AoC vs WAR vs ? - Biggest Launch Disappointment 2008

[Megrim]

Basically, it's what SWG should've been and then some.

Damn you Schild.  This right there may be enough for me to start playing... after I move that is.

Thank you for giving me the bottom line.   

I wouldn't be so quick. Yes, it appears that there has been some positive feedback - but wisdom is wisdom: wait six months and then see if people are still gushing about it.

[rk47]

uh, i consider 6 good months already time well spent in mmo. People get bored is not a problem, it's just a game after all.

[Ratman_tf]

uh, i consider 6 good months already time well spent in mmo. People get bored is not a problem, it's just a game after all.

Individually yes. But will AOC have legs as a MMOG past the honeymoon?

[Venkman]

Every still-open MMO still has "legs" past the honeymoon. It just becomes a question of whether people still bother to talk about it en masse. I don't think that'll be the case with AoC; however, to rk47, six months is still a good run for any of these games. Before WoW, that was the average length of a subscription. That became 14 months when it was measured again... 14 months after WoW's launch, an obvious skewing based on how many first-timers and looking-for-better-EQ1ers went there. I'm quite sure it's decreased since.

[Signe]

Nothing lasts me six months in a row.  Anyway... I loved SWG more than I love AoC.  I would like AoC more if it weren't instanced so heavily and so bloody linear.  Of course, I'm still a pretty low level, not quite 1/4 of the max level and haven't tried PvP, crafting, city building, sieging, all that cool kid stuff.  I am hearing, however, a good portion of those things I've not experienced are not even finished yet.  Hopefully, my fickle stuff will last long enough to do it all and it'll be complete by the time I get there.  Having said that, I'm enjoying the game more than I've enjoyed an MMO since CoX.

[Ratman_tf]

Every still-open MMO still has "legs" past the honeymoon. It just becomes a question of whether people still bother to talk about it en masse.

Will AOC still have legs as a big MMOG that everybody is talking about en masse past the honeymoon?

Sheesh. This is like posting on an internet forum with a bunch of gaming geeks...

[Simond]

Personally, I think AoC is going to start having issues once people start levelling up alts (Tortuga? Again?), and then more once either WAR or WotLK hit open beta. Designing a game engine for "PCs built in the last year only" tends to attract the neophiles...who will then move on en masse to the New Shiny whenever that shows up. Plus the "innovative" combat will get recast in the eyes of the playerbase as "buttonmashing" combat sooner or later - see EQ2 and its twenty-bajiliion abilities per class.

Server mergers within a year.

[Signe]

Personally, I think AoC is going to start having issues once people start levelling up alts (Tortuga? Again?), and then more once either WAR or WotLK hit open beta. Designing a game engine for "PCs built in the last year only" tends to attract the neophiles...who will then move on en masse to the New Shiny whenever that shows up. Plus the "innovative" combat will get recast in the eyes of the playerbase as "buttonmashing" combat sooner or later - see EQ2 and its twenty-bajiliion abilities per class.

Server mergers within a year.

I'll do better.  Server merges by December.  Complete forum abandonment by devs before November.  By most moderators, a few weeks later.

It all came to me in a dream.  Srsly.

However, I think this mass exodus will be more about the devs not attending to issues and bugs promptly and less about the game, itself.  Remember SB and how a lot of people couldn't even play their original characters and kept having free time added on to their accounts, instead of a fix?  At least the SB people would acknowledge and do something, however unacceptable it was.  I have a feeling the AoC devs will just ignore it.  Regardless of how fast they might be working on issues and fixes, ignored people are angry people and they will leave.  I can so see that happening with this game. 

[Miasma]

Since almost all the zones are heavily instanced I doubt they will ever really have a reason to merge servers.  Depopulation will be handled automatically by there being fewer instances mitigating the need to merge so that the zones have people in them.  We will be robbed of one of the best ways to see how poorly a game is doing.

I don't know what their community people and devs are smoking.  They brought the servers down today for four hours to make three nerfs?  Due to the lack of progress on serious bugs and complete void of communication I almost think that they gave everyone the first week after launch off to recuperate after spending many long nights to get the game out the door...

[Signe]

If they lose a lot of population, they'll have to merge if they expect proper sieges, no?

Edited because I suck at words.

[Miasma]

They instanced those too.  It's 48 vs 48 now, won't be like DAoC.  Not that it's implemented yet so who knows.

[Nebu]

I think instancing seige is a mistake, but an unfortunate necessity.  It will kill any type of meaningful feeling to pvp. 

What happens when one side wins a seige in one instance, but loses in another?  What's to keep people from instance hopping to get the most blood money? etc. 

[Venkman]

This. One of the more fundamental questions that remain unanswered at a level of the game completely unfinished, with the rest unbalanced.

I'm not really doomcasting the game. I think it's solid enough in the early levels. It's just that mere weeks from launch people are already pushing into the levels where a whole bunch of stuff has yet to be developed. For how long will they wait around when there's all but nothing done yet?

I agree with schild in that this was the way SWG should have launched (combat first, crafting/economy/cities second). But SWG had three big things AoC doesn't: less competition, a license that people continue to want to like, and the feeling that people were part of the design process. So Funcom needs to move faster and more completely, basically. They did a lot of combat and environment/lore stuff right, and I'd like to buy this one eventually.

[Fordel]

Exactly!


VG really upped the bar in terms of launch disasters, we had affairs and rampant drug use and mass firings and all kinds of shit happening! What's AoC got? "It may actually be a decent game, if they can get their shit together and patch it in." Pfft, someone needs to light something on fire!

 

[schild]

AoC is a decent game. It just needs the meta content. Most games can't get the first part right and get the second part halfway right. What we're seeing here is why WoW worked. It only had the first part. Do one thing right and do it well, that's Blizzard's motto.

[Montague]

AoC is a decent game. It just needs the meta content. Most games can't get the first part right and get the second part halfway right. What we're seeing here is why WoW worked. It only had the first part. Do one thing right and do it well, that's Blizzard's motto.

That's the most frustrating part. If they can just get the stuff they have to work, it could be a great game. The only design change I would do is better itemization at low levels - heck just getting tradeposts up might help that.

[Venkman]

AoC is a decent game. It just needs the meta content. Most games can't get the first part right and get the second part halfway right. What we're seeing here is why WoW worked.

Blizzard never promised anything more than the one thing they delivered. AoC only has that one thing right now because they didn't get around to implementing the rest of it before launch. That's not an indictment. Their total concept was more complex to begin with.

Which makes it very much not WoW. AoC's vision is a double-edged sword: the later game is way more complex than WoW will ever be, but in order to prove it's workable, you need people to stick around until you implement it. If you lack those people, you end up needing something for the people you have left which tends to be content driven rather than system driven. 48x48 fights can be ok for that, but this is far south of the pitched battles over resource ownership originally envisioned.

[bhodi]

[Kirth]

If I was an artist of any type I'd present a picture of a mass of people rushing at a half finished bridge, while workers in funcom shirts are desperately trying to complete it to the other side before the crowd falls off.

[Lakov_Sanite]

AoC is a decent game. It just needs the meta content. Most games can't get the first part right and get the second part halfway right. What we're seeing here is why WoW worked.

Blizzard never promised anything more than the one thing they delivered. AoC only has that one thing right now because they didn't get around to implementing the rest of it before launch. That's not an indictment. Their total concept was more complex to begin with.

Which makes it very much not WoW. AoC's vision is a double-edged sword: the later game is way more complex than WoW will ever be, but in order to prove it's workable, you need people to stick around until you implement it.

"Now, our endgame content isn't in YET but trust us, when you see it you'll know it's a bajillion times better than those other games, just be patient."

 

I like conan a lot, played it all weekend like a fiend. It's Different and new but is it better than say wow/eq2? No. It's not better because half the game isn't even IN. Now we are not arguing on maybes or what-ifs. Will the game be better in a year? possibly but that does not count, sorry.

Balance, content, user-friendliness. None of these things are in this game. It is a lovely 'concept' a wonderful and exciting 'theme' but it's been half-assed and pushed out there door.  I'll be playing my whole free month and probably one or two after but I can't see myself not leaving for WAR or wotlk at this point.

[IainC]

[Tarami]

Is that genuine?

[Miasma]

Maybe AoC's GMs are volunteers too.

The current favourite pvp thread is something similar.

The GM summoned the petitioner to the guy he filed against for ganking too much to discuss the matter.  He ganked him again in front of the GM.

Edit: Incase you have to login or something.

me and 2 other guildies were a bit bored, so we wanted to start some **** in bubshur. We proceeded to camping 4 people at the cities main spawn point. This went on for 5 mins then we got bored and left. 30 mins later, me and one of my guildies are running into a town when we spot a GM.


------GM appears
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6715/gmgt8.jpg


------then the GM teleports in the player who sent the petition
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7282/gm2wu1.jpg


------after i killed the ****ing nub
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7049/gm4yj1.jpg


------more convo
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9574/gm5ja9.jpg


------GM resurects the downy, pinkmist goes on a text crusade fighting for all that is FFA PVP
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1724/gm8kj6.jpg


------Ended on a slightly good note, even though there was so much i wanted to say but was smart enough not to...
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8798/gm9zb1.jpg



****en carebear or what?

[Mrbloodworth]

Its killing players while they are talking to an NPC, spawn and load ganking people is what the GM's don't like.

Seems like that was a very nice "Could you cut it out please", that the players flipped out about.

But i guess his name was red/purple, so like.......yeah. Lets flip out about it.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Maybe AoC's GMs are volunteers too.

The current favourite pvp thread is something similar.

The GM summoned the petitioner to the guy he filed against for ganking too much to discuss the matter.  He ganked him again in front of the GM.

Edit: Incase you have to login or something.

me and 2 other guildies were a bit bored, so we wanted to start some **** in bubshur. We proceeded to camping 4 people at the cities main spawn point. This went on for 5 mins then we got bored and left. 30 mins later, me and one of my guildies are running into a town when we spot a GM.


------GM appears
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/6715/gmgt8.jpg


------then the GM teleports in the player who sent the petition
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/7282/gm2wu1.jpg


------after i killed the ****ing nub
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7049/gm4yj1.jpg


------more convo
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/9574/gm5ja9.jpg


------GM resurects the downy, pinkmist goes on a text crusade fighting for all that is FFA PVP
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1724/gm8kj6.jpg


------Ended on a slightly good note, even though there was so much i wanted to say but was smart enough not to...
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/8798/gm9zb1.jpg



****en carebear or what?

Crazy, this post even made it to my wow server forums. To add, the person complaining is in a guild named [Natural Selection] 

[Nerf]

Meh, I'm by no means a whiney carebear, but really how fucking hard is it to code in invulnerability when talking to NPCs and safe zones around rez pts large enough that they can't be effectively held down by one or two people.

That kind of shit is exactly the reason I rolled on a Pve server, I'm fine with ganking in the middle of quests, during fights, etc, etc.

I draw the line at "Haha, you're stuck listening to this npc dialog while we kill you!", ban away.

[Mrbloodworth]

Meh, I'm by no means a whiney carebear, but really how fucking hard is it to code in invulnerability when talking to NPCs and safe zones around rez pts large enough that they can't be effectively held down by one or two people.

That kind of shit is exactly the reason I rolled on a Pve server, I'm fine with ganking in the middle of quests, during fights, etc, etc.

I draw the line at "Haha, you're stuck listening to this npc dialog while we kill you!", ban away.

Same here. But i am sure this will enrage all those players who think that spawn camping (or attacking someone who can do nothing, and is possibly looking at a loading screen) is PvP

As for the invulnerability, there is one, but its not invincibility.

[schild]

PVP Jackasses are complaining about QQing and carebears are QQing?

Sky, blue, etc.

[tazelbain]

Funcom is pretty crazy.  "Play nice people" isn't a sane way to manage a FFA PvP server or any server.

[Venkman]

Its killing players while they are talking to an NPC, spawn and load ganking people is what the GM's don't like.

Seems like that was a very nice "Could you cut it out please", that the players flipped out about.

But i guess his name was red/purple, so like.......yeah. Lets flip out about it.

You can't have it both ways. You either have open FFA PvP or you do not. Funcom is making the classic mistake that goes back to even way before EQ1's "play nice policy". You either control what the players can do at the systemic level or you truly believe in letting players figure it out. There is no in-between.

[Nija]

PVP Jackasses are complaining about QQing and carebears are QQing?

Sky, blue, etc.

Playing on a PVE server in a PVP game. Sky, blue, etc.

[Mrbloodworth]

Its killing players while they are talking to an NPC, spawn and load ganking people is what the GM's don't like.

Seems like that was a very nice "Could you cut it out please", that the players flipped out about.

But i guess his name was red/purple, so like.......yeah. Lets flip out about it.

You can't have it both ways. You either have open FFA PvP or you do not. Funcom is making the classic mistake that goes back to even way before EQ1's "play nice policy". You either control what the players can do at the systemic level or you truly believe in letting players figure it out. There is no in-between.

I know this. But its my understanding that there is a "prison" system, and bounty ETC... Just isn't in yet, lol. (funcoms problem).

The point i was making, is it wasn't an unreasonable request by the GM.

But right here is what makes PvP get trashed. Its not the people complaining, its people exploiting the system and calling it Pvp. Its not. Its pure grefing, by any definition.

[Nerf]

Its killing players while they are talking to an NPC, spawn and load ganking people is what the GM's don't like.

Seems like that was a very nice "Could you cut it out please", that the players flipped out about.

But i guess his name was red/purple, so like.......yeah. Lets flip out about it.

You can't have it both ways. You either have open FFA PvP or you do not. Funcom is making the classic mistake that goes back to even way before EQ1's "play nice policy". You either control what the players can do at the systemic level or you truly believe in letting players figure it out. There is no in-between.

Bullshit, setting cities to safe and creating a 500m safe zone around rez points and zonelines would cut that griefing down to almost nothing.  Making players invulnerable while engaged in NPC dialog would cut it down even further.

[HaemishM]

You can't have it both ways. You either have open FFA PvP or you do not. Funcom is making the classic mistake that goes back to even way before EQ1's "play nice policy". You either control what the players can do at the systemic level or you truly believe in letting players figure it out. There is no in-between.

I know this. But its my understanding that there is a "prison" system, and bounty ETC... Just isn't in yet, lol. (funcoms problem).[/quote]

Which helps no one, just like the GM saying "This will be in the next patch." How are the plaeyrs supposed to know that? Answer: They don't, so they act like they would be expected to act on a server that is labeled as PVP.

The point i was making, is it wasn't an unreasonable request by the GM.

Actually, it IS an unreasonable request, because NOTHING in the game nor in the manuals or anything else would lead a player to believe they shouldn't be doing it. That's what a PVP invincibility timer and safe zones are all about. You don't give a baby a gun and expect him not to shoot someone. MMOG players, especially those who choose a PVP server, ARE FUCKING IDIOTS. They will run about slapping their bare, withered genitalia in your face constantly if you allow them to.

But right here is what makes PvP get trashed. Its not the people complaining, its people exploiting the system and calling it Pvp. Its not. Its pure grefing, by any definition.

Sure, it's griefing. And if it's griefing, the game shouldn't allow it at the system level. No game company should expect their GM's to enforce fair play because they will be outnumbered, outgunned and overrun by the ravening hordes. And this is all shit any idiot who has followed MMOG's since 1997 should know by now. It's one of the main reasons I didn't buy the game, because I saw in Open Beta that the invulnerability switch on rez was turned off. Anyone that could make that mistake and not expect MMOG players to take full advantage of it is going to do it again.

I mean, I haven't seen GM screenshots about a hissy fit in years. It's like 2000 all over again in this bitch.

[Lakov_Sanite]

PVP Jackasses are complaining about QQing and carebears are QQing?

Sky, blue, etc.

Playing on a PVE server in a PVP game. Sky, blue, etc.

AoC may be billed as a pvp game but it is not BUILT as a pvp game. When My necromancer cannot solo a single necromancer PET(the necro left me alone to go make tea or something) only 3 levels higher than me(36,39) something is flawed.  Everyone keeps saying AoC is this bastion of pvp goodness but it's more flawed than decidedly non-pvp games. I do not think aoc was designed to be a pvp game or at least, it was designed to be a pvp game made by people who really only know how to make pve.