Interested in Joining DoaC

[requester]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

Hello. I just now stumbled upon DoaC and I tried the trial and really
do like this game. So far it seem alot better and stable than Eq. I
noticed that this game has been out for a while and after doing
research it seem that this game was in fact better than EQ and has
been for a while. I heard the opposite when I was playing EQ and
always stay away from DoaC. I guess I was wrong. However I ask you
all is it worth the investment to play DoaC now that WoW is on the
verge of release? I ask this because from what Ive come across, WoW
is really getting good previews and beta players feedback.

I would like to know also what makes this game better than EQ? I dont
mean this as a flame but as a deciding factor.
Please any detail/comments are welcome.

Thanks you

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

In article <302a4d35.0411011324.27848138@posting.google.com>, Stush wrote:
> So you should probably try WoW and Catacombs and see which one you like
> better. You may be out some $$$, but if you plan to play for years, it's
> not that bad.

EQ2 is also coming out soon. It is *very* different from EQ1, and is best
treated as a totally new game, that happens to have the same world for its
story (but set 500 years after EQ1).

--
--Tim Smith

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<8eNhd.16988$ta5.8030@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> In article <302a4d35.0411011324.27848138@posting.google.com>, Stush wrote:
> > So you should probably try WoW and Catacombs and see which one you like
> > better. You may be out some $$$, but if you plan to play for years, it's
> > not that bad.
>
> EQ2 is also coming out soon. It is *very* different from EQ1, and is best
> treated as a totally new game, that happens to have the same world for its
> story (but set 500 years after EQ1).

Yeah EQ2 is shaping up to be a good next-generation EQ1, but in a few
areas it seems they want to repeat their mistakes from SWG (i.e.
refusal to recognize and drop stupid ideas--just because you're SOE
doesn't mean everything you come up will automatically be loved by
players).

EQ2 is not EQ1, but I still think you end up with the hard core PvE
games (EQ, EQ2) and the causual PvE/team PvP games (DAOC, WOW) at the
end of the day.

I wish there was a hard core pve game like EQ* with good team PvP like
DAOC. EQ2 claims it might go there, but that's years away if ever.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Stush wrote:

> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message news:<8eNhd.16988$ta5.8030@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
>> In article <302a4d35.0411011324.27848138@posting.google.com>, Stush wrote:
>>> So you should probably try WoW and Catacombs and see which one you like
>>> better. You may be out some $$$, but if you plan to play for years, it's
>>> not that bad.
>>
>> EQ2 is also coming out soon. It is *very* different from EQ1, and is best
>> treated as a totally new game, that happens to have the same world for its
>> story (but set 500 years after EQ1).
>
> Yeah EQ2 is shaping up to be a good next-generation EQ1, but in a few
> areas it seems they want to repeat their mistakes from SWG (i.e.
> refusal to recognize and drop stupid ideas--just because you're SOE
> doesn't mean everything you come up will automatically be loved by
> players).
>
> EQ2 is not EQ1, but I still think you end up with the hard core PvE
> games (EQ, EQ2) and the causual PvE/team PvP games (DAOC, WOW) at the
> end of the day.
>
> I wish there was a hard core pve game like EQ* with good team PvP like
> DAOC. EQ2 claims it might go there, but that's years away if ever.
>
Perhaps Guild Wars? From what little I've read of it, it seems to have
some potential. Certainly more than Imperitor.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

"David Hall" <davehall@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news😛ine.A41.4.61b.0411050915220.346514@homer08.u.washington.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Stush wrote:
> > I wish there was a hard core pve game like EQ* with good team PvP
like
> > DAOC. EQ2 claims it might go there, but that's years away if ever.
> >
> Perhaps Guild Wars? From what little I've read of it, it seems to
have
> some potential. Certainly more than Imperitor.

Guild Wars is not an MMO in the sense of DAoC or EQ- it's more along
the lines of a Diablo 2. All game content is instanced: For PVE, your
group of up to 6 will be the only people you encounter in the
adventure zone you choose. For PVP, you can select from 1v1, 4v4, or
8v8 "maps" and you cannot choose your opponents. It's a fun game but
it's not a direct competitor to the MMO market.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Gabriel wrote:

>
> "David Hall" <davehall@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news😛ine.A41.4.61b.0411050915220.346514@homer08.u.washington.edu...
>> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Stush wrote:
>>> I wish there was a hard core pve game like EQ* with good team PvP
> like
>>> DAOC. EQ2 claims it might go there, but that's years away if ever.
>>>
>> Perhaps Guild Wars? From what little I've read of it, it seems to
> have
>> some potential. Certainly more than Imperitor.
>
> Guild Wars is not an MMO in the sense of DAoC or EQ- it's more along
> the lines of a Diablo 2. All game content is instanced: For PVE, your
> group of up to 6 will be the only people you encounter in the
> adventure zone you choose. For PVP, you can select from 1v1, 4v4, or
> 8v8 "maps" and you cannot choose your opponents. It's a fun game but
> it's not a direct competitor to the MMO market.
>
>
All I know is that playing it this weekend (special free beta) was rather
enjoyable. Not as a replacement to DAoC, however. More as a change of
pace.

So, what will we call it, a LMORPG (Limited, rather than Massive)? <g>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

"David Hall" <davehall@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news😛ine.A41.4.61b.0411080846150.363796@homer05.u.washington.edu...
> On Sat, 6 Nov 2004, Gabriel wrote:
> > Guild Wars is not an MMO in the sense of DAoC or EQ- it's more
along
> > the lines of a Diablo 2. All game content is instanced: For PVE,
your
> > group of up to 6 will be the only people you encounter in the
> > adventure zone you choose. For PVP, you can select from 1v1, 4v4,
or
> > 8v8 "maps" and you cannot choose your opponents. It's a fun game
but
> > it's not a direct competitor to the MMO market.
> >
> >
> All I know is that playing it this weekend (special free beta) was
rather
> enjoyable. Not as a replacement to DAoC, however. More as a change
of
> pace.
>
> So, what will we call it, a LMORPG (Limited, rather than Massive)?
<g>

Arena.net is calling the game a "CORPG", with C standing for
Competitive. Works as well as anything else, I guess.

The fact that they're not going to charge a monthly fee positions them
very nicely for that change-of-pace market. With DAoC or other
traditional MMOGs, you're either actively playing or you're not
playing at all: if you're sending them $12-15 per month you feel
obligated to get your money's worth, and if you decide to stop playing
then you close your account altogether. With GW, though, you can play
as little as you want without worrying about wasting your
subscription.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.dark-age-of-camelot (More info?)

After a bit over 6 months of playing most nights, I can't say I have even
begin to scratched the surface of DAoC. The RvR is truely amazing, if
flustraiting at times.
Dispite what many say, there are load of new players, at least on the
popular servers, and the game is constantly improving IMHO.
Steve


"David Hall" <davehall@u.washington.edu> wrote in message
news😛ine.A41.4.61b.0411050915220.346514@homer08.u.washington.edu...
> On Wed, 3 Nov 2004, Stush wrote:
>
> > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:<8eNhd.16988$ta5.8030@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>...
> >> In article <302a4d35.0411011324.27848138@posting.google.com>, Stush
wrote:
> >>> So you should probably try WoW and Catacombs and see which one you
like
> >>> better. You may be out some $$$, but if you plan to play for years,
it's
> >>> not that bad.
> >>
> >> EQ2 is also coming out soon. It is *very* different from EQ1, and is
best
> >> treated as a totally new game, that happens to have the same world for
its
> >> story (but set 500 years after EQ1).
> >
> > Yeah EQ2 is shaping up to be a good next-generation EQ1, but in a few
> > areas it seems they want to repeat their mistakes from SWG (i.e.
> > refusal to recognize and drop stupid ideas--just because you're SOE
> > doesn't mean everything you come up will automatically be loved by
> > players).
> >
> > EQ2 is not EQ1, but I still think you end up with the hard core PvE
> > games (EQ, EQ2) and the causual PvE/team PvP games (DAOC, WOW) at the
> > end of the day.
> >
> > I wish there was a hard core pve game like EQ* with good team PvP like
> > DAOC. EQ2 claims it might go there, but that's years away if ever.
> >
> Perhaps Guild Wars? From what little I've read of it, it seems to have
> some potential. Certainly more than Imperitor.