Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (
More info?)
>>><rob_berryh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>In article <ck2a51hqi51gafipsbl457kp15njafe...@4ax.com>,
>>>nostr...@spamfree.net.au says...
>>> Just out of interest Bob, how many months has it taken you to get
to 48 in
>>> EQ2 at how many hours per night/week on average would you say? Does
it hold
>>> anything of interest to a CoH lover entirely unimpressed with his
only 4
>>> hours of EQ1 trial experience? ;-)
>>If you did not like EQ1 and you love CoH, the odds are that you will
>>*HATE* EQ2. It's a 2nd job and requires a time commitment and
grouping.
>>Instead of CoH's mentality of one person can take on many MOBs, EQ2
is
>>many people take on 1 MOB. They are not bad games, but they are very
>>different in their approaches. Both have their merits and both have
>>their problems, but given your preferences above, I highly doubt that
>>you would like EQ2.
>I'm a CoH person who disliked EQ2, but for different reasons than you
>mention:
Well I play both COH and EQ2 and like them equally. They are different
games, which compliment each other. CoH is much more of a grouping
action game and EQ2 an in depth RPG. Both type of games I like.
>1. Groups on CoH tend to be a lot more fun. Groups in EQ2 CAN be fun,
>if you are doing non-quest, non-camp type stuff. Once you join a
>quest group, you see that the quest system encourages people to drop
>out of groups once they fill their quota. The problem is caused by
>the fact that people in EQ2 do not actually share goals, but have
>goals that may overlap. In CoH you are actually doing a mission from
>start to finish in order to get the bonus, so that means that people
>are encouraged by the system to stick with a group to accomplish that
>group goal. Most groups are either quest or grind, and grind groups
>are simply too repetitive and reminiscent of the worst parts of EQ1.
Have to agree with this. I play CoH for grouping and EQ2 for solo. I
hate camping groups with a passion! You might be still be pressing the
same old buttons but standing still pressing the same old buttons just
seems boring compared to running around pressing the same old buttons!
I think the reason why grouping works better in CoH is because you have
to group in CoH. My emp defender is hopeless alone. Takes forever to
kill a single mob. In EQ2 you can do both and there is content to do
both. People only seem to group to kill certain mobs, occasionally for
quests but mostly for grinding.
>2. In CoH, most people are there simply to have fun. Yes, there are
>the power gamers, and the power levellers and so on, but most don't
>have that overly serious attitude that tends to steal the life out of
>me. Part of it is the shared debt from deaths. Death is just a lot
>less serious in CoH than it is in EQ2, and that lends itself to rather
>unforgiving joyless people.
People play EQ2 mainly for fun too! Why else would they play it?
Personally I hate dieing in both games but I curse it more in CoH. This
is because it can take a lot longer to work off the debt. You also get
more debt per death as you go along in CoH compared to EQ2. So, at
higher levels dieing often can serious slow down the levelling. Not so
in EQ2.
The only real issue with dieing in EQ2 is if you soul shard ends up in
an unretrievable location. Then it's much worse then CoH.
>3. The combat system in EQ2, and in particular, the Heroic
>Opportunities, feels fairly tacked on as an afterthought. The
>affects are pretty arbitrary. The synchronicities of complimentary
>actions in CoH feels a lot more natural. I feel more like I'm playing
>Whackamole in EQ2, than actually fighting. In CoH, I feel not only
>like I'm fighting, but that I'm a superhero. The immersion factor in
>CoH isn't just in the graphics (like in EQ2) but in everything you do.
I disagree the HO in EQ2 are a great and adds strategy to the game,
especially in groups. The ability to chain attacks together for greater
effect is really good. In groups the possibility is amplified much
more.
Use you powers correctly in EQ2 can vastly increase your effeteness.
Just like in CoH really.
I would say the immersion is better in EQ2. The whole world is much
better realised and convinced. There doesn't seem to any real logic
behind the zones in CoH plus the quest can break the immersion. I.e.
how did they fit the huge base inside a small rock? The ability to
slide mission up and down breaks the feeling you are really a hero. As
does ignoring street crime because the mobs are grey. A real hero
won't do that.
I would say I feel no more a superhero in CoH then I do a mage in EQ2.
>4. The lag in EQ2, even in empty city zones, was absolutely
>horrendous.
You never played EU CoH, which had such bad lag we got 2 free days! Are
you sure you are not confusing lag with performance problems with some
NVIDIA cards EQ2 has. People often mislabel lag as performance
problems. What you are describing sound like know performance problems
to me. (Vermin Syne a no go area for me since the game grinds to a halt
eventually. Lucky to get 1fps after a while in there!!)
>5. I had some horrible experiences with the EQ2 customer service and
>technical support -- I've never had anything but GREAT experiences
>with that for CoH. As someone who has had to work professionally
>dealing with CS peopel from all different companies, NCSoft has some
>of the best CS peopel I've ever had to deal with. SOE ranks pretty
>low. I got ABSOUTELY no help (Zero, Zilch, Nada) when I reported
>bugs, got stuck, etc. except from fellow players. In CoH, I could
>report a broken mission, and get contacted in-game by a GM within 15
>minutes, whether it was prime-time or 3 AM.
Since I've had no reason to talk to other I can personally comment
but I admit I haven't heard anything good about SOE customer support.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram