Search results for query: *

Ringwraith #5 said:

Try the link at the top of every page that says in those big ol' letters: M&B Version 1.003 is available

Click to expand...

It's misleading to have a frontpage that still says .960 is the newest version when that's not true (well, it doesn't exactly say that, but it strongly implies it). Those of us who knew 1.0 was being released on the 18th and went to the home page expecting to find a link there were a bit baffled. At least I was. And I didn't see the link at the top of the forums page, either (it's not at the top of "every page" as you claim--only the forum pages). If you don't know to look there, it's easy to miss. I had to find the release version by drilling down into these threads.

Archonsod said:

From the "buy" page :

*: the e-commerce system automatically adds Value Added Tax (VAT) to the price if you are from EU or US. This tax is then paid to your country

Click to expand...

You sure about that? I know that's what it says, but it doesn't show up on in the invoice as tax. It shows a straight $35 purchase. I know because I bought it. (I am in the USA.)

From the eSellerate website:

"When is the VAT applied?
The value-added tax is applied to an order only when a customer who resides in a member state of the EU purchases electronically supplied services from a non-EU supplier, in our case through the eSellerate system."

What will change between the current version and the release version? Anything that might break its performance under Linux?

The game runs incredibly well for me right now. For all intents and purposes, it runs like a native Linux app. So I went ahead and paid the thirty-five bucks for a serial because I didn't want to get stopped at level six, but now I'm wondering what happens if the release version doesn't work well under Linux and the current version is no longer available for download? Anybody have any insight as to what to expect?

I'd love a Civil War game based upon M&B's design. It'd be hellishly complicated and difficult to pull off, though, so I think sticking to an ahistorical setting is ultimately better for the franchise. With that in mind, since M&B's design is basicallly a real-time version of Warlords anyway (minus the fantasy elements), it would be cool to see that game done with this engine.

Amagic said:

How do you even start out if you can't be an icon on the map!? In a city??! Then you have to wait until someone recruits you, forcing you to join a faction and striping of you of all game freedom. That's why the only part of this game that could be made into MMO is combat.

Click to expand...

Granted, changes would have to be made. The design couldn't be ported as-is...I don't think anybody would claim that it could be. But it's a good base for a MMOG. It could be done, I think.

There could be activities for peasants to engage in while they're waiting to be recruited, for example. Or maybe they'd get assigned immediately to an army or something. In any case, yeah, the stripping of game freedom is part of the game. Like I said, you've got to earn your stripes. If you don't want to, you'll go play something else.

A possible answer would be to have some players as leaders, 'lords' and others as his party, represented by a single icon, but then again, who on earth will want to be led on M&B? We all wanna lead!

Click to expand...

So you have to earn it. I like the idea. Everyone serves as a footsoldier until they've earned the right to move up in the world and are promoted by their Lord. (Or, maybe there could even be a way to sieze power through some kind of coup or something as well. In any case, at some point there'd have to be a way to break away and become your own boss.)

One thing I've always disliked about MMOG's is just what you mention: the fact that everyone is special. Everyone's a hero. It's just ridiculous. You've got more men in tights running around in these worlds than you have plain old everyday peasants. There needs to be a game where everyone's not special until they earn their stripes. M&B would be an ideal candidate for something like that, it seems to me.

Maelstorm said:

Why not? The number of people in each server can be adjusted. Plus, with different careers like banditry, trading, diplomacy or nobledom; there could be many, many players.

Click to expand...

Beat me to the punch. I was just about to say the same thing: Population levels can be adjusted through instancing. That's one of the big complaints about Age of Conan: too few players per instance even though the server populations as a whole are large.

Since it's been a few days, I'll assume you finally got the game downloaded. But if not, another thing to keep in mind is that corrupted downloads are typically one of the first signs of a failing hard drive. If this continues to happen and you start seeing other weird behavior as well, you should look into replacing it.

Kamamura said:

Technical difficulties aside (once again - current combat system would not work due to lag), I think you phantasize a bit too much.

Click to expand...

I'm not speaking from personal experience, as I've never made a MMORPG, but I think you may be exaggerating the technical difficulties involved a bit. The MMO game Neocron has featured first-person melee combat for years and it works reasonably well. Of course, the implementation in that game is somewhat primitive, so it's hard to gauge from it what a fresher, more modern approach might bring. However, Sony is currently developing a major MMOG release called The Agency, which is a FPS realtime combat game (essentially a MMO shooter) that I'm pretty sure involves at least some melee combat, so it is in principle do-able. Sony wouldn't sink the big bucks into a project that obviously wouldn't work.

I was interested in a MMORPG that would implement some kind of social structure, but I failed. The closest that I found was EVE Online.

Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you mean by "social structure," but I thought that was what Asheron's Call was all about. It features a sort of vassalage system.

The problem is that:

1) Too many dolts and teens play online
2) Even if the players are intelligent, it's hard to motivate them to fall into some rigid structure. I real life middle ages, you see, there is a lot of motivation - physical violence, hunger, fear of God, stuff like that. Moreover, everyone has only one life. So people obey. But online? No chance.
3) Roleplaying abilities of different players. Each time an archaic mam-at-arms in some online game says "OMG, Lol, WTF?", my sense of immersion is totally destroyed.

Therefore it is all just a waste of time, money and effort.

Click to expand...

It's hard to argue with you here. Listening to medieval swordsmen conversing in the infantile slang of modern adolescents is, like, so gay. It's retarded. (<----my weak attempt at humor)

Roleplaying games grew out of wargames, which were originally the province of people with brains and both the desire and ability to use them. Needless to say, that's not where we are anymore.

Kamamura said:

M&B will never be a MMORPG and will not have an Internet multiplayer component.

Click to expand...

Just want to stress that "multiplayer" does not necessarily imply "online." A lot of multiplayer gaming is done over LANs, which don't present the same latency and sync hurdles that the Internet does.

P.S. In anticipation of those who don't know how to read: I didn't say one word about whether M&B should or should not be made into a multiplayer game. I'm only making the point I just made.

Darian, thank you for your answer. I'll try turning up the sensitivity and see if that helps!

MasacruTheArcher said:

Same here i  don't like the cover.I mean everytime i look at it ,it reminds me of Lord of the rings ...aragorn.He looks the same only edited a bit , hair and all that stuff.Put Borcha there

Click to expand...

FWIW, I like the cover. I think it sends all the right signals to potential buyers. It did to me.

If they had put a battle scene on the cover, I would have viewed M&B as more of a twitchy action game and it wouldn't have appealed to me as much. (Keep in mind that the cover is intended to sell the game to people cruising the aisles of Best Buy who don't already know about the game the way you guys do.) Putting an Aragorn look-alike there with a sheathed sword hints that the game has some depth to it--that it's not just a slapped-together, me-too, kind of RPG-lite. I don't know how to say it exactly, but I just feel like the name conveys the fighting aspect well enough, while the artwork conveys the medieval, Darklands-esque RPG aspect and lends an air of mystery to it.

It remains to be seen, of course, but I think whoever designed the cover is a shrewder marketer than you're giving him/her credit for.