Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 11 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 11-01-2009, 18:36   #11
gwarkie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 87
gwarkie is on a distinguished road
Cool

I was NO~WAY~OUT on Pisces when Pisces first split out of Dragon, and I was on Dragon server before that. I definitely liked the old CO more than now. However, I don't see why Ninjas need to be removed - as opposed to simply altering the character class.

I'd like to see most of what was suggested here, except taking away Ninja i think keep Ninja and just modify it. Also what's the point of bringing back PKing in TC if you can't lose gear? Get rid of the dumb protections on gear especially in regards to PVP.

I'll admit, I haven't played consistently in years - pretty much once potency came out, and all the knight/king/queen/etc BS for donating obscene amounts of money - that was really the last straw for me. I can deal with lotto, what I can't deal with is the features that makes me hit somebody of my own level for 1 just because they have a few plusses/potency more than me. It used to be you had to have AMAZING gear in relative to most to get hit for 1's by somebody near your own level. We need to get back to that. (Amazing gear as in... full elite +3 with a couple soc back then lol)

The other biggest reason I quit? THERE'S NEVER ANY NEW MAPS OR ZONES ADDED! We got a couple dinky little new places to go once in a while, but no full blown leveling areas added. So while I think "Classic CO" as they call it will be more fun than CO 2.0, it will still have the same issue of never expanding the actual gameplay but too often expanding the use of one or two primarily profit-making features (like Dragonballs for instance... once almost useless until you were high lvl, now useful for everything... along with CP).

More than ANYTHING, Classic Conquer needs to have little focus on profit, and most of the focus on what makes players happy... and I think this can be said for most TQ games, as they all are copycats and all beg you to drive yourself broke around every corner. TQ can not continue this strategy, in light of so many MMO's out there which have more BANG... and more FREE.

Hope leveling is just as hard as it used to be, hope drops increase significantly, hope you don't need full super max + max soc to be competitive... pretty much, I hope for CO 1.0 with the user friendly features/socially promoting new features kept and the user-robbing features eliminated. CO 1.0 was, to date, TQ's best game ever... if only TQ took a different path with CO 2.0, the company might not even NEED to care about keeping features in to make them profit - because they would have been making 10 times more by now, than what they do.

SPENDING MONEY ON F2P GAMES IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR A LITTLE BONUS. A L-I-T-T-L-E BONUS. NOT A HUGE ALMOST-IMPOSSIBLE TO OVERCOME ADVANTAGE.

Get with the times if high production F2P games can do it without charging people an arm and a leg to compete, so can the low-to-mid production game of Conquer Online. I definitely liked CO 1.0 better than most of the f2p games I've played. That should tell you something. That's just me though, ya'll have your own valid opinions. Again, the wave of the future for F2P is the attitude that people pay money to reach certain levels/achievements faster - the old attitude of "if you don't pay, you'll never be great unless you have no life and play 10 hours a day" has driven many companies out of business... and it's not rocket science to figure out why.

I will be trying "Classic Conquer" upon its release.


have a good day =)

Last edited by gwarkie; 11-01-2009 at 18:40.
gwarkie is offline   Reply With Quote Share with Facebook
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 22:10.


You Rated this Thread: