quote:
Pesco had this to say about Robocop:
As I have stated....The inability to see 100% of the content because of the design of a game is a minus to me.
That sounds like a personal problem, really.
Yall have all played EQ and yall all are well versed with what happened in PoP. "I cant enjoy a piece of the game because you keyed it!" Was this not a major gunning point of most of the casuals regardless of the fact they had the option to advance? So I can see a similar arguement coming from a bluebie.
You cannot say that something isn't a valid arguement against something unless you are willing to look on the flip side of the coin. This has been done enough in terms of these 2 games here that it annoyed me to the point I did this.
For the record, incase any one is confused. I am for RvR, why else would I play PS or have played DAoC?
quote:
Mod stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
an arena system (which no one ever used in EQ1)
Again, incorrect. My server had arena battles in the Bazaar almost 24/7. I knew people on many other non-PvP servers that reported the same thing.
quote:
Kegwen was naked while typing this:
You don't really gain anything from PvP, though.
Oh but you will when Battlegrounds are released. At that point, all of your arguements become invalid.
quote:
So quoth Kegwen:
You don't really gain anything from PvP, though. There's no uber loots to be found, for the most part. It's just for fun. This is a huge contrast to PoP where there were definitely uber loots to be had.
Is controlling territory not a benefit?
quote:
Densetsu thought about the meaning of life:
Oh but you will when Battlegrounds are released. At that point, all of your arguements become invalid.
Oh snap, they're not in yet.
They probably won't be for awhile, either, so the point is moot.
quote:
How.... Pesco.... uughhhhhh:
Is controlling territory not a benefit?
I'm sure you could "control" "territory" by having a bunch of people make a level 1 character and bring them to that specific place, not flagged for PvP. Then, BAM, you have a monopoly on that area that no one can challenge.
quote:
Gadani had this to say about pies:
I'm sure you could "control" "territory" by having a bunch of people make a level 1 character and bring them to that specific place, not flagged for PvP. Then, BAM, you have a monopoly on that area that no one can challenge.
I was speaking of Battlegrounds.
quote:
Pesco's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
I was speaking of Battlegrounds.
They aren't in yet, and they won't be in for awhile.
quote:
The logic train ran off the tracks when Gadani said:
They aren't in yet, and they won't be in for awhile.
But they WILL be, so the point still stands. Just like PoP was an expansion, things come that change the game.
quote:
This one time, at Gadani camp:
Oh snap, they're not in yet.They probably won't be for awhile, either, so the point is moot.
Where did I say they were in yet? Need I explain it? My post was in future tense.
Blizzard will add PvP rewards, this is their intention. This means that your arguements that PvP is completely optional and you don't miss anything by avoiding it will become invalid.
Which means it's not really moot since if you convince someone who doesn't like PvP at all to play WoW now, then when the reward system is put in, then suddenly your claim of "PvP is completely optional! You don't get anything out of it unless you enjoy PvP for the sake of PvP!" becomes invalid.
It's not moot because it's worth mentioning that they are intending to change what you are arguing.
Future patches aren't in yet!
YOU DON'T HAVE THE EXPANSIONS THAT ARE COMING OUT LATER!@#
So, uh, it's time to start thinking about returning EQ2, because you aren't getting the full game.
This post is in future tense btw
quote:
Gadani had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Oh shit, you guys, you're missing your fucking game.Future patches aren't in yet!
YOU DON'T HAVE THE EXPANSIONS THAT ARE COMING OUT LATER!@#
So, uh, it's time to start thinking about returning EQ2, because you aren't getting the full game.
This post is in future tense btw
That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in the entirety of the WoW vs. EQII debates. "There's no reason to worry about the future, even if it will change the game completely! Don't worry, go ahead and spend your $50 on the game, you'll only experience a change that you may or may not like in the future!"
It would be one thing if they just suddenly added it in. But they've announced their plans. Telling a new player to completely ignore their plans for the future because the way the game is right now is all that matters, is moronic.
quote:
Densetsu Model 2000 was programmed to say:
That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard in the entirety of the WoW vs. EQII debates. "There's no reason to worry about the future, even if it will change the game completely! Don't worry, go ahead and spend your $50 on the game, you'll only experience a change that you may or may not like in the future!"It would be one thing if they just suddenly added it in. But they've announced their plans. Telling a new player to completely ignore their plans for the future because the way the game is right now is all that matters, is moronic.
They've said they plan on adding them over the next year.
That's a lot of playing time before they go in.
quote:
Vorago had this to say about dark elf butts:
And I view it as taking X over X + YX for either is the same, you have fun, you finish it, do the big stuff, but somehow the addition of Y creates some impossible void that you could not stand existing
I mean, if I am ordering a sandwich, and they offer me a free drink for the price of the sandwich by itself, I will of course take the drink. Even if I am not thirsty, it is free, and if I do want a sip of something, it is there, but who cares if I don't, it was just a bonus for me.
How foolish of you.
quote:
Gadani Model 2000 was programmed to say:
They've said they plan on adding them over the next year.That's a lot of playing time before they go in.
Irrelevant.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about Pirotess:
Again, incorrect. My server had arena battles in the Bazaar almost 24/7. I knew people on many other non-PvP servers that reported the same thing.
I played EQ for quite a while and seeing people actually fight in the arena on my server was an absolute rarity.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about dark elf butts:
Irrelevant.
...How?
If someone is asking me about getting the game NOW, why would I tell them that PvP would matter sometime over the next year?
Some people offered valid posts, with experience from both games to back it up. Good for them.
Others are offering fair perspectives on their games of choice, even without experience from the other side. Good for them.
Pretty much everyone else that has posted in this thread have only made things worse. It was going well before people started going on the offensive and/or getting overly defensive.
Phantom X: Make your own decision. I hope you have fun with whatever game you end up with.
Everyone else: Let's just stop. This is fucking stupid and going nowhere. Kegwen fucked around with this message on 01-22-2005 at 06:44 PM.
Only actual outside PvP benefit of the BG is the ability to raise your faction with PvP beyond what is normally obtainable via quests to obtain off-race mounts... which is wholly fluff and doesn't actually impact the game either.
And controlling territory is silly, the BG is instanced and seperate from everything, you don't pass through it, don't exp in it, don't tradeskill in it... you just pvp in it. If a side loses their half, it slowly rebuilds and it all starts over again. Doing pvp quests inside can speed up how fast your base takes to rebuild, can also do quests inside the instance to buff your base and armies with better abilities and the like.
It is remarkably self contained
Only mention of something POTENTIALLY out-side PvP effecting is a trinket that denotes your rank and you upgrade with player kills and completing various victories. This could, conceivably, add stats or something...
But really, then the entire concern would be you can play the entire game but not get a SINGLE item? They haven't said anything about it so could go either way
From what I have read in previews and 'first looks', there WILL be equipment available only to people who PvP. It will be comparable to PvE equipment, but may have bonuses against a certain enemy race instead of against beasts or humanoids (NPC types), meaning that the PvP equipment will most likely be more suited to PvP than PvE. There will be some that are better than quested/crafted items, and there will be some that are worse.
The holding territory thing is moot. The only territory that can be captured, is the territory inside of the battlegrounds. The battlegrounds are PvP-only zones, so if you play PvE, then you will not have to worry about not holding a certain area or not.
As for 'not experiencing all the content', that point is just plain absurd. As it stands, all game content is available for everyone, PvP or not. The only content that shall be PvP only, is the battlegrounds. And as I said, those are separate zones, not part of the game world. The only quests in the battlegrounds are PvP quests, the only NPC's in the battlegrounds are PvP NPC's, the entire zone is built from the ground up to be a PvP playground. If you don't like PvP, then you won't be missing any content to begin with.
Now, if you truly want to get nitpicky, then yes, that is content that is not available to everyone based on what they do or do not like. However, EQ2 has the same. DAoC has the same. Every single game ever created has the same. If the game has content that you CHOOSE not to participate in, why does that count AGAINST the game? It gives you a choice, it doesn't force you down one path or another. If I do not wish to sit there and level my tradeskills because I find them boring, does that count against the game, as it means I am bypassing some of the content in it? If I think that the quests are stupid and choose to skip them, then does it count against the game?
And it's not as if WoW has attempted to put in PvP as a REPLACEMENT for high-end content. It's there as an addition to the PvE content that also exists at high levels. As an alternative. The PvE content does not lack because of the PvP content, and vice versa. Khyron fucked around with this message on 01-22-2005 at 07:01 PM.
quote:
Khyron said this about your mom:
If I think that the quests are stupid and choose to skip them, then does it count against the game?
Apparently it does, if you actually read the posts in this thread.
quote:
Densetsu had this to say about pies:
Apparently it does, if you actually read the posts in this thread.
Then you have to concede to my point : If pesco's statement is true, then that is a minus against every game out there. Against FFXI, against EQ2, against WoW, against DAoC. There will be games no matter what, that may have some content that you willingly choose not to participate in. And according to Pesco's own statement, if you cannot participate in 100% of the content of the game, then that's a minus against the game itself. Choosing not to do a quest, choosing not to tradeskill, choosing not to PvP, based on the design of those features, is a minus to every single game.
So I will freely admit that WoW's tradeskill, PvP, and quest systems are detriments to the game, so long as Pesco can admit the same about EQ2's tradeskills, instanced zones, and quest system being a similar detriment.
The blade cuts both ways.
Not to mention the fact that as a Human i can't do the Horde quests either. Dr. Gee fucked around with this message on 01-22-2005 at 07:57 PM.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Dr. Gee said this:
And since, as a Priest, i can't dual wield and wear plate that's a detriment to the game as well, because while i chose to play a priest the game doesn't support me in being able to use 100% of the gear thus not allowing me to experience 100% of the content.Not to mention the fact that as a Human i can't do the Horde quests either.
Actually, that is absurd.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Dr. Gee wrote:
And since, as a Priest, i can't dual wield and wear plate that's a detriment to the game as well, because while i chose to play a priest the game doesn't support me in being able to use 100% of the gear thus not allowing me to experience 100% of the content.Not to mention the fact that as a Human i can't do the Horde quests either.
That may be taking it a bit too far 
but the choice not to participate in content, especially when there are alternatives, seems a bit unfair to the game.
Expanding on Pesco's EQ metaphor...
One of the problems with PoP wasn't the fact that you couldn't participate in the content. It was the fact that the loot from PoP wasn't on the same level as other loot. As with all things EQ, when they added more content, they added stronger loot to draw players there, which is where the bitching came from. You had to be keyed, the casual player couldn't get keyed, thus no planar loot, and that left them behind because their gear wasn't comparable to those who COULD get the planar stuff. Groups wanted the more effective player, and the casual gamer got left out.
The loot in PvP will be comparable to the loot in PvE. It won't be shutting out a player who dislikes PvP from being able to get equipment that'll put them on par with a player who PvP's a lot. Instead of EQ, WoW has true alternatives so that both kinds of people are happy, without leaving the PvE'ers out and screwing them over in groups.
quote:
Khyron was naked while typing this:
So I will freely admit that WoW's tradeskill, PvP, and quest systems are detriments to the game, so long as Pesco can admit the same about EQ2's tradeskills, instanced zones, and quest system being a similar detriment.The blade cuts both ways.
I whole-heartedly agree. If you look at my string of posts, you'll see it has little to do with the actual short-comings of the games, but the fact the player base feels the need to create double standards about how you can compare games. Or that people are so stuck in their ways they are unable to look at the game from someone else's persceptive. Thus showing the complete insanity that is comparing MMORPGs, especially here.
I was arguing the absurdity of the idea you couldn't argue a point that is a selling factor for a game. Especially a factor that is treated uniquely by the games.
quote:
Khyron had this to say about pies:
-snip-
You know how when he said he was playing Devil's Advocate? He doesn't *really* think missing part of content is bad, but that's the argument a lot of WoW players made about EQ/EQ2. He's pointing out that will exist in WoW as well with Battlegrounds, so the argument is hypocritical.
-Tok
It's this much better
My game: 
Your game: 
This is a terrible argument, seriously, and it's never ever going to end, because it's based on a subjective experience of a game.
Is it SO DAMN HARD to let people play the game they prefer without the need to wave your own around like a penis extender?
Christ.
quote:
Pesco had this to say about Knight Rider:
I whole-heartedly agree. If you look at my string of posts, you'll see it has little to do with the actual short-comings of the games, but the fact the player base feels the need to create double standards about how you can compare games. Or that people are so stuck in their ways they are unable to look at the game from someone else's persceptive. Thus showing the complete insanity that is comparing MMORPGs, especially here.I was arguing the absurdity of the idea you couldn't argue a point that is a selling factor for a game. Especially a factor that is treated uniquely by the games.
That I can see and I do agree with. However, the point of this entire post was to offer up advice on which MMORPG Phantom should spend his time playing. And insane or not, that does mean comparing the two and finding out which of the two would be more fun for him. Since I don't know the guy and don't know what kind of player he is, I think it prudent to try to list all the options that are noticably different.
In my first post in this thread, I comapred the things that I felt were the most starkly contrasted in EQ2 and WoW. The graphics, the instances, the Lag, the PvP, as I felt most of the rest were similar enough that both games would hold interest there.
Earlier you mentioned that PvP was being brought up as an instant bonus to WoW over EQ2, and asked why people bother to bring it up. While it may seem unfair, it's the truth that it IS an instant bonus that should be brought up in a thread like this. Perhaps not to all players, but to many. I don't know if Phantom X is a PvP'er. If he is, then that would be an instant turnoff to EQ2.
I think the other big reason that PvP is frequently brought up in these threads, Pesco, is because many of the WoW players feel that Blizzard has done a better job of appealing to their customers than Sony has. By offering PvP as an alternative for those who want it, without detracting from the PvE that's offered for the players who dislike PvP, Blizzard has shown to us that they cater to a broader playerbase.
But then, it's also just pure personal opinion there. Some people think that a car with a sunroof is better than one without. Some people think it's ugly or annoying, and dislike it. And I think that the biggest problem I had with your statement is that I disagree with the fact that even offering it at all is a detriment. While it may be unfair to EQ2 to use it in comparisons, it in no way detracts from other aspects of the game, and shouldn't be considered to be detrimental to the overall gameplay, even by the most avid PvE'ers.
quote:
Toktuk had this to say about Captain Planet:
You know how when he said he was playing Devil's Advocate? He doesn't *really* think missing part of content is bad, but that's the argument a lot of WoW players made about EQ/EQ2. He's pointing out that will exist in WoW as well with Battlegrounds, so the argument is hypocritical.-Tok
Read my statement above, on how I felt the PoP metaphor that he made earlier, doesn't apply to this situation. If the Battleground equipment was THAT much better than the stuff you could get from quests, I wouldn't be arguing that point either 
I can only imagine how much of a sliding shit heap this would be if it were on something important.
Maybe those who are responsible for this idiocy should log into their games?
I apologize if anyone really takes offense to this for whatever reason, but then perhaps they should step back and realize that this is deeprooted in fanboyism and doesn't exactly solve anything? Think about it this way: There were people who defended WW2OL back when it came out, and they did so because they BELIEVED it to be better. This is pretty much the exact same situation, as no one will be convinced one way or another.
This thread is just going to end up locked, everyone will still be angry, and another thread will flare up again in some time, no doubt.
quote:And it's all your fault.
Liam wrote, obviously thinking too hard:
This thread is just going to end up locked, everyone will still be angry, and another thread will flare up again in some time, no doubt.
quote:
Talonus stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
I wonder how long until a "no WoW vs. EQ2" rule appears in a sticky thread.
Ha! Shows how much you pay attention! WoW vs. EQII is specifically allowed as long as it stays in a thread with that specific purpose!
Which game has the women with the better boobies?
It is held in thought
only by the understanding
of the Wind.
quote:
Zaile Ghostmaker had this to say about dark elf butts:
Let's ask the important question:Which game has the women with the better boobies?
Yes, they're real. They're not mine, but they're real!
