AC2 vs. SWG (what interests you)

[Twystyd]

Sov and I want to start gearing ourselves up for a new game as DAoC is tapering off into a sattelite community for us. These are the 2 games that look the most intruiging to us. Check out the official sites and let us know what you think.

Star Wars Galaxies
AC 2

[Twystyd]

CORE SYSTEM for SWG

Every player starts out as a neutral player. There's only one sort of space. In this, the normal environment of the game, neutrals are unable to attack, heal, or directly trade with people who are aligned with a faction. This includes NPCs, so neutrals are not able to shoot Stormtroopers.

They can, however, improve their standing with a faction by undertaking missions for that faction, participating in PvP battlefields, and participating in PvE battlefields. PvE battlefields do not allow aligned players of the defending side to enter (under orders from their commanders, the NPCs can handle it...!.

When neutrals have sufficient standing with a faction, they can go sign up as either a declared member of a faction or as a covert member of a faction. Both are considered full-fledged members of the faction.

Declared members are publicly aligned with that faction. They are PvP 24/7 and have special perks for being overt about their faction membership.

Covert members are members of the faction who serve in non-combat roles. They are permitted to attack NPCs of enemy faction, and are permitted to heal their comrades and trade with them. In doing these actions, they incur temporary enemy status with opposing factions. They CANNOT simply attack opposing troops.

TERRITORY

Various structures both spawned and built by players affect the level of factional control of an area. These structures always have battlefields around them. Every once in a while we sum up the structures and assess whether the control needs to change hands.

Control affects the maintenance fees and productivity of installations owned by everyone (neutrals included).

Neutrals are able to donate cash towards a side in the struggle, which can affect control.

Player towns may declare to a faction directly, skipping the need for these factional structures. In that case, control is determined through political means.

Player towns may name any town citizen as a member of the town "militia." This essentially gives that person permission to non-consentually attack and kill ANYONE within the town's territory (including other citizens). Before crossing into a town's territory, players are told of the % of citizenry who are militia, how often they kill, and other relevant statistics that help determine whether they want to set foot in the town's land.

STRUCTURES

Players can put down turrets, minefields, etc. They only work on enemies and are only attackable by enemies.

All other installations (mines, factories, etc) are unattackable.

HOW THIS CHANGES THINGS


This system removes Outcasting and the need for separate area types (safe vs wild).
This system does remove the ability for PAs to hold territory, unless they build a city to do it. Territory conflict is limited to cities and faction control.
This system also removes the ability to simply attack someone who is bothering you. You will have to use ignore, squelching, access permissions and banning from towns and structures, and of course, calling CS.
Yes, it's basically a PK switch at first. Then there are two kinds of PvP+: perm and temp.

Some of the things I'd call out specifically:

We think that militia accomplishes basically the same thing as Outcasting does for roleplayers, only it's both easier to implement and more flexible.

I think that in the above, an Imperial player never has to see someone shoot a Stormtrooper without being able to take action.

I also think that neutrals have lots of ways to participate in the GCW in the above, and can get their full quota of StarWarsiness.

Lastly, I also think that the clean line between "being aligned" and not should make those who wanted a greater sense of belonging to a faction happier.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

Q-3PO wrote this paragraph for me.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think of this system? Does this address the primary concerns of people who prefer PVE? Does it satisfy the player who enjoys PVP in the context of the Galactic Civil War? Please be constructive in your comments and respectful of other people's point of view.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Things that I would imagine will be worth discussing: How do you feel about neutrals being able to impact the control of an area by contributing money? How do you feel about neutrals being unable to group effectively with PvPers (I personally am very worried about this aspect as in past games, it has always led to no PvPers being around)?

-Raph Koster
Creative Director

[Sovereign]

Seems SWG is based more around the major galactic powers than player guilds. If you read the info on it, SWG is even more ambitious than SB was in my book, and I'm not about to commit to another one of those games just now! AC is tried and true, so AC2's got my vote.

[Twystyd]

Yea AC2 should be a solid PvP game with good graphics and top of the line servers. As far as SWG is concerned you do not need to join a galactic empire and in fact would vote against it at first. At some point it would be nice to join one for the purpose of partaking in some epic battles. Of course we would have to be either Hut rougues or Empire. Lucas entertainment is also a much stronger company then Wolf Pack so no one is really worried about it's release of this fall.

I did not vote as I am down for whatever.

[Twystyd]

Here is an article on the kingdoms and fellowships of AC2.

http://zone.msn.com/asheronscall2/articles/articlesplayerorgs2.asp

Some nice quotes that have me excited are-

"Expect a combat system more intense, more dynamic, and more fluid than any other MMP experience."

"Gone are the days when players sent their characters into battle, leaving them to win or lose on their own. Combat dynamics now change constantly. As fights progress, characters need continual instructions in order to best survive."

"On the battlefields of AC2, combat has become a far more fluid system, with the dynamics of combat changing constantly and movement integrating with tactics."

Of course, quotes mean shit. The only thing that matters is if they can live up to their promises. This is where my biggest doubts for Shadowbane are. No one at Wolfpack has any game development experience. Shadowbane has the best design goals of any game I've read but I have my doubts about whether they can actually pull it off. This is why it's taking so long. They're learning as they go.


Off the top of my head heres a few small things that I think will greatly enhance the gameplay:

no arrows
no *NPCs*
no reagents

the kingdom system is sweet
the allegiance system where exp moves up the chain

the skill tree system, where you can train in ANYTHING with ANY character and also UNTRAIN shit you dont want anymore

Again, NO NPC's! You dont have to goto town to sell. You can melt down any item into gold in your inventory.

[ULO]

I have read the faqs and clearly choose AC2 over SWG based on what's currently available. I'm not sold on the idea of buying AC should it come out shortly before or after SB does.

[Twystyd]

Star Wars Galaxies to Carry Mature Rating

The ESRB has announced today that it plans to give Sony's upcoming MMORPG Star Wars Galaxies a rating of M - Mature after viewing some rather questionable content released with the June 2002 starwarsgalaxies.com newsletter. The offending material? Concept art for Galaxies' Resource Harvesting Installations

[barbos]

UO started out as Mature, but somehow after the first or second addon it was dropped down to Teen (13+)