There certainly are graphical updates to that game that people play.  But you can't discount all of the inovasions in the genre.  For example: split screen multiplayer, item pickups, role playing elements, track editors, online multiplayer, realistic physics, liscensing real cars, demolition derby games, car wars games, off road racing, motorcycle racing, spaceship racing, boat racing, cart racing, rc car racing, etc.

The problem is that MMORPGs aren't changing.  We've just got graphical updates to muds that have been around for 20 years where you whack a mole over and over and build your character.  When is the fundamental gameplay going to change?