Age of Conan level Fail

iMarx

Regardless.. Funcom dev's atleast actively communicated with the community. I rarely see anything but cut and past posts and ticket replies and as far as I can tell in game GM's are non-existent

Jadeviper1974

I think the Ago of Conan reference is a reference to the disappointment that game turned out to be. I happen to think this game is far superior to AoC, but everyone has their own opinion.

starkerealm

manaek05rwb17_ESO wrote: »

This actually reminds me more of The Secret World launch. TSW was a lot worse in terms of amount of bugged quests, and TSW's PVP was broken to hell and bach. However that is not what killed TSW. What killed it was the game breaking gameplay issues. TSW would have no working chat for prolonged periods, up to several days sometimes. Same as here, sometimes the game will think that you are not in any guild, and your groups would get disbanded in the middle of the boss fight, or the group would bug out and you couldn't invite or leave. It also had huge issues with its mail system. In fact, some issues in ESO at the moment, are very similar to what we had in TSW at launch. Specifically guild and mail issues, and group interface bugs. Makes me wonder just how many of these issues are caused by simple coding errors, and how many are the result of shortfalls of megaserver architecture - The Secret World also had a similar setup, with one large server instancing dimensions to players.

TSW's issue, at launch and today, is that it confuses wasting people's time with difficulty, and gear checks with challenge.

Zhakim

spyritwind wrote: »

The bank issue is killing a lot of people though and some are posting that stuff is missing from their character inventory now as well.

The bank issue is killing a lot of people? Has anyone notified the CDC or WHO?

-First world problems-

Asava

Glurin wrote: »

iMarx wrote: »

Umm AoC didn't have the progression blocking quests or nearly this many server issues. AoC was an amzing launch in comparison.

That's because AoC didn't have quests past level 20, which is one of the reasons the population plummeted soon after launch, which in turn would cause far less stress on the servers.

It's kinda sad because AoC had huge potential to be truly great IMO. It would have really, really benefited from another six months to a year of development before launching.

It did to have quests at 20+. Pyramid quest line was bugged but Black Castle was fine with all the quests in it around L28. I played a lot in Khopshef post Tortage since it wasn't the traversing nightmare that Conall's Valley was. Though ESO doesn't have the blue map memory leak crash at least.

jimfopao2

spyritwind wrote: »

AoC was known for having a terrible launch. Actually I'm over dramatizing. For the most part this game has ran really well for me and I've only had one bugged quest so far. The bank issue is killing a lot of people though and some are posting that stuff is missing from their character inventory now as well. Multiple explorer packs being mailed out some how seem to be linked to then bank issue. I have no idea how inner game mail resets the bank, but ... okay. ><

Actually this game is beautiful and AoC was too. This game has a more down to earth sword and sorcery feel; also like AoC. This game isn't as cartoony as most others; also like AoC. So yes there are some comparisons. People losing thousands of gold and items after a week or two of play isn't going to set well with a lot of customers though. Especially if you are a crafter and you lost some hard to replace items.

If you just vendor trash most of your stuff, not crafting and just adventuring then most likely you haven't had much trouble.

It isn't that inner game mail is the cause of the issue. It is that when whatever it is goes wrong it is resetting banks AND resetting the status of your explorer pack entitlements. Something is defaulting to initial settings and resetting both.

Thechemicals

Apathy wrote: »

AoC launch was NOT the worst launch by any means, although it was bolloxed up the wazoo.

AO launch? That absolutely the worst.

Funny because that is the same company that made AoC. So funcom has had 2 mmos with the worst luanch ever. I think 3rd place can go to WoW, they had unplayable classess at launch lol.

Apathy

Thechemicals wrote: »

Funny because that is the same company that made AoC. So funcom has had 2 mmos with the worst luanch ever. I think 3rd place can go to WoW, they had unplayable classess at launch lol.

True that.

Let's not forget the unplayable 7 severs that would go offline for days:)

Thechemicals

Age of Conan is still such a heart break to me. It really was a great looking game with cool classess and features and bloody. I remember leaning against a wall smoking a cigarette in AoC and some guy came out of the shadows and decapitated me.

spyritwind

@jimfopao2‌ Thank you for that Yes there seems to be a connection, but the way you put it sounds right.

Strontium

You people that are claiming AoC launch was bad...wow. What planet were you on? Wait. Maybe you were all 12 when that one launched and your memory is hazed by, I don't know, fantasy.

Apathy

AoC was stunning and really started out with such promise.

The game that TRULY makes me bitter, though, is Tabula Rasa. RG needs a good, swift kick in the junk.

Qhival

gemcutting and templar insta kills killed AOC

IlliadOfSnowhawkClan

I liked AOC's combat system.. I played that game for a LONG time. It had it's problems, but it had it's good points too. Funcom destroyed their cash cow

michaelpatrickjonesnub18_ESO

Another game with great art, and bad programming.

AoC was a decent game. Aside from crafting.

If Funcom hadn't made me kill 100 purple birds for 10 hides I'd still have it installed.

Strontium

Glurin wrote: »

iMarx wrote: »

Umm AoC didn't have the progression blocking quests or nearly this many server issues. AoC was an amzing launch in comparison.

That's because AoC didn't have quests past level 20, which is one of the reasons the population plummeted soon after launch, which in turn would cause far less stress on the servers.

It's kinda sad because AoC had huge potential to be truly great IMO. It would have really, really benefited from another six months to a year of development before launching.

Did you even play the game, past level 20? Wow. Such a *** statement.

The game had plenty of quests up until around 50 FYI. It's at 50-60 when quests ceased to exist.

I love reading all of these 'rememberances' of people that apparently didn't even play the game past the open beta.

Lol what a bunch of morons.

Apathy

I had 2 60s. The 50-60 grind was the reason why I *only* had two alts.

I've never only had 2 alts in any game...in 20+ years of online gaming (MUDs included).

badamarclayrwb17_ESO

I loved AOC!!! my favourite mmo ever but jesus did that game have issues lol.

Strontium

Apathy wrote: »

I had 2 60s. The 50-60 grind was the reason why I *only* had two alts.

I've never only had 2 alts in any game...in 20+ years of online gaming (MUDs included).

I gave up after two alts getting to 52-ish and they still hadn't filled in the 50-60 quests. I realized, at that point, it wasn't going to happen any time soon.

spyritwind

Ugh ... ya'll just reminded me of the 50-60 grind in that game. I'm not sure what I did; I don't remember, but I got two toons to 80. I may have made my alt and started leveling it to try to give them time to make some adjustments or add some content. Yes there were quest above 20, but I'll admit they spent a ton of time on Tortage (that was the name right?) and the rest of it felt more rushed and/or incomplete. I liked that game too. Death blow animations ftw.

Jadeviper1974

Asava wrote: »

Glurin wrote: »

iMarx wrote: »

Umm AoC didn't have the progression blocking quests or nearly this many server issues. AoC was an amzing launch in comparison.

That's because AoC didn't have quests past level 20, which is one of the reasons the population plummeted soon after launch, which in turn would cause far less stress on the servers.

It's kinda sad because AoC had huge potential to be truly great IMO. It would have really, really benefited from another six months to a year of development before launching.

It did to have quests at 20+. Pyramid quest line was bugged but Black Castle was fine with all the quests in it around L28. I played a lot in Khopshef post Tortage since it wasn't the traversing nightmare that Conall's Valley was. Though ESO doesn't have the blue map memory leak crash at least.

Let me say, that if the rest of the game had been like the first 20 levels, AoC would have been the first serious challenger to WoW. Alas, that was not the case.

Glurin

Strontium wrote: »

Did you even play the game, past level 20? Wow. Such a *** statement.

The game had plenty of quests up until around 50 FYI. It's at 50-60 when quests ceased to exist.

I love reading all of these 'rememberances' of people that apparently didn't even play the game past the open beta.

Lol what a bunch of morons.

Yes, I did in fact play past level 20 and I stand by what I said. You are the one who remembers wrong. Or perhaps you are simply mistaking launch for something that came months later. Content was extremely lacking past Tortage. What did exist was extremely poor quality compared to what came before it. Cimmeria in particular was very empty. There were large sections that even lacked any enemies to fight. Hell, even the trees were missing in some parts.

As for what post 20 quests did exist, those dried up before 40. And you had to grind levels to meet the requirements for existing quests. 50 was a pipe dream. Even if you got there, there was nothing there for you. Also, PvP was non-existent. All those promises they made of keeps and battles and arenas and whatnot. Not in game at launch. There was much crying about that from avid PvPers.

The only other MMO launch in recent memory I've experienced with less content is DCUO, and that one was by design of all things. At least that one was fairly problem free, but when even your casual players are done in a week, that doesn't count for much.

Strontium

Glurin wrote: »

Strontium wrote: »

Did you even play the game, past level 20? Wow. Such a *** statement.

The game had plenty of quests up until around 50 FYI. It's at 50-60 when quests ceased to exist.

I love reading all of these 'rememberances' of people that apparently didn't even play the game past the open beta.

Lol what a bunch of morons.

Yes, I did in fact play past level 20 and I stand by what I said. You are the one who remembers wrong. Or perhaps you are simply mistaking launch for something that came months later. Content was extremely lacking past Tortage. What did exist was extremely poor quality compared to what came before it. Cimmeria in particular was very empty. There were large sections that even lacked any enemies to fight. Hell, even the trees were missing in some parts.

As for what post 20 quests did exist, those dried up before 40. And you had to grind levels to meet the requirements for existing quests. 50 was a pipe dream. Even if you got there, there was nothing there for you. Also, PvP was non-existent. All those promises they made of keeps and battles and arenas and whatnot. Not in game at launch. There was much crying about that from avid PvPers.

The only other MMO launch in recent memory I've experienced with less content is DCUO, and that one was by design of all things. At least that one was fairly problem free, but when even your casual players are done in a week, that doesn't count for much.

I'm sorry that you have such a poor memory. I played AoC from beta through launch, to level 52 on two characters. Your recollection is just wrong. Sure, you had to actually WORK to FIND quests post 40. But, they were there. Maybe you're just a whiny baby that wants to be spoon fed quests. Never the less, the game didn't tank until post 50 where they obviously overshot their capabilities.

Tweek

Glurin wrote: »

Gromulus wrote: »

AOC launched with only their starter zone being somewhat polished. Other zones didn't even have quests and mobs had no loot tables. We all created alts and ran Tortage over and over..

This.

ESO launch and AoC launch aren't even comparable.

Gotta agree with you guys here it's like apple and oranges.
This launch reminds me of TOR more and more though...some horror story's on that game I've heard lol

cazlonb16_ESO

AoC had a very smooth launch. FunCom just took way too long to fill the content gaps.

Alphashado

Most of these bugs are effecting only a few. I know it looks bad on this forum, but that is because this customer support. This forum exists for the sole purpose of reporting serious issues. While it is very unfortunate that everyone here is suffering, the vast majority are enjoying a relatively smooth launch.

AOC had massive bugs that effected everyone. The one I remember the most is the map bug. It just blacked out. You had no idea where you were, or where you were going.

zhevon

cazlonb16_ESO wrote: »

AoC had a very smooth launch. FunCom just took way too long to fill the content gaps.

AoC Launch was pretty good except grouping was broken - eg you would get dropped and LFG tools were useless. And Funcom was in denial about how broken the grouping was. In fact they were set to force grouping with one of the first patches they made. Everyone had to be the appropriate level for the group content; if you were too high level it got disproportionalty hard for you and the group you were in. And much of the mid-through-high level content was broken; there was a lot of lower-level working content I would have liked to experience but I couldn't because I was overlevelled. Making everything worse was guild were toon-based not account based. So if was playing an alt I could not hang around in guild chat - and grouping from the guild which was the only grouping successes I ever had. Big frustrating mess.

It probably got better later - but FC was too stupid to make meaningful offers; really FC 10 free days is that the best you could do? I got the farking collectors edition and prepaid some time; and you couldn't figure that out.

ESO clearly has stuff that needs to be fixed (the very scary bank slot thing for one); but hell, I can at least hang around in guild chat with my alts experiencing other working content.

jimfopao2

Vanguard.

Shillen

jimfopao2 wrote: »

Vanguard.

Don't necro a thread from the 2nd week of release.

Artemiisia

I loved age of conan, played it for like 3 years and I also see some similarities in eso, thats why I have fallen in love with the game so fast


Side-note:
with the bank issue, for me it seems its only a one time deal, this is a problem, each time you buy extra space in your bank, its for all your alts, so it means at one point when u reach 200 spaces in the bank, unless you are a hoarder and cant separate yourself with junk. The bank space, and alts having their item bags up to at least 110 items depending on your mount. U should have more then enough room.

Once you reach the point where you dont spend gold on the bank with one of your veteran char, you can use the gold for alts item bags