Is DAOC really THAT good?

10 views
Skip to first unread message

Ethan Buist

unread,
Nov 14, 2001, 11:04:12 PM11/14/01
to
I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
come back? Just curious..
Thanks
Jorealian Moonbrook
Ranger 35th Season
Innoruuk

Shane Bole

unread,
Nov 14, 2001, 11:42:02 PM11/14/01
to
recommend you switch? thats not a fair question, the DAoC people will say
yes, EQ fanatics will say no, people inbetween will tell you a few ups and
downs of boths, but wont give you a definate answer...
best thing you can do is try it out yourself and see if you like it

--

AFK [55 Enchanter] Fabno Licious (Erudite)


"Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote in message
news:Q8HI7.123989$Lg.61...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com...

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:04:02 AM11/15/01
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote:

|I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
|because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
|with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
|switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
|leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
|come back? Just curious..

DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably like it more
than EQ. If you do not, you won't.


Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"It's better some times if we don't get to touch our dreams."
-- Harry Chapin

Mark Martin

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 2:36:59 AM11/15/01
to
Ah. Thank you!

Another UO I would not be into... A bunch of assassins running around
murdering and then figuring out how to revert to 'normal' faction so they
can go to town? Yuck.

Thanks again for the info.

"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:prm6vt8vt77p22e3v...@4ax.com...

Sensei

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 3:05:41 AM11/15/01
to
Well, it's not a PK-fest if that's what you're hinting at. It's a very very
controlled PvP environment. There are only certain areas that you can fight
other players in and you can't fight the people on your side. The problem
with the game is that it has about 2 weeks to a month worth of content and
that's it. You'll be bored in no time. I know I was.

Sensei


"Mark Martin" <marke...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:vgKI7.626$y9.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Tootsweete Bladesong

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 3:27:48 AM11/15/01
to
Actually the type of PVP they have in DAoC is not anything like PVP in
UO---in DAoC, you fight against other realms...and only if you venture into
the frontier areas. If you are not into PVP (like myself), you don't go
into the frontier.

As for which is better? That I cannot say, you would have to find out on
your own. I still play Realm, Ultima Online, Everquest, and Asherons
Call----although I play more of EQ, DAoC, and AC than the other two. I find
there are things I like in all the games....as well as things I do not like.
I also still play Diablo2 but usually in private games as again, I do not
like pvp. No, I am not a power leveler. Although I have played most of
these games a long time, I do not have really high chars in any of them:
lvl 523 in Realm, lvl 45 and 50 in EQ, several lvl 30+ in Diablo2, lvl 35
sin AC, a admirable master swordswoman in UO, and a lowly almost lvl 10 in
DAoC. But I have fun, and many friends in all these games.
Luckily, I don't have to decide on playing only one.

Most games you have a free month before your subscription payment
starts.....take advantage of it to try it and see if it is something you are
interested in.

Tootsweete,
life impaired, directionally challenged
Ranger of the 45th season, Karana


R Bee

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 3:40:14 AM11/15/01
to
Hy.
Unfortunately the person who answered has either never played DAoC or sees
it with a weird angle.
DAoC is NOT PvP. It's RvR. what's the difference you'll ask ? Not a single
person in your own realm (Hybernia, Midgard or Albion) can attack you. You
cant even attack your trainer ! (memory of my first day in Eq). Can you do
PvP if you like ? yes ... in confronting other realms on specific areas
called Frontiers. You can hold some of their castles too, and do Siege type
war. Do you have to do PvP if you dont like it ? NO. My wife and i are about
to reach lvl 13 without ever encountering a single ennemy in Midgard. And
dungeons and zones in Midgard alone can take us to lvl 50 without having to
play in the Frontiers. RvR brings a whole new lvl to the game (keep in mind
that we don't loose exp in RvR battles, and that you DONT have to do
recovery on your corpse whatsoever. If you die, you reappear in a bind
point -everyone can bind btw- with all your equipment).
Now, my opinion about DAoC. I do prefer it compared to Eq. Nothing really to
rant about Verant or EQ. After a year and a half ... and many sides we came
to not like about it.. we decided to try DAoC. So far we feel it is superior
to Eq (comparing whats comparable... the size of the world of EQ seems quite
superior yet .. but with soon 3 expansions). Not everyone thinks so. So my
guess is you should try it IF you feel like trying another game . You have,
just as for Eq, one month free. But if you are really happy in Eq, and
giving the amount of time one has to invest in a MMORPG, stick to it )

Elandyll, retired 34th Ranger / Mystyx, retired 36th SK / Rhiss retired 27th
Nec
Berenyr 12th Berserker on Igraine, Delenor 5th theurgist on Tristan

Mark Martin <marke...@adelphia.net> a écrit dans le message :
vgKI7.626$y9.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...

Tukka Yoot

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 2:43:48 AM11/15/01
to
> Ah. Thank you!
>
> Another UO I would not be into... A bunch of assassins running around
> murdering and then figuring out how to revert to 'normal' faction so they
> can go to town? Yuck.
>
> Thanks again for the info.

I know next to nothing about DAoC, but don't dismiss all PvP games because
the way one game you've played in the past poorly handled PvP. :) That
would be like giving up RPGs in general because the first one you ever
played was lousy.

The idea of PvP itself doesn't turn me off, but if a game isn't designed
for PvP and the ruleset is particularly open to abuse, it can be a recipe
for disaster.


Just Jekke

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 4:06:41 AM11/15/01
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net>
wrote:

>I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not


>because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
>come back? Just curious..

DAOC has the advantage of being new, but I already see people
filtering back. Many of the things people hate about EQ are present in
DAOC and, while they have improved on EQ in some areas, I don't doubt
that it will have new problems uniquely its own.

--Jekke
=====================
Playing on Torvonilous
Qiin Dred (Iksar Necromancer, 54)
Moulin Khmer (Dark Elf Rogue, 42)
Sheava Ebonrezzor (Dark Elf Cleric, 29)
Greebeux Goodkitty (Iksar Warrior, 27)

Darren Chriest

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 11:19:28 AM11/15/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:

> DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably like it more
> than EQ. If you do not, you won't.

DAoC is not "dedicated to PvP". For the first 15 levels or so it's player
vs. environment mostly and after that you can participate in realm vs. realm
play. You can still play vs. the NPCs though (which I suspect will still be
most of the game).

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 11:29:12 AM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:48 -0500, "Tukka Yoot" <tu...@atlantic.net> wrote:

| The idea of PvP itself doesn't turn me off, but if a game isn't designed
|for PvP and the ruleset is particularly open to abuse, it can be a recipe
|for disaster.

The idea of PvP should turn you off.

It doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because the players don't
want it to work. The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 11:32:04 AM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:40:14 +0100, "R Bee" <iec...@club-internet.fr> wrote:

|Hy.
|Unfortunately the person who answered has either never played DAoC or sees
|it with a weird angle.
|DAoC is NOT PvP. It's RvR. what's the difference you'll ask ?

None whatsoever.

The game is dedicated to PvP. PvP is the endgame. The entire system is
designed around preparing players for PvP.

Just read the company's website.

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 11:34:11 AM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:19:28 GMT, Darren Chriest <dchriest!NOSPAM!@home.com>
wrote:

The PvE portion of the game exists for no reason other than to level up
PCs for PvP play. The company's own website makes this clear.

JIMWATKINS99

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 12:12:37 PM11/15/01
to
I tried DaoC and I'm coming back to EQ. There is so much wrong with EQ that I
just couldn't take it so I gave DaoC a shot. First couple of days are new and
exciting as usual, but it quickly wears out and you realize there isn't much to
the game at all. It is, as people before have stated, all geared up for the
big RvR, unfortunately RvR sucks, at least in my opinion. They recently had to
nerf archers because they were overpowered and you could zone into the frontier
area where RvR is allowed and be dead in one shot from the groups of archers
that were camping the entrance. If you were fortunate enough to get yourself
into the epic type battle that I had envisioned for the game, the lag is so bad
it can take you ten seconds just to get your character to turn so that blows
that. All in all I think DaoC tried to do some things to improve upon what EQ
has done and some have succeeded. When you get to the bottom of it though,
there isn't much content leading up to RvR and RvR has been a major
dissapointment.

Jeremy Music

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 12:40:51 PM11/15/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote:
>
>|I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>|because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>|with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>|switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>|leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
>|come back? Just curious..
>
> DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably like it more
>than EQ. If you do not, you won't.

Misleading. DAoC is a PvE game _until_ you fight against another realm.
There is no PK within a single realm. That guy at the shop next to you
isn't going to kill you the moment you leave town. When you do fight
against another realm, it's very like fighting mobs with very good AI. DAoC
really did a pretty good job on the PvP aspects of the game.

One downside, the wars between the realms are _the_ "endgame" fights. I
think they will change this eventually as they realize that sometimes people
want to go fight a dragon or some hermit wizard of awe inspiring power
rather than just fighting an army quite similar to the one they belong to.

Or perhaps not. Maybe that's my EQ-bias showing through.

J
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
re...@lords.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

ShadowSpawn

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:15:47 PM11/15/01
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Ethan Buist wrote:

> I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
> because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any
> problems with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC?

/em raises hand

Just started last Fri.

> Would you recommend the switch?

Try it yourself - that's the only way you're going to get an honest
answer. No one can determine it's worth for you - you'll have to judge it
yourself.

> I've made are leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and
> expect that they will come back?

This is not meant to start or participate in a "which game is better" war,
I can only answer your question with my initial gut reaction to the game:

Your friends are not going to be going back to EQ.

--
The Web Master's Net
http://www.thewebmasters.net/
"I love the way Microsoft follows standards.
In much the same manner that fish follow migrating caribou."
-- Paul Tomblin, ASR

ShadowSpawn

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:16:45 PM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote:
>
> |I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
> |because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
> |with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
> |switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
> |leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
> |come back? Just curious..
>
> DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably
> like it more than EQ. If you do not, you won't.

A slight clarification - PvP is totally and completely optional. You don't
HAVE to go out and fight the invaders, but from initial reports it's a
whoot.

ShadowSpawn

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:22:01 PM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:48 -0500, "Tukka Yoot" <tu...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>
> | The idea of PvP itself doesn't turn me off, but if a game isn't designed
> |for PvP and the ruleset is particularly open to abuse, it can be a recipe
> |for disaster.
>
> The idea of PvP should turn you off.
>
> It doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because the players don't
> want it to work. The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
> opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
> ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.

Dennis, a word of advice. Don't comment about something when it's
painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. You are
basing your opinion on PvP as you've experienced it in other games - as
such, your comments are relevant. Unfortunately, you obviously haven't got
clue one how DAoC is handling it.

Hint: It's so unlike traditional PvP it's actually very fun.

J. Manz

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:26:54 PM11/15/01
to

/agree Sensei...my husband likes the game, but seems to be running low on
stuff to do already and he's only level 15. I played until level 10 and got
bored. I prefer EQ. I just got the first time billing and its $12.95 US
just so everyone knows, I wasn't sure how much it was going to be. We
figured the same as EQ but it is a little more expensive. The look of DAoC
is nice, but I'm not giving up EQ.

My 2cp worth.

Naduah

"Sensei" <sen...@ve3d.com> wrote in message
news:pHKI7.22159$uO.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...

Annie M. Benson-Lennaman

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:27:05 PM11/15/01
to

Shane Bole wrote:
>
> recommend you switch? thats not a fair question, the DAoC people will say
> yes, EQ fanatics will say no, people inbetween will tell you a few ups and
> downs of boths, but wont give you a definate answer...
> best thing you can do is try it out yourself and see if you like it

A fair answer, to be sure, but not the
one that I would give. Ethan sounds pretty
content with EQ, and in fact says that he
doesn't want to switch. My advice is to not
switch then, or even try it out. Why spend
the money when you're already happy with the
game you've got? It's not like there's suddenly
as shortage of people on EQ to make friends with.
Now, if you're starting to get burned out on
EQ, then a trial run to DAoC makes sense to me.

Annie <--- Barely has enough time to play all
of her active EQ characters

--
Living in the universe known as Drinal

Teashot -- Wood Elf Ranger of 26 journeys.
Tealeef -- Barbarian Shaman of 24 seasons.
Teabomb -- Gnome Wizard of 15 blasts.
Teacure -- Halfling Cleric of 14 doses.
Teaword -- Dark Elf Magician of 10 summonings.
Teacast -- High Elf Enchanter of 8 circles.

Adventuring on The Seventh Hammer
Teadead -- Gnome Necromancer of 4 bereavements.

And in Firiona Vie
Tearuin -- Dark Elf Wizard of 7 blasts.


------
My email has been sabotaged. If you
can't figure out the fake part,
you're not supposed to write me.

David Jacobitz

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:32:27 PM11/15/01
to
"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
news:enr7vtkq7lnfqkf8m...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:19:28 GMT, Darren Chriest
<dchriest!NOSPAM!@home.com>
> wrote:
>
> |Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:
> |
> |> DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably
like it more
> |> than EQ. If you do not, you won't.
> |
> | DAoC is not "dedicated to PvP". For the first 15 levels or so it's
player
> |vs. environment mostly and after that you can participate in realm vs.
realm
> |play. You can still play vs. the NPCs though (which I suspect will still
be
> |most of the game).
>
> The PvE portion of the game exists for no reason other than to level up
> PCs for PvP play. The company's own website makes this clear.

Mind quoting the relevant section(s)? I haven't even tried RvR yet, but
the PvE portion has been slightly less annoying than EQ for me. I'm not
sure it's necessarily *fun*, mind you, as the leveling treadmill is
essentially the same, but at least the downtime is less, and you can
effectively solo if you feel like it.
However, I did play the Mythic game Spellbinder, which was basically
Unreal Tournament with crappy graphics, all spellcasters and character
advancement. It was pretty fun, though, and since it appears some of DAoC
is cribbed from Spellbinder, I expect RvR will be ok too. PvP death is
largely without penalty (no item loss, no xp loss), and it's consensual, as
it's area-based, so the comments about it being "another UO" are not quite
right.
Anyway, I'm sticking with both for now, although it remains to be seen if
DAoC will be worth 12.95 a month. I was about to cancel my EQ account,
actually, but that was the day they introduced the "play as a monster" thing
on Test, which was amusing enough to rekindle some interest.

-Dave

Ben Sisson

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:34:08 PM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:15:47 GMT, ShadowSpawn
<j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> (if that IS his real name)
disgorged:

>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001, Ethan Buist wrote:
>
>> I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>> because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any
>> problems with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC?
>
>/em raises hand
>
>Just started last Fri.
>
>> Would you recommend the switch?
>
>

>Your friends are not going to be going back to EQ.

Funny you should say that. Every single person I know, whether they
play EQ or AC or nothing, has now quit DAoC. It just doesn't have the
depth, the longevity, or the fun factor unless you are the sort of
person who likes PvP with skill not being a factor.


---

Ben Sisson

"It takes more than 9 Yanks to Beat our Johnson"

-a fan banner during the World Series

Dan Harmon

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 1:45:26 PM11/15/01
to

"Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote in message
news:Q8HI7.123989$Lg.61...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com...
> I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
> because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
> with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
> switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
> leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they
will
> come back? Just curious..

It really really depends on what you like and dislike about EQ.

- If the graphics aren't nice enough, go with DAOC. They're not that much
better, but they ARE better.

- If you HATE inane zone-wide chatter, go with DAOC...it's as quiet as a
funeral parlor.

- If you can find nothing to do during down time in EQ, PROBABLY go to DAOC.
I'm playing both. My highest is a level 16 spell caster. If I'm OOM and
soloing it still takes a couple minutes to med up.

It's not nearly as immersive as EQ. The more I play DAOC the more I truly
realize how much more work went into creating EQ. How much more heart.
DAOC strikes me as a cookie-cutter game...like they bought The Realm and
made it better. :) The basic premise is interesting (defending your home
land) but there's really no point to it beyond PvP fun (if you're into
that), as far as I can tell. You can play from level 1 - 50 without doing
PvP, but they have already said they're going to penalize you if you don't,
by not giving you the same opportunities as those who do. The basic premise
behind THAT comment is solid...your role in life is to defend your home
land...if you don't, you don't deserve certain things...but it doesn't
really sit that well with some anti-PvP people.

Don't get me wrong, DAOC is a decent enough game. I'm not going to
recommend you don't buy it. I figure I'll probably be playing it for
another month or two at least.


Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 5:37:59 PM11/15/01
to
"Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote in
news:Q8HI7.123989$Lg.61...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com:

It's a hard call - I played EQ for 2 1/2 years and was reaching
a point of terminal burnout. I really don't enjoy the 50+ game
much, but still like the mid levels.

DAoC is a lot of fun, and I'm having a great time, I'm not sure
I'll even try Luclin now.

It won't hurt to wait and see if they come back. If you decide
to try DAoC, catching up to your friends will be easy. Grouping
is designed to allow players with less time to stay fairly close
to their friends with more time.

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 5:41:51 PM11/15/01
to
"Mark Martin" <marke...@adelphia.net> wrote in
news:vgKI7.626$y9.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net:

> Ah. Thank you!
>
> Another UO I would not be into... A bunch of assassins running around
> murdering and then figuring out how to revert to 'normal' faction so
> they can go to town? Yuck.
>
> Thanks again for the info.

That's not quite how it works. You can't attack any of your realm
mates; The home areas of your realm are relatively immune to attack;
You can't communicate with or even see the name of members of other
realms (they just show up as "Hibernian Invader" or "Albion Defender")
removing the ability to gloat. No bind point camping (no bind points
on the frontier); No XP loss or item loss from RvR. In fact, other
than the time necessary to go to the frontier, you lose nothing going
PvPing.

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 5:45:48 PM11/15/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote in
news:var7vt02qs696ipku...@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:48 -0500, "Tukka Yoot" <tu...@atlantic.net>
> wrote:
>
>| The idea of PvP itself doesn't turn me off, but if a game isn't
>| designed
>|for PvP and the ruleset is particularly open to abuse, it can be a
>|recipe for disaster.
>
> The idea of PvP should turn you off.
>
> It doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because the players
> don't
> want it to work. The majority of players aren't interested in giving
> their opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means
> attacking from ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if
> possible.
>

Overwhelming force and ambush are what war are about. So far
Mythic has taken a very hard stance on cheating - one strike
and you're out.

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 5:47:44 PM11/15/01
to
"David Jacobitz" <djacob...@EVILfalctech.SPAMMINGcomSCUMBAGS> wrote in
news:tv82i95...@corp.supernews.com:

Actually, DAoC is far more like Mythic's earlier text based MUD
with 3 way RvR called Dark Crusades.

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 5:48:33 PM11/15/01
to
re...@darkstar.qx.net (Jeremy Music) wrote in
news:slrn9v7vh...@darkstar.qx.net:

They've indicated that they plan to add high level PvE content.

Darren Chriest

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 5:58:50 PM11/15/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:
> The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
> opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
> ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.

Wow! You mean like in real life? What a concept!

Darren Chriest

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 6:00:31 PM11/15/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:

> |Unfortunately the person who answered has either never played DAoC or sees
> |it with a weird angle.
> |DAoC is NOT PvP. It's RvR. what's the difference you'll ask ?
>
> None whatsoever.
>
> The game is dedicated to PvP. PvP is the endgame. The entire system is
> designed around preparing players for PvP.
>
> Just read the company's website.

It's quite different from PvP.

ShadowSpawn

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 6:14:28 PM11/15/01
to

Aye - ask any platoon sargeant what his definition of a "Fair Fight" is
and the likely answer will be "I win, you lose. That's fair."

Dennis - only a fool or a desperate force attacks with inferior
numbers. That's not only foolish, it's fucking absurd. You attack when you
OUTNUMBER your opponent. Hell they knew that over 2000 years ago. Where've
you been?

Ben Sisson

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 6:26:59 PM11/15/01
to
ShadowSpawn <j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.21.01111...@C126306-A.sttls1.wa.home.com>...

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:48 -0500, "Tukka Yoot" <tu...@atlantic.net> wrote:
> >
> > | The idea of PvP itself doesn't turn me off, but if a game isn't designed
> > |for PvP and the ruleset is particularly open to abuse, it can be a recipe
> > |for disaster.
> >
> > The idea of PvP should turn you off.
> >
> > It doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because the players don't
> > want it to work. The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
> > opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
> > ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.
>
> Dennis, a word of advice. Don't comment about something when it's
> painfully obvious that you don't know what you're talking about. You are
> basing your opinion on PvP as you've experienced it in other games - as
> such, your comments are relevant. Unfortunately, you obviously haven't got
> clue one how DAoC is handling it.
>
> Hint: It's so unlike traditional PvP it's actually very fun.

Here's a hint for you, too, fanboy. Dennis was right on in his
appraisal. People in RvR are doing nothing but looking for the
cheapest kills possible, and this is even BEFORE theres a point to
realm points. It'll only get ten times worse when there is a use for
them.

I guess if your idea of fun is to be one-shotted by an archer you
never even saw then more power to you. Boy don't spew this "everything
is happy" bullshit. THere are MAJOR problems with RvR and even Mythic
admits it.

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 6:48:22 PM11/15/01
to
Sean Kennedy <kse...@qwest.net> wrote in
news:kCXI7.1362$BH.1...@news.uswest.net:

>> However, I did play the Mythic game Spellbinder, which was basically
>> Unreal Tournament with crappy graphics, all spellcasters and character
>> advancement. It was pretty fun, though, and since it appears some of
>> DAoC is cribbed from Spellbinder, I expect RvR will be ok too. PvP
>> death is largely without penalty (no item loss, no xp loss), and it's
>> consensual, as it's area-based, so the comments about it being "another
>> UO" are not quite right.
>> Anyway, I'm sticking with both for now, although it remains to be
>> seen if
>
> Actually, DAoC is far more like Mythic's earlier text based MUD
> with 3 way RvR called Dark Crusades.
>

Ack - Darkness Falls - Crusades, sorry :)

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 6:51:47 PM11/15/01
to
ShadowSpawn <j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> wrote in
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.01111...@C126306-A.sttls1.wa.home.com:

>> Wow! You mean like in real life? What a concept!
>
> Aye - ask any platoon sargeant what his definition of a "Fair Fight" is
> and the likely answer will be "I win, you lose. That's fair."
>
> Dennis - only a fool or a desperate force attacks with inferior
> numbers. That's not only foolish, it's fucking absurd. You attack when
> you OUTNUMBER your opponent. Hell they knew that over 2000 years ago.
> Where've you been?
>

McMahon on Naval Warfare - he states very much the same thing, basic
tenet of warfare.

Sean Kennedy

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 6:55:22 PM11/15/01
to
ilkh...@yahoo.ca (Ben Sisson) wrote in
news:33eb7356.01111...@posting.google.com:

>
> Here's a hint for you, too, fanboy. Dennis was right on in his
> appraisal. People in RvR are doing nothing but looking for the
> cheapest kills possible, and this is even BEFORE theres a point to
> realm points. It'll only get ten times worse when there is a use for
> them.
>
> I guess if your idea of fun is to be one-shotted by an archer you
> never even saw then more power to you. Boy don't spew this "everything
> is happy" bullshit. THere are MAJOR problems with RvR and even Mythic
> admits it.
>

All you need is a bladeturn spell on you, and no archer can single
shot you. Also, there is now a good chance of an archer becoming
visible when they draw their bow.

Silverlock

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 9:49:48 PM11/15/01
to
On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net>
wrote:

>I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
>come back? Just curious..

>Thanks
>Jorealian Moonbrook


It is but it lacks content at this time. Wait till at least January
and possibly till the expansion comes out in May. Unless like me your
simply burned out on EQ.
>Ranger 35th Season
>Innoruuk
>
>

--
Silverlock, ICQ 474725,


Household Pests? The SW-404 'SpitFire' APRL cleansing system
will remove them, we Guarantee IT! Not responsible for damage
to persons or structures from use of this product.
Dial 1-800-FRY-THEM for info and a home demonstration.

Silverlock

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 9:49:51 PM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 07:36:59 GMT, "Mark Martin"
<marke...@adelphia.net> wrote:

>Ah. Thank you!
>
>Another UO I would not be into... A bunch of assassins running around
>murdering and then figuring out how to revert to 'normal' faction so they
>can go to town? Yuck.
>
>Thanks again for the info.
>

>"Dennis Francis Heffernan" <dfra...@email.com> wrote in message
>news:prm6vt8vt77p22e3v...@4ax.com...


>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net>
>wrote:
>>
>> |I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>> |because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>> |with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>> |switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>> |leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they
>will
>> |come back? Just curious..
>>

>> DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably like it more
>> than EQ. If you do not, you won't.
>>

It is not PvP it is RvR. You choose a realm from 3. You cannot
communicate in any way with the enemy realms. THey will never be
friends or friendly, cannot heal you etc, If you see them, they are
the enemy, run or fight. If you die in RvR you lose nothing. You
return to your last bindpoint with no item or exp or con loss. It is a
glorified game of team fortress classic at the high end with added
things like sieges thrown in.

Silverlock

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 9:49:54 PM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:29:12 GMT, Dennis Francis Heffernan
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 02:43:48 -0500, "Tukka Yoot" <tu...@atlantic.net> wrote:
>
>| The idea of PvP itself doesn't turn me off, but if a game isn't designed
>|for PvP and the ruleset is particularly open to abuse, it can be a recipe
>|for disaster.
>
> The idea of PvP should turn you off.
>
> It doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because the players don't
>want it to work. The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
>opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
>ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.
>

For one and two yes exactly. Use force if you want, use ambush if you
can, tactics are a great invention. There is no recall though so if
they are there in force then you know where they are, call on your
realm to fight back. Cheaters are banned outright, first time no
exceptions, and that includes some of Mythics CS staff who were fired
this week for apparently trying to twink their characters using inside
info. Take their forts one by one, bottle the enemy up in their own
home (ie safe no pvp) realm. Capture their relics to earn points to be
used in all sorts of stuff like housing and horses.

Silverlock

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 9:49:58 PM11/15/01
to

Hey anti-fanboy, check out the screams on the DAoCVault as Mythic
found and today removed a Bonus that was added way back in early beta
to make archers viable back when they sucked. They forgot to take it
out. Ooops. It's gone now and Archers are now in the same boat as
every other character class. No more one shots on orange characters.
It was a bug and its been fixed.

He wasn't spewing out "everything is happy" he was asking Venture to
not comment on a game he hasn't played based on his dislike of Pvp
from UO. Does anyone here think UO got Pvp right? *chirp chirp chirp*
Nope didn't think so. This isn't UO, this is "no loss on death, no
item stealing no Azzraping emotes" Realm versus realm.

Silverlock

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 9:50:01 PM11/15/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:32:04 GMT, Dennis Francis Heffernan
<dfra...@email.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:40:14 +0100, "R Bee" <iec...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>
>|Hy.


>|Unfortunately the person who answered has either never played DAoC or sees
>|it with a weird angle.
>|DAoC is NOT PvP. It's RvR. what's the difference you'll ask ?
>
> None whatsoever.
>
> The game is dedicated to PvP. PvP is the endgame. The entire system is
>designed around preparing players for PvP.
>
> Just read the company's website.

How about you try it too Venture. It's not pvp it's Realm versus
realm. You cannot be pked by a realm mate. You always know who the
enemies are. You always know when your in danger of being attacked by
a player. You die in RvR you lose nothing. It's capture the flag not
UO pvp.

Tukka Yoot

unread,
Nov 15, 2001, 9:40:40 PM11/15/01
to
> The idea of PvP should turn you off.

I think I'm capable of coming up with my own opinion, thanks.

> It doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because the players don't
> want it to work. The majority of players aren't interested in giving
their
> opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
> ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.

Ambushing and using superior numbers to your advantage is a valid tactic.
Cheating, of course, is not, but if the staff of the game is on top of the
ball, and the mechanics of the game are solid, it's not a big problem.

I have played "open games" on a smaller scale (MUDs) in which PvP is
handled relatively well. It doesn't provide the same kind of stimulus as a
pure PvE game, true, but many find the stimulus better and more exciting.
It's always a more rewarding feeling to defeat a fellow player than it is an
element of the environment (like a mob)... not necessarily because you've
caused the other player grief, but because it's a more dynamic challenge.

Sometimes you'll get "ganked" in games, true, and it happens often enough
and annoys you enough when it occurs, the game won't be enjoyable... but
that's not the case for everybody.

If you're strictly against the idea of PvP, I'd guess no amount of
argument is going to convince you it can be fun, so I won't try any further.
Suffice to say, though... I don't think you have to be a total griefer in
order to enjoy PvP. You're entitled to your opinion if you think otherwise,
of course.


Malvolin

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 12:04:09 AM11/16/01
to

"Mark Martin" <marke...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:vgKI7.626$y9.2...@news1.news.adelphia.net...

> Ah. Thank you!
>
> Another UO I would not be into... A bunch of assassins running around
> murdering and then figuring out how to revert to 'normal' faction so they
> can go to town? Yuck.

Not at all, it's actually set up quite differently.

You cannot fight anyone from your realm, not even duel them. You can only
fight players from other realms, and must be level 15 to begin doing that.
You are already KOS in the opposing realms and that can never change, so no
problem there either.

You cannot lose experience or equipment as a result of PvP, so the power of
grief players is really minimal here. However, there are no level limits
beyond 15, so there can(and have been) instances of higher level players
decimating groups of lower level players. But with not much to lose, what
the hey? Go have fun:)

On the reward side, however, the idea is to raise large armies of your
realmmates to overpower your enemies, take over their keeps, and capture
their relics(Such as Merlin's Staff, Scabbard of Excalibur, etc), which then
have beneficial effects on every player in your realm so long as they remain
under the control of your realm.

Comparing it with UO is like comparing apples and oranges. I played EQ for
2.5 years and enjoyed it(my account is still active actually), but DAoC is
just as enjoyable.


Ben Sisson

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 1:10:52 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:55:22 GMT, Sean Kennedy <kse...@qwest.net> (if

that IS his real name) disgorged:

>ilkh...@yahoo.ca (Ben Sisson) wrote in

Bladeturn is good. It's using tactics, which is good. But its only one
thing to reduce the massive domination archers have had. They're
getting nerfed to hell now (and they thought Mythic was different
*snort*).

As for the visibility problem, considering you STILL can't tell which
direction you were hit from that only matters if he appears in front
of you.

Lokari

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 1:32:50 AM11/16/01
to
"Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote:

>I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
>come back? Just curious..

I am currently trying DAoC, and while there is much I like about it,
there is also much I don't like. In those respects, it's just like EQ
:)

While it bears a lot of similarity to EQ, enough to be considered
competition, I think the games are different enough that each stands
on its own. I expect I'm going to keep playing DAoC, but I'm
definitely not dumping EQ for it.

One thing that I haven't yet been able to really put my finger on is
the nagging suspicion that the DAoC designers made conscious efforts
to implement everything differently than in EQ. In cases where EQ does
something poorly, this makes sense. However, EQ does a lot of stuff
very well, and to avoid doing it in a similar fashion just to be
different doesn't really work.

And, I have to say, I don't really like the control interface for
DAoC. EQs is much cleaner and easier on the eyes.

I recommend you *try* the game, but don't cancel your EQ account
unless you find that DAoC really rings your bell.


--

www.lokari.net

Lokari

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 1:35:36 AM11/16/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:

>DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably like it more
>than EQ. If you do not, you won't.

That's not entirely accurate.

DAoC can easily be a PvE only game should you choose to play it that
way.

There is a large PvP component to the game, but it's actually Realm vs
Realm, and therefore is team oriented. RvR/PvP isn't necessary to play
and enjoy the game at all.


--

www.lokari.net

Lokari

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 1:38:16 AM11/16/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:

> It [PvP] doesn't work in these kinds of open formats because

> the players don't want it to work. The majority of players
> aren't interested in giving their opponents a fair game.
> They just want to win. That means attacking from
> ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.

Funny.

Both ambushing and overwhelming force sound perfectly fair to me.

--

www.lokari.net

Lokari

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 1:41:51 AM11/16/01
to
Dennis Francis Heffernan <dfra...@email.com> wrote:

>Just read the company's website.

Is that what you're basing all your comments on, or have you actually
played the game?


--

www.lokari.net

Lokari

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 1:44:12 AM11/16/01
to
ShadowSpawn <j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> wrote:

>Dennis, a word of advice.

Ben Sisson offered you a pointless word of advice in response. I'll
try to do better.

ShadowSpawn, a word of advice - Dennis doesn't listed to advice :)


--

www.lokari.net

Matt Frisch

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 2:08:55 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:14:28 GMT, ShadowSpawn
<j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> scribed into the ether:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Darren Chriest wrote:
>
>> Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:
>> > The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
>> > opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
>> > ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.
>>
>> Wow! You mean like in real life? What a concept!
>
>Aye - ask any platoon sargeant what his definition of a "Fair Fight" is
>and the likely answer will be "I win, you lose. That's fair."
>
>Dennis - only a fool or a desperate force attacks with inferior
>numbers. That's not only foolish, it's fucking absurd. You attack when you
>OUTNUMBER your opponent. Hell they knew that over 2000 years ago. Where've
>you been?

Please tell me when EITHER side in a war is having fun, and then I will
cheerfully allow you to make your preposterous arguements that PvP in a
-=[*G*A*M*E*]=- (emphasis mine) should follow real life.

Matt Frisch

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 2:11:14 AM11/16/01
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:50:01 GMT, Silverlock <cro...@earthlink.net>
scribed into the ether:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 16:32:04 GMT, Dennis Francis Heffernan
><dfra...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 09:40:14 +0100, "R Bee" <iec...@club-internet.fr> wrote:
>>
>>|Hy.
>>|Unfortunately the person who answered has either never played DAoC or sees
>>|it with a weird angle.
>>|DAoC is NOT PvP. It's RvR. what's the difference you'll ask ?
>>
>> None whatsoever.
>>
>> The game is dedicated to PvP. PvP is the endgame. The entire system is
>>designed around preparing players for PvP.
>>
>> Just read the company's website.
>
>How about you try it too Venture. It's not pvp it's Realm versus
>realm. You cannot be pked by a realm mate. You always know who the
>enemies are. You always know when your in danger of being attacked by
>a player. You die in RvR you lose nothing. It's capture the flag not
>UO pvp.

If you always knew when you were in danger of being attacked by a player,
then the whole concept of "ambush" is moot. Clearly this is not the case.

Leave aside that you cannot be attacked by realm mates...RvR and PvP are
exactly the same. RvR just has pretenses that the PvP means something.

Matt Frisch

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 2:14:02 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 18:16:45 GMT, ShadowSpawn
<j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> scribed into the ether:

>On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:
>

>> On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote:
>>
>> |I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>> |because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>> |with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>> |switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>> |leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
>> |come back? Just curious..
>>

>> DAoC is dedicated to PvP. If you enjoy PvP you will probably
>> like it more than EQ. If you do not, you won't.
>

>A slight clarification - PvP is totally and completely optional. You don't
>HAVE to go out and fight the invaders, but from initial reports it's a
>whoot.

I would feel real pity for the person who played DAoC as a purely PvE game.
Talk about stupifying boredom.

No matter how the DAoC fans try to whitewash it, this simple fact will not
change: IF YOU DO NOT LIKE PVP, YOU WILL NOT LIKE DAOC. Period.

Matt Frisch

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 2:16:46 AM11/16/01
to
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001 02:49:48 GMT, Silverlock <cro...@earthlink.net>
scribed into the ether:

>On Wed, 14 Nov 2001 23:04:12 -0500, "Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net>


>wrote:
>
>>I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
>>because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
>>with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
>>switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
>>leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
>>come back? Just curious..
>>Thanks
>>Jorealian Moonbrook
>
>
>It is but it lacks content at this time. Wait till at least January
>and possibly till the expansion comes out in May. Unless like me your
>simply burned out on EQ.

When I'm burnt out on EQ, I just stop playing it for a while.

I would consider DAoC a viable alternative to a root canal, but not much
else.

Tukka Yoot

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 2:27:34 AM11/16/01
to
> Please tell me when EITHER side in a war is having fun, and then I will
> cheerfully allow you to make your preposterous arguements that PvP in a
> -=[*G*A*M*E*]=- (emphasis mine) should follow real life.

Whether or not war is fun in real life makes no difference about whether
or not it's fun in games. In a game, real people don't die and the wounds
don't cause pain. Without pain and death, war probably wouldn't be all that
unpleasant.

Obviously some people find the RvR in DAoC a fun and stimulating
challenge, else nobody would bother playing. I don't see any reason why
superior numbers, power or the element of surprise and good planning would
not yield a significant advantage in a game. In a game where numbers are to
your advantage, I'd imagine part of the challenge is convincing a large
number of people to act in concert towards a single goal... which tends to
be a rather difficult prospect in itself. A group which succeeds in doing
this deserves and advantage and perhaps a victory.


Tim Smith

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 3:42:49 AM11/16/01
to
Ben Sisson <ilkhanik...@DIESPAMyahoo.ca> wrote:
>As for the visibility problem, considering you STILL can't tell which
>direction you were hit from that only matters if he appears in front
>of you.

Arrow hits you, which automatically targets the shooter, then you hit
your "/face" macro to face your target. I don't recall seeing any
patch message saying they had taken /face out (although when they
added that, it sure caused a flurry of moaning from archers!), so I
assume it is still there.

--Tim Smith

Michael L. Jelarcic

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 7:24:15 AM11/16/01
to
RvR is the main point of the game, the PvE contents runs out after
level 30 (out of 50 levels). After 30 there are no more quests, the
highest level dungeons are un-itemized as are alot of high level mobs.
There is a reliance on tradeskills for post 35 armor and weapons but
it takes an insane amount of time and money to reach those skills
(basically it requires a large guild throwing gobs of money at the
tradespeople).

The PvE content that is in the game is not very interesting.
Basically you search around for an NPC(s) that gives quests for your
level, then do lots of traveling and kill a few mobs for special items
that you turn in for some experience/money/quest reward item. Out of
the ~40 quests I've done until I reached to no-quest zone of post 30,
only two had somewhat interesting storylines. Most of the rewards are
not worth the effort and some may not even be useable by your class.

Of the three realms, only Albion has had some thought put into it's
environment, the other two feel thrown together and are lacking in
details.

The actual RvR is lame. It's either some high-level character that
can use stealth (meaning other players can't see you) picking off
lower level guys with archery. Of course archery is over-powered, and
if initiated at a decent range can bring down a player in 2-3 shots.
Or RvR is just two different groups colliding together and fighting
until one group runs aways. Boring.

It was kinda fun for the free month, but not worth the monthly charge.
Mediocre game at best.

ilkh...@yahoo.ca (Ben Sisson) wrote in message news:<33eb7356.01111...@posting.google.com>...

Dan Harmon

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 10:42:01 AM11/16/01
to
I figured out what's "wrong" with DAOC: There's nothing to look forward to.

Druids: Look forward to levitate, then sow, then self port, then wolf form,
then group port, then being planar, then becoming a wanderer, a preserver
and a heirophant.

Every class is like that.

In DAOC you have a number of lines of spells, at least one of which will
likely be totally ignored so that you can get higher level spells in the
other lines. And when you level you may get an upgrade to that spell. That's
all.

At level 15 (well, apparently any time, but 15 is the reasonable lowest
limit) you can defend your realm against player invaders. At level 25 you
have a reasonable chance of doing it and staying alive if you're not stupid.

If you aren't into PvP you can still get to 50...collecting your various
spell upgrades as you go along, killing higher level critters than
before...losing more xp per death than you would in EQ without a rez (or so
I've heard...it certainly sucks at 16 to die WITH a rez).

There's nothing for PvE people to look forward to. They say you'll be able
to buy houses & maybe horses with Realm Points, but you can't get Realm
Points unless you do PvP. If they ever get those items in the game you can
bet that you have to do a LOT of PvP to buy anything cool.

I hope to god I'm wrong and would love for folks to correct me.


R Bee

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 10:57:47 AM11/16/01
to
Your answer is indeed funny as the only ONE person i've read about in a DAoC
board that said he wanted to quit was a level 30+. Lots of "EQ DrOOd" type
people seem disapointed as they powerleveled as fast as they could. And now
find themselves having been flying over 30 plus levels without apreciating
the quests / stories they could have (My wife and i after 4 weeks are having
a blast in game .. and we play 3 hours a day in week and about 12 hours per
week end). Those people just wanted .. well ... to be super powered i guess.
But they didnt know perhaps that DAoC being a new game, the lvl 35+ PVe had
little chances of being itemized/having lots of dungeons. As in : what are
the chances "everyday" people (i consider my wife and i play more thant
average) would get to lvl30+ in less than 3 weeks ? None is the answer. It's
not a rant vs people that have a lot of time... I am just astonished to see
dozens of people ranting becasue they dont have the lvl 30+ content they
expect, and the RvR lacks large forces to be interesting. Comme on... the
game is one month old. The game is maturing nicely, getting more and more
intesresting. I just guess that for once, the power gamers werent rewarded.
Is that a bad thing ? you tell me...

<SNIP>
> Funny you should say that. Every single person I know, whether they
> play EQ or AC or nothing, has now quit DAoC. It just doesn't have the
> depth, the longevity, or the fun factor unless you are the sort of
> person who likes PvP with skill not being a factor.

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 11:25:36 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:45:48 GMT, Sean Kennedy <kse...@qwest.net> wrote:

|Overwhelming force and ambush are what war are about.

Yes. Unfortunately they are not what GAMES are about.


Dennis F. Heffernan EQ: Venture Fletcher(E'ci) dfra...@email.com
Montclair State U #include <disclaim.h> ICQ:9154048 CompSci/Philosophy
"It's better some times if we don't get to touch our dreams."
-- Harry Chapin

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 11:26:39 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:48:33 GMT, Sean Kennedy <kse...@qwest.net> wrote:


|They've indicated that they plan to add high level PvE content.

They can't do it, not in any meaningful sense. High-level EQ-style
content would break their PvP game.

Rodjk

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 11:28:00 AM11/16/01
to
"Ethan Buist" <ejb...@iserv.net> wrote in message news:<Q8HI7.123989$Lg.61...@sjcpnn01.usenetserver.com>...

> I've heard that a ton of people are switching over. I would rather not
> because of my time invested in EQ and I've really never had any problems
> with Verant. How many of you have tried DAOC? Would you recommend the
> switch? I love EQ it's just that almost all the friends I've made are
> leaving for DAOC, can I save myself time and money and expect that they will
> come back? Just curious..

I have been playing DAOC for about 10 days. I had a lvl 57 druid and
several other char in the 30's on Xegony. I will probably not be back
to EQ.

DAOC is very similar to EQ, the biggest difference I notice is in
playing time.
There is little down time in DAOC, there is little time wasted going
out to find things that you will need to play. No traveling across the
continent to find a merchant to buy spells, for example.
There are more groups who can solo, and still have a role in groups.
DAOC is not as "real" as EQ, but is a lot more playable.

rodjk #613


> Thanks
> Jorealian Moonbrook
> Ranger 35th Season
> Innoruuk

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 11:28:18 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 22:58:50 GMT, Darren Chriest <dchriest!NOSPAM!@home.com>
wrote:

|Dennis Francis Heffernan wrote:
|> The majority of players aren't interested in giving their
|> opponents a fair game. They just want to win. That means attacking from
|> ambush, using overwhelming force, and cheating if possible.
|

| Wow! You mean like in real life? What a concept!

Yes, that works great in real life. Unfortunately this is supposed to be
a GAME, and games are supposed to be fun for BOTH sides. Getting splattered
without a chance is NOT FUN. Splattering people without a chance is also NOT
FUN, unless you're a true asshole.

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 11:29:04 AM11/16/01
to
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 23:14:28 GMT, ShadowSpawn
<j...@spam-me-not.thewebmasters.net> wrote:

|Dennis - only a fool or a desperate force attacks with inferior
|numbers. That's not only foolish, it's fucking absurd. You attack when you
|OUTNUMBER your opponent. Hell they knew that over 2000 years ago. Where've
|you been?

So how come in football, we give both teams the same number of guys? Why
not give one team only one guy?

Dennis Francis Heffernan

unread,
Nov 16, 2001, 11:33:19 AM11/16/01