All Posts by Alienovrlord

If the OP wants a game with FFA PvP then all he needs to do it come up with a game design, find investors, raise $30 million, and spend 3-5 years making his game.

Then watch it turn into a financial disaster and fail miserably.    

Looks like the poll confirms that most people understand why the chicken mechanic isn't only a great way to humilitate those who think it takes any PvP skill to grief low-level players but is also absolutely hilarious. 

WAR is going to be about fighting opponents who can fight back.  It's going to be about needing skill to win, not levels.   WAR is not going to be for everyone and it's perfectly understandable if some can't deal with the idea that they'll actually need skill to win in PvP.     They don't have to play WAR. 

Originally posted by bstuart

That’s the problem right there Richard Garrett isn’t working on the game he's training to go to space
and he made the huge mistake of putting the totally incompetent asshat Starr long in charge it may have had a chance if Garriott had continued to work on it because at least he had a vision of what he wanted in a game starr long doesn’t have the intelligence to change a light bulb non the less finish a game that was about half done

Garriott is still the one responsible.  Who's name is plastered over the game?  Remember it's not Tabula Rasa, it's RICHARD GARRIOTT'S Tabula Rasa.

Part of a lead developer's JOB is to find competent people.   Garriott obviously failed at that but his mistakes go even deeper. 

He had the gall to blame TR's failing on the beta-testers bad-mouthing the game.   Read his other interviews, he's compeltely out of touch with the current gaming market and his 'vision' wouldn't have made any better game if he had actually paid attention to it rather than spending his time playing astronaut. 

Why is Funcom still running the Closed Beta?   Don't beta-tests usually end this close to launch?  What could be all this valuble information they want to gather before they launch the game?

Or will Funcom turn the Closed Beta servers into Test Servers once the game is released?  

Thanks for the video.   Interesting seeing the mammoths attacking the gate.   Were there any videos at that event that showed sieging with the full 48 v 48 on each side?

Cool thanks for the link!  This is the first I've seen of AoC's spellweaving system!

Originally posted by AmazingAvery

 

Anyone purchasing a pre order for early access should of never been under the assumption it was guaranteed. Because it wasn't.

The there is not point trying to pass the buck, the responsibility falls directly on you the consumer to know what your getting in too.

Here is an example. You travel by public transport, You purchase a season ticket for rail / bus whatever. When the transport comes and is full and there is no room for you to get on, your pissed but understand, there is physically no room for you. Your ticket, prior purchased means you dont have to pay, but the ride is never guarenteed.

All good points Avery.  But that doesn't change the PR mess that Funcom now has to clean up.   They could have avoided all of this by simply being more clear about this important point.     They may have tried to inform people but if they had adequately spread the information there would have been far less reactions to the news.

Unfortunately, many companies love hiding important details in the fine print eap. the old 'Restrictions Apply' line.   Technically the companies are in the right but that doesn't mean consumers should stand for it.    Mythic ran into a similar reaction a while ago regarding their passes to WAR's beta test.    The difference is that Mythic was dealing with testers, Funcom is dealing with customers who are far more important.

This will all likely blow-over, but it really could have been avoided.    It's just another lesson learned. 

Not the most stellar of beginnings.   I'd really would like to see someone start to give WoW a bit of competition and it would be nice if AoC could be one of those games.

Let's see if Funcom can pull it out of this PR mess before more articles/blogs like this show up.

http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/05/age-of-conans-e.html

Does anyone know why only English-speaking Early Access were affected?    Were the sales that much larger in the US and UK?

The rationale for 48 v 48 makes perfect sense.   Limiting lag is a perfectly justified reason to limit the player numbers.  I just have one question:

How long has Funcom known this?

We've heard the same things repeated in the recent interviews over and over - combat system, customization, gore etc.   Didn't any of the developers think that maybe this might be an important point regarding PvP to bring up during any of the dozens of interviews they've had in the last couple of months?

Again, I'm not disagreeing with the logic or deisgn choice.  But Funcom must have known this was going to be their PvP limit and they should have mentioned sooner in their interviews rather than waiting a week before the official launch.

Thanks for the article link!  An honest opinion from an unbiased viewpoint.

I believe the 24 hour window is to allow everyone to take part in the PvE content that opens up when the city falls.  

You get to explore dungeons in your enemy's city and kill notable NPCs.   Mythic probably didn't want the city to suddenly be re-captured before more players could get a chance to see the insides.

After that 24 hour period *then* the struggle begins again and I believe the defenders get benefits if they retake their city quickly, rather than just sitting back and letting it stay occupied.  (Benefits probably related to the City Level, take it back quickly and you City keeps some of its levels once it's back in your control)

A nice interview that has a great shot of the Greenskin's mounts.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/873/873681p1.html

But as cool as that is, it's not nearly as cool as the interview.  Esp. this quote:

"That is a dungeon that's going to be instanced and it's geared toward one group of players. It's our highest PvE dungeon in the game and we only require six players to do it."

Sounds like Mythic GETS IT.  /applaud. 

Originally posted by Scriar

The theories for why this game has such terrible PR, is taking so long, is able to take so long etc get more bizzare every year.

Darkfall is basically an over ambitious mmo, from a small inexperienced and quite frankly badly managed team. They have a producer who is like peter molenuex in that he promises things that are impossible, and the other developers most likely know that but have no say in the matter. They have funding because they obviously have investors, not because they are goverment secret agents or what ever bullshit it is this year.

Most likely this game will release but there is no way it will ever reach the hype it has generated, and it is unlikely they will shake the reputation they have gained before they have even released a product. It is quite possible this game will be good in its own rights but because of its hype it is also more likely to fail because of it, or if they are stupid enough to try and put all their promises in the game everything will be half assed.

What the heck are you doing here? :) 

Nice unofficial Trailer.   But it reminds me of this week's Bonus Round on Gametrailers.com.  It's a long segment so I'll just quote the important part from the middle of it.

"If a game isn't ready, don't release a trailer for it."

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=21&pt=2

Now fan trailers like yours are fine, it's good that people put in the effort.

But real companies like Aventurine need to learn this lesson.  

Good points by Elvenangel and Needalife214.  Restricting the number of banners any one guild can have could encourage larger number of smaller guilds.   And limiting one guild to holding one keep will also encourage smaller guilds (I had not heard that before, but it makes sense.  Do you have a link Needalife?) 

Though perhaps we'll see 'Uber-Alliances' of guild members who used to belong to uber guilds but just broke themselves up into smaller ones.   Still that could be an improvement and less monolithic. 

The best aspect of RvR is that anyone can take part in it, whether or not you belong to a guild.  This will probably be a major factor in making uber-guilds less important and really could make WAR much more appealing to a broader base of players.

Originally posted by elvenangel

WoW was always Casual..then they hired EQ1 devs..and it changed...in essence Blizz screwed up the end game to their own game within the first year...they made it worst with the hacked together glued on PvP.

This is why the Doom Kitty rocks.   The Doom Kitty has a MEMORY.   The Doom Kitty keeps the facts straight rather than ignoring (or re-writing) history.

Thank you Elvenangel.    It's a rarity to see someone on any gaming Forum with a memory that goes back more than 6 months. Remember the E3 where Blizzard was openly admitting their PvP was 'broken'? I kept thinking, 'Yeah and WHO was it who broke it'  Actually, I guess it was never working in the first place :)

As for AoC, nothing is proven until the game is released.  It's premature to claim anything about the success of the game at this point.   Wait until the end of the month and then we'll be getting actual facts, not rumors. 

I thought Mythic said early on that it would not be possible for a single Uber-Guild to domiante a server. 

Not sure what they're planning on doing to prevent that, but they seem to realize it could be a problem.

You just need to send the following link to anyone who uses that tired arugment that WAR is a WoW clone: 

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/04/10/

And point out this comic is 2 years old, so their argument is even more lame because it's so old.

Originally posted by vet-in-exile

Originally posted by TheGreyMan

so if i like eve...will i like this...

Very doubtful. Whatever you do don't shell out money to buy it without getting a buddy key and testing it out for free first.

What are the differences in PvP?  Or is it the economy or other areas where the games are different?

Good to hear Funcom got this patch out before the release.  They're cutting things close, but far better to patch the improvements now than at the end of May. 

Why are people surprised by AoC's requirements?   They make perfect sense if you look at the game and what Funcom is doing with it.

AoC is a guild-centric game.  It always has been, even back when Funcom first described thier game design.   They may have made concessions toward casual players but the real content is guild-vs-guild keep conflict and raids (which need guilds).

Guilds tend to be made up of more dedicated players.   More dedicated players tend to have higher end systems.  This is completely consistent with Funcom's game design and target market.    

It's also one of the reasons I won't be playing AoC, but that's not to say the game won't find an audience.   I'm just leery of developers who seem to be clinging to so much their graphics.    It reminds me too much of developers who have spouted other catch-phrases like working 'realistic' ecosystems or single massive servers.  Perhaps I'm wrong about Funcom, we'll see by the end of the month.