Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Dark Age of Camelot: What if... Dark Age of Camelot 2

15681011

Comments

  • PedrobPedrob Fort Worth, FLPosts: 172Member

    Originally posted by Torak

    Totally disagree with the article. DAoC does NOT need a sequel, it needs a graphic / tech upgrade which is doable. Sequels have a HORRIBLE MMO track record

    Fans do not want a new game, they want the old game with improvements and upgrades. EVE and City of Heroes are perfect examples of this. That has been made clear so many times it's not funny, only the MMO nomads want brand new sequels so they can rip them to pieces.

    DAoC is made with Gamebryo engine, the newer versions of this engine have been used to make Fallout 3, Warhammer and Oblivion.

    A new game would be corrupted by todays market expectations and nothing good will come of it. 

     

    Upgrading DAoC would cost a fraction of a new title.

     

    MMOs and sequels just don't work out that well. In the end we will end up with a buffoon game like Warhammer.

     

    I'll have to agree with Torak here.

    Also as painful as ToA was, it was doable, those that gave up early missed on a lot, ToA became an after thought when dedicated PvE'ers would run entire ML raids in primetime with everything ready and holding all items needed, heck I remember co-hosting with Lyli (Hib-Kay) a ML8 and we capped the BG at 200, this made it go so much faster when everything died oh so fast.

    As for NF, yes I was also one of those Emain open RvR players, in those days I was in Alb as a Cleric, and yes the change from OF to NF was overwhelming, at first. And while NF was more centered toward keeps, there were still "hot spots" that were used for open RvR, specially around all the Towers in the 3 realms that were surrounded by ruins. And the keep sieges was actually quite fun from a melee point of view (I ended up spending most of my years as a Mid Zerk in Gareth), and all that led to Relic Raids which by themselves they are fun because once you open the Relic Gates, it's all open RvR all over the map, from the main force clashing with the main defenders, to defender groups running blocking reinforcements, setting traps, etc.

    It's a shame all the ones that jumped ship after NF released, had they given it the chance, they would have liked it. I for one have to say I was lucky to have an active guild with active RvR leaders that always took whoever was on, regardless of group balance, and go out there and fight (Thanks Mystchivious - Skald) :)

    For the CC complainers, it's part of the game, part of the mechanic, can't be pure straight fight all the time, good PvP has tactics, takes longer than 5mins, CC helped in doing that, yes we all banged our desk when we saw the ZzZZz, but we all had ways to deal with it, ToA added all kind of artifacts that dealth with CC, and those of us in the Classic servers we knew that our first 5 RP were for Purge 1, pure tanks didn't worry too much about CC with stoicism and some determination RA. It was all about finding the balance with your RA's and some items and could avoid CC all together. Does CC have a long duration? yes, but somehow as I look back at all the big fights that we won and lost because of CC, I wouldn't change a thing!.

    Pedro - 50 Berserker RR7 Gareth - Myth

    Hanamichi - 50 Cleric RR8 Kay - The Forsaken

    Pedrob - 50 Bard RR4 Iseult - Storm's Fury

  • lttexxanlttexxan levelland, TXPosts: 419Member Uncommon

    What if....fluffy bunnies fell out of the sky and we were able to kill and eat them at will?

    If we are gonna dream....we should dream big.

    It's better to lurk in forums and be thought a fool...than to endlessly "Quote" and remove all doubts.

  • DragimDragim Boring, KSPosts: 867Member

    Originally posted by Lasastard

     

    There is a difference between converting some maps into something the crytec sandbox can render and changing the engine on which a game is running. The best we could hope for is face-lift using the Warhammer engine (which is, I believe, a somewhat advanced version of the DAoC one).

    Just imagine 200vs200 keep fights using the crytec engine... and now add exploding computers and melting gfx cards to that mental picture.

     I definetly agree with this.  I would prefer more "dated" graphics as people call them, than the best graphics available and having everyone crash all the time.

    I would rather have low graphic 200v200 than high graphic 50v50

    I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.

  • Krendor23Krendor23 PHX, AZPosts: 4Member

    Originally posted by Dragim

    Originally posted by Lasastard

     

    There is a difference between converting some maps into something the crytec sandbox can render and changing the engine on which a game is running. The best we could hope for is face-lift using the Warhammer engine (which is, I believe, a somewhat advanced version of the DAoC one).

    Just imagine 200vs200 keep fights using the crytec engine... and now add exploding computers and melting gfx cards to that mental picture.

     I definetly agree with this.  I would prefer more "dated" graphics as people call them, than the best graphics available and having everyone crash all the time.

    I would rather have low graphic 200v200 than high graphic 50v50

     I didn't post the link to hint that his was a solution to updating the graphics in DAoC. Just thought some people might find the work he was doing interesting. 

    On that note, you are right. Although, 200 vs 200 fights would take down a DAoC server anyway. We managed that plenty of times in the early days of relic raids.

  • k2y2k4k2y2k4 Fayetteville, NCPosts: 40Member

    Definitely bring DAOC2 to the table.  I haven't found a game yet that parallels its complexities.  PvP, RvR, PvE, hell even crafting was difficult.  But it was all fun because of the sense of community.  Games since then have lost that. 

  • DojenDojen Atlantic City, NJPosts: 133Member

    Update the graphics, take out the stuuuupid mez spells, take out the mindless grinding, make the game unhackable (I left because of the hack and the mez spell), add some other creative things, and I'll play DAoC again.

    So, to repeat: No mindless grind, no mez spell that renders your character unplayable for 10 seconds (idiotic idea--like who wants to lose control of their character?) and a hack-proof client.

    Kapeesh, lol?

  • ScotScot UKPosts: 5,762Member Uncommon

    Tenebrion – “I would give both of my testicles for DAoC 2.”


     


    I would give my first born as well…hang on…that does not work. :)

  • noblotnoblot LondonPosts: 287Member

    Lets not forget the problems that DAoC had, and to large extent were overcome in WAR. Pretty much no instant death, limited stealth, crowd control that worked (in my option, certainly the Mez, stun, stun, didn't happen).

    Taking what is good with WAR and putting that into DAoC2 would really work. Mirror classes put pay to the "realm" balance arguement. However three realms is a must. I think city invasion could work, but not a "moving" battle front - that pretty much killed the "ruddy hibs own our tower, lets go get it back!" feeling. Tomb of Knowledge, quest system, public quests, and maps, all worked pretty well.

    To conclude, really what we want is a melding of the best bits of DAoC and WAR; now that would be a game worth a testicle or two (well someone elses testicle anyway, preferable a Hib!)

  • VargurVargur OsloPosts: 143Member

    I played DAoC from release up to the archer patch (not sure which number it was). That turned me finally off as Mythic dd something no one in the archer community wanted. We asked for apples, but were given rotten oranges. The consensus was that DAoC had turned into a test lab for WAR.

     

    Anyways, DAoC was my first MMO love, and will remain so. These days I play LotRO, but still wish for DAoC's combat system. The style system makes you pay attention during fights, unlike the 1-2-3-1-2-3 sequences I hit these days.

     

    I would love to play DAoC again, if they opened a new server with just the original content. The useful addition such as housing, mounts, etc. can be added later. One of the problems with the expansions were that they added stuff which made balancing impossible. A hunter and an Infiltrator may have tough close fights, but if one has Shades of Mist up, or some other artifact ability or RA like Purge/Ignore Pain (not Infil though), the fight is one-sided. The new classes also added many problems that were hard to solve. Animists in keeps come to mind.

     

    One of the big discussions revolve around CC. I would like to see changes, but not elimination. As a mid, it was a huge difference between running into a fight with the insta-CC up, or not. Reducing CC-timers would eliminate the need for Stoicm and other anti-CC solutions. Reduce mezzes to 15-20 seconds, enough for the mezzing side to have a slight advantage, but not enough to make the fight one-sided.

     

    Baseline, I would love to see DAOC 2, or a stripped version of DAoC, but the key is in the implementation.

  • DragimDragim Boring, KSPosts: 867Member

    Originally posted by Krendor23

    I didn't post the link to hint that his was a solution to updating the graphics in DAoC. Just thought some people might find the work he was doing interesting. 

    On that note, you are right. Although, 200 vs 200 fights would take down a DAoC server anyway. We managed that plenty of times in the early days of relic raids.

     Ah yes, the 200v200 definetly would crash the server.  I recall when the game first came out, we took about 200+ people (i was hibernia at the time) to raid a midgard keep.  No one was max level yet, I think the highest person was 35, but mainly everyone else was 25 and below.

    We got in, managed to get to the lord, but the server crashed before we could take him down.  Following that, many hibbies petitioned to mythic that we should get the keep, but sadly we did not.  (This was on Lancelot server btw)

    I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.

  • LasastardLasastard StockholmPosts: 604Member

    Originally posted by noblot

    Lets not forget the problems that DAoC had, and to large extent were overcome in WAR. Pretty much no instant death, limited stealth, crowd control that worked (in my option, certainly the Mez, stun, stun, didn't happen).

    Taking what is good with WAR and putting that into DAoC2 would really work. Mirror classes put pay to the "realm" balance arguement. However three realms is a must. I think city invasion could work, but not a "moving" battle front - that pretty much killed the "ruddy hibs own our tower, lets go get it back!" feeling. Tomb of Knowledge, quest system, public quests, and maps, all worked pretty well.

    To conclude, really what we want is a melding of the best bits of DAoC and WAR; now that would be a game worth a testicle or two (well someone elses testicle anyway, preferable a Hib!)

     

    I respectfull disagree. Mirroring classes is, well, lame... for a lack of a better word. Sure, there were issues with class balance, but much of the whining was either adressed or was just that, whining. If you get your ass kicked, it's easy to point fingers and say "because this class has this or that ability, it's overpowered!". Personally, I played all three realms (with and without setgroups) and the reality is that group or zerg balance was pretty ok, but player skill (and realm rank) factored in immensely. The class system was something that makes DAoC so unique, to this day.

    I do agree that WAR got some things right, but classes isn't one of them. And the whole debate on CC has been done a few pages back. If you surround yourself with half-way decent players, there was no problem with CC imho. There were enough ways to counteract it. And I found CC in DAoC much more tolerable than in WAR with all the silly knockbacks and whatnot.

  • Krendor23Krendor23 PHX, AZPosts: 4Member

    Originally posted by Lasastard

    Originally posted by noblot

    Lets not forget the problems that DAoC had, and to large extent were overcome in WAR. Pretty much no instant death, limited stealth, crowd control that worked (in my option, certainly the Mez, stun, stun, didn't happen).

    Taking what is good with WAR and putting that into DAoC2 would really work. Mirror classes put pay to the "realm" balance arguement. However three realms is a must. I think city invasion could work, but not a "moving" battle front - that pretty much killed the "ruddy hibs own our tower, lets go get it back!" feeling. Tomb of Knowledge, quest system, public quests, and maps, all worked pretty well.

    To conclude, really what we want is a melding of the best bits of DAoC and WAR; now that would be a game worth a testicle or two (well someone elses testicle anyway, preferable a Hib!)

     

    I respectfull disagree. Mirroring classes is, well, lame... for a lack of a better word. Sure, there were issues with class balance, but much of the whining was either adressed or was just that, whining. If you get your ass kicked, it's easy to point fingers and say "because this class has this or that ability, it's overpowered!". Personally, I played all three realms (with and without setgroups) and the reality is that group or zerg balance was pretty ok, but player skill (and realm rank) factored in immensely. The class system was something that makes DAoC so unique, to this day.

    I do agree that WAR got some things right, but classes isn't one of them. And the whole debate on CC has been done a few pages back. If you surround yourself with half-way decent players, there was no problem with CC imho. There were enough ways to counteract it. And I found CC in DAoC much more tolerable than in WAR with all the silly knockbacks and whatnot.

     I couldn't agree more, on both points.

     

    Mirroring classes is just awful, in my opinion. I played Mid for two years, then switched to Alb for two, and finally played Hib for a little less than a year.  When friends/family that I played with wanted to switch realms, it was exciting for me. Playing a whole new realm with completely different classes, all of which had vastly different abilities. Sure that can make balancing a little more interesting, but honestly WAR has no less complaining about some other classes abilities than DAoC did. And those classes are mirrored pretty closely, for crying out loud.

    Two of the things I liked least about WAR were the mirrored classes, and the complete lack of versatility of any classes in the game. Compared to DAoC, every class in WAR seemed boring and easy to master.

    The CC complaints in this thread really suprise me. My only guess is a lot of people weren't around when things were better. Perhaps there is a parallel with people that quit because of ToA, and people that have bad memories of CC. I felt that post-TOA, CC was pretty well balanced. Mez was good for initial position, and as an interrupt mostly.

  • cathal12cathal12 Greenville, SCPosts: 8Member

    Man, that is a bullseye at 20 miles. Great article and if it happens, i will probably go back.

     

    there are no innocentsimage

  • Gardavil2Gardavil2 Cedar Springs, MIPosts: 394Member


    Originally posted by Torak
    Totally disagree with the article. DAoC does NOT need a sequel, it needs a graphic / tech upgrade which is doable. Sequels have a HORRIBLE MMO track record
    Fans do not want a new game, they want the old game with improvements and upgrades. EVE and City of Heroes are perfect examples of this. That has been made clear so many times it's not funny, only the MMO nomads want brand new sequels so they can rip them to pieces.
    DAoC is made with Gamebryo engine, the newer versions of this engine have been used to make Fallout 3, Warhammer and Oblivion.
    A new game would be corrupted by todays market expectations and nothing good will come of it. 
     
    Upgrading DAoC would cost a fraction of a new title.
     
    MMOs and sequels just don't work out that well. In the end we will end up with a buffoon game like Warhammer.

    ALL MMOs are now corrupted by today's market expectations. This is the biggest disconnect (between INVESTORS and Players) of all, the one that has resulted in mediocre MMOs the last few years.

    I agree that what DAoC needs is a makeover... not a replacement. I seriously doubt EA is the megacorp to do it. I have never been convinced they know what they are doing with MMOs.

    As long as Investors control the MMO world instead of the Devs, I have no faith in any attempt to repolish and upgrade any of the old school MMOs. The Investors will ruin the end result.

    The worst thing to ever happen to MMOs was that Blizzard made a MMO that massively financially successful. Blizzards success brought in aa Army of Investor Suits that took over the MMO genre and MMOs I doubt will ever again be anything like what they once were or could have become.

    I am the Player that wonders... "What the %#*& just happened?!"
    ...............
    "I Believe... There should be NO financial connection or portals between the Real World and the Virtual in MMOs. "
    __Ever Present Cockroach of the MMO Verses__
    ...scurrying to and fro... .munching on bits of garbage... always under foot...

  • MacDeathMacDeath KvidingePosts: 21Member

    I have played DAoC since US Closed Beta.  I still play it but not the post ToA version.  I play classic DAoC with Old Frontiers, no SI, no ToA, no artifacts, no MLs or CLs.  Yep, its like stepping back into the DAoC of 2002.  Its hosted on the Uthgard shard of a free portal.

    If Mythic were to just run that version of DAoC they would have a LOT of players returning.  If they updated the graphics and UI, so much the better.

    MacDeath

  • SilakkaSilakka HalikkoPosts: 15Member

    Originally posted by Dragim

    Originally posted by Lasastard

     

    There is a difference between converting some maps into something the crytec sandbox can render and changing the engine on which a game is running. The best we could hope for is face-lift using the Warhammer engine (which is, I believe, a somewhat advanced version of the DAoC one).

    Just imagine 200vs200 keep fights using the crytec engine... and now add exploding computers and melting gfx cards to that mental picture.

     I definetly agree with this.  I would prefer more "dated" graphics as people call them, than the best graphics available and having everyone crash all the time.

    I would rather have low graphic 200v200 than high graphic 50v50

    It's not engine which kills your machine, it's graphics department :)

    Crysis can easily get same and even more fps than DAoC, and still manage to get dynamic lights.

    I'm waiting new Crysis so I can test if there is difference as this new engine might be even more optimized.

    I heard also rumor that WAR engine was tested by Mythic in DAoC environment, but only as 3D engine .. not really as real client.

    http://mharjula.blogspot.com/

    image

  • SynjynSynjyn LondonPosts: 25Member

    Also Daoc RVR had open combat with teams of 8 that roamed looking for fights, and almost a sub culture within known as stealth wars, which was great for those who liked to play a more solo/duo pvp - I played both and it was the best pvp I have ever experienced. Wow pvp is just meankingless to me, like the op said - I never remember the names of those I kill in Wow, but I can still remember those from Daoc after all these years.

  • -aLpHa--aLpHa- KrefeldPosts: 852Member

    Hell no, i look at this like the music industry, some things are Evergreens a 1 time hit that was kinda unexpected and everything after that is just plain shit. WAR showed that Mythic can't repeat it so just let it be, or let someone else try it.

  • locherbreadlocherbread cardendenPosts: 15Member

    Oh the fantastic memories Daoc brings back, It was my very first MMO and I had nothing but fond times.. Er I think I was one of the few that even enjoyed TOA, though I didn't like NF.

    Would welcome a Daoc 2 immensly, I made many friends playing it and all would come back for a second stint of Daoc action if fressh sequel was brought out :)

  • LasastardLasastard StockholmPosts: 604Member

    I'm actually not sure whether I want a DAoC 2 or a facelift for the current version. I think a DAoC 2 would allow them to re-invent the world and classes to make the game fresh again. I suspect that a mere graphics update wouldn't bring the game back to life for very long. Most players have been there and done that, so to speak. An 'origins' server may sound interesting, but since most old-timers have little to discover there, it would probably all come down to a race of which realm gets the most toons to 50 as soon as possible to dominate the frontiers. That could be fun for a while, but it wouldn't really bring back the game many of us remember.

  • WarspineWarspine MjölbyPosts: 105Member

    Just make the game! It's so obvious that it's a perfect thing to create.

    Realistic looking chain, plate, leather and cloths. The architecture from the different realms, the feel. Different music themes. Different classes for each realm. Keep everything that makes daoc , daoc.

    Just do it for crying out...

    Before someone else does. (With enough small changes to make it there own)

  • HersaintHersaint Oak, WIPosts: 366Member

    Count me in for DAOC2! I left a couple months after ToA. Loved the 3 realms - instant team. Loved the different realm abilities. Darkness Falls was a great addition to realm pride and RvR. Say No to Raiding. Say no to Stealthies 2 shotting heroes.

    image
  • MazudhtMazudht Fraser, MIPosts: 5Member

    You can count me in fr DAOC II also. I did almost five years in the original and still check the DAoC Herald in hopes of a population explosion.

    -=[ Maz ]=-

  • yabooeryabooer LA, CAPosts: 97Member

    I'd support a DAoC 2 but I know it would just slowly start getting turned into shit by the devs listening to the "QQ forum babies" saying it is too hard to level, or nerf that they beat me in 1v1. That was why older games were better they barely listened to the criers. They fixed bugs and progressed with the story through THEIR eyes.

     

    It would just turn into a WoW clone after 2 months of alpha/closed.

     

    Ruining the game once more, players complained about the grind from 40-50 but it really wasn't that terrible, It was very rough but when you got to the happiness of 50 you were satisfied and enjoyed the great game laid infront of you.

  • DritheDrithe salisbury, NCPosts: 53Member

      Ok.  About the PVE being too long to level.  YOU ARE WRONG!  DAOC was a MMORPG.  Remember?  When the game first come out and we leveled to 50 IT ACTUALLY MEANT SOMETHING TO DO IT!   Most people did NOT have buffbots back then so you had to LEVEL IN A GROUP.   The adventures I had meeting new peeps and killing mobs and getting cool drops was AWESOME.  Each time you leveled you felt like you EARNED IT,  not like it is now,  just an after thought for rvr.  Dark Age of Camelot was NEVER just about pvp early on.

      DAOC,  in the beginning,  was about a good balance of a fine PVE adventure coupled with good PVP/RVR.  But soon the kiddies only wanted rvr and it became the main focus.  No longer did alot of peeps want to get to level 50 again with another character because it took so long.  This sometimes hurt players looking for groups for pve because alot were rvring all the time.  But Mythic fixed that.  They added battlegrounds for every 10 levels so peeps could take a break from all that pveing and kick some buttox.  The only problem here was that the lower level BGs were, imo,  way to big.   The  level 10's through 30's should have been  1/4 of the size of the last BG at level 40.

      One more thing about pve.   Mythic did an OUTSTANDING JOB with the few people they had to provide pve content for all 3 realms,  at least in the beginning with Shrouded Isles,  arguably thier greatest and first expansion.   That expansion had HUGE CONTENT for 3 realms and each new land , races,  and classes,  were DIFFERENT.   Every expansion afterword got alot smaller each time but they still provided great content.

       I want to make one thing perfectly clear,  IF YOU DONT HAVE  GREAT PVE CONTENT THAT MAKES the leveling of your character IMPORTANT and you dont give peeps the journey to level thier characters with PURPOSE and ADVENTURE,  then DAOC 2 would be NOTHING MORE THAN A NICH PVP GAME.  Not many people will play that.  Period. See Warhammer.

        To make a good DAOC 2 you need to great expansions,  like Shrouded Isles,   realistic graphics and not cartoony crap like World of Warcraft,  the same basic 3 realm rvr system,   AND BAN THE USE OF BUFFS OUTSIDE OF A GROUP,

    then DAOC 2 would be succesful.  Make it simple yet fun and give us both great pve and pvp adventures.

      Charge only 9.99.

     And do away with Minstrels.  :)

     

    End of Line.

This discussion has been closed.