All Posts by eric1000

The only thing that can be deduced from this comparison is that the OP is an AoC fan.  To compare these two games is like comparing apples and oranges before the orange is even off the tree.  The graphics on both games will be good within their own style, AoC realistic and gritty with likely some of the best images seen to date & Warhammer, iconic and true to the GW license.  For absolute beauty then AoC will win hands down without a doubt, for smooth gameplay on mediocre systems however Warhammer will be the clear winner.

To look at just another couple of points of interest:

Quest system:  This feels secondary to the game in AoC with little imagination, go there, kill that.  Go there, fetch this etc. which has been the same in most games to date.  There is a wealth of lore available to draw on in Conan's world and in this aspect FC could have done better with the quests on offer, at least from what I have seen so far.  Likewise some of Warhammer's quests follow the same pattern but here Mythic have tried to think outside the box and they have added a few twists like if you have already killed a number of mob X when you talk to the quest npc he doesn't send you out to kill more, he simply hands you the reward as if he had sent you to kill them which alleviates a lot of the early level grind.  This also however can throw up a few problems, not least of which is the need for many more quests to fill the time saved by the system as it stands.  Overall though with the PQ system etc. I would say that here Warhammer gets the win.

PvP:  Here again we have two completely different styles that cannot really be compared to each other.  AoC has the more standard type of FFA PvP that we are all used to while Warhammer has Mythic's RvR system which in DAoC is still rated as one of the best systems to date.  I will not lie to you, I'm an old DAoC player and love RvR so I can't be unbiased and give an unbiased decision.  I prefer Warhammers PvP over that of AoC but at the end of the day it's personal prefference.

Lore:  Both games have a rich wealth of lore behind them.  I have read all of REH's Conan stories and I have read a lot of the Warhammer novels.  Both are a good read, not up to Booker prize standard perhaps but a good read just the same.  Likewise both have detailed fantasy worlds but this is where the comparison ends.  Both worlds are set in different timescales and both are excellent in their own niche.  Which one you prefer is again a matter of personal prefference.  Both companies, Funcom & Mythic have taken some poetic liscence with the lore and all the lore nazis out there for both games will be a little upset to say the least at some of the changes.  AoC has it's pretty spell effects for instance which make Conan lore masters cringe.  Warhammer has the chosen balanced with the other classes which I have seen many complaints about.  Not true to the lore perhaps but if the game had a raging tank dressed head to foot in god given armour and wielding a divine blade I can't see many other classes getting a smell in.  These alterations to the lore in both games are what the developers decided were needed to make the MMO more fun and both companies have done it.  No clear winner here.

Overall I will be playing both games, I have both pre-ordered and I hope that both are a success, which would be good for the genre that we all love.  As for my personal prefference I lean more towards Warhammer and not a small amount of that decision is down to the company behind it.  Mythic have proven themselves on more than one occasion, they listen to and have a good relationship with their players which a brief visit to the Warhammer alliance forums will show you.  Funcom on the other hand have yet to reach this pinnacle and well, Gaute Godager.  Nothing against the guy personally as I don't know him but his ideas are stuck in MMO pre-history and don't appear to have the ability to evolve.  In Ao back in the day when anything was added or changes were made to the game many players bit their nails in the hope that Gaute had nothing to do with it, nuff said.

Originally posted by Truthstar

Im building a PC purely for AoC..problem is I never built one before and I haven't a clue what parts to purchase.

I'm lookin for a gaming computer. On the scale of 1 -10; I'd like an 8.5 or 9.

Need help choosing:

MOBO

Chipset

Case

 

 

Thanks!

How much do you want to spend on it?

Originally posted by Almuderas

 

Originally posted by demo3210

Instancing in a massively multiplayer online roleplaying game is a MAJOR turnoff for me, personally.  I feel like MMORPGS were specifically designed to be linked with everyone else in the world all at the same time.  This is really kind of the beautfy of MMORPGS, at least to me.  An alternate world that you can actually be someone and have an effect on that world you were just in.  And that world you were just in may or may not have changed the next time you logged in, but you knew that once you logged back in it was the same exact world you just left however long ago it was.

I thoroughly enjoyed Star Wars Galaxies sandbox method.  It may have lacked a lot of content in terms of questing, mission variety, etc. but you still could seamlessly travel through vastly large planets to cities as well as player cities.  The fact that this was so, added to the immersion of the world and made you feel like when you logged in you were actually in an alternate world and you had an effect in the world wherever you went.  It was like you were an integral part of it.  It was an amazing thing (until NGE that is).

Instancing is kind of why Guild Wars always turned me off, granted it was free/month and a great game overall, which kind of made it more okay in my opinion.  Great game...just instancing is once again, a turnoff to me.

I really do feel like instancing defeats some of the purpose of a true MMORPG.  It's basically like Diablo II where you just join a server to play for a little bit not feeling like you altered the world at all or in any way.  Nothing you did would ever change the world you logged back into.  (I am not saying in DII you were supposed to fell that way though) It was just a very self-indulgent game as it should be since it is in essence, a single player game.  But that set-up was completely okay to me because Diablo was one of the first of its kind and not specifically designed for an MMORPG concept; even though it accomplished its online counterpart quite successfully.

Instancing just breaks up the entire game as whole.  You log in and every time you go anywhere or i guess 'zone', if you will, you have to pick which numbered world you want in, like Tabula Rasa.  So it makes you feel distant from everyone else playing and almost like you live in your own little world and you don't matter too significantly as far as the game world is concerned. 

The only aspect that instancing shines in, is in the technical department.  Clearly hardware is an EXTREME issue with AOC and considering the depth of the graphics and software, I suppose there would be no other way around it without downgrading something of which more than likely would have been graphical appeal.   So does that mean that AOC is ahead of its time in terms of hardware specifications?  Maybe a little bit as far as the average pc gaming rig goes this year.  That can be a good thing as well as a bad thing.  Maybe in the future, once technology becomes more developed they'll lower the amount of instancing in the game, who knows?  I must say though, graphics are NEVER everything in a game; at least they shouldn't be.  There was a time when graphics would make a significant difference to me, but now, I think that is kind of a narrow minded way of thinking in a sense.  I would take a lower grade graphically developed game that was thoroughly accomplished in everything else versus a game with insane graphics and rather underdeveloped other aspects any day of the week.  

I'm not going to let the fact that there is instancing be the sole reason I don't get into AOC.  There are many other more important factors than just this aspect solely such as....well, fun!  If it's fun enough, you bet I'll be right there with the rest of you as I'm sure many many others will be.  But if there was some sort of scale, -1 to AOC for instancing because sandbox is just simply better in terms of gameplay.  Maybe it won't be in the final version lol.

 

Very well put post; I agree. Instancing in an MMORPG isn't an instant game over for me, but it's definetily something that takes away tons of immersive points (which to me = fun). I mean it's acceptable in a game like Guild Wars because theirs no monthly fee. It's also a different type of game. And, in reference to Anarch Online, the instancing done there was for missions. The regular world and the cities were all accessable by everyone and everyone was in the same world. I'm correct, yes? My memory might be a little fuzzy, but I don't recall AO having different instanced world zones. That game was great; it used instances in the right way, and it also had a vibrant and interesting world to run around in... AoC should have that in my opinion.

Ao had a limit to how many people could be in the same area in a zone, it wasn't instanced in the way that it would create a copy of that area for the overflow, you simply got a message pop up on screen to inform you that the area was full.  In the special areas like temple of the winds for example it was fully instanced the same as AoC but didn't have an easy command to change which instance you ended up in.  It was pretty funny at times watching groups of players zoning in and out until they got the correct instance.

Actually it is kinda lame how it's been done tbh, much the same as it was in Ao.  Zoned areas I don't mind at all but setting the bar low as far as maximum numbers is concerned has a definate impact on large PvP battles.  Ao was a pain with this, a few large guilds heading into a tower battle and half of the players couldn't get into the area as the zone was full.  At least they have the command to change instance at will, Ao didn't have that so getting together with friends in some of the special areas was very hit and miss.

A little more info would enable us to help you more, what are your current system specs?

Originally posted by HothaRonin

I'm building a new machine and I've done about a months worth of research so far.  I'm planning on using it for strictly entertainment purposes, gaming, watching DVDs, Music and recreational use.  Despite my attempts to find informative debates online to answer some of my questions, I wasn't able to get everything I needed so I'm asking you folks.  First off, I'll give you the layout I think I'm going with and I'll see what your responses are:

EVGA 780i SLI Mobo (I was considering going with the 790i Ultra SLI mobo but it seems there's some severe quality issues with the boards when you get them and the DDR3 memory is just too expensive when looking at it  from a price/performance perspective)

Core 2 Quad Q6700 2.66ghz CPU  ( I was going to go with a q9300 2.50ghz because it was a newer chipset but from my research the Q6700 is a better product that OCs cooler and has all around better performance.  Problem is, I've never OCed anything and while it sounds fairly simple to a reasonably intelligent person, it'll be my first time.)

EVGA 9800 GX2 1GB Video card - Here's where my first question comes in, is it better to go with 1 of these cards for $500 or 2 X SLI 8800 GTS 512mb card?  When I compared one of the GPUs onboard the big card with one of the 8800s it seems the 8800 is better and cheaper.  So if I buy 2 of those cards and run them in SLI will they perform  better than the one big one?  What're the pros and cons between each option? 

2 X 2048 mb DDR2-PC6400 OCZ SLI Ready Ram  (it's only 61.99....)

I can't decide which speaker setup to go with, I was looking at the Logitech 5500 THX certified setup but it just recently jumped to $250 so I'm wondering if it's still worth it or if I could get a better performance for the cost out of one of it's predecessors or competitors.

The other question I have is onboard sound vs. the Fatality Pro Xfi Card?  I know that the Xfi card will perform better but I'm curious if they are worth the cost and will the sound difference be very noticeable from a gaming aspect?

Last question, not really all that important....  is getting an HDMI monitor worth it?  There's about a $100 difference in prices of monitors with and without HDMI ability.  Does anyone use it and is it worth the upgrade just for gaming alone?  (I'm not getting a blu-ray player so I didn't think getting an HDMI monitor was something to worry about)

One last thing!  Are HDDs with 32mb Cache that much better than those with 16mb cache and will it help my machine do what I want to do with it better?  Again this boils down to value vs. performance.

I forgot to mention I'm going with aircooling, one heatpipe/sink/fan combo on the CPU and two 120mm fans for the front and back of the case. 

The whole unit will be powered by a 700watt PSU (I'm still trying to understand how wattage and power work :D) with 600watt UPS Backup.

Thanks for all the input and taking the time to read this, I appreciate your help.

 

Video card:  Get a single 8800 GTX or Ultra.  The performance increase of the GX2 doesn't justify the extra money.  Also, If you go with the GX2 then you would be better getting the 790 board so that you are all setup for quad SLi should you decide to add a 2nd GX2 later.

Speakers:  I just use the creative labs 7:1 speakers, decent surround sound with good bass and at a good price.

Sound:  Depends on OS.  If you are getting vista then you need HD audio.  Most MB manufacturers are now putting HD audio on the board, if you go with X-Fi then you will need the creative alchemy download to get surround.  If you are going for XP then ignore that 1st bit and just get what you think best.

HDD: you will not notice a large difference unless multi-tasking and using HDD intensive applications.

Power:  Can never have enough.  An 8800 uses 300w  a GX2 likely uses more and then you need power for everything else.  The only thing that I will say about PSU's is don't buy cheap crap.

I would guess at a timescale of about 5 years from now when todays low to mid end systems have been or are in the process of being replaced.  Software developers are not going to program excusively for 64 bit when there are still millions of 32 bit machines in peoples homes.

You will get a general performance increase if you have a 64 bit cpu by having a 64 bit OS ( not on AoC but some other programs support 64 bit ).  You will also need a 64 bit OS if you intend to fit 4Gb or more ram.  Apart from that there is no reason to upgrade for AoC.

Originally posted by onlinenow225

 

Originally posted by eric1000

 

 

MMO's evolved from tabletop games and are meant to emulate them.  You don't win a battle in an RPG by having neater handwriting than the guy beside you or by having a softer cushion under your ass.  You win because of random number dice rolls weighted in favour of the better made and tougher character.  I think D&D would have been pretty short lived if a fight involved the two players trying to really beat the crap out of each other to see who was best.

Give me a virtual reality of this and i be willing to pay 50 bucks a month!

 

 

Besdies that, The lack of having to manual using your character just screams of less imertion of the game.  But i guess its all about preference...  Gah id rather be able to duke it out w/out the risk of getting serouslly hurt would be much fun.

The point I was making is that the players skill is in how the character is put together.  Games like Ao that have a very complicated system of skills and implants took real player skill to build an effective toon.  Eve is the same with ship modules, it takes real skill to sort out and balance a kickass loadout so that your battleship makes mincemeat out of the other guys battleship.  It has nothing at all to do with how fast your fingers are on the keyboard / mouse / gamepad etc.

Originally posted by iCeh

 

Originally posted by eric1000

DAoC had and still has the best PvP of any MMO to date.  When you faced your opponent it really was a fight to the death as it should be.  Win or lose you remembered the good fights and for the most part respected a tough opponant.  /face & /stick were essential parts of that system and to remove them would be crazy.  An MMORPG should be about the skill of the character, not the skill of the player other than the skill that goes into building the toon.  If you want player skill then RPG's are not your thing and there are plenty FPS games out there that would suit you better.

 

WTF? No player skill? What's the point in even playing your character at all? Let's all press one key, sit back and let the game play for us.

DAoC has awesome PvP because it actually has PvP content, instead of boring modes such as CTF (like WoW). Conquering castles is what I want to do, and I want to actually do it myself rather than let AI hold my hand.

If you can't grasp simple aspects of a computer game (controls), then you should stick to the tabletop game... that would suit you better.

MMO's evolved from tabletop games and are meant to emulate them.  You don't win a battle in an RPG by having neater handwriting than the guy beside you or by having a softer cushion under your ass.  You win because of random number dice rolls weighted in favour of the better made and tougher character.  I think D&D would have been pretty short lived if a fight involved the two players trying to really beat the crap out of each other to see who was best.

DAoC had and still has the best PvP of any MMO to date.  When you faced your opponent it really was a fight to the death as it should be.  Win or lose you remembered the good fights and for the most part respected a tough opponant.  /face & /stick were essential parts of that system and to remove them would be crazy.  An MMORPG should be about the skill of the character, not the skill of the player other than the skill that goes into building the toon.  If you want player skill then RPG's are not your thing and there are plenty FPS games out there that would suit you better.

Ok I give up.  Godager himself could come to these boards, drop his pants and have the truth tatooed on his arse and some here would have their heads stuck so far up it that the printed words would pass them by entirely.

Originally posted by ChicagoCub

 

Originally posted by eric1000

Ok this has been said before in many threads here but just for you I will say it again.  IT IS NOT AN OLD CLIENT, IT'S THE CLIENT THAT YOU WILL GET IN THE BOX ON RELEASE DAY BUT A FEW MORE FIXES WILL BE ADDED FIRST.

 

Now, FC released to OB what they thought was the most stable and good to go client, they delayed OB by a couple of hours and rushed through some fixes, which screwed things up.  They know what has caused the mess and are fixing them.  This will have to be done pretty damn quickly however so that the copiers have enough time to press out the discs to stick in the boxes for the store shelves so even if FC only take a week or so to get the client fixed that's still cutting it pretty close to the bone.  If they take any longer then we can expect a supply shortage on release while they franticly press more copies.

 

But once again for clarification:  IT IS NOT AN OLD CLIENT.

 

 

MMORPG.com:

We have heard that the Fileplanet Beta client is actually an old client and won't be the one used on release. Can you speak to that?

Funcom:

It for sure won’t be the one we have on release! I mean, 150 experienced MMO developers working crunch are able to polish, a lot;) We are making some great updates and fixes based on the lessons learned, lessons we would not have received without the stress we put our servers and systems under. I must stress that it was, and is, beta, and the verdict should come for our launch version, not the version three weeks before. And yes, I have seen the same rumors that it’s old, but it’s not entirely true. We tried to include the best we had on a stable approach, but in our eagerness to please we wanted to get a few additional fixes out (hence we pushed the launch back a couple of hours). In order to reach the May 1st date some of those fixes led to unwanted side-effects which weren’t discovered in time. For some, it got a bit rockier than we wanted. We are running an extensive survey now, and from the first few hundred replies (which should be statistically correct), it seems that most people are actually having tons of fun AND good performance. We are humble about it though, and admit that things could have gone smoother, but the experience some people have had now has helped us to improve for launch, which is what really matters. It’s also clear that those who are in our Closed Beta have had a more stable and better experience because of the reasons mentioned in this interview, but rest assured we are aware what caused this and have some really nice updates for you come launch ;)

We tried to include the best we had on a stable approach, but in our eagerness to please we wanted to get a few additional fixes out (hence we pushed the launch back a couple of hours). In order to reach the May 1st date some of those fixes led to unwanted side-effects which weren’t discovered in time. For some, it got a bit rockier than we wanted.

Just thought that I would point out that bit again for you.

Originally posted by Zorwrath

I'm planning on getting another 4g of ram, so that'll boost it up to 6g, and I forgot to mention I have vista 32 bit.

I also got a question...I've heard that a 32 bit os can't recognize more than 4g of ram, but does that mean that I can't utilize 6g, or can it?

It will only show and use just over 3GB.  For more you need a 64 bit OS

Originally posted by markyturnip

 

Originally posted by eric1000

Ok this has been said before in many threads here but just for you I will say it again.  IT IS NOT AN OLD CLIENT, IT'S THE CLIENT THAT YOU WILL GET IN THE BOX ON RELEASE DAY BUT A FEW MORE FIXES WILL BE ADDED FIRST.

But once again for clarification:  IT IS NOT AN OLD CLIENT.

Thank you for your use of capital letters.

 

If you had not used them I would not have been alerted to the profound importance of your insights.

It was obviously needed as the inability of some on these boards to use search functions or understand the fundamentals of what has been said in at least a dozen other threads shows.

Ok this has been said before in many threads here but just for you I will say it again.  IT IS NOT AN OLD CLIENT, IT'S THE CLIENT THAT YOU WILL GET IN THE BOX ON RELEASE DAY BUT A FEW MORE FIXES WILL BE ADDED FIRST.

Now, FC released to OB what they thought was the most stable and good to go client, they delayed OB by a couple of hours and rushed through some fixes, which screwed things up.  They know what has caused the mess and are fixing them.  This will have to be done pretty damn quickly however so that the copiers have enough time to press out the discs to stick in the boxes for the store shelves so even if FC only take a week or so to get the client fixed that's still cutting it pretty close to the bone.  If they take any longer then we can expect a supply shortage on release while they franticly press more copies.

But once again for clarification:  IT IS NOT AN OLD CLIENT.

Long explanation short:

If you have a 64 bit cpu get a 64 bit OS, if you want to use 4Gb or more of ram get a 64 bit OS.

If neither of the above apply get a 32 bit OS.