AOC - General Information

[Cerin]

Here's some feedback/impressions of the classes from my buddy who is in General and has played most of the classes (and a few 80s):


Level 80 took 6-7 days played during beta period. This also factored in a slight % xp increase that all beta players had, so it should take longer. But, Collector's Edition purchasers get that +10% xp ring or whatever, and there is a rested xp system in place, as well as chain kills for even more. So if you're good, you can level fast.

Level 80 classes are decently balanced in PvP, but it mostly seems that way because people aren't good at their class.

Assassin's suck. I really wanted to be one, but they are NOT powerful enough right now. This might change in one patch, however they're really underpowered right now. Stealth still sucks, it's either too easy for an enemy to see you, or impossible for them to see you, they haven't found that medium ground yet. Assassin's still do more damage just by shooting their crossbow than they do using combos... Maybe 70% complete.

Barbarians are beastly. They have sick AoE damage and great player killing ability. Stack them together and the more barbarians that are in a group, the more powerful all the other barbarians become. Imagine a MS warrior with a passive permanent bestial wrath buff that becomes more effective as more MS warriors join the group. That's what a Barbarian is like. It's 90% complete, just some balancing issues left.

Bear Shamans are meh. I'm undecided about them because they keep getting changed. They used to be REALLY powerful melee fighters, then they got more powerful heals, then they became buff bots that couldn't do much damage and had a hard time leveling. In the recent patch this Saturday, they changed Bear Shamans a LOT so I have yet to hear impressions on them. Bear shaman is another class waiting for balance issues, but it's still REALLY fun to play. 90% complete.

Conquerors are decent. Conquerors seem to be neglected by the AoC community. They're not boring, but they're not spectacular. I think Conqueror's need a lot more work to make them more appealing and so you don't feel like you're just playing a dual-wielding Guardian. 70% I'd say.

Dark Templars are badass. Definetely have gotten some love from developers. They're still REALLY overpowered for AoE tanking ability. Imagine a prot paladin, but all the holy damage that the prot pally is doing is doing 350% lifesteal and they never go below 99% health. Ever. Dark Templar's lifesteal abilities are really overpowered and stack together. I'm sure this will get nerfed before release. 95% done methinks.

Demonologists are a combination of a Destro Warlock and Fire Mages. They do sick fire and shadow spells, get one pet, and burn some sick dps. Demonologists are one of the most done classes in the game. 95% done.

Guardians are complicated. With the combination of active defense directions, dodging blows, and pressing a button to block, and pulling off combos to keep aggro, tanking in AoC is going to be REALLY difficult to do well. Guardians are the most balanced class to be at the moment and are very complete and fun to play. 99% complete.

Herald of Xotli is cool, I guess. Not too much experience with these guys. I hear great things, but at the same time I hear huge bugs. I get the feeling that Funcom is still deciding whether to make HoX's primarily spellcasters or just melee brawlers similar to the mechanics of a barbarian. I'm not going to judge this class at the time other than to say it looks really fun to play.

Necromancers make me cream. Necro's have been overpowered since the beginning of beta. They've just been dealing with balance issues. Necros have been disgustingly good casters with a rediculous amount of spells, buffs, and debuffs, then on top of that, they have 8 pets out... AT ONCE. So they buffed the worthless pet's dps in the recent patch as well as changed the look of the beginner ones like I screenshotted. The Frost Beast is a nice unique caster finishing move that the Necro's get. It doesn't have a time limit at the moment, but it does go away if you zone in somewhere. Necros are 90% complete. Some serious issues with a new global cooldown that's only for Necros and some cast speed times that need to be revised. Other than that, they've balanced out the DPS capablity of Necros.

Priest of Mitra are incomplete. PoM's are one of the least done classes in AoC. They're trying to make them the primary healing class, but also capable of holding their own in soloing for some dps capability. Healing in Age of Conan is a really big problem right now because the heals they cast just don't give enough health per second for the amount of damage that tanks are taking. But, I have a feeling this is getting fixed with the help of the dedicated beta raiding team that has been giving them constant feedback about healing. 50% complete. Talents need some revisioning and skills need to be changed to better balance healing with damage.

Rangers are OP. Yet another overpowered class. If it's between the ranged AoE damage that rangers do, or the piercing damage, they're too powerful. Rangers can burn down any group in seconds. It's a joke. This might be more balanced now, but it was nuts when I was 80. One guy took a group of four of us down in 3 seconds. But they ARE really fun to play. 80% complete.

And last but definitely not least, Tempest of Set. Tempest of Set was a combination of Druids of the Storm, Scion of Set, and some other mage class that I could care less about. They're an elemental shammy on crack with a side binge of caffeine. These guys are nasty at level 80 and have tons of AoE spells and single target nukes. Really fun class to play, and definetely one of the more complete ones. 90%.



Discuss away....

[Gecko]

Twobit, why in the world would you end up playing this game if all you say repeatedly is how bad it is, and how it compares to Vanguard?

I've tested the game a lot and I think it has many issues. However, Vanguard it ain't.

It certainly isn't well baked, but it is playable and it does have some good things going for it. Do you find anything GOOD about the game? One would wonder since you just post how bad it is, but then you talk about purchasing it.. /boggle

Cerin, your points about classes are ok, but not completely accurate. Rangers were nerfed a bit over the last few weeks so they are not sickly overpowered. Much of the problems with them were due to the bows being the wrong level in strength and allowing them to do wicked one shot kill damage.

I'd expect some tweaking for many classes pre release due to the feedback and testing done. The main goal has been to ensure all can level properly and to ensure viability in PVP, without trying to make everything vanilla.

[Tudana]

Originally Posted by Twobit Whore

When is this PvP going to be tested? Any semblence of balance is a friggin joke. Crafting? Right, it was barely in and they supposedly patched it in last week or so and did what? Wiped all the characters... too bad you have to be level 40 to fucking craft.

The comaprisons to Vanguard are more and more spot on everyday.. and the defense of the game only cements that thought process... because people are too damn forgiving and expecting a bleeding miracle to occur in the next 2 weeks.. and they should well know better by now.

I truly hope there is a magical client out there, hell the beta boards seem convinced that we haven't seen half the shit Funcom has ready, tested, balanced and polished that has been held back. Maybe they will be right.. always a first time for everything.

And at the end of the day I will probably still wind up playing this.. I just do so knowing what's in store and people who aren't privvy to the true 'grit' deserve to make informed decisions. Going in with the goal of levelling up and building a city and sieging your neighbor is going to lead to disappoinment. Going in and playing it like Diablo 2 and just hacking shit up on a casual basis should be entertaining enough for a while.

I`m curious how you know of a craft patch and it wiping the beta characters, any forum source?

As for the rest of your comments here, I got wind in vent Tuesday (gone gold day) of a patch that did seem to give the game some good play boosts, magical? I doubt it, I’m not that stupid, but it sure as hell is no Vanguard - I was there for that disaster Hook line and sinker, never again. But Funcom seems to have a much cleaner approach to launch day than the panic Vanguard had approaching launch.

I do agree with Gecko, some people go over board on bashing a game just to bash it.

Maybe it’s just an insecurity character defect of being afraid of being emotionally taken advantage of by a game. So they must hate all the way to the store buying the game so they will feel secure and justified if it does suck ass. But secretly paining that it`s great and all fears were unfounded. It gave them emotional security so no emotional harm fell upon them, only upon the community they bored to death with their bashing.

[Twobit Whore]

Originally Posted by Gecko

Twobit, why in the world would you end up playing this game if all you say repeatedly is how bad it is, and how it compares to Vanguard?

Bad and not what was hyped up are different. Vanguard was indeed not what was hyped and also bad. AoC isn't what was hyped but not as bad. Like I said, I have had to readjust my short term goals based on what the game was supposed to be versus what it actually is. Another difference is that Funcom isn't here posting videos and brown screenshots promising the world, so yes there are differences.. but there are simlarities all the same. The defense of the game is pretty close to identical.. I could post some pre-release Vanguard defense posts and change it to AoC and no one would be able to tell the difference. Seriously, try it. Look up some tad10 posts and replace VG with AoC and you'll get it.

The same issues that crippled VG from the onset will certainly affect AoC. Performance, lack of promised features, lack of content, lack of balance.. these are pretty real concerns, especially to more 'hardcore' players. Which is why I would go into the game with a very casual mindset. Play on a PvE server for a while to find a fun class, get used to the game. Maybe in a few months when a PvP endgame is in place make the jump. I'm also a sucker for the RE howard lore and AoC has done fairly well in that regard. So that would probably be the main reason I would play it.

[Gecko]

Originally Posted by Twobit Whore

The same issues that crippled VG from the onset will certainly affect AoC. Performance, lack of promised features, lack of content, lack of balance.. these are pretty real concerns, especially to more 'hardcore' players. Which is why I would go into the game with a very casual mindset. Play on a PvE server for a while to find a fun class, get used to the game. Maybe in a few months when a PvP endgame is in place make the jump. I'm also a sucker for the RE howard lore and AoC has done fairly well in that regard. So that would probably be the main reason I would play it.

Damn, did you even play Vanguard? Performance and lack of content were the least of their issues when the game was released.

EQ2 had performance and lack of content. Are they the same as Vanguard?

DAOC had no content and no high level itemization. Are they the same as Vanguard?

AOC is not Vanguard. The fact you keep saying that makes me think you either forgot how bad Vanguard was or didn't actually beta or purchase it at release.

I was one of the most vocal people proclaiming Vanguard the steaming pile of crap that it was upon release, and it wasn't due to just code optimization or content which all MMOs need when they are new. Vanguard was hugely buggy, with all systems broke, lots of massive exploits and duping, missing pieces of the world, and the game barely ran period. There's a reason MS junked it, and it should've been buried except for some reason Smed picked it up, possibly for the reasons stated below.



AOC will have issues, and some of these problems but there is not that close a comparison between Sigil's junk and it.

[Type0Negative]

Originally Posted by ModernDayDruid

Funny thing is, WAR and AoC are totally different games. They have a totally different approach to both PvE and PvP. I don't even think there will be that large of a population that cross plays both games. I think they will appeal to different types of MMO gamers.

hey could you please break down some differences between the 2 in quick blurbs. everyone i know that is waiting for aoc is waiting for war as well.

what are the various things that will appeal to different types of gamers?

thank you.

[Twobit Whore]

Originally Posted by Gecko

Damn, did you even play Vanguard? Performance and lack of content were the least of their issues when the game was released.

This is a real facepalmer. Performance was probably the most recognized and agreed upon complaint about the game when it launched. And yes, lack of endgame content -APW was what? 9 months post launch for the first raid target?- was a real problem.

I was one of the most vocal people proclaiming Vanguard the steaming pile of crap that it was upon release, and it wasn't due to just code optimization or content which all MMOs need when they are new. Vanguard was hugely buggy, with all systems broke, lots of massive exploits and duping, missing pieces of the world, and the game barely ran period. There's a reason MS junked it, and it should've been buried except for some reason Smed picked it up, possibly for the reasons stated below.

So the video of walking through walls is NOTHING LIKE Vanguard. Granted 'zomg its beta'. The last tech test exposed a massive and simple dupe that people were able to reproduce at will without even trying.

It makes me wonder what the fuck the beta testers are even doing. Maybe just 'playing a free game!'.

I hope they fix this shit.. I don't want Funcom to repeat AO mixed with Vanguard and be the new laughing stock. I like some of their ideas, some of which are in game and some of which are not... yet. And the game should be at least fun for a while, something that Vanguard clearly wasn't at launch (for me anyway).

[Gylen]

lol, I've never been able to walk through walls in beta.

Maybe it's an arena only thing? I haven't done any arena testing during general, only during the tech. tests.

[matmanx2]

Coming from a completely unbiased perspective (well, not completely, I do hope the game succeeds but only because the MMO genre desperately needs some innovation and new blood) I will be happy if the PVE is fun and playable (IE not buggy) on day one. If I jump in on the 17th and it's laggy as heck and Im getting disconnected alot or crashing or cant complete quests etc. I will probably end up cancelling my pre-order. If, however, the game is as fun and playable as it was during the Gamespot weekend I will be satisfied and happily pay my $50.

And yeah, casual is probably the right mindset to go into this one with. There's absolutely no way AoC is going to have enough content online on day 1 to satisfy a hardcore player for more than a couple of days. But hopefully by the time I've leveled a class or two up and the rate of a couple hours a day Funcom will have seiges and keep building and some of the more exciting features ready to go.

Honestly it comes down to expectations. And MMO players are some of the worst in this regard. We buy a game and expect it to become our "life" or at least our gaming life and really, no game can or should be doing that. I, at least, am much happier mixing in some MMO and some on and offline console stuff. Keeps me sane and happy.

[Hatorade]

So DL and installed the beta client from Fileplanet last night, start it up and get a fatal error unable to connect to patcher or some shit. The install also asked me to insert disk 1 about 80% into the install. I canceled that part like 15 times it said I can DL the content through patcher but yeah I wonder if thats the problem or if the patcher is broke.

[Pyksel]

Originally Posted by Hatorade

So DL and installed the beta client from Fileplanet last night, start it up and get a fatal error unable to connect to patcher or some shit. The install also asked me to insert disk 1 about 80% into the install. I canceled that part like 15 times it said I can DL the content through patcher but yeah I wonder if thats the problem or if the patcher is broke.

You may want to try and do a full file check to see if that resolves it. I wonder if they are not allowing patcher access until May 1st when it actually opens. *shrug*

[Hatorade]

Originally Posted by Pyksel

You may want to try and do a full file check to see if that resolves it. I wonder if they are not allowing patcher access until May 1st when it actually opens. *shrug*

Won't even let me do that when I click it just closes. I will SS it tonight to show. Best I can find on the subject fatal error: Failed to download patch information file - Age of Conan Forums will have to mess with it when I get home.

[Rikkum]

Originally Posted by Cerin

Herald of Xotli is cool, I guess. Not too much experience with these guys. I hear great things, but at the same time I hear huge bugs. I get the feeling that Funcom is still deciding whether to make HoX's primarily spellcasters or just melee brawlers similar to the mechanics of a barbarian. I'm not going to judge this class at the time other than to say it looks really fun to play.

....

heres a good pvp vid of HOX..

YouTube - Age of Conan PvP weekend HoX

[I'm Rich Bitch]

If I still have the Technical Beta client do I need to download and install the Fileplanet one?

[Neric]

Originally Posted by Cerin

Here's some feedback/impressions of the classes from my buddy who is in General and has played most of the classes (and a few 80s)

That class preview sounds cool, but is it uptodate?





None of these sound especially promising.