Age of Conan: Hyborian Adventures breaks all the current storage-requirement records for PC games......
John Lewis
(This beta goes 'live' May 2)
Actual Download size: 12.5 Gbytes
Actual Install size: 23.5 Gbytes
From the V1.0 Readme:-
Minimum System Requirements
3Ghz Intel Pentium 4
1GB of system memory
NVIDIA™ Geforce 6600 or ATI Radeon 9800
32GB of Hard Drive space
Microsoft Windows XP or Windows Vista
Internet Connection
Recommended System Requirements
2.4Ghz Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
2GB of system memory
NVIDIA™ Geforce 7900GTX
32GB of Hard Drive space
Microsoft Windows XP or Windows Vista
Internet Connection
This is yet another on-line game that will not be coming to your
Xbox360 any time soon. Maybe to the Xbox720 with Blu-ray drive and
(say) 500Gbytes of storage. With the rapid leaps in disk storage
requirements (both 'dvd' and hard-disk) for graphically intensive
games, Microsoft's public hope of keeping the Xbox360 alive until
2010-2011 is rapidly fading.... No doubt they are already actively
designing the replacement...
John Lewis
Warewolf
@news.verizon.net:
> From the Fileplanet subscription beta:-
>
> Actual Download size: 12.5 Gbytes
>
> Actual Install size: 23.5 Gbytes
>
> Minimum System Requirements
>
> 32GB of Hard Drive space
Actually, when I checked the shelves at a local Future Shop the other day,
I saw a flight simulator called XPlane9 that wanted **60GB** of hard drive
space available for installation. (O_O)
Now, while I can see its value to computer users with terabytes of space, I
don't think that I'll be purchasing this game anytime soon. ^_^;
Part of me is still enjoying the fruits of 'simpler fare' like Rox, the
Summoning and Super Mario World (and wondering why there isn't a legal
editor for the latter title)
They offer deep and engaging universes in an itty-bitty file-size. ^_^
Signed,
Warewolf
who will admit to doing some 'Knytt-ing', as well.
i own a yacht
> From the Fileplanet subscription beta:-
>
> (This beta goes 'live' May 2)
>
> Actual Download size: 12.5 Gbytes
>
> Actual Install size: 23.5 Gbytes
uh.
--
"(HL2) Ep2 is non linear .... multiple ways to achieve the same goals"
-Walter Mitty
John Lewis
wrote:
>In comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> From the Fileplanet subscription beta:-
>>
>> (This beta goes 'live' May 2)
>>
>> Actual Download size: 12.5 Gbytes
>>
>> Actual Install size: 23.5 Gbytes
>
>uh.
>
I believe the release Conan game will ship on 2 DVDs, like Flight Sim
X Deluxe ( install size = 14Gbytes for FSX DL )
John Lewis
John Lewis
wrote:
>john...@verizon.net (John Lewis) wrote in news:4814e9b4.5985016
>@news.verizon.net:
>
>> From the Fileplanet subscription beta:-
>>
>> Actual Download size: 12.5 Gbytes
>>
>> Actual Install size: 23.5 Gbytes
>>
>> Minimum System Requirements
>>
>> 32GB of Hard Drive space
>
>Actually, when I checked the shelves at a local Future Shop the other day,
>I saw a flight simulator called XPlane9 that wanted **60GB** of hard drive
>space available for installation. (O_O)
>
Ah, yes..forgot that - the world maps in Xplane9. If you really
wanted to install the full set of maps and have them instantly
available.
Let me modify my statement. Conan seems to be the first game that
mandatorily requires 23.5Gbytes installed to even run in default mode.
John Lewis
Ykalon
And I think the 360 version will play on 360 servers so pårobably no
getting together with their pc buddies.
John Lewis
>John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> This is yet another on-line game that will not be coming to your
>> Xbox360 any time soon. Maybe to the Xbox720 with Blu-ray drive and
>> (say) 500Gbytes of storage. With the rapid leaps in disk storage
>> requirements (both 'dvd' and hard-disk) for graphically intensive
>> games, Microsoft's public hope of keeping the Xbox360 alive until
>> 2010-2011 is rapidly fading.... No doubt they are already actively
>> designing the replacement...
>>
>> John Lewis
>>
>It will come to the 360, they'll just strip down the video quality.
>And I think the 360 version will play on 360 servers so pårobably no
>getting together with their pc buddies.
Yes, I did notice that the FAQ on the Conan website did talk about a
Xbox360 port sometime in the future.
At the same time, I also noticed in the same FAQ the PC screen
resolutions stated for decent performance for each of the systems
specified. Here is the information replicated in its entirety:-
What sort of PC is required to play Age of Conan?
Minimum configuration:
(1024x768, detail reduced)
OS: Windows XP Service Pack 2 or Windows Vista
Processor: Intel Pentium 4 3Ghz or equivalent
RAM: 1GB
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 6600 or better
Video memory: 128MB
DVD-ROM: Quad-speed (4x) DVD-ROM drive
HARD DRIVE SPACE: 30GB
Recommended configuration:
(Up to 1280X960, most features on)
OS: Windows XP SP 2 or Windows Vista
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz or equivalent
RAM: 2048MB Dual Channel DDR2
Video card: NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GTX or equivalent
Video memory: 512MB
DVD-ROM: Quad-speed (4x) DVD-ROM drive
HARD DRIVE SPACE: 30GB
Shades of Crysis again..... ? Indeed !!
Those with high native-resolution LCD monitors will not be pleased.
I suspect that a minimum of an 8800GT will be needed
to give satisfactory frame-rate for the 1600x1200 or 1980 x 1080 LCD
crowd, besides a moderately-fast Dual-Core processor.
Regardless of the general adoption of Dual Core processors, the number
of active PC MMO gamers (such as those currently playing WoW) with the
sort of rig required for Conan is still likely to be in the <5%
bracket.
Unless this game has truly-addictive gaming substance under the
"glitz", it will have a minority following and die a painful death. In
fact, sufficient substance for prospective players to invest in
massively-upgraded hardware besides the monthly fee. I shall be highly
interested in the public reaction to this game 3 months after release.
Blizzard have been very cunning with Wow. They have concentrated their
graphics glitz in the areas that matter - the visible characters and
kept the polygon count low elsewhere. Hence, modest system
requirements while still looking great and the huge number of players.
John Lewis
Dave Seven
> Actually, when I checked the shelves at a local Future Shop the other day,
> I saw a flight simulator called XPlane9 that wanted **60GB** of hard drive
> space available for installation. (O_O)
That's because it has the whole world rendered in fairly high resolution
satellite terrain data. How much is FS selling it for? I might buy it. I
think I have 60gb spare.
Dave Seven
> Let me modify my statement. Conan seems to be the first game that
> mandatorily requires 23.5Gbytes installed to even run in default mode.
>
That's still less than Vista takes up.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>Unless this game has truly-addictive gaming substance under the
>"glitz", it will have a minority following and die a painful death. In
>fact, sufficient substance for prospective players to invest in
>massively-upgraded hardware besides the monthly fee. I shall be highly
>interested in the public reaction to this game 3 months after release.
>
>
>Blizzard have been very cunning with Wow. They have concentrated their
>graphics glitz in the areas that matter - the visible characters and
>kept the polygon count low elsewhere. Hence, modest system
>requirements while still looking great and the huge number of players.
As much as I despise Blizzard & have my disagreements with you John ;), I
can't but agree with you on all counts here. Why developers keep
force-feeding us eye candy, when we're already past saturation point on many
levels is a mystery. Well, not entirely - it's all about next gen this &
that & keeping up with the Jones', from selling Intel chipsets to NVidia
graphic cards to entire PCs. Are people really this transparent or stoopid
out there? Surely we're not just slightly more evolved sheep or sloths God
help us...? *sigh*
In any case, I'd go for a mmo that puts gameplay, playability & performance
above eye candy any day. I hope I'm also not in a <5% minority. :-/
--
Nostromo
W.Denie
William
Warewolf
@pd7urf1no:
All the more reason to stick with XP.
(or should that be Win98 or Linux?) 9_9
Warewolf
I believe that they were selling it for $50 Canadian.
Then again, when I checked the reviews at Amazon, the purchaser who
reviewed it gave it a poor rating. *shrug*
Caveat emptor, as the saying goes.
(And be sure that you have a DVD-drive in your 'rig' before you pick it up)
Signed,
Warewolf
who often wonders how many 'old school' universes can fit on the newer
storage disks.
(I really should stop doing that) ^_^;
Warewolf
*and takes a sip from his coffee cup*
o/` Meeeeeeemmmmmmoriiiiieeeeesss o/`
CoinSpin
I'm having flashbacks to Auto Assault... It had such extreme system
requirements that there was only a tiny percentage of the PC population
that could run the damn thing, and then they wondered why the initial
launch numbers on the servers was so small, and why players just
trickled in instead of running out to play... For some reason, these
bleeding-edge hardware pushing programmers don't get it into their heads
- when the genre you are programming for has "massively" in the title,
and you are expecting to be pulling in huge numbers initial sales and
ongoing subscriptions, you should probably make a program that most
computer platforms out there can actually PLAY ON! Seriously, how many
average Joes or Janes out there are going to go put a substantial sum of
money into upgrading their PC just to play a game they have to then pay
monthly for as well? If these idiots are planning on the elite gamers
to support their entire server and support infrastructure, Conan is
doomed to fail - hell, it might not even make it far off the starting
blocks. A smart developer might have realized that you don't push the
envelope on a game you want to blanket the masses with, you do that with
a game you want to be known as cutting edge that doesn't have to rely on
massive sales figures and repeat customers to survive and flourish.
Of course, when they put it out for the 360, it will run on every unit
without question. It may be softened up on the graphics, may have some
lowered technical and gameplay mechanics, but it will run. So it'll
probably be the console side that would save this game from extinction,
so long as they can get it to market quick enough after initial launch.
And we continually wonder why the console market is growing in leaps and
bounds and the PC side is stagnating...
CoinSpin
John Lewis
wrote:
Beware. This program has generally poor user-satisfaction ratings and
the developers endeavor to rip you off for the full price again on
every numerical iteration. If a free demo of Xplane9 is available, I
recommend trying it out before taking the plunge.
John Lewis
CoinSpin
The generally bad user satisfaction ratings are usually due to the fact
that customers didn't actually do any research on the product before
they bought it... They were assuming it was just a "toss it in and fly"
thing like the MS Flight Sim series, not the hardcore fluid dynamics and
realism simulator that X-Plane was designed to be. The fact that it's
developed by a company called Laminar Research should have been the
first clue. The fact that it's FAA certified on a wide variety of
hardware simulation systems and is used by many companies as true FAA
training simulators should have been the next clue.
I've used several versions of X-Plane, and it had some really fun
aspects to it - like the ability to design virtually ANY plane and try
it out in a simulation... The backbone of the program is a highly
developed aerodynamics modeling system which is designed to give
real-world analogs to everything on the aircraft. It was interesting,
you could even modify the environmental settings - for instance, at one
time they had a Mars environment complete with reduced gravity and
realistically reduced air density, thus requiring absolutely enormous
wing area to allow for lift in the thinner atmosphere. Haven't used any
of the newer versions, don't know if that Mars scenario is still there,
but it was really interesting to experience the totally different flying
experience.
As for the pricing, that was part of the reason I stopped playing around
with it. The problem is that the developers were really sort of putting
it together for their own internal use, then decided to release it to
the public. All of the development is basically done in-house and
independent, and Laminar Research is by no means a big time software
developer or publishing mega-giant. Each numerical iteration (7.x, 8.x,
etc) is usually a complete revision and optimization of the previous
program, so there is a massive level of cost in-house on the development
side. And X-Plane is not any soft of top seller, it is too specialized
for that. So the company has to charge when they revise, it's the only
way they can keep the product alive. I can respect that, I understand
it, and if I was in a situation where I needed X-Plane (not just
tinkered with it as a hobby) then I would continue to support it. But I
have far too many other fun things to do, and a small hill of RPGs that
I still need to play and try to catch up to the rest of the world... heh
In general, I can say this flight sim is not for the casual "jump in and
go" player... There is alot more to it that takes tweaking and finesse,
and it tends to be much harder to actually fly aircraft than the
generally dumbed-down and simplified flight sims you typically find on
the shelves (hence the nod from the FAA on software accuracy). So those
folks that couldn't get it running right and zip around in their Cessna
within 30 seconds of installing the program usually were the ones
dropping bad reviews of the product.
CoinSpin
TheSmokingGnu
> John Lewis wrote:
>> Blizzard have been very cunning with Wow. They have concentrated their
>> graphics glitz in the areas that matter - the visible characters and
>> kept the polygon count low elsewhere. Hence, modest system
>> requirements while still looking great and the huge number of players.
>>
>
> I'm having flashbacks to Auto Assault... It had such extreme system
> requirements
Alright, let's get off the "bash AoC" train for just one moment.
The system requirements are by no means "extreme"; the minimum is a
computer about 3 years old, and the recommended is a very reasonable
system that could have been built in the last two years.
At what point are developers "allowed" to cease supporting heavily
outdated hardware? I mean, you do realize that separate render paths
have to be created for SM1.4, SM2.0, SM2.0b, SM3.0 AND SM4.0 cards,
right? Should they be required to quintuple development time to appease
the Usenet curmudgeons? How far back into the annals of history must
support extend to be considered munificent? Should everyone have a
backup text MUD version, in case of errant 80486 users? :P
---
(And for that matter, people don't play WoW because it's pretty; your
hands are made up of a grand total of 6 polygons, dearest. They play
because it's a massive time sink in their vacuous non-existences.)
The Steam Hardware Survey (boo! hiss! I get from the peanut gallery :D)
comprises nearly 1.6 million unique computers, and the most common
resolution played at, at nearly 40% of all users, is 1280x960, followed
closely by, you guessed it, 1024x768 (32%). In this case, catering your
requirements to those resolutions is a very smart business move; right
around 20% of users had anything higher, and about 18% of that is
widescreens beyond 1280. If you want to push more than a million and a
half pixels every frame, you had better already be prepared to bring the
graphical prowess.
/AND/, 23.5GB is nothing, given how cheap storage is today. Heck, you
can get old-fogey PATA IDE 160GB hard drives for $45, delivered to your
door from Newegg. That's 28 cents per gig, get over yourselves. :)
TheSmokingGnu
PS: 750GB for $150, great googly-boogly. 20 cents a gig.
PPS: Cross-posting sluts. It's an RPG!
Nostromo
2008 17:52:37 GMT, Anno Domini:
>CoinSpin wrote:
>> John Lewis wrote:
>>> Blizzard have been very cunning with Wow. They have concentrated their
>>> graphics glitz in the areas that matter - the visible characters and
>>> kept the polygon count low elsewhere. Hence, modest system
>>> requirements while still looking great and the huge number of players.
>>>
>>
>> I'm having flashbacks to Auto Assault... It had such extreme system
>> requirements
><snip>
>
>Alright, let's get off the "bash AoC" train for just one moment.
>
>The system requirements are by no means "extreme"; the minimum is a
>computer about 3 years old, and the recommended is a very reasonable
>system that could have been built in the last two years.
Yes, but how will my 'state of the art' rig from 3 yrs ago actually run this
beast of a game? Not very well I'm willing to bet.
The comments about WoW are spot on, similar to GW - I can run these on a
crappy 5 yr old work laptop (& quite playably I might add), whereas even
games like CoX which are several years old, barely chug along. Is AoC going
to reach any of the mobility market or just the ultra l33t <1% notebook
owners?
>At what point are developers "allowed" to cease supporting heavily
>outdated hardware? I mean, you do realize that separate render paths
>have to be created for SM1.4, SM2.0, SM2.0b, SM3.0 AND SM4.0 cards,
>right? Should they be required to quintuple development time to appease
>the Usenet curmudgeons? How far back into the annals of history must
>support extend to be considered munificent? Should everyone have a
>backup text MUD version, in case of errant 80486 users? :P
I see you have a nice shiny new (recent) box there on your shoulder TSG ;-p
And you're missing the entire point...who gives a flying fornication about
PS2.0 or 3.0 or AA this or AF that? Does it look *reasonably* _good_? Is it
*playable* & is their gameplay top notch? So long as devs continue to push
the h/ware envelope (just so they can line their pockets & those of the
likes of Intel/NVidia & M$ with contra deals), they will alienate 80%+ of
their target audience. Only truly casual gamers with more money than brains
who don't care about what they get so long as their shiny new toy sparkles
will continue to fall for this kind of deception. We don't need a new PC
every 2 years - technology ain't evolving *that* quick!
>(And for that matter, people don't play WoW because it's pretty; your
>hands are made up of a grand total of 6 polygons, dearest. They play
>because it's a massive time sink in their vacuous non-existences.)
So just like every other mmo out there once the novelty wears off? Mkay.
>The Steam Hardware Survey (boo! hiss! I get from the peanut gallery :D)
>comprises nearly 1.6 million unique computers, and the most common
>resolution played at, at nearly 40% of all users, is 1280x960, followed
>closely by, you guessed it, 1024x768 (32%). In this case, catering your
>requirements to those resolutions is a very smart business move; right
>around 20% of users had anything higher, and about 18% of that is
>widescreens beyond 1280. If you want to push more than a million and a
>half pixels every frame, you had better already be prepared to bring the
>graphical prowess.
>
>/AND/, 23.5GB is nothing, given how cheap storage is today. Heck, you
>can get old-fogey PATA IDE 160GB hard drives for $45, delivered to your
>door from Newegg. That's 28 cents per gig, get over yourselves. :)
Aha, and you think every one of those PCs can run bleeding edge s/ware
tricked out to the max? I run Windows in 1280x1024, but I'm lucky to get
20fps from most recent 3D games on my rig. Whooooooosh!!! ;-p
>TheSmokingGnu
>
>PS: 750GB for $150, great googly-boogly. 20 cents a gig.
>
>PPS: Cross-posting sluts. It's an RPG!
He, he.
--
Nostromo
Wolfing
> Thus spake TheSmokingGnu <anonymityisavir...@1111011010011.com>, Mon, 28 Apr
I think the problem with MMOs is that they have to endure the pass of
time. Ideally, those games are meant to be played 3-5 years from now,
hopefully still looking decent by that time standard. Of course, it
also depends on the theme and the direction. WoW is cartoony looking
so it doesn't need it, but a game like Age of Conan can't have that
luxury. That world is deadly, bloody, menacing, and cartoony graphics
just won't work there.
And really, just go to your local computer store and buy a 500GB disk
for like $60 or something, I just bought a 750GB for like $99 if I
remember correctly (so I can install AoC's 30GB and still have 720GB
left for useful stuff, like porn :)
Nostromo
> I think the problem with MMOs is that they have to endure the pass of
> time. Ideally, those games are meant to be played 3-5 years from now,
> hopefully still looking decent by that time standard. Of course, it
> also depends on the theme and the direction. WoW is cartoony looking
> so it doesn't need it, but a game like Age of Conan can't have that
> luxury. That world is deadly, bloody, menacing, and cartoony graphics
> just won't work there.
Fair nuff, though as I said, most mmos overspec than under, so it seems
they're still not learning any lessons from WoW. Name one other
commercially successful mmo that has system reqs equal to or below
WoW's? (MUDs & retro/text games aside; also, paying subs, not free ones)
> And really, just go to your local computer store and buy a 500GB disk
> for like $60 or something, I just bought a 750GB for like $99 if I
> remember correctly (so I can install AoC's 30GB and still have 720GB
> left for useful stuff, like porn :)
Hey I never bitched about disk space - cheap as chips I know, though the
Internet is the best backup/storage media money almost doesn't have to
buy ;). And yes, you can never store enough porn, though I'm holding out
(sic) for the first viable, hi-def streaming porn sites to get into the
game. Now there's a license to print money I tell ya! <EG>
--
Nostromo
TheSmokingGnu
> Yes, but how will my 'state of the art' rig from 3 yrs ago actually run this
> beast of a game? Not very well I'm willing to bet.
Subjective, Nos.
>
> Is AoC going
> to reach any of the mobility market or just the ultra l33t <1% notebook
> owners?
I dunno. But you should very well know that people who play MMO's are
allergic to the sun and therefore do not venture farther than the cave
entrance. :P
> I see you have a nice shiny new (recent) box there on your shoulder TSG ;-p
Yea, kicking it super-sexy on my A64 3500+ with an ATI x800XL, both of
which were middle of the road when I bought them 3 years ago. Unless
you'd like to donate to the Get-TSG-a-better-rig fund, that can be
arranged...
>
> Does it look *reasonably* _good_?
Subjective (but yes, have you seen the screens?).
> Is it
> *playable*
Subjective!
> is their gameplay top notch?
Subjective (but we can always hope).
> So long as devs continue to push
> the h/ware envelope (just so they can line their pockets & those of the
> likes of Intel/NVidia & M$ with contra deals), they will alienate 80%+ of
> their target audience.
You have got to show me how you fold those tin-foil hats, Nos. Exquisite.
> We don't need a new PC
> every 2 years - technology ain't evolving *that* quick!
And why should it, when support for 3 year old systems is insufficient
to garner a majority of the market? No, we should never have set foot
beyond isometric sprite engines, I just knew it!
> So just like every other mmo out there once the novelty wears off? Mkay.
Yea, exactly. (They start to play because it's Blizzard, and it must be
good, right? Then it sinks the rusty bargepoles into you, and that's it).
> Aha, and you think every one of those PCs can run bleeding edge s/ware
> tricked out to the max?
No, and I didn't say that. I said, and correctly, that most people are
playing in 1280x960 or 1024x768, in whatever graphical glory suits them.
It's a subjective measure of quality, you know we'll never get anywhere
arguing that.
>> PPS: Cross-posting sluts. It's an RPG!
>
> He, he.
>
Harlot! :D
TheSmokingGnu
John Lewis
Not quite. From what I have seen in pictures and studied the emphasis
in the AoC FAQ, the game is a very bloody ACTION - rpg (Notice the
type-size). You might also read the words next to the "M" rating.
Obviously really intended to draw in the hack 'n slash crowd.
Anyway, I have the open-beta already loaded on two machines. I sure
want to give AoC "the benefit of any doubt", in spite of my concerns.
Machine #1:
P4-3.2 Prescott, 7800GT, 1Gbyte, WinXP SP2 - close to minimum stated
requirements but with a modest LCD display requiring a native
resolution of 1280x1024. The person that runs that machine is a
long-term exclusively-RPG MMO player and will give me a very clear
assessment of both the playability of the game on that hardware and a
strong opinion on the game's long term viability as a RPG-MMO.
Machine #2.
X2 4400+ Toledo (o/c to 2.6GHz), 8800GT factory o/c to 675MHz,
2Gbytes RAM, Win XP SP2. Somewhat exceeds recommended requirement.
CRT display - so I can experiment with a wide range of
resolution/refresh settings. I shall be using this machine myself. I
am not a dedicated MMO player - sorry, don't have the time to dedicate
a significant chunk of my life to this activity. I play a very wide
range of genres in SP games, with some dabbling in short on-line
action exercises like BF1942, BF2, Crysis MP etc.... So I shall be
viewing the AoC beta in terms of any unique elements that might
attract a non-MMO player, also seeing how well it runs on this
near-recommended rig. In fact a comparison with Crysis MP will be very
instructive indeed at various graphics settings. A great comparison of
graphics quality and the relative efficiency of the game-engines and
network code.
The open-beta for me goes live May 2. I believe that for others with
earlier keys it goes live on May 1. No doubt there will be some
initial server-hiccups with an extra 50,000 or so players coming
on-line. It will probably take at least a week of play before I can
get any sort of reasonably-balanced impression of the game.
John Lewis
Nostromo
2008 04:47:22 GMT, Anno Domini:
>Nostromo wrote:
>
>> Yes, but how will my 'state of the art' rig from 3 yrs ago actually run this
>> beast of a game? Not very well I'm willing to bet.
>
>Subjective, Nos.
>
>>
>> Is AoC going
>> to reach any of the mobility market or just the ultra l33t <1% notebook
>> owners?
>
>I dunno. But you should very well know that people who play MMO's are
>allergic to the sun and therefore do not venture farther than the cave
>entrance. :P
>
>> I see you have a nice shiny new (recent) box there on your shoulder TSG ;-p
>
>Yea, kicking it super-sexy on my A64 3500+ with an ATI x800XL, both of
>which were middle of the road when I bought them 3 years ago. Unless
>you'd like to donate to the Get-TSG-a-better-rig fund, that can be
>arranged...
Well, I said it with full ignorance & a sense of humour, so there! ;-p
Getting a new rig soon perhaps & already planning to join the l33t club? ;)
I have a AMD3400+ with a (recent) X1950Pro + 2Gb DDR400, so know how you
feel, though don't quite understand your standpoint on this matter in this
case.
>>
>> Does it look *reasonably* _good_?
>
>Subjective (but yes, have you seen the screens?).
>
>> Is it
>> *playable*
>
>Subjective!
>
>> is their gameplay top notch?
>
>Subjective (but we can always hope).
I'm seeing a pattern here...you think everything I say is crap & everything
you say is...no, let me guess...objective!? :)
>> So long as devs continue to push
>> the h/ware envelope (just so they can line their pockets & those of the
>> likes of Intel/NVidia & M$ with contra deals), they will alienate 80%+ of
>> their target audience.
>
>You have got to show me how you fold those tin-foil hats, Nos. Exquisite.
I see you live in an alternate reality. Luckily we're almost at the end of
this exchange you haven't fallen prey to that terrible human weakness, a
sense of humour yet. Do I read on or not in the vein hope...? <drum roll>
>> We don't need a new PC
>> every 2 years - technology ain't evolving *that* quick!
>
>And why should it, when support for 3 year old systems is insufficient
>to garner a majority of the market? No, we should never have set foot
>beyond isometric sprite engines, I just knew it!
Sarcasm...the lowest form of humour...almost there, but no cigar.
>> So just like every other mmo out there once the novelty wears off? Mkay.
>
>Yea, exactly. (They start to play because it's Blizzard, and it must be
>good, right? Then it sinks the rusty bargepoles into you, and that's it).
So, you're like ME 6 mths ago then rofl? Have you actually played WoW at
all? Or too much? :-/
>> Aha, and you think every one of those PCs can run bleeding edge s/ware
>> tricked out to the max?
>
>No, and I didn't say that. I said, and correctly, that most people are
>playing in 1280x960 or 1024x768, in whatever graphical glory suits them.
>It's a subjective measure of quality, you know we'll never get anywhere
>arguing that.
There's that word again!
>>> PPS: Cross-posting sluts. It's an RPG!
>>
>> He, he.
>>
>
>Harlot! :D
Only for the right price :).
--
Nostromo
Michael Cecil
>Thus spake TheSmokingGnu <anonymity...@1111011010011.com>, Tue, 29 Apr
>2008 04:47:22 GMT, Anno Domini:
>>Yea, kicking it super-sexy on my A64 3500+ with an ATI x800XL, both of
/eyes bulge!
>I have a AMD3400+ with a (recent) X1950Pro + 2Gb DDR400, so know how you
/eyes pop out of sockets!
Bah, Micrologic Flight Simulator 1.0 plays great on my C=
--
Michael Cecil
Now filtering Google Groups, OE and Idiots
http://macecil.googlepages.com/index.htm
Wolfing
> Wolfing wrote:
> > I think the problem with MMOs is that they have to endure the pass of
> > time. Ideally, those games are meant to be played 3-5 years from now,
> > hopefully still looking decent by that time standard. Of course, it
> > also depends on the theme and the direction. WoW is cartoony looking
> > so it doesn't need it, but a game like Age of Conan can't have that
> > luxury. That world is deadly, bloody, menacing, and cartoony graphics
> > just won't work there.
>
> Fair nuff, though as I said, most mmos overspec than under, so it seems
> they're still not learning any lessons from WoW. Name one other
> commercially successful mmo that has system reqs equal to or below
> WoW's? (MUDs & retro/text games aside; also, paying subs, not free ones)
>
bill, there are so many that we haven't even heard off (except when
one of those spammers posts here selling gold)
Ross Ridge
>Fair nuff, though as I said, most mmos overspec than under, so it seems
>they're still not learning any lessons from WoW. Name one other
>commercially successful mmo that has system reqs equal to or below
>WoW's? (MUDs & retro/text games aside; also, paying subs, not free ones)
When World of Warcraft was released I believe it had similar requirements
as City of Heroes. The fact that City of Heroes has since improved their
graphics engine, pushing the requirements up, suggests that keeping your
requirements low isn't necessarily a good thing.
Ross Ridge
--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //
TheSmokingGnu
> Getting a new rig soon perhaps & already planning to join the l33t club? ;)
I admit I may have committed the sin of thinking about an upgrade (or
two, or three...)
> I'm seeing a pattern here...you think everything I say is crap & everything
> you say is...no, let me guess...objective!? :)
Your words, but a standard of "looks good" is impossible to work with;
you might as well ask what sound yellow makes. I might think that
1280x1024 with medium settings and 2x FSAA looks good, and you may think
that only 1920x1200 with 16x FSAA will do. It's a matter of perspective
that has no premise with which to be a conclusion, that's all.
Define a standard of "good" and we'll begin.
> I see you live in an alternate reality. Luckily we're almost at the end of
> this exchange you haven't fallen prey to that terrible human weakness, a
> sense of humour yet. Do I read on or not in the vein hope...? <drum roll>
>
> Sarcasm...the lowest form of humour...almost there, but no cigar.
:*
> So, you're like ME 6 mths ago then rofl? Have you actually played WoW at
> all? Or too much? :-/
So that's where you've been, sucking ruddy Blizzard teat? What happened
to Nos-who-will-never-again-trust-Blizzard-not-to-screw-up-a-game?
You must be some kind of Stepford wife clone of him, this can't be right.
(I put my time in on WoW, same as everyone. It was empty and boring,
even moreso than some of the other MMO's I tried. Now, I belong to a
gaming community for my social interaction, and I play cooperative
multiplay shooters for that component. I have my single-player games for
the thinking bits when no one's around (getting back into Uplink,
waiting on Mass Effect to hit the PC).
TheSmokingGnu
Justisaur
I think you are right. I never had any video problems when I was
playing WoW, but going back to CoX my framerate drops to around 1 fps
any time i'm in a group, especially with a few masterminds around.
CoH was out before WoW! I've even tried setting all my graphics
options to minimum, with barely noticeable effect.
It's almost enough to quit again, and I'm sure influenced my decisions
to quit the last couple of times. It's certainly enough to get me to
avoid and hate grouping with many people, especially masterminds, and
not play a mastermind. I'm tempted to try upgrading my computer
again, but there are way too many other things with basic living I
really need first, like air conditioning, and I'm not sure if it would
have much effect. It was 86 this weekend here, and temperatures over
100 in the summer are normal.
- Justisaur
John Lewis
<rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Nostromo <nost...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>Fair nuff, though as I said, most mmos overspec than under, so it seems
>>they're still not learning any lessons from WoW. Name one other
>>commercially successful mmo that has system reqs equal to or below
>>WoW's? (MUDs & retro/text games aside; also, paying subs, not free ones)
>
>When World of Warcraft was released I believe it had similar requirements
>as City of Heroes. The fact that City of Heroes has since improved their
>graphics engine, pushing the requirements up, suggests that keeping your
>requirements low isn't necessarily a good thing.
>
> Ross Ridge
>
Huh? I'm confused.
Following your logic as wriiten above, you imply then that CoH is more
successful than WoW since CoH pushed its graphics requirements up
while WoW did not.
Really ??
John Lewis
Ross Ridge
>Fair nuff, though as I said, most mmos overspec than under, so it seems
>they're still not learning any lessons from WoW. Name one other
>commercially successful mmo that has system reqs equal to or below
>WoW's? (MUDs & retro/text games aside; also, paying subs, not free ones)
Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>When World of Warcraft was released I believe it had similar requirements
>as City of Heroes. The fact that City of Heroes has since improved their
>graphics engine, pushing the requirements up, suggests that keeping your
>requirements low isn't necessarily a good thing.
John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Following your logic as wriiten above, you imply then that CoH is more
>successful than WoW since CoH pushed its graphics requirements up
>while WoW did not.
No. If pushing up the requirements of City of Heroes was a bad thing
then they wouldn't have done it. It would've much easier to continue
along with similar system requirements as World of Warcraft if that was
the secret to WoW's unprecedented success.
Ross Ridge
Matt v3.2
> Perhaps the developers have some "XPlane-ing" to do?
>
> (*cue pinky and arched eyebrow*)
LOL! Well, at 60GB, perhaps they need a Mini-Me version. ;)
(Ah, I really need to watch the Austin Powers movies again)
--
};> Matt v3.2 <:{
CoinSpin
The problem isn't City of Heroes... It's City of Villains. Heroes came
out before WoW, but Villains was released a year later with a revamped
graphics engine, including physics support (good old rag-doll corpse
code). Honestly, if WoW had been released at the time CoV was, it may
have had very similar requirements and taxing graphics.
I know on my end, I used to play City of Heroes on my notebook with no
problems at all when I was on the road, then once the CoV engine was
patched in, things began slogging down. Actually PLAYING the villain
side was impossible on that notebook. Luckily, I've upgraded since then
and have a nice graphics card in this new one. But even this system is
taxed, and the comparisons are amazing... I had a single core system
with 1 gig RAM and a nVidia 6 series GoForce card in my original laptop,
and the new one is dual core, 2 gigs RAM, 7800 nvidia card with 128 meg,
and all this new horsepower still doesn't run CoV as fast as CoH used to
run. It's usable, but not pretty.
I think Blizzard has the right idea... They put together a game with an
engine that would not tax the majority of the "casual" PCs out there,
and have stuck with that engine. Probably one of the reasons it's such
a juggernaut in the MMO industry - everyone can play the damn thing,
whether they are on a notebook or gaming PC. If the graphics look a bit
dated, so what? It's got a weird kind of cartoonish charm anyhow, they
never made the decision to try to go photo-realistic. It works for
them, so they just keep grinding along and raking in the dough. And
it's so damn funny to me that all these MMO outfits do case studies of
WoW to figure out "how to do it right" and then come out with crap that
only the uber l33t with cutting edge can run decently, and wonder why
they fail miserably. Game mechanics don't matter if you can't get past
the loading screen.
CoinSpin
John Lewis
<rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Nostromo <nost...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>Fair nuff, though as I said, most mmos overspec than under, so it seems
>>they're still not learning any lessons from WoW. Name one other
>>commercially successful mmo that has system reqs equal to or below
>>WoW's? (MUDs & retro/text games aside; also, paying subs, not free ones)
>
>Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>When World of Warcraft was released I believe it had similar requirements
>>as City of Heroes. The fact that City of Heroes has since improved their
>>graphics engine, pushing the requirements up, suggests that keeping your
>>requirements low isn't necessarily a good thing.
>
>John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>Following your logic as wriiten above, you imply then that CoH is more
>>successful than WoW since CoH pushed its graphics requirements up
>>while WoW did not.
>
>No. If pushing up the requirements of City of Heroes was a bad thing
>then they wouldn't have done it. It would've much easier to continue
>along with similar system requirements as World of Warcraft if that was
>the secret to WoW's unprecedented success.
>
> Ross Ridge
>
CoH seems to have fallen off the edge of a cliff while WoW still goes
from strength to strength. I saw multiple new copies of CoH @ $2.99 in
the CompUSA bargain-bin 6 months before CompUSA's liquidation sales.
Your alternate hypothesis seems to have some holes in its argument.
John Lewis
Ross Ridge
>No. If pushing up the requirements of City of Heroes was a bad thing
>then they wouldn't have done it. It would've much easier to continue
>along with similar system requirements as World of Warcraft if that was
>the secret to WoW's unprecedented success.
John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>CoH seems to have fallen off the edge of a cliff while WoW still goes
>from strength to strength. I saw multiple new copies of CoH @ $2.99 in
>the CompUSA bargain-bin 6 months before CompUSA's liquidation sales.
>Your alternate hypothesis seems to have some holes in its argument.
No. The success of City of Heroes relative World of Warcraft has nothing
to do with their system requirements. If that was the secret of WoW's
unprecented success then CoH should have also enjoyed the same unprecented
success during the time when they both had similar system requirements.
John Lewis
<rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>No. If pushing up the requirements of City of Heroes was a bad thing
>>then they wouldn't have done it. It would've much easier to continue
>>along with similar system requirements as World of Warcraft if that was
>>the secret to WoW's unprecedented success.
>
>John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>CoH seems to have fallen off the edge of a cliff while WoW still goes
>>from strength to strength. I saw multiple new copies of CoH @ $2.99 in
>>the CompUSA bargain-bin 6 months before CompUSA's liquidation sales.
>>Your alternate hypothesis seems to have some holes in its argument.
>
>No. The success of City of Heroes relative World of Warcraft has nothing
>to do with their system requirements. If that was the secret of WoW's
>unprecented success then CoH should have also enjoyed the same unprecented
>success during the time when they both had similar system requirements.
Modest System Requirements is sure one of the criteria of WoW success.
And another is the modest requirements by the client on network
bandwidth. Plays great on a wide range of lap-top computers. Log-in
and play while you are traveling.
John Lewis
>
> Ross Ridge
>
>--
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
When did CoV come out again? Is there any correlation with the new graphics
engine in CoX & a sharp fall in sub numbers? If not, then that's probably
irrelevant, at least for CoX. In any case, CoX has always needed more grunt
& was slower to run & used more system resources than WoW imo. Only GW comes
close to beating WoW on hardware compatibility imo, though GW looks
generations ahead of it, so it's not really apples & apples.
--
Nostromo
Dave Seven
> Beware. This program has generally poor user-satisfaction ratings and
> the developers endeavor to rip you off for the full price again on
> every numerical iteration. If a free demo of Xplane9 is available, I
> recommend trying it out before taking the plunge.
>
> John Lewis
I have version 5.x of X-Plane and thought it was ok. It's a niche
product and not a game/sim for the masses so don't care what some mook
on Amazon thinks. The don't charge for each new version, only for each
major new version. All patches between ver9 and ver10 would be free.
X-Plane allows you to man the space shuttle, what's not to like about that?
Dave Seven
> LOL! Well, at 60GB, perhaps they need a Mini-Me version. ;)
They do have a Mini-Me version. From their website you can buy a version
that has just a smaller area of land and not the whole world modeled.
sw
> Justisaur wrote:
>> It's almost enough to quit again, and I'm sure influenced my decisions
>> to quit the last couple of times. It's certainly enough to get me to
>> avoid and hate grouping with many people, especially masterminds, and
>> not play a mastermind. I'm tempted to try upgrading my computer
>> again, but there are way too many other things with basic living I
>> really need first, like air conditioning, and I'm not sure if it would
>> have much effect. It was 86 this weekend here, and temperatures over
>> 100 in the summer are normal.
>
> problems at all when I was on the road, then once the CoV engine was
> patched in, things began slogging down. Actually PLAYING the villain
> side was impossible on that notebook. Luckily, I've upgraded since then
> and have a nice graphics card in this new one. But even this system is
> taxed, and the comparisons are amazing... I had a single core system
> with 1 gig RAM and a nVidia 6 series GoForce card in my original laptop,
> and the new one is dual core, 2 gigs RAM, 7800 nvidia card with 128 meg,
> and all this new horsepower still doesn't run CoV as fast as CoH used to
> run. It's usable, but not pretty.
It's hard to tell exactly what impact City of Villains orgiastic
graphics excess had to do with the slump in customers after the spike of
CoV, but I'm sure it didn't help. For one thing, it created a huge
negative buzz amid the player population that still lasts to this day
despite much optimization. 1/3 of the content is villainside, and for a
lot of the CoH population, "I won't be able to play on villain teams
because of graphics hell" is one reason on their long list of reasons
to stay on the hero faction.
City of Villains is a very poor example of "it's fine to keep upgrading
the graphics engine".
--
--- An' thou dost not get caught, do as thou wilt shall be the law ---
"Religion disperses like a fog, kingdoms perish, but the works of
scholars remain for an eternity." - Ulughbek
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake john...@verizon.net (John Lewis), Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:22:17 GMT,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 01:08:58 -0400, Ross Ridge
>><rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Ross Ridge <rri...@caffeine.csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>>>>No. If pushing up the requirements of City of Heroes was a bad thing
>>>>then they wouldn't have done it. It would've much easier to continue
>>>>along with similar system requirements as World of Warcraft if that was
>>>>the secret to WoW's unprecedented success.
>>>
>>>John Lewis <john...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>CoH seems to have fallen off the edge of a cliff while WoW still goes
>>>>from strength to strength. I saw multiple new copies of CoH @ $2.99 in
>>>>the CompUSA bargain-bin 6 months before CompUSA's liquidation sales.
>>>>Your alternate hypothesis seems to have some holes in its argument.
>>>
>>>No. The success of City of Heroes relative World of Warcraft has nothing
>>>to do with their system requirements. If that was the secret of WoW's
>>>unprecented success then CoH should have also enjoyed the same unprecented
>>>success during the time when they both had similar system requirements.
>>
>>Modest System Requirements is sure one of the criteria of WoW success.
>>And another is the modest requirements by the client on network
>>bandwidth. Plays great on a wide range of lap-top computers. Log-in
>>and play while you are traveling.
>
>When did CoV come out again?
May 2004
>Is there any correlation with the new graphics
>engine in CoX & a sharp fall in sub numbers? If not, then that's probably
>irrelevant, at least for CoX. In any case, CoX has always needed more grunt
>& was slower to run & used more system resources than WoW imo. Only GW comes
>close to beating WoW on hardware compatibility imo, though GW looks
>generations ahead of it, so it's not really apples & apples.
CoH can still be played on older systems, you just have to turn the
graphics back down to the levels they were at release.
They were smart enough to not make the graphics upgrade mandatory to
play, but gave more eye candy to those with more powerful systems
without chucking the weak systems off completely.
Network bandwidth needed on the other hand has increased sharply,
although not really because of the graphics but other additions.
IE Breakout in CoV, when you get out into the yard, there used to be
very little other activity, but somewhere along the way they decided
they needed a big longbow vs Arachnos set piece battle AND that every
last bit of it needed to be transmitted to the player.
On Dialup that meant I stepped outside and then froze for up to a couple
minutes as it tried to send an elephants worth of data through a
drinking straw.
Ditto for the Supatrolls in Skyway City - I had only to get within a
block or two of the big gathering by the warehouse and the connection
saturated.
With the "stop the Paladin from getting built" in Kings Row I couldn't
get within 3 blocks of it and often got knocked completely offline.
This kind of thing made it impossible to team at all since you'd end up
frozen half the time.
Now with broadband, I cranked everything to max and have no slowdowns at
all (well almost - Rikti attacks get a tad slow with all the powers
going off) and can team again if I choose to.
Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr
Nostromo
-0400, Anno Domini:
>Actually PLAYING the villain
>side was impossible on that notebook. Luckily, I've upgraded since then
>and have a nice graphics card in this new one. But even this system is
>taxed, and the comparisons are amazing... I had a single core system
>with 1 gig RAM and a nVidia 6 series GoForce card in my original laptop,
>and the new one is dual core, 2 gigs RAM, 7800 nvidia card with 128 meg,
>and all this new horsepower still doesn't run CoV as fast as CoH used to
>run. It's usable, but not pretty.
Heh, lucky you - I can't even fire up CoX on my work laptop now. After I
select the character, the progress bar on the load screen just takes too
long & the I get disconnected after 3-5 mins every time. WoW OTOH loads &
runs fine (as does GW), even if a bit sluggish in places.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
>Nostromo wrote:
>> Getting a new rig soon perhaps & already planning to join the l33t club? ;)
>
>I admit I may have committed the sin of thinking about an upgrade (or
>two, or three...)
I knew it! So you're e like an in arrears hypocrite then? ;)
>> I'm seeing a pattern here...you think everything I say is crap & everything
>> you say is...no, let me guess...objective!? :)
>
>Your words, but a standard of "looks good" is impossible to work with;
>you might as well ask what sound yellow makes. I might think that
>1280x1024 with medium settings and 2x FSAA looks good, and you may think
>that only 1920x1200 with 16x FSAA will do. It's a matter of perspective
>that has no premise with which to be a conclusion, that's all.
>
>Define a standard of "good" and we'll begin.
You can be objective about what looks good *today* to some extent. Most
reasonable ppl would expect at least 1024x768 rez, 65K colours & 15-10fps
out of their 3D games. A lot would also expect some AA/AF, shadows, particle
effects & possible bloom (DirectX 8, PS2.0, etc?). I'm sure if you took an
extensive survey you'd come up with a normally distributed or perhaps
skewed-to-one-side Poisson distribution. Take 2 or so std deviations & you
have a low end that _most_ people agree looks good & becomes a reasonable
minimum for devs to aim at.
Now here's the problem: Blizzard actually paid attention to this principle &
set the benchmark quite low, perhaps even lower than what the above
statistical analysis would return. Other mmo devs just aren't paying
attention to what h/ware ppl are running *right now* & are instead aiming at
current mid-range to tomorrow's super-PC as platforms. No surprise Blizz is
kicking all their collective, stoopid arses. And it really annoys me,
because cutting back on this shit should be the *easiest* thing for devs to
do, the first thing, the obvious thing, Instead we get more AoCs *huge Shrek
sigh*.
>> I see you live in an alternate reality. Luckily we're almost at the end of
>> this exchange you haven't fallen prey to that terrible human weakness, a
>> sense of humour yet. Do I read on or not in the vein hope...? <drum roll>
>>
>
>> Sarcasm...the lowest form of humour...almost there, but no cigar.
>
>:*
>
>> So, you're like ME 6 mths ago then rofl? Have you actually played WoW at
>> all? Or too much? :-/
>
>So that's where you've been, sucking ruddy Blizzard teat? What happened
>to Nos-who-will-never-again-trust-Blizzard-not-to-screw-up-a-game?
Keep up TSG...it's all in Google if you want a synopsis ;)
(long-short, my bastard guys at work bought it for my b'day in Jan as a joke
& I've been subbing using other b'day money since - so I haven't spent a
cent of my own on it :) - I'm about to close my sub once & for all actually
- playing a CoV stalker right now as it happens).
>You must be some kind of Stepford wife clone of him, this can't be right.
He, he.
>(I put my time in on WoW, same as everyone. It was empty and boring,
>even moreso than some of the other MMO's I tried. Now, I belong to a
>gaming community for my social interaction, and I play cooperative
>multiplay shooters for that component. I have my single-player games for
>the thinking bits when no one's around (getting back into Uplink,
>waiting on Mass Effect to hit the PC).
Uplink? Could you refresh pls? I think we've talked about it here before.
Yeah, I've parked my 53rd Undead Warlock chick in WoW. Once I got the
Felguard there just wasn't an incentive to go on (Dreadsteed at 60th -
fuggadit! But expansion to grind to 70th? Nah. Well, maybe for those hawt
Blood Elf chicks, but that's about it). I've seen most core areas in the 2
primary continents & anything else from here on in would just be e-crack & I
know it, so sayonara Blizzard! :)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>Now with broadband, I cranked everything to max and have no slowdowns at
>all (well almost - Rikti attacks get a tad slow with all the powers
>going off) and can team again if I choose to.
Woo hoo, he's finally got cable!!! >8^D
So, did you have to move X? ;-p
Btw, I have a sexy little up-n-coming 10th stalker on Virtue (how
inappropriate :) called Nightstasia - I'm on every now & then (7-10pm AEST)
- give me a yell & let me know what charnames you're runnin with. My MM
"Minion Mistress" is still serviceable too at 23rd level.
--
Nostromo
TheSmokingGnu
> I'm sure if you took an
> extensive survey you'd come up with a normally distributed or perhaps
> skewed-to-one-side Poisson distribution.
Like, say, the Steam Hardware Survey? :P
I mean, no fancy French mathematicians to be seen, but there is a lot
more data than you're giving it credit for, and AoC seems to fit right
in the middle of the majority of data.
> Other mmo devs just aren't paying
> attention to what h/ware ppl are running *right now* & are instead aiming at
> current mid-range to tomorrow's super-PC as platforms.
*tiny anecdote* In racing, when someone spins out in front of you,
instinct tells you to try to veer around him. But the survivors will
tell you to aim right for him, because by the time you're at the
accident, he's moved off in a different direction.
Conversely, if a game developer tried to develop for what was current
*right now*, by the time they got their product to market the hardware
would have moved on, and they simply couldn't compete in the graphics
department (and that only leaves them gameplay, something as devalued by
gamers and elusive to developers as Bush to a dictionary). They're
trying to hit a mid-range system several years from now, or perhaps even
6 months after release when things are settled down and price cuts set
in. That sometimes means they end up with a game that seems to be a bit
requirement-heavy at first release (but then again, you don't have to
play it at release...).
> No surprise Blizz is
> kicking all their collective, stoopid arses.
Blizzard does it because they're Blizzard, name recognition is a
powerful demon. And the subliminal messages while you're playing don't
hurt either. ;)
> Keep up TSG...it's all in Google if you want a synopsis ;)
> (long-short, my bastard guys at work bought it for my b'day in Jan as a joke
> & I've been subbing using other b'day money since - so I haven't spent a
> cent of my own on it :) -
But that /was/ money that could have gone to fast cars and loose women,
so I guess the "loss" is relative, eh?
> I'm about to close my sub once & for all actually
> - playing a CoV stalker right now as it happens).
I had a friend, he used to be on Xfire with me nightly and we would
shoot the shit and whatnot. He said he was just going to try WoW on the
trial, no commitments, not really interested in playing it and certainly
not paying for it. Called me up on the third day and said it was a
simple game, not much too it, no danger of subbing.
Well, here we are 3 weeks after his trial would have ended, and he's
been online to talk a grand total of twice. I even tried to convince him
not to play. :\
> Uplink? Could you refresh pls? I think we've talked about it here before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplink_%28computer_game%29
Made by Introversion, makers of the rather good DefCON and Darwinia.
It's kinda simple but good for keeping up on your computing skills
(touch-typing is a must).
> anything else from here on in would just be e-crack & I
> know it, so sayonara Blizzard! :)
Lies, all lies. Do not climb that willow thence, Ophelia.
TheSmokingGnu
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:55:11 -0400,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>Now with broadband, I cranked everything to max and have no slowdowns at
>>all (well almost - Rikti attacks get a tad slow with all the powers
>>going off) and can team again if I choose to.
>
>Woo hoo, he's finally got cable!!! >8^D
DSL actually.
>So, did you have to move X? ;-p
Yeah I finally moved.
>Btw, I have a sexy little up-n-coming 10th stalker on Virtue (how
>inappropriate :) called Nightstasia - I'm on every now & then (7-10pm AEST)
>- give me a yell & let me know what charnames you're runnin with. My MM
>"Minion Mistress" is still serviceable too at 23rd level.
I'm actually currently playing a rad/archery defender on Virtue.
Tried a rad/rad for a while on another server, then tried a
dark/archery, but decided that I liked the acc/def debuff of RI far
better than the acc/dam debuff of Darkest Night.
The rad/rad was an experiment to have a high recharge attack similar to
my plant/psi dominators psionic Dart which recharges in about a second
(1.5 second base and a couple recharge SOs.)
Unfortunately the -def of the rad attack isn't nearly as good as
the-recharge psi attacks give, and the psi attack did more damage to
boot.
Also logged on my mind/kin controller Synapticide (Liberty) for a bit
and finally leveled it to 20.
Been bouncing around between servers a lot lately playing older
characters that I abandoned at some previous point.
For a brief while I tried playing my highest villain up to get it to 50
before the new villain ATs go in, but found I really wasn't having any
fun doing it so that stopped rather quickly.
Nostromo
> Nostromo wrote:
>> I'm sure if you took an
>> extensive survey you'd come up with a normally distributed or perhaps
>> skewed-to-one-side Poisson distribution.
>
> Like, say, the Steam Hardware Survey? :P
>
> I mean, no fancy French mathematicians to be seen, but there is a lot
> more data than you're giving it credit for, and AoC seems to fit right
> in the middle of the majority of data.
LOL! Like Steam is a valid statistical cross-section of the online
gaming population. Do you know how many WoW players, just for example,
don't even know the meaning of the term mmo(rpg)? And that's yer #1,
hands down, no competition, pay-to-play online game out there. Think
about it.
Most Steam subs & users/buyers aren't in the general demographic of mmo
or even online game players I'd be willing to wager. Case in point:
there are no mmos being sold on Steam :).
>> Other mmo devs just aren't paying
>> attention to what h/ware ppl are running *right now* & are instead
>> aiming at
>> current mid-range to tomorrow's super-PC as platforms.
>
> *tiny anecdote* In racing, when someone spins out in front of you,
> instinct tells you to try to veer around him. But the survivors will
> tell you to aim right for him, because by the time you're at the
> accident, he's moved off in a different direction.
>
> Conversely, if a game developer tried to develop for what was current
> *right now*, by the time they got their product to market the hardware
> would have moved on, and they simply couldn't compete in the graphics
> department (and that only leaves them gameplay, something as devalued by
> gamers and elusive to developers as Bush to a dictionary). They're
> trying to hit a mid-range system several years from now, or perhaps even
> 6 months after release when things are settled down and price cuts set
> in. That sometimes means they end up with a game that seems to be a bit
> requirement-heavy at first release (but then again, you don't have to
> play it at release...).
I think that only addresses a small percentage of cases. The reality is,
publishers/developers pander to the graphics whores out there because
that's where they think the safe money is. Sad thing is, they're
probably justified from a simple marketing perspective.
>> No surprise Blizz is
>> kicking all their collective, stoopid arses.
>
> Blizzard does it because they're Blizzard, name recognition is a
> powerful demon. And the subliminal messages while you're playing don't
> hurt either. ;)
I must've missed them. I still despise them just as much as before I
played WoW. Our Jimmy Barnes put it best: "I don't taking charity, from
those that I despise..." :)
>> Keep up TSG...it's all in Google if you want a synopsis ;)
>> (long-short, my bastard guys at work bought it for my b'day in Jan as
>> a joke
>> & I've been subbing using other b'day money since - so I haven't spent a
>> cent of my own on it :) -
>
> But that /was/ money that could have gone to fast cars and loose women,
> so I guess the "loss" is relative, eh?
Heh, I'm married to my best friend & the love of my life & I already
have a fast enough car; I don't drink nor smoke nor do drugs, so what's
there left? ;)
>> I'm about to close my sub once & for all actually
>> - playing a CoV stalker right now as it happens).
>
> I had a friend, he used to be on Xfire with me nightly and we would
> shoot the shit and whatnot. He said he was just going to try WoW on the
> trial, no commitments, not really interested in playing it and certainly
> not paying for it. Called me up on the third day and said it was a
> simple game, not much too it, no danger of subbing.
>
> Well, here we are 3 weeks after his trial would have ended, and he's
> been online to talk a grand total of twice. I even tried to convince him
> not to play. :\
Hey, it's just like what I tell people about quitting smoking: it
doesn't take will power, or stubbornness, or having a goal, or doing it
for your health or anyone/anything else; it just takes... _character_ >8^D
>> Uplink? Could you refresh pls? I think we've talked about it here before.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplink_%28computer_game%29
>
> Made by Introversion, makers of the rather good DefCON and Darwinia.
> It's kinda simple but good for keeping up on your computing skills
> (touch-typing is a must).
That's the one! Not my cuppa for some reason (even though I've been in
IT my entire career & done my fair share of OS/programming/hack work in
the long distant past). Dunno, maybe I'll try the demo & see if it
proved me wrong.
Btw, does it have ultra-l33t graphics though dude? ;-p
>> anything else from here on in would just be e-crack & I
>> know it, so sayonara Blizzard! :)
>
> Lies, all lies. Do not climb that willow thence, Ophelia.
He, he. The real issue is that you can't get Blizzard (like most mmos)
to delete your account - even if you unsub, you know you can always just
re-sub & you're right back in e-crack land where you left off. I guess I
could delete my chars b4 I unsub, but that's just so bloody final ;).
--
Nostromo
Greg Johnson
<anonymity...@1111011010011.com> wrote:
>I had a friend, he used to be on Xfire with me nightly and we would
>shoot the shit and whatnot. He said he was just going to try WoW on the
>trial, no commitments, not really interested in playing it and certainly
>not paying for it. Called me up on the third day and said it was a
>simple game, not much too it, no danger of subbing.
>
>Well, here we are 3 weeks after his trial would have ended, and he's
>been online to talk a grand total of twice. I even tried to convince him
>not to play. :\
Makes me think it's just as well I only tried the free trial for a
couple of hours before abandoning it as boring.
Nostromo
> Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> looked up from reading the entrails of the
> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>
>> Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:55:11 -0400,
>> Anno Domini:
>>
>>> Now with broadband, I cranked everything to max and have no slowdowns at
>>> all (well almost - Rikti attacks get a tad slow with all the powers
>>> going off) and can team again if I choose to.
>> Woo hoo, he's finally got cable!!! >8^D
>
> DSL actually.
>
>> So, did you have to move X? ;-p
>
> Yeah I finally moved.
Just to get DSL? That's the spirit! I know I would ;)
>> Btw, I have a sexy little up-n-coming 10th stalker on Virtue (how
>> inappropriate :) called Nightstasia - I'm on every now & then (7-10pm AEST)
>> - give me a yell & let me know what charnames you're runnin with. My MM
>> "Minion Mistress" is still serviceable too at 23rd level.
>
> I'm actually currently playing a rad/archery defender on Virtue.
> Tried a rad/rad for a while on another server, then tried a
> dark/archery, but decided that I liked the acc/def debuff of RI far
> better than the acc/dam debuff of Darkest Night.
> The rad/rad was an experiment to have a high recharge attack similar to
> my plant/psi dominators psionic Dart which recharges in about a second
> (1.5 second base and a couple recharge SOs.)
> Unfortunately the -def of the rad attack isn't nearly as good as
> the-recharge psi attacks give, and the psi attack did more damage to
> boot.
Cool. I also have a plant/thorns dom called Venus Vice parked at 7th
which I had quite a bit of fun with (though slow to solo). I'm really
enjoying my Dark/Dark Stalker far more for soloing. There's just
something about taking out most mobs in one hit & all the hit & run
tactics which appeal. It's certainly a soloing AT through & through. If
you haven't tried one, I'd definitely recommend one. Energy primary is
the most powerful (overpowered really) compared to other primaries, &
most ppl like Ninja or Regen for 2ndaries, but you know me, never one to
min-max just to make it easier - always the maso player ;). Dark/dark is
actually a bit safer in some ways, but will require a lot of stamina
down the track with 6 active toggles in the build (yikes!).
> Also logged on my mind/kin controller Synapticide (Liberty) for a bit
> and finally leveled it to 20.
Cool. I've got a 6th mind/empathy controller "MYOB" parked as well who
was a bit of fun way back when (who's bloody name has been pinched by
some other asshat - that's the 2nd char now grrrrr!!!).
> Been bouncing around between servers a lot lately playing older
> characters that I abandoned at some previous point.
Hopefully they will make the game server-independent at some stage, as
they keep hinting.
> For a brief while I tried playing my highest villain up to get it to 50
> before the new villain ATs go in, but found I really wasn't having any
> fun doing it so that stopped rather quickly.
Try a stalker...really.
--
Nostromo
TheSmokingGnu
> LOL! Like Steam is a valid statistical cross-section of the online
> gaming population.
How do you know it isn't?
> Do you know how many WoW players, just for example,
> don't even know the meaning of the term mmo(rpg)?
But why does that matter if they know what it means or not? It has no
bearing on whether they'll play it.
> Case in point:
> there are no mmos being sold on Steam :).
Incorrect, EVE Online can now be downloaded through Steam.
> I think that only addresses a small percentage of cases. The reality is,
> publishers/developers pander to the graphics whores out there because
> that's where they think the safe money is. Sad thing is, they're
> probably justified from a simple marketing perspective.
If the 'safe' money is in graphical whorage, doesn't logic dictate that
most people must then have computers capable of delivering on those
graphics? QED?
> I must've missed them.
Wouldn't be subliminal, otherwise! :D
> Heh, I'm married to my best friend & the love of my life...
Married your computer too, eh? :P :P :P
> I already
> have a fast enough car; I don't drink nor smoke nor do drugs, so what's
> there left? ;)
Starving children in Africa? Me?
> Btw, does [Uplink] have ultra-l33t graphics though dude? ;-p
In blinding 2D clarity! Get this, the buttons have... color gradients!
And there's text! Did I mention buttons?
> He, he. The real issue is that you can't get Blizzard (like most mmos)
> to delete your account
You could change the email to something silly and then auto-reset the
password to alphanumeric nonsense, that's what I did.
TheSmokingGnu
Nostromo
2008 04:13:42 GMT, Anno Domini:
>Nostromo wrote:
>> LOL! Like Steam is a valid statistical cross-section of the online
>> gaming population.
>
>How do you know it isn't?
Common sense. Only Half-life fans or fairly _regular_, more diehard online
players even know about it. That's not the entire online game playing
population by a long stretch. I'm only a Steam sub because of HL2, though I
haven't logged into it in over a year probably, though I've played several
mmos with at least one upgrade since. How would they know what I'm running
now? How current is their data? What I'm getting at is, they gather those
figures so THEY can sell more games, NOT as an impartial statistical survey.
Please don't argue with that - it would be too painful to watch ;-p.
>> Do you know how many WoW players, just for example,
>> don't even know the meaning of the term mmo(rpg)?
>
>But why does that matter if they know what it means or not? It has no
>bearing on whether they'll play it.
If 7 out of 10 million WoW players are nuff nuffs, they're still paying nuff
nuffs & devs had better listen to THEIR systems specs, NOT the more
experienced players' who frequent Steam the likes. That's only if they want
to have their next mmo take any market share from WoW of course. And it is a
significant market share, certainly of the non-Asian mmos (which hold no
interest for me as a westerner), to say the least.
>> Case in point:
>> there are no mmos being sold on Steam :).
>
>Incorrect, EVE Online can now be downloaded through Steam.
My mistake. How many EVE players use Steam & have d/led it that way?
A totally irrelevant mistake most likely ;)
>> I think that only addresses a small percentage of cases. The reality is,
>> publishers/developers pander to the graphics whores out there because
>> that's where they think the safe money is. Sad thing is, they're
>> probably justified from a simple marketing perspective.
>
>If the 'safe' money is in graphical whorage, doesn't logic dictate that
>most people must then have computers capable of delivering on those
>graphics? QED?
To answer your question, you just have to look at how many over-spec'd new
games are successes...& how many flop. And the geniuses keep looking at the
successes (e.g. WoW) & not the failures, & even then they learn little from
the exercise. QED.
>> I must've missed them.
>
>Wouldn't be subliminal, otherwise! :D
>
>> Heh, I'm married to my best friend & the love of my life...
>
>Married your computer too, eh? :P :P :P
Exactly. What did you think I meant...? :-/
>> I already
>> have a fast enough car; I don't drink nor smoke nor do drugs, so what's
>> there left? ;)
>
>Starving children in Africa? Me?
Send me your bank account login details & I'll see what I can do :).
>> Btw, does [Uplink] have ultra-l33t graphics though dude? ;-p
>
>In blinding 2D clarity! Get this, the buttons have... color gradients!
>And there's text! Did I mention buttons?
KEEEEWWWWWLLLLL!!! Mind you, the demo d/l is a whopper (7.18Gb!), but WTF? I
might just give it a go this w/e ;).
>> He, he. The real issue is that you can't get Blizzard (like most mmos)
>> to delete your account
>
>You could change the email to something silly and then auto-reset the
>password to alphanumeric nonsense, that's what I did.
He, he, ye of little faith & conviction ;-p.
--
Nostromo
Xocyll
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Xocyll wrote:
>> Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> looked up from reading the entrails of the
>> porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>>
>>> Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:55:11 -0400,
>>> Anno Domini:
>>>
>>>> Now with broadband, I cranked everything to max and have no slowdowns at
>>>> all (well almost - Rikti attacks get a tad slow with all the powers
>>>> going off) and can team again if I choose to.
>>> Woo hoo, he's finally got cable!!! >8^D
>>
>> DSL actually.
>>
>>> So, did you have to move X? ;-p
>>
>> Yeah I finally moved.
>
>Just to get DSL? That's the spirit! I know I would ;)
Not really. Moved and where I moved to could get it so I got it.
I tried plant/thorns briefly, but the same thing that bugged me about
spines bugs me about /thorns, the spins sticking out everywhere and
moreover the fact that you had to spike up the thorns before the ranged
attacks could be used. Even if there is no actual redraw lag it was
annoying, not to mention would look horrible with wings.
>> Also logged on my mind/kin controller Synapticide (Liberty) for a bit
>> and finally leveled it to 20.
>
>Cool. I've got a 6th mind/empathy controller "MYOB" parked as well who
>was a bit of fun way back when (who's bloody name has been pinched by
>some other asshat - that's the 2nd char now grrrrr!!!).
Some "other" asshat? Watch what you're calling yourself. :)
>> Been bouncing around between servers a lot lately playing older
>> characters that I abandoned at some previous point.
>
>Hopefully they will make the game server-independent at some stage, as
>they keep hinting.
That would be bad since many of my characters share names, they're just
on different servers.
>> For a brief while I tried playing my highest villain up to get it to 50
>> before the new villain ATs go in, but found I really wasn't having any
>> fun doing it so that stopped rather quickly.
>
>Try a stalker...really.
Did briefly, but didn't care for it much.
The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
sw
> The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
> at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
> Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
>
> Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
That's kind of true in City of Heroes too (Malta, Carnival of Shadows,
Rularuu), to an extent. But 40+ City of Villains made me appreciate that
my highest level character had a self-rez.
Justisaur
> On 2008-05-02, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>
> > The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
> > at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
> > Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
>
> > Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
>
> That's kind of true in City of Heroes too (Malta, Carnival of Shadows,
> Rularuu), to an extent. But 40+ City of Villains made me appreciate that
> my highest level character had a self-rez.
Yeah, I stopped playing my ill/rad controller ages ago, both when they
nerfed the hell out of her powers, and things got ridiculously tough
so she's pretty much parked at 41. I logged her on recently and tried
playing, I ran a carny mission and died 3 times trying to take on an
illusionist boss - which took I think an hour before I could take her
out finally. Not fun. Also had difficulty finding any groups at that
level doing anything interesting (I like TFs and other really
difficult stuff) She's on Virtue, although none of my other characters
are, so if you ever need a 41 ill/rad try looking me up (o.k. not sure
what info you'd need, her name is Clockwork Queen, but I never play
her). She's my only character 40+
My other high mid levels that are parked are a fire/devices blaster,
Samantha Ash, I believe some nerf or other hit her around 30, and
while she leveled incredibly fast, she just wasn't fun, pretty much
pure solo.
A 29 stone/fire tanker volcano girl (now something completely
different due to time not logged into her) - actually great fun, but I
got a bit irritated as I was suprised to find she did much better solo
than in groups (actually fairly true of my ill/rad controller too),
might have just been the groups or that I'm that good :).
A 32 robot/dark MM, iWar Black - Just got boring I guess, and my comp
couldn't handle MMs in groups, he also needs a respec. I think both of
those are on Justice
My new one is Mauldin on Freedom a 29 Stone/Willpower Brute, love him,
but I'd like to respec to tighten his build up a bit. I'm thinking of
paying the fee to move him to Virtue as I didn't realize freedom was
east coast, and I'm west, and I think I like the community on Virtue
or Justice better.
At least there is a way to move characters, even if you have to pay
through the nose to do it.
I keep wanting to try Superstrength/Willpower but I can't get a
concept I can stand. I created 3 in a row on virtue, Only got one out
of the zig, and I don't really like him either. I had a "Shoveler"
clone, but it doesn't really work without a shovel, a "Strong Man" -
but I couldn't stand looking a the bare chest, and they didn't have an
over one shoulder top I could find, and lastly I made The Dwead Piwate
Peanut as an ode to Fezzik, but that just doesn't seem very superish.
I've also got a dark/rad corruptor on Justice at 17, which I really
like, but she's no where near the fun of my brute, and a zombie/poison
mm at 12 on Virtue which I really like the concept on, but can't seem
to stand playing MMs anymore.
- Justisaur
TheSmokingGnu
> Common sense.
That's an opinion, not fact.
> Only Half-life fans or fairly _regular_, more diehard online
> players even know about it. That's not the entire online game playing
> population by a long stretch.
Of course it isn't exhaustive, and any statement that purports a game is
under or over-spec'd for the "entire" community must also be purely
speculative, because I don't think such data exists anywhere.
> What I'm getting at is, they gather those
> figures so THEY can sell more games, NOT as an impartial statistical survey.
> Please don't argue with that - it would be too painful to watch ;-p.
How would lying about what their customers use help them sell more
games? You've been at the tin-foil again, haven't you...
> If 7 out of 10 million WoW players are nuff nuffs, they're still paying nuff
> nuffs & devs had better listen to THEIR systems specs, NOT the more
> experienced players' who frequent Steam the likes. That's only if they want
> to have their next mmo take any market share from WoW of course.
If the point were to steal WoW userbase, then we should see more JRPG's,
since a majority live in Asia; the US and Europe only make up about 4.5
million subscribers.
And furthermore, perhaps developers should focus less on "be like WoW"
or "emulate WoW" and more on making a creative and original venture that
is /better/ than WoW. WoW != uber alles MMO. The more interesting study
would be what psychological need WoW is fufilling, and then to move in
on that basis instead.
> To answer your question, you just have to look at how many over-spec'd new
> games are successes...& how many flop.
First, you have to define "over-spec'd", and you can't because no such
data exists (see the first bit), therefore the exercise is impossible.
Conversely, you could look at how many under-spec'd new games are
successes, and how many flop.
> And the geniuses keep looking at the
> successes (e.g. WoW) & not the failures, & even then they learn little from
> the exercise. QED.
"Go with what works" does sound awfully attractive to the shareholders...
The point, I think, is that you can analyze a game that does badly all
you like, but it's very difficult to see those same qualities in your
own work. For example, you can say that a game failed because of
unconvincing voice acting, a flat story, clunky controls and a bad
camera system. However, when you're developing a game, you always think
the acting is good, the story compelling. Play with any control system
long enough and you'll be as smooth as butter with it. Camera control is
no problem for those who can control it properly, etc. etc. etc. By
these standards, this game should fly off the shelf, and yet someone
else will find exactly the same faults in the game as the original example.
> Send me your bank account login details & I'll see what I can do :).
Only if your name is OKONKWO and you would like to transfer some of your
ROYALTIES from the NIGERIA OIL AND GAS CORPORATION. :D
> KEEEEWWWWWLLLLL!!! Mind you, the demo d/l is a whopper (7.18Gb!)
>.>
7.18MB, Nos. The full game is only ~55MB on disc.
MB is megabytes. Gb is gigabits.
Nomenclature, she is a cruel mistress.
TheSmokingGnu
Ross Ridge
> Common sense.
TheSmokingGnu writes:
>That's an opinion, not fact.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>Gnu, if all we had to rely on were *facts*, life would be very simple. Your
>idiotic, fact*less* challenge of Nostromo's opinion does not question whether
>it is a "poor" opinion or a "well-reasoned and excellent" opinion.
No, TheSmokingGnu is correct. The Valve System Survey is in fact
the best publically available source of information about the sort of
computers gamers actually have. Compared the sort of speculation you and
Nostromo are engaging in, deviod of any sort of objective observations,
TheSmokingGnu's argument is both well-reasoned and excellent.
Nostromo
>Nostromo wrote:
>> Common sense.
>
>That's an opinion, not fact.
No, common sense IS a fact of life. Usually those with little of it like to
deny its existence ;-p (that's not to say I have much myself, but at least
I'm not in denial ;)
>> Only Half-life fans or fairly _regular_, more diehard online
>> players even know about it. That's not the entire online game playing
>> population by a long stretch.
>
>Of course it isn't exhaustive, and any statement that purports a game is
> under or over-spec'd for the "entire" community must also be purely
>speculative, because I don't think such data exists anywhere.
It does, just not to us. Read on...
>> What I'm getting at is, they gather those
>> figures so THEY can sell more games, NOT as an impartial statistical survey.
>> Please don't argue with that - it would be too painful to watch ;-p.
>
>How would lying about what their customers use help them sell more
>games? You've been at the tin-foil again, haven't you...
Valve know their sub's system specs; so do Blizzard. If you think they would
share that commercial gem of a competitive advantage with anyone else,
you're more naive than I gave you credit for ;-p
Knowing your customer base, their needs, capabilities & shortcomings is
still one of the most powerful retention tools companies have at their
disposal. I'm curious: what do you do for a living TSG?
So, the logical conclusion, given the consistently low system specs & high
sub nos on games like WoW & yes, a lot of the Asian mmos, even Runescape
lol, is that system specs are a *very* important factor in the mmo 'race'.
WoW's has hardly changed in 4 years & kept well behind even today's
entry-level PCs, whereas games like CoH/V jumped ahead too soon, it's all
too painfully clear. AoC may be an initial, temporary success, but like
LOTRO, won't be taking significant market share imo (all other things being
equal, which I appreciate they're not entirely in this case - AoC has a
number of other design differences to the likes of WoW that it may succeed
in its own niche of mature, PvP-oriented, higher system spec subs).
>> If 7 out of 10 million WoW players are nuff nuffs, they're still paying nuff
>> nuffs & devs had better listen to THEIR systems specs, NOT the more
>> experienced players' who frequent Steam the likes. That's only if they want
>> to have their next mmo take any market share from WoW of course.
>
>If the point were to steal WoW userbase, then we should see more JRPG's,
>since a majority live in Asia; the US and Europe only make up about 4.5
>million subscribers.
Huh? These Asians ARE playing WoW, ergo they like THAT sort of game more
than their traditional jrpgs. In any case, is there any evidence the
Chinese, Indians, Koreans & any other non-Japanese countries are
particularly predisposed towards anything Japanese? Is Lineage1/2, an anime
style mmorpg what you calla 'jrpg'?
>And furthermore, perhaps developers should focus less on "be like WoW"
>or "emulate WoW" and more on making a creative and original venture that
>is /better/ than WoW. WoW != uber alles MMO. The more interesting study
I never said this, quite the opposite. I despise Blizzard for a number of
reasons & think WoW is a cutesy, shallow & repetitive, if addictive mmorpg.
I'm only claiming that its success has just as much to do with its low
system reqs as it does with the dev's name (among other top reasons). You're
the one discounting this extremely important bit of reality/fact as
irrelevant & pulling out tin-foil arguments/insults to support your flimsy
counter-theories ;-p
>would be what psychological need WoW is fufilling, and then to move in
>on that basis instead.
Bah! Poppycock! Why would WoW's psychological effect be any different to EQ2
or COH or EVE or any other OCD-pandering mmo? You're missing the point of
what (still) sets WoW apart from other mmos right now, rather than focusing
on what makes it the same.
>> To answer your question, you just have to look at how many over-spec'd new
>> games are successes...& how many flop.
>
>First, you have to define "over-spec'd", and you can't because no such
>data exists (see the first bit), therefore the exercise is impossible.
Of course I can. We know what was/is lower, mid, upper end specs in retail
PCs right now & every year gone by for the last 4 years WoW has been a
dominant force in the mmo world. We know the system specs other mmos have
demanded during that period & on the whole, they have been greater than
WoW's, at least for any half-decent mmo with half a chance of competing. So,
the conclusion is almost inevitable, just not quiet sure what you're not
seeing or why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious. Time to save some face
TSG & call this debate for what it is ;-p
>Conversely, you could look at how many under-spec'd new games are
>successes, and how many flop.
If they're aimed at the same market segment as WoW, sure. As I said above,
The Blizzard name & low system reqs are just 2 of a number of primary
factors that make WoW a continued commercial success, bar none. Others I can
see were the initial hype factor & the marketing campaign they've used (it's
a household name now & in the general media ffs!), in spite of the Warcraft
RTS series/franchise being relegated to the geek/nerd computer game playing
world in the past. They've used a solid base of BNet players (albeit many
disgruntled like myself) to create a foundation for a viral marketing
campaign (there's no such thing as bad publicity) the likes of which we've
never seen in the game playing world. There's are no conspiracy theories
here: it's all been fairly self-evident & out in the open all along.
>> And the geniuses keep looking at the
>> successes (e.g. WoW) & not the failures, & even then they learn little from
>> the exercise. QED.
>
>"Go with what works" does sound awfully attractive to the shareholders...
I was clearly talking about learning from other ppl's failures, not
emulating them. Are we still on the same page? Same book? <rolls eyes>
>The point, I think, is that you can analyze a game that does badly all
>you like, but it's very difficult to see those same qualities in your
>own work. For example, you can say that a game failed because of
>unconvincing voice acting, a flat story, clunky controls and a bad
>camera system. However, when you're developing a game, you always think
>the acting is good, the story compelling. Play with any control system
>long enough and you'll be as smooth as butter with it. Camera control is
>no problem for those who can control it properly, etc. etc. etc. By
>these standards, this game should fly off the shelf, and yet someone
>else will find exactly the same faults in the game as the original example.
That's a copout & you know it. Just like all the failed mmos who ignored
others who failed before them. If they stopped to analyse & consolidate what
makes games like WoW such a huge success & others flops, without the
rose-coloured glasses, they'd be on a commercially self-sustaining winner.
Games like LOTRO only survive because of their pedigree; WoW continues to
dominate in spite of having almost *none*!
>> Send me your bank account login details & I'll see what I can do :).
>
>Only if your name is OKONKWO and you would like to transfer some of your
>ROYALTIES from the NIGERIA OIL AND GAS CORPORATION. :D
>
>
>> KEEEEWWWWWLLLLL!!! Mind you, the demo d/l is a whopper (7.18Gb!)
>
> >.>
www.419eater.com :)))
>7.18MB, Nos. The full game is only ~55MB on disc.
>
>MB is megabytes. Gb is gigabits.
>
>Nomenclature, she is a cruel mistress.
DOH! And I looked at it twice in the past couple days. I must adjust my
monitor's resolution or me eyesight I think :).
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
2008 18:23:16 -0400, Anno Domini:
>Nostromo wrote:
>> Common sense.
>
>TheSmokingGnu writes:
>>That's an opinion, not fact.
>
>Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>Gnu, if all we had to rely on were *facts*, life would be very simple. Your
>>idiotic, fact*less* challenge of Nostromo's opinion does not question whether
>>it is a "poor" opinion or a "well-reasoned and excellent" opinion.
>
>No, TheSmokingGnu is correct. The Valve System Survey is in fact
>the best publically available source of information about the sort of
>computers gamers actually have. Compared the sort of speculation you and
>Nostromo are engaging in, deviod of any sort of objective observations,
>TheSmokingGnu's argument is both well-reasoned and excellent.
So you're smoking the same brand he is then Rossco? Cool. Just take a look
at the mmogchart links I posted & tell me again that's not objective
evidence/reasoning. In the real world, money talks, bullshit walks.
Have a nice day ;-p.
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Fri, 02 May 2008 18:11:24 GMT, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, TheSmokingGnu
>wrote:
>
>>Nostromo wrote:
>>> Common sense.
>>
>>That's an opinion, not fact.
>
>Gnu, if all we had to rely on were *facts*, life would be very simple. Your
>idiotic, fact*less* challenge of Nostromo's opinion does not question whether
>it is a "poor" opinion or a "well-reasoned and excellent" opinion.
>
>The well-reasoned and excellent opinions are *more* useful than facts, because
>everybody can get the facts, but not everyone has discernment.
>
>I won't pass judgment on Nostromo's opinion, but I think he's talking more
>sense than you.
>
>It's true, Gnu, opinions are often backed by research. Here's some "facts:"
>
>Steam is a minority software delivery channel flocked to mostly by "hardcore"
>PC gamers. Any customer who bought Half-Life 2 from the retail channel has
>stopped using it by now, and is not showing up in the current round of system
>profiles, because they're done playing.
Hey! That's ME! >8^D
>If Steam was the #1 way to get software, your facts would have more bearing.
>It's not. It's not even close.
>
>If you'd *bothered* to do the research, you'd find out that STEAM users tend
>NOT to be the casual or even *mainstream* crowd, so the sampling is skewed to
>higher specs.
Hey, I didn't even need to do any research to reach THAT conclusion! <G>
>MOST gamers get their games from the RETAIL CHANNEL, and Nostromo just thinks
>you're a god-damned idiot for not realizing this fact, and so do I.
>
>So ultimately, your Steam figures mean precisely dick. You are not exercising
>"common sense" by checking out the retail reports and seeing that most of the
>gaming market is tied up in *Wal-Mart sales*.
>
>I'm not going to do your research for you either. If you don't understand that
>ardent Steam users represent mostly the hardcore customer, a minority market
>segment with *superior* hardware, then you have been smoking for far too long.
>
>There is no easy link here. Just Google "software retail channel sales," FFS.
>
>There are lines around the block at GameStop, dude. Steam is not even on the
>radar. Your "facts" are irrelevent, and new computer sales seem to bear out
>Nostromo's contention that the mainstream user is a more "casual" gamer that
>can't meet beefy system specs.
Well, I'd like to keep this polite (which I know is unusual for me ;), but I
was only really interested in a mmo's secret to success, based on WoW's huge
sub nos (& other's low ones) & trying to extrapolate some longer-term
potential figures for AoC. To conclude my side of the debate, I'd be very
surprised if AoC surpasses even the 150K that LOTRO has settled into:
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
compare with the ridiculous climb of WoW's:
http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart1.html
Why does WoW have 10million subs & LOTRO only 150K when LOTRO is superior in
most technical/storyline/roleplaying ways?
The Conan franchise is not nearly as prevalent as the LOTR one & once the
hype wears off & the high system specs for AoC settle in, I think AoC may be
lucky to keep a quarter mill die-hard graphics whore fans in the first year.
Never underestimate the sheep syndrome of course - they may double their
figures just from the "the graphics are fully sick man!" crowd, half of
which won't be able to even get 50% of the max graphics levels on their
sub-par rigs lol! The one thing Funcom does appear to have learnt from Blizz
is that _hype_ is everything pre-launch for a mmo. We may not pay too much
attention to it in this group, but there's probably an average IQ of well
over 100 here & an even higher cynicism quotient (if you could measure such
a thing :)! Not to mention there's like 100 regs tops here he, he, so hardly
relevant to any mmo dev, more's the pity *sigh*.
Hang on TSG, didn't you used to be "TheSmoking*GURU*"??? :-/
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>> Yeah I finally moved.
>>
>>Just to get DSL? That's the spirit! I know I would ;)
>
>Not really. Moved and where I moved to could get it so I got it.
Still in that nice sleepy hollow seaside town? (well it's no secret given
your domain I guess ;).
>I tried plant/thorns briefly, but the same thing that bugged me about
>spines bugs me about /thorns, the spins sticking out everywhere and
>moreover the fact that you had to spike up the thorns before the ranged
>attacks could be used. Even if there is no actual redraw lag it was
>annoying, not to mention would look horrible with wings.
Heh, at 6th I haven't really used too many secondary powers, but I don't
have any issues with the animations. Horses for courses ;)
You sure there aren't some cool insecty wings available that would suit a
P/T dom?
>>> Also logged on my mind/kin controller Synapticide (Liberty) for a bit
>>> and finally leveled it to 20.
>>
>>Cool. I've got a 6th mind/empathy controller "MYOB" parked as well who
>>was a bit of fun way back when (who's bloody name has been pinched by
>>some other asshat - that's the 2nd char now grrrrr!!!).
>
>Some "other" asshat? Watch what you're calling yourself. :)
He, he - the *first* asshat pinched my fire/dev blaster's name on another
server "Umbral Fury", which I was rather proud of. Was going to rename to
"Umbral Fury the real one", but I settled on just "UmbralFury" :)
>>> Been bouncing around between servers a lot lately playing older
>>> characters that I abandoned at some previous point.
>>
>>Hopefully they will make the game server-independent at some stage, as
>>they keep hinting.
>
>That would be bad since many of my characters share names, they're just
>on different servers.
Oh, didn't think of that, though I suspect we'll get free server moves &
char renames before they dispense with the physical server topology (like
EVE kinda does). I doubt one 'server' could handle 150K players as it stands
anyway.
>>> For a brief while I tried playing my highest villain up to get it to 50
>>> before the new villain ATs go in, but found I really wasn't having any
>>> fun doing it so that stopped rather quickly.
>>
>>Try a stalker...really.
>
>Did briefly, but didn't care for it much.
Surprising. It's almost perfect for soloing, albeit slower than some other
ATs. What exactly didn't you like? What primary/secondary did you try btw?
>The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
>at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
>Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
Dang. What Issue fubared things up?
>Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
Heh, too true. Though death is only a couple levels of revenge away! ;)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>>Cool. I've got a 6th mind/empathy controller "MYOB" parked as well who
>>>was a bit of fun way back when (who's bloody name has been pinched by
>>>some other asshat - that's the 2nd char now grrrrr!!!).
>>
>>Some "other" asshat? Watch what you're calling yourself. :)
>
>He, he - the *first* asshat pinched my fire/dev blaster's name on another
>server "Umbral Fury", which I was rather proud of. Was going to rename to
>"Umbral Fury the real one", but I settled on just "UmbralFury" :)
Btw, I think I may have come across a char rename loophole. If you leave the
little modal window popped up on a char that has been forced to rename &
exit, the next character you log into still has that window popped up &
forces you to re-enter a new name on the _current_ character (works for same
server only I imagine). Soooo, keep at least one expired char for a free
rename for a current one - just don't go into it until you're ready to
rename as the dialogue box will remain up & it can't be moved. I was forced
to just rename my current main to the same name, so I'm not 100% certain if
this works, but I have at least 2 more expired charnames on Virtue, so will
test with a new throwaway char/name soon.
--
Nostromo
Ross Ridge
>No, TheSmokingGnu is correct. The Valve System Survey is in fact
>the best publically available source of information about the sort of
>computers gamers actually have. Compared the sort of speculation you and
>Nostromo are engaging in, deviod of any sort of objective observations,
>TheSmokingGnu's argument is both well-reasoned and excellent.
Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>So you're smoking the same brand he is then Rossco? Cool. Just take a look
>at the mmogchart links I posted & tell me again that's not objective
>evidence/reasoning. In the real world, money talks, bullshit walks.
In the real world companies risk real money based on the Valve survey
and surveys like it. No one ever risked a cent on some Usenet poster's
bullshit reasoning.
TheSmokingGnu
>
Fuck you, Zag.
I thought about responding diplomatically, honestly, but the fallacious
vitriol of your post, especially after I have been nothing but cordial
to Nos deserves nothing less.
Don't play retard, if it bothers you so, put the thread on ignore. Or
better yet, use your killfile like a fucking adult and save me the
trouble in future.
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> Just take a look
> at the mmogchart links I posted & tell me again that's not objective
> evidence/reasoning. In the real world, money talks, bullshit walks.
> Have a nice day ;-p.
>
What do the charts prove, beyond that fact that WoW is popular? They say
nothing, prove nothing about system specs, therefore your arguments are
invalid and unsound.
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> No, common sense IS a fact of life.
That's all you've got, a bad aphorism? That's not logic, it's fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_the_majority
> Valve know their sub's system specs; so do Blizzard. If you think they would
> share that commercial gem of a competitive advantage with anyone else,
> you're more naive than I gave you credit for ;-p
I think you're paranoid. Do you also think food manufacturers lie about
the ingredients because they are required to put them on the label, and
thus their competitors might discover the recipe?
(This is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum on my part).
> I'm curious: what do you do for a living TSG?
You're making me do the Wikipedia thing, Nos.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Repeat after me: attack the argument, not the person.
> So, the logical conclusion, given the consistently low system specs & high
> sub nos on games like WoW...is that system specs are a *very* important factor in the mmo 'race'.
Your argument, as I understand it:
WoW is very popular (granted).
WoW has low system requirements (also, granted).
---
Therefore, low system requirements make WoW popular.
This is a fallacy of the consequent; you have ignored the many other
possible factors that could contribute to that success.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_the_Consequent
Also, for light bedtime reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Just because it is popular and has low requirements does not necessarily
mean that the low requirements caused the popularity.
> WoW's has hardly changed in 4 years & kept well behind even today's
> entry-level PCs
Here we are again, at a subjective term that has no definition. Define
"entry-level". I consider entry-level to be a system capable of doing
Word documents and email, not playing MMO's.
> AoC may be an initial, temporary success, but like
> LOTRO, won't be taking significant market share imo (all other things being
> equal, which I appreciate they're not entirely in this case - AoC has a
> number of other design differences to the likes of WoW that it may succeed
> in its own niche of mature, PvP-oriented, higher system spec subs).
So now you're conceding that it will succeed, but only in a limited
sense. Pick one, either it fails or it succeeds.
> Is Lineage1/2, an anime
> style mmorpg what you calla 'jrpg'?
JRPG in a general sense for any "asian-style" RPG.
>
>> And furthermore, perhaps developers should focus less on "be like WoW"
>> or "emulate WoW" and more on making a creative and original venture that
>> is /better/ than WoW. WoW != uber alles MMO. The more interesting study
>
> I never said this, quite the opposite.
Of course not, because I'm the one that said it, Nos. It's called
"original thought". You may have had a few before...
> You're
> the one discounting this extremely important bit of reality/fact as
> irrelevant & pulling out tin-foil arguments/insults to support your flimsy
> counter-theories
I have not, ad-hominem boy. I stated that (A) it's not as important as
you believe (this is an opinion), and (B) that publicly available data
does not support your conclusion.
> Bah! Poppycock! Why would WoW's psychological effect be any different to EQ2
> or COH or EVE or any other OCD-pandering mmo?
If that were true, then they should all enjoy equal popularity. They
don't, because WoW somehow satisfies that need better / more succinctly
/ more directly. The drive to play WoW over all others must be
psychological, because I think both of us will agree that it doesn't
succeed purely on its merits as entertainment (it's a crap game). That
is a /major/ difference, not a similarity.
> Of course I can. We know what
Who is this "we", paleface?
>...was/is lower, mid, upper end specs in retail
> PCs right now & every year gone by for the last 4 years WoW has been a
> dominant force in the mmo world.
Subjective, endlessly debatable, completely illogical and opinionated.
You say tomato, I say thermonuclear bomb.
> We know the system specs other mmos have
> demanded during that period
Now you're striking my kinda chord...
> & on the whole, they have been greater than
> WoW's, at least for any half-decent mmo with half a chance of competing.
... but you managed to drag it back to an opinion. Define, and then
continue.
> So,
> the conclusion is almost inevitable
O RLY?
> just not quiet sure what you're not
> seeing or why you refuse to acknowledge the obvious.
Bullshit is only obvious to the bull, Nos.
> Time to save some face
> TSG & call this debate for what it is
"Give up while I still make a modicum of sense"?
Is that really what you're telling me to do? Fuck that sideways, Nos.
> As I said above,
> The Blizzard name & low system reqs are just 2 of a number of primary
> factors that make WoW a continued commercial success, bar none.
You so did not say that "above". :P
At least now we have some recognition for the totality of the problem
facing other developers.
> There's are no conspiracy theories
> here:
A mirror! My kingdom for a mirror!
> it's all been fairly self-evident & out in the open all along.
Viral campaigns are by nature clandestine, Nos. Blizzard has more monty
that Jesus and the Beatles combined, and the name-dropping power to
match. Corporate giants like that have no trouble using regular
run-of-the-mill saturation marketing.
> I was clearly talking about learning from other ppl's failures, not
> emulating them. Are we still on the same page? Same book? <rolls eyes>
And *I* was clearly referring to the first clause and not to the second,
but w/e floats your boat.
> That's a copout & you know it.
No, it's not.
> If they stopped to analyse & consolidate what
> makes games like WoW such a huge success & others flops, without the
> rose-coloured glasses, they'd be on a commercially self-sustaining winner.
"If they could honestly analyze other's success and their own mistakes,
they could succeed", is that not *just* what I said? The point is, it's
nearly impossible to do that. Nearly all published authors have editors
(very, very busy editors) for a reason, Nos.
> WoW continues to
> dominate in spite of having almost *none*!
Yea, the decade-long Warcraft pedigree is nothing at all. Can we stop
with the pithy bullshitting now, please?
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> Blizzard has more *monty*
> match. Corporate giants like that have no trouble using regular
> run-of-the-mill saturation marketing.
^H^H^H money, too. :P
TheSmokingGnu
Xocyll
porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>Thus spake Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net>, Fri, 02 May 2008 08:35:49 -0400,
>Anno Domini:
>
>>>> Yeah I finally moved.
>>>
>>>Just to get DSL? That's the spirit! I know I would ;)
>>
>>Not really. Moved and where I moved to could get it so I got it.
>
>Still in that nice sleepy hollow seaside town? (well it's no secret given
>your domain I guess ;).
Seaside? A few hundred miles from any sea (or do the Great Lakes count
as Seas to an Aussie?)
>>I tried plant/thorns briefly, but the same thing that bugged me about
>>spines bugs me about /thorns, the spins sticking out everywhere and
>>moreover the fact that you had to spike up the thorns before the ranged
>>attacks could be used. Even if there is no actual redraw lag it was
>>annoying, not to mention would look horrible with wings.
>
>Heh, at 6th I haven't really used too many secondary powers, but I don't
>have any issues with the animations. Horses for courses ;)
>You sure there aren't some cool insecty wings available that would suit a
>P/T dom?
There are insect style wings (you can see all of them at
http://cityofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/Invention_Made_Costumes), but the
spikes stick out all over and stick through wings/capes badly and look
horrible.
I'm a bit of a perfectionist and won't even use hairstyles that clip
capes/wings, so having powers that stick a dozen spikes through are just
right out.
>>>> Also logged on my mind/kin controller Synapticide (Liberty) for a bit
>>>> and finally leveled it to 20.
>>>
>>>Cool. I've got a 6th mind/empathy controller "MYOB" parked as well who
>>>was a bit of fun way back when (who's bloody name has been pinched by
>>>some other asshat - that's the 2nd char now grrrrr!!!).
>>
>>Some "other" asshat? Watch what you're calling yourself. :)
>
>He, he - the *first* asshat pinched my fire/dev blaster's name on another
>server "Umbral Fury", which I was rather proud of. Was going to rename to
>"Umbral Fury the real one", but I settled on just "UmbralFury" :)
Ahh.
The only time I ran into that was when I went to use Bonnie Bedlam on
the test server and someone had snagged it.
A minute or so of thought and using the "stargazer" mask, and "Sylvie
Stargazer" was used instead.
>>>> Been bouncing around between servers a lot lately playing older
>>>> characters that I abandoned at some previous point.
>>>
>>>Hopefully they will make the game server-independent at some stage, as
>>>they keep hinting.
>>
>>That would be bad since many of my characters share names, they're just
>>on different servers.
>
>Oh, didn't think of that, though I suspect we'll get free server moves &
>char renames before they dispense with the physical server topology (like
>EVE kinda does). I doubt one 'server' could handle 150K players as it stands
>anyway.
The above mentioned name "Bonnie Bedlam", I have I think about 6
different characters using that name - one a ma/reg from the first month
of the game that hasn't been touched since.
Ditto my plant/psi dominator and rad/rad defender are both "Fiona
Ferrishyn" with the same look and similar backstories.
I tend to do a lot of "variations on a theme" when I have a look or
theme I like but find myself not liking the build as much.
>>>> For a brief while I tried playing my highest villain up to get it to 50
>>>> before the new villain ATs go in, but found I really wasn't having any
>>>> fun doing it so that stopped rather quickly.
>>>
>>>Try a stalker...really.
>>
>>Did briefly, but didn't care for it much.
>
>Surprising. It's almost perfect for soloing, albeit slower than some other
>ATs. What exactly didn't you like? What primary/secondary did you try btw?
A ma/reg and a cople others. The loss of regen's quick recovery made
it feel wrong.
>>The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
>>at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
>>Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
>
>Dang. What Issue fubared things up?
Wasn't an issue, it's the critters. Under 40 you're in St Martial,
after 40 you're in the last zone and you are suddenly faced with enemies
that are hideously overpowered; the arachnoids I mentioned before, that
hit very fast, very hard and also seem to call out so every other one
within 200 meters comes running to help and you get swarmed.
>>Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
>
>Heh, too true. Though death is only a couple levels of revenge away! ;)
Not with those things, they hit like they're 6 levels higher than you,
when they're a level lower than you.
Like a Rikti Chief Soldier that's suddenly attacking 5-6 times as fast
as normal.
Ross Ridge
>No, TheSmokingGnu is correct. The Valve System Survey is in fact
>the best publically available source of information about the sort of
>computers gamers actually have. Compared the sort of speculation you and
>Nostromo are engaging in, deviod of any sort of objective observations,
>TheSmokingGnu's argument is both well-reasoned and excellent.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>I will disagree with you there. Following market data over the past 3 years or
>so, I'd propose that Valve's data is a "biased sample."
It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
CoinSpin
> Ross Ridge wrote:
>
>> No, TheSmokingGnu is correct. The Valve System Survey is in fact
>> the best publically available source of information about the sort of
>> computers gamers actually have. Compared the sort of speculation you and
>> Nostromo are engaging in, deviod of any sort of objective observations,
>> TheSmokingGnu's argument is both well-reasoned and excellent.
>>
>
> Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>> I will disagree with you there. Following market data over the past 3 years or
>> so, I'd propose that Valve's data is a "biased sample."
>>
>
> It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
> the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>
Oh, you're right... So let's incorporate this philosophy into another
industry... I know! Let's have all of the auto makers just look at the
customers that are construction workers and contractors who use their
vehicles for work. So, based on this biased (but fully valid in your
opinion) survey the auto makers have determined that they should really
concentrate on making light and heavy duty pickup trucks from now on.
Seriously, what could go wrong? The survey data never lies.
ANY argument that can use the word "biased" in it and still argue that
it is any sort of valid representation of a general population..... Ah,
you know what? It's pointless, you obviously have your mind made up,
and no amount of common sense or logic will ever convince you otherwise...
CoinSpin
CoinSpin
<lots of back and forth snipped>
> Your argument, as I understand it:
>
> WoW is very popular (granted).
> WoW has low system requirements (also, granted).
> ---
> Therefore, low system requirements make WoW popular.
>
I think you're making your own jump in logic there, and missing the
point. Even I got the point, and I'm not the brightest crayon in the
box at times.
Lower system requirements do not make WoW popular. They make WoW much
more accessible to a vastly wider audience than heavy requirements
would. THAT is a big component in the success of WoW, but by no means
the sole reason.
Suppose you were a battery manufacturer, and you made a battery that
only worked in a 25% of any available consumer electronics in use right
now. Your competitor made a similar battery that worked reliably in
more like 80%. Would you really be surprised if your competitor had a
larger and more consistent market share than you?
It's a sheer numbers game when it comes WoW. Add in the fact that
portable computers are a significant (if not majority) portion of all
new PC sales in the private sector (meaning the civilians who are the
TARGET for the games), and you should be seeing the pattern: If you
make a game that most of these shiny new laptops can't play, why would a
laptop user buy and/or subscribe to them? Oh, but if you have a game
that plays on those laptops without question, then you actually have a
shot at that consumer.
Getting the point now?
CoinSpin
Mark Morrison
<coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Ross Ridge wrote:
>> Ross Ridge wrote:
>>
>>> No, TheSmokingGnu is correct. The Valve System Survey is in fact
>>> the best publically available source of information about the sort of
>>> computers gamers actually have. Compared the sort of speculation you and
>>> Nostromo are engaging in, deviod of any sort of objective observations,
>>> TheSmokingGnu's argument is both well-reasoned and excellent.
>>>
>>
>> Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> I will disagree with you there. Following market data over the past 3 years or
>>> so, I'd propose that Valve's data is a "biased sample."
>>>
>>
>> It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
>> the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>>
>
>Oh, you're right... So let's incorporate this philosophy into another
>industry... I know! Let's have all of the auto makers just look at the
>customers that are construction workers and contractors who use their
>vehicles for work. So, based on this biased (but fully valid in your
>opinion) survey the auto makers have determined that they should really
>concentrate on making light and heavy duty pickup trucks from now on.
>Seriously, what could go wrong? The survey data never lies.
>
I've visited the US - auto manufacturers ARE churning out pickup
trucks.
TheSmokingGnu
> Never wrestle with a pig. You both get covered in sh!t, but the pig likes it.
I'm so sorry, twas a spelling mistake, m'lord! It will never happen again...
*gratuitous prostration*
:P
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> TheSmokingGnu wrote:
>
> <lots of back and forth snipped>
>> Your argument, as I understand it:
>>
>> WoW is very popular (granted).
>> WoW has low system requirements (also, granted).
>> ---
>> Therefore, low system requirements make WoW popular.
>>
>
> I think you're making your own jump in logic there, and missing the
> point. Even I got the point, and I'm not the brightest crayon in the
> box at times.
<snip>
> Getting the point now?
I understand the intricacies of accessibility, yes, and I think that's
the logical leap Nos has been making. WoW is certainly accessible
because of it's low system req's, but accessibility doesn't necessarily
breed popularity (sure doesn't hurt, though). OSX is eminently
accessible, but holds very little market share over Windows (perhaps
because it is beaten by an even greater accessibility, the capability
for ubiquity).
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> Oh, you're right... So let's incorporate this philosophy into another
> industry... I know!
By the same token, it also /doesn't/ mean that you should completely
stop making light trucks because the majority of the market is in
subcompacts. As long as there exists a market with sales that justify
the development and production, you should service it, in whatever
volume necessary.
Serving no customers is worse than serving the wrong kind of customer.
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> Why bother? That was a "flame," and I generally respect your opinions.
Flattery will only get you so far (usually to the full-body cavity
search). :D
> Review magazines, financial firms, etc. are institutions *devoted* to pure
> opinion. Opinion is valuable, even if its just a "good hunch." Would you ask
> "facts only please" of a firm that had a good track record, or a reviewer you
> trusted, and discard the opinion like you have in this thread?
Here's the thing, though; most reviewers try to use factual information
in their reviews. They will tell you things like "we found the
installation to be complicated" or "the auto-patcher did not work for
us" or "the game crashed frequently on a number of systems". The other
fundamental difference is that the reviewers never obfuscate the fact
(if you will) that they are giving you an opinion, pure and simple.
Their score is solely their own thoughts on the game; Nos has attempted
to use an opinion as a premise to draw a conclusion, without apparent
definition of enormously subjective terminology or a basis in truth.
Read on for a counter-example you provided...
> Which means your "facts only" argument boiled down to a veiled personal attack
> on Nostromo's judgment, for *his* opinions, on the sole basis that you *don't
> agree with him*. When you tell another human being that his opinion has "no
> value," on the basis of a single flawed survey and sheer moxy, I get upset.
I can tell you now, it's not a personal attack; if I wanted to attack
someone, I would do it directly and unabashedly, and I'm sorry if it
comes off that way.
I told Nos that I think his opinions are incorrect, and provided a
counterpoint. When pressed on the basis of his opinions, I got no
objective information to argue with, leading me to suspect that they are
superstitious in nature. That's all well and good, but you can't pass
those off as well-reasoned logical conclusions without proving the case.
> The survey you hold to be definitive is fraught with problems. The Valve survey
> results are provided with the *express purpose* of evangelizing their Steam
> service. Valve has a *serious* conflict of interest here.
>
> Ideally, you need to back up your source with impartial, third-party data. If
> that doesn't exist, then we're outta luck as far as determining if there's any
> reality in the marketing numbers Valve provides to sell their Steam service.
>
> A good scientist collects *lots* of data. He certainly doesn't stop looking
> after the first data that confirms his prejudices.
> I think the data is seriously skewed by hardcore enthusiasts who flock to the
> definitely hardcore HL2 series. You are getting a sample of folks who would
> pick up the "Orange Box," just for Portal, when you look at that survey.
Now here is a beautiful example of an argumentative opinion that is
based on fact. The fact is, you're right. The source of my data is
extremely suspect. Valve does have a conflict of interest in this data,
the data does not represent even everyone using Steam, let alone a
majority of the gaming market, the data may be old or outdated, and may
not accurately reflect people that play or would play an MMO. Based on
these truths, you have come to the opinion that it's crap data, and if I
said to you "no, you're wrong, prove it", you could.
> A good scientist collects *lots* of data. He certainly doesn't stop looking
> after the first data that confirms his prejudices.
Aww, but that's what makes debate fun, point and counter-point. :D
If I gave each side equal time, I might as well be writing for myself
(speaking of which, I think I have some essays due for English next week
:X ).
> I just think the
> mainstream has a lower powered machine than you assume
You know this is the part of the afternoon special where I ask you to
"prove it", and you storm out of the house, and then something really
bad you weren't expecting happens, and I come along and rescue you and
there's lots of hugging and making amends and learning lessons... ;)
> I thought you were
> deliberately obtuse and "politely rude," if that makes any sense, in your
> demands for "facts," when in fact you were just questioning judgment.
Look, I know what he's talking about, and he knows I know, and I know he
knows that I know. Y'know? I wanted him to put his basis out there for
me to see, and figure just why he thinks the way he does, that's all.
Ultimately, it's either based on facts, perception or intuition, you
just can't use the last two for a logical argument. They are separate
and isolated parts; they just 'are', without being required to change or
conform to the truth.
> The jury is out on whether Nostromo has "good judgment." ;^)
Hehe. :D
> It don't look too rosy. It certainly looks like "casual gaming" on laptops is a
> growth industry.
I blame the Sims. Once we had a game about effectively micro-managing
another person's existence, we were all hurtling merrily down the path
of destruction.
TheSmokingGnu, who is prepared for the upcoming Zombie Apocalypse.
Xocyll
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
>On 2008-05-02, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>> The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
>> at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
>> Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
>>
>> Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
>
>That's kind of true in City of Heroes too (Malta, Carnival of Shadows,
>Rularuu), to an extent. But 40+ City of Villains made me appreciate that
>my highest level character had a self-rez.
Not nearly to the same extent I found. It got harder at 40+ on the
Heroes side but it was just a normal ramping up of difficulty not the
alpine jump of the villain side.
I just wish they'd do the hero-gone-bad/villain-turned-good thing
already, since I really like some of the villain ATs, I just don't want
to play them in the Rogue Isles.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>>Still in that nice sleepy hollow seaside town? (well it's no secret given
>>your domain I guess ;).
>
>Seaside? A few hundred miles from any sea (or do the Great Lakes count
>as Seas to an Aussie?)
LOL - Kingston looked like it was hangin off the coast last I looked at a
map of Canada. DOH! Ok, waterside town - big body of water, just a different
salinity index. I must have been looking at a zoomed in map which made the
edge of the lakes looks like the Atlantic he he. Scary - you're only a
stone's throw from Yankee-land ;-p Doesn't that waterway spill out into the
Gulf of St Lawrence?
>>I tried plant/thorns briefly, but the same thing that bugged me about
>>>spines bugs me about /thorns, the spins sticking out everywhere and
>>>moreover the fact that you had to spike up the thorns before the ranged
>>>attacks could be used. Even if there is no actual redraw lag it was
>>>annoying, not to mention would look horrible with wings.
>>
>>Heh, at 6th I haven't really used too many secondary powers, but I don't
>>have any issues with the animations. Horses for courses ;)
>>You sure there aren't some cool insecty wings available that would suit a
>>P/T dom?
>
>There are insect style wings (you can see all of them at
>http://cityofheroes.wikia.com/wiki/Invention_Made_Costumes), but the
>spikes stick out all over and stick through wings/capes badly and look
>horrible.
>I'm a bit of a perfectionist and won't even use hairstyles that clip
>capes/wings, so having powers that stick a dozen spikes through are just
>right out.
You sure 'perfectionist' is the right word X? ;-p
>>>>> Also logged on my mind/kin controller Synapticide (Liberty) for a bit
>>>>> and finally leveled it to 20.
>>>>
>>>>Cool. I've got a 6th mind/empathy controller "MYOB" parked as well who
>>>>was a bit of fun way back when (who's bloody name has been pinched by
>>>>some other asshat - that's the 2nd char now grrrrr!!!).
>>>
>>>Some "other" asshat? Watch what you're calling yourself. :)
>>
>>He, he - the *first* asshat pinched my fire/dev blaster's name on another
>>server "Umbral Fury", which I was rather proud of. Was going to rename to
>>"Umbral Fury the real one", but I settled on just "UmbralFury" :)
>
>Ahh.
>The only time I ran into that was when I went to use Bonnie Bedlam on
>the test server and someone had snagged it.
>A minute or so of thought and using the "stargazer" mask, and "Sylvie
>Stargazer" was used instead.
What's in a name? ;)
I have a template create for a Ene/Ene stalker chickee-babe aptly names
Jamie Joule :) Will have to scrap the Playboy outfit at some stage & give
her a proper one.
>>Oh, didn't think of that, though I suspect we'll get free server moves &
>>char renames before they dispense with the physical server topology (like
>>EVE kinda does). I doubt one 'server' could handle 150K players as it stands
>>anyway.
>
>The above mentioned name "Bonnie Bedlam", I have I think about 6
>different characters using that name - one a ma/reg from the first month
>of the game that hasn't been touched since.
>
>Ditto my plant/psi dominator and rad/rad defender are both "Fiona
>Ferrishyn" with the same look and similar backstories.
>
>I tend to do a lot of "variations on a theme" when I have a look or
>theme I like but find myself not liking the build as much.
I tend to be different & make wildly varying themes so I have an excuse to
try different ATs & powersets, sometimes ones that may not appeal on face
value, but become quite a bit of fun with the right name/costume.
>>>>> For a brief while I tried playing my highest villain up to get it to 50
>>>>> before the new villain ATs go in, but found I really wasn't having any
>>>>> fun doing it so that stopped rather quickly.
>>>>
>>>>Try a stalker...really.
>>>
>>>Did briefly, but didn't care for it much.
>>
>>Surprising. It's almost perfect for soloing, albeit slower than some other
>>ATs. What exactly didn't you like? What primary/secondary did you try btw?
>
>A ma/reg and a cople others. The loss of regen's quick recovery made
>it feel wrong.
A lot of ppl say regen is almost unsuited to a stalker build. Dark is very
good for dmg resists, which I find better than a good defense even. When
something gets through your defense (& it invariably will, no matter how
good it is) you're naked. Whereas dmg resists just keep on keeping on, no
matter what.
>>>The not fun bit was that my ss/elec brute was kicking ass up to level 40
>>>at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
>>>Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
>>
>>Dang. What Issue fubared things up?
>
>Wasn't an issue, it's the critters. Under 40 you're in St Martial,
>after 40 you're in the last zone and you are suddenly faced with enemies
>that are hideously overpowered; the arachnoids I mentioned before, that
>hit very fast, very hard and also seem to call out so every other one
>within 200 meters comes running to help and you get swarmed.
Yikes? Lucky my highest ever is Kelvin (hero) at 33rd :)
>>>Nothing stops the fun like super overpowered enemies that swarm you.
>>
>>Heh, too true. Though death is only a couple levels of revenge away! ;)
>
>Not with those things, they hit like they're 6 levels higher than you,
>when they're a level lower than you.
>
>Like a Rikti Chief Soldier that's suddenly attacking 5-6 times as fast
>as normal.
Hasn't this been reported to the devs? How long's it been going on? If it's
clearly busted, it should be fixed. Or are they trying to force teaming on
the end game again *sigh*
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
2008 06:27:43 GMT, Anno Domini:
Are you & Rossco really this obtuse?
<shakes head & walks away>
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0400, Anno Domini:
>> It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
>> the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>>
>
>Oh, you're right... So let's incorporate this philosophy into another
>industry... I know! Let's have all of the auto makers just look at the
>customers that are construction workers and contractors who use their
>vehicles for work. So, based on this biased (but fully valid in your
>opinion) survey the auto makers have determined that they should really
>concentrate on making light and heavy duty pickup trucks from now on.
>Seriously, what could go wrong? The survey data never lies.
>
>ANY argument that can use the word "biased" in it and still argue that
>it is any sort of valid representation of a general population..... Ah,
>you know what? It's pointless, you obviously have your mind made up,
>and no amount of common sense or logic will ever convince you otherwise...
Bingo! I was quite happy to have a speculative debate based on observable
facts & sound reasoning to draw some conclusions on, WoW being the yardstick
by which to measure mmo commercial success by, clearly, whether we like it
or not. Instead we get argumentative BS tantamount to trolling, which I of
all ppl should be able to recognise ;)
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>The jury is out on whether Nostromo has "good judgment." ;^)
I love being the meat in the sandwich guys. Just make sure it's not a salad
sandwich - can't stand that ;).
>I wish I could just round up all the articles I've read over the past 3 years,
>but I can't. You have to look at lots of surveys and trends over a long period
>of time to get a real sense of where the PC market, DX10 and Vista, and by
>extension the gaming sub-market, is headed.
>
>It don't look too rosy. It certainly looks like "casual gaming" on laptops is a
>growth industry.
>
>I'm sure the folks that did AoC presented some sort of business plan, but I
>can't say that playing to the high-end consumer is smart.
And all I said was "mmo devs need to aim at a much lower spec PC". And they
say sticks & stones, but we all know words can start wars :).
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
2008 20:45:15 GMT, Anno Domini:
>Their score is solely their own thoughts on the game; Nos has attempted
>to use an opinion as a premise to draw a conclusion, without apparent
>definition of enormously subjective terminology or a basis in truth.
Bullshit. I actually presented more hard facts than you did with your
Steam-ing pile of shit. You just don't know when to quit...
>Read on for a counter-example you provided...
...so no thanks.
<snip more doubtless sophistry & double-talk drek unread>
--
Nostromo
Nostromo
-0400, Anno Domini:
>I think you're making your own jump in logic there, and missing the
>point. Even I got the point, and I'm not the brightest crayon in the
>box at times.
>
>Lower system requirements do not make WoW popular. They make WoW much
>more accessible to a vastly wider audience than heavy requirements
>would. THAT is a big component in the success of WoW, but by no means
>the sole reason.
Ya think??? Gosh, someone with a sub-200 IQ finally gets what I've been
saying all along - the mind boggles, ey? ;)
>Suppose you were a battery manufacturer, and you made a battery that
>only worked in a 25% of any available consumer electronics in use right
>now. Your competitor made a similar battery that worked reliably in
>more like 80%. Would you really be surprised if your competitor had a
>larger and more consistent market share than you?
TSG would no doubt point us to the vibrator manufacturer that claims their
vibrators last 50% longer with the 25% batteries ROFLMAO!
>It's a sheer numbers game when it comes WoW. Add in the fact that
>portable computers are a significant (if not majority) portion of all
>new PC sales in the private sector (meaning the civilians who are the
>TARGET for the games), and you should be seeing the pattern: If you
>make a game that most of these shiny new laptops can't play, why would a
>laptop user buy and/or subscribe to them? Oh, but if you have a game
>that plays on those laptops without question, then you actually have a
>shot at that consumer.
>
>Getting the point now?
I do, yes. I even thought to myself as I raised the topic early on "perhaps
this is just too obvious to even be worth a discussion". Seems nothing is
unworthy enough of a good flamefest for no other reason than boredom.
--
Nostromo
TheSmokingGnu
> Bingo! I was quite happy to have a speculative debate
Then try using point and counter-point....
> based on observable
> facts
Then provide some. "High spec" is as abstruse as they come.
> sound reasoning
Should have provided some...
> to draw some conclusions on
Now these, these you have in spades.
> Instead we get argumentative BS tantamount to trolling
Can't have an argument without being argumentative. Nevertheless, I
recognize the ungraceful dismount when I see it.
*Rocky's manager tone* You coulda been great, kid, but ya pissed it all
away.
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> I love being the meat in the sandwich guys. Just make sure it's not a salad
> sandwich - can't stand that ;).
Oooo, kinky. :P
> And all I said was "mmo devs need to aim at a much lower spec PC". And they
> say sticks & stones, but we all know words can start wars :).
And all I asked was "why?".
TheSmokingGnu
TheSmokingGnu
> Bullshit. I actually presented more hard facts than you did
No, you didn't. You presented subjective, indefinite terms without a
stable basis, and from them drew conclusions without fact.
> with your
> Steam-ing pile of shit.
So that's what this is about, you can't contain your rage for Steam long
enough to evaluate my message, because I must somehow be associated with
them. Fuck your close-mindedness, Nos.
> You just don't know when to quit...
So you have found the mirror after all!
Bye for now, Nos. See you tomorrow.
TheSmokingGnu
an0nemus
"Justisaur" <just...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6f023313-4be7-4cf8...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On May 2, 8:29 am, sw <s...@eyrie.org> wrote:
>> On 2008-05-02, Xocyll <Xoc...@kingston.net> wrote:
>>
>> > 40
>> > at max difficulty and then went from being super to being gimped.
>> > Even on minimum difficulty the aracnoids were shredding me.
>>
>>
>> Rularuu), to an extent. But 40+ City of Villains made me appreciate that
>> my highest level character had a self-rez.
>
> nerfed the hell out of her powers, and things got ridiculously tough
> so she's pretty much parked at 41. I logged her on recently and tried
> playing, I ran a carny mission and died 3 times trying to take on an
> illusionist boss - which took I think an hour before I could take her
> out finally. Not fun. Also had difficulty finding any groups at that
> level doing anything interesting (I like TFs and other really
> difficult stuff) She's on Virtue, although none of my other characters
> are, so if you ever need a 41 ill/rad try looking me up (o.k. not sure
> what info you'd need, her name is Clockwork Queen, but I never play
> her). She's my only character 40+
>
> My other high mid levels that are parked are a fire/devices blaster,
> Samantha Ash, I believe some nerf or other hit her around 30, and
> while she leveled incredibly fast, she just wasn't fun, pretty much
> pure solo.
>
> A 29 stone/fire tanker volcano girl (now something completely
> different due to time not logged into her) - actually great fun, but I
> got a bit irritated as I was suprised to find she did much better solo
> than in groups (actually fairly true of my ill/rad controller too),
> might have just been the groups or that I'm that good :).
>
> A 32 robot/dark MM, iWar Black - Just got boring I guess, and my comp
> couldn't handle MMs in groups, he also needs a respec. I think both of
> those are on Justice
>
> My new one is Mauldin on Freedom a 29 Stone/Willpower Brute, love him,
> but I'd like to respec to tighten his build up a bit. I'm thinking of
> paying the fee to move him to Virtue as I didn't realize freedom was
> east coast, and I'm west, and I think I like the community on Virtue
> or Justice better.
>
> At least there is a way to move characters, even if you have to pay
> through the nose to do it.
>
> I keep wanting to try Superstrength/Willpower but I can't get a
> concept I can stand. I created 3 in a row on virtue, Only got one out
> of the zig, and I don't really like him either. I had a "Shoveler"
> clone, but it doesn't really work without a shovel, a "Strong Man" -
> but I couldn't stand looking a the bare chest, and they didn't have an
> over one shoulder top I could find, and lastly I made The Dwead Piwate
> Peanut as an ode to Fezzik, but that just doesn't seem very superish.
>
> I've also got a dark/rad corruptor on Justice at 17, which I really
> like, but she's no where near the fun of my brute, and a zombie/poison
> mm at 12 on Virtue which I really like the concept on, but can't seem
> to stand playing MMs anymore.
>
> - Justisaur
ITs funny, the fun factor, for me, with MM stops around level 32 ( 3
summons, 12 buffs every mission) the set up time is just 'meh'. Now, with a
brute the fun factor tends to pick up at 32, and then again at 38 (with
their tier 9 defensive power.
FEEEM! Indeed.
Ross Ridge
> It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
> the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>Oh, you're right... So let's incorporate this philosophy into another
>industry... I know! Let's have all of the auto makers just look at the
>customers that are construction workers and contractors who use their
>vehicles for work.
No using the best available data is not equivilent to deliberately
biased data. Gamers play on Steam, and gamers play World of Warcraft.
How different the those two groups are we don't know exactly, but there's
no reason to assume that they're completely different.
TheSmokingGnu
> Because language is utterly inadequate?
>
> Oh, wait... wrong why. Sorry. ;^)
You can report to the headmaster for your beating now. :P
TheSmokingGnu
Ross Ridge
>It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
>the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do not see the inherent
>value in *data* without critical methodology. I think it must be applied
>critically.
You haven't shown that it hasn't been applied critically. No one said
that the Valve survey was perfect.
>I see this as empiricism vs. scientific inquiry. The latter is preferable, the
>former is formidable.
Using the statisitics in the Value survey is the closest this debate has
come to applying the scientific method. It's the only fact presented
that could've objectively falsified someone's conjecture. The survey and
its biases are independent of this debate. I find this sort of argument
much more convincing than simply asserting that every unverifiable claim
you've made is common sense.
Nostromo
2008 14:47:15 -0400, Anno Domini:
>Ross Ridge wrote:
>>It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
>>the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>
>Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>>We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do not see the inherent
>>value in *data* without critical methodology. I think it must be applied
>>critically.
>
>You haven't shown that it hasn't been applied critically. No one said
>that the Valve survey was perfect.
>
>>I see this as empiricism vs. scientific inquiry. The latter is preferable, the
>>former is formidable.
>
>Using the statisitics in the Value survey is the closest this debate has
>come to applying the scientific method. It's the only fact presented
>that could've objectively falsified someone's conjecture. The survey and
>its biases are independent of this debate. I find this sort of argument
>much more convincing than simply asserting that every unverifiable claim
>you've made is common sense.
There is more data on what PCs WoW subs are using than what Steam subs are.
There is only *ONE* almost irrelevant mmo being peddled on Steam (that
casual mmo players certainly wouldn't have even heard of, much less played),
so all the fucking data in the world gathered on this network is almost
entirely IRRELEVANT as well FFS!!! Why are you still being this
(deliberately?) obtuse when I know you're normally not??? Trolling???
You do the math Ross, but I know where I'm getting my _relevant_ facts or
reasonable assumptions/extrapolations from. Not to mention how many ppl in
WoW I've spoken to with the express purpose of finding out their mmo/online
gaming/PC knowledge (in that order) & basically received a "Huh?" in
response, which tells me they have Harvey Norman (=Walmart) home office
specials. It's a fair bet, if not exhaustively & conclusively demonstrable,
that most *mmo* players out there have lower specs than mmo devs are pushing
on them. QED. I'm done with this ridiculous thread & you 2 clowns who have
inserted your Steam-filled utterly baseless agendas into it for whatever
reason, probably sheer boredom. And you Steam-suckers have the audacity to
call ME a steam-hater - your kind is what creates them if anything does! The
mind just fucking boggles!!!
<thread marked ignore>
--
Nostromo
Ross Ridge
>Using the statisitics in the Value survey is the closest this debate has
>come to applying the scientific method. It's the only fact presented
>that could've objectively falsified someone's conjecture. The survey and
>its biases are independent of this debate. I find this sort of argument
>much more convincing than simply asserting that every unverifiable claim
>you've made is common sense.
Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>There is more data on what PCs WoW subs are using than what Steam subs are.
Data you made up yourself isn't verifiable, and can't falsify your claims.
CoinSpin
> Ross Ridge wrote:
>
>> It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
>> the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>>
>
> CoinSpin <coin^spam^sp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Oh, you're right... So let's incorporate this philosophy into another
>> industry... I know! Let's have all of the auto makers just look at the
>> customers that are construction workers and contractors who use their
>> vehicles for work.
>>
>
> No using the best available data is not equivilent to deliberately
> biased data. Gamers play on Steam, and gamers play World of Warcraft.
> How different the those two groups are we don't know exactly, but there's
> no reason to assume that they're completely different.
>
Errr, one group is a group of exclusively online multiplayer gamers, the
other group is a group that plays single player (and multiplayer modes)
of games that they just happen to have purchased and are required to use
a service to receive/update/use their product. There is a wild
difference in them already. Yes, there may be correlations and
crossover between the 2 groups, but there is absolutely no possible way
to know how much or any other facts if you look at strictly the Steam
data or strictly the WoW user data.
Seriously, if you think Steam is the best available data, you must be a
Valve employee. Cause that data is only the "best" to them, it is
basically useless to anyone outside that (other than a little pointing
to say "see that's what they use"). Applying such a one-sided and
biased sample and making a blanket "this is representative of the entire
gaming community" would be utterly moronic and short-sighted.
Which, of course, is what some of us have been trying to point out.
Just because Valve has some data on their customers and the hardware
they use, it does not mean you can judge the entire gaming industry by
their information... You can only judge the state of the Steam players
in question, and they are only a small chunk of the overall gaming
community, and most likely has inflated system specs (which are
generally needed to play the most popular Steam-based games).
CoinSpin
CoinSpin
> Ross Ridge wrote:
>
>> It's not perfect, but Valve's survey by far the best available data on
>> the subject. A biased sample is far better than biased speculation.
>>
>
> Zaghadka <pres...@whitehouse.gov> wrote:
>
>> We're just going to have to agree to disagree here. I do not see the inherent
>> value in *data* without critical methodology. I think it must be applied
>> critically.
>>
>
> You haven't shown that it hasn't been applied critically. No one said
> that the Valve survey was perfect.
>
>
>> I see this as empiricism vs. scientific inquiry. The latter is preferable, the
>> former is formidable.
>>
>
> Using the statisitics in the Value survey is the closest this debate has
> come to applying the scientific method. It's the only fact presented
> that could've objectively falsified someone's conjecture. The survey and
> its biases are independent of this debate. I find this sort of argument
> much more convincing than simply asserting that every unverifiable claim
> you've made is common sense.
>
Wow, miss the point much? From my (an no doubt many others')
perspective, this debate has boiled down to whether or not the Steam
data is relevant when applied to what people playing MMOs are using.
It's a wildly biased and completely subjective slice of data about a
small subset of the population, with absolutely no hard facts to show
any crossover or correlation towards the portion of the population we
are discussing (MMO players). If you think for a second that this makes
ANYTHING about using the Steam statistics "scientific" then you probably
should do some studying on statistics and analysis.
CoinSpin