Slashdot Mirror


The Warhammer Online Team Responds

Last month we asked you for questions for the makers of Warhammer Online. The tone of the response made it obvious that many readers were concerned about where the company was taking the Warhammer world. Their responses should, at least somewhat, put those of you frustrated by what you've seen so far at ease. The makers of the upcoming MMOG from Mythic have responded with detail and good humour to the insightful queries you put to them. They were also considerate enough to label their responses, so you know exactly who has answered each question. So, please, read on for the responses from Mythic's Warhammer Online team. 1.) What's in for the crafters? by Opportunist (166417)
I'm a crafter at heart, in fact, I play MMORPGs to craft gear. So what do we loonies get? How do you want to avoid the two pitfalls "Making it so easy that everyone is some sort of crafter (see WoW)" and "Making it so hard that you'd rather go with the once-in-a-lifetime-drop (see DAoC)"? Can I sustain myself crafting, or is it at best a hobby for people who have too much money already? Will crafted gear be, economically, be at least on par with drop-only gear? Oh, only one question. Ok: Is being a crafter a choice that can keep you entertained and sustained by itself?

Steve Marvin, Senior Design: I hate to disappoint Slashdot readers here (I'm one myself, albeit just a lurker), and I don't think for a second that I can get away with a song and dance with you guys, either. ;-) So I'll come straight out and admit that we're dodging this question. We just aren't talking about crafting yet beyond the promise that it will be present and fun. Ask us again in six months, and we will be ready to give you some juicy details.

2.) Why not a tabletop port? by randalx (659791)
When I first heard of Warhammer Online I had a slight hope that the designers were going to create an online version of the table top game, something akin to what Wizards of the Coast did with Magic The Gathering Online. That doesn't seem to be the case. Just the same, judging by the people I've talked to, this game would be of great interest to current and former battlegamers. I'd like to know, besides the Warhammer universe, why should this game appeal to a Warhammer battlegamer?

Steve Marvin, Senior Design: Why didn't we do a straight port? Well, as Paul (Paul Barnett, our Design Manager) likes to say, it's kind of like Batman. Batman comes in a multitude of flavors, from big screen to books, cartoons to games, action figures to a million other successful (and unsuccessful) incarnations. Each modifies the base concept to suit the market in which it will be operating, so as to appeal to the current fans, but just as important, to create new fans in a medium in which there were few or none previously. With luck, the new aspect will be a big success, and those new fans will go looking for the other flavors. We really like the folks at Games Workshop (they've been fantastic to work with), and we love the Warhammer universe, and so we hope our game can help expand interest in both.

But we work in the MMO medium. More specifically, MMORPG's. That means that a dominant characteristic of the tabletop experience has already been set aside: the impersonal aspect. Tabletop Warhammer is about the control of lots of individuals at a time by a single person. MMORPG's are about lots of individuals controlling one character at a time.

A better comparison would probably be to compare us to the Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing Game. There you do carry an individual through the Warhammer universe, acquiring power, wealth and experience. The unit types found on the tabletop are recreated in WFRP careers where possible, and new but IP-consistent careers are created to fill out the expectations of a robust FRP game. Of course, WFRP doesn't let you play the "bad guys", and we do.

But even that comparison breaks down, since we aren't a paper and dice game any more than we are a miniatures game. The fact is that we have taken everything that we liked best about the IP, combined it with what we like best about MMO's, and created something we think plays to the strengths of the IP, the genre, and our own strengths as a developer, especially player versus player (PvP) combat and its larger counterpart, Realm versus Realm (RvR). At its heart, RvR online play is the obvious and perfect way to recreate Warhammer as an MMORPG. War on a grand scale, carried out on the personal level.

And coming full circle, that's what the Warhammer tabletop player will enjoy about WAR. We have been working with the folks at GW not so much to make an MMO based on Warhammer, as to translate the core concepts of Warhammer into an MMO. Not as the trappings of it, but the essence of it. Certainly we have Ironbreakers and Squigs and Warrior Priests and Bright Wizards and runes and banners and choppas and Dwarfs and Orcs and Dark Elves and the Empire and Karaz-a-Karak and thousands of other things lifted directly from the source material. But that's the easy bit. We want fans of Warhammer to recognize the kinds of choices we've made as Warhammer choices. Epic, heroic conflict. The same principles of number and mood. The sense of endless struggle against (or for!) the encroaching darkness. Perhaps most of all, the humor and the sense of fun. When you get into WAR, you will recognize it as Warhammer. We're working very hard to get that right, and we hope you'll enjoy it as much as we do.

3.)Removing the grind by Bugmaster (227959)
What are you going to do in order to prevent the repetitive grind that most MMOs are [in]famous for? How many quests in your game follow ye olde template of "kill 20 goblins and bring me their noses... but a goblin only has a 30% chance to drop a nose"?

Destin Bales, Content Director: Time commitment will always be a factor in WAR just as it is in other successful MMO's. That is because the more time you are able to put into the game, the more you'll experience and see of the world, and the more fun you will have. However, I look to three key features within WAR to make time spent online exciting rather than repetitive:

1. Realm vs Realm (RvR) Game play. Warhammer Online allows you to level your character entirely through RvR game play, just as you can through PvE, if you choose to do so. You are able to earn experience, gain access to items and gather valuable coin through this form of PvP combat. This style of play is not only unpredictable, but ever-changing. The community dictates the pace ensuring that each battle is unique from the last.

We also have four different varieties of RvR combat and each offers a unique player experience. In Skirmishes, it's a random encounter with an opponent (or group of opponents!) that leads to battle in the game world. In Battlefields, you are fighting for control of a landmark or resource for the benefit of your army. It could be just you against twenty enemies or a more even fight, depending on the importance placed on the objective at that time by each army. In Scenarios, you'll be able to jump into a "fair" fight of balanced sides (augmented by NPC's if need be). Finally, in the Campaign, you'll be taking land and sacking cities in the RvR endgame.

2. Truckloads of Carrots: Warhammer Online's unique career advancement system awards players several times per rank, rather than once every (or every other) level. Gaining unique abilities, tactics, morale options and more all occur at various times within a single rank. This means that you are never far away from earning your next new enhancement for your character. Additionally, the Tome of Knowledge serves as a game-wide scavenger hunt in which most actions you complete in game will yield results that not only can affect your character but give you further insight into the wondrous inner workings of the Warhammer world and the story of the Age of Reckoning.

3. Content Variety: WAR provides players with many different ways to have fun while growing their characters online. Some examples include community driven, area-based public quests; our deep and enticing RvR game play; solo-able quests, Tome of Knowledge entry unlocking, crafting and more. As MMO's continue to evolve, developers discover new and compelling ways to ensure players are actively having a good time. WAR is filled to the brim with not only industry staples, but new things that I guarantee you've not seen before.

The answer to the second part of the question - "How many quests in your game follow ye olde template of 'kill 20 goblins and bring me their noses... but a goblin only has a 30% chance to drop a nose'?" - is simple: None! When we present players with a quest to gather goblin noses, you'll find that every goblin with a nose on his face is willing to part with it after death. From the first day that we began defining our quest design principles, we made it a priority to avoid this type of quest in WAR altogether. Furthermore, collection style quests make up a very small portion of the quests we have to offer. Our quests are all tied closely to the ongoing war, so most have you infiltrating an enemy compound, assassinating da big boss, or capturing a strategic location wot holds beer!

4.) What makes WAR special? / Why Is It For Me? by Gerad (86818) and eldavojohn (898314)
On a site like Slashdot, a lot of us are caught up in online RPG games and console wars. I read the overview of your game on your site but--like a lot of people--I'm not sold. What's unique about Warhammer Online, other than the universe that its set in? This could be anything, really: design philosophy, new innovations in game play, new technical accomplishments. It appears to have a lot of 'war' involved in it but is there any social aspects to your online game? Is there diplomacy in Warhammer? Put slightly more bluntly, tell me why I should chose Warhammer Online over World of Warcraft.

Josh Drescher, Associate Producer: Fundamentally, Warhammer Online is about real, meaningful conflict. When we say "war is everywhere," we mean it. From the earliest portions of the game straight on through to the high-end invasion campaigns, players will have the chance to take part in robust, meaningful PvP. The options that exist on the market at the moment really treat PvP like a dangerously "extreme" element of the MMO experience and go to great lengths to make it appeal only to a limited percentage of players. Part of this is out of necessity - poorly conceived PvP can be devastatingly off-putting to new players who set one foot out into the world and get murdered on the spot by griefers. So we see some games that restrict PvP to specialized servers or to high level characters in remote areas or that force players to queue up for an hour to go and play through "safe" content that exists outside of the persistent world entirely. It's no surprise that most MMO players eschew PvP for the traditionally more well-implemented PvE experience.

So, at its core, Warhammer Online seeks to address THAT problem. Our solution is what we call Realm vs. Realm content. Unlike our noble competitors, we really want to give players a reason to go out and experience the excitement of battling real, live players without restricting them to countless replays of the same "seize the windmill" content. When you create your character, you aren't just starting a solo journey in the Warhammer world. You're joining an ARMY. And that army is engaged in an epic conflict that can (and likely WILL) bring the war directly to your front door. That grand, enormous capital city you're running around in today could be a ruined tomb tomorrow if you and your fellows do not defend it tooth and nail. To do so, you'll be given the chance to push deeper and deeper into enemy territory until you finally reach THEIR capital, at which point you'll lay siege to it and - if successful - do things that... well, Slashdot is a FAMILY FRIENDLY place, so let's just say that you'll do terrible, terrible things to the huddled, whimpering survivors of the siege.

Now, you may be wondering how we're going to turn the average PvE-loving "kill ten squirrels and collect some magic daisies" player into a wild-eyed, combat-lusting RvR fanatic. Our game is laid out in such a way that players will have the chance to jump right into the fray if they so desire, but it also offers (through specific lines of quests) a chance for more cautious players to slowly get accustomed to the added danger and excitement of facing off against something other than NPC's. Some early quests will simply ask you to enter an RvR-flagged region of the world to hunt for a specific NPC or accomplish some task. Later, you'll be asked to enter an actual contested battlefield area and contribute to your army's efforts. Eventually, you'll be asked to go out and hunt down an actual player. By that point, we're confident that players will be enjoying themselves so much that they'll be 100% ready to go out and take part in the larger-scale RvR content in Warhammer Online.

In terms of socialization, it's this larger-scale RvR content that will drive much of it. Players will find themselves needing to monitor the advancement of the enemy at all times. To be successful, you'll have to do more than plan guild-only events day after day. Players will find it necessary to communicate and cooperate constantly in order to have a chance of surviving. This is because they will find themselves pressed into defending their homes, their friends and their neighbors at any moment and when things REALLY start to hit the fan, EVERYONE has a part to play. Newer characters will be able to get together and - as a group - take on a significantly more powerful enemy and WIN. A wall of tanks outside the city gates WILL be able to halt the advance of enemy forces. The days of "über guilds" ignoring everyone else and dominating the game are over.

As a quick final note, seeing the words "diplomacy" and "Warhammer" in the same sentence brought a smile to my face. If, by "diplomacy," you mean the pillaging, desecration and slaughter of your hated foes, their homes and their belongings, then yes, it's a VERY diplomatic game. If you meant it in any other way, then no, diplomacy isn't really part of the equation.

5.) EA by llchao (969631)
What game design, content, or production decisions (if any) have been affected by the EA take-over of Mythic?

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: Game Design, Content, Art and Production of the game were all well underway before the acquisition took place. Since then, we have received an immense amount of feedback on the game from within EA, and are using this feedback to make the game even better. In general though, they leave us to make the game and the decisions surrounding it. They acquired Mythic for it's MMO expertise, and they are letting us apply that expertise as we think best.

Overall, the purchase of Mythic by EA this year has been a great thing for us and for WAR. Don't get me wrong, there have been bumps along the way, but these are simply growing pains as we at Mythic get used to working within the EA organization. Overall, it has been a great experience and has only lead to positive things for WAR. We have more opportunity to ensure that our production quality is as high as it can possibly be, with a level of polish unprecedented on any Mythic title. To put it simply, EA has supplied us with increased resources, and we are applying those resources to WAR to make the best MMO ever. EA has not changed the focus for WAR in any regard. It has simply enabled us to make it better.

6.) End-Game by milspec74 (472052) and Gerad (86818)
Will the end-game of Warhammer Online focus on Player vs. Player/Realm vs. Realm style play, or be aimed more at the Player vs. Environment experience? As a follow up question, how do you plan on balancing the endgame experience of casual players vs. the endgame experience of hardcores?

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: WAR's "end-game" (though I hate to call it that, for there really is no "end"), is a mix of PvE and RvR. The focus is primarily on RvR and the never ending struggle between the Realm of Order and Realm of Destruction, but there is definitely high end PvE content to be had by those who desire it. This PvE content is various and spread throughout the world in quests, large-group boss encounters and massive dungeons that will test the wits and skills of any player or groups of players.

The entire game actually works this way, with a mix of PvE and RvR choices and possibilities throughout the world. Of course the thing that really sets WAR apart is the RvR campaign game, so we are focusing a massive amount of production time and assets on RvR Skirmish, Battlefields, Scenarios and Campaigns. Specifically the Campaign, City Sieges and Sacking is something that we see engaging and holding our players attention for years to come. Being able to capture enemy zones and drive your enemy before you to the gates of their own capital city is going to be such a great experience! But then top that off with the actual capture, looting and pillaging of the city itself, and we have a formula for amazing amounts of long term fun.

The "casual" versus "hardcore" question comes up in regards to everything that we do within the game, and we are developing the game with accessibility and fun built in for all types of players. We are making sure that if a player only has an hour to play, then they will be able to participate in either RvR or PvE or both, and have a rewarding experience doing so. We are also ensuring that there is a deep and compelling experience for those players who desire longer play sessions or who play more often. We are applying many different types of balancing measures to help with everything from population between the realms to how a casual gamer gets access to the best items in the game. No stone is being left unturned in our efforts to make WAR fun for all.

7.) User introduced art? by RingDev (879105)
One of the most entertaining aspects of Warhammer (IMO) next to strategy, planning, and decimating our enemies is the craft and care of the miniatures. And one of the enjoyable parts of playing MMOs is the mod community, whether sanctioned or not. With DAoC there was a definite progression between Mythic and the Mod community. What started out as a non-existent link slowly became a collaboration between Mythic and the modders. Mythic introduced a tool (or information about the tool) to allow modders to implement custom GUI solutions (an idea that has since been used widely in the MMO field). Are there currently any plans to have a similar system that would allow for the introduction of player contributed art to the game? Banners, skins, assorted textures, and the like? Such a system would allow players to not only take pride in their victories, but also in their craftsmanship.

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: Currently we do have plans for a fully functional and modifiable User Interface that we will be coordinating with the modding community to use. Our UI will be completely customizable and able to look and feel exactly as a player may want. In regards to other types of art within the game, we do not currently have any plans to allow players to modify the in-game art (characters, world, etc...).

8.) Nay-Sayers by Zonk (12082) Despite the obvious debt that the Warcraft setting owes to Warhammer (and D&D, and Tolkien) there have been several comparisons drawn between Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft. It's obvious that any modern fantasy MMOG will have similarities to what has come before; Everquest owes a great deal to MUDs, for example. That said, how would you respond to onlookers who look at your game, look at WoW, and say that you are trying to capitalize on the success of World of Warcraft by aping many elements of Blizzard's title?

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: Hmm, this is always a tough question to answer, mainly because the answer is so simple that people don't like it, but here goes: Look at how long Warhammer has been around (almost 25 years), and at the art, look and feel of our game. You will find that WAR is true to the look of WARHAMMER not any other game. If some other game wants to look like WARHAMMER, then that is their prerogative. What is important to us is that WE stay true to the Warhammer look, which we have.

As for game play elements and comparisons, the MMO industry is an ever evolving place and each game grows successively off of its predecessors. Each game raises the bar of what is "standard" in an MMO and what the players will expect. WAR includes many of what players today would call "expected features" - things like overall movement control, a fully fleshed out guild system or the inclusion of crafting, just to name a few. We especially want to make sure that there is a familiarity with controls, movement and other primary functions. Really, our biggest influence was our own game "Dark Age of Camelot". If you want a taste of how RvR and general game play will feel in WAR, compare us to DAoC, not anyone else. We choose to set ourselves apart with features like our deep and compelling RvR system and our Public Quest system. These are the types of things that will make our game shine.

9.) Mac/Linux versions by BMonger (68213)
Has any thought been given to Mac OS X and/or Linux versions of the game?

There are no plans for a MAC or Linux version of the game at this time.

220 comments

  1. Mac Version??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

    I got your Mac version right here...it's called "Reboot into Windows"...

    1. Re:Mac Version??? by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

      NO mac, no linux, guess i'm gonna be playing wow.

    2. Re:Mac Version??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same here. There are many games I'd much rather play than WoW (e.g. Eve Online, checking out WAR, etc) but simply can not due to me having a Mac. Even if I had an intel-mac I still would not install Windows so dual booting is out of the question.

    3. Re:Mac Version??? by cuban321 · · Score: 0

      For what it's worth, I'm the exact same way.

    4. Re:Mac Version??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know what? I reckon what's really unfair is that I can't play Zelda on my toaster. I mean, it's a really good toaster. Runs NetBSD and everything. Why should I have to buy a Wii just to play Zelda? They should make Zelda run on my toaster, dammit! What happened to cross-platform computing? Why is Nintendo so intent on vendor lock-in?!

  2. Warhammer 40,000 or Fantasy? by Terminus32 · · Score: 0

    Which is it?

    --
    http://nathanlindsell.blogspot.com/
  3. Has me excited. by The+Living+Fractal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When I first heard of WoW I pictured Warcraft on the MMO scale. World PvP. City raids. Realm vs. Realm. Epic PvP.

    That never materialized. And I think when I say this that I speak for many people: The prospect of it finally arriving (in WAR) has me very excited.

    TLF

    --
    I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
    1. Re:Has me excited. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The trouble with wars in a MMO is that you can't win. You can kill all your enemies but they just keep respawning...

      I would probably play an MMO wargame that kicked dead players out of the war and allowed one side to win, then reset the server.

    2. Re:Has me excited. by jfodale · · Score: 1

      "The trouble with wars in a MMO is that you can't win. You can kill all your enemies but they just keep respawning..."

      A big part of WAR seems to be that you can capture zones that lead up to the destruction of an enemy capitol as the finale to your side's campaign (or the destruction of your own capitol if the war effort isn't going so good). This entire war cycle could take days, weeks, or months. The other side will respawn and rebuild after you destroy them, sure, but that seems like a worthy victory to me.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    3. Re:Has me excited. by mmalove · · Score: 1

      Wow. I wish that I had mod points to spend, for the simple fact that you managed to make a statement about WOW without resorting to invoking "WE", "EVERYONE", or "CASUAL GAMERS" - and actually showed the nuts to state this as your own opinion. Kudos.

      That said, /signed. I'd really like to see how Warhammer implements PVP objectives and style gaming differently than Warcraft, and makes it such that lower level players can enjoy pvp alongside higher level players. PVP servers in WOW currently seem to represent PVP as a griefing element more than part of the gameplay/character development. I want to play against other players, but I don't want to constantly lose to someone because they have twice the HP, or a hammer of whacknaros. There's some strategy involved in mass pvp, but it's rarely about pitting this class against that (pikemen vs cavalry type stuff) - and more gangbang the priests. Still, till I see the final product, I carefully reserve judgement.

      --
      You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
    4. Re:Has me excited. by eison · · Score: 1

      Meh. Once again, it will never materialize. For all the same reasons - griefers aren't fun, lack of any lasting impact, difficulty with network code for handling hundreds of players, etc.

      --
      is competition good, or is duplication of effort bad?
    5. Re:Has me excited. by erlorad · · Score: 1

      World PVP loses it's charm quickly when sides are not balanced and if you look at DAoC or WoW, sides are far, far from balanced. 2:1, 3:1 is more or less the norm for the "good" vs "evil". The outnumbered suckers are bound to give up sooner or later and simply ignore world pvp (if they can) or leave the game.

    6. Re:Has me excited. by Kheng · · Score: 1

      In RYL ( or one of the other Korean MMO's ), your strength in pvp is balanced out according to the ratio of enemies, so if there are two players of nation A and one of B, the player in nation B will be powered up. They may implement an equalisation scheme similar to that.

    7. Re:Has me excited. by yulek · · Score: 1

      years of air warrior, warbirds, and aces high showed how it can be done (captured territories, limited resources for the losing side, eventual arena reset, etc.)

      --
      in this age of communication i'm just not getting through
  4. no other OS ports planned? by overbom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good luck dragging the guild away from Warcraft. It's not going to happen without a Mac port. Too bad, your game sounds fun and my group is a big fan of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying -- I could stand to kill some more Slaanesh.

    1. Re:no other OS ports planned? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Good luck dragging the guild away from Warcraft.

      Yeah, I'm not a WoW addict, but of my friends who play 8 now use Macs. That probably accounts for at least thirty people total that take part in their weekly gaming night that won't be even trying Warhammer.

    2. Re:no other OS ports planned? by JoostSchuttelaar · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this is too bad. I'm a Mac user and I played a lot of Warhammer a little less than 10 years ago, and would like to try out this game.

    3. Re:no other OS ports planned? by bjackson · · Score: 1

      I hate to feed the troll, but...

      Obviously people care, because they're asking for the support - whether you like it or not there are a significant amount of Mac gamers out there. Obviously you care, because you felt so strong about it you had to post too. And to turn this back into an interesting discussion instead of an O/S holy war - I'd be interested to know what % of Mac users make up WoW - and how much revenue that represents. That might make the Warhammer folks open their eyes.

    4. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Wylfing · · Score: 1

      I could stand to kill some more Slaanesh.

      Maybe you'd be disappointed on multiple levels then. It looks like Chaos is only about Tzeentch right now.

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    5. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Jupiter+Jones · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see the figures too. I'm sure it's a significant percentage since it's practically the only MMORPG out there for the Mac. It's not like we Mac users are dropping WoW for City of Heroes or anything. We're kinda stuck.

      (And don't forget, the machinima for the South Park WoW episode was done on a Mac.)

        - JJ

    6. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Onan · · Score: 1


      Any group ignorant enough to apparently believe that "Mac" is an acronym is probably beyond all hope.

      (I'm always grateful when people expressing negative opinions about Apple or Macs feel compelled to spell it as "MAC". It clarifies right away that they have no idea about what they're talking, so their opinions can safely be ignored without any further examination.)

    7. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Gorhammer · · Score: 1

      /agreed. Our WoW guild doesn't have a lot of Mac users, perhaps only 4-5, but it's enough to keep us all where we are. As an avid GW fan, I'd love to switch to WAR when it comes out, but without a Mac client that's unlikely to happen.

    8. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Jerry+Rivers · · Score: 1

      Everquest for Mac is doing very well thank you very much. It's a small but very enthusiastic community.

      --
      The pursuit of absolute tolerance leads to the most rigorous and ludicrous intolerance. - REX MURPHY
    9. Re:no other OS ports planned? by mobilebuddha · · Score: 1

      while the # of people who play WoW on a mac might be significant, you have to take that into context. It's entirely possible that a decent % of people who play games on Mac play WoW, but if you were to look at the # of such players when compared to the OVERALL player base, it might not be enough to Mythic to warrant a mac client.

      I wish the opposite is true, that'd be one more reason for me to buy a mac.. and DAMN do they look good.

    10. Re:no other OS ports planned? by fotbr · · Score: 1

      One of the reasons I'm considering moving to a Mac for my next laptop is that I'll be able to keep playing WoW with my real-life-yet-scattered-around-the-world friends for game night. I'm not a FPS person (though I admit I'll miss HalfLife) so lack of $LATEST_AND_GREATEST_FPS doesn't bother me.

      I'm still looking for a good flight sim for Mac though. Then again, I can always dual-boot XP to get my MS FlightSim X fix until the virtualization abilities we've been promised finally appear.

    11. Re:no other OS ports planned? by SupremoMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hear Macs run Windows now...

    12. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Kaladis+Nefarian · · Score: 1

      Agreed. A Mac port is important to me for any game that requires a large investment of time and money (monthly fee), because while I currently only run Linux and Windows, the Macintelosh has become an interesting beast and I'm probably going to get one in the near to not-so-near future, and whatever MMOCRACK I'm on at the time should be able to move to that (increasingly popular) platform with me. Given the Mac's growing popularity with public figures, I'd say the adoption rate is only going to increase, so any companies ignoring the Mac as a gaming platform would be wise to reconsider their positions.

      --
      * Several monkeys are here, playing banjos and wearing small hats.
    13. Re:no other OS ports planned? by williamstome · · Score: 1

      erm, I'm willing to bet that the % of the WoW playerbase running on macs is very low. Even though it's almost the only MMO for Macs, most gamers use windows boxes because Windows is much better for gaming (Mac is certainly better at other things). Many of my mac-loving friends also have windows boxes which they use for gaming.

    14. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but why would you want to? Eww! /joke

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    15. Re:no other OS ports planned? by aTMsA · · Score: 1

      MAC => Media Access Control => A long and hopefully unique number that identifies your network card in the local network.

      (And yes i know you were talking about the chic computers)

    16. Re:no other OS ports planned? by bjackson · · Score: 1

      I believe that Blizzard touts a 6 million user base for WoW - say that only 1% of those are Mac users.

      6,000,000 * .01 = 60,000 users

      60,000,000 * 19.99 (price of game) = $1,199,400 for just buying the game

      Say each user only plays for 7 months (1 month free + 6 months)

      6 * 14.95 = $89.70 per user * 60,000 = $5,382,000

      I bet these are very conservative numbers - and look at the cash flow - I believe that's the reason that Blizzard (and other companies) should cater to Mac users. Even a low % is earning them some significant $$ (note that they do have operational and capital costs to maintain the servers / staff - but you can see the scope of a few % points)

    17. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could always get x-plane which is available for Mac, Linux and Windows. It's a pretty decent realistic flight sim (And the only real one available for Mac).

    18. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      How many PCs do you suppose are in offices and never have a single game installed? I'd venture to guess that 40% is a conservative estimate.

      I don't think the numbers are as far against Macintoshes as some people think. Clearly, Blizzard disagrees with you. I would very much enjoy seeing their numbers, but they don't seem interested in sharing them. Heck, encouraging more Mac game development probably isn't in their best interest...

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    19. Re:no other OS ports planned? by mobilebuddha · · Score: 1

      Oh, I totally applaud Blizzard's decision to include both PC and Mac client(at release right? that was such a distant past at this point in time, or so it seems..). However, I have to say that Mythic must've done SOME homework on the viability of supporting two clients, two platforms and decided that it wasn't in their best interest to do so.

      While one may disagree with Mythic's decision, one has to hope that Mythic did at least thought about the mac platform and made a conscious decision not to support it.

      I also resent the fact that one of the other posters' attitude toward mac gaming. I forgot who, but it seems to me (based on his comment) that he viewed mac gaming as a god given right. Reality check here.. when you bought a mac, you either:

      A) are completely clueless and thought that you could run most/all windows games, SOMEHOW.
      B) made a conscious decision about foregoing some of the gaming abilities and get the beautiful hardware, more stable OS, etc etc.

      As it stands, Mac gaming isn't a god given right, it's a luxury -> and this is why even though I've quit playing WoW, I have a whole truckload of respect to their developers and managers. They've managed to make a game that is both financially successful AND platform independent (windows, mac and some linux)

      anyways, rant off.

    20. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Come on, don't put words in my mouth. I understand and appreciate the tradeoffs I made when I bought a powerbook.

      However, the point stands: People who want my money, will develop for the Mac. If they don't develop for the Mac, they won't get my money.

      "God given right"? Come on, now. Let's get a little perspective. Everybody is making free economic choices, and that's good. Frankly, I don't think that Mythic has done their homework if they're dismissing the Mac platform out of hand, but it's their game and they can do whatever they want.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    21. Re:no other OS ports planned? by mobilebuddha · · Score: 1

      oh, i didn't mean you as one of the posters. I was referring to someone else but couldn't find that post anymore. in any case..

    22. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6,000,000-60,000=5,940,000

      5,940,000*$89.70= $532,818,000

      Whats to say they need the extra $5,382,000

      All I am saying is that if they don't make it for mac what are you going to do? Cry and go play some other MMO? If you were a true Warhammer Fan, YOU would take that extra step to get an OS that IS compatitable. Anyways, all they said is they don't plan to as of yet, but that could possibly change in the future because with games, especially MMORPGS, nothing is really set in stone until everyone "mostly" agrees.

    23. Re:no other OS ports planned? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But of those 6.5 million users only about 1,000,000 are in North America. I have no idea what Apple's penetration is like in the non-US portion of the world but I'm pretty sure it's very low in Asia which is where the majority of WoW players are located. So if we take your 1% figure and apply it only to NA we're now looking at a miniscule 10,000 users. Blizzard probably sees subscriptions flunctuate by a larger percentage than that each month.

  5. Oh, great. by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1, Insightful

    you'll be given the chance to push deeper and deeper into enemy territory until you finally reach THEIR capital, at which point you'll lay siege to it and - if successful - do things that... well, Slashdot is a FAMILY FRIENDLY place, so let's just say that you'll do terrible, terrible things to the huddled, whimpering survivors of the siege.

    You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....

    1. Re:Oh, great. by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....

      You don't think gamers will listen to what the traditional media thinks do you? That's probably why GTA was such a flop.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Oh, great. by jne_oioioi · · Score: 0

      And as you can see the word rape was never used. "Horrible horrible things" are in the eye of the beholder. Made me think of stealing stuff and kicking over one's enemy's milk bowl. So that makes you ...

    3. Re:Oh, great. by ArcticCelt · · Score: 1

      "You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww...."

      Maybe. And if it happens it will be a wonderful free marketing campaign for WAR.

      --

      Yahh, hiii haaaaa! -Major Kong, from Dr. Strangelove
    4. Re:Oh, great. by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      you'll be given the chance to push deeper and deeper into enemy territory until you finally reach THEIR capital, at which point you'll lay siege to it and - if successful - do things that... well, Slashdot is a FAMILY FRIENDLY place, so let's just say that you'll do terrible, terrible things to the huddled, whimpering survivors of the siege.

      You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....

      Who mentioned rape? Personally, I was thinking more of taking the survivors and flaying them alive, and pouring out their blood for the glory of Khorne. And taking their children away into slavery, to grow up as corrupted and mutated abominations of Chaos. Rape is just too mundane.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    5. Re:Oh, great. by dave562 · · Score: 1
      Who mentioned rape? Personally, I was thinking more of taking the survivors and flaying them alive, and pouring out their blood for the glory of Khorne. And taking their children away into slavery, to grow up as corrupted and mutated abominations of Chaos. Rape is just too mundane.

      Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!!!

  6. I fear to say it by Ironsides · · Score: 1

    This may actually get me interested in MMOs. I can get slightly addicted to things, which is why I have been trying to avoid them ever since I first tried some out.

    --
    Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  7. Something isn't right by astrotek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    World of Warcraft has a horrible PVP system because Blizzard never approached Realm vs Realm in a way that made you want to help out your side because it was fun. Add in instanced PVP and the randomness that makes world PVP will always be dead.

    Warhammer on the other hand seems to get this somewhat. The only problem I see is that they are asking me to invest what probably amounts to 3-5 games worth of money into their game over a year. Why will this epic combat still be epic down the line when I'm fighting the same people over the same land I've been looking at for a year. Why cant the scenarios take place on the larger battlefield. Instanced Combat is such a cop out.

    "Don't worry we will have EPIC combat with predictable balanced encounters"

    1. Re:Something isn't right by james_orr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Where does it say WAR will have instanced PvP combat? My impression from reading the above is that it won't, or if it does it will not be exclusively instanced.

      I do agree that instanced PvP sucks. Even in Guild Wars I do not care for the PvP, but I do like the PvE.

      DAoC is 5 years old now and people still play that. Not everybody will play for 5 years of course, but I think that shows it is possible for Mythic to create an RvR game with long-lasting appeal.

  8. Please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No more fantasy, let's have a 40k MMO instead :(

    1. Re:Please... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      No RPG either.

      I want to be able to engage in FPS style warfare with 4 other guys in a marine squad.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:Please... by Nossie · · Score: 1

      imagine an updated online version of Space Hulk ? add a little of the trading from eve, the perspective of the old SH games and the gameplay of Halflife and the game would rock!

      JIMHO hehe :)

  9. No Skaven,Don't care by bigdady92 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did a search for Skaven. Nothing. No mention of the ratmen. How can you have a game without ratmen and still call it Warhammer?

    They call themselves evil? Break out the deathmaster, start throwing in some epic underground areas in which players are fighting tooth and nail trying to get through places intead of wide open areas. Cut off movement, bring back stealth and light effects, and make it count.

    That's the issue I have with WoW. Everything is so vast and huge and open. I like the challenge and difficulty that is running up the tunnel in WSG carrying the flag and that total chaos that erupts from 10v10 in a small area and having the victor roll out with the flag and carry it home.

    Warhammer has a rich underground history with the dwarves and skaven. Use it to their advantage. Build on it, deploy the ratmen with the goblins and you'll see my money flow from WoW to WAR in a heartbeat.

    --
    Wheel of Time: Book by Book and Sumview (summary review) Bigdady92 style: http://bigdady92.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:No Skaven,Don't care by saethone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Skaven are in the game, they've already posted some great concept art for them. They are not a playable race at release though...but Mythic has hinted that they would like to add them in an expansion at a later date.

    2. Re:No Skaven,Don't care by the_raptor · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you where a real Warhammer fan you would know that skaven are supposed to be so secretive that most people don't believe in them. The frequency of armies fighting on the table top has nothing to do with the frequency of those battles occurring in the background fluff (eg most battles would be between humans and orcs). Skaven openly attacking a city is some what less frequent then a full scale Chaos invasion.

      --

      ========
      CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
    3. Re:No Skaven,Don't care by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "...deploy the ratmen with the goblins and you'll see my money flow from WoW to WAR in a heartbeat."

      Don't get caught up in the "If I think it would be neat, then every else must think so too" trap.

      Most WoW players are not 'gamers'. They are there because the game is pretty, expansive, easy and fun.

      The family demographic generally doesn't like dark, tunnel and confined.

      I think you make an excellent suggestion, and I would like to see it as well, but don't kid yourself about market realities.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:No Skaven,Don't care by slaida1 · · Score: 1
      Most WoW players are not 'gamers'. They are there because the game is pretty, expansive, easy and fun.

      And because of that, one of the reasons that drove me away from WoW was stupid people who want even evil look like shiny happy colorful clown costumed teletubby character. Warhammer won't get my money if it plans to offer something for everyone like WoW. Good games and stupid masses don't mix, they repel each other.

      --
      Preserve old classics: copy your collection onto all hard drives.
  10. Follow-Up Question by Tom · · Score: 3, Interesting

    9.) Mac/Linux versions by BMonger (68213)
    Has any thought been given to Mac OS X and/or Linux versions of the game?

    There are no plans for a MAC or Linux version of the game at this time.


    What has to happen so that you'll make a Mac version? What has to happen for a Linux version?

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:Follow-Up Question by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What has to happen so that you'll make a Mac version? What has to happen for a Linux version?

      I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.

    2. Re:Follow-Up Question by GNious · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing they'd have to drop EA first...

    3. Re:Follow-Up Question by realmolo · · Score: 1

      What has to happen?

      There would have to be enough cash-up-front pre-orders for the Mac and Linux version to completely cover the cost of development. Plus %10 profit.

      No one cares about the Mac and Linux game markets. They're too small. Hell, a lot of developers don't even care about the *Windows* game market, because it's too small compared to the the console market.

      There a reason so many MMORPGs are being made for the PC. It's the only "genre" that can't be done well on consoles (no keyboard), and it's the only genre that makes piracy impossible.

    4. Re:Follow-Up Question by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.

      Take a look at the top 10 games of last year. Notice anything about their Mac support? 9/10 support the mac today. 5/10 supported the mac with the initial release, including all of the top 3. Whether this is causative or simply correlative to some other factor, it does not bode well for this Warhammer game. A lot of people look at the mac and dismiss said market as insignificant. If you think "5% of sales why bother?" maybe you need to rethink. 5% of sales is not 5% of installed machines. Macs pick up a few percent by having 1-2 year longer average lifespan. Then if you discount all the Windows boxes installed in offices that will never get games, you're looking at an even bigger chunk of your potential sales. Then if you look at the relative disposable income of the purchasers you start to get even more nervous. If you estimate how many games those mac users will buy, and then notice how much less competition there is on that platform, you're looking at even more sales. And then if you are selling a MMORPG that has an interoperability component and you realize you can lose 10 sales because one person in a group has a mac and they want to game as a group, well that quick evaluation of 5% may have just knocked your game out of the running for being a blockbuster.

      A lot of people who consider themselves part of the gamer community do not realize that "hardcore" gamers are not most of the market. Casual gamers are the moneymakers, which is why the various Sims games and expansions account for 4 of the top 10 games in sales last year. There are a few kinds of companies that ignore that mac game market. Small companies without the capital to invest in cross-platform up front, MS owned companies that strategically avoid the mac, and companies dominated DirectX developers that for one reason or another can't manage the move. Mythic is now owned by EA, and they certainly don't neglect the Mac in general. So we'll see what happens with their future titles, but I suspect at least for now, they are in this last category and it will hurt them.

    5. Re:Follow-Up Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing they'll get a CEO who actually understands that ignoring 20 million potential customers who generally have a lot of money to spend is usually a big mistake.

    6. Re:Follow-Up Question by molarmass192 · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing you're right ... EA has never given a poo (for the kids out there) about non-DirectX based platforms. In a strange bit of coincidence, I haven't purchased an EA title since 1998 and I can guarantee that that will not change until they're have a change of heart. It would take a gun to my head and a few broken appendages ... or barring that, an insane amount of money ... to get me to run Windows ever again.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    7. Re:Follow-Up Question by Demolira · · Score: 1

      Would they? EA already has Aspyr port games like the Sims to Mac.

    8. Re:Follow-Up Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Higher Marketshare ...
      ... or coders with a clue on cross-platform programming and/or an engine that is already cross-platform.
      ... or an inside conspiracy of coders who secretly port it over ... and then not release it.

    9. Re:Follow-Up Question by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm guessing they'd have to drop EA first...

      I doubt it. Mythic seems like a DirectX shop, but EA is not. Ever heard of "The Sims?" I'm pretty sure the numbers they have on mac sales of the Sims 2, which just happens to have phenomenal sales on the Mac (as well as PC) making it into one of the top selling games of all time. I doubt EA is about to ignore the mac market now. I doubt any big established developer not owned by Microsoft can be so clueless as to ignore the mac after doing any market research. Half the best selling games last year were simultaneous Mac/PC launches.

    10. Re:Follow-Up Question by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      There would have to be enough cash-up-front pre-orders for the Mac and Linux version to completely cover the cost of development. Plus %10 profit.

      Or EA, who owns Mythic, could tell them to do it since it is good business.

      No one cares about the Mac and Linux game markets. They're too small.

      Umm, that's why 9 of the top 10 selling games of 2005 have a Mac version?

      Hell, a lot of developers don't even care about the *Windows* game market, because it's too small compared to the the console market.

      Oh, what console will you be aiming at? If you're going for the Xbox, MS is already trying to make it one stop development for Windows and their console. Why not release for both? If it's the PS3, well, if your code is written well to start with and you want the possibility of going to the Wii as well, then Windows and the Mac are easy targets. Why not grab the low hanging fruit?

      There a reason so many MMORPGs are being made for the PC. It's the only "genre" that can't be done well on consoles (no keyboard), and it's the only genre that makes piracy impossible.

      Bah! Piracy is as big a problem on consoles as it is PCs. Games are developed for PCs and Macs because their is a market and money to be had. Anyone who ignores that market loses out. Blizzard has a clue with the top selling game of last year that just happens to target both the Mac and PC simultaneously and with semi-official support for Linux. People have been claiming the gaming market would move to consoles for over a decade and it never does, because PCs simply have more capabilities and room for innovation and because people need PCs for some tasks and want gaming in the same package. It is not going away anytime soon and with Sony's moves towards open and portable OpenGL models, it is getting easier than ever to target multiple platforms.

    11. Re:Follow-Up Question by Lost+Engineer · · Score: 1

      People of the Mac: your machines can run Windows now. Upgrade, pay the Microsoft tax (since you have so much disposable income ;), and reboot when you want to game. Who cares what OS is running behind your game that takes up the whole screen?

    12. Re:Follow-Up Question by C0rinthian · · Score: 1

      I would be very curious to see the breakdown of WoW subscribers by operating system. Does anyone know if Blizzard has released those sort of numbers?

    13. Re:Follow-Up Question by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1, Insightful

      People of the Mac: your machines can run Windows now. Upgrade, pay the Microsoft tax (since you have so much disposable income ;), and reboot when you want to game. Who cares what OS is running behind your game that takes up the whole screen?

      I know being a Windows user this may be hard to understand, but I don't quit my programs, let alone reboot my machine. My e-mail reader has been open for a month. My terminals have been running longer than that. I quit them when I reboot, which is when there are updates that affect me and require it. Rebooting to play a game? Absurd. I play games, but I'm not about to quit all my open programs and have to spend 15 minutes restoring my computer to its working state just to play some game. I'd rather just play a game that works natively in my OS of choice, or runs well within a Windows VM. My purchases will reflect that choice.

      You do realize you're recommending people repartition their hard drives and shell out for a copy of Windows just to play a game? I've got a news flash for you. A few geeks might do that, but not enough to have any affect upon the sales of a game. People don't buy OS's or install OS's or partition hard drives. They don't even know what OS's are.

      So that is why I care what OS is running behind a fullscreen game. Also, if you're a geek do you really only have one monitor? You don't have a second one full of IRC sessions and IM chats and a Web browser looking up something while you wait for something to happen in game? Sorry, you failed to make your sale.

    14. Re:Follow-Up Question by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      QQ more n00b.

      Seriously, take your ball and go home. They said "no", they mean "NO". They don't want your elitist, whiny ass.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    15. Re:Follow-Up Question by Tom · · Score: 1

      I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.

      Excellent, then it should be out simultaneously.

      If you've been living under a rock: The Mac market is still small, but it's growing strong. The MacBook Pro was the best-selling notebook this season. There's definitely more than 5% share right now, and if Vista is as bad as every evidence indicates, there'll be well over 10% by the time WAR ships.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    16. Re:Follow-Up Question by Tom · · Score: 1

      People of the Mac: your machines can run Windows now. [...] reboot when you want to game.

      For a selected few games (Oblivion, Guild Wars) that's what I do.

      Tell you what: It's a royal pain in the ass. If a Mac version of Oblivion would ship tomorrow, I'd buy it again just so I can get rid of the constant rebooting and the endless pain that brings (half the time XP doesn't find my bluetooth mouse, and it gets horribly confused if I should dare to hibernate it while running on the external display and awaken it without that...).

      Rebooting to play a game makes me hate windos more every time I have to. And any game that doesn't have a Mac version, even the top titles on my watchlist - including WAR - has a very good chance of not getting bought, even though I could dual-boot.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    17. Re:Follow-Up Question by hclyff · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's the problem here, they aren't stupid. Let's assume the manager has 500 man hours to spend on anything he chooses. He has to decide between significantly improving the graphics of the game, appealing to hundreds of millions, or to make a port to an alternative OS, appealing maybe millions, if that. What will generate better sales? In other words, it's not about ignoring Linux/Mac markets, more about careful prioritizing.

    18. Re:Follow-Up Question by codeonezero · · Score: 1

      How do companies like Blizzard justify releasing Windows and Mac versions of their games at the same time then?

      Blizzard has build up a lot of loyalty from Mac gamers for releasing versions of most of their games on both platforms (Diablo, Warcraft, Starcraft, now WoW) and keeping both Windows and Mac updates to these games in line.

      I don't keep track of other game companies but I think one reason that Warhammer wont be on Mac is because they're trying to break into a market with probably no previous games, so they don't have the hard numbers on how many Mac users will buy their stuff. Blizzard on the other hand has been able to justify making Mac releases along with Windows releases for a good 10+ years (Starcraft was released in 1997 I think), and not sure what other factors play into their ability to do this (bigger company? hard earned player loyalty?).

      It looks like Warhammer will be a great game but unfortunately unless I go out and spend money on a Windows box (and no I don't have loads of disposable income, I save up for what I think is worth my money, and I'd rather spend money on a computer I will use outside of gaming than exclusively a gaming pc), I won't get to see it. But that's ok I have WoW and the TBC content addresses some of the issues with WoW people have commented on, and so far beta has been fun.

      At the very least I would love if the Warhammer dev team teamed up with companies like Parallels to make sure that their game runs well side by side with this product on new Intel Macs, so that people have the choice to run Warhammer on an Intel Mac if they want to.

      --

      ....
      int main (void) { ... }

    19. Re:Follow-Up Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's Windows' fault you have to reboot to play a game that isn't native to your preferred OS. Ease up with the hate.

    20. Re:Follow-Up Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, that's why 9 of the top 10 selling games of 2005 have a Mac version?

      Best-selling games are done by companies with giant development and advertising budgets. They're not top-selling games because they support macs. They support macs because they're highly budgeted games.

    21. Re:Follow-Up Question by ClamIAm · · Score: 1

      [MMORPGS] make piracy impossible.

      Where there's a will, there's aserver emulator.

    22. Re:Follow-Up Question by GNious · · Score: 1

      No, its Windows' fault to be a royal pain in the beehind. Simple.
      /G

    23. Re:Follow-Up Question by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 1

      There's definitely more than 5% share right now

      Please cite your source.

    24. Re:Follow-Up Question by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Blizzard has a very good rep in Mac gaming circles. Not only for releasing in hybrid Windows/Mac format for many years now, but also for the other things they they do for us. Releasing OS X native versions of Diablo II and Starcraft was very nice, particularly considering that these aren't exactly new games. Warcraft II* aside, they have a pretty good track record for continuing to support their older games to keep them running on new hardware.

      * The original version of Warcraft II can't really be played on PowerPC since it runs too fast, even on a PowerMac 7100. You have to buy the Battlenet edition instead.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    25. Re:Follow-Up Question by Tom · · Score: 1

      4.8% in July, with a strong upwards trend.

      6.1 % US market

      multiple sources report the share of the notebook market at 12%.

      Questions?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re:Follow-Up Question by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 1

      No. I've heard glowing reports that Macs are at or above 10% but nothing solid.
      Still not there (despite my owning one and planning on buying another one.)

      Thanks for the links. Preshadit.

    27. Re:Follow-Up Question by Tom · · Score: 1

      They said "no", they mean "NO". They don't want your elitist, whiny ass.

      Glad to hear that. But it wasn't whether they care about my ass, I was asking if they want my elitist, whiny money. And there's a very strong correlation between me sending my money their way and them sending a Mac version my way.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    28. Re:Follow-Up Question by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      You're right. They don't want your elitist, whiny money OR ass. In other words: keep it and go away.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  11. I just hope it doesn't end up for them by dr_strang · · Score: 1

    ...like it did for Air Warrior. EA bought and systematically killed what was arguably the best MMO WWII combat flight simulator... It was really sad. Hope they don't fuck this one up too.

    --
    This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
    1. Re:I just hope it doesn't end up for them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shush, my heart can't take me hearing the A-W words anymore.

    2. Re:I just hope it doesn't end up for them by dr_strang · · Score: 1

      Don't cry, come over to Aces High! www.hitechcreations.com

      --
      This is a sig. It is like every other sig in the world, except that it is mine, and it is different.
    3. Re:I just hope it doesn't end up for them by mynameisnotnick · · Score: 1
      Shush, my heart can't take me hearing the A-W words anymore.

      tell me about it
      -moggy

  12. Just watch the presentation from the latest E3 by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 4, Informative

    here

    If you could find the Gamespot E3 feature with the game devs, you MUST watch it. These guys are totally mad ;)

    --
    ^_^
    1. Re:Just watch the presentation from the latest E3 by BJH · · Score: 1

      That is the single most hilarious fucking video I have ever seen about a computer game.

    2. Re:Just watch the presentation from the latest E3 by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Heh... Found the GameSpot live video.
      Now THIS is the most fucking hilarious video youve ever seen :)

      --
      ^_^
  13. Late to the party by ObiWanStevobi · · Score: 1

    I must say that an epic battle between armies actual players sound like the game I've been looking for. However, I've never played an MMORPG. I'm a bit apprehensive about investing in one because I do have a lot of other things going on. All I hear about is that PvP in these games suck because people with nothing else to do become too strong. And that's among the other complaints of being a time/money pit.

    Can anyone suggest why this game would be a good one to try out? The gameplay sounds quite cool, but I don't know if I'm up for the MMORPG plunge.

    1. Re:Late to the party by jfodale · · Score: 1

      If you were to jump into an MMORPG (probably ill-advised), this sounds as if it may be a good one for you since (1) they are claiming that it will be accessible to casual players and (2) it seems to have content you enjoy.

      Although, the beta is not yet available so no one can really tell you that for sure right now.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    2. Re:Late to the party by le0p · · Score: 1

      Whether or not this will be a good first timer MMO is up in the air right now, the developer can say all they want about how great the game is but until it's in the hands of the community, we won't know for sure. I played DAOC (another Mythic title) for some time and it fell into the trappings you've described. The time and money sinks were substantial as was the requirement of each expansion, in order to stay competitive in RvR. It wasn't fun at times, but it required an enormous commitment. Those that could give the time necessary ended up as the "elite" and dominated (i.e. removed all resemblance of fun) RvR battles.

      I expect much of the same from Mythic with this game, the concepts seem very similar to the PvP/RvR structure of DAOC so it doesn't seem like they're changing their formula much. I'll be checking out the progress on this one though, it has potential but the execution is all that matters.

      --
      "I think that God in creating Man somewhat overestimated his ability."-Oscar Wilde
    3. Re:Late to the party by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was a brief period where Planetside was an excellent all-combat MMO, with massive player vs player battles. I remember some early fights that were truly epic, far and away the best combat experiences I've ever had in a game. Didn't last though...Everything devolved into zergdom, and it ceased to be interesting to me.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    4. Re:Late to the party by happyemoticon · · Score: 1

      I find nothing more satisfying in a game than facing a challenging opponent of approximately my skill level.

      The trouble with most online gaming is that finding such an opponent (nay, finding 15 opponents, and finding 14 allies of your level) is nigh impossible. One side is usually the "winning team" and the other side is the "losing team." This becomes apparent sooner rather than later to most people, and in place of the actual joy of struggling against a challenging opponent, people turn into O'Brien relish in the lesser, more sadistic joy of trampling over a helpless opponent. This happens so much that blind sadism replaces the desire for a true challenge, and people forget what it's like to win or lose by a nose hair, or to face an opponent who is obviously better than you and at *least* get that one kill.

      I know I'm making a bit of a broad generalization here. Sure, there are creeps out there who truly would rather face a weaker opponent. But I think that most people don't start out here, and if they get there they quickly get bored and go away.

      I think this is more or less true of all online gaming, but it's especially true of MMOs, despite the fact that an MMO is meant to be less twitchy and more of a cerebral thing.

      RTSs and FPSs are twitch games no matter how you cut it. This is pretty obvious in the second category, but even with RTSs, eventually a limited set of preferred strategies come to the fore, and all you're doing is implementing them and dividing your attention between the twitch game of the field and the twitch game of building your base. The worst step that most RTSs make is causing micromanaging battles ("fun") to be far less important than micromanaging your base ("dull"), to the point where a player who simply makes endless armies of one unit and throws them suicidally at an opponent will generally win in most games against an opponent who intensively micromanages battles to the detriment of his base.

      In MMOs, and WoW in particular, not only does the gameplay resemble an FPS more than it should, but you're going into every fight with a wide gear/level disparity between you and your opponent, in addition to the fact that a player with the time to run dungeons extensively probably has a bit of a skill edge too. The first part probably needs to be harped on quite a bit: success in PVP usually depends on who gets the first shot off, just like in CS once everybody's got a good rifle, except there's autotargetting. Also, damage and defense have scaled at fundamentally different rates. Battles between two geared players usually take a matter of seconds, whereas battles between two ungeared players could last up to a minute.

      It probably also bears mentioning that certain class vs class matchups are woefully and incredibly lopsided. Certain classes have the option to choose to develop their character in such a way that they can be great at both dungeons and PVP, and others do not. Certain classes simply cannot beat a halfway competent member of another particular class. And certain classes are just plain more powerful in PVP than other classes all-around due to scaling mechanics ("It was balanced 2 years ago"). Most people's scapegoat for this is as follows: you can't balance a PVE game, where strategy, healing, tanking (designating a damage soak character to engage big monsters), and positioning are important, with a PVP game, where most of these are irrelevant (see above).

      In summation, competing directly against other people online inevitably turns into a twitch game dominated by hyperactive, caffeinated adolescents with nothing to do in the evenings. It's perfectly valid that these games exist, I just get peeved that all of them are fundamentally the same. I used to be absurdly, obscenely good at CS, but then I lost interest in it because it was too time-consuming to find a good fight that wasn't lopsided, and in the meantime I became a young man and lost some of my bristling teenage nerve-endings. I think if WAR manages to be slo

    5. Re:Late to the party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WoW claimed that it would be designed for casual players when it first came out

    6. Re:Late to the party by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      It is open to casual players, you just need realistic expectations. Casual players aren't going to quickly see the high-end content, just as someone who plays Diablo II for a few hours a week will be not be finishing the game as quickly as someone who plays every day. The only real killer is getting large blocks of time for particular encounters. This pretty much amounts to just setting aside a whole evening though.

      Even if you can't put in this time, there are plenty of other aspects to the game that are entertaining. Roleplayer, PvP or questing are in the reach of anyone.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
  14. Chaos by jfodale · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Although I'm a bit bummed it isn't 40K, I read that this basically sums up one of the first quests for the Chaos race: "You start off attacking a mostly unarmed Empire village. You kill everyone there (some pitifully try to defend themselves). Then you mutilate the bodies. Then you load the mutilated body parts into a cannon. Finally, you fire the cannon into a nearby Empire fort that is under siege to demoralize them." Ok, I'm psyched. I'll gladly take that over killing 10 desert beetles.

    --
    Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    1. Re:Chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did you read that?

    2. Re:Chaos by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "You start off attacking a mostly unarmed Empire village. You kill everyone there (some pitifully try to defend themselves). Then you mutilate the bodies. Then you load the mutilated body parts into a cannon. Finally, you fire the cannon into a nearby Empire fort that is under siege to demoralize them."

      Oh hell yeah. Proper. Evil. Content. I haven't felt this good since I set Zaalbar on Mission.

      BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Chaos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Oh hell yeah. Proper. Evil. Content. I haven't felt this good since I set Zaalbar on Mission.

      BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!

      It's all fun and games until you see first dumb fucker who made pink haired little gnome "because this is sooo cuute!" and there goes the steam from your evil (but in a pretty cute happy way!(tm)) battlecry.

    4. Re:Chaos by BJH · · Score: 1

      So that would be some pink-haired gnome meat for my cannon, then.

  15. Another fantasy mmorpg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, this could be Warhammer 40k Online. I'm tired of the whole fantasy setup.

    1. Re:Another fantasy mmorpg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out Planetside...

      Tragically, it's by SONY. Other than that though, it may be what you're looking for...

    2. Re:Another fantasy mmorpg... by Howler · · Score: 1

      EVE Online? Anarchy Online? Those may suit as well. SWG, well personally, I think it blows.
      I actually like Planetside. It can definitely be fun.

    3. Re:Another fantasy mmorpg... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EVE Online is great indeed. I stopped playing two months ago because of universtity, but I plan to come back this month or next. SWG really blows, and Planetside was fun, but just for a short time. Will try Anarchy when I come across a free trial. Thanks for the info.

      But what I wished for a mmog was going rampart on a space marine suit... too much Dark Crusade these days. heh

  16. They can't port it to a system they can't spell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would it really be that hard to remember that it's "Mac"?

    What could "MAC" possibly stand for?

    1. Re:They can't port it to a system they can't spell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Media Access Control? =)

  17. GET UP by Techmaniac · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...out of the chair, and leave Mommy and Daddy's basement for an hour or three.

  18. Because it's already been done by tknd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    World of Warcraft has a horrible PVP system because Blizzard never approached Realm vs Realm in a way that made you want to help out your side because it was fun. Add in instanced PVP and the randomness that makes world PVP will always be dead.

    Warhammer on the other hand seems to get this somewhat. The only problem I see is that they are asking me to invest what probably amounts to 3-5 games worth of money into their game over a year. Why will this epic combat still be epic down the line when I'm fighting the same people over the same land I've been looking at for a year. Why cant the scenarios take place on the larger battlefield. Instanced Combat is such a cop out.

    Other games like Shadowbane and Daoc (also owned and developed by EA Mythic) have already been done in this style. I still play Daoc to this day and you have a point, it does more or less work out if you throw enough rules at it. Other games like Shadowbane failed miserably because there were no rules. When there are no rules, and you give players a choice to choose a side, eventually one side wins and becomes a massive zerg. The remaining players are always outnumbered and can never put up a fight against the overwhelming numbers.

    The only reason daoc survives is because of a set number of teams, certain tools and group setups that make zerg "busting" possible, and the community's own recognition of the problem. Now, it's no longer small groups whining about zergs or the underpopulated realm whining about being outnumbered (though it still happens to a certain degree). The players have learned to deal with the problem and construct their own communities to keep the game fun and somewhat balanced. For this reason, there exists different types of RvR in daoc: solo, small group, 8v8, and zerg. You're free to participate in all of them and EA/Mythic doesn't even put any rules to say that they exist. The player community has more or less developed these rules. While there's still nothing stopping a full group from killing solos or a zerg killing a small group, there's still a good portion of people willing to respect other fights. Only the solo players suffer because they're pretty much getting hunted by everyone and anyone and a majority of the targets are bigger fish (groups) trying to kill solos.

    Anytime I hear about WoW I hear about how it's PvE is great and its PvP is terrible. But the daoc community has given up on PvE and focuses on RvR. The only time we whine about PvE is when EA/Mythic comes even close to introducing a new grind or make the grind harder. We only touch PvE as necessary and most players spend most of their time in RvR.

    1. Re:Because it's already been done by ChronosWS · · Score: 1

      Eve Online has no such rules restricting PvP, and after 3 years there is still no single controlling faction. And yet the wars there have actual meaning because territory and resources are genuinely gained or lost based on how the wars go. Additionally, even small groups can engage in conflicts for their own purposes - there aren't just two or three sides to the war, there are as many as people want to create. Warhammer and DAoC fail to offer this because they set up a world that can only have two or three sides, and if you don't fit into one of those molds, your play experience suffers accordingly.

      That's all fine and well, of course, if you wish to fight in a world where your actions don't REALLY count because the rules are set up to prevent any ultimate success. This is why most MMO PvP is seen as such a joke and so fatally flawed - it's limited in its scope and has no actual influence on the way the world plays out. Can you imagine the Warhammer guys actually letting one side win? I think not, so they won't let you even attempt to bring it about.

      Finally, if the game has a sufficiently well-developed PvP system, the dreaded Zerg won't occur because hegemonies always collapse due to differences of opinion, especially in the online world. The only way it can occur is if the worlds are so small that a relatively small organization can actually control it. Again, Eve doesn't suffer this problem because every player in the game plays in the same world, and there are tens of thousands of them. If WAR goes the 'shard' route, then perhaps they could succumb to the Zerg on any given shard, but that's a flaw with their implementation of the world, and not open PvP.

    2. Re:Because it's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      eh, DAOC has mordred - you and your guild want to go dominate, go do it. That experiment failed horribly though.

    3. Re:Because it's already been done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When there are no rules, and you give players a choice to choose a side, eventually one side wins and becomes a massive zerg.

      Then auto-balance. Take the smallest faction - however many members/levels/whatever they have, call that one faction unit. Other factions are measured against this, so that the smallest faction is 1U, the next smallest is 1.1U, you might have two mid-size factions at 4U and 6U, and a huge faction at 10U. Now, when members of opposing factions engage one another, scale results (damage, defense, etc.) by the ratio of faction units. This means that the two smallest faction are pretty evenly matched. Either one of them, when taking on the huge faction, ends up with a great advantage - the gods favoring the underdogs, or something like that. Champions of light rising from the ashes to smite their dark foes, or the forces of chaos drawing upon their force of will to overcome the empire.

      All you really end up doing is adding another dimension to the game. Maybe there are player classes, professions, or talents that seem minor or only moderately useful in normal combat - but which change or eliminate attack/defense shifts when going up against a larger or smaller faction. Maybe there are different tactics that can be used, so that the "logical" thing to do in these situations isn't always obvious... perhaps it makes more sense to send a lone priest against that undead* horde, or the single assassin into the camp of the enemy.

      It would at least somewhat self-correcting, too. Scale it so that numerical superiority of one side over another would only go so far before the underdogs became more and more attractive... at which point, they'd start gaining new players, eventually loosing overall effectiveness to whoever else became the new underdog. Could be fun, especially if there were some significant personal quests that would allow you to change factions: redeem yourself from the taint of chaos, or corrupt yourself and betray the empire. Hmmm...

      * Sheesh. Firefox spell check doesn't recognize "undead" as a word. What's this world coming to?

    4. Re:Because it's already been done by malf-uk · · Score: 1

      "But the daoc community has given up on PvE and focuses on RvR"

      Really?

      There seems to be quite a few pure PvE-ers still around in DAoC and heck of a lot of people who divide their time between PvE and RvR who aren't PvEing purely to get some ability/item for RvR.

      --
      R Tape loading error, 0:1
  19. Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
    This does sound intriguing and a slight improvement on the MMO... if you like PvP.


    I suffered through the first three years of UO with rampant player killing (not consenual PvP).

    I quit DAoC not only because it quickly became a tedious grind but also because the heart of the content dealt with RvR play.

    I've beta tested numerous MMOG's, but I completely avoided Guild Wars because it sounds similar to WAR - all PvP all the time.

    I play characters on normal and PvP realms in WoW. I see the same stereotypical actions on both types of realms - people kill other players because they can and because they like being jerks.

    I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice" are the most frequent comments I hear from PvPers (not to be confused with PKers). To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day." Regardless of how balanced the playing field, someone has to lose and I've only come across a handful of good losers in computer gaming in my lifetime. Where there are sore losers, there is revenge, and it sounds like WAR will allow hundreds of sore losers to gang up and exact their revenge on the handful of champions who (probably) rightfully earned that position.

    It comes down to a balance system which has yet to be properly implemented in any game (though I feel WoW is the best so far). I expect that within a month all the realms of WAR will be 'pwned' by the thousands of immature, social outcast PKers who thrive on ruining someone's day, the PvPers wanting to dispense justice will get tired of beating their heads against the wall and players really wanting to play a game will go back to a more controlled environment.

    If WAR can make their visions come true, I'd really like to see it because I know all other MMO's will learn from it. I just doubt that it can be done.

    1. Re:Limited lifetime by AlphaDecay · · Score: 2, Insightful

      'To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."'

      To be honest, your approach to the PvP server is wrong. When you start a character on your server you should think - "at any point in my character's existence I may run into other players that have the sole objective of stopping me from doing what I want to do." If you can get past that statement then you are ready for a PvP server. Thats it.

      When I run into a situation where I'm stopped from my immediate objective either I try and find a solution (which is a challenge and what I see as the point of a PvP server) or I find a new immediate objective that gets me out of the current situation. For example, if my corpse is being camped either a.) I need to kill those that are camping me or b.) find a new place to hunt. When you approach the game that way I think you'll find PvP to be alot more acceptable and less of a grief situation.

    2. Re:Limited lifetime by slartibart · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know that it's even possible to implement a PvP system that's bears any resemblance to actual war, and is also fun.
      The problem is that it's a zero sum game. The joy people get from being on the winning side is reflected by equal suffering on the losing side. When you try to scale up the joy (say, by creating month-long campaigns), you scale up the suffering for half your subscribers and they end up quitting. Games are supposed to be fun, after all. After 3 iterations of this, you only have 12% of your subscribers left. Not a smart game design.
      The only model that works are quick skirmishes that are run over and over again, a la WoW. So that even when you lose, it's quick and you have another chance to win immediately after. Sure they get old and aren't that rewarding even when you win. But I don't see any other way to do it.

    3. Re:Limited lifetime by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice" are the most frequent comments I hear from PvPers (not to be confused with PKers). To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."

      Huh? NPCs are predictable. Once you learn the pattern there is no challenge. If games had an AI that learned as it went then things might be different, but the state (and processing power required to implement) of current AI is lacking.

      Take a look at sports games. Sure, it can be entertaining to play against the computer, but it doesn't take long till you figure out what they will do in what situation. Now play against a real person and they won't only do different things, but if you're winning they'll change their strategy accordingly and often much more efficiently than a computer.

    4. Re:Limited lifetime by Obyron · · Score: 1

      I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice"

      You just named four pretty good ones. The problem is that no one is neutral about PvP. You either enjoy the challenge and the dynamics of it, or you cry about the big bad bullies who are obviously deranged serial killers in real life. If I want a PvE experience I'll play console games offline. MMOs are all about interacting with other people. You trade with them, group with them, sell to them, make friends and enemies among them, and race them to get the best gear. How can you not naturally extend this into fighting them?

      I've got a lot of experience with online PvP systems going back almost 10 years with MUDs and the like, and I can honestly say that if you're going to implement it, the fairest way is for it to be totally open. The same people who complain about how the big bad PKer killed them without consent is the same person who would act like an asshat if they knew there were no consequences. For the incredibly low percentage of people who DO use PvP to be bullies, there are usually enough bigger badder badasses out there willing to wipe the floor with them for making PvP look bad that they don't get too out of control. The problems in most PvP systems that are notoriously bad usually boils down to some facet of the implementation or the game mechanics. The PvP itself usually isn't what causes trouble.

      --
      --Obyron
    5. Re:Limited lifetime by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1
      Regardless of how balanced the playing field, someone has to lose

      Yes, in order for someone to win, someone (often more than one) has to lose.

      It sounds like your issue is dealing with the "loss" of hours of grinding when you meet your end PvP. Maybe a solution would be to lower the penalty of death. For example, maybe a 1-hour block, but when you come back, everything is new.

      Think about it, Counter-Strike has 50% of the people lose every round. When you are shot, you have to sit out the round and wait for that last camper to be found (and knifed, we hope). However, the round ends and now you can go again. You don't hear about the fact that someone has to lose for that game, or just about any other game where people play against each other. The only thing that is different is the scale, and the amount of time invested.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    6. Re:Limited lifetime by phxbadash · · Score: 1

      You've obviously never played EVE then. War is war and it's extremely fun. The difference in EVE is that war actually has a purpose, you can gain ground and lose it but it's not for some pre-programmed NPC faction, it's for a player created one. Teamwork is essential to success.

    7. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      You just named four pretty good ones.

      Those aren't reasons; those are validations that I hear from the PvPers. It still comes down to "I like to ruin someone else's day."

      You either enjoy the challenge and the dynamics of it, or you cry about the big bad bullies who are obviously deranged serial killers in real life.

      Spoken like a hardcore PKer that disconnects the people behind the characters. I think quite the opposite of the PKers I've encountered. (Again, not to be confused with PvPers.) PKers are people who enjoy seeing others suffer in a game because they have no control of their real life. PKing is an outlet where they are the ones in charge, not their boss or their mother.

      PvPers I respect when it is consensual. I see and respect players wanting to go head to head with another willing opponent. I still do not understand it though. Either a player "wins" by getting money, gear or some reward and others "lose," or it was just a big waste of time.

      How can you not naturally extend this into fighting them?

      By being human and using my higher brain functions to negotiate that fighting over virtual property is not worth causing real emotions.

      The same people who complain about how the big bad PKer killed them without consent is the same person who would act like an asshat if they knew there were no consequences.

      I strongly disagree. The anonymity is what I feel causes PKers to run rampant. Meeting a small portion of the UO community in real life, it was very apparent that PKs were hiding their identity and the general populace disliked the behavior that PKs demonstrated.
      I can be completely anonymous in WoW. I could create a character, act nice, join my guild and then start robbing people blind, treat them like crap and get that character kicked out. Then immediately go back to my "good" character and act like nothing ever happened. I do not do that because it is not in my nature to act like an asshat. Anyone that does act that way does have something antisocial within themselves and they believe MMO's are a good place to let them out.

      The problems in most PvP systems that are notoriously bad usually boils down to some facet of the implementation or the game mechanics.

      Again I disagree. Just because there is a brick missing in a wall is no reason for someone to walk up with a hammer and start chipping away until the whole thing collapses. Just because I have an opportunity to steal a lady's purse (as I had today at lunch) does not mean I'll do it. There is nothing making anyone do anything except their own initiative. People in general, but PKs especially, choose to be asshats.

    8. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      It took me a long time just to get past "I hate dieing." :-) WoW minimized that greatly, and PvP death in WoW is one of the best I've seen implemented.


      This is what truly bothers me about PvP. I should not have to alter my gameplay just because someone feels like interfering with me. This is a game that I play (and pay) for a limited time some days to enjoy not be fouled up by someone else. For constant interference in my projects and goals, I can always go back to work.

      In your example, what if your only objective, something that you must complete before you could continue, was being blocked by a group of the highest level, toughest players on the server and no one was available to come help you? What alternative do you have but to quit? Why should another player have that control over me?

    9. Re:Limited lifetime by Jaeph · · Score: 1

      I've read rants like yours in forums across the internet. They always are confused, and miss a key point.

      Part of the maturation process is learning to deal with winning and losing. The people who can't handle winning or losing are the immature ones. It has little to do with the boasting/whining - you can always /ignore in any of these games - it's the people who can't handle winning or losing.

      I'm not saying that's *your* problem. But let's keep our eye on the ball here: it's about people who can't handle running around, smacking people around, and then moving on.

      -Jeff

      --
      Please learn the difference between a dissenting opinion and a troll before you moderate.
    10. Re:Limited lifetime by AlphaDecay · · Score: 1

      I understand and agree for the most part. Its not every time that I can stop the other player or find something else to do and to be honest it those times don't make me happy. The death system in WoW is a million times more forgiving than the other game I play (Eve Online) - yet at least in Eve I can kill and remove a threat where in WoW they just respawn.

      I don't know if there is an easy answer to your question other than not playing at all until a new game/solution comes out. Personally I just take the system for what it is right now, as it does provide a decent amount of fun for $15, and hope for a greener pasture in the future. I try every MMO out there as it comes out (in trial format if I can) and as soon as the fast playstyle of WoW is matched with the worldliness of Eve then I'll drop both games and switch.

    11. Re:Limited lifetime by djp928 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that there is nothing else to do, no other point to Counter-Strike than "kill the other team." WoW has plenty of other things to do. If I'm out picking daisies I get perturbed when some asshat comes along and and kills me, then camps me for half an hour just because he can. The only thing he is "winning" is the satisfaction of being a damn griefer, while I'm "losing" my daisy picking time that I paid Blizzard for. If there was nothing else to do in the game other than fight other players, then complaining about getting killed would be stupid. But there are plenty of other things to do in WoW that don't involve being camped.

      Yes, I know, "Roll PvE carebear". I got tricked by a buddy into rolling on a PvP server even though I'm not at all a PvP lover. And honestly, I had less complaints about ganking when I was out leveling than I do now that I'm max level. Because paradoxically, there is FAR more power gap between 60s than there ever was between two 45s or even two 59s. So when you're out grinding at 35 or 45, you tend to only encounter the opposite faction in ones and twos, and unless they're bored 60s, they tend to be a similar level. The power gap is fairly small, and you often stand a decent chance even if you get jumped. But once you hit 60 and go into the 55-60 areas with your lame early 60 gear, you just get destroyed by roving bands of bored asshat 60s who have nothing to do but grief the hell out of you while they're waiting for their next raid to form up.

      It's a clash of playstyles that's just never going to get resolved. Personally I know how to solve the issue for myself, though. If WAR is going to be all about PvP, I probably won't play. Let the PvPers have their game. I'm cool with that.

      -- Dave

    12. Re:Limited lifetime by rujholla · · Score: 1
      "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable,"

      What I would love to see is a game where sometimes you have that kind of Challenge / Unpredictability in PVE content. Imagine if EQ hired chinese farmers to take control of some of the mobs in an area. Say that person decides the gnolls in South Karana are going to rise up and take control of the area. What if the next time you fight Rag in WOW he doesn't react the same way he always does, and instead starts trying different strategies of fights. If one in four times you ran an instance you faced a thinking reasoning opponent that would certainly make running the same instance more interesting. Or if instead of running an instance and picking things off one by one the longer you spend in there the more things reacted to your presence. I mean if there are people willing to play the game for $10/day farming money for people who are willing to buy it, wouldn't you be able to hire people and have them dropped into NPC's randomly around the world just to spice things up. Sure there are some implementation issues and you'd have to carefully define what is allowed and what isn't but I can imagine that there would be some extremely challenging, unpredictable situations that arise.

    13. Re:Limited lifetime by MerlynEmrys67 · · Score: 1
      If games had an AI that learned as it went then things might be different, but the state (and processing power required to implement) of current AI is lacking.
      I'll disagree with you here, it is pretty easy to make an AI that will wipe the floor of all but the VERY best human players. The problem is that no one would play against it. Most AIs are criminally crippled in the types of decisions that they can make - and therefor will tend to play bad, specifically so they can be beaten.

      For example - is there any particular reason that an AI would every miss in an FPS combat... They know exactly where they are, exactly where you are, what your direction and rate of movement is, how fast the projectile flys - heck they can even pick up tendencies in your movement patterns. Now they should be able to place a round pretty much exactly where you will be (given your current tendencies) each and every time. Ok, that is FPS games.

      For most MMOG games, they know what kind of character you have, what your weapons are - and what the best tactics against each type of character and weapon selection is. They can move faster than you, and in fact have a lower latency connection to the server (since they ARE the server). Conversly - if every NPC in the game wiped the floor with your blood, how long will people stick with it. They set the AI for most (if not all) NPCs in games so the vast majority of people can easily defeat it. NOT so that it is a fair fight.

      Look at it this way - with standard PC hardware, a chess AI can beat all but the top couple % of chess players in the world. What makes you think that NPC AI is a significantly more difficult problem than chess AI.

      --
      I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
    14. Re:Limited lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QQ more carebear

    15. Re:Limited lifetime by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure this is true.

      If you always lose it can be dispiriting (I rolled Alliance), but the mark of a good game is that a loss is still better than not playing for the loser. Most good games are like this, obviously so, since people still play them.

      World of Warcraft is not a very good PvP game (on the other hand the PvE more than makes up for it). Gear and levels matter so much in PvP that even modest inequalities will give the average player a hard time against an opponent. Allowing such inequalities has the perverse effect of making PvP less frequent and less fun for everyone.

      If you have played on any WoW server in the first two weeks of its existence, you will understand this to be true. When most people are roughly the same level, world PvP bloodbaths are frequent and relatively even. I remember huge battles of level 20-30s on the Astraanar/Barrens road. Once you get a significant number of very high level characters on the server, this stops. The reason is that a couple of level 60s could turn up to a mass battle of level 20s-30s and completely cream them in short order. Thus, levelling on a PvP server is not the fun bloodbath it should be, but tends to be skulking around and hiding from gankers and babysitters. Even if you do manage to kill someone your own level, chances are that he or she will send a level 60 friend after you. The open PvP system in WoW has the perverse effect of suppressing world PvP.

      Battlegrounds are more fun, since they are at least segregated by level. Even if we ignore the design problems (AV is biased in favour of Alliance, AB in favour of Horde, but slightly less so), they don't work as well as they should. At level 60 the difference between the geared and the non geared is so great as to make it no contest assuming the players are of roughly equal ability. Similarly, lack of restrictions on enchants has ruined the BGs from levels 10-39 unless you are a rogue with an alt that has a lot of gold to twink you.

      More to the point, some idiot at Blizzard decided to allow premade groups to face pugs, with the inevitable BG scouting and pug farming that follows. That's just no fun for the losers and robs them of incentives to queue.

      The only really good PvP in WoW in my experience occurs on new servers, and in the 40-59 BGs. Enchants don't make that much difference, gear differentials are not that great, and as long as you aren't facing a premade you can have some really good games.

      How can a game with so much promise only deliver in certain specific situations?

      I don't know what they can do to save world PvP other than make it zonal, with you being flagged only to people below the zone's upper level limit. I suspect that Blizzard will never do this, since I don't think that the PvP servers are really about PvP. IMHO they are really intended as "tard self-segregation servers". Every time I log on to a PvP server, the average IQ seems to drop about 20 points and the number of asshats per square mile increases tenfold. I wonder if that is why they are there...

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    16. Re:Limited lifetime by generationxyu · · Score: 1

      If you don't want to PvP, play Zelda. It's World of WARcraft. Or just play on a carebear server and never flag.

      --
      I mod down pyramid schemes in sigs.
    17. Re:Limited lifetime by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice" are the most frequent comments I hear from PvPers (not to be confused with PKers). To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."


      Its an interesting behavior. When presented with complete anarchy - the ability to do whatever you want to do... what do you do? It seems many choose to destroy. Its interesting so few choose to build.

      My WoW guild is on a RPPvP server. We have fostered a network of friends and alliances with other individuals and guilds. We monitor alerts coming from various cities / towns / outposts for our faction. When we see that there is a definate attack to the town, we tend to send someone as a scout as we marshal our forces. Usually we roll in with members of our guild and join up with individuals also defending the territory. Sometimes the raiders are strong enough that we have to call on our friends / allies not already present. We then commense to destroying those raiders and generally (to paraphrase) ruin their day. My only regret is that raiders can occasionally take over a middling-area town and proceed to gank other players and then leave when confronted without having paid much penalty for the greif they've dealt out. We try to balance that out by corpse-camping, etc. We want raiding a town to have been painful.

      Is this your mention of justice? I suppose for us it is justice. We tend to leave others alone unless provoked. And there are, on rare occasion, nights where I'm just watching the alerts waiting for someone unlucky enough to attack one of our towns when we're all set and ready to go.
    18. Re:Limited lifetime by walnutmon · · Score: 1

      Do you ever look at what you are writing, and while you are writing it, you realize that you are a fucking wuss bag faggot? Play super hello kitty suprise you overly emotional cunt and stop analyzing the motives behind a level60 warlock who has killed you eight times. You are playing a game where you are in a war against eachother, he is a mother fucking orc, he is fucking killing you, WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU SUPRISED?!

      Leave your pussy elitist "high level brain" bullshit to the real world. Games are fucking games and if you are emotionally hurt for days over the loss of your character or some frustration, get a new fucking hobby; I hear knitting is pretty calming. Leave the aspiring real men to our hobbies without your smug mental judgements.

      Analyze that.

      --
      You take it, I don't want it...
    19. Re:Limited lifetime by eboot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Ahhhh the joys of levelling on a PVP server. I tell you what nothing motivates you to get to 60 more than being camped for 20 minutes by a level 60 in STV. Good times. And of course now when Im bored and near STV, i do a quick run around the jungle, ganking the lowbies. I dont camp tho, as a rogue its usually just too easy.

      --
      Two tears in a bucket. Motherfuck it.
    20. Re:Limited lifetime by tm2b · · Score: 1

      Somehow the "real man" above still manages to come across as being about 13 years old ("No, I'm not!" I can see him responding, "I'm 15!").

      Real men and other mature adults don't speak to each other that way, child. Even if they are losing their bladder contorl internally over how terrified they are of homosexuality, as you seem to be.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    21. Re:Limited lifetime by tm2b · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing PvPers say, "just never flag." I can't tell whether they're being deliberately disingenuous, or simply lack the experience (or imagination) to understand that not flagging doesn't cut it.

      "Never flagging" would be great if there weren't PvPers who like to wait until PvEers are in combat, then flag and jump into the combat area, hoping to get hit by an AoE. Either the PvEer has to avoid AoEs (which really sucks for some classes), or he gets ganked by the griefer.

      It's particularly thrilling when said bully sits on top of a quest objective, or repeatedly kills the escort missions of PCs that are half their level. Oh, wait, I guess they're just looking for a challenge.

      I'd pay extra to play on a real "carebear" server, where these emotional cripples had no way to ruin my day.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    22. Re:Limited lifetime by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 1

      For example - is there any particular reason that an AI would every miss in an FPS combat... They know exactly where they are, exactly where you are, what your direction and rate of movement is, how fast the projectile flys - heck they can even pick up tendencies in your movement patterns. Now they should be able to place a round pretty much exactly where you will be (given your current tendencies) each and every time. Ok, that is FPS games.

      The developers could also give the computer more health and armor, the problem is that neither are AI. In fact, most would call that cheating (or developers too lazy to create true AI). Using internal game knowledge that the player has little to no knowledge of isn't an example of how to make good AI. Same thing goes for the MMO comment. For a true AI to work it needs to have the same knowledge that the other players have (which is often incomplete). What you're saying is like building a poker bot where the bot gets to see all of the mucked cards. Sure the bot will beat a lot of people, but it is in effect cheating.

      Chess is also not a very good example since most of the chess programs I've seen just use a brute force search algorithm. The board contains all of the information (which is actually pretty limited) at which point the computer just has to do the calculations.

      If you want to see where true AI is at work look at the game Go. Many players can beat the computer regularly since the solution space is so large (can no longer use a brute force like chess). Also look at poker (in particular the pokibot where players are always working with incomplete sets of information. A decent poker player still can beat computer players simply by changing their game once and awhile. It ends up taking the bots too long to adapt before they are put out.

      Real AI, not the shortcut methods you mentioned, require time and a lot of processing power to implement.

    23. Re:Limited lifetime by slartibart · · Score: 1
      I don't know, I hear about all these problems. So you'd think that since I'm a casual player who just hit 60, wearing blues and greens, playing in nothing but PUGs, I'd be getting my ass handed to me by epic'd out pre-mades.

      Yet, it doesn't happen. We win AB 85% of the time, and AV about 50%. But even the bg's we lose, it's not a slaughter. I am not seeing these unbeatable premade teams. How do my PUG's win 85% in AB? Now that we have cross-realm bg's, it has nothing to do with my realm, right?

    24. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      I'll agree with tm2b on this one.


      I see that you have major issues and that you applied a number of your issues to what you read within what I wrote.

      It's these sort of extremist attitudes about games and the inability to discuss differences intelligently and calmly that end up providing poor images for gaming in general.

      Since you made many assumptions and personally attacked me and my opinions, I'll return the favor.

      Please, take your Ritalin, go back to school and let the adults talk.

    25. Re:Limited lifetime by Obyron · · Score: 1

      This kind of response is actually my problem with people who are avidly non-PK, and unlike you I don't make a PK/PvP distinction. It is what it is, and all the semantic wrangling isn't going to change that. How can you honestly draw parallels between PvP on a game and real life crime? You claim that you don't think PvPers are sociopathic murderers, but then you turn around and compare it stealing people's purses. On a game that I've played for about 9 years, and am actually an admin on (it's an old-school MUD with a logged-in base of 300-500 people at pretty much any time) there was an anti-PvP advocate who once compared PvP to real life rape and murder. What's insane to -me- is how anyone could actually make the link to thinking that way about another human being just because their imaginary warrior beat up your imaginary cleric. You just can't draw parallels to real life acts that way.

      If PvP/PK causes such deep-seated emotional feelings in you, then I'm sad to say that you're not emotionally secure enough to handle the games you're choosing to play, and -pay for-. Why would anyone choose to shell out money every month for something that they think is emotionally damaging? If you don't like PK, then post suggestions to the developers about how to fix the system. Give them real game-related (and profit-related, for most MMOs) reasons for why it would help. Don't resort to psychodrama about how PvPers are damaging people's psyches. I'd avoid the brick wall analogy too, because it only works if PvP is something that was never intended. In the reality of your analogy, PvP is -one of the bricks-. It was put there to be a cohesive part of the game, and if there's something within that which just isn't working, then it proves my point that the problem isn't PvP, but implementation.

      Finally, if your concerns are ignored and you don't feel you're getting redress then leave. Vote with your wallet. Find a game that has no PvP element, or at least one that's closed/opt-in. I could spend hours talking about how, at the end of the day, consensual PvP just doesn't work, but that's mostly my opinion, and that kind of game might suit you.

      And just in case you're curious: the game I admin is closed PK/opt-in. I'm a pretty avid fan of allowing players to act in direct competition with one another in combat as well as in other areas, but I'm not the only voice, and I'm fine with that. I advocate a position, but it's not the end of the world when it doesn't pan out my way, and my position may not always be the -best- way. It doesn't tear me up inside emotionally or hurt my feelings. The day it does is the day I resign, and probably quit playing games online, because it'd be a sign that I'm just not capable of handling it. Frankly, I think a lot of people aren't.

      --
      --Obyron
    26. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      What if the next time you fight Rag in WOW he doesn't react the same way he always does, and instead starts trying different strategies of fights
      Here's another point where I misunderstand players stating "the AI is predictable."


      Just last night my guild took down Rag. It took four tries.

      The previous week we took him down on the first try even without using fire protection potions because we doubted we would kill him on the first attempt.

      The week before we failed to take him down in three attempts.

      Obviously player skill and character equipment are the biggest difference factors. Assume that we had the same people on the same characters with the same gear (which is quite close to reality). Even though Rag basically makes the same attacks, those attacks, his reactions and many other factors of the combat are very unpredictable, and from what I witnessed last night, comprised of a good deal of luck. (AoE knockback attack direction, frequency and resistance.)

      I completely understand predictable monsters. I remember in UO when you could pull a monster to a rock and stand on the other side of the rock, untouched, while you skilled up your archery. I do not see any such predictability in the mobs in WoW. The monsters have an array of attacks and the random attack generator (or AI response program) causes every fight to be somewhat different. There are enough variables that mathematically no fight with higher level, complex mobs would ever be the same. Yes, fighting a pig with only one attack would be the same again and again, but what happens if another pig nearby reacts and starts fighting or a new one spawns near you?

      Granted I've only played WoW since beta and I only have seven characters above 40 including two 60's. I have yet to see BWL, AQ40 or Naxx. Perhaps when I've "seen it all" like the uber, epiced 24x7 players, I might notice those AI patterns occurring more often. ;-)

    27. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      Re-read my post. I do play on a normal server. I never flag. I don't duel.


      I was suggesting that because Warhammer is so PvP centric, it's not going to survive long because of the typical actions of the majority of PvPers I've ever encountered in all the different MMO's I've played or tested.

      As tm2b stated, even removing the PvP factor, their are still griefers. Regardless of how many mechanical, technical or logical safeguards are within the game, the griefers will find some way to ruin the game for someone if not everyone. I'm simply predicting that these griefers will ruin Warhammer before it has a chance to prove itself.

    28. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      This sounds very familiar. We did something quite similar in UO. We built a town and defended it not only from the monsters but from players who would come attack our town and our "citizens."


      Defending attackers is definitely within my realm of "justice;" corpse camping, however, I feel is dishonorable, but it is a game mechanic and a way to deter future attacks (maybe).

      Back to my theme of "why PvP at all?" Do you enjoy watching the alarm channel? Isn't there something more enjoyable that you'd rather be doing? Why are the actions of the griefers allowed to control what players do? I'd rather not spend my time reacting to a griefer or have my game altered or interrupted because a player feels it is entertaining to watch me struggle or worse, when I do kill them, they simply come back because to them killing or being killed is the sum of the game.

      It seems many choose to destroy. Its interesting so few choose to build.
      Indeed. Though it is prejudiced and stereotyping, it is typically the immature male (pre-teen, teenager, young adult) that follows this path of destruction. I think it stems from the fact that they have yet to have to struggle to create something or build something worthwhile and they have no concept of what value a creation holds or how precious time is.
    29. Re:Limited lifetime by Avatar8 · · Score: 1
      All excellent points, and I agree with you to some extent.


      I'm getting a laugh how so many of these replies point back at me and state "if you get emotionally attached..." I guess I was too general. When I first played UO (my first MMO), I did get upset about getting killed by a player. The idea that another player would kill me for no reason at all never occurred to me. I had the (naive) ideal that we'd all play the game cooperatively. That was nine years ago. Death, loss, defeat do not bother me any more than "Ok, I learned this, so next time I'll try this." Heck play a paladin or a priest in WoW and you get used to dieing. ;-)

      I wouldn't try to draw parallels between online worlds and the real world. It is obvious that the anonymity of the internet in general and MMO's especially bring out a different persona in some people. What I suggest that if the intent is there, then those similar intentions may reveal themselves IRL. I've often been called a "paladin" IRL by my friends. It's just my nature. I help where I see it needed, I have an optimistic view that people are generally good (or can be) and witnessing any unkind acts disappoint me. (So yes, I'm often disappointed by people.)

      I do like the PvP implementation in WoW, so much so that I started characters on a PvP realm to play with friends. I have yet to get them to the point of facing "foes" in the open world, but I've already felt the frustration (player interference with quests) that some elements of the PvP consent realms offer. I doubt I'll play them much more.

      Online worlds offered the chance for global communities to get together, form friendships and generally brighten everyone's day by trouncing virtual evils. Unfortunately, online worlds have turned into a global social experiment where we see examples of the worst behavior that humans can offer. Sure it's a game, no one gets hurt and when you turn it off, it's gone. But those memories that are created linger and good or bad, they'll have an affect on you and those around you.

    30. Re:Limited lifetime by drsquare · · Score: 1
      I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP

      I've yet to hear a valid reason why people like killing mindless NPCs over and over again. Like manual labour except you ain't getting paid.

      To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."

      Here's a tip: never play Counterstrike, or Quake, or Monopoly, or any sport. Horrible people will be out to beat you and ruin your stay.

      Regardless of how balanced the playing field, someone has to lose

      Oh nose! Let's eliminate losing, lest someone's feelings me hurt. Think of the children!
    31. Re:Limited lifetime by drsquare · · Score: 1
      I should not have to alter my gameplay just because someone feels like interfering with me.

      Why would you want to play a multi-player game if other players cannot interfere with you? If you're playing monopoly do you whine because a griefer put a hotel on Mayfair?
    32. Re:Limited lifetime by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1
      Back to my theme of "why PvP at all?" Do you enjoy watching the alarm channel? Isn't there something more enjoyable that you'd rather be doing? Why are the actions of the griefers allowed to control what players do? I'd rather not spend my time reacting to a griefer or have my game altered or interrupted because a player feels it is entertaining to watch me struggle or worse, when I do kill them, they simply come back because to them killing or being killed is the sum of the game.


      I suppose at the most basic level, if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't be doing it. There are plenty of guilds out there that ignore the alarms - we could be one of them if we wished. I could also play on a different server with different rules. In fact, I started playing WoW on a "normal" (usually referred to as PvE) server. A friend of mine was on a PvP server and so I played a couple months there too. When I came back to the PvE server, there was something missing. I was thrilled when Blizzard opened up RPPvP servers - I like the RP environment and I found that I missed the PvP mechanics.

      Trying to hash out why I prever PvP is a bit more complex. Do I enjoy watching the alarm channel? Not per se. I have a little Addon that does it for me and lets me see what's going on in the world at a glance. If we're not doing anything particularly engrossing, we respond. There are plenty of times we've ignored attacks. And then there are a few rare times when I find myself watching that little Addon just waiting for someone to attack somewhere and give me (and my guild) a target to go after.

      Ultimately me and my guild enjoy PvP. We're not so full of bloodlust that we go picking fights. But then, we don't have to. There's always someone willing to do it for us. That chaos thing in play. Does that mean we're playing at the whim of griefers? Only when we choose to. The amusing thing here is that we have run in to griefers who relished the attention. Kill them again and again, and they'd be back playing cat-and-mouse using lower-level players and NPCs as pawns. Our strategy with those particular individuals was to ignore them - and make it well known that they were being ignored. They went away.

      The interesting thing is that we have made a difference. By following certain strategies and policies, we've managed to make the experience less enjoyable and names that would frequently show up in some areas would begin to fade away (off to greener pastures). We also have gained some minor noteriety for being defenders of our areas. There's a certain reward to having made a difference, and being noted for doing so.

      There's also a lot of fun having worked with various others to make it possible. Our group fights very well together and that's a pleasure in itself. Granted - its possible to get some of that same feeling downing some major PvE boss. But I suppose there's a different feeling having gone toe-to-toe with other people.

      One final note - playing PvP rules adds a certain... exitement to the game. It also adds a lot of stress. When on a PvE server, you pretty much know what you're facing and what you can expect from the environment. You do your thing, collect your reward, and move on. In a PvP environment, you run in to potentially hostile players. You never know for sure where an attack is going to come from. The odd thing is, I don't enjoy being attacked (and especially not ganked). Actually - I get a real kick running in to an opposing player and we just wave at each other and go on. But I must admit - the danger is exciting. It's certainly not for everyone. And that's why there's PvE servers.
    33. Re:Limited lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you wrote raises an interesting point. What if WAR has a mechanism in place that forced players to build in order to be able to destroy? Say, if a faction does not build up resources, the equipment that they get for war is more scarce. This would create a more dynamic ecosystem where roles will have to be devised in order to help the greater war effort.

    34. Re:Limited lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I consistently cheat through one-player games, or play in "easy/novice/beginner" mode, not because I have some pathological problem with losing (that I know of), but for the simple reason that I don't like repeating myself or playing through the same part over and over. Multiplayer, well that's another story altogether. Sooner or later you're bound to find someone worse than you. Is this an immature stance? You tell me.

      Hardly "hardcore", but hell, I play for my amusement, not to increase the size of my e-penis.

    35. Re:Limited lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a failing of Warcraft's PvP system. In DAOC (and likely WAR since it's more or less DAOC's successor) all PvP takes place in PvP zones (the frontiers, and at lower levels in the battlegrounds). Aside from a few PvP dungeons (which are entirely optional), there's no reason to go to the PvP zones except to kill other players. You're there to kill them and they're there to kill you. And in the frontier zones there are REAL objectives. You can take enemy keeps and capture relics held by the enemy to give your entire realm damage bonuses.

      Griefing is a consequence of certain PvP implementations. It's not a consequence of PvP.

    36. Re:Limited lifetime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My approach in WOW on a PVP server has been a catch and release strategy. (Well not pure PVP zones, or people griefing newbies.) If I spot you I'll hunt you down if I can. (If I think I can't I run like hell, and do my best to make you work for the kill.) Then it's up to you if we have another go at it. I've been known to wait for an enemy to finish a fight, and rest up. Then target him with a visible mark and gank him hard. Some people just don't understand this kind of thinking, and will come back on the attack. They'll attack you again, and again. Then whine to half the zone complaining you're grief them.

  20. Would it be wrong... by Raynor · · Score: 1

    To send money now? :D

    I also wonder if there will be a large market for goblin noses... or are they going to be a dime a dozen?

    Or maybe Goblin brains? a most excellent dish when prepared just right...

    --
    "Dictator Flakes. They WILL be delicious."
  21. This is a Shadowbane clone.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and that game ended up killing itself. Mythic should be warned.

  22. Like I feared by dracphelan · · Score: 1

    "If you want a taste of how RvR and general game play will feel in WAR, compare us to DAoC, not anyone else."

    I left DAoC because of to much RvR combined with constant "nerfing" of classes. Even on the non-RvR server, the game got old fast. It quickly degenerated into a constant killing of the same old things.

  23. Just like DAoC and others... by angelzero · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this game will fade into obscurity. There's no way to manage real-time PVP in a 24-hour real world where there are players connecting from all over the planet. My uberguild captures your capital at 6pm GMT. Your uberguild retakes it and captures our capital at 6:00am GMT. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    1. Re:Just like DAoC and others... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      Chances are, they're hoping for just that scenario. Instead of capturing a capital, the measurement of success becomes how long you hold it. It lets them hold off on new end-game material (if any) and works up until guilds band together for rotating defense. Or if they go with a multiple shard/world structure like most other MMOGs do, one faction will end up steamrolling the other like usual.

    2. Re:Just like DAoC and others... by saethone · · Score: 1

      Actually, capturing of cities is a multi day event, from what Mark Jacobs has posted. No ninja relic raids in this one.

  24. Linux WOW? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    NO mac, no linux, guess i'm gonna be playing wow.


    I find this quote interesting, since WOW has no official Linux client. Instead it uses WineX. What makes you think WAR will not work with WineX the same way?
    1. Re:Linux WOW? by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      You gonna drop probably $50 for the software, agree to a monthly MMORPG service charge and hope that a future update doesn't break it? I went through that with UO a couple of times and it's not fun. I've always found wine to be tempremental, too. UO used to have an "Unofficial" native UO client that broke every time they patched the software and eventually stopped working altogether. Later wine got good enough to run it again, but one of the patches they applied eventually broke that too. I could live without that anxiety.

      Unless there's an official client for my OS of choice, I'm not interested. I'm not going to bend over backwards to get the software working with wine and I'm not going to boot into an OS that you can't even install on a machine connected to the Internet without having three virusses and a backdoor installed on it. I have better things to do with my money and time than to put up with that frustration. They'll still make dumpsters full of cash but none of it will be mine.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    2. Re:Linux WOW? by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      I have a linux machine and a mac. If there is no client for either, then I'm SoL. WoW has a mac client.

    3. Re:Linux WOW? by noyren · · Score: 1

      WoW was made with a mac port, this means the 3d engine is opengl, linux has opengl.

      Making a directx game work is a LOT harder than an opengl game.

    4. Re:Linux WOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, but DirectX isn't just video. It's a stable suite. Just getting audio working reliably in linux is hard enough - why do I have to kill my KDE sound daemon to get sound in Enemy Territory, run from within KDE? Why is it that a couple of the music players I've tried completely ignore the desktop's 'master' setting? Yeah, thanks, didn't need those eardrums. And this is with a common distribution on common hardware.

      Games aren't just graphics. See how much you enjoy your experience with the sound off. So you can handle it, huh? Now, do it for a month, see if you still feel the same.

      Porting is more than writing in opengl instead of directx.

    5. Re:Linux WOW? by FerociousFerret · · Score: 1

      And that is why DirectX is a cross-platform game killer and probably makes Microsoft very happy. It locks you into Windows. You can't even do a Mac port of a DirectX game and it talk to the PC version.

    6. Re:Linux WOW? by YomikoReadman · · Score: 1

      For a month, huh? Try this on for size: I've played WoW for over two years now, since phase 3 of closed beta. Wanna know how long I had the sound on? About a week. It's been completely off ever since, although from time to time I do turn it back on in AQ40 just to hear C'thun whisper sweet nothings to me.

      So.. yea, I could totally play WoW without sound, and not a bit of hesitation in doing so.

      --
      I have no regrets, this is the only path.
      My whole life has been "UNLIMITED BLADE WORKS"
  25. What if you don't like PvP? by GJSchaller · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wish I had gotten this in there for original questioning, but with a little luck, I may still get some insight...

    What if you don't like PvP? What does WAR have to offer?

    I have had many, many bad experiences with PvP in multiple games (MMO, FPS, and Live RPGs) that have left a very bad taste in my mouth. Over all, I have found that PvP simply brings out the worst in people. Even if half of the team you are on, or against, are good sports, the rest are not, and things get nasty. Unless you have the choice to explicitly *deny* PvP combat against your character (such as WoW's choice to flag up on a PvE server), you are always at risk of having your experienced ruined by some asshat that feels like being a ganker, or a cascading imbalance in teams that results in one side not being able to ever recover their home city from their opponents (i.e. - if Chaos gets more players, to the point where anyone not playing Chaos just gets steamrollered when they log in, and so the only way to play is to roll Chaos so you can do something... perpetuating the issue).

    I greatly enjoy the Warhammer mythos. I like the Tabletop minis game because it is (in theory) balanced by a rules system that defines a fair game for you and your opponent, so I won't get the equivilant of being ganked and corpse camped by a higher level player simply because I'm new. I enjoy WoW's PvE aspect, but dislike its PvP. What can WAR offer me in the way of interest if I don't want to PvP?

    1. Re:What if you don't like PvP? by jfodale · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of the new things on the PvE scene of WAR that I've heard about is public quests. Quests where you walk into an area and everyone on your side is automatically given the same quest whether they are grouped or not. Everyone on your team collectively works on this quest together, so when someone does something to forward your objective, everyone benefits.

      There were a couple of examples of this that I read about with varying degrees of PvE-ness.

      1) PvE - A giant is having his heels nipped at by a pack of squiggs, kill the squiggs off and befriend the giant.

      2) Kind of PvE and PvP - Pour barrels of beer down a sleeping giant's throat so that it will go on a drunken rampage through the nearby enemy race's village.

      3) PvP - Rescue more than half of the injured dwarven brethren (NPCs) from the battlefield before the opposing race (other players) finds and kills half of them.


      If you really don't like PvP and the thought of fighting in an army against other players doesn't intrigue you, the majority of the game content is not directed at you then and you may want to dodge this one.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    2. Re:What if you don't like PvP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cry more, NOOB!

  26. PvP Servers by everphilski · · Score: 1

    PvP servers just have more NPC's with a little better AI :). Unfortunately in most implementations they don't drop loot ...

    1. Re:PvP Servers by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      While the "NPCs" in PvP have better tactical AI, their natural language processing and generation often leaves a lot to be desired.

      I remember when the best conversation I had in an irc channel was with its bot...

  27. EA sucks by boarder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As I was reading this I started getting a little excited. I quit WoW not too long ago for many reasons, and some of the stuff mentioned in this interview seemed to address some of those reasons.

    Then I got to the part about EA being involved and I pretty much stopped reading.

    I will not buy anything from EA again. I don't like their business practices and feel they are very bad for the gaming industry in the long term.

    So grats to Mythic selling out to EA... I'm sure they made a lot of money in the deal. It's just too bad I'll never consider their product now.

    --
    IANAL, but I play one on /.
    1. Re:EA sucks by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Exactly the same for me. Right down to the quitting WoW and all. So since Mythic sold out to EA, the game I'm waiting for is Darkfall. http://www.darkfallonline.com/ Take a look at it, maybe it will interest you as well.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    2. Re:EA sucks by startled · · Score: 1

      Then I got to the part about EA being involved and I pretty much stopped reading.

      I will not buy anything from EA again. I don't like their business practices and feel they are very bad for the gaming industry in the long term.


      I have a less principled opposition. I've just been burned too many times by EA's buggy, unsupported titles. Compare any title EA's ever released with Blizzard's Starcraft, Warcraft, or Diablo. I have occasional complaints about WoW's support, but I can't think of any conceivable way that EA would even provide half the support. Warhammer Online looks great, though, so I'd love for them to prove me wrong.

    3. Re:EA sucks by qeynos · · Score: 1

      I agree EA sucks. It is my impression that they rush all their products to meet datelines and make use of their customers to beat test. Speaking from experience.

  28. RvR by Thrymm · · Score: 1

    The one thing about Dark Age of Camelot that kept me playing for a few years was RvR.... Sure I would level up in PvE areas, and sometimes use the Battlegrounds. But the adrenaline rush of being in the RvR areas even to xp off npc mobs was fun since you didnt know you were being hunted until too late. You would know the risks, and if you didnt like it, you didnt need to go into those areas and then could stay in the PvE zones. Had a little bit of everything for everyone. The sieges were especially fun as well.

  29. Guild Wars by dbug78 · · Score: 2, Informative

    While PvP is a prominent feature of GW, it's really not required. I advanced through the entire game (chapter 1) while only participating in a few PvP matches. There's only one point where you're required to play PvP and that's to complete the 'tutorial' section.

    Some may argue that playing GW without playing PvP is missing the point, but that's an opinion that will vary with players. Certainly the focus in GW is on matching skills against another team in a complex rock-paper-scissors game, but I still found PvE to be enjoyable. The comparison has been made time and again, but it's really a lot like Magic the Gathering. You may own hundreds of skills, but you can only play with a 'deck' of 8 at any time. You define your character by your combination of skills. You specialize in one or two things and you rely on your party to cover the other bases.

    Normal PvP is little more than variations on team deathmatch. GvG (guild vs guild) is a bit more glorified.

  30. Keeping the Land? On my doorstep? by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Disclaimer: I come from a history of Ultima Online, Chesapeake shard, pre-everything.

    How are the political boundaries going to be maintained? Player run towns in UO were not territories, even when they brought in the Faction wars for territory it still didn't mean a particular faction was actually currently holding any land with bodies. (Abyss factions were much better) I've been through the days when someone would get their key looted and you'd come home to an empty house. (and even earlier when it meant they now owned your house) I've had wars with PKs and griefers on my doorstep, and cursed them every time. I've solo'd Faction sigils with GM hiding and not much else, half the time they were totally undefended. I miss fighting against an intelligent enemy, damn Trammel to hell.

    So how do you gain and keep territory? Who gives the marching orders for the entire world? Who determines where the border is from day to day and minute to minute, and how does the player find out it needs to be patrolled or their side will lose territory? How can I be part of a world changing side in this fight? And if it's on my doorstep, will I want to give up playing because it's unbalanced?

    this has been a rant from the former Mayor of Oberon Pass, DogMeat [MoO]

    1. Re:Keeping the Land? On my doorstep? by the_dirtpriest · · Score: 1

      ...damn Trammel to hell.Word.

  31. As usual... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    9.) Mac/Linux versions by BMonger (68213)
    Has any thought been given to Mac OS X and/or Linux versions of the game?

    There are no plans for a MAC or Linux version of the game at this time. And as usual, the Mac and Linux users get to sit on the sidelines and watch.

    WHEN is the management at EA going to get a (*^#ing CLUE that there are now a LOT of Macs out there and start developing product for US? And before anyone says "Use a dual OS system, dude," there are also a LOT of Mac users who won't touch Windows with a 10 foot halberd because of all of the security and infection issues, not to mention the constant updating that that kludge of an alleged OS seems to need on an almost hourly basis.

    Or has Microsoft gotten SO deep into their pocke- er, uh, heads, that it's not going to happen, ever?

    I am SO damn sick of the Windows-centrism in the gaming development world today...!

    So get a clue, EA and give us a Mac Attack!

  32. If you're lurking... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 1

    I didn't see this question asked, but... why Warhammer as opposed to Wahammer 40k? Wouldn't a more Sci-Fi oriented game instead of a Fantasy one helped to stake out a new market?

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
  33. Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    because, dude, you're not a big enough market. You are so Mac/Linux centric that you don't get it. If there are enough of you to make a profit the developers will be there for you. But the fact is, your market share SUCKS. It ain't worth it, and as long as you whine like you do, there isn't going to be an increase in your market share. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit that you like acs/Linux. So get over your self-abusive practices and wake up.

    1. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...you don't get it"

      Actually, it seems that it's YOU who doesn't "get it."

      As others have already pointed out elsewhere in this thread, 9 out of 10 of the tops games in 2005 were ported to Mac, the largest MMORPG in the world has simultaneous Mac support, and there are 25 million plus Mac users and developers ignore that market at their peril. Mac users tend have very long memories and also tend to be loyal to those who don't forsake them. They also tend to have a lot of money to spend on frivolities such as games -- which may partly explains why WoW has done so well; many PC users have friends who use Macs and they like to be able to play with them.

    2. Re:Because by dave562 · · Score: 1

      Congratulations... you Mac guys are finally getting there. I'm not sure how old you are, but the first computer I was old enough to remember using and having in my home was an Apple IIgs. At that time the average PC user had a 286. Even back then the number of games on Apples vs IBMs was hugely imbalanced. For as long as I have known computers (over two decades), it has been accepted that if you want to play games, you buy a PC. Mac users may have long memories and it seems like they are also slow learners. =)

    3. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mac users may have long memories and it seems like they are also slow learners. =)"

      So says the knuckle-dragging presumptuous bigot who hasn't got a clue and probably beats his dog. So you walked to school in a snow storm it was up hill both ways. You haven't got a clue man.

  34. LOL win by a nose by netglen · · Score: 1

    "How many quests in your game follow ye olde template of 'kill 20 goblins and bring me their noses... but a goblin only has a 30% chance to drop a nose'?" - is simple: None! When we present players with a quest to gather goblin noses, you'll find that every goblin with a nose on his face is willing to part with it after death."

    So now that goblins offer a 100% droprate for noses, the quest requires one of the following;

    1) Collect 500 goblin noses.
    2) Collect 1 goblin nose but the goblin is a rare spawn 3 hour spawn and you have to compete with 25 other people hunting the same damn goblin.

    1. Re:LOL win by a nose by jaystrider · · Score: 1

      This is what immediately followed the above quote:

      "From the first day that we began defining our quest design principles, we made it a priority to avoid this type of quest in WAR altogether. Furthermore, collection style quests make up a very small portion of the quests we have to offer. Our quests are all tied closely to the ongoing war, so most have you infiltrating an enemy compound, assassinating da big boss, or capturing a strategic location wot holds beer!"

  35. Blizzard supports Mac by Triconium · · Score: 1

    I've been looking forward to WAR, but if Mythic is not going to support Mac, they will not be getting my money. I moved away from the PC this year and I'm not going back.

    NCsoft is the same way: No Mac. Has Mythic and NCsoft considered that part of what helped Blizzard achieve their 6 million users is the fact that they support Mac? Now that Macs are Intel there is no excuse to not support the Mac.

    I'm sure Mythic is sick of being compared to WoW, but until they support Mac, they will always be compared on that point.

    1. Re:Blizzard supports Mac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing worse than a game not supporting mac is some mac user whining that not enough games come out for mac.
      Hey, I was pissed I couldn't take my sedan off-roading, but sometimes ya gotta bite the bullet.

    2. Re:Blizzard supports Mac by jfodale · · Score: 1

      I think little of WoW's success has anything to do with the Mac. It's mostly a combination of three big things: - One of the most popular gaming IPs ever - An MMO without noticable downtime and very accessible (on the surface) to casual players - The usual Blizzard game polish Eliminate mac support from the picture and the game would still be a raging success.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    3. Re:Blizzard supports Mac by Triconium · · Score: 1

      I don't mean to say that it's only successful b/c it plays on Mac. I agree with you on all your points. What I meant to point out is that a percentage of those 6 million players are Mac players. Even if that percentage is small, Blizzard has reached an audience that Mythic and NCsoft are failing to reach.

    4. Re:Blizzard supports Mac by Khaotix · · Score: 1

      You will not be missed

      I really hope that Warhammer has an incredible learning curve and involves actual skill. Maybe then I won't have people asking my warlock to make them food or other such crap.

  36. I hope it avoids the whole "leveling" thing by iteyoidar · · Score: 1

    What I really hate about MMORPGs. If a quest isn't fun(collect 100 rat eyes) it shouldn't be in the game. I guess they're trying to avoid it in Warhammer by adding more PVP oriented quests. It's seemingly impossible to fill a game with PVE quests that prevent the player from leveling too quickly while not sucking completely.

    Maybe PVP objectives are a good way around this. Killing 20 other players(who would also have missions to kill you) would be a lot more fun than killing computer rats, but I'll wait until I see the finished product. It seems like MMORPGs always find some way to turn any meaningful progression into a grind. At this point I feel like the genre itself is broken, it will be interesting to see how it changes in the next 10 years. I realize WoW has a couple million players in the US but I wonder how many total subscribers it's actually gone through?

    1. Re:I hope it avoids the whole "leveling" thing by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "Killing 20 other players(who would also have missions to kill you) would be a lot more fun than killing computer rats..."

      It would be fun, but like many things that would be fun in an MMORPG it would not work because of griefing.

      Of course, killing rats is no fun either.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:I hope it avoids the whole "leveling" thing by jfodale · · Score: 1

      PvE and PvP areas are supposedly going to be clearly divided in WAR. If you know the griefers are out there on the PvP side of the fence, there are plenty of things to do on the PvE side of the fence instead. There are also six main battlefronts in WAR, so if you're getting repetitively destroyed in one area, you can pack it up and move to new scenery and not have to deal with those griefers.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
    3. Re:I hope it avoids the whole "leveling" thing by jaystrider · · Score: 1

      Also, the Q&A above also says, "Newer characters will be able to get together and - as a group - take on a significantly more powerful enemy and WIN." ...in regards to rvr/pvp People keep mentioning griefers. Anyone talking about griefers probably hasn't played DAOC. Mythic did a lot in DAOC to create a game that is virtually griefer-less. One thing they did was make areas where people go to RvR. You don't have to enter them EVER if you don't want to, but you WILL want to because it's a ton of fun. They also (as far as I know) were the first (or one of) to prevent opposing factions from communicating which eliminates the trash talk (unless you're a board lurker). They made death in RvR an inconvenience not a loss. In DAOC, you can really only make gains in RvR...it's just some gain much faster or slower than others. No exp loss, item loss, or any of that. The only way you will get "ganked" in DAOC is if you put yourself in a situation to be "ganked". In other words, you are KNOWINGLY in a dangerous area, ON PURPOSE, and LOOKING for a FIGHT. It's not one of those games where the victims are always the same by the same people...there's no such thing as a "PKer"...EVERYONE is out there to FIGHT. I understand people's fears about PVP games, but really...there's a huge difference between the way everyone else does it, and the way Mythic does it. It's not perfect! But it beats the hell out of all the others.

    4. Re:I hope it avoids the whole "leveling" thing by jaystrider · · Score: 1

      The formatting I had was removed on post =\ ...let's see if I can make it better...I can't find an edit option.
      - - - - - -
      Also, the Q&A above also says, "Newer characters will be able to get together and - as a group - take on a significantly more powerful enemy and WIN." ...in regards to rvr/pvp.

      People keep mentioning griefers. Anyone talking about griefers probably hasn't played DAOC. Mythic did a lot in DAOC to create a game that is virtually griefer-less. One thing they did was make areas where people go to RvR. You don't have to enter them EVER if you don't want to, but you WILL want to because it's a ton of fun. They also (as far as I know) were the first (or one of) to prevent opposing factions from communicating which eliminates the trash talk (unless you're a board lurker). They made death in RvR an inconvenience not a loss. In DAOC, you can really only make gains in RvR...it's just some gain much faster or slower than others. No exp loss, item loss, or any of that.

      The only way you will get "ganked" in DAOC is if you put yourself in a situation to be "ganked". In other words, you are KNOWINGLY in a dangerous area, ON PURPOSE, and LOOKING for a FIGHT. It's not one of those games where the victims are always the same by the same people...there's no such thing as a "PKer"...EVERYONE is out there to FIGHT. I understand people's fears about PVP games, but really...there's a huge difference between the way everyone else does it, and the way Mythic does it. It's not perfect! But it beats the hell out of all the others.
      - - - - - - -

  37. Is it just me or... by LuciferosX · · Score: 0

    ...did it seem that Zonk has no clue that Warcraft was a direct rip-off of the Warhammer universe and not the other way around? It cracked me up though to see his question about the "comparisons by gamers" of the two games. Of course there are comparisons to be made. Only the younger, however, will fail to realize that Blizzard pretty much stole the idea, even the orcs, from the Warhammer franchise (Gamers Workshop). You can't steal ideas from your own work.

  38. So who rebuilds the city? by Dhrakar · · Score: 1

    Seriously.... if one side can lay siege to, invade and destroy the other side's capital, what happens then? Is it up to the players on the losing side to rebuild the city? Do naked fairies show up and put everything back together? Also, when your capital is destroyed, I suppose that you have to zip to a different area to buy supplies, etc... Or maybe you have to fight your way out of the city. Urgh.
        Well, it is a moot point for me anyway. It sounded interesting until they mentioned that there would be no OS X version. So I'll stick with WoW (where I will soon be a duel-wielding Shammy ... woot! :-)

    1. Re:So who rebuilds the city? by jfodale · · Score: 1

      The way I understood it was NPC forces showed up to reclaim the city in waves. The side that destroyed the city basically plays a "resist as long as possible" until the waves become just too powerful to defend against.

      Enjoy your dual-wielding shammy though! BC doesn't offer me enough content to last another year, so I'm shopping around now.

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
  39. I'm really hyped about this by Wind_Walker · · Score: 1

    After I quit WoW I started looking around for "The Next Big Thing" and while Vanguard seemed nice, Warhammer Online really got me interested because it looked like WoW+PvP. I devoured everything I could online, from fansites to videos to E3 demos downloaded through some shady sites. I loved it. Unfortunately, I then discovered that they were being published by EA. I am on a self-imposed EA boycott because of several reasons including their Battlefield 2142 Spyware fiasco, their policing of EA torrent sites including contacting ISPs in an effort to get individual users' DSL accounts removed, and their continual abuse of Xbox Live microtransactions. Charging for cheat codes and tutorial videos = no EA games for me. I will go back when they stop their horrible micro-transaction raping of Xbox Live, provided they do not include anymore adware and I do not hear about any more torrent policing. Hopefully, by the time Warhammer Online hits they will do that. If not, I'll just have to make do without it.

    1. Re:I'm really hyped about this by jfodale · · Score: 1

      Before the buyout, Mythic was absolutely against microtransactions beyond the usual $15/month though... (can't get rid of that!)

      No idea where things stand now...

      --
      Waiting for Warhammer Online.
  40. The "if you can't beat 'em" problem... by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    What I wonder is what they'll do to avoid the tipping problem? That is, if one side is thought to be stronger than the other, more people will sign up on that side until such time as it IS stronger--very much so.

    At that point, well, I can see lots of slaughtering and such, but won't one side end up being the poor oft-ganked loser team? Until such point as it's essentially hopeless to play on that side? Or will they try to balance things out by assigning carrots (or penalties) when one side becomes too superior to the other?

    1. Re:The "if you can't beat 'em" problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EA Mythic is going to augment the underdog with NPC's

    2. Re:The "if you can't beat 'em" problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people are the reason why griefers get their kicks. If sides are imbalances, that's more kills for me. Stop whining about how pvp is imbalanced before the game even comes out. Go back to your 40 man raids, building DKP until your eyes bleed and leave the pvp games to the pvpers. You should try douching every once in a while too, it might take care of those emo fits.

  41. this game is strictly for fudge packers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fucking homos. who the fuck plays this fag shit? fucking dick smokers, that's who.

  42. Games only on Windows... It's BS by Kildjean · · Score: 1

    To the people in mythic:

    After the success DAoC had and the shitload of money that EA paid you, you guys not developing for other major OS's like Mac OS X and Linux is absurd.

    Blizzard, has designed all their games since Diablo equally available on Macs, long since OSX. Even World of Warcraft was made available the same day it launched on Macs running OSX. If macs were still on PPC (and no excuse, since Blizzard has done it in the past), I could understand your decision, Macs now run on Intel processors and they even support ATI and Nvidia to the core.

    I am a a big Warhammer fan, but if your development team is uncapable of delivering the game on dual OSX and Windows, I guess its not good enough for me to buy. At this point and age, not developing games for all Major OS's is more of a stone in the way of offering good games for eveyone.

    Why should gamers be forced to use windows to play when Macs are just as good and have been proven to be a good market for games?? Take World of Warcraft for example. Im can do all the modding any Windows user can on my Mac. I dont need windows for anything WoW offers me.

    Your game is not going to have the same success as you think it will, without supporting all the platforms.

    --
    Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
    1. Re:Games only on Windows... It's BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately it's not really up to them. Mythic traditionally use the GameBryo engine, and AFAIK the GameBryo engine doesn't support MACs.

    2. Re:Games only on Windows... It's BS by qeynos · · Score: 1

      They said clearly that Mac and Linux platforms are not supported AT THIS TIME. You react as if they said they will not support other OS than Windows.

    3. Re:Games only on Windows... It's BS by Kildjean · · Score: 1

      Why does it only has to be Windows, why if other successful gaming companies like Blizzard, develop for mac, others can follow suite? Its bullshit.

      --
      Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
  43. Some instanced by sflory · · Score: 1

    "In Scenarios, you'll be able to jump into a "fair" fight of balanced sides (augmented by NPC's if need be)." This sounds a lot like WoW's instanced battlegrounds. It's only one of 4 types of pvp. Of the others "Campaign, and Skirmishes" don't sound instanced. "In Battlefields, you are fighting for control of a landmark or resource for the benefit of your army. It could be just you against twenty enemies or a more even fight, depending on the importance placed on the objective at that time by each army." This might be instanced, or just a separate zone.

    --
    IANALBIPOOGL (I am not a Lawyer, but I play one on GrokLaw.)
  44. Dynamic world PvP? by dave562 · · Score: 1
    It seems to me like WAR is promising one thing that hasn't ever really been done all that well, and that is the ability to actually influence the game world with your actions. When I first started playing WoW and I saw Stormwind my thought was, "This place is cool. When do I get to fight off the hordes of horde invaders?" Alas, such a thing will never happen. Rationally, I understand why from a game point of view... some people, the majority of players actually need to have a "safe" area to play in, otherwise they will get frustrated and play somewhere else. I'm interested to see how WAR will attempt to manage the dynamically difficult situation of maintaining a steady userbase in the traditionally hostile, unfriendly, grief stricken environment that is online PvP.

    I have my own reservations that are akin to what others have mentioned. Specifically, what happens when one side gets so far ahead that the balance gets completely thwacked? I'd hope that the WAR guys are smart enough to come up with a world that is large enough that one side can't dominate more than 50-60% of it. In such a setup, the losing side could focus their efforts on another battlefront and then the other side would have to adjust. That's the only way that I could see such a thing working. There would need to be enough simultaneous conflicts taking place that one side couldn't possibly field enough troops at all of them to win them all. Maybe they can come up with something like supply lines, and the need to hold contigious(sp?) territory.

    I'm looking forward to checking the game out. I hope that they have some sort of public beta. I've been playing Games Workshop games for a long time. I definitely played far more Warhammer 40K than standard Warhammer but none the less, I'd like an alternative to WoW.

    I'm a PvPer at heart and I hate the WoW system where one epic'd out 60 can lay waste to legions of lower level attackers. I hate to use the world "realism" when talking about fantasy games, but still, I like some level of realism. There should be a point where no matter how buff you are, enough of the enemies can get together to take you out. In WoW that simply doesn't happen. The level 60 griefers can hang out just far enough outside of the NPCs aggro range where they can safely gank any lowbie walking by, while at the same time not worry about their own safety. I like all aspects of the PvP system, but specifically I like being able to get together with a group of people and own part of the world. Like another poster was saying about his WoW RPPvP guild running around protecting their territory, that's what PvP should be all about... becoming a character, supporting a faction, actually being a part of the world.

  45. Eh? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    No, I'm a NOPK type--I leave the PK to people who actually like it. I don't do PK at all, so have I ever played Warcraft, etc. But I do know a thing or two about game balance.

  46. Re:gotta love when your questions get skipped by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    especially when Zonk's question gets selected (imagine that!). Has any other editor ever abused a slashdot interview like this before?

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  47. Great answers, good read by EtherAlchemist · · Score: 1


    By far this is the best set of corporate entity responses. Ever.

    What really made this actually enjoyable to read was the fact the responders didn't put any BS out there or try to overshadow questions by pumping themselves up on other points or simply responding without actually answering the question (looking at you Dean Hachamovitch). Bonus points for the one instance where they didn't answer by being straight-forward and saying they didn't know yet instead of something like "it'll be a surprise".

    I wish everyone who took part in these "Ask..." sessions was as real, writing in actual human tones instead of practiced public relations and investor-safe dribble.

    --
    R(k)