Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

EQ/EQ2/WoW and Linux

Last response: in Video Games
Share
December 31, 2004 2:16:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

A while back I heard that Transgaming's Cedega software supports running
EQ under linux. As a bit of a linux fan, I've kept tabs on this...after
all one of the reasons I keep windows on my primary PCs instead of going
pure Linux & OSX is for the games.

Not surprisingly EQ2, according to reports, doesn't run playably in this
configuration. What -is- surprising is that WoW *does*, and apparently
runs quite well.

And, while EQ2 is, by most accounts the graphically superior title, that
doesn't account for all... many of the years graphics blockbusters are
also supported... e.g. Doom3, and Half-Life2.

Coupled with Blizzards simultaneous and proper support of the OSX,
something SOE only did late and half-assed with EQ1, and so far haven't
even attempted with EQ2... it really makes we wonder just what SOE has
done with (to?) their code.

More about : eq2 wow linux

Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
December 31, 2004 4:37:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:16:50 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>A while back I heard that Transgaming's Cedega software supports running
>EQ under linux. As a bit of a linux fan, I've kept tabs on this...after
>all one of the reasons I keep windows on my primary PCs instead of going
>pure Linux & OSX is for the games.
>
>Not surprisingly EQ2, according to reports, doesn't run playably in this
>configuration. What -is- surprising is that WoW *does*, and apparently
>runs quite well.
>
>And, while EQ2 is, by most accounts the graphically superior title, that
>doesn't account for all... many of the years graphics blockbusters are
>also supported... e.g. Doom3, and Half-Life2.
>
>Coupled with Blizzards simultaneous and proper support of the OSX,
>something SOE only did late and half-assed with EQ1, and so far haven't
>even attempted with EQ2... it really makes we wonder just what SOE has
>done with (to?) their code.

Did you really expect something else from SOE?
I wonder when they will wake up,now they have for the 1st time a
real competetor,probably it will be too late.

Meldur (waiting for european release of WoW)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
December 31, 2004 6:21:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:16:50 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>A while back I heard that Transgaming's Cedega software supports running
>>EQ under linux. As a bit of a linux fan, I've kept tabs on this...after
>>all one of the reasons I keep windows on my primary PCs instead of going
>>pure Linux & OSX is for the games.
>>
>>Not surprisingly EQ2, according to reports, doesn't run playably in this
>>configuration. What -is- surprising is that WoW *does*, and apparently
>>runs quite well.
>>
>>And, while EQ2 is, by most accounts the graphically superior title, that
>>doesn't account for all... many of the years graphics blockbusters are
>>also supported... e.g. Doom3, and Half-Life2.
>>
>>Coupled with Blizzards simultaneous and proper support of the OSX,
>>something SOE only did late and half-assed with EQ1, and so far haven't
>>even attempted with EQ2... it really makes we wonder just what SOE has
>>done with (to?) their code.

> Did you really expect something else from SOE?
> I wonder when they will wake up,now they have for the 1st time a
> real competetor,probably it will be too late.

Oh come on. It's not always SoE's fault. I doubt WoW utilizes DX9. So
unless Transgaming programs a dx9 emulation layer EQ2 simply won't work.
Since it is running some of the newer games they even might have a dx9
port. But probably it isn't the full dx9 implementation. Add to this
that they have to rely on OpenGL to actually perform the gfx operations
the performance is lower than what you would get under windows.

Apparently this is a non issue with WoW but EQ2 would be a chore to play
under Linux I guess.


Hagen
Related resources
January 1, 2005 7:06:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Hagen Sienhold wrote:
> Meldur <Meldur@t-online.de> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 11:16:50 GMT, 42 <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>A while back I heard that Transgaming's Cedega software supports running
>>>EQ under linux. As a bit of a linux fan, I've kept tabs on this...after
>>>all one of the reasons I keep windows on my primary PCs instead of going
>>>pure Linux & OSX is for the games.
>>>
>>>Not surprisingly EQ2, according to reports, doesn't run playably in this
>>>configuration. What -is- surprising is that WoW *does*, and apparently
>>>runs quite well.
>>>
>>>And, while EQ2 is, by most accounts the graphically superior title, that
>>>doesn't account for all... many of the years graphics blockbusters are
>>>also supported... e.g. Doom3, and Half-Life2.
>>>
>>>Coupled with Blizzards simultaneous and proper support of the OSX,
>>>something SOE only did late and half-assed with EQ1, and so far haven't
>>>even attempted with EQ2... it really makes we wonder just what SOE has
>>>done with (to?) their code.
>
>
>>Did you really expect something else from SOE?
>>I wonder when they will wake up,now they have for the 1st time a
>>real competetor,probably it will be too late.
>
>
> Oh come on. It's not always SoE's fault. I doubt WoW utilizes DX9. So
> unless Transgaming programs a dx9 emulation layer EQ2 simply won't work.
> Since it is running some of the newer games they even might have a dx9
> port. But probably it isn't the full dx9 implementation. Add to this
> that they have to rely on OpenGL to actually perform the gfx operations
> the performance is lower than what you would get under windows.
>
> Apparently this is a non issue with WoW but EQ2 would be a chore to play
> under Linux I guess.
>
>
> Hagen

It's interesting to me to find this discussion here tonight. Some time
ago, maybe about a year ago now, I ran Linux for a full year without
Windows on my machine at all. I was a Transgaming subscriber for that
entire time too and found I could enjoy many games I liked (though not
all) in Linux. Cedega does in fact provide translation from DX9 calls to
their OpenGL equivalents, although I do know at this time how complete
the implementation is. I do know though that work on this had already
begun more than a year ago, so my presumption would be that a great deal
of the DX9 API is covered with Cedega at this point. Sometimes the
issues with games running with WineX in the past and Cedega now are not
actually DirectX related, such as with copy protection schemes on CDs
and DVDs, Windows system calls, etc. So a lot of times individual games
require some work to get running even if the DX9 support they call for
is in place. I have no idea what the issues are with running EQII in
Linux with Cedega are but having noticed its popularity in the
Transgaming games database among paying subscribers, my guess is they
are working now to address them and will have the game running in the
future.

Transgaming has come a long way in the past year with MMORPG support. I
notice that now the following titles are all working in Linux with Cedega:

EverQuest
Dark Age of Camelot
World of Warcraft
Star Wars Galaxies
Anarchy Online

I think there may be one or two more such as Ultima Online that work as
well. Actually, EverQuest II is the only major MMORPG they do not having
working in Linux at this time as far as I can tell. Unfortunately, I
don't think Planetside works with Cedega either. It would not surprise
me to see them support Guildwars when it ships as I think that is going
to be a popular title with subscribers, who through their monthly votes,
have a great deal of influence over what gets priority in the ongoing
development of Cedega.

In my own case, I was particularly pleased to note that a good number of
other games I own also work now in Linux including Morrowind and both of
its expansions, NWN (which I think has a Linux client now anyway),
Battlefield 1942, Call of Duty, and a good number of other shooters I'd
like to get around to one of these days.

Unreal Tournament 2003 had an excellent Linux client right in the retail
box. I never got the next one so I don't know if they did a Linux client
for that or not. Doom 3 also has a native Linux client now too as I
understand it, although I think Cedega supports it too. Quake III for
those still playing it has had a Linux client for years and its funny to
see that many people still play that game. As noted above, the new Half
Life 2 and Counter-Strike Source work with Cedega as well.

In my experience, with adequate system memory (I had a gig when I was
running Linux) the games I ran worked as well as they did in Windows as
far as performance went. I never went so far as to bother with measuring
frame rates, etc. But at least in general terms, I never found
performance to be a problem playing games with Cedega. I'm sure that the
conversion of DX9 calls to OpenGL calls must add some overhead but my
sense is that on modern systems it doesn't add enough to be an issue
most of the time at least. I do think that with today's games you
probably would not want to run with less than a gig of memory minumum to
play games in Linux and for the likes of WoW and especially EQ2 if and
when it works, you'd probably want at least 1.5 gigs if not 2 gigs of RAM.

In any case, if I do Linux again for my desktop I will leave a sizeable
windows partition with XP on it for gaming. Cedega is a good thing that
provides a lot of convenience in not having to leave Linux and boot
winders to play many games but it does not work with everything and
never has. So it's best to have a windows install with dual booting
setup for those times when you want to play something Cedega does not
support. In particular, for any MMORPG user this is really a must in my
opinion because it is always possible that a game patch can break Cedega
support of the game somehow, rendering it unplayable until they get
around to fixing it. And that could sometimes take days or even weeks.

I've just recently done some homework to evaluate what's happening with
the Linux desktop from a home users perspective in the year I've been
away and it appears to me that it's continuing to evolve nicely. I
started out with RedHat when I ran Linux, soon switched to SuSE and
ultimately wound up settling on Mandrake Linux on my home system. The
reasons for that progression are not really worth recounting except
perhaps to say that I was looking for the most polished desktop I could
get then for home that worked best with Transgaming's WineX for my gaming.

Today it seems to me like Xandros 3 Deluxe may just be the best option
for a home user moving from Windows. If not the best option, it
certainly is a very good one with its inclusion of Codeweavers
Crossover-Office for people who still need Word, Excel, etc. and would
like all the windows browser plugins for multimedia that they are used
to, to work in Linux. Xandros has more than that going for it with an
excellent installation process, Debian GNU Linux base and therefore
excellent package updating and installation capability, a very nice GUI
for system management tasks and their own File Manager which is
something like Windows Explorer in the way it works and can burn CDs as
well. However, unlike many Linux distributions this one will cost you to
purchase as you may already know. At around 80 bucks US it looks like a
good deal to me but on the other hand you could still get Mandrake
(although without Crossover-Office) for free. I'm not sure if SUSE is
free now that Novell owns them. I think the Personal Edition or whatever
they have named that may be. RedHat's Fedora is free but I wouldn't
recommend it to a gamer as they have historically done patches to the
Linux Kernel that were problematic for WineX, although I should say I do
not know if that remains a problem today.

Personally, now that I have left software development to return to
nursing I do not need MS Office compatability. So for me, OpenOffice or
perhaps StarOffice (if it adds any significant value over OpenOffice)
would be fine for my word processing and spreadsheet needs, which are
pretty simple. As for Internet software, the best browser and email (in
my humble opinion) are available for Linux now and those would be
Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird. I use them in Windows now and would
certainly stay with them in Linux. ICQ, AIM and Yahoo chat I think are
all covered with Kopete that is a part of the Linux KDE desktop, which I
personally prefer over it's chief competitor, Gnome. Those are the most
important applications for me and Linux has all that covered with decent
software now. There's a lot more I could go on about but if you've been
following or have used Linux, I'm sure you are probably already well
aware of them.

I am thinking very seriously about going back to Linux now that the
desktop has had more than a year to mature further since I last lived in
it. I liked it then but felt too many applications were in varying
stages of beta (or worse) for everyday use, at least to satisfy me.
While the underlying operating system never crashed once in a full year
of use, running 24/7, at that time application crashes were common and
annoying, at least with the stuff I was using. Also, back then I needed
Word compatability and it simply was not there yet in OpenOffice. My
documents with tables always came through mangled and that for me was a
real problem. I don't know how it is now but as I mentioned before, that
no longer matters to me personally. I probably should have sprung for
Crossover-Office back then and just run Word in Linux but with the other
problems I had seen, and the lack of support for some newer games I
wanted to play at the time in WineX, I just decided to go back to
Windows XP and wait for Linux to further mature. Well, actually for the
Linux desktop software and applications to further mature I should say.

But a lot has changed since then and so I am very tempted to try it
again. Without getting into the reasons for it, and the ensuing
flamewar, I'll just tell you that I personally hate Microsoft's
management and I greatly prefer to use competing products when I can.

I think if I decide to do this, I will go with either SUSE 9.2 (first
choice if it can be downloaded for free) or Mandrake 10.1. Both of them
can resize my NTFS partition on the first hard disk in my system to make
room for themselves, while allowing me to keep winders and both of them
will setup dual booting for me automatically and painlessly. I'm too
cheap to pay for Xandros when I don't know until I live in it again if I
will be completely satisfied or not. I would subscribe to Transgaming's
Cedega again too of course so I can play EverQuest, Anarchy Online and
other games without rebooting. I think I'll skip StarOffice and just use
the open source version of it, OpenOffice and see if that's good enough.

If after several months of use I think I am going to stay in Linux this
time around, I'll think again then about how satisfied I am with
whichever distro I am using versus what Xandros has to offer. If I don't
move to Xandros, I probably will buy Codeweavers Crossover-Office
because of the excellent Quicktime support if offers in Linux and also
because it now supports iTunes. And if for whatever reasons I am not
happy with OpenOffice it would be nice to be able run Word and Excel in
Linux. Although, I'd look to StarOffice first before taking that route.

You know though, if money wasn't a problem for me I wouldn't even bother
with Linux for my home system. I'd buy a nice Apple Macintosh computer
and use that for my everyday computing as well as whatever games I like
that are supported on it. There you have the rock solid core of FreeBSD
5 with the elegant desktop of OS X and a good variety of nice
applications to use for your everyday work and play at home. Then I'd
network a windows xp pro gaming box to it and use that system as nothing
more than a glorifed Xbox to run my PC games. I have for many years felt
that an Apple system versus a PC was something like the difference
between driving a Chevy and a Cadillac.

I don't know why Gates and the crew in Redmond don't just replace the
windows core in the next release with Linux or BSD and graft the windows
desktop onto that as Apple did with OS X. It would not be the first time
that Apple led and they followed. UNIX and its variants have stood the
test of time in terms of reliability and security whereas Windows does
not share a similar history up to this day. Of course, for all we know
perhaps they are going to do that and have not made any disclosure yet.
I do not recall noticing any discussion anywhere of Microsoft's next
operating system release or what they have planned for it. But then I
don't follow this stuff as closely as I used to so maybe there is some
news out there I am not aware of.

Anyway, if I do take the plunge I will let you guys know exactly how it
goes in terms of gaming, particularly as it applies to EverQuest.


--
Get Thunderbird - Reclaim Your Inbox
http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/

Get Firefox! - The Browser You Can Trust
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 1, 2005 11:05:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c3ed5016a1ec680989972@shawnews>, 42 wrote:
> And, while EQ2 is, by most accounts the graphically superior title, that
> doesn't account for all... many of the years graphics blockbusters are
> also supported... e.g. Doom3, and Half-Life2.

I'm not all that impressed with EQ2 graphically, actually. Even turning
everything all the way up, it doesn't look anywhere near as good as those
movies SOE was showing about a year ago at trade shows. I think a lot of
EQ2's reputation as being the best MMORPG graphically comes from people
remembering those movies, and assuming that the game looks like that.

It's really hard to compare EQ2 and WoW graphically because they use
different styles. EQ2 is going for a more realistic look, where is WoW is
going for a cartoonish style. (And of the games that are going for a
realistic look, I'm not sure EQ2 is the best...there was a graphics update
to DAoC with the Catacombs exansion that looks pretty awesome, especially
some of the environmental effects).


....
> Coupled with Blizzards simultaneous and proper support of the OSX,
> something SOE only did late and half-assed with EQ1, and so far haven't
> even attempted with EQ2... it really makes we wonder just what SOE has
> done with (to?) their code.

Yes, this is very nice of Blizzard. It is very cool to be able to play WoW
on my desktop PC, or to decide I feel like relaxing in the living room and
play on my PowerBook connected to my 61" DLP TV. They beat out SOE's
half-assed EQ1 Mac support in three ways:

1. The Windows and Mac releases were simultaneous.

2. They are in the same box. EQ1 Mac was a separate purchase.

3. They use the same servers. In EQ1, the Mac players could not play on the
same servers as the Windows players, and vice versa. So, no playing with
your Windows-using friends.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 1, 2005 4:29:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Michael <NOSPAM_Lin_mukai@comcast.net> wrote:
[snipped a whole lot of interesting read]
> I don't know why Gates and the crew in Redmond don't just replace the
> windows core in the next release with Linux or BSD and graft the windows
> desktop onto that as Apple did with OS X. It would not be the first time
> that Apple led and they followed. UNIX and its variants have stood the
> test of time in terms of reliability and security whereas Windows does
> not share a similar history up to this day. Of course, for all we know
> perhaps they are going to do that and have not made any disclosure yet.
> I do not recall noticing any discussion anywhere of Microsoft's next
> operating system release or what they have planned for it. But then I
> don't follow this stuff as closely as I used to so maybe there is some
> news out there I am not aware of.

There was a time when I did argue strongly against M$ Windows. But I'm a
bit more mature(i hope so atleast :p ) and everytime I get asked whether
one should try Linux or Windows I'll ask what they want to do with it in
return. If someone wants Office and the general Windows Feeling then
stick with M$.

I'm no friend of KDE and even GNOME desktop isn't the thing I like. So I
ended up with a completely self made linux(though the Linux from Scratch
website gave me alot of help). They GUI I installed is made of a few
little tools that provide a good interface to the shell. After all there
aren't much areas where a mouse driven interface is superiour to the
console.

This machine acts as file/print server, firewall etc. On my desktop
system I still use windows though mainly for games. Every serious work I
do I'll do on the console on the server. This is due to my
disappointment with graphical uis. Though I don't use an office package.
TeX is more then adequate to my needs.

With Cedega I might try to install a linux system on my desktop. After
all if EQ is running fine - no need for windows for me. :) 

> Anyway, if I do take the plunge I will let you guys know exactly how it
> goes in terms of gaming, particularly as it applies to EverQuest.

I'm really interested in the result.


Hagen
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 1, 2005 8:05:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Hagen Sienhold <durragon@web.de> wrote:
> Oh come on. It's not always SoE's fault.

SOE's products aren't SOE's fault?

Ha! Good one. :) 
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 2, 2005 7:45:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>
> Transgaming's Cedega software supports running EQ under linux.
>
> Not surprisingly EQ2, according to reports, doesn't run playably in
this configuration. What -is- surprising is that WoW *does*
>

EQII's game engine is far superior to WoW's so that's not surprising.
Run Linux for what it does best but for modern gaming you need a WinXP
box.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 2, 2005 10:08:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <nyVBd.5275$F67.3260@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Lanfiir wrote:
> EQII's game engine is far superior to WoW's so that's not surprising.

That's open to debate. The artistic styles are so different between the two
games that it is hard to tell what the WoW engine can do. It's kind of like
trying to compare Ocarina of Time to Wind Waker.

Take a hippogryph ride in WoW and observe your mount. There's a lot of
detail in that model, and the motion is much more fluid than anything I've
seen EQ2's engine produce. Or take a look at outdoor areas. WoW's have
more things in them. EQ2 has to resort to fairly barren landscapes (I hope
this is due to engine limits, rather than due to horrible zone design).

(BTW: an interesting thing to do is go find a hiking trail in real life in a
wooded area, and note the density of trees off the trail. RL woods are far
denser than I've seen in any MMORPG).

Also, this is irrelevant, because Doom 3 runs on Cedega, and its engine is
way ahead of EQ2's engine.

What I want to know is what happened to the EQ2 engine that was used for the
demos around a year or so ago? In the released EQ2, even turning all
graphics options to their best-looking setting, it doesn't come anywhere
near those demos. I suppose that given Sony's deceptive EQ2 TV
advertising, it is possible that those demos were all fake, too.

--
--Tim Smith
January 2, 2005 11:48:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <QEXBd.15454$RH4.7174@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...
> In article <nyVBd.5275$F67.3260@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Lanfiir wrote:
> > EQII's game engine is far superior to WoW's so that's not surprising.

Disregarding EQ2 vs WoW neatly dodges that whole debate.

> Also, this is irrelevant, because Doom 3 runs on Cedega, and its engine is
> way ahead of EQ2's engine.

Exactly! You can jump up and down about EQ2 being 'better' graphically
than WoW but so what that doesn't really buy you any ground. Doom 3, Far
Cry, Half Life 2: all state-of-the-art graphics titles and all are
working.

> What I want to know is what happened to the EQ2 engine that was used for the
> demos around a year or so ago? In the released EQ2, even turning all
> graphics options to their best-looking setting, it doesn't come anywhere
> near those demos. I suppose that given Sony's deceptive EQ2 TV
> advertising, it is possible that those demos were all fake, too.

I think it moved from possible to probable a while ago.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 3:46:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

> That's open to debate. The artistic styles are so different between
the two games that it is hard to tell what the WoW engine can do.

The WoW engine may or may not be at its maximums. The fact is that to
most people, WoW looks "cartoony" and EQII looks much more complex.

> Also, this is irrelevant, because Doom 3 runs on Cedega, and its
engine is way ahead of EQ2's engine.

I doubt either one of us is qualified enough to determine which engine
is ahead of the other, but I can at least apply your same logic to
EQII vs. Doom 3: "The artistic styles are so differnet between the
two games..."

> What I want to know is what happened to the EQ2 engine that was used
for the demos around a year or so ago?

SOE admitted that they had to bring the engine back down to be more
friendly with current technology. When the next advances in
computers (CPUs, memory, video cards, etc.) come out, you will very
likely see EQII hold up better than WoW's engine.

I'm not saying this is an advantage or disadvantage for EQII. Both
EQII and WoW are great games, they are just different. I don't
consider one better or worse than the other, I enjoy both. And I
don't go into other games newsgroups and insult them and their
players or accuse the vendors of lying to sell a few more boxes.
January 3, 2005 12:39:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <qB0Cd.10388$wi2.4694@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, hbh3
@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid says...
> > That's open to debate. The artistic styles are so different between
> the two games that it is hard to tell what the WoW engine can do.
>
> The WoW engine may or may not be at its maximums. The fact is that to
> most people, WoW looks "cartoony" and EQII looks much more complex.
>
> > Also, this is irrelevant, because Doom 3 runs on Cedega, and its
> engine is way ahead of EQ2's engine.
>
> I doubt either one of us is qualified enough to determine which engine
> is ahead of the other, but I can at least apply your same logic to
> EQII vs. Doom 3: "The artistic styles are so differnet between the
> two games..."

....aren't as considerable. Both are doing the realism 'thing'. And Doom3
does it with more candy effects: more light sources/fog effects/moving
coloured lights/ bump mapping textures/ etc/ etc /etc than EQ2 does.

>
> > What I want to know is what happened to the EQ2 engine that was used
> for the demos around a year or so ago?
>
> SOE admitted that they had to bring the engine back down to be more
> friendly with current technology.

And if you beleive that ... I'll sell you a bridge in London. (Although
I'll admit I can't sell it to you today, because the payment system I'm
using is currently down for upgrades.)

:p 

> When the next advances in
> computers (CPUs, memory, video cards, etc.) come out, you will very
> likely see EQII hold up better than WoW's engine.


Cuz WoW's engine has been carved into stone tablets and cannot be
updated. Surely you're aware how mmorpgs evolve?

Basing 'Holding up better' on what we can see today would only be
relevant if they weren't both continually improving.


> I'm not saying this is an advantage or disadvantage for EQII.

Its a clear disadvantage that potential customers can't run it. The
hypothetical advantage two years from now is far enough away that EQ2s
engine coming into its own is irrelevant. WoW could have an update that
leapfrogs EQ2 in the meantime completely mitigating it.

What will matter in the -long- run is scalability/upgradability. And
even if we agreed that EQ2 started out prettier, I'd put my money on the
blizzard horse for the long haul.

But regardless of my personal opinion, there is simply no way to gauge
scalability/upgradeability by looking at what we can see of the existing
engines.

> Both
> EQII and WoW are great games, they are just different. I don't
> consider one better or worse than the other, I enjoy both. And I
> don't go into other games newsgroups and insult them and their
> players or accuse the vendors of lying to sell a few more boxes.

Nobody ever said you did. Guilty conscious bugging you? :) 
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 2:40:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1c42b2d2c6f81d87989976@shawnews...
> In article <qB0Cd.10388$wi2.4694@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, hbh3
>
> > I'm not saying this is an advantage or disadvantage for EQII.
>
> Its a clear disadvantage that potential customers can't run it. The
> hypothetical advantage two years from now is far enough away that EQ2s
> engine coming into its own is irrelevant. WoW could have an update that
> leapfrogs EQ2 in the meantime completely mitigating it.
>
> What will matter in the -long- run is scalability/upgradability. And
> even if we agreed that EQ2 started out prettier, I'd put my money on the
> blizzard horse for the long haul.

Plus, as I've said before both here and elsewhere: In two years, Vanguard will
be released with a shiny, fresh engine and EQ2 will probably be struggling
through an 'engine upgrade' that my Magic 8-ball predicts will be about as
smooth as the various EQ(1) changes.


--
Simond
"I ask for so little. Just fear me, love me, do as I say and I will be your
slave." - Jareth the Goblin King, Labyrinth
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 5:50:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005 11:40:06 -0000, "Simond"
<apocalypsecow@spamfilterdeletemeplease.dsl.pipex.net> wrote:

>
>"42" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1c42b2d2c6f81d87989976@shawnews...
>> In article <qB0Cd.10388$wi2.4694@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, hbh3
>>
>> > I'm not saying this is an advantage or disadvantage for EQII.
>>
>> Its a clear disadvantage that potential customers can't run it. The
>> hypothetical advantage two years from now is far enough away that EQ2s
>> engine coming into its own is irrelevant. WoW could have an update that
>> leapfrogs EQ2 in the meantime completely mitigating it.
>>
>> What will matter in the -long- run is scalability/upgradability. And
>> even if we agreed that EQ2 started out prettier, I'd put my money on the
>> blizzard horse for the long haul.
>
>Plus, as I've said before both here and elsewhere: In two years, Vanguard will
>be released with a shiny, fresh engine and EQ2 will probably be struggling
>through an 'engine upgrade' that my Magic 8-ball predicts will be about as
>smooth as the various EQ(1) changes.

Not to mention that there are still bugs (mobs under the surface) with
the new graphics engine.
I really appreciate the idea of taking my monthly fees from EQ1 to
develope EQ2 instead of fixing old bugs in EQ1. ;) 

Meldur (1 Sony customer less when WoW Europe is released)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 6:01:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Wow, you guys are really bitter. ;-)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 6:31:06 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <MPG.1c42b2d2c6f81d87989976@shawnews>, 42 wrote:
>> When the next advances in computers (CPUs, memory, video cards, etc.)
>> come out, you will very likely see EQII hold up better than WoW's
>> engine.
>
>
> Cuz WoW's engine has been carved into stone tablets and cannot be updated.
> Surely you're aware how mmorpgs evolve?
>
> Basing 'Holding up better' on what we can see today would only be relevant
> if they weren't both continually improving.

For an example of this, consider DAoC. Each year, there has been an
expansion that has included an engine update, each time bringing it up
to the forefront of MMORPG graphics. I haven't played the latest expansion
yet, but I've seen movies made by players (so they actually reflect what is
in the game, as opposed to SOE movies), and the environment looks as good or
better than EQ2. I think EQ2 might still have a little more detailed
player models, but not by much.

Furthermore, Mythic can keep this up indefinitely, because they are using
the Gamebryo engine from NDL, rather than one developed in-house like SOE
uses. And since their engine is one used by a lot of games, there are
third-party companies that have developed tools and extensions for it. One
of the DAoC expansions added a new tree system, for example, that is
available off the shelf from a third party. You won't see Sony able to go
pick up off the shelf extension to the SOE engine--anything like that, they
will have to develop in-house.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 6:31:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:31:06 GMT, Tim Smith wrote:

> One
> of the DAoC expansions added a new tree system, for example, that is
> available off the shelf from a third party. You won't see Sony able to go
> pick up off the shelf extension to the SOE engine--anything like that, they
> will have to develop in-house.

My wife and I are trying DAoC again with the Catacombs expansion and I just
mentioned to her about the trees. It's the fist game I've seen where a pine
tree *actually* had realistic looking pine cones on it. Unfortunately, for
me, the gameplay hasn't changed much so I don't know how long I'll stay but
it definitely is the prettiest in my opinion.
--
RJB
1/3/2005 11:35:03 AM

Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of
mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
-Gene Spafford
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 3, 2005 7:48:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>
> My wife and I are trying DAoC again with the Catacombs expansion and
I just
> mentioned to her about the trees. It's the fist game I've seen where
a pine
> tree *actually* had realistic looking pine cones on it.
Unfortunately, for
> me, the gameplay hasn't changed much so I don't know how long I'll
stay but
> it definitely is the prettiest in my opinion.
>

Yup, the DAoC update that included the new trees was quite impressive.
Too bad New Frontiers came shortly thereafter. /wink
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 4, 2005 12:18:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lanfiir <hbh3@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> My wife and I are trying DAoC again with the Catacombs expansion and
> I just
>> mentioned to her about the trees. It's the fist game I've seen where
> a pine
>> tree *actually* had realistic looking pine cones on it.
> Unfortunately, for
>> me, the gameplay hasn't changed much so I don't know how long I'll
> stay but
>> it definitely is the prettiest in my opinion.
>>

> Yup, the DAoC update that included the new trees was quite impressive.
> Too bad New Frontiers came shortly thereafter. /wink

Is it just my newsreader that messages from Lanfiir wouldn't be ordered
correctly in the tree or does anybody else has this problem?


Hagen
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 4, 2005 8:34:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

RJB <robartle@NOSPAM.hotmail.com> wrote in
news:60nx4rx9qrii$.dlg@robartle.nospam.hotmail.com:

> On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:31:06 GMT, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> One
>> of the DAoC expansions added a new tree system, for example, that is
>> available off the shelf from a third party. You won't see Sony able
>> to go pick up off the shelf extension to the SOE engine--anything
>> like that, they will have to develop in-house.
>
> My wife and I are trying DAoC again with the Catacombs expansion and I
> just mentioned to her about the trees. It's the fist game I've seen
> where a pine tree *actually* had realistic looking pine cones on it.
> Unfortunately, for me, the gameplay hasn't changed much so I don't
> know how long I'll stay but it definitely is the prettiest in my
> opinion.

Indeed - it looks like Mythic took the best course on this in terms
of graphics - the ability to swap out graphics engines relatively easily
will be a huge boon in keeping it updated. I find that a far better
solution that saying "We developed it for machines down the line, just
turn down the options" at which point it looks worse than another game
not developed for the top-end machines that don't exist yet.

--
Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 14th Paladin
Silverhand

My WoW Mods: http://therealorang.com
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 5, 2005 5:58:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <fgjdrc.pa1.ln@arellarti.fqdn.th-h.de>, Hagen Sienhold wrote:
> Is it just my newsreader that messages from Lanfiir wouldn't be ordered
> correctly in the tree or does anybody else has this problem?

No, it's not just you. His stupid newsreader is botching the References
header line. The References line is supposed to look like this:

References: msg1 msg2 ... msgN

where msgN is the message ID of the message you are replying to, and before
that is the message ID of the message that one is replying to, and so on,
back a reasonable number of messages.

His References line looks like this:

References: msg1

where msg1 is the message ID of the message that started the thread. So,
his messages are seen as replies to the message that started the thread,
rather than as replies to the message he is quoting.

--
--Tim Smith
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 1:45:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>
> No, it's not just you. His stupid newsreader is botching the
References
> header line.
>

FIRST OF ALL, Lanfiir is a she.

Second, the message thread with my replies look fine at Google groups.
Here's an example where it looks fine:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.everquest...

Note that my messages are in the proper order on this page.
---
Posted via NewsSync v1.5.0 RC6 (http://fioch.dyndns.org/PNphpBB2.html)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 1:45:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Lanfiir" <hbh3@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
news:VhEDd.7751$F67.2559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> >
> > No, it's not just you. His stupid newsreader is botching the
> References
> > header line.
> >
>
> FIRST OF ALL, Lanfiir is a she.
>

And?

> Second, the message thread with my replies look fine at Google groups.
> Here's an example where it looks fine:
>

Looks screwed up to me. As said, all of your responses appear as replies to
the original post, not to the specific message which you are responding.
They're out of order for anyone viewing the thread not at Google groups.

>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.games.everquest...
>
> Note that my messages are in the proper order on this page.

Which isn't sorted in any sort of manner that is consistent to usenet.

Perhaps you should get a real newsreader.

(Ouch, and told that by an OE user. The sting, the sting.)

--
Davian - Wood Elf Warrior on Guk
Talynne - Half Elf Rogue on Guk
Dearic - Dwarven Shaman on Guk
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 4:15:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

I guess you guys can turn me in to the newsreader police.
---
Posted via NewsSync v1.5.0 RC6 (http://fioch.dyndns.org/PNphpBB2.html)
January 8, 2005 4:26:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <uuGDd.12186$wi2.9681@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, hbh3
@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid says...
> I guess you guys can turn me in to the newsreader police.
> ---
> Posted via NewsSync v1.5.0 RC6 (http://fioch.dyndns.org/PNphpBB2.html)

Or just plonk you and be done with your posts. Which is what will happen
most likely... particularly with your seemingly 'everyone else just work
around the fact that my newsreader is f**ked' attitude.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 5:34:58 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 01:15:06 GMT,
hbh3@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid (Lanfiir) wrote:

>I guess you guys can turn me in to the newsreader police.
>---
>Posted via NewsSync v1.5.0 RC6 (http://fioch.dyndns.org/PNphpBB2.html)

Try Free Agent,makes reading Newsgroups much more enjoyable,
you can read with a single keystroke,very convenient.
Andi it automatically positions your postings right behind next to the
post you reply to. :) 

http://www.forteinc.com/agent/download.php

And no,I am not affiliated in any way with Forteinc. :) 

Of course you can use the built-in newsreader of Outlook,if you
really have to,another MS product very unpleasant to use and with
a lot of features noone ever asked for. :) 

Meldur
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 7:09:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

"Davian" <davian@nospammindspring.com> wrote in
news:tsCdnfVvuN31hULcRVn-3w@adelphia.com:

> "Lanfiir" <hbh3@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:VhEDd.7751$F67.2559@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> >
>> > No, it's not just you. His stupid newsreader is botching the
>> References
>> > header line.
>> >
>>
>> FIRST OF ALL, Lanfiir is a she.
>>
>
> And?
>
>> Second, the message thread with my replies look fine at Google
>> groups.
>> Here's an example where it looks fine:
>>
>
> Looks screwed up to me. As said, all of your responses appear as
> replies to the original post, not to the specific message which you
> are responding. They're out of order for anyone viewing the thread not
> at Google groups.
>

I'm seeing multiple additional "Re:'s" plugged into the subject line on
her posts. I don't know if there is a legitimate reason for that or not.


--
Rumble
"Write something worth reading, or do something worth writing."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 7:58:11 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>
> Aye, maybe you're just too stupid to get it right. Either way,
you're not
> worth the time.
>

Are you going to add me to your killfile or plonk me? Please warn me
first so I can brace myself. ;-)
---
Posted via NewsSync v1.5.0 RC6 (http://fioch.dyndns.org/PNphpBB2.html)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 11:27:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lanfiir <hbh3@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Aye, maybe you're just too stupid to get it right. Either way,
> you're not
>> worth the time.
>>

> Are you going to add me to your killfile or plonk me? Please warn me
> first so I can brace myself. ;-)

Ok, maybe I didn't come across right. So I try to clarify something
here. I did notice some weird order on your posts so I just asked
whether I was the only one. After all it could be MY newsreader.

But seemingly it wasn't. I don't want to offend you. So either you could
"try" to adapt to the way usenet works or be ignored. If you keep up
your attitude that you are against the rest of us then sorry. Must be
very funny talking with never getting a reply but it's your call.


Hagen
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 5:59:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

>
> Ok, maybe I didn't come across right. So I try to clarify something
here. I did notice some weird order on your posts so I just asked
whether I was the only one. After all it could be MY newsreader. But
seemingly it wasn't. I don't want to offend you.
>

I truly do appreciate your kindness and civility towards me.
Unfortunately several others are not so nice, using the "F" word,
etc., causing me to feel like this is a "me against the world" thing.
I apologize if I responded to anything you personally wrote in an
offensive way.

I meant to be offensive to the jerks. ;-) I am just having fun with
them. To get so bent out of shape, using profanity, insulting me,
questioning my family heritage, etc., is really quite hilarious, and
part of me enjoys getting under their skin.

>
> So either you could "try" to adapt to the way usenet works or be
ignored. If you keep up your attitude that you are against the rest
of us then sorry. Must be very funny talking with never getting a
reply but it's your call.
>

The product I am using is written in PHP to translate usenet to and
from a PHP-based web interface, and it does not appear to be in
active development any longer. Therefore, I can either try to modify
it myself (I am a programmer but not of PHP, so that is not likely) or
stop using it and have nothing to provide usenet access to the web
site (also not likely I am going to stop using it for this reason).

Oddly enough, I continue to get plenty of replies to my messages, as I
had been using this for several weeks before anyone pointed out the
faulty behavior.

I think the world will keep on turning even though my replies aren't
properly threaded and I will do my best to either learn PHP or find
something else to fill the need. That's the best I can do.
---
Posted via NewsSync v1.5.0 RC6 (http://fioch.dyndns.org/PNphpBB2.html)
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 8, 2005 9:17:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

== Quote from Hagen Sienhold (durragon@web.de)'s article
> Ok, maybe I didn't come across right. So I try to clarify
something
> here. I did notice some weird order on your posts so I just asked
> whether I was the only one. After all it could be MY newsreader.
> But seemingly it wasn't. I don't want to offend you.

Hi, Hagen. I am experimenting with a news reader called PHP News
Reader. Can you please tell me if this reply is threaded properly?
January 8, 2005 11:46:19 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

In article <5EHDd.12203$wi2.7957@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, hbh3
@sbcglobal-dot-net.no-spam.invalid says...
> >
> > Or just plonk you and be done with your posts. Which is what will
> happen
> > most likely... particularly with your seemingly 'everyone else just
> work
> > around the fact that my newsreader is f**ked' attitude.
> >
>
> Plonk me, baby! Plonk me!

plonk.
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 9, 2005 12:32:14 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

== Quote from 42 (nospam@nospam.com)'s article
> > Plonk me, baby! Plonk me!

> plonk.

Plonk, plonk, fizz, fizz, oh what a relief it is!!!
--
POSTED BY: PHP News Reader v2.6.1
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 9, 2005 3:53:34 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lanfiir <hbh3@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:D tVDd.12322$wi2.10957@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> == Quote from Hagen Sienhold (durragon@web.de)'s article
>> Ok, maybe I didn't come across right. So I try to clarify
> something
>> here. I did notice some weird order on your posts so I just asked
>> whether I was the only one. After all it could be MY newsreader.
>> But seemingly it wasn't. I don't want to offend you.
>
> Hi, Hagen. I am experimenting with a news reader called PHP News
> Reader. Can you please tell me if this reply is threaded
> properly?
>

It is on mine.

--
Arch Convoker Mairelon Snapbang
Feral Lord Bosra Snowclaw
Lanys T'vyl (Retired)

Mairelon, 15th Paladin
Silverhand

My WoW Mods: http://therealorang.com
FlexBar V1.2 is RSN - honest!
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 10, 2005 6:46:05 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lanfiir <hbh3@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:D tVDd.12322$wi2.10957
@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com:

> == Quote from Hagen Sienhold (durragon@web.de)'s article
>> Ok, maybe I didn't come across right. So I try to clarify something
>> here. I did notice some weird order on your posts so I just asked
>> whether I was the only one. After all it could be MY newsreader.
>> But seemingly it wasn't. I don't want to offend you.
>
> Hi, Hagen. I am experimenting with a news reader called PHP News
> Reader. Can you please tell me if this reply is threaded properly?
>

Yes, it is. Thank you.

--
On Erollisi Marr in <Sanctuary of Marr>
Ancient Graeme Faelban, Barbarian Prophet of 69 seasons

On Steamfont
Graeme, 21 Dwarven Mystic, 19 Scholar
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
January 10, 2005 10:52:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.everquest (More info?)

Lanfiir <hbh3@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> == Quote from Hagen Sienhold (durragon@web.de)'s article
>> Ok, maybe I didn't come across right. So I try to clarify
> something
>> here. I did notice some weird order on your posts so I just asked
>> whether I was the only one. After all it could be MY newsreader.
>> But seemingly it wasn't. I don't want to offend you.

> Hi, Hagen. I am experimenting with a news reader called PHP News
> Reader. Can you please tell me if this reply is threaded properly?

Yes. Now it's fine.


Hagen
!