AoC feels like a single-player RPG. It feels less massively-multiplayer than any mmorpg I've played.
i agree, i think it ought to be classified as a ORPG, or a MORPG, not a MMORPG.
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
Originally posted by dirtknap69 Originally posted by AlienShirt
AoC feels like a single-player RPG. It feels less massively-multiplayer than any mmorpg I've played.
i agree, i think it ought to be classified as a ORPG, or a MORPG, not a MMORPG.
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
nah there was a post from an ex-AoC developer on this forum (which was deleted for some reason) that said that AoC was heavily based on the old AO code, which used instances extensively. being a professional software developer for 10+ years i can easily see the truth of this.
instances and a highly instanced world are an integral part of AoC's design & infrastructure, and is very unlikely to change, because it would require a huge amount of re-design, and FC are currently struggling to add content & fix bugs fast enough to stop losing subscribers.
the instance cap size *could* change i think, but not for some years, when the gaming population all have substantially better PCs, and/or more powerful servers, but i can't see the increase being all that much anyway.
a limit of 48 players per instance, where every zone in the game is an instance, is not a MMORPG IMO, it's an ORPG...
Originally posted by dirtknap69 Originally posted by AlienShirt
AoC feels like a single-player RPG. It feels less massively-multiplayer than any mmorpg I've played.
i agree, i think it ought to be classified as a ORPG, or a MORPG, not a MMORPG.
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
nah there was a post from an ex-AoC developer on this forum (which was deleted for some reason) that said that AoC was heavily based on the old AO code, which used instances extensively. being a professional software developer for 10+ years i can easily see the truth of this.
instances and a highly instanced world are an integral part of AoC's design & infrastructure, and is very unlikely to change, because it would require a huge amount of re-design, and FC are currently struggling to add content & fix bugs fast enough to stop losing subscribers.
the instance cap size *could* change i think, but not for some years, when the gaming population all have substantially better PCs, and/or more powerful servers, but i can't see the increase being all that much anyway.
a limit of 48 players per instance, where every zone in the game is an instance, is not a MMORPG IMO, it's an ORPG...
Aye, I knew it was the AO engine the day I had to do '/cc addbuddy' to add a friend in beta. What I don't understand is why they couldnt do like they did in AO, where the world was open for large scale PvP (just optimized the code to lessen the lag) and leave dungeons and such to instances (not even single group instances, more like multiple group instances) Zoning would section off each area well enough to lower lag.
I think the real reason they went the way they did was because the engine + graphics quality + large groups of people = death of the server stability. So instead of going as open as possible, they went the CoH/GW multiple version way.
There are 3 types of people in the world. 1.) Those who make things happen 2.) Those who watch things happen 3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I agree completely, I was trying to play the game as an mmo and was just completely dissipointed with how weak and limited the experience was compared to other mmos. I started playing it like a single player game where it was just me (not a big stretch with the instancing) and the weaknesses didn't seem as pronounced, and I was able to get some enjoyment out of it. Albeit.. self deceptive enjoyment.
Unfortunately, by viewing the game in terms of single player I also lost the reason to pay a subscription fee, so when the content dried up at 45+ I cancelled. Luckily level progression was fast enough even playing casually that I got to do that before the free month went up.
However, even as a single player experience I don't think its on par with many other single player games in many areas. Most notably for me was, being an rpg fan Im used to my single player games lasting 30+ hours of playing time. AoC lasted about a week and a half of casual play, not sure how many hours that was total, im guessing about 20 total. I was also pretty underwhelmed by the destiny quest chain, some parts were better than others but I wasn't blown away by it. Voice acting didn't last past tortuga. And many quests were bugged and uncompletable.
But again, I still got enjoyment up until lvl 45, even if it was short lived.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence. Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
the other way it fails as an mmo is that its not what most people would call acceptably playable on anything much less than a pc that close to the recomended specs . these really should be the required specs in my view. dont let the flamers fool you saying how well it runs on thier 8800 gts 2 ghz ram pentiuim dc 3 ghz pc . it ll play but you will find it a frustrating experiance espeacially in the citys . ( whats the bets now someone tell me to turn off bloom , get the latest patch . turn off programs in the background , check for spyware , reduce the view distance , defragg twice a week etc etc ) . truth is these comments come form people who are just repeating parrot fashion what they see in other posts and dont actually know a lot more about computers than you do . conan does not play well on a mid range system .
You are totally wrong. This is not true at all. The game runs fantastic for me on a mid range system. this is my rig. AMD athalon duel core 6000+ 3ghz, 3gigs ram, vista 32 bit, geforce 8800 gt oc i play at 1920x1080 rez on a 36 inch aquos monitor. Hardly a top system. It is a good system but far from a top gaming rig. I would call it a mid range system in todays market. I have most graphic set to high with a few things at a medium setting. In cities like old tarantia I get 28 to 35 fps out in the wild I get 45 to 60 fps and in instances I get up to 90 fps.This is pretty good performance and here is a screen shot of my game play settings. Looks pretty damn good to me and performs very well. I am not trying to fool anyone these are the facts of my rig and AoC performance. Plays better and looks better then LoTRO. This is not the best screenshot I have either just a quickshot that was early on and at a bit lower settings then I play. So my game play graphics are even better then this shot and have the fps listed above.
yeah, they already had an instance-based infrastructure, which they decided to keep & use as a basis to go crazy on polygon count/textures/shaders.
put another way, they prioritised graphics over gameplay, which some may like, but not me..
They prioritised graphics over gameplay how exactly? They prioritised graphic and used instancing. The gameplay is fantastic. Instances is not a play issue it is a design decision. you may not like that but they did not sacrifice gameplay as you put it. game play is great. Most fun combat I have had in any MMO.
The thing in this post that I tend to agree with the most is the title "Age of Conan succeeds as a game but fails as an MMO". I think "fails" as an MMO is a bit too harsh, but the parts I have played don't do as much as they could to encourage people to group.
The quest chains, in many cases work AGAINST you finding a group, because if the other people aren't at the same point in the chain, you can't share. The instancing for me, is only a problem when I do form a group and all 6 people are in 4 or 5 different instances...it can get confusing because the instance markers don't always show correctly.
I am still having a great time in AoC and will stay as long as my fun level is higher than my frustration level.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a fish a man and he will eat for a month!
In your opinion. The truth is FC have stated continually that the game will not be for everyone, what game is? Out of my friends that play some love some don't. I don't personally mind the instancing as a necassary evil. But it's in no way BAD game design, it's a game design choice. You have already highlighted the technical limitations which then only leaves 2 choices. 1- What we have. 2- A Conan themed WoW (launch WoW, with the emense downtimes, 2 hour ques, crazy lag, etc). No alternat combat nothing which makes AoC different from WoW so why bother. If they made another clone you'd be here complaining about that.
They made a necassary different game design choice, that doesn't make it bad, not imo. I can meet new people as and when and group and adventure with them, I can have all the features you'd expect in a new mmo with extra added. What I lose is everyone single person on my server in the same zone being on my screen, well I can live with that if it's the sacrifice that's needed to be made.
Edit: What is unacceptable and is not necassary is the tremendously poor customer service they have. It's ok to make the excuse that they weren't expecting to be so popular but the truth is it's somebodies sole purpose in the company to account for these things and they have failed missurably. They should have been employing more cs staff prior to launch not now, it's way too late.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
100% agree with OP.. AoC is not a bad game.. but it's not MMO by any means. Instancing, zoning, invisible walls.. it's immersion breaker for me. I really think this should be just console only "MMO".. It would be much more acceptable than...
I am not hater of instancing.. I like instancing when is used smart..but Instancing can be overdone... AoC is good example of this.
They prioritised graphics over gameplay how exactly? They prioritised graphic and used instancing. The gameplay is fantastic. Instances is not a play issue it is a design decision. you may not like that but they did not sacrifice gameplay as you put it. game play is great. Most fun combat I have had in any MMO.
limit of 48 players in any 'regular' game instance (not counting 'hub' instances) so it's not a 'massively multiplayer' ORPG at all, it's a 48-player ORPG.
heavy use of instancing / invisible walls / restricted pathing/climbing etc == gameplay limitations.
other things like mail, banks, traders not working at launch, lots of other little character & terrain bugs, attacks not being true real-time (they are like melee-based spells), monster spawns being totally static & AI still being dead stupid.
all these are also gameplay limitations in the sense that they could have been added to the game if they had not focused so much on HYPE and graphics bling.
Originally posted by dirtknap69 Originally posted by AlienShirt
AoC feels like a single-player RPG. It feels less massively-multiplayer than any mmorpg I've played.
i agree, i think it ought to be classified as a ORPG, or a MORPG, not a MMORPG.
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
nah there was a post from an ex-AoC developer on this forum (which was deleted for some reason) that said that AoC was heavily based on the old AO code, which used instances extensively. being a professional software developer for 10+ years i can easily see the truth of this.
The flaw in this logic is that AO's zones weren't instanced, only it's missions and dungeons. It is well known that AoC's engine is based on AO's, but I think the use of instancing in each zone is more to keep system requirements down instead of because the engine somehow is incapable of not doing this. I mean after all Anarchy Online has 2 servers, and they were much the same as Eve's server. Able to hold a great many players at once. So it simply isn't true that this engine just isn't capable of having more then 48 people per zone.
As to the cap, I'm sure it will be increased, and I agree wtih the above poster that the cap is that low more for a 'better safe then sorry' feature then a game engine limitation.
Comments
AoC feels like a single-player RPG. It feels less massively-multiplayer than any mmorpg I've played.
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
nah there was a post from an ex-AoC developer on this forum (which was deleted for some reason) that said that AoC was heavily based on the old AO code, which used instances extensively. being a professional software developer for 10+ years i can easily see the truth of this.
instances and a highly instanced world are an integral part of AoC's design & infrastructure, and is very unlikely to change, because it would require a huge amount of re-design, and FC are currently struggling to add content & fix bugs fast enough to stop losing subscribers.
the instance cap size *could* change i think, but not for some years, when the gaming population all have substantially better PCs, and/or more powerful servers, but i can't see the increase being all that much anyway.
a limit of 48 players per instance, where every zone in the game is an instance, is not a MMORPG IMO, it's an ORPG...
whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
nah there was a post from an ex-AoC developer on this forum (which was deleted for some reason) that said that AoC was heavily based on the old AO code, which used instances extensively. being a professional software developer for 10+ years i can easily see the truth of this.
instances and a highly instanced world are an integral part of AoC's design & infrastructure, and is very unlikely to change, because it would require a huge amount of re-design, and FC are currently struggling to add content & fix bugs fast enough to stop losing subscribers.
the instance cap size *could* change i think, but not for some years, when the gaming population all have substantially better PCs, and/or more powerful servers, but i can't see the increase being all that much anyway.
a limit of 48 players per instance, where every zone in the game is an instance, is not a MMORPG IMO, it's an ORPG...
Aye, I knew it was the AO engine the day I had to do '/cc addbuddy' to add a friend in beta. What I don't understand is why they couldnt do like they did in AO, where the world was open for large scale PvP (just optimized the code to lessen the lag) and leave dungeons and such to instances (not even single group instances, more like multiple group instances) Zoning would section off each area well enough to lower lag.I think the real reason they went the way they did was because the engine + graphics quality + large groups of people = death of the server stability. So instead of going as open as possible, they went the CoH/GW multiple version way.
There are 3 types of people in the world.
1.) Those who make things happen
2.) Those who watch things happen
3.) And those who wonder "What the %#*& just happened?!"
I agree completely, I was trying to play the game as an mmo and was just completely dissipointed with how weak and limited the experience was compared to other mmos. I started playing it like a single player game where it was just me (not a big stretch with the instancing) and the weaknesses didn't seem as pronounced, and I was able to get some enjoyment out of it. Albeit.. self deceptive enjoyment.
Unfortunately, by viewing the game in terms of single player I also lost the reason to pay a subscription fee, so when the content dried up at 45+ I cancelled. Luckily level progression was fast enough even playing casually that I got to do that before the free month went up.
However, even as a single player experience I don't think its on par with many other single player games in many areas. Most notably for me was, being an rpg fan Im used to my single player games lasting 30+ hours of playing time. AoC lasted about a week and a half of casual play, not sure how many hours that was total, im guessing about 20 total. I was also pretty underwhelmed by the destiny quest chain, some parts were better than others but I wasn't blown away by it. Voice acting didn't last past tortuga. And many quests were bugged and uncompletable.
But again, I still got enjoyment up until lvl 45, even if it was short lived.
Waiting for: A skill-based MMO with Freedom and Consequence.
Woe to thee, the pierce-ed.
yeah, they already had an instance-based infrastructure, which they decided to keep & use as a basis to go crazy on polygon count/textures/shaders.
put another way, they prioritised graphics over gameplay, which some may like, but not me..
They prioritised graphics over gameplay how exactly? They prioritised graphic and used instancing. The gameplay is fantastic. Instances is not a play issue it is a design decision. you may not like that but they did not sacrifice gameplay as you put it. game play is great. Most fun combat I have had in any MMO.
The thing in this post that I tend to agree with the most is the title "Age of Conan succeeds as a game but fails as an MMO". I think "fails" as an MMO is a bit too harsh, but the parts I have played don't do as much as they could to encourage people to group.
The quest chains, in many cases work AGAINST you finding a group, because if the other people aren't at the same point in the chain, you can't share. The instancing for me, is only a problem when I do form a group and all 6 people are in 4 or 5 different instances...it can get confusing because the instance markers don't always show correctly.
I am still having a great time in AoC and will stay as long as my fun level is higher than my frustration level.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Give a fish a man and he will eat for a month!
In your opinion. The truth is FC have stated continually that the game will not be for everyone, what game is? Out of my friends that play some love some don't. I don't personally mind the instancing as a necassary evil. But it's in no way BAD game design, it's a game design choice. You have already highlighted the technical limitations which then only leaves 2 choices. 1- What we have. 2- A Conan themed WoW (launch WoW, with the emense downtimes, 2 hour ques, crazy lag, etc). No alternat combat nothing which makes AoC different from WoW so why bother. If they made another clone you'd be here complaining about that.
They made a necassary different game design choice, that doesn't make it bad, not imo. I can meet new people as and when and group and adventure with them, I can have all the features you'd expect in a new mmo with extra added. What I lose is everyone single person on my server in the same zone being on my screen, well I can live with that if it's the sacrifice that's needed to be made.
Edit: What is unacceptable and is not necassary is the tremendously poor customer service they have. It's ok to make the excuse that they weren't expecting to be so popular but the truth is it's somebodies sole purpose in the company to account for these things and they have failed missurably. They should have been employing more cs staff prior to launch not now, it's way too late.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I am not hater of instancing.. I like instancing when is used smart..but Instancing can be overdone... AoC is good example of this.
heavy use of instancing / invisible walls / restricted pathing/climbing etc == gameplay limitations.
other things like mail, banks, traders not working at launch, lots of other little character & terrain bugs, attacks not being true real-time (they are like melee-based spells), monster spawns being totally static & AI still being dead stupid.
all these are also gameplay limitations in the sense that they could have been added to the game if they had not focused so much on HYPE and graphics bling.
you get the idea...
i agree, i think it ought to be classified as a ORPG, or a MORPG, not a MMORPG.whoever decided to make every part of the AoC game world an instance and then to give all those instances population caps should be fired.
Maybe they will tone down the caps and instance variations after the game settles down. Something tells me it was more of a 'better safe than sorry' feature added to ensure server stability for the first few months. Then again I havent played since beta, and I really dont recall the multiple area instances (zoining yes, multiple copies no).
nah there was a post from an ex-AoC developer on this forum (which was deleted for some reason) that said that AoC was heavily based on the old AO code, which used instances extensively. being a professional software developer for 10+ years i can easily see the truth of this.
The flaw in this logic is that AO's zones weren't instanced, only it's missions and dungeons. It is well known that AoC's engine is based on AO's, but I think the use of instancing in each zone is more to keep system requirements down instead of because the engine somehow is incapable of not doing this. I mean after all Anarchy Online has 2 servers, and they were much the same as Eve's server. Able to hold a great many players at once. So it simply isn't true that this engine just isn't capable of having more then 48 people per zone.
As to the cap, I'm sure it will be increased, and I agree wtih the above poster that the cap is that low more for a 'better safe then sorry' feature then a game engine limitation.