|AOL TV||3 Comments|
|Download Squad||65 Comments|
Apr 4th 2012 1:40PM I don't know about any of you, but I am getting tired of paying upfront for lifetime subscriptions only to get a mediocre game that I'd not play more than a month - much less a lifetime.
Apr 4th 2012 12:44PM @Issmir Honestly, smaller guilds can just be farmer bots. I can see wanting to have a guild size over a number to help discourage the use of guild vaults as just glorified personal bank storage for gold farmers.
Mar 30th 2012 3:39PM I wonder when they will let my avatar complete the quests without me. THAT would be soooo much easier than reading, looking, searching, etc...
Mar 28th 2012 9:57PM There would be a lot better nemesis if they were other players.
I wish the superhero MMOs had way more sandbox elements in them. Give reasons for villains and heroes to harm or defend the world. There are so many possibilities that go beyond just PvP too.
Mar 27th 2012 1:51PM "There's no real way an MMO of this size can let all these new dungeons go live without extensive testing"
I wouldn't call Diablo III small, but Blizzard seems more than happy to keep the masses out of any level but the first. It may not be typical of Blizzard to do that here, but they just might decide to limit the beta content to keep interest, like Diablo III.
Mar 26th 2012 3:15PM I'd have to disagree. I mostly HoT with my druid with the occasional direct heal.
Mar 26th 2012 11:53AM I like the sound of this blog post from Martin.
It brought my opinion of the Secret World up a lot.
I am now very curious at the sandbox elements they will be putting into their world and how fleshed out everything might be. I am really hoping that developers realize that there is a HUGE potential in sandbox play that works alongside themepark play. I believe there is a potential for a great mixture.
The key is, sandbox isn't PvP. PvP can be part of it, but just letting people kill one another doesn't create a sandbox.
Mar 25th 2012 12:12PM You had me at "sandbox territorial warfare"... which maybe you should have led with.
Mar 24th 2012 9:44PM This perk isn't that old. I remember before the perk was and people still didn't go out into the world.
Raiders are the most affected. You will still get inta-ported into LFR, LFG, or any other queue you might have joined. If you are leveling, likely this perk isn't a big loss or gain - just sometimes handy. And if you are a very casual player who isn't raiding, you'll use the queues anyway and have instant travel.
There are two ways to make people go somewhere in a game:
1. Force them
2. Entice them.
Which do you think makes better gameplay?
Mar 24th 2012 9:03PM I have seen this same thing again and again with MMO betas. Attaching ANY purchase to beta access is always messy.
You see, when a player pays for beta access - even if it is just a "perk" to another purchase - they will feel far more entitled over a random invite. But then, as well they should. Money changed hands for the right to the beta.
So if person A gets in before person B, then person B is getting less value for his dollar. As beta access is a time-limited function, Person A got more time for the purchase. This if further compounded if people are let in the beta for "free" (they didn't purchase anything) which then makes person B feel even more devalued.
Imagine if I sold you a ticket to a movie and said you would then get a free screening of any movie the week before release. The day you showed up for your "beta" screening, I let in 20 people, but your group of 20 has to wait 30 minutes into the film to join them. Just to show an example of another time-limited event where people get staggered access to.
Of course they could not let everyone into the beta. They shouldn't have attached it to a monetary commitment.