AoC Bug Penalizes Female Characters?

Massively is reporting that there may be an unintended (according to FunCom) bug in the new MMO Age of Conan that would cause female characters to do significantly less damage over time. It seems that as the initial "shiny factor" wears off for the new darling MMO, the bugs and complaints just continue to pile up resulting in a fair bit of buyer's remorse. "In the meantime, some ingenious players have provided fixes along the lines of the 'unsheath your weapon to fix your mount speed' trick. Poster Dnotice even provides evidence that variation in listed attack speed may be down to the gender of the first character you log in when starting AoC, and not the gender of the character you may be playing at the time. Curiouser and curiouser: although the listed speed can be altered by changing the first character's gender, the actual animation speed apparently can't."

Comments

Simple explanation

[greg1104]

Obviously this is because the female characters are off-balance due to their breasts shrinking.

Re:Simple explanation

[IBBoard]

I love the update quote about that:

Funcom has responded to the complaints ... The team is "working on a fix for this and your breasts should be back to normal soon."

Re:Simple explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

From what I've seen, that is for very large values of "normal"

Re:Simple explanation

[Original Replica]

Breast resizing is used to balance the the FLGWTYRLLT* bonus so male and female characters level at the same rate.

*Free Loot from Guys Who Think You Really Look Like That

Re:Simple explanation

[ultramk]

Stuff like this is why it's a matter of time before AoC goes tits-up.

What? What did I say?

Re:Simple explanation

[Savior_on_a_Stick]

While I understand that your tongue was firmly in cheek, there may be some truth to this. The only mmorpg that I play currently is Two Moons, where to be an archer, one must also be female. I constantly get invitations to join guilds, trade, etc. Not for a moment do I attribute this to my gaming skills, which are meager at best. No, I'm not undervaluing what I personally bring to the table. I'm old and chit - so my reflexes are slow. I play from my laptop, which puts me at a display and reaction disadvantage. But my character has t&a. Exactly the same t&a as every other female archer, which makes it even funnier. It's just a continuation of the old irc warez channel trick of formulating a female personna so that peop0le would share freely. In most cases, I could garner op status within a week, unlike my male persona which had contributed to the channels for months or years. So....if there is a penalty to female characters - perhaps there should be. In 2Moons, there is an advantage to being an archer - ranged weapons with pushback rock at lower levels. But I digress.... The question isn't really whether there should be certain penalties against male or female genders, it's how those penalties play out in game play. If social interaction plays a significant part, then penalize the females on strength and the males on charisma (or whatever you want to call it.) I'm not even sure the playing field should be level anyway. I mean really - how many female barbarian warriors have ever existed - and could they ever go toe to toe with their male counterparts? Make deception and sexual manipulation part of the game play if you want it to mimic real life.

Hey now

[Renderer of Evil]

Some people pay good money to see bugs penalize female characters.

Re:Hey now

[MindlessAutomata]

Here, I can give you that for free:

(WARNING!!!)

http://image.nuclearmayhem.com/happyfunsmile.jpg

Other gender bonuses to offset?

[bornyesterday]

Has anyone checked to see if there is a gender bonus for female characters who have tailoring or cooking professions?

Re:Other gender bonuses to offset?

[berashith]

only while they are not wearing shoes

DPS

[spyrochaete]

I play the game and have heard the rumours but have not tested. However, damage is calculated as DPS (damage per second) in this game, so wouldn't a slow-swinging she-hulk simply do more damage with each swing?

It's true though - the game is rather unfinished. I'm going to unsubscribe when my 30 free days are up and perhaps I'll come back in 6 months. It just doesn't pay to get in on the ground floor with an MMO.

P.s., female characters wear only a g-string under their armour. :) Topless Playboy bunny hops abound. It truly is a fantasy wonderland.

Re:DPS

[merreborn]

It just doesn't pay to get in on the ground floor with an MMO.

There's also a disadvantage to getting in too late, though. Newcomers to WoW are increasingly finding that it's very hard to find people to run low-level instances with, and as a result, when they finally *do* catch up with everyone else at level 70, they don't have the instance-running skills they need to successfully contribute to end-game instance runs.

Similarly, there's no value in low-level trade goods, like there once was. Back around launch, you could make serious bank sewing low level packs to other players, etc. These days, it's next to impossible to find buyers for anything you craft until you get up to higher levels.

For the optimal MMO experience, you want to get in while there are still plenty of new players coming in so you'll have people of the same level to quest, hunt and trade with, but after the major bugs have been worked out.

Re:DPS

[TheLinuxSRC]

Perma-death. If your character dies, you start over.

Re:DPS

[bishiraver]

That's because the power curve of the game moved as the game matured, and settled at 60, then 70 or whatever. 80% of the characters are utilizing 20% of the level range, if even that.

The fix for it, of course, is to somehow keep the power curve a distributed bell curve with a majority of the people being average. There are many ways to fix this, but the problem is coming up with a solution that won't piss the ever loving hell out of everyone who plays the game. One way would be to make the "heritage" of the character important, where you gather stuff for your line of characters instead of for your single one.. but the flip side of that is each character you make can permanently die.

It's the big conundrum so many MMOs face as they age. And nobody has put something out there to fix it. Except maybe - maybe - Eve, where corporations are bigger than anything else in the game, and the game is about, well... looking at spreadsheets.

Re:DPS

[Fozzyuw]

Similarly, there's no value in low-level trade goods, like there once was

Er... you're not playing the WoW I'm playing. Actually, the reverse is true. Low-level goods and items are drastically higher in cost than they can reasonably purchased by new players at those levels.

This is do to primarily to the inflation of money injected into the economy with daily quests. It's very easy to farm money for any level 70, and as such, they transfer that money to alts. Not wanting to spend endless hours leveling up trade skills (again), they just purchase the trade goods off the Auction House, and they're willing to spend 5g-10g for a stack of 20 wool cloth, to save them 20 mins farming it.

Likewise, some nice class stat green items are selling for several gold for levels in the teens. However, the main point is the same. This is a major disadvantage to new players. Players whom I've come to hand out 100g to just so they can buy some decent stuff.

Re:DPS

[murdocj]

Actually, it's a major advantage to new low level players, because they can sell the stuff they harvest for good money (e.g. for buying their level 40 mount). Low level players do NOT need to buy equipment on the AH. They get plenty of good stuff via drops / quest rewards. My characters have almost never bought gear on the AH, certainly not at the low levels.

Re:DPS

[Bloodoflethe]

Newcomers to WoW are increasingly finding that it's very hard to find people to run low-level instances with, and as a result, when they finally *do* catch up with everyone else at level 70, they don't have the instance-running skills they need to successfully contribute to end-game instance runs Frankly, that's BS. All these people need is some attention and guidance. That is, in other words a guild that actually cares about their development in the game. I personally trained some newbies (husband and wife) in instancing. The husband took to it pretty well and I taught him higher level tactics that over half of the raiding guilds never seem to achieve. His wife, more of an artist than a statistician and tactician, was also able to keep up and do well, in fact.
We picked up a few more of the same along the way and ended up with quite a motley crew of individuals that work together with not nearly as much raiding experience as most raiding guilds, but with a combined effectiveness far greater than most of them. Why? Because we communicate effectively.
A simple solution but so very overlooked. Quick example. Gear checking sides say that we were barely ready for Karazhan in WoW, but we felled the Curator on the second attempt.

Re:DPS

[zippthorne]

Not really. They can sell stuff they harvest, which is good if they enjoy harvesting. If the crafting game is what's fun for them, they can't really access it until they're at an advanced level.

It's simply not cost effective, since they can't dump their grind-goods even for the cost of the non-farmed components.

It's a bit disingenuous to say that this is a recent development however. The nature of the crafting XP system means that the raw materials are almost always more valuable than the finished goods, since with the raw materials, you can get the item AND the XP. The only *chance* you had for profit with the crafting system was to make items that are components for goods in other crafting professions.

Frankly, though, the crafting minigame always seemed a bit primitive. "Gather components and wait for progress bar" doesn't require any skill, and therefore can't differentiate products, either.

Re:DPS

[Chris Burke]

This is do to primarily to the inflation of money injected into the economy with daily quests. It's very easy to farm money for any level 70, and as such, they transfer that money to alts. Not wanting to spend endless hours leveling up trade skills (again), they just purchase the trade goods off the Auction House, and they're willing to spend 5g-10g for a stack of 20 wool cloth, to save them 20 mins farming it.

Likewise, some nice class stat green items are selling for several gold for levels in the teens. However, the main point is the same. This is a major disadvantage to new players. Players whom I've come to hand out 100g to just so they can buy some decent stuff.

The thing is, it's no harder for that low-level character to gather the trade items than it was before, so if they themselves are trying to craft things, it's the same as before.

But on the other hand, the trade goods that the low-level character gathers are now worth much more than they used to be. This means things whose costs are fixed like skill training and the level 40/60 mounts are now much easier to afford. I started a brand new character on a new server after the expansion hit, and that character was swimming in money by the time they hit level 60. Another new character started after the dailies hit was also swimming in money, even loaning some to my level 70 to afford their epic flying mount, and was also able to frequently buy upgrades.

So there are plusses and minuses. Mostly plusses, I think, if you know how to work the system. But for a new player who will probably want to try everything and not know the best ways to make money, yeah, it's probably tough.

Re:DPS

[Omestes]

For the optimal MMO experience, you want to get in while there are still plenty of new players coming in so you'll have people of the same level to quest, hunt and trade with, but after the major bugs have been worked out.

Amen, I started WoW about 2 weeks after launch, the early game was pretty fun, finding your market niche, playing the AH, exploring new instances with fellow newbs. I played my ally druid to 60, and promptly quit (school, and the fact that Raiding sucks) shortly after they opened Silithus up. I started playing again a couple weeks after BC came out, and rolled a new horde toon... It was much less fun, every item under 30 was massively overpriced thanks to twinks, but there was no market in ANY trade skill items, except high level stuff, and mid-level potions/enchants. Finding people to do most instances is impossible, unless there is a twink drop. That and the fact that all the 56-60 content is dead, which is a shame since some of the best instances are in that range (scholo and strat rocked, as did Onyxia/MC raids).

I quit about a year later, after leveling my shamie to 70, and getting a couple 60's. I didn't want to do the pigeonhole raid thing.

I miss it when there were very few cookie cutter builds, since people were still figuring out their classes, too.

I'm planning on trying WAR about a month after release, when the rush dies down, and some of the dire bugs get quashed. I might migrate back to WoW for a month or so after WotLK, just to see what they added, and join in some groups whose never actually run any 70+ instances. Being confused together leads to better grouping.

Re:DPS

[zlexiss]

what would it take to get people to (repeatedly) switch to a new character after they get to the highest level?

Aging? You start losing stats after the character gets too old. Been done in RPG's before.

Re:DPS

[bishiraver]

Yah, but FFXI was one of the worst grinding games out there. With the proposed system, you could get to 'average' level / power in a matter of days, not in a matter of years like with FFXI. Plus, there would have to be some skill involved -- I remember playing FFXI a few years ago and literally falling asleep at my computer while our group pulled stuff in some desert or another. I woke up a half hour later with my group congratulating me on how well I did.

We had all gone up half a level.

We had spent four hours there.

Bug?

[computerman413]

Are we sure it's a bug, and not just the work of some sexist programmer?

Actually, it's made up elsewhere

[Anonymous Coward]

The women do a tremendous amount of psychological damage over time.

Another game another bug

[sparhawktn]

You know games have bugs, a lot of them, and people aways act surprised every time comes to light. Why is it then that people always buy something the day it his the selves then complain when it is broken, I know it shouldn't be broken, but more times that not there is an issue that needs to be addressed when you first load up the game and have to download a huge patch just to start playing the game.

Re:Another game another bug

[VanillaBabies]

This might because AoC was touted as "the" WoW killer and has been a)buggy and b) disappointing. Personally i was wholly disappointed and the unpolished feel from issues such as the one mentioned certainly didn't help.

Re:Another game another bug

[wattrlz]

I'm pretty sure there was a time back when things weren't released until all or most of the known bugs were dealt with. It was a while ago, so it's possible I just confabulated the memory. Back when if you bought something you got a thing and not just a limited license to access the current state of whatever it was you thought you had bought.

Age of...?

[oahazmatt]

AoC Bug Penalizes Female Characters? That's a rather amusing headline if you read AoC as Age of Consent.

Communication Issue...

[TheSubAtomic]

This was probably just a side effect of bad communication. The graphics devs probably didn't know to make the attack animation the same speed as the males. The variable attack speed based upon animation speed is a good idea, they just executed it poorly. Just like most of the stuff in the game thus far. It'll probably be fixed very shortly. inb4 sexism lawsuits

Re:Communication Issue...

[BlackSnake112]

It is a feature not a bug. The programmers where thinking of the slow motion Bay Watch running when programming female characters movements.

Female characters should be weaker

[MikeRT]

It's a well-established fact that women have much weaker upper bodies. Hollywood has done a great job of propogating the myth of the ass kicking woman who can take on a bunch of athletic men in combat, but the reality is that even if most athletic women went up against a normal, decently in shape man, they would get badly hurt in one-on-one fighting.

Re:Female characters should be weaker

[bugnuts]

It's also a well-established fact that you DIE when a barbarian sneaks up on you, stuns and knocks you down, then lops your head from your shoulders.

Stupid hollywood... if not for them, we'd all pay $15/mo to stay dead. How dare they make a game where they're not simulating reality?

Re:Female characters should be weaker

[PakProtector]

Somebody needs to go take basic college anatomy and physiology classes.

Re:Female characters should be weaker

[zippthorne]

Every guy you meet produces and uses his own steroids. Women, not so much. I suppose you could say it's cultural...

Re:Female characters should be weaker

[Chris Burke]

A friend of mine teaches women's self defense classes. He (my friend) taught his student's that they WILL lose if they try to fight an attacker unless they get the element of surprise in a strike to the balls, throat, or eyes.

Yes, that's very good advice for a self defense class, where the idea is to teach a woman how to defend herself from an attacker, and the attacker isn't going to wait until she's a 5th degree black belt before assaulting her. Most women taking the course aren't trying to become bad-ass warriors, they're trying to make it harder for some dude to rape them.

I mean really, for the vast majority of cases the best self defense advice is simply "kick em in the nuts and run like hell". When your goal isn't to win UFC, that's all you need, especially if you don't want to limit your students to those women who actually have the potential to be fighters.

It's simple physics, a 200lb man needs only swing his arm clothesline style to take out nearly any woman he would attack.

Unless you're assuming a 90lb waif trembling because she hasn't eaten in two days, that's pretty funny. If we're assuming a woman who is in shape, unless this ridiculous clothesline swing actually connects with a fist to the head, it's not going to do much.

I'm 5'11, 190lbs, and I've had girls I know who are all I AM WOMAN HEAR ME ROAR and take karate/self defense classes say they are just as strong as a man/can take one. Every single one ended on the ground with me mounting them quite effortlessly. All the karate and self defense shit you learn means shit when it's the equivalent of a mac truck running over a motorcycle.

Person Taking Karate Thinks They Are Bigger Badass Than They Really Are, I think would be the Onion headline for that amazing story.

If "all the karate and self defense" doesn't mean shit when some mere 190lb dude is coming at you, then you didn't learn shit, and that's probably a terrible class. Karate might be a bad choice, since it's a very direct style. Judo would be perfect, it's a style designed around using your opponent's momentum against them, and a "mac truck" has a lot of momentum. But really, just about every style deals with methods of redirecting an attacker who is larger and stronger. These girls you beat up on just didn't know crap about that, so they lost.

For an actually skilled woman, which I readily grant tends to be a rarer thing than for men, your 5'11" 190lb as ain't even close to a "mac truck". I have personally witnessed such a woman drop a 6'6" 250+ man who bench pressed 400lbs like he was a sack of potatoes. And he himself could do a little better than clothesline swings and mad bull charges.

It's fair to say that on average women have less strength and less mass, and therefore the physics wins out. That's what your friend's self defense class advice is based upon, and it is sound advice. But your general statement that a woman can't beat a man unless she's ridiculously strong, or the man is drunk, is silly and wrong.

Re:Female characters should be weaker

[Chris Burke]

Look, when you're talking about the "average" woman and the "average" man, of course the observation that the average woman isn't as strong as the average man is true. The "average" man could beat up the "average" woman, yeah, especially since the "average" woman has no training. Big surprise there.

But you can't apply the average to any particular example, and it's not nearly as automatically lopsided as you contend. You're claiming that unless the woman is extremely skilled, and the man has never so much as play-wrestled in their life, the woman loses. That's just wrong. The physics is not a powerful as you think, and sometimes works in the opposite direction. This notion that a simple clothesline is going to drop a woman who is in shape and not themselves inept is nonsense.

(if she's >140-150lbs, atleast from my experience with guys I know who weigh 130-140 and even they workout, it's simply too little mass to contend with a much larger opponent unless you know how to fight)

See, the whole point of discussion is people who know how to fight. When I was a 120lb wrestler I could beat 190lbers who also "knew how to fight", I was just better than them. They weren't inept, but their mass was simply not so great an advantage that it couldn't be overcome. Leverage works wonders, you know?

And as I just said, I saw an ~130 lb woman drop a 250lb man who knew how to fight. Yes, she had to know how to fight herself, but she wasn't the greatest fighter ever, I saw her get schooled by very skilled men closer to her size. In this case, though, the man had some serious physics working against them -- namely that big objects move more slowly.

As to 'the girls I beat up on' they asked me to spar with them every time

I was just saying that you kicked their butts, and that they sucked. I assumed this was a consensual sparring match, thus my mock Onion headline about them thinking they are tougher than they are? :P

They never learned how to deal with a larger attacker. It's not that it's impossible or even really that hard, it's that they didn't know what to do in that case but were nevertheless overconfident.

What I'm trying to say is, for the most part in a man vs woman situation, barring weapons and such, the woman loses almost every time unless she has top notch training (or a surprise disabling move to one of the only 3 weak spots that really count) and he is completely inept.

You keep saying there are only 3 weak spots that matter. Someone should introduce you to the knees and elbows. The best thing about them is that unlike the 3 you list, these aren't very well defended (by either innate reflex or intention) and are relatively large targets since you don't need to be precise. Not to mention that while even the worst kick to the nads is a temporary setback, kick the side of somebody's knee with the meager force required and they aren't going to be chasing you until they get out of their cast. But this is straying off topic (though it might be worth mentioning at a self defense class).

My point is, your extrapolation from the statistical averages and a few overconfident women that the woman loses unless she is top notch and the man is inept is simply wrong. A top-notch trained woman could be most men, especially those who think their size gives them an insurmountable advantage. However for a top-notch man vs a top-notch woman, then any difference in mass and strength could be telling, but even then not automatically. It's just not that simple.

And venturing back to the actual subject of the article and the OP, any female character in AoC can be assumed to have been trained in combat well enough that inherent gender differences should have no appreciable effect (and any other way of designing the game is silly).

Re: Female attack speed and mount movement speed

[Eowaennor]

Those issues were already fixed on Monday...

unsheath your weapon to fix your mount speed trick

[gblackwo]

Everyone knows you run faster with a knife.

Obviously the AoC developers learned...

[obijuanvaldez]

what is best in life.

Fixed.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, fixed. I made a female character to test the bug, only to find out it was already fixed.

The Full Scoop

[Scorpinox]

I've been following this bug since it was first made apparent by some female assassins. At first we thought it was limited to the assassin class, but they were just the first to notice it, it turns out ALL classes who dual weild weapons are affected by the gender bug.

Here is a youtube video which clearly showcases the difference:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=k-C4z-pTrII&feature=related

Players who were in the beta of the game say (while breaking their NDA sadly) that this bug was in the beta for months, but was never addressed.

Funcom's response as of over a week ago was along the lines of "We'll look into it, they should be the same speed". There has been no communication on the bug since then.

I think it's great that this bug is getting mainstream attention now, it's a very serious imbalance that Funcom needs to take responsibility of.

Re:DPS (is not the issue)

[Scorpinox]

DPS is not the issue here. The game has many "procs" (each hit has a %chance of adding an effect like poison or extra damage), so after 30 seconds the genders may be doing the same "damage" but the males will have more procs than females.

Also, the game uses combos which require several regular attacks to initiate, a male will be able to fire off combos faster than females, many of which debuff or do additional damage that higher "damage per hit" will not make up for.

Shiney factor?

[Fozzyuw]

It seems that as the initial "shiny factor" wears off for the new darling MMO, the bugs and complaints just continue to pile up resulting in a fair bit of buyer's remorse.

Formally know as "the honeymoon period", this is just par for the course for all MMO's as well as human behavior for a lot of things (including marriage apparently, as the name suggests). AoC isn't really any different than any other MMO I've seen, including WoW, which suffered greatly from server crashes and lag issues in the first 2 weeks that prompted them to give time credit to all accounts. I think I have 8 days of "free" time to play beyond the "free" first month.

The only MMO I've played at launch that I recall having the least issues was LOTRO. However, they had plenty of server issues and quest bugs as well. Just a lot less than I've seen normally. WoW's problems stemmed mostly from unprecedented demand.

Re:Shiney factor?

[Ikar_rb]

Honestly, AoC had a *remarkably* smooth launch on the "server stability" end of things. One of the smoothest I've ever seen. There is a lot of things which remain unfinished, but then again there have been a TON of things enhanced in WoW since launch. My major complaints about AoC include: "Feats" i.e. wow talents descriptions are utterly useless, to the point that a person cannot make reasonable intelligent decisions about which ones to pick based on their descriptions. Not to mention there are numerous feats which simply don't work. Combat mechanics are very nearly a black box, again hampering decision making & optimizing effectiveness. Class balance is utterly broken- the "pure" tanks (guardians) do more damage than the "dps" tanks (conqueror) by nearly a 2:1 margin. Funcom chose to shorten the levelling grind, so it's a lot shorter to get to 80... but that also shortened their window to actually get an "endgame" together, so unless further development of an endgame shows up fast, a lot of folks will get to 80, and realize there's not much to do at 80. Those are pretty much the most egregarious problems I see. I'm putting AoC down and waiting 6 months to take another look, as it's clearly not ready yet.

Re:unsheath your weapon to fix your mount speed tr

[electricbern]

No. You run faster with scissors.

Objoke

[Dogtanian]

From what I've seen, that is for very large values of "normal" Large breasts *are* normal on the average Slashdotter. Unfortunately, the average Slashdotter is also male.

Re:topless bunny hoppers

[evilkasper]

Never read any of the Conan books, or comics have you? Naked flesh is a central theme in the heavy metal fantasy style of the game.

Subscription question.

[antdude]

Does one require credit card to to play 30 days trial? I'd like to check out the game, but I don't want to give the company my paymeny information before my trial expires.

Grow up

[Rui del-Negro]

How is showing a perfectly normal part of the human body "resorting to the gutter"?

It never ceases to amaze me how some people (or some societies) look at a movie or game where dozens of people get shot or hacked into pieces, and are offended by... a nipple.

But only if it's a female nipple; male nipples are fine (although those have no purpose other than sexual arousal). Probably because men won't take shit about not being allowed to go shirtless when they want to.

Personally I think any game where characters have undetachable underwear is simple pandering to pseudo-moralistic puritan pricks.

Re:Grow up

[Rui del-Negro]

Going around naked would get old soon. Part of the reason why people wear clothes, even in places where it's warm enough not to, is to show off their unique / expensive clothes, and through them their status. And besides, it would mean no armour bonuses, possibly a health loss in cold regions (if the game models weather realistically), possibly undesirable reactions from NPCs or other players (making fun, refusing to deal with, etc.), and so on.

But if I have a big quest coming up, I definitely want to be able to remove my boring white polygon and put on some +5 Lucky Underpants.

By all means, add the option to cover the "sinful bits" with a (large?) black rectangle, or an american flag, or whatever, but it just doesn't make sense to make underwear part of the body. BTW, there was a running joke in Morrowind / Oblivion that the reason why there aren't any children in those games is that all the NPCs have their underwear welded on, so they would have no way of making (let alone giving birth) to babies. The actual reason was that it would require a much more elaborate ragdoll system (with different-sized clothes, extra textures, different animations, etc.).

Oh, how I miss Ultima VII...

Re:topless bunny hoppers

[sesshomaru]

Yes, it goes all the way back to his Weird Tales debut in the 1930's with covers by Margaret Brundige:

Wikipedia: Margaret Brundage

I mean, there's a reason why H. P. Lovecraft (notorious prude) would tear the covers off the magazine where many of his best stories appeared, to quote Wikipedia:

Brundage's art frequently featured damsels in distress in various states of full or partial nudity; her whipping scenes were especially noteworthy and controversial. Her sensual images usually illustrated scenes from the pieces chosen by editor Farnsworth Wright as cover stories; her work was so popular among readers that some WT writers, like Seabury Quinn, cannily included scenes in their stories that would make good Brundage covers.

So.. there you have it... you'd think people would've been able to tell this from the Conan movies, though. Or maybe... those are also too old fashioned now. I feel old.

Humble Suggestion

[unsigned integer]

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=254

Perhaps these bugs are by design

Re:unsheath your weapon to fix your mount speed tr

[svnt]

"unsheath your weapon to fix your mount speed"

That's what she said.

What is best in AoC?

[residieu]

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the female characters.

Re:topless bunny hoppers

[Danny Rathjens]

AoC was developed by Funcom, a company based in Norway. Europeans do not have the silly obsession over breasts that we repressed americans do. :) (I won't even go down the road of the hypocritical lack of objection to the violent aspects of the game giving it its M rating such as the ability to decapitate people with blood spattering everywhere and whatnot)

Re:Newsflash

[Jarnis]

Well, it *should* be big news. The status quo should be that a game is released when it's ready and polished.

It's a sad world when it's shocking to find a new MMO to be actually bug-free and polished...