MMOs

Mostly PC, but console and mobile too
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

A thread to place links for games that could be contenders down the road. Strictly MMOs though, so games like Gauntlet or Payday wouldn't fit. This is more ArcheAge, MW:O, UO, etc.

Project Gorgon

The Repopulation
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

Life is Feudal

The Repopulation is supposed to SWG with an uber complicated, Eve like economy and crafting system. Heard some decent stuff there.




Edited By Troy on 1417618525
Trooper
Posts: 265
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:05 pm
Contact:

Post by Trooper »

Shards Online


Made by Citadel, a company formed by several developers who worked on Ultima Online.
Very unique looking, check it out. Just got well over its Kickstarter goal.
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

Shards online had me until:

64 player limit will be minimum through Alpha/Beta
Player run servers
GORDON
Site Admin
Posts: 54400
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:43 pm
Location: DTManistan
Contact:

Post by GORDON »

That's not very M
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

They talk about server clusters, which implies a larger player base. But, they are all player run servers. Admins decide who has god powers, etc. Will be VERY hard/impossible to find a non-corrupt server.
Vince
Posts: 8619
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 10:00 pm
Location: In bed with your mom

Post by Vince »

Crafting in Repopulation seems like the old SWG. Even has bioengineered pets.
"... and then I was forced to walk the Trail of Tears." - Elizabeth Warren
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

Vince wrote:Crafting in Repopulation seems like the old SWG. Even has bioengineered pets.
Tempered my expectations when I found out they aren't doing full pvp loot.

Actually they say they are, but only on servers that have the "hardcore" ruleset. Sounds lame. Felucca/Trammel stuff.
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

Albion Online winter alpha this month.
Preview video looks good

Looks very, very UO. Dunno much about the mechanics besides it's full loot and public economy.

https://albiononline.com/




Edited By Troy on 1421977405
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

That does look cool.

Not sure about:
1. You are what you wear. If you equip a sword, you can dash at your opponent. If you wear a robe, you can heal. Etc. BUT, there is a skill tree where you can specialize. So, they say there are no classes since you can change your cloths to have different abilities. But you can spend skill points to specialize.
2. Crafting. If you are what you wear, does everyone have the ability to craft everything and it comes down to who can collect the resources? Or do I have to be a master blacksmith to make the BF Sword?
3. PvP. Since you can play on a tablet, how will the combat be? Seems like it will be much less intense than UO. However, this could be a good thing for our aging reflexes. I support the tablet play for mundane tasks like crafting/farming.
4. Housing. Can you only build houses in contestable areas? I like being able to conquer lands/castles. But it should be voluntary like PvP. You don't go to PvP zones and you don't have to PvP. Hope there is non-contestable lands as well.
5. Free to play. The thing that concerns me the most.

But, the game does look playable and fun. I have much higher hopes for this one than I did for Archeage. It's all going to come down to how they want to get paid.
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

If people are considering this, we need to organize before spending money. If we do it right, one of us could end up with a free founders pack through referrals.
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

I have only skimmed. . . but the pay to win economy seems real to me.

You pay for gold. You buy other player's silver with your gold. You buy weapons in game with silver.

Devs argue that this does not give an advantage because I can kill the player who just bought his sword with cash and take it. Now that player doesn't have his 'advantage'. Plus, he had to buy the silver from another player and then buy the sword from another player. So there is no direct 'buy sword with cash' transaction. Other players are getting paid, so the 'advantage' is being spread out.

However, and this is the key. . . . resources are limited. The game only produces X amount of silver and X amount of resources per day. So, people that buy gold, to convert to silver to buy the limited resources will win. I can not kill monsters fast enough for my silver to compete with the guy who buys his with gold. He will ALWAYS beat me to the sword. Now granted, the cost of silver goes up and he will have to spend more cash to get it. But, the option will always be there. Someone will always be selling silver for gold.

But the devs counter with "You can kill him and take that sword". Well, good. However, he can immediately buy another. And then another. The guild with the most cash will always be better equipped than the guild that does not. I would have to win more than I lose. He does not.

MANY players argue that it is NOT pay to win because of this or that. But, my take on what I'm reading is above.
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

I need to delve deeper in this one, looks like you did some good analysis though.

That same "pay to win" was true in EVE too, to be fair. It didn't make it less fun when you blew up and then stole the guy's expensive modules. Actually, it almost made it better - you knew how much he paid and how much you just stole from him in monetary value.


e: the tablet version won't be in on the Alpha, it's not ready and I don't know exactly when it will be. I'm thinking it's a bit ambitious - though I have heard the game is very good at using resources. It's just that no-one has tested the pvp/crafting/doing-shit on a tablet yet.

e2: I don't like the FTP thing either, call me old fashioned but I've liked subscription based games so much more than any FTP game I've tried.




Edited By Troy on 1422036127
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

Did a little more skimming. I got the impression that you own personal land, and then there is guild land that is fought over. So, that's cool, if correct.

However, there are taxes/upkeep that you pay. Not sure how much or how. But it's there. This is something I agree with. It should be easy/cheap to own a little land, expensive/hard to own a lot. Archeage did this well, I think.




Edited By Cakedaddy on 1422035595
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

As far as pay to win: This may not bother me as much as I thought it might. You read enough people raging about it, and you start to think it's a problem. I have always supported in game resources for RL cash. There are those with no cash but lots of time and those with no time and lots of cash. They should be able to work something out. And this game lets them. The game does not sell them uber items, only the means to purchase them from other players. Even if the game didn't support it, there would always be the Chinese gold farmers making it possible.

Guild fights for land: They wanted small guilds to be able to participate. So, fights for land are a 5v5 tournament type fight. Each side picks their 5 best fighters and they battle it out. Again, this allows smaller guilds to participate in guild land ownership/conquering. We used to fight in LoL 5v5 matches where we lost nothing. Wonder what these fights will do to us. :-)
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

I didn't know that about 5v5s, that sounds awesome.
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

I'm interested, but not.

I'm really enjoying MW:O for multi and slowly climbing my pile of shame when nobody is on.

I don't want to walk into another ArcheAge, and to me, there's some red flags here.

First, it does look P2W. In fact, Cake's entire breakdown pretty much tells me not to bother with the game.

Second, they're in alpha and seem to be planning to be there a LONG time.

Third, the inclusion of tablets is cool, but scary. How dumbed down is this going to be for tablets?

Fourth, combat looks stupid.

I'd pay a subscription MMO where everyone is equal over a F2P MMO with P2W.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
User avatar
Troy
Posts: 7156
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:00 am

Post by Troy »

Interested, but not available for the first winter Alpha anyway. On trial until mid Feb, and then vacation.

If the buzz continues to be good I'll give it a go in their Q2 2015 Alpha.


e: Leisher, having only done MWO a few times, how it is it different from someone buying credits and then splurging on all the best mechs and weapons? You can't even balance the scale by killing them and taking it from them, they always have it.




Edited By Troy on 1422037768
Leisher
Site Admin
Posts: 65258
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 9:17 pm
Contact:

Post by Leisher »

e: Leisher, having only done MWO a few times, how it is it different from someone buying credits and then splurging on all the best mechs and weapons? You can't even balance the scale by killing them and taking it from them, they always have it.


That's not how it works.

There is no "best mech" or "best weapon". Yes, there are hero and champion mechs only available with real money, but they aren't better than the free variants. You can earn more XP or cbills (in game currency) with them, but it's not an edge in any way shape or form.

New mechs go through a window where they can only be purchased with real money, like LoL does with new champions, but again, owning them doesn't mean shit in terms of competitiveness.

ANY mech and ANY weapon can kill any other.

The other thing you can buy is premium time which allows you to earn more cbills and XP in matches, again that doesn't translate AT ALL to the match. This isn't AA where you need money to own land or to do even the most basic things.

Everything else you can spend money on is aesthetics.

The biggest example is the gold mech that was being sold for $500 dollars. It gave you absolutely NO advantage over the same mech bought for cbills in game. In fact, it was a disadvantage because everyone wants to kill that mech.

MW:O and LoL are the only F2P games I've seen/played that have no P2W feature.
“Every record been destroyed or falsified, books rewritten, pictures repainted, statues, street building renamed, every date altered. The process is continuing day by day. History stops. Nothing exists except endless present in which the Party is right.”
User avatar
Cakedaddy
Posts: 8798
Joined: Thu May 20, 2004 6:52 pm

Post by Cakedaddy »

How is a F2P where the devs sell gold any different from a subscription based game where the Chinese sell gold. Every MMO, from now on, will have a pay to win option either by the Devs or by the Chinese.

And frankly, someone buying a sword that I can take from them doesn't bother me. Plus, with guild warfare played out in 5v5 matches, again, not sure gold wins that fight. If there is open guild warfare like there was in UO, I think that could have an impact. But it would only hurt some people. I would point out that TKV in UO was always out numbered, and in the early days, very poor. However, we still won. Eventually, we were more wealthy than our opponents. But I don't think them buying a bunch of gold would have helped them. We were just better than them. Right Troy? ;-)

I'll also point out that much of the bitching about pay to win was more along the lines of:

I play for 10 hours mining resources and gathering materials, crafting items, etc to get the BF sword. Joe rich guy can swipe a card and in 5 minutes have the same sword. That's not fair. He should have to spend 10 hours in the game getting the sword too.

And I think that's a stupid complaint.


Over all, I'm not stressing the pay to win aspect of the game yet.
Post Reply