DAoC : Catacombs NDA lifted.

[eldaec]

New classes. New continent in each realm. Instancing in new and old dungeons. New types of stats on new items. Graphics overhaul. Excessive facial cutomisation options which will not make your char any more unique or recognisable because noone looks at your avatar's face in a MMOG.

[Riggswolfe]

noone looks at your avatar's face in a MMOG.

That is one reason that WoW's lack of customer characterization doesn't bother me. The only MMO I can think of where it matters is COH

[Nebu]

Call me pathetic, but DAoC is the only title that I actively play and enjoy.  I'm actually looking forward to Catacombs almost as much as the WoW release.  Why WoW?  I'm hoping that WoW will take many of the 1337 people away from Camelot.

Yes, Camelot is flawed... but I enjoy the RvR game.  

If anyone has gotten into the beta, let me know what your impressions are.  Schild, if you happen to get some beta keys I'll be your personal love monkey in exchange for one.

[angry.bob]

[angry.bob]

[angry.bob]

[chinslim]

New classes aren't going to help DAOC (anyone rolling clerics, druids, bards, etc to complement the new classes or does everyone have buffbots nowadays?)  when old ones are still broken.  I think DAOC still has a great feel and environment as well as concept of RvR, but the game is fundamentally broken when it comes to class dynamics and grouping.  Instancing will help small groups get their game on faster, but small groups usually have no problems in PvE already.  Instancing primarily solves overcrowding problems, which is the least of DAOC's worries.

Much as I'd like to give Catacombs a spin, I remind myself of the 2+hour waits to find a group and look forward to WoW, where even support classes can solo and have some versatility.

[AlteredOne]

My wife seems willing to try Catacombs, but I was burned too badly by Atlantis to give this a shot.  ToA was utterly game-destroying for me, making it hard to have much faith in Mythic's ability to put a good expansion together.  Besides, Catacombs would have the unfair burden of needing to *undo* the evil of ToA, on top of being a good expansion in its own right.

Finally since Catacombs is a PvE-only expansion, it's hard to see why I would not instead try WoW or EQ2, for an entirely fresh and different PvE fix.  I enjoyed DAOC for a long time, but somehow I get the feeling that the game really is declining.  Almost none of my original in-game friends plays it anymore.  Look at EQ by comparison, and see an amazing number of the same people still tooling away after 5+ years.

[Sobelius]

Finally since Catacombs is a PvE-only expansion, it's hard to see why I would not instead try WoW or EQ2, for an entirely fresh and different PvE fix.  I enjoyed DAOC for a long time, but somehow I get the feeling that the game really is declining.  Almost none of my original in-game friends plays it anymore.  Look at EQ by comparison, and see an amazing number of the same people still tooling away after 5+ years.

If the RvR end-game had really been about realm-level goals that impact players in the broadest sense (the best they ever did was, for example, was making access to Darkness Falls based on keep numbers), then I think the game would have had more longevity.

For me, RvR was too hard to enjoy because realm ranks and ToA equip meant the playing field was not level enough to allow for truly tactical choices. Guild Wars has shown me a route of fantasy PvP really works.

Ideal game: Graphical smoothness and character customization options of CoH; PvE content depth of EQ or EQ2; PvP implementation of GW; Tri-realm setup fom DAOC...

[eldaec]

The reason to try Catacombs if you hated ToA, is that instancing is the very antithesis of spawn timers and rare drops.

And spawn timers / rare drops were the root cause of everything that made ToA so soul destroying. At least for me.

I know my old Daoc guild is active so at somepoint I may give this a month resub, the only thing stopping me ordering right now, is that looking at the list of additions in this pack, I'm not seeing that much that really excites me.

Compare the list of key features of Catacombs....

New continent, new class or two depending on realm, graphics overhaul, instanced missions, two more character slots per server.

With the list of announced key features of the next free patch for CoH....

2 or 3 new zones, at least 2 new classes, new power choices for existing classes, additional instanced missions, difficulty slider to make pre-existing instanced missions much more challenging.

When I first heard of catacombs, I was looking forward to it a lot, and thought it would get me interested in the game again, now it's here I've pretty much been spoiled by the rate at which CoH adds content, and the descriptions of what Cata adds to daoc feel more like what I now expect from patch notes rather than paid expansions.

[chinslim]

DAOC is about putting together 8 man groups of the right combinations.  That's why a very small number of dedicated catass guilds constantly roll PUG's and players become very cliquish and selective with groups, unintentionally driving the misery index of the game higher.  It's bad enough if your usual wait time to get something going is 1-2 hours(when you have a group of friends you regularly hang with), but then tacking on a 5 hour ML raid...or trying to farm artis and scrolls as a support class player.

From playing WoW, I think the number one thing Mythic needs to do is increase class versatility and ease up the "optimal grouping" requirements.  

WoW 5 man groups of anybody > DAoC 8 man groups and having to have speed 5 and exactly 2 primary healers to compete.

[eldaec]

WoW 5 man groups of anybody > DAoC 8 man groups and having to have speed 5 and exactly 2 primary healers to compete.

This depends entirely on whether you have a guild or not.

DAoC has an excellent pvp setup for people who play as a guild.

You could, in fact, argue the game is entirely about building an efficient guild, as that is what creates success.

DAoC before this pack isn't broken, it's just not great for people who don't already have a DAoC guild, and do not have the time and energy to find one.

[AlteredOne]

New continent, new class or two depending on realm, graphics overhaul, instanced missions, two more character slots per server.

Besides your valid point about CoH (shame I don't dig the superhero thing) giving comparable content for free...

- New continent - great, but we've seen it before in Shrouded Isles.  Nothing to get very excited about.
- New class or two - woohoo, more overpowered classes that utterly destroy original Camelot classes 1v1 (but probably have sucky group utility).  I always hated Bonedancers, Necros, and Animists, 3 that came with SI.
- Graphics -- just keeping up with the Joneses...  
- Instanced missions -- Yes this is nice, but once again I'd be more inclined to try it in WoW, if PvE is my focus.
- 2 more character slots -- great example of something they could add for free

While this expansion does seem to be the "anti-ToA" with the instancing and such, it sounds like the items will not stack up against ToA artifacts for their effect on the RvR endgame.   Hence ToA will still be seen as "required" by the uber crowd, and Catacombs will mainly be a source of new classes and a few new items for certain slots.  Very similar to Shrouded Isles.  But I would argue that DAOC needs much more than "Shrouded Isles part 2" to keep people interested.

No, DAOC is not dead, but it doesn't sound like Catacombs is going to revolutionize it.  The game is more likely to keep seeing some slippage in subscribers, while other games lead the MMO genre forward.

[Paelos]

The class locking of group roles in DAOC wouldn't be that horrible if it wasn't for the fact that grinding a needed character to 50 if you don't have enough in the guild is a freaking chore. If I could have a fully functional 50 toon in a month of playing, I think that's a reasonable request. By a month of playing, I mean at the high side of around 100 hours to have a 50.

It took me 7.5 times longer than that to get my 50 character, and that is unacceptable. Even if you could cut that in half through solid play and consistent grouping, that's still 300 hours plus. That's too much.

[Nebu]

For any of you that are even mildly interested, I just got admitted into the Catacombs beta this morning.  I'm going to look around this week and try to get some reactions posted in a new thread on Friday or sometime this weekend.  Since the NDA has been lifted, I'll expect to give as candid an account as possible.

[kaid]

My DAOC days are long behind me but I will give them this. They do manage to come up with some really freaking odd character class concepts. I saw a movie of one of the classes the banshee in action and talk about freaky character powers.

My problem with daoc is mainly the pve is kind of a limp thing you do to get to RVR but to catch up with the jonses as a newbie is a such a huge PITA I just can't see it grabbing many new people.

kaid

[Nebu]

Warning: rantings of a mild DAoC fanboi below!

I agree with what eldaec had to say.  My happiness in DAoC has been much more about the people that I've played with than it has been about the game itself.  Being in a strong guild of good people goes a long way to offset the shortcomings in other aspects of the game.  Let me explain.

1) The treadmill is now greatly decreased during the time from 1-50 with the addition of realm population bonuses.  I can level a character from 1-50 in a month or less of semi-casual play.  During this time I can also equip them with adequate gear to get started in RvR.  The key is that you have to want to be involved in the RvR endgame and know that the trip from 1-50 isn't what the game is ultimately about.  Do I think that the time it takes to get to 50 could be reduced, sure.  I do have to say that it does act as a nice filter though.  If the treadmill were reduced to a greater degree, you'd see RvR filled with FotM classes.  It's not perfect, but it is tolerable if you enjoy the RvR game that follows.  The battlegrounds and cash drops during PvP play have come a long way to help as well.

2) ToA has an effect on RvR but it's not as overblown as the Vault whiners make it out to be.  If a group of 8 solid players with solid class makeup goes into RvR together, they will be able to still compete.  While it's true that skill is offset by gear, I think that the disparity is less than most people think.  Actually, Realm Rank has a greater effect on RvR outcomes than ToA equipment does... the effect of the ML abilities is another matter, but I feel this is one more of class balance than ability strengths.  

Example: Let's say that a group of 8 of us were to get together and grind out 1-50.  Then we played in RvR together for some period of time until we generated strategies.  I would bet that we would begin to beat not only groups of opponents with better equipment, but would have some luck beating groups of slightly higher realm ranked players as well.  It's often about better tactics and cooperation than about gear.  I've played the endgame in all 3 realms and on 4 different servers.  The best groups are the most successful... Now solo play in RvR is a different matter and gear/ML's/RR are vital to success.  As an mmog, I doubt the game was designed for 1v1 encounters in RvR.

DAoC is all about playing with a solid core of people with similar goals.  My enjoyment of the game has been directly correlated with the people that I share my time in game with.  I think that this is true of any MMOG.  This is what has kept me in DAoC when others have left for WoW, CoH, or EQ2.  The games all have their flaws, I think that we just choose the game system that has flaws we feel we can accomodate the best.  Looking at both the WoW and EQ2 endgames, I think that raiding is an inevitability we will have to get used to if we want to play in a fantasy setting.  

EQ2 has no PvP and I'm unfamiliar with the complete system being implemented in WoW.  I do feel that neither game will be as PvP focused as DAoC and that has lead me to the decision to stay in Camelot.  Personally, I don't like ToA.  I don't like levelling artifacts, and I loathe ML raids.  They are the flaws I'm willing to live with to have the RvR experience.  Should Blizzard come up with a better RvR/PvP system than DAoC, then I'll leave... I just didn't see that to be the case.  

Until someone creates a fantasy-based pvp system superior to DAoC, I'll just stay where I'm at.  I think it's entirely doable... Shadowbane showed some glimpses and Guildwars show others.  I think that DAoC was a step in the right direction.

[chinslim]

At least on the server(Nimue - one of the smaller pop ones) I last played on, if you weren't in one of the uber guilds, you couldn't find anyone else to RvR with.  It was both sad and funny seeing players with whom you PvE leveled become RvR cogs and obedient sheep in the uberguild "focus" group lists.  Not that they aren't highly effective in raking in the realm points but it turned the realm into a very small goldfish bowl/small high school where it didn't leave you many partners to choose from.  A friend and I thought have thought about trying one of the higher pop servers on a realm without any dominating guilds.  How are they for hawt and steamy pickup action?

Then again, Guild Wars and WoW both look more promising because of less stringent grouping requirements.

[Mesozoic]

But are the WoW grouping requirements less strict because of the game, or because we just don't know the optimal group yet?  I myself worry that the 5-man limit to groups will really make people picky.

[Nebu]

But are the WoW grouping requirements less strict because of the game, or because we just don't know the optimal group yet?  I myself worry that the 5-man limit to groups will really make people picky.

This is my concern as well.  WoW is discussing the implementation of raids as part of the endgame.  With raids come loot and with loot comes templates.  It seems unavoidable that loot > skill in the PvP game.  

I also think that once people figure out the most lethal class combinations that you'll see uber groups in both WoW and Guild Wars.  Considering the nature of the communities flocking to both games en masse, I'd actually be surprised if WoW and GW didn't become more of a min-max nightmare than DAoC.  Hell, most of them got their training from DAoC and EQ.

[Johny Cee]

But are the WoW grouping requirements less strict because of the game, or because we just don't know the optimal group yet?  I myself worry that the 5-man limit to groups will really make people picky.

This is my concern as well.  WoW is discussing the implementation of raids as part of the endgame.  With raids come loot and with loot comes templates.  It seems unavoidable that loot > skill in the PvP game.  

I also think that once people figure out the most lethal class combinations that you'll see uber groups in both WoW and Guild Wars.  Considering the nature of the communities flocking to both games en masse, I'd actually be surprised if WoW and GW didn't become more of a min-max nightmare than DAoC.  Hell, most of them got their training from DAoC and EQ.

Min/max class structure in groups was the real determining factor in most of DaoC's pvp.  Loot really isn't nearly the factor that class makeup is.  

Hell,  the /assist command is more of an imbalancer than loot is.  Without it,  tank trains and caster assist groups would be eliminated.  That'd just leave aoe bomber groups.

[AlteredOne]

Considering the nature of the communities flocking to both games en masse, I'd actually be surprised if WoW and GW didn't become more of a min-max nightmare than DAoC.  Hell, most of them got their training from DAoC and EQ.

While I respect your support of DAOC, I think the class structure is much less restrictive in both GW and WoW.  For example, I see nothing even remotely comparable to a bard, otherwise known as "speed and mez bitch" by most DAOC players.  A bard had zero solo capability, in either PvE or RvR, yet a good bard was *required* for RvR.  Thus far I have not seen a class in either GW or WoW, with an equivalent utter lack of soloability.  Sure, uber group templates will emerge, but I think they will be less dependent on any single linchpin.  In Guildwars, the level grind is also trivial, so it will be no big deal to have several toons to play whatever team PvP role is needed.

With that said, by all means share your review of Catacombs, and I hope it's a good expansion.  DAOC is not bad, it's just grown old.  Maybe Catacombs can spice it up.

[Alluvian]

I have to say the zone design in catacombs does not live up to EQ, EQ2, or WoW standards at all.

The zones actually identically repeat themselves.   You can see an outcropping on a wall that EXACTLY repeats itself 4 times along the wall, then 4 times along all four walls of the square zone.  Obvious lazy cutting and pasting on the map designer's part.  Large boulders in zones that are just obviously rotated and plopped into place.

Complex floating islands in another zone that look pretty neat, then you adventure and get a little lost until you find that same island again.... but where are the npcs?  Oh, it isn't the same island.  They just repeated the EXACT same geometry over 3-4 times in this zone too.  Whoopee.  I mean it is an island with a ruined shrine thing on it, and it is identically copied three times.  down to the cracks in the steps.

I could see cutting those kinds of corners in a free expansion, but not a purchased product.

One of my big beefs with DAOC has always been awful dungeon design.  This product looks like they went to the same people who made the original dungeons and said "now make some really good ones", instead of going to people who know how to make dungeons.  The reality of what transpired is unknown to me, but they do not hold up to any scrutiny.

[Nebu]

While I respect your support of DAOC, I think the class structure is much less restrictive in both GW and WoW.  For example, I see nothing even remotely comparable to a bard, otherwise known as "speed and mez bitch" by most DAOC players.  A bard had zero solo capability, in either PvE or RvR, yet a good bard was *required* for RvR.  Thus far I have not seen a class in either GW or WoW, with an equivalent utter lack of soloability.  Sure, uber group templates will emerge, but I think they will be less dependent on any single linchpin.  In Guildwars, the level grind is also trivial, so it will be no big deal to have several toons to play whatever team PvP role is needed.

Some solid examples.  

I just wanted to note that I'm not really a solid supporter of DAoC beyond the fact that there just aren't any better alternatives for fantasy-based PvP available.  So I play the game more for a lack of a better alternative than because I'm an unrelenting fanboi.

Some thoughs:  

DAoC: The availability of the Crocodile ring from ToA has lessened the need for bards in RvR.  Now several groups can roam the countryside with the aid of but a single bard.  I will agree, that there are certain classes and even spec types within the classes that ensure a greater degree of 8v8 success in the game.  These would be my examples of min/maxxing.  It's still very possible to play in 8 player Hib groups without a bard, but you're correct in saying that they are less than optimal.

I also agree that RvR without social connections can be a nightmare.  Pickup groups (PuGs) are difficult to get for many classes and the quality of play within those groups is often so bad as to make the game more frustrating than fun.  Without having a regular group of in-game or RL friends to play with, the game certainly suffers in "fun" value.  I think this is a somewhat desired effect as communities foster commitment... both in terms of gameplay as well as subscription revenues.  

Guild Wars: GW has decreased the treadmill (or the entry fee to PvP if you will), but will still be dependant on loot for optimal success.  I also believe (this from my limited GW experience) that GW will be dominated by groups comprised of FoTM classes.  In this sense, GW will "feel" more like a FPS_turned_fantasy_mmog_lite.  Players will feel little dedication to any given character type due to the ease of switching to whichever class happens to be dominating pvp at the time.  While this is GREAT for fun value, I think that it may make for a questionable business model as player retention may suffer.  

I think BF1942, while in a different genre, is an example of the business model GW may see.  They will have good initial success, but each successive expansion will produce dwindling returns.  The addition of expansions will have to promote a new gameplay experience without unbalancing the previous edition.  I think that doing this is impossible.  Loot will dominate, classes will dominate, and all will lead GW down the path to a min/max paradise.  Will GW be fun? I think so.  Will GW have a persistent presence in gaming?  I doubt it.  

I apologize for the rambling style... no time to organize my thoughts.

[Paelos]

Only Dungeon I've ever like in DAOC was Tur Suil in Hibernia. That was part of the Shrouded Isles expansion, and it was fun in that it had keys, locked doors, epic mobs, and general aggro craziness. It took a lot of fun strategy and some good group coordination to do it, but I never thought it was repetative or unfair.

The rest of the dungeons however...blech.

[Nebu]

In my opinion, anyone expecting to play DAoC for its PvE content will be disappointed relative to the other offerings out there.  DAoC really has its strength in the RvR implementation of PvP.  I see the PvE game as both a training ground for PvP and as a time sink to occupy players when they are unable to enjoy RvR.  We agree that DAoC is not much of a game from the PvE perspective.  My patience with it is pretty minimal and I only PvE now to help friends, farm cash, or obtain items I need to be more successful in RvR.  

I'll see if the Catacombs expansion will change this... I'm not a big fan of instancing and don't have inflated expectations.  As I stated earlier, I'll post my review later this weekend or early next week.

[Numtini]

I guess they have to do something because they gave away Frontiers for free and really had to. To me the problem with DAOC is you need the TOA artifacts and MLs to be competative and I just wasn't willing to spend 2 months in autofollow while my guild got them for me. And I had all the resources in the world available. But it just wasn't worth it.

I love instanced missions in other games. And I actually enjoyed DAOC PVE a lot. But it's just not part of the game. Nobody does it. People who are PVEing are being PL'd solo, usually by a bot. If they stick something necessary in those dungeons, people will run down there in ubergroups and grab it. But that'll be it and they'll resent having to do it.

[chinslim]

Ironically, PVE is probably the best aspect of DAOC for most players who are sticking with the game.  The reason is, because the end-game is supposedly about RVR, players tend to cooperate in PVE much more than in other PVE-oriented games.  When has anyone ever been denied a spot in an ML raid for example?  In this respect, TOA is probably the greatest expansion evar.

RVR becomes more and more exclusive to high realm-rank veteran groups, and that frustrates alot of players, including me, who tried to get back in the game after a long hiatus.

[Malderi]

I'm waiting for City of Villains. ;-)

Dev team that knows their game, superior engine, far better graphics/framerate, cooler characters, and better combat system...

Sign me up.

[Krakrok]

I think that it may make for a questionable business model as player retention may suffer.

I would point out that Diablo 1/2 doesn't have player retention problems. I don't play it but there are still people who do and they bought it when it first came out 8/4 years ago. Diablo has also sold millions of copies which puts it an order of magnitude above current MMO sales. Also, factor in the Koreans.

They will have good initial success, but each successive expansion will produce dwindling returns. I think that doing this is impossible.

I'm not sure that this even matters. NC Soft is funding multiple ventures with their eye on the 50k subs goal for each. If Guild Wars far surpasses that in box sales numbers they already won. Once the expansions stop panning out they will stop producing them.

Will GW have a persistent presence in gaming?  I doubt it.

Again, does it even matter? If they enjoy even half of the success that Diablo had they won. Will Guild Wars be around in 4 years? I'd hazard a prediction that yeah they will be. Will I be playing Guild Wars 4 years from now? I doubt it.

[eldaec]

Catacombs is now live btw.

[chinslim]

Buy 2 copies of Catacombs(you and your buffbot) or 1 copy+1 free month of WoW or EQ2?  Tough question.

[eldaec]

Why in the name of all that is holy would you want to buy access to pve instanced missions, new classes, and a graphics update for a buffbot?

[Soukyan]

Why in the name of all that is holy would you want to buy access to pve instanced missions, new classes, and a graphics update for a buffbot?

Because some buffs still drop upon zoning?

[chinslim]

Why in the name of all that is holy would you want to buy access to pve instanced missions, new classes, and a graphics update for a buffbot?

I guess it would depend on how many players are buying Catacombs to start  new healers, druids, shamans, clerics, etc.  Oh wait, there's supposed to be 5 all-new classes to play.