quote:
Pesco's account was hax0red to write:
WC3 was mediocre, overall, it's success rides on the fact the Blizzard label is on it.
Wrong.
quote:
Pesco painfully thought these words up:
SoE also maintains 4 MMOG.
Only in company name. Otherwise, 4 MMOs, 4 Different teams.
It's not the same crew running all the shows(lol G4.)
And a Battle.net reference is as bad as bringing up Nazism in a thread about GWB. A Free Service fan base vs. Pay to Play customers isn't a great comparison. Skaw fucked around with this message on 11-28-2004 at 06:39 AM.
quote:
Pesco attempted to be funny by writing:
You've never been on B.Net.... have you?
See, I was joking with Addy. We joke in that strange insulting way. I'm going to say that you are a bit of a SOE fanboy and anti-Blizzrad fanboy if you actually thought I meant that and took the time to respond with an insult to BNet.
Besides. BNet kiddies are dumbasses, not wackos.
quote:
Snoota Model 2000 was programmed to say:
Am I the only person who has had no problem what so ever since release? I've never had to wait in line, my server has only gone down once, and I've only experienced one laggy time in the entire 40+ hours I've played since release day, and that only lasted a minute or so before it went back to being smooth. Not even the "loot lag" that plagued the beta.
Nope
quote:
Snoota painfully thought these words up:
Am I the only person who has had no problem what so ever since release? I've never had to wait in line, my server has only gone down once, and I've only experienced one laggy time in the entire 40+ hours I've played since release day, and that only lasted a minute or so before it went back to being smooth. Not even the "loot lag" that plagued the beta.
No.
quote:
Snoota obviously shouldn't have said:
Am I the only person who has had no problem what so ever since release? I've never had to wait in line, my server has only gone down once, and I've only experienced one laggy time in the entire 40+ hours I've played since release day, and that only lasted a minute or so before it went back to being smooth. Not even the "loot lag" that plagued the beta.
I had extreme lag the 2nd day of release on our server.
It cleared up overnight and I haven't had a problem since.
quote:
Pesco had this to say about (_|_):
WC3 was mediocre, overall, it's success rides on the fact the Blizzard label is on it.
I disagree. WC3 is quite possibly one of the most balanced RTS games out there, IMO. Starcraft suffers from balance problems if you allow a significantly large amount of crystal and vespene gases. Warcraft III, on the other hand, stays pretty well balanced even if you have 3 gold mines full of a near-endless supply of gold, and a humongous amount of lumber to harvest.
Also, WCIII introduced another level of map customization not seen in Starcraft, and gave Hero units a place in the RTS genre.
quote:
Snoota had this to say about Tron:
Am I the only person who has had no problem what so ever since release? I've never had to wait in line, my server has only gone down once, and I've only experienced one laggy time in the entire 40+ hours I've played since release day, and that only lasted a minute or so before it went back to being smooth. Not even the "loot lag" that plagued the beta.
Zul'jin suffered from loot lag for a little while, but that is because it's on the East Coast/Central Timezone database server. But, ever since the second day of the game's release (the day that Blizzard is going to be extending Free Trial periods because of), I've had zero problems with the server.
1. For better or worse, Blizzard has zippo experience in MMOG's and what it takes server-wise to get it right. They're unfamiliar with the networking information bottlenecks that can cause things to crash. Their greatest online venture to date has been B.Net, which while formidable is no comparison to something like EQ/DAoC/whatever
2. SoE has a LOT more experience with MMOG's. Everquest is the largest American-based game out there right now, and has been for a while. Everquest has maintained the top spot despite a half-dozen other significant games popping up in it's operating lifetime.
3. Because SoE does have a 5+ year track record with EQ, it's had it's share of major mistakes. None of these mistakes has ever crippled the game, as it continues to be the largest American game out there. That having been said, some of SoE's mistakes have been real boners (GoD at launch was a ridiculous joke; you couldn't get past the first zone because they forgot to unlock the zone wall), but it has had a lot of good ideas (PoP was a good idea for the volume of game Sony took over from Verant, and the type of game EQ was at that point).
4. A lot of the inherent problems still in EQ are problems because of spaghetti code from five years ago that they can't just up and replace. The code isn't modular; it's something you have to modify later. When any of the new games out now are five years old they will be buggy as well. Most people don't own the same computer for five years (usually they upgrade elements of it).
5. WoW is not going to be the EQ killer. If anything, EQ2 will be the EQ killer because it's everything EQ had the possibility to be with very little in the way of what you don't like. Claiming WoW is going to kill EQ is like claiming EQ killed UO, or that DAoC was the EQ killer. The game's still on top. You can't even compare figures really, given that EQ and DAoC and AC are "gen 1" and games like CoH, WoW, and EQ2 are all "gen 2"; derived from the ups and downs of Gen 1.
6. Bitching about the computer specs changes nothing. People playing EQ needed a tech upgrade for DAoC but it didn't stop the game from being successful. EQ itself required an upgrade eventually (Luclin). Suffice it to say that any of the new games will require some sort of upgrade for the bells and whistles. EQ2 is playable with a machine that can play EQ. You just don't get everything.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
quote:
Faelynn LeAndris had this to say about the Spice Girls:Always has been, especially as soon as they dropped Verant completely.
Fae, bro.. you know that Verant was always a part of Sony to begin with right? Subsidiary of 989 Studios, which is owned by Sony. If anything, they re-assimilated them into the collective 
quote:
KaLourin said this about your mom:
Fae, bro.. you know that Verant was always a part of Sony to begin with right? Subsidiary of 989 Studios, which is owned by Sony. If anything, they re-assimilated them into the collective
Or, if Verant was a bunch of dicks, then Hell froze over and they suffered so much shrinkage it shrank all the way in.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
I still play TFT online all the time. My TFT CD has a permanent place in my CD Drive.
quote:
Willias wrote this stupid crap:
I disagree. WC3 is quite possibly one of the most balanced RTS games out there, IMO. Starcraft suffers from balance problems if you allow a significantly large amount of crystal and vespene gases. Warcraft III, on the other hand, stays pretty well balanced even if you have 3 gold mines full of a near-endless supply of gold, and a humongous amount of lumber to harvest.Also, WCIII introduced another level of map customization not seen in Starcraft, and gave Hero units a place in the RTS genre.
Mucho money was not, and has never been, an intended way to play the game. It is like saying a game is balanced even if everyone has a map hack. It is an advantage that should not exist in a balanced playsetting. Any game played $$$ is not a game, it cannot be used to determine balance, tactics or strategy. It is a joke, a funny little thing you do periodically because it is so stupid, I do enjoy a $$$ map once in a while as a bit of a lark. War3 works, barely, in $$$ since income is naturally limited to a set amount of gold per second being brought in per mine. But it still breaks the game, removing expansions from the equation cuts the strategy right in half, the map might as well be a straight line at that point.
Ultimately, Brood War is still the most balanced RTS game I have seen to date... and I have played them all. Everything works, every unit is just as useful the very moment you can make it until the very last minute of the game. There is a reason all the tourny replays of TFT look the same, because there is a best opening build, there is a best beginning strat. So much about the game ended up not working out anything like Blizzard intended, and they have been trying to fix it up since then. Creeping, creep jacking, harassing etc.
I like TFT, but I can't help but feel War3 would have been better off as a different game. A DotA style game (Like the last level of the orc single campaign in TFT) I think could have been pulled off quite well. It attempted to tread too much into Starcraft's territory, and suffered because of it.
Great RTS games are built on several key principles, a couple of the problem areas that War3 faces are...
A) Randomness = bad. War3 is chock full of randomness, from damage variances, to item drops, to units and abilities at times relying almost entirely on chance (Blademaster for instance). Starcraft had almost no randomess (Terrain advantages), as did C&C Generals which could have been a great RTS if EA hadn't dropped the game like a hot potatoe once they had made money from it and left it in a near unplayable state with multiple game breaking bugs around (The ability for one side to fire their super weapon instantly, over and over, without even having to build it first for instance).
B) Hard counters. If you know, from the beginning, exactly what your opponent is attacking you with, you can wipe it out with little to no losses. If you know your opponent is going to mass zerglings, you can crush hundreds of them with preparation while taking little losses if any. Ditto C&C Generals. Warcraft 3, it is fuzzier... like when Darius posted his replays a while back, he beat a NE massing archers and a BM... but barely. You know, exactly, what your opponent is going to do... and it can be beat now, but barely, and only with specific things... but even then it is not a counter, it is just a slight advantage pushed as far as it can go. Aside from the obvious problems of not all counters being counters in War3. Spellbreakers are counters, they counter spellcasters so badly it is stupid. A spiritwalker isn't, yet is supposed to be, but if anything it is, itself, screwed over first by what it is supposed to counter.
I like TFT, don't get me wrong, played it pretty much every day up until WoW came out (heh), but the game is not Brood War. It is in a different room looking in at BW and hoping to be like it, but ultimately being too different. It is a good game in it's own right, but it just can't be compared to other RTS games, nor can others be compared to it, because it is a RTS game, but at the same time it isn't.
Were it not for Brood War lacking War3's match making system, I would still be playing BW today. Too much $$ maps, too many idiots playing $$$ maps just made BW too aggrivating. Loved the game, but couldn't find decent people to play against.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Willias said:
I disagree. WC3 is quite possibly one of the most balanced RTS games out there, IMO. Starcraft suffers from balance problems if you allow a significantly large amount of crystal and vespene gases. Warcraft III, on the other hand, stays pretty well balanced even if you have 3 gold mines full of a near-endless supply of gold, and a humongous amount of lumber to harvest.Also, WCIII introduced another level of map customization not seen in Starcraft, and gave Hero units a place in the RTS genre.
Balance isn't really the issue, it's depth of gameplay that makes the difference. Back when the two big RTS lines were Command & Conqueor / Red Alert and WarCraft 1&2, I always enjoyed the C&C series more. The sides were more diverse and there weren't a lot of general purpose units. I enjoyed Total Annihilation more than StarCraft for many of the same reasons. IMO, I've never felt like Blizzard has been able to produce games that engaged me. There was never a lot to figure out to the games, the tactics and strategies always came across to me as overly simplified. WarCraft III came out smelling like roses simply because the real-time strategy genre was in a slump at the time it came out. Since then, we've seen excellent games like the Total War series, Rise of Nations, and more recently, WH40K: Dawn of War, that far surpass anything Blizzard has ever came up with in terms of tactical depth and innovation. Hero units? That's just another idea in a long list of ones they've lifted from Warhammer. Hero units aren't all Blizzard cracked them up to be. IMO, Diablo II was their best game, but it still suffers from the same problems as their RTS games. Not a lot of depth in gameplay. It does a good job as an action RPG, but I never felt like there was a lot for me to figure out about the game besides clicking my way through. I replay Dungeon Siege on a regular basis because I feel that it's more sound in the mechanics and interface department than Diablo II ever was.
Blizzard makes simplistic games. They come out polished, but there's never been much to them that keeps me coming back after a long time. I like to know what's going on in games that I play. I like to crunch the numbers and see what's most efficient. I like to min/max. I like games that reward those who do that. All reports I've read about World of WarCraft indicate that it's standard Blizzard fare: there's not a lot to figure out and know. I'll stick with EQ2 because of this, WoW sounds like yet another Blizzard game that doesn't cater to my play style.
-Tok
) and minning my destruction. 
Though there are some kickass things in destruction.Sorry, off topic. Go on.
quote:
Delphi Aegis spewed forth this undeniable truth:
If you like to Min/max, you should see the talent system... I'm maxxing my affliction (lol, 10% chance to not be able to resist any of my affliction line + instacast on my main DoT before level 20 =) and minning my destruction.
Though there are some kickass things in destruction.
Sorry, off topic. Go on.
I guess I should say, I like min/maxing, but I like being able to do it on the fly. That is, I don't like the idea that there is one true way to always do something. I like having a wide variety of tools available so that I can min/max different situations as they come up. Sooner or later there will be a One True Talent path for everyone to take, just like there were for skills in D2.
Example: in TA, scouting was crucial, because you needed to know what your opponent was doing so you could min/max against his arsenal. Was he going for air power and bombing the crap out of you? Was he rushing? Turtling up with tons of DT and going straight for advanced long range weapons (nukes / long range plasma cannons)? As Vorago said, I always felt like there was just one really good way of doing things in SC (didn't play WC3 that much, never bough TFT), and not many other viable options.
-Tok
quote:
Toktuk thought this was the Ricky Martin Fan Club Forum and wrote:
I guess I should say, I like min/maxing, but I like being able to do it on the fly. That is, I don't like the idea that there is one true way to always do something. I like having a wide variety of tools available so that I can min/max different situations as they come up. Sooner or later there will be a One True Talent path for everyone to take, just like there were for skills in D2.Example: in TA, scouting was crucial, because you needed to know what your opponent was doing so you could min/max against his arsenal. Was he going for air power and bombing the crap out of you? Was he rushing? Turtling up with tons of DT and going straight for advanced long range weapons (nukes / long range plasma cannons)? As Vorago said, I always felt like there was just one really good way of doing things in SC (didn't play WC3 that much, never bough TFT), and not many other viable options.
-Tok
Ummm... duder, BW did not have one way to do anything. Even early build orders had no good method, everything was liquid. I was saying that War3 is a lot more focused, compared to BW which was open ended to a huge degree. Your opponent had a dozen things he could be planning, scouting his base would only narrow it down for you. Is he teching or expanding or rushing with ground, air, dropping you, doomdropping, lurkers or DT perhaps?
The one thing I loved about BW so much was how radically conceptions of the game changed as time went on, and how even 4 years after getting it, I was still seeing things I hadn't thought of.
I remember there was a time when Terran sucked, because people only understood how to play them like protoss or zerg
I remember there was a time when people would build a barracks at 6 miners, a depot at 8 etc... waiting around for the cash to make buildings.
I remember a time when people 'knew' that one miner per pile was the best
I remember a time when people 'know' that two miners per pile was the best
Hell, I remember when I used to know most of those (I always knew Terran rocked 
)... I remember plotting out my early rush order, rax at 6 etc., and my tech one, rax at 8... now, I just could not FATHOM playing like that, it is just so rigid and easily broken apart.
Everything was viable in BW, that was why it was so great. Every unit had a niche, a job it did well, something it countered, and a reason to use it at every single stage of the game. C&C:Generals was quite similar, and I would actually want to rank it close to BW for overall awesomeness, were it not for EA leaving the game so damned broken.
In WoW, the talents are broken up a lot better in WoW than they were in D2 first off, each tree requiring a lot of investment to get to the higher abilities, and each one representing a different basic aspect of your character that you can focus on. A two hander warrior isn't better than a shield wielding warrior, nor vice versa, since both fill different rolls and perform different jobs better than the other.
You also don't get diminishing returns on investments, so players have to focus more as opposed to D2 where a lot of char skills required only one point, and then any other bonuses you got from +skills as just extra, since further points would get you less and less. +10% to a skill at 1/5 points will give, bare minimum, +50% at 5/5, if not more in some cases. Vorago fucked around with this message on 11-28-2004 at 04:07 PM.
quote:
Toktuk had this to say about Optimus Prime:
I guess I should say, I like min/maxing, but I like being able to do it on the fly. That is, I don't like the idea that there is one true way to always do something. I like having a wide variety of tools available so that I can min/max different situations as they come up. Sooner or later there will be a One True Talent path for everyone to take, just like there were for skills in D2.
Talents are more like AA points that accrue at low level, and have a limit (You get 1 per level, so you end up with 51 points). There's no set path for anyone to take - much like Diablo 2, there's multiple different paths. That's why we hear about Bows versus Javelins for Amazons, Ice versus Fire versus Lightning for Sorceresses, etc. It takes ~40-50 points to max out a full talent tree, so it's impossible to get them all. Each path does have its strengths and weaknesses, and there are advantages in dabbling between them all. There are many different skills as well that you can learn by going far enough along 1 path, in an attempt to break free from the cookie-cutter classes out there
It's true that some paths are very good for certain things (IE : Going fel intellect/fel stamina/unholy strength can end up with some nicely powerful pets), but ultimately there's no single specific path that's more useful than the rest.
And you can drop/reassign Talent Points at any time from your trainer, though there is a cost (monetary cost) to do so. Khyron fucked around with this message on 11-28-2004 at 04:03 PM.
quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Khyron said:
It's true that some paths are very good for certain things (IE : Going fel intellect/fel stamina/unholy strength can end up with some nicely powerful pets), but ultimately there's no single specific path that's more useful than the rest.
As it should be, a person who focuses on their pets should have better pets than the guy who doesn't. But the other guy will have better curses, or better nukes than the guy who focused on his pet.
Things like AA/RA/Talents should never be good enough that one build stands out as the best (DAOC had this badly), or that they can either be all globally obtained given enough time (EQ) or all matter so little that ultimately it doesn't matter where you focus your abilities.
quote:
Vorago's little brother wrote this stupid shit:
As it should be, a person who focuses on their pets should have better pets than the guy who doesn't. But the other guy will have better curses, or better nukes than the guy who focused on his pet.Things like AA/RA/Talents should never be good enough that one build stands out as the best (DAOC had this badly), or that they can either be all globally obtained given enough time (EQ) or all matter so little that ultimately it doesn't matter where you focus your abilities.
Yeah, I may spooge about the instacast corruption now, but I haven't even looked down the line if I GET another corruption. It might be utterly useless to have those five points specifically there, and I'd have to respec.
At least it's not like DAoC where you only get a certain number of respecs, or CoH where you have to earn them in an asstastically difficult trial, or something. But it does get more expensive the more times you do it.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Delphi Aegis!
Yeah, I may spooge about the instacast corruption now, but I haven't even looked down the line if I GET another corruption. It might be utterly useless to have those five points specifically there, and I'd have to respec.At least it's not like DAoC where you only get a certain number of respecs, or CoH where you have to earn them in an asstastically difficult trial, or something. But it does get more expensive the more times you do it.
Good system... it means you aren't burned if you screw up a talent point along the line, but also means you can't abuse it by respec'ing every 3 days to be the new flavour of the week.
Final rank of corruption is at lvl 54, doing... ironically enough, 666 damage.
Skills don't get outdated or replaced in WoW, as you get more skills, each one is suited to a specific purpose. Points in corruption now are still just as useful later on. Combined with curse of agony, double insta-dots can prove very useful
Rest of my points get dumped into Affliction until I get Siphon Life.
quote:
Vorago had this to say about Captain Planet:
-snip-
You said, "Every unit had a niche, a job it did well, something it countered, and a reason to use it at every single stage of the game." I think the paper, rock, scissors approach to balancing that Blizzard took hampered StarCraft from achieving a greater level of depth. You used this one unit to take care of this one goal. I'm not saying that it wasn't balanced out well, just that you just eventually figured out what unit/unit combination to use to take care of what was being thrown at you. Good balance doesn't always equate to good depth. Total Annihilation gave you a variety of options to accomplish a task. There was no one unit combination you used to solve a problem every time. You had an island hoping map? You could go for a wide assortment of amphibious units and hovercraft. You could go for air/sea domination. Long range weapons. Or a mix of these and other strategies. These wide variety of strategies, coupled with an innovative +/- resource system and an incredibly wonderful game interface that made it easy to co-ordinate large scale battles is what gave Total Annihilation the incredible amount of depth over StarCraft.
Let me state it plainly: All strategy games have a certain level of tactics that you are required to know to play the game well. StarCraft wasn't a bad game, my point is that there are just other games out there that have more to dig into than StarCraft. Total Annihilation is my best example because I played it for a long time, but there are others.
In anycase, to keep this from delving down into a RTS debate, I'm happy to report Sir Bruce has moved his website to a new location: http://www.mmogchart.com/. So I have some semi-accurate numbers to go by for comparisons sake (I'm only listing North American MMOGs).
EverQuest has been holding in the 400-450K subscription range since early 2001. The current #2 MMOG is actually Star Wars Galaxies, which has around 275K subscriptions before Jump To Lightspeed, and it's safe to say JTL has boosted their numbers since then. Dark Age of Camelot comes in at 3 with 250K subs. Rounding out the major NA games are Ultima Online (175K) and City of Heroes (175K). Final Fantasy XI is hard to rank. It's got 550K subs, but the majority of it's subscribers are in Japan. I'm guessing around 250K are in North America at the most. Other notable NA games are Asheron's Call (35K), Anarchy Online (40Kish), and EVE Online (55K).
I'll be interested to see what he puts together in the next few months now that EQ2 and WoW are out. Bruce has also said he's going to try to put some data in the next round that will try to show where the playerbase for each game is coming from. It'll be hard to show how much EQ2 has pulled from EQ, though, as I imagine a lot of people have elected to get Station Passes and keep subscriptions for both games open (myself included).
-Tok
We might as well get back on topic, I agree... this road has been paved by a million before us, and will be paved by another million without any resolution of the arguement
I 'know', beyond all shadow of a doubt that SC:BW > TA
You 'know', beyond all shadow of a doubt that TA > SC:BW
Where it will stay until the end of all life as we know it Vorago fucked around with this message on 11-28-2004 at 06:11 PM.
C&C:RA2 forever!
quote:
Khyron had this to say about Knight Rider:
You're both dead wrong.C&C:RA2 forever!
RA2 was playable with YR, that actually made it a complete RTS. But it was nowhere even close to balanced, so many issues... like Boris getting worse the larger the map is, any missile attacks missing a unit driving away from it, buildings being made of paper mache etc.
I liked the game, it was fun, but man was it ever a frankenstein of balance, heh
quote:
How.... Vorago.... uughhhhhh:
RA2 was playable with YR, that actually made it a complete RTS. But it was nowhere even close to balanced, so many issues... like Boris getting worse the larger the map is, any missile attacks missing a unit driving away from it, buildings being made of paper mache etc.I liked the game, it was fun, but man was it ever a frankenstein of balance, heh
I know, that's why I said it 
I really love C&C:Generals - Zero Hour. I know there are bad bugs, but if those bugs would be fixed, that game would be crazy good
Except I hate playing as the GLA. I like how all the other generals own (Those chinese minigunners can be damn vicious, and the improved battlemaster tanks are monsters in a good large group. Not much to be said about the superweapons general, and the air general is nice just for those sweet, sweet anti-missile lasers Khyron fucked around with this message on 11-28-2004 at 06:21 PM.
quote:
Khyron had this to say about Robocop:
Between my planned talent path (Just enough points into Demonology to get full Unholy Power) and my 5% racial bonus, my pets will be doing 25% more damage than Delphi'sRest of my points get dumped into Affliction until I get Siphon Life.
But I can be running and cast two of the mainline dots while you have your thumb up your butt with your pet feared. ;D
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Reading Rainbow:
But I can be running and cast two of the mainline dots while you have your thumb up your butt with your pet feared. ;D
Actually, eventually I will be picking up the reduced casting time for Corruption. Just not for a while
I'm leaving out Destruction entirely - I don't use those spells enough to warrant the points. It might be nice for the improved Lash for my succubus, but otherwise... =/
quote:
Khyron had this to say about (_|_):
Actually, eventually I will be picking up the reduced casting time for Corruption. Just not for a whileI'm leaving out Destruction entirely - I don't use those spells enough to warrant the points. It might be nice for the improved Lash for my succubus, but otherwise... =/
I know, I know. I'm just teasing.
Some of the corruption line stuff looks really nice, though.. Including a 50% buff on my next agony with a 3 min cooldown that leads into a whole other curse thingie..
quote:
Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael had this to say about Pirotess:
I think that there are a few absolutes you have to allow while discussing EQ2 vs WoW:1. For better or worse, Blizzard has zippo experience in MMOG's and what it takes server-wise to get it right. They're unfamiliar with the networking information bottlenecks that can cause things to crash. Their greatest online venture to date has been B.Net, which while formidable is no comparison to something like EQ/DAoC/whatever
2. SoE has a LOT more experience with MMOG's. Everquest is the largest American-based game out there right now, and has been for a while. Everquest has maintained the top spot despite a half-dozen other significant games popping up in it's operating lifetime.
3. Because SoE does have a 5+ year track record with EQ, it's had it's share of major mistakes. None of these mistakes has ever crippled the game, as it continues to be the largest American game out there. That having been said, some of SoE's mistakes have been real boners (GoD at launch was a ridiculous joke; you couldn't get past the first zone because they forgot to unlock the zone wall), but it has had a lot of good ideas (PoP was a good idea for the volume of game Sony took over from Verant, and the type of game EQ was at that point).
4. A lot of the inherent problems still in EQ are problems because of spaghetti code from five years ago that they can't just up and replace. The code isn't modular; it's something you have to modify later. When any of the new games out now are five years old they will be buggy as well. Most people don't own the same computer for five years (usually they upgrade elements of it).
5. WoW is not going to be the EQ killer. If anything, EQ2 will be the EQ killer because it's everything EQ had the possibility to be with very little in the way of what you don't like. Claiming WoW is going to kill EQ is like claiming EQ killed UO, or that DAoC was the EQ killer. The game's still on top. You can't even compare figures really, given that EQ and DAoC and AC are "gen 1" and games like CoH, WoW, and EQ2 are all "gen 2"; derived from the ups and downs of Gen 1.
6. Bitching about the computer specs changes nothing. People playing EQ needed a tech upgrade for DAoC but it didn't stop the game from being successful. EQ itself required an upgrade eventually (Luclin). Suffice it to say that any of the new games will require some sort of upgrade for the bells and whistles. EQ2 is playable with a machine that can play EQ. You just don't get everything.
1.World of Warcraft
AT&T to provide supposedly robust and reliable hosting services for the MMORPG.
AT&T and Blizzard Entertainment today announced plans to create a secure hosting solution for the launch of Blizzard's massively multiplayer online role-playing game, World of Warcraft. When the game launches later this year, thousands of players from across North America will be able to adventure securely through Blizzard's epic world, thanks in part to the robust and reliable hosting services offered by AT&T.
Under the terms of the agreement, AT&T will provide enhanced storage space and bandwidth capabilities for Blizzard's entertainment software applications. Additionally, the hosting solution will significantly strengthen the dependability and scalability of Blizzard's online presence. Included with AT&T's services are load-balancing capabilities that will allow for seamless access to all of the interactive features found in Blizzard's virtual world. AT&T will provide these hosting services through its Internet Data Centers (IDCs) in Los Angeles and Redwood City, Calif., and Ashburn, Va.
"As we prepare to launch our first massively multiplayer online game, we know that secure, fast and reliable hosting services are essential to support the World of Warcraft community and satisfy the expectations of online gamers," stated Paul Sams, senior vice president of business operations for Blizzard Entertainment. "This hosting solution will deliver the speed, reliability and security that we and our multiplayer audience have come to expect from Blizzard games."
AT&T is currently hosting the North American portion of Blizzard's beta test for World of Warcraft, for which more than 400,000 players signed up to help balance the game and ensure stability for an international launch later this year. In addition to providing hosting for World of Warcraft, the new agreement significantly expands the hosting services that AT&T currently provides Blizzard Entertainment for Battle.net.
AT&T owns and operates 22 IDCs around the world and expects to have 25 by the end of the year.
August 24, 2004
I played WoW open Beta and have purchased EQ2. After 2 days of being interested in EQ2 i canceled my account but still continue to play it every day as an evaluation as to not be an ass and say EQ2 sucks after only playing 2 days. EQ2 has many hardware technical issues, basically you need top of line comp to run it, SOE said you'll be able to run it with their specs. Sure you can run it but it runs like crap on low settings. WoW runs much smoother at a higher resolution and highest settings than EQ2 runs at a lower resolution crappy settings this results in WoW looking much better and running much better for the majority of the people.
Blizzard with AT&T have done an incredible thing with the WoW servers. I have never ever experinced anything like it before. It just blew my mind that you can walkfrom 1 starting city and visit every zone and every other starting city and npc city without loading once!!! And the continents are HUGE!
2.Blizzard has more experince with making games period. I don't wanna look for the article now so i won't post it
3. It seems that SOE have made their biggest mistake in making EQ2 as is. With no pvp and a totally lame ass engine, if they would of upgraded swg engine and included a similar system as was in SWG then It would rival WoW.
5.
World of Warcraft Smashes Records
Over 100,000 players in-game at the same time on the first day alone!
Blizzard Entertainment today announced that World of Warcraft has become an instant success, achieving epic sales figures in less than 24 hours. Launched Tuesday, November 23rd, the company's subscription-based massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) sold-through to consumers an estimated 250,000* copies of the game. At retailers across the country, players lined up for blocks at midnight to purchase the game, which sold out in many stores nationwide after only one day on store shelves.
In just the first day alone, over 200,000 players created World of Warcraft accounts, and over 100,000 were already playing the game concurrently as of 5:00 p.m. PST on Tuesday. The account-creation and concurrent-user populations are both record numbers for a MMORPG on its first day of launch, making World of Warcraft the fastest-growing online game in history. World of Warcraft is expected to continue to shatter records and achieve a record-setting week-one population in the days ahead. With dozens of World of Warcraft servers already filled to capacity, Blizzard is deploying additional servers rapidly to match the growing player base.
"We had a lot of confidence in World of Warcraft, but the success on day one far exceeded our expectations," said Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard Entertainment. "We are extremely happy that players are enjoying our game, and we are doing everything we can to meet the demand and maintain a fun and smooth game experience for everyone playing."
Retailers across North America, including Wal-Mart, EB, GameStop, and others are reporting that hundreds of their stores have sold out of World of Warcraft due to the demand. If consumers have not yet purchased their copy of World of Warcraft, they are advised to call ahead to make sure their store has copies still in stock.
"World of Warcraft has once again shown that Blizzard consistently delivers the best games in the industry," said Robert McKenzie, vice president of merchandising at GameStop. "It sold better than any other PC game this year in fact, World of Warcraft enjoyed the best day-one sell-through GameStop has ever seen on a PC title!"
Blizzard Entertainment and its retail partners are expecting all remaining supplies of World of Warcraft to sell out soon. Meanwhile, the company is working diligently to increase server capacity to accommodate the growing number of players connecting to the game. As the additional servers are brought online and proven stable, additional copies of World of Warcraft will be made available at retail. Blizzard will announce the availability of those additional games as soon as they are on retail shelves.
AS COMPARED TO EQ2 LAUNCH
Everquest II Ships
A new adventure begins with more than 100,000 players expected in-game by the weekend!
Sony Online Entertainment, a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online (MMO) gaming, today announced that EverQuest II has shipped to North American retail stores. EverQuest II is the highly-anticipated follow-up to Sony Online Entertainments EverQuest, the most successful and longest-running 3D MMO role-playing game in North America.
More than 100,000 people have already pre-ordered EverQuest II in hopes of being among the first to experience this massive gaming phenomenon. The CD and DVD versions of the game carry an SRP of $49.99 and include the game, an in-game item and an exclusive in-box item. Limited quantities of the EverQuest II Collectors Edition (DVD) are available at an SRP of $89.99.
Today is a proud day as we open our new online world to people around the globe, said John Smedley, president, Sony Online Entertainment. Over the past five years, weve worked hard to ensure EverQuest II is fun, and meaningful to our players. Weve spared no expense and were confident players will agree that EverQuest II is an amazing interactive online gaming experience.
Sony Online Entertainment is delivering a truly groundbreaking MMO game in EverQuest II with pioneering firsts in advanced 3D graphics, storyline, voiceover, production values, and gameplay. EverQuest II features the most realistic graphics of any MMO game ever created, with a next-generation 3D graphics engine designed to keep pace with hardware developed over the next few years.
Players can hear more than 70,000 lines of spoken dialogue in EverQuest II as non-player characters are given voiceover for the first time ever in an MMO game, bringing the story of EverQuest II to life. EverQuest II also features gameplay innovations that make EverQuest II fun and exciting for all types of players and play styles, from hardcore gamers, to new MMO players, to those who play in groups, and solo players.
EverQuest II comes in three retail versions, all of which include a 30-day subscription (excluding SOE Station Access subscriptions) to the games online world. The Collectors Edition includes a number of in-game items, an exclusive art book, bonus DVD with trailers, gameplay videos and behind-the-scenes footage, a soundtrack CD, a collectors coin with a velvet pouch, a cloth map of Norrath, and two posters. Pre-order numbers have been so high that very few copies of the Collectors Edition will be available at launch.
EverQuest II carries a monthly subscription fee of $14.99 for continuing access to the game world. Players can subscribe using a credit card, or purchase 30-day and 90-day SOE Game Cards, which open the new world of Norrath to those who choose not to use a credit card. Additonally, EverQuest II is included as part of the Station Access subscription, which includes all SOE-published games, for only $21.99 per month. Titles included as part of the Station Access subscription include: EverQuest, PlanetSide, EverQuest Online Adventures, Infantry Online, Tanarus, Cosmic Rift, and EverQuest II (all game software sold separately).
NVIDIA is the preferred graphics card provider for EverQuest II, helping to deliver the dramatic visual impact of the game's advanced 3D engine. EverQuest II runs great on computers using the Intel Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology.
Sales absolutely prove which game is the winner, it is the true real life poll. And WoW beat EQ2 by a whopping victory!! SOE will have a very hard time recovering from this loss. And it's sure that the next MMORPG they put out it musn't have the same old crappy servers they used, it must have seamless continents and a consentual PvP system! Yay!
Looks like to me that EQ is a dieing breed it was fun while it lasted. But now we must move on to new and better PvE/PvP worlds to conquer.
%&^&%^&CYBER DROOL!$@#%#%
Sales don't prove a damn thing with MMOs (unless you're counting how much hype there is surrounding the game) -- sustained subscriptions do. Sales prove more with a bought-off-the-shelf single player based game, sure, but with an MMO and subscriptions factoring into the mix, you can't say "WoW sold more copies, it is better"
Now, I'm not saying WoW is bad. It is actually quite fun. Your logic, Waporwhateveryournameis, is flawed. Falaanla Marr fucked around with this message on 12-02-2004 at 05:37 PM.
Sorry, duder, but just because you are behind the technology curve, does not make EQ2 a bad game in the slightest. Believe it or not, technology will move forward WITHOUT YOU. You want to play all the newest, prettiest games on full settings when they come out? Upgrade. If you don't want to, or cannot afford to, that doesn't mean the games themselves are bad.
Not to mention, the lack of PvP is NOT a downside to EQ2. If every MMORPG just HAD to have PvP, then why are all but a handful of EQL's servers PvE? They're still the most played. Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, PvP does one of two things to a game. 1) It destroys the game. 2) It does not destroy the game. If you can get number 2 without risking number 1, why not do so?
You go and play WoW. I wouldn't want someone with your attitude playing with me anyway.
[Edit: I just woke up, fingers are still asleep] Densetsu fucked around with this message on 12-02-2004 at 05:50 PM.
quote:
Waporiza painfully thought these words up:
Looks like to me that EQ is a dieing breed it was fun while it lasted. But now we must move on to new and better PvE/PvP worlds to conquer.
I personally didnt get into WoW much. I enjoy EQ2 much more than any other games I have played online, and this is including DAoC, for which I was a diehard fan.
However, EQ is not a dying breed. If anything, it will grow to become another #1 MMORPG in America. The reason? If its anything like EQ, people will be subscribing for 4+ years (like I did) or returning when their latest game 'fling' has ended.
You head people bitching about how EQ never delivered what the players wanted... but ya know what? They did. They just didnt bend immediately to the player's whim as soon as they could. (That's what killed DAoC for me, btw.)
Changes were placed in the game systematically over a period of time. After each expansion, rumors of a new one would crop up and people would be lined up at daybreak to get the latest thing. The consistancy of subscriptions contradicts your post.
As it has been stated time and time again, SoE has buttloads of MMORPG experience. They know how to hand out their content in such a way that people keep coming back for more, and they know how to give players what they want, rather than what they think they deserve.
Saying EQ and EQ2 are a 'dying breed' and 'fun while it lasted', on the cusp of EQ2's beginning life, is a rather misinformed and unsubstanciated statement.
And for the record, I DO enjoy WoW to some extent... but not to where I'll pay 15 bucks a month for it. EQ2 has much more content, in my opinion.
And please, top of the line computer? I run an Athlon 2100+ at 1.7gig, 968 megs of PC2700 DDR, and a Geforce3 Ti4800SE made by Asus. My video card is only 128MB. That's hardly top of the line. Yet I play on high performance, with all the bells and whistles with lighting and water effects and spell effects as well. The game runs beautifully.
Also, Blizzard might have more experience in the game making department, but the point was made they don't have MMOG experience. Which they don't. They have experience making single player games. Even Diablo and Diablo II had the multiplayer option as a perk, not the basics. This is Blizzard's first foray into having their game entirely online, and there are a lot of things they're going to learn the hard way about it that SoE has already learned, because they've been through it.
quote:
Waporiza was listening to Cher while typing:
1.World of WarcraftAT&T to provide supposedly robust and reliable hosting services for the MMORPG.
AT&T and Blizzard Entertainment today announced plans to create a secure hosting solution for the launch of Blizzard's massively multiplayer online role-playing game, World of Warcraft. When the game launches later this year, thousands of players from across North America will be able to adventure securely through Blizzard's epic world, thanks in part to the robust and reliable hosting services offered by AT&T.
Under the terms of the agreement, AT&T will provide enhanced storage space and bandwidth capabilities for Blizzard's entertainment software applications. Additionally, the hosting solution will significantly strengthen the dependability and scalability of Blizzard's online presence. Included with AT&T's services are load-balancing capabilities that will allow for seamless access to all of the interactive features found in Blizzard's virtual world. AT&T will provide these hosting services through its Internet Data Centers (IDCs) in Los Angeles and Redwood City, Calif., and Ashburn, Va.
"As we prepare to launch our first massively multiplayer online game, we know that secure, fast and reliable hosting services are essential to support the World of Warcraft community and satisfy the expectations of online gamers," stated Paul Sams, senior vice president of business operations for Blizzard Entertainment. "This hosting solution will deliver the speed, reliability and security that we and our multiplayer audience have come to expect from Blizzard games."
AT&T is currently hosting the North American portion of Blizzard's beta test for World of Warcraft, for which more than 400,000 players signed up to help balance the game and ensure stability for an international launch later this year. In addition to providing hosting for World of Warcraft, the new agreement significantly expands the hosting services that AT&T currently provides Blizzard Entertainment for Battle.net.
AT&T owns and operates 22 IDCs around the world and expects to have 25 by the end of the year.
August 24, 2004
I played WoW open Beta and have purchased EQ2. After 2 days of being interested in EQ2 i canceled my account but still continue to play it every day as an evaluation as to not be an ass and say EQ2 sucks after only playing 2 days. EQ2 has many hardware technical issues, basically you need top of line comp to run it, SOE said you'll be able to run it with their specs. Sure you can run it but it runs like crap on low settings. WoW runs much smoother at a higher resolution and highest settings than EQ2 runs at a lower resolution crappy settings this results in WoW looking much better and running much better for the majority of the people.
Okay...a few items thus far:
A. Blizzard got AT&T to handle some of it's networks? Fine. Thank you. You just proved the point that Blizzard itself doesn't have the experience. Blizzard had to buy the outside expertise. More on this shortly.
B. Top of the line machine? I think not. I have an Athlon 2100+ at 1.7ghz, a gig of RAM, GeForce FX5200. I have no problems with lag, rendering, or anything else. If you weren't, frankly, a rank newb looking to start a fight, you'd know that it's more or less been confirmed that it's RAM that's really important for Sony games. RAM makes a world of difference in EQ, EQ2, SWG, etc.
quote:
Blizzard with AT&T have done an incredible thing with the WoW servers. I have never ever experinced anything like it before. It just blew my mind that you can walkfrom 1 starting city and visit every zone and every other starting city and npc city without loading once!!! And the continents are HUGE!2.Blizzard has more experince with making games period. I don't wanna look for the article now so i won't post it
This is their first first-person MMORPG, and their first MMOG game in general. Battle.net doesn't count as it's a completely different sort of arrangement (for one thing you don't have zones with 50-100 people logged in to one zone area). Battle.net was essentially an IRC chat arrangement mounted on top of standard hosting servers for things like Quake or Unreal Tournament, and even then the game for WC3 or Diablo 2 or the like, at it's peak, could only have five or six people to a game.
Likewise, I contest the point about Blizzard having more experience with making games period. This is Sony FUCKING Entertainment here. Even if they didn't personally make a game (Keep in mind, Sony owns Playstation and it's subsidiaries), they probably bought out fifty studios that do. Don't say it doesn't count; if Blizzard buying web expertise to make their game run counts, then Sony buying out subsidiary studios counts.
quote:
3. It seems that SOE have made their biggest mistake in making EQ2 as is. With no pvp and a totally lame ass engine, if they would of upgraded swg engine and included a similar system as was in SWG then It would rival WoW.
Let's see some tech specifications to back up your claim the engine's better. Near as I can tell, the art style's different, and that's about it. Near as I can tell, this whine is probably tied into your misconception that EQ requires some sort of insane stats to run. Sony's always overstated tech requirements. I could run Luclin models in EQ relatively okay with my old system; I just got heinous lag in high-density zones like the Plane of Knowledge, where eight bajillion people hung out. That's a population density problem not a rendering problem. On full sized raids I still get some slowdown.
As for the PvP thing, it was a choice based on hard information gathered from direct research (EQ polls). PvP in EQ sucked. PvP in DAoC was considerably better, but there was still a contingent that didn't like it. WoW's setting gives it over to PvP and they made an effort to make it work well. EQ2's fan base didn't really want PvP, so they didn't put it in. This is something that can only be argued with opinion, newb. And it's been argued by both sides before and no one ever wins. Read the boards more before you bring up old bullshit.
quote:
5.
World of Warcraft Smashes RecordsOver 100,000 players in-game at the same time on the first day alone!
Blizzard Entertainment today announced that World of Warcraft has become an instant success, achieving epic sales figures in less than 24 hours. Launched Tuesday, November 23rd, the company's subscription-based massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG) sold-through to consumers an estimated 250,000* copies of the game. At retailers across the country, players lined up for blocks at midnight to purchase the game, which sold out in many stores nationwide after only one day on store shelves.
In just the first day alone, over 200,000 players created World of Warcraft accounts, and over 100,000 were already playing the game concurrently as of 5:00 p.m. PST on Tuesday. The account-creation and concurrent-user populations are both record numbers for a MMORPG on its first day of launch, making World of Warcraft the fastest-growing online game in history. World of Warcraft is expected to continue to shatter records and achieve a record-setting week-one population in the days ahead. With dozens of World of Warcraft servers already filled to capacity, Blizzard is deploying additional servers rapidly to match the growing player base.
"We had a lot of confidence in World of Warcraft, but the success on day one far exceeded our expectations," said Mike Morhaime, president of Blizzard Entertainment. "We are extremely happy that players are enjoying our game, and we are doing everything we can to meet the demand and maintain a fun and smooth game experience for everyone playing."
Retailers across North America, including Wal-Mart, EB, GameStop, and others are reporting that hundreds of their stores have sold out of World of Warcraft due to the demand. If consumers have not yet purchased their copy of World of Warcraft, they are advised to call ahead to make sure their store has copies still in stock.
"World of Warcraft has once again shown that Blizzard consistently delivers the best games in the industry," said Robert McKenzie, vice president of merchandising at GameStop. "It sold better than any other PC game this year in fact, World of Warcraft enjoyed the best day-one sell-through GameStop has ever seen on a PC title!"
Blizzard Entertainment and its retail partners are expecting all remaining supplies of World of Warcraft to sell out soon. Meanwhile, the company is working diligently to increase server capacity to accommodate the growing number of players connecting to the game. As the additional servers are brought online and proven stable, additional copies of World of Warcraft will be made available at retail. Blizzard will announce the availability of those additional games as soon as they are on retail shelves.
AS COMPARED TO EQ2 LAUNCHEverquest II Ships
A new adventure begins with more than 100,000 players expected in-game by the weekend!
Sony Online Entertainment, a worldwide leader in massively multiplayer online (MMO) gaming, today announced that EverQuest II has shipped to North American retail stores. EverQuest II is the highly-anticipated follow-up to Sony Online Entertainments EverQuest, the most successful and longest-running 3D MMO role-playing game in North America.
More than 100,000 people have already pre-ordered EverQuest II in hopes of being among the first to experience this massive gaming phenomenon. The CD and DVD versions of the game carry an SRP of $49.99 and include the game, an in-game item and an exclusive in-box item. Limited quantities of the EverQuest II Collectors Edition (DVD) are available at an SRP of $89.99.
Today is a proud day as we open our new online world to people around the globe, said John Smedley, president, Sony Online Entertainment. Over the past five years, weve worked hard to ensure EverQuest II is fun, and meaningful to our players. Weve spared no expense and were confident players will agree that EverQuest II is an amazing interactive online gaming experience.
Sony Online Entertainment is delivering a truly groundbreaking MMO game in EverQuest II with pioneering firsts in advanced 3D graphics, storyline, voiceover, production values, and gameplay. EverQuest II features the most realistic graphics of any MMO game ever created, with a next-generation 3D graphics engine designed to keep pace with hardware developed over the next few years.
Players can hear more than 70,000 lines of spoken dialogue in EverQuest II as non-player characters are given voiceover for the first time ever in an MMO game, bringing the story of EverQuest II to life. EverQuest II also features gameplay innovations that make EverQuest II fun and exciting for all types of players and play styles, from hardcore gamers, to new MMO players, to those who play in groups, and solo players.
EverQuest II comes in three retail versions, all of which include a 30-day subscription (excluding SOE Station Access subscriptions) to the games online world. The Collectors Edition includes a number of in-game items, an exclusive art book, bonus DVD with trailers, gameplay videos and behind-the-scenes footage, a soundtrack CD, a collectors coin with a velvet pouch, a cloth map of Norrath, and two posters. Pre-order numbers have been so high that very few copies of the Collectors Edition will be available at launch.
EverQuest II carries a monthly subscription fee of $14.99 for continuing access to the game world. Players can subscribe using a credit card, or purchase 30-day and 90-day SOE Game Cards, which open the new world of Norrath to those who choose not to use a credit card. Additonally, EverQuest II is included as part of the Station Access subscription, which includes all SOE-published games, for only $21.99 per month. Titles included as part of the Station Access subscription include: EverQuest, PlanetSide, EverQuest Online Adventures, Infantry Online, Tanarus, Cosmic Rift, and EverQuest II (all game software sold separately).
NVIDIA is the preferred graphics card provider for EverQuest II, helping to deliver the dramatic visual impact of the game's advanced 3D engine. EverQuest II runs great on computers using the Intel Pentium 4 Processor with HT Technology.
First off...If you're going to cite sources, post a URL. Otherwise you're talking out your ass. If you pulled that info off a WoW fansite, of course it's going to be skewed. Besides, initial purchase means squat. Talk to me in six months.
The other thing that annoys me is that my post was fairly moderate. EQ2 does have certain limitations, WoW does have certain limitations. You did everything but call me a Sony Lapdog. Wait until your regged name turns light blue before firing off your mouth, or in the VERY LEAST go look up other threads on the topic before you end up rehashing old crap.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
Pesco fucked around with this message on 12-02-2004 at 09:54 PM.
