ArcheAge, Ultima Online's rebirth?

Soldato
Joined
21 Jun 2005
Posts
9,135
What's your definition of easy mode? You can't assume everyone has the same definition. The time spent leveling? You'll be max level in 2 weeks if playing 8 hours a day. Leveling is secondary.

Once leveling is out of the way you can start to focus on pvp and taking territory and enjoy what the world has to offer

No you're right everyone has a different opinion, I was one of few people it seemed when Aion came out to think that was easy to level in. Leveling shouldn't be secondary, back in the day it was the most important thing and that is what I like about MMOs is leveling which is why I normally quit within a few weeks of playing them as I hit cap and get bored.

However I believe Arch Age will have it right, I'm hoping so.... I just think 2 weeks at 8 hours a day is far to quick to hit cap.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Posts
4,873
Ultimately F2P is a curse/blight upon MMORPG's and sadly doesnt seem to be going away. I just hope some companies still care about the players and want to churn out the content for us and not for the publishers share prices.

Endless WoW clones are the biggest blight on MMORPG's, it's no coincidence that the biggest success since WoW has been a game that was different, GW2.

For that reason I think AA will surprise a lot of people, although a lot depends on who will be publishing it. Any news on this yet?

I just think 2 weeks at 8 hours a day is far to quick to hit cap.

7 days /played for the 'casual' gamer is about right for levelling imo
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
Endless WoW clones are the biggest blight on MMORPG's, it's no coincidence that the biggest success since WoW has been a game that was different, GW2.

That is subject to HEAVY opinion.

GW2 player base halved within the first month and is now probably less then 1.5million.

Which is roughly the same amount as SWTOR.

Sales wise, i think SWTOR actually is the 2nd largest.

GW2 is far away from being a "success" in the MMO space, other then in its niche market.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jun 2005
Posts
9,135
Endless WoW clones are the biggest blight on MMORPG's, it's no coincidence that the biggest success since WoW has been a game that was different, GW2.

For that reason I think AA will surprise a lot of people, although a lot depends on who will be publishing it. Any news on this yet?



7 days /played for the 'casual' gamer is about right for levelling imo

Meh gone are the days of 5 hours for 1% /swt :( Think the highest I saw was 18 hours for 1% on a game I played -.-
 
Associate
Joined
20 Dec 2008
Posts
1,380
No you're right everyone has a different opinion, I was one of few people it seemed when Aion came out to think that was easy to level in. Leveling shouldn't be secondary, back in the day it was the most important thing and that is what I like about MMOs is leveling which is why I normally quit within a few weeks of playing them as I hit cap and get bored.

However I believe Arch Age will have it right, I'm hoping so.... I just think 2 weeks at 8 hours a day is far to quick to hit cap.

So what about MMOs that have no leveling? I just view AA as a game that has a leveling system but stuff to do afterwards.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Posts
4,873
That is subject to HEAVY opinion.

GW2 player base halved within the first month and is now probably less then 1.5million.

Which is roughly the same amount as SWTOR.

Sales wise, i think SWTOR actually is the 2nd largest.

GW2 is far away from being a "success" in the MMO space, other then in its niche market.

Concurrent user numbers had GW2 as the 2nd highest behind WoW. ToR has in no way shape or form 1.5 million subs, hell I don't think the even broke 2million box sales, a figure that GW2 hit in the 1st month, ToR sub numbers were at 1.3million in May last year less, than 500,000 subs now is my guess.

Edit - sub numbers are irrelevant for games without monthly subs!
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
21 Jun 2005
Posts
9,135
So what about MMOs that have no leveling? I just view AA as a game that has a leveling system but stuff to do afterwards.

As in games like the old UO and current DarkFall where you level skills etc? I like them as in theory you're always progressing. I think it's cheap of MMOs these days to trick people with grinding for gear rather than levels, it's really the same thing but people hate grinding levels but think nothing about grinding gear.

If there is stuff to do afterwards then I'm all for it don't get me wrong, I play literally every new MMO that comes out but don't feel any have got it right in a long time.
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Jun 2003
Posts
9,941
Location
Fraggle Rock
I'm completely the opposite - once a level grind stops I just move on to the next game, no interest in grinding for shiny virtual objects, slightly better than the ones I already have.

Like Agnes says, all down to personal opinion/preference.
 
Soldato
Joined
11 Oct 2008
Posts
3,834
Location
London
As in games like the old UO and current DarkFall where you level skills etc? I like them as in theory you're always progressing. I think it's cheap of MMOs these days to trick people with grinding for gear rather than levels, it's really the same thing but people hate grinding levels but think nothing about grinding gear.

If there is stuff to do afterwards then I'm all for it don't get me wrong, I play literally every new MMO that comes out but don't feel any have got it right in a long time.
Well this is the thing. UO had no quest line, not much of a tutorial (Occlo / Haven), you had to learn what the commands were (Vendor Buy the Bank Guards some new curtains), the skill grind was generally slow, and the original map was remarkably small - about 20 minutes to ride on horseback coast to coast.

Skill progression (even if it is slow) should be a byproduct of correctly carrying out that given activity, not just an arbitrary "I've killed 80 barbarians today for more skill points, that should be enough to unlock Level 3 Cooking!".
The grind in UO was pretty immense, especially things like Taming, so it took at least 6 months to get 7x GM. This is assuming you had sufficient gold in the first place to train these skills. After that, there was a whole world of trading and adventuring and housing and decorating and guilds and PvP...

I think the reason there hasn't been another UO is that parts of it were horribly designed. Specifically how items were handled, which meant that any item you found could be placed on the floor for all nearby players to see.
Can you imagine 100+ clients trying to render the 3D contents of a noob's backpack strewn across the floor outside of a bank in modern MMOs? Not to mention the artist's time to mesh and texture every item in the game...
 
Soldato
Joined
4 Mar 2003
Posts
12,453
Location
Chatteris
...it was actually even worse than that. A vast percentage of the items in UO all had separate database entries.
All the player crafted items had their own database entry as in theory no two crafts were the same.
The database was a major issue hence the "Clean up Britannia" that was run more than once in an attempt to cut down the number of in game items.

Still. Nothing has come close to UO in my opinion in the world of MMORPGs.
If someone uses a sword all day to kill stuff his skill in cooking should never be something that can be increased!
Down with levels and up with natural skill progression by using that skill in more and more difficult situations.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
Concurrent user numbers had GW2 as the 2nd highest behind WoW. ToR has in no way shape or form 1.5 million subs, hell I don't think the even broke 2million box sales, a figure that GW2 hit in the 1st month, ToR sub numbers were at 1.3million in May last year less, than 500,000 subs now is my guess.

Edit - sub numbers are irrelevant for games without monthly subs!

Until you provide proof, everything you have said it irrelevant.

HynCm.png

As you can see, ToR subs peaked around 1.6 - 1.8 million, that would make it more then GW2, considering you provide evidence behind your numbers.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Jan 2010
Posts
4,873
Until you provide proof, everything you have said it irrelevant.

Seems like I overestimated sub numbers for ToR last year(less than a million in July 2012: http://www.computerandvideogames.co...-republic-sinks-to-less-than-1m-subscribers/#

GW2 concurrent users (400k): http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/08/28/guild-wars-2-hits-400k-concurrent-users-before-launch/

ToR concurrent numbers (350k): http://www.videogamer.com/pc/star_w..._republic_has_350k_peak_concurrent_users.html

2 weeks into GW2 launch - over 2 million boxes: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/09/13/guild-wars-2-breaks-the-two-million-sales-mark/

3 months into ToR launch - approx 2 million: http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/0...bscription-and-sales-numbers-beats-financial/
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
25 Jul 2010
Posts
5,342
Location
A house
Seems like I overestimated sub numbers for ToR last year(less than a million in July 2012: http://www.computerandvideogames.co...-republic-sinks-to-less-than-1m-subscribers/#

So in this link we have an official EA statement, i'm guessing there is even less subscribers now.



Unofficial estimate by an Equity firm....:rolleyes:

You can't compare launch day figures with ToR's currant figures, compare GW2 figures as of now with ToR's now.

Comparing GW2 launch figures with a post 6 month TOR figures is ridiculous.


This i will gladly grant you ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom