Slashdot Mirror


A WoW Player's Guide To Warhammer

With Warhammer Online just around the corner, Zonk wrote up a guide which compares it to the current top dog of the MMO market, World of Warcraft. He highlights the fact that despite the appearance of "War" in both names, Warhammer is much more focused on the struggle between factions, in gameplay and artistic style. Warhammer's open beta started on Sunday, doing well in the US but stumbling in Europe. The full version launches on Sept. 18th, but people who pre-order the game will be able to access live servers up to four days before, thanks to Mythic's head-start program. Mythic CEO Mark Jacobs recently launched a blog to answer questions about the game.

61 of 353 comments (clear)

  1. Attention developers; by B5_geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guild Wars got my money because it works on Linux.
    Savage got my money because it works on Linux.
    Defcon got my money because it works on Linux.
    NeverWinter Night got my money because it works on Linux.

    There are many more but you get the idea.

    If you want my money, make sure it works on Linux!

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:Attention developers; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sure they'll mourn the loss of all five of you Linux gamers.

      And all the tens of dollars you bring with you.

    2. Re:Attention developers; by RichMan · · Score: 4, Informative

      WoW works on Linux fine.

      Although I have given up WoW for Guild Wars now.

    3. Re:Attention developers; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same message but replace Linux by Mac, and add "real Mac port, not some lame Cider bullshit". I don't care what you think, Cider sucks on low-end Macs (which is half the Macs, all stuck with GMA950 and X3100).

    4. Re:Attention developers; by edremy · · Score: 4, Insightful
      WoW got 10 million player's money without Linux[1]

      The rest of the MMO market in total doesn't add up to WoW's subscriber numbers. Guild Wars is a distant also-ran to WoW.

      The MMO makers don't care about you.

      [1]; Yes, yes, I know you can run it under Wine. Any guesses as to how many people actually do this?

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
    5. Re:Attention developers; by JCSoRocks · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seriously... the cost / benefit ratio there has gotta be something like - Costs a ton / gains us almost nothing. If I'm trying to run a profitable business I'm going to say... don't bother. It's the same reason you don't see the newest WWII FPS's marketed for people over 80. It's a tiny market segment... you won't make enough money to make producing the product worth your time. Sorry!

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    6. Re:Attention developers; by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 2, Informative

      don't worry, they don't run much better with a GMA950 under Windows, either. Blame it being a Mac, since Mac picked a sucky video chipset for your system.

      Owning both, I can safely say, for the same money you could have given up a little case polish and OSX for much more powerful hardware.

    7. Re:Attention developers; by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Attention Guild Wars developers: Blizzard got my money for two years cause they support mac.
       
      Btw- why are you paying the company for ignoring your needs? When you purchase the windows version, then run it on linux in a windows emulation layer, you are effectively telling the company that you support their decision to not support any platform besides windows.
       
      Civil Disobediance has ALWAYS been the most effective way of making a point. If they don't support your platform, the least you can do is not support their business model by pirating the game. Grow a backbone already, but whatever you do, do NOT take pride in fueling their ignorance in marketplace demands.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    8. Re:Attention developers; by Lulfas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So .0006 of Wow players. Aka: insignificant.

    9. Re:Attention developers; by NoodleSlayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, but Mac users do have this niggling tendency to actually pay for software, and many of them (at least the ones on Intel Macs) actually have the hardware to run the games. Note that a number of games actually are coming to Mac OS now. Some even are being released simultaneously like Spore, even though that was a Cider port.

      Does this mean people buy Macs to play games? No. But does this mean that Mac users wouldn't be open to buying games to play on their Mac? Of course not.

      Unlike Linux games (see: Loki), a number of Mac games have done well in the market, despite attempts from Aspyr to deliver as substandard of a product as possible.

    10. Re:Attention developers; by not+already+in+use · · Score: 5, Funny

      I started reading your post, and the Mac vs PC ad music started playing in my head.

      Then PC guy asks Mac guy what he's playing over there.

      Mac guy responds, "Oregon Trail, it's totally awesome!"

      PC guy says "Oh really? I'm playing all the new 3d games. In spite of your lame attempts to undermine me by beating old perceptions like a dead horse, I still hold a significant market share over you. As such, nobody wants to support you. Sure, you're popular among trendy college students with rich parents, but you'll eventually be sold when they drop out of school because they spend too much time on digg. "

      Mac guy starts crying.

      PC Guy: "I'm sorry, that was a little harsh."

      Mac Guy: "No, it's not you. Alice died of tuberculosis."

      Cue Mac VS PC ending jingle.

      --
      Similes are like metaphors
    11. Re:Attention developers; by pyrr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I could've done a 1-to-1 hardware comparison back before Blizzard released a patch that caused WoW to stop running correctly in Direct-3D mode and come out way ahead. I have a friend with an identical laptop running Windows and who plays WoW. My framerates have consistently been higher than his (I also used to run things like UI size and resolution higher, too), but I've noticed a lot more in the way of graphics glitches under OpenGL and sometimes the framerate fluctuates wildly. Cedega & Wine's current implementation of a D3D protocol doesn't seem to be compatible with the current WoW patch level. Hardware does matter; ATI tends to yield poorer performance under Linux than Nvidia.

      Then there's anecdotal evidence; aside from some glitches introduced in certain patches which I had to change config settings to mitigate, I can't recall the WoW client ever crashing for me under Wine or Cedega. It used to crash a couple times per week on my gaming box when it ran Windows (only the client, not Windows). After I ditched Windows and got games up-and-running under Wine or Cedega, it became rock-solid stable. Of everyone in guild and raids, I easily have the most stable client/OS. I see that as a big component of performance, since it's hard to say you're performing well despite crashing with relative frequency.

      And of course there's that even less-quantifiable gain that relates to the satisfaction of getting an application to work on an unsupported platform better than on most implementations of its native environment.

    12. Re:Attention developers; by Trevelyan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That depends where you start from. If you use open*L libraries from the start while targeting Windows, with portability in mind. Then OSX and Linux come at little extra effort.

      However if you build your game with DirectX then yes, it will cost more to port then you'll get in return. Keeping people tied to their platform is no doubt why MS provide DX for free.

      I think with the rise of Ubuntu there could be a market for games on Linux (there probably already is on OSX). But it is still at the chicken and the egg state. No games on Linux means not many gamers using Linux. Not many gamers using Linux means no games for Linux.

    13. Re:Attention developers; by snuf23 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are a surprising amount of Mac native games now. Sure they don't come out first on Mac. Also if you are a Mac owner and you really want access to PC games without hoping or waiting for a port, you can install Windows via bootcamp. Of course Linux users on x86 have the same option.
      If you don't want to dual boot then you have to make do with what's available.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    14. Re:Attention developers; by lysergic.acid · · Score: 3, Interesting

      this could be a blessing in disguise. the lack of mainstream titles by the big studios means that there is an untapped niche market for smaller studios or independent developers.

      you won't see indie games with the most realistic 3d engine, but huge resources aren't necessarily a prerequisite for quality gameplay. besides, innovation is generally born from the margins of society rather than the mainstream.

      it may not be as profitable a market as other platforms, but surely there are enough potential linux gamers out there for it to be worth the attention of independent game developers. and with the ease of distributing the games yourself over the web, you can bypass publishers and retain all of your profits.

    15. Re:Attention developers; by WhatAmIDoingHere · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Penny Arcade game came out for PC, Mac, and Linux at the same time. I don't know if they released stats for purchases by OS, though.

      --
      Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
    16. Re:Attention developers; by Locomorto · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats already $93,000/y at @15/month in subscription fees alone. I'm sure that the number would be much higher with an actual native linux port (wine is nice, but its theres no guantee its still going to work in a month). I'm sure that WoW atleast could hire one programmer to work on the linux port + support costs.

      --
      Stopping Content Restriction Annulment and Protection means not calling it DRM.
  2. Thoughts by abigsmurf · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'm in the EU beta.

    The beta launch was handled horribly by GOA, the account activation was opened just a few hours before the servers went live and it completely collapsed. It wasn't just the numbers it seemed to be thoroughly broken. There's a reason you allow a few days before launching to let people sort out their accounts and keys.

    However now that I'm in I'm enjoying it. The public quests are brilliant fun, the scenarios (think WoW BGs) are easy to get into and the classes are varied and have creative play mechanics.

    remains to be seen if I'll still think it's great at level 30 when grind sets in but it's incredibly promising at this stage.

    1. Re:Thoughts by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 2, Informative

      It would have been a lot cooler if it had been based off of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which is the best RPG I ever played. They kept some of the things from that, like the careers, but from what I can see, none of the subtlety.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
  3. Warhammer? by peter_gzowski · · Score: 4, Funny

    More like World of Warhammer... Craft...

    --
    "Now gluttony and exploitation serves eight!" - TV's Frank
    1. Re:Warhammer? by Drakin020 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think the reference you were looking for was...

      World of Warhammer Onlinecraft.

      http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2006/20060410.jpg

      --
      The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
  4. What I want is more simulation by leoboiko · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Here's what I want from a medieval MMO:

    • An ecosystem. Doesn't need to have full-featured critters like in Spore or Creatures; just make the monsters eat each other, reproduce, and compete for resources in the obvious way. Come on, it's not difficult.
    • An economic system. Again, nothing fancy, just set a few resource sources and sinks (even invisible) and let the market forces decide the item prices. WoW does it for the player market, why not the in-game market as well?
    • Auto-generated, per-player quests. Gearhead can auto-generate quests, why canâ(TM)t you? I mean, most of WoW quests look the same anyway: talk to someone, find something, kill something, or escort.
    • Allow player actions to affect the world. If I kill all predators from an area I expect the ecology to be ruined. If you donâ(TM)t want players ruining the ecology, make it difficult to genocide.

    Unlike most players I met in WoW, I find no fun in comparing the size of virtual âoeswordsâ or in optimizing numbers in a game of statistics. I want immersion. The way WoWâ(TM)s world is just some immutable scenario ruined immersion to me.

    --
    Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
    1. Re:What I want is more simulation by PlatyPaul · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Allow player actions to affect the world. If I kill all predators from an area I expect the ecology to be ruined. If you donÃ(TM)t want players ruining the ecology, make it difficult to genocide.

      As long as it is possible, someone will do it, if only for teh LoLz.

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
    2. Re:What I want is more simulation by Duradin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      UO initially had ecosystems of a sort. Then the players pillaged and burned and plowed salt into the ground.

      Animals? All killed off. Trees? Graphics still there but no lumber generating. Monsters? Hahahahahahahaha. You killed the other players while waiting for the one (1) orc to spawn in the orc fort.

      Ecosystems are cool until they come into contact with players.

    3. Re:What I want is more simulation by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like others have intoned, the real problem with this sort of dynamic and open system is people. A percentage of players in online games feel free to act in ways they would never think about in the real world because there are no real consequences for negative actions (worst that can happen is a ban). As such, they feel free to perform actions which, if done in the real world, would merit anywhere from a punch in the nose to lengthy jailtime.

      Until this fundamental problem is addressed in some manner, online games will and must remain fairly tightly controlled affairs. Otherwise, chaos will reign and the vast majority of gamers will leave for greener and more pleasant pastures. With the enormous cost of developing MMOs, that's just not something most developers are willing to risk.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    4. Re:What I want is more simulation by qqqlo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is possibly the truest thing I've ever heard.

    5. Re:What I want is more simulation by Grandiloquence · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ah, game design from the "Anything I don't understand must be trivial to implement" school.

      These issues have been discussed endlessly by many, many, many people. Inevitably real game designers realize that your suggestions are either far to complex to implement or aren't fun in practice.

    6. Re:What I want is more simulation by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Interesting

      UO initially had ecosystems of a sort. Then the players pillaged and burned and plowed salt into the ground.

      Ha, I remember that. I had a Grandmaster Ground-Salter. Those were good times.

      Anyway, I've thought about how cool an "ecosystem" would be, and also the problem of player abuse. It seems like you could get something a lot better than what we have without leaving it open to complete exploitation by the players. UO's problem was that it tried to remain too "pure" which opened the way to player abuse/boredom, while WoW's problem is that it remains completely artificial with only the tiniest nods towards an ecosystem (i.e. a wolf mob will attack a squirrel or bunny mob that's nearby, and sometimes herd animals actually travel in small herds though usually not). Vicious velociraptors will walk right past delicious zebras without taking notice. Because both are waiting to be slain by the players.

      Just add more dynamism. Have the carnivores hunt down the herbivores, and have their respawn rates be relatively related to the number of each. When left alone, the populations will naturally stay in balance. If the players start killing off the carnivores, then the herbivores spawn faster. When the herbivore population rises, then carnivores start to spawn faster too. If the player keeps killing the carnivores, then before you're up to your neck in herbivores, they start to die of starvation. If the player kills lots of herbivores, then carnivores start to die too. But you never have to let the respawn rate reach zero, or even get more than some fraction less than the default spawn rate. Assume, much like you must to imagine Orgrimmar is really a bustling city, that the population that is represented by mobs is really a subset of a much larger one and thus genocide is effectively impossible.

      WoW has done a decent job of making sure respawn rates are such that it takes a fair amount of concerted effort to truly keep an area clear. Put some basic safeguards around an ecosystem, and you could keep players from completely wrecking things while also making it much more interesting. UO didn't do that, and had much too low of a base respawn rate anyway (and a much smaller world and much fewer mobs etc etc). I don't think we need to write off the idea entirely because of UO.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:What I want is more simulation by apoc.famine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The solution is a badass, omnipotent, omniscient being, able to smite at will, subscription bedamned. When the forest god assumes wolf form and eats you dead, dead, dead as you attempt to exterminate the wolves, everyone else will think twice about doing it.

      While it doesn't work all that well IRL, on the internet, most everything is better with a vengeful dictator at the helm. Griefers and other problem users can be struck down with little else.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  5. Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. by Liquidrage · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There's a few things that standout in this game.

    When you kill a person in RvR you get EXP. You get loot (money and items that come from a random pool, not the dead players pockets).

    There are repeatable quests for RvR. You join the RvR scenarios (similar to WoW battlegrounds but a faster pace and with more on the line) simply by clicking an icon on yuor screen from anywehere (though your likely to be in a queue for a few minutes before actually getting into the scenario). You have repeatable quests in those scenarios. You truely can level in this game with just RvR.

    On the PvE side Public Quests are very well done. Open groups are very well done. In both cases you just walk up and your "part" of something. No need for invites. No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections.

    Now, the games not perfect, but it's well done. It certainly is linear in many ways (from zones to loot). And it misses the mini-game casual play of WoW. There's no mini-pets or fishing in WAR. Some like that, some dont. But it will have an impact on the total player base.

    Anyways, Massively's got a lot of info on the game that anyone interested should check out so not much more I can really say besides it gets a thumbs up so far.

    1. Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 2, Funny

      No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections.

      We always just said that because you were a sucky tank and couldn't keep mobs off the casters.

    2. Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. by LandDolphin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does someone else joining in, like throwing you a heal, take away from the EXP, or anything else, that you would have gotten if they did not throw you that heal or help kil lthe mob?

      --
      Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
    3. Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. by Liquidrage · · Score: 2, Informative

      I really haven't noticed much in terms of EXP. In most cases though the Open Groups are not traditional MMO things. For example, the Public Quests are repeatable and start again very quickly after they finish. The game also keep track of something they call influence which is raised for an area by doing public quests in that area. So really, even if the exp is split, it doesn't hurt since more people means they go faster. The other place open groups works very well is in Open-World RvR which is VERY well done in WAR. Which again, even if the exp is split the more you have the more you kill so the split exp evens out.

      For the RvR example, imagine there's a 40 on 40 battle going on. Very common in WAR. If you're solo you only get exp and kill counts for the ones you literally had a part in killing. But in the open groups, you get kills for your buddy next to you, both in exp and in terms of your kill count (which is used in some quests and for in-game achievements).

  6. Another game that doesn't get it... by ivan256 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "PvP is a much more important part of..."

    Ok, so they got a focus group together, and looked on the internet, and people said "More, better PvP!"...

    Too bad the niche hardcore players are the only people who speak up in those forums. Here's a big hint to everybody making this type of game: All those casual players that make Warcraft and Diablo crazy, stupid successful.... They play for the co-op and social aspects. They don't PvP. People who post on internet forums and create feature wishlists for these types of games (probably 90+% of the people who read this) aren't representative of the bulk of players no matter how vocal they are, or how important they think they are. If you cater to those players, and "being the next WoW" (in terms of paying playerbase) is your goal, you will fail.

    1. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by DeadManCoding · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Damn, it's been too long since I got mod points, otherwise you'd be +5 Insightful right now... WoW appeals to casuals, hence the reason that it's the biggest MMO out there, and quite possibly ever.

      --
      "The only constant in the universe is change." - Unknown author
    2. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by loom_weaver · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You do realize that Mythic is directly targeting those who like to PvP. That percentage of the market is much less than PvE'ers but it exists. Think of all the FPS out there.

      One way to imagine WAR is a FPS MMORPG.

      I played DAoC quite a bit and I think Mythic got the PvE/RvR balance right in that game. I spent most of my time in PvE but when I felt competitive I had a decent PvP game to partake in.

      WAR is not designed to be the next WoW.

    3. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by CogDissident · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And if warhammer gets all the hardcore players, it will "still" be profitable. And the casuals of WoW will be happy because they don't have to deal with as many "hardcore" jerks.

      You don't have to "beat" WoW to win, you just have to make a game that has a profit margin. And having a devoted fanbase of people who are shown to stick around is a good way to ensure this.

    4. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by CodeBuster · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please MOD the parent up.

      I also played DAoC right up until the ill-fated Trials of Atlantis (TOA) expansion (Mythic made the mistake with TOA of tying PvP success directly to PvE and by the time they realized their mistake and done something to correct it they had lost too many players and now it is only about 50,000 or so really hard core PvP players left) and it really did have some great features and good ideas. For a while there back in 2001-2003 they really had the best game going in the MMORPG space.

      WAR will be more successful if they can successfully differentiate themselves from WoW and Realm vs Realm (RvR) and PvP, which WoW has basically fumbled, is the best way that they can do that. I will probably give WAR a try not because I am huge Warhammer fan, but because I remember the good times in DAoC and hope that Mythic will get it right from the start this time (using the lessons that they learned from DAoC).

      Although, personally I would have preferred a more open ended and generic MMORPG type game where pre-conceived storylines and areas (from the Warhammer world in this case) do not intrude upon the gameplay. It would be far more interesting to start with an original world, drawing upon classic fantasy elements but not completely out in left field (i.e. use classic fantasy gaming elements and memes established by LOTR, D&D, and other popular fantasy novels but in a new setting) and let the actions of the players actually build the world as the game progresses.

      It is not always necessary to have a pre-existing brand tie-in and it can infact hurt more than it helps (by drawing in lots of Warhammer fanbois who are just playing because its Warhammer and not because they are really interested in a good MMORPG experience). Plus, the publishers (EA\Mythic in this case) have to pay licensing fees or cut in the creator for a share of the profits (Games Workshop in this case) for the use of their copyrights. It seems like every MMORPG is a brand tie-in these days (Star Wars, Warhammer, World of Warcraft, etc) and sometimes (most times? WoW being a notable exception) the brand tie-in actually hurts rather than helps the long term viability of the game.

    5. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by tnk1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have to "beat" WoW to win, you just have to make a game that has a profit margin.

      Yes and no.

      Do you know why so many MMOs are really getting the green light and are being developed these days? Because the business types think that all they have to do is build an MMO and the money will come.

      For them, a profit that technically indicates "success" does not mean complete success. If they don't get a knockout, they will lose interest, and eventually the game will disappoint everyone, particularly the hardcore players, because you will need to keep generating content and hyping the game for years.

      These guys want MMO action figures, card games, board games and everything WoW has. If WoW remains the only MMO to be able to accomplish these things, the MMO genre will crash really, really hard when Blizzard finally loses interest in WoW.

    6. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by Liquidrage · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hopefully you read this because I'll expand.

      The scenarios that are WAR's versions of battlegrounds are more like a mini game. A way to level if you want. Etc..

      However, the real focus of WAR is open-world-RvR. Very large scale battles. Now, the amazing thing, is these do exist in game. Huge battles. Where you spend hours and hours with 40 people on yuor side killing 40 people on the other side. The front lines shift and change.

      The reason this works is there are goals in open-world RvR. If you're familar with WoW you might recall old RvR like Tarren Mills style or the Xroads in the barrens. In WAR there are lots of places like this. And you want to control them. You need to control them. Merchants that have items you want are in them. To open certain content your side needs to control certain ones. Not to mention your guilds can control and take over and defends keeps.

      So yes, the scenarios are just like WoW's battlegrounds. A little better integrated into the game, but similar enough. However the true RvR is the open-world battles and they've managed to pull it off.

    7. Re:Another game that doesn't get it... by Knara · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd mod you up if I could.

      The only reason I'm giving this game a try (after the requisite MMO release buffer time) is because Mythic did incredibly fun things with regard to PvE and PvP balance in DAoC. I still regard nights playing in Thid as some of my favorite gameplay experiences, hands down.

  7. Yep by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While there is certainly nothing wrong with developers targeting Linux, Linux heads need to stop pretending like they are a major market. Linux on the desktop isn't all that common, and Linux on the desktop in a gaming situation is extremely rare. Thus this idea that developers really need to be targeting Linux is silly. To me it seems Linux is finding it's stronghold in business type markets. That's wonderful, but not a target for games.

  8. WoW by Krneki · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People only want to enjoy the game, not get their char ganked by some "PvP elite".

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:WoW by Hydian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know this is /. but you could try reading the article. You'll only get ganked if you go someplace (well marked) that has RvR active.

  9. WoW got 10 million with Mac by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    WoW has got 10 million with the mac and just google for 'wow wine' to see just how active a subject it is.

    Blizzard apparently cares enough to have reversed its stance on Wine as being a hacker tool earlier. If the market is so small they could have simply kept it banned but they didn't. Explain please if they don't care about linux users.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  10. Re:My experience in beta by flitty · · Score: 3, Informative

    Me too. Playing in vista, my game would crash every half hour. In XP, it crashes once every 3-4 hours. Pq's are great, and the "chickening" of higher level players in lowbie zones is the best Idea i've seen (turning them into easily killable chickens). I think that will even add some "replayability" to the game (playing zones you enjoyed a lot but leveld out of), which isn't common for an MMO.

    --
    Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
  11. Right by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tell that to every korean MMORPG that has PvP.

    The problem is that western MMORPG's do PvP wrong, they do open world PvP and that just doesn't belong in a level based game. Warhammer does things different, far closer to Guild Wars. Wether it will work is anybodies guess, but PvP done well with no ganking could easily attract a large enough userbase to make the game succesfull.

    Anyway, it is not like the industry needs another PvE MMORPG.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  12. Re:But is it like WoW? by k_187 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you didn't like WoW's battlegrounds and/or Arena, probably not. The PvE side of the game is fun, but definitely not the focus. I'd argue that the PvE side of WAR is even more grindy than WoW's since it has a definite end. WAR is really the PvP lover's WoW in a lot of ways.

    That said, I think its a blast.

    --
    11 was a racehorse
    12 was 12
    1111 Race
    12112
  13. simulation != game by WinPimp2K · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And your laundry list of "features" pretty well demonstrates the difference. People play MMOs to have fun with other players. What you would make a good solo game for a micromanager.

    Just consider your "ecology"
    So what happens when a griefer guild shows up and slaughters all the wolves and bears in your forest? How do prevent this or can they even?

    economies: much as I hate to admit it (I like the idea of a player economy as well), player based economies are actually very destructive to game enjoyment. The "Auction Hall" global market with instant results just provides massive encouragement for goldselling services and the resulting rampant inflation. The more resources and money supply is controlled by the publisher, the more the econommy winds up in control of the goldsellers.

    If it is so darn "not difficult", why haven't you written your own game and have a few hundred thousand subscribers already?

    However, the idea of allowing players to have a real impact on the game world is a good one, but once again darn near impossible in an MMO. Making real changes requires that new content be constantly generated to replace that which is no langer valid. Example: THe players have finally ended the zombie chicken infestation at Farmer Brown's. No longer will zombie chickens trouble the farm. Ever. So what new content do you propose for the beginning characters? Perhaps they could work on the rat infestation over at Farmer Smith's? What if someone gives Farmer Smith a pregnant cat(reproducing)? Oh the ecological horrors - plus the destruction of more content intended for beginning players.

    Just ramp up those examples for "end game" content and you get a glimmer of the problem. It just takes too long to come up with new storylines/adventures. So players making real changes in games like this will be best done as solo games.

    Or the games will have to have multiple "sub-games" built into them to keep folks occupied. (See Eve Online) which does have a failry robust and involved (although unfortunately corrupt) economy and PvP system.

    --

    You either believe in rational thought or you don't
    1. Re:simulation != game by drc500free · · Score: 2, Interesting

      economies: much as I hate to admit it (I like the idea of a player economy as well), player based economies are actually very destructive to game enjoyment. The "Auction Hall" global market with instant results just provides massive encouragement for goldselling services and the resulting rampant inflation. The more resources and money supply is controlled by the publisher, the more the econommy winds up in control of the goldsellers.

      Puzzle Pirates has a great economy, which is *COMPLETELY* player run other than the sources and sinks. It requires design and balance, not slapping an auction house down on an existing looting system.

    2. Re:simulation != game by leoboiko · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what happens when a griefer guild shows up and slaughters all the wolves and bears in your forest? How do prevent this or can they even?

      What prevents real-life griefers from doing so? For one thing it's a massive task, not easily accomplished by twenty or thirty people (even if they're expert hunters). Another thing is that they would attract attention from local police, then armed militia, and in most places armed militia is more combat-effective than any civilian organization. Just implement that in-game. And if a faction does manage to overcome armed opposition and the sheer amplitude and execute such an amazing feat, then I want to see the ecology ruin and the local economy plunge. Just make it easy to regenerate scenario procedurally (the nethack approach -- things may die, but then you just play again with new things). If the players managed to ruin the whole world, why not have creator gods come up with a new one? Why not challenge these players to destroy the new one too, patching the game to be less and less exploitable -- wouldn't it be much more rewarding to the griefer guild to be known as destroyers of worlds than "those guys who narf n00bs in the town"? Hire some professional writers to come up with convincing explanations, the possibilities are endless.

      I know, most gamers are power trippers and your level 99 "hero" needs to be the Strongest Creature on Earth and single-handled trample entire societies and gamers would oppose to be less powerful than guards. I for one wouldn't mind less powerful characters in a more immersive world. Hell, I bet I'd feel more powerful if I could somehow affect the world, however slightly.

      If it is so darn "not difficult", why haven't you written your own game and have a few hundred thousand subscribers already?

      Er, because it takes hundreds of people and thousands of dollars to put a 3D MMO online? I did experiment with roguelikes; I hacked a bare-bones ecosystem in a weekend in Ruby, and now I'm (leisurely) playing with fractal terrain in Scheme. By now I'm convinced a simulation-centric (as opposed to stats-growing--centric) MMORPG is feasible; it just wasn't tried yet.

      --
      Prescriptive grammar:linguistics :: alchemy:chemistry. Stop being a nazi and learn some science.
    3. Re:simulation != game by Jack9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Another thing is that they would attract attention from local police, then armed militia, and in most places armed militia is more combat-effective than any civilian organization.

      If you want players to be forest rangers, how do they keep track of how many of each animal is left and what do they care since they have to go to bed sometime?

      Right, so they better be invincible super-intelligent NPC guards defending those bears to:
      1. Not be kited with a snare or against a sprint
      2. Kill in a single blow
      3. Never miss
      4. Know which animals to protect and adjust their pathing accordingly ... Fuck it, if(bear.isLastBear){ bear.invincible = true; }

      I don't think you have thought this through or played enough MMORPGs. Not sure which.

      If the players managed to ruin the whole world, why not have creator gods come up with a new one?

      Once it's announced or discovered that a world can be reset, there will be entire guilds dedicated to doing it as fast as possible. If you can get hundreds of people playing in Battlegrounds for fun, or 160 ppl for a single epic dragon in WoW, how long would it take for a couple guilds to exterminate every living thing within the majority of zones? (or whatever the reset trigger is) Oops reset! Your base evaporates as the casual players realize their playtime is effectively wasted at random intervals that are ever shortening.

      It's much more fun to think about how other people are doing it wrong, when you don't understand why other ways don't work. No offense.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    4. Re:simulation != game by Zaphod-AVA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just consider your "ecology"
      So what happens when a griefer guild shows up and slaughters all the wolves and bears in your forest? How do prevent this or can they even?

      -Then the game spawns quests to reward players to repopulate the forest. Go capture wolves and bears and release them in the depopulated forest.

      economies: much as I hate to admit it (I like the idea of a player economy as well), player based economies are actually very destructive to game enjoyment. The "Auction Hall" global market with instant results just provides massive encouragement for goldselling services and the resulting rampant inflation. The more resources and money supply is controlled by the publisher, the more the econommy winds up in control of the goldsellers.

      -Only when the game spawns wealth and creatures infinitely, in an open ended way. If there is a closed cycle economy, the system doesn't create inflation.

      However, the idea of allowing players to have a real impact on the game world is a good one, but once again darn near impossible in an MMO. Making real changes requires that new content be constantly generated to replace that which is no langer valid. Example: THe players have finally ended the zombie chicken infestation at Farmer Brown's. No longer will zombie chickens trouble the farm. Ever. So what new content do you propose for the beginning characters?

      -How about guarding chicken deliveries?

      Just ramp up those examples for "end game" content and you get a glimmer of the problem. It just takes too long to come up with new storylines/adventures. So players making real changes in games like this will be best done as solo games.

      -The future of MMO's will include dynamic world simulations. It is only a matter of time.

  14. Compelling PvP by nate+nice · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Compelling PvP cannot exist without these 3 things:

    Conflict, consequence and subjectivity.

    Players must have a struggle and fight for something in the game. This creates a conflict that players will get involved in and fight over.

    Players must feel repercussions for their decisions. Jumping and ganking the wrong people will result in total destruction of everything you and your friends have built by the community you have violated.

    Finally, the sides must not be clearly defined at the beginning of the game. Your allies shouldn't be a gameplay decision based on what side of a coin you flip. Alliances need to be built out of a common desire to survive. You cannot possibly have a real hatred for an enemy just because your predisposed to them. But more importantly, you are forced to ally with those you may not want to because you are on the same side.

    These static gameplay issues are the same reason WAR will be as interesting as WoW in terms of PvP and that is to say it won't be. Well, it will be fun objective based, tactical PvP.

    But the game lacks *real* conflict, any type of consequence and subjectivity.

    --
    "If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer ..."
  15. Would that translate well? by decipher_saint · · Score: 4, Funny

    You enter Games Workshop

    You encounter Level 1 Nerd

    Punch Nerd (5 damage)

    Loot Nerd

    Received unpainted minis, bag of dice (commom), potion of asthma healing (inhaler).

    Sorry... what were we talking about again?

    --
    crazy dynamite monkey
  16. Impressions from the closed and open betas by Fross · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was in the WAR closed beta for a couple of months, and now in the open beta. Much about the game has already been covered so I'll skip it, but I have a few things to say.

    First of all, I do love the game.

    WoW did well with a (relatively) unknown lore and translated it into something sophisticated that touched the whole game. WAR does the same with its great lore set. Architecture, monsters, speech text, the ways the classes play, it all fits very well.

    The graphics in the closed beta were bad, texture wise at least. In the open beta, they're significantly better. Hardly any graphic settings are changeable in game currently, so I figure they had a crappy default on the closed beta, a slightly better one now, and when you can tweak it to use your full system, it will be able to rival AoC.

    The main point about WAR is, it is two games. It is a PvE game - you can do quests, public quests, instances, raids and never even go RvR enabled, if you so choose. It also has a full RvR game - scenarios, RvR enabled areas, RvR quests (from doing PvE activities within RvR areas, so actually killing players as an objective), a beautifully designed tiered RvR hierarchy, the lot. You can sign up for a scenario at Rank 1 and go right into PvP if you so choose, never looking back. Of course, the strength is when you do a little of both and have a lot of fun.

    So far my impression is the RvR stuff is stronger, but the PvE is pretty damn good too.

    Crafting, I've had a play with. I'll need more of a look. It feels a bit limited compared to WoW's "become the best blacksmith and make a fortune" ideal, but both innovative and with a fair element of chance that things won't come out as planned.

    The interface was great in the closed beta, but not much handholding. They've added that in now and it's easy to get around and the early quests seem as graceful a learning curve as WoWs, but perhaps even more fun - more dark humour and some cool ones (shooting ballistas at NPCs etc)

    It's worth mentioning again the classes and the beautiful way some of them work. Bright Wizards and Disciples of Khaine are my favourites. The first is a caster who the more spells they unleash, the more damage and crit they get, but the more chance to blow themselves up (and their teammates) too. The Disciple of Khaine is a healer, but their mana is generated through doing melee damage combos. No more standing at the back spamming Renew. It encourages, nay, requires, strategy rather than tactics.

    Speaking of strategy, tanks intercepting attacks make formation hunting *very* powerful. The healer is hiding behind the tank? You can't hit him, target him, lob a fireball, chances are the tank intercepts it. And you can't just run through him. Finally! :)

    In my second ever scenario, while a large skirmish was going on, a few of us outflanked the enemy and *ripped them apart*. The way it should be.

    Overall the beta launch has been smooth. Even in Europe, where I play. I was in the WoW open beta as well, and it was nowhere near as smooth as this. People do forget that, a couple of years on. It's been playable almost all the time, which hey, is pretty good for a beta.

    Speaking of beta, one thing I was impressed with was during closed beta, the level of interaction required from players. Lots of surveys on performing actions (how was that last quest, last scenario, etc) and looks like the developers have been very good at picking things up.

    Overall, I think it's great. May not be for everyone, but I'm having a lot of fun.

    1. Re:Impressions from the closed and open betas by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Great summary!

      Some things I enjoyed:

      1.) There are no utility classes. Healers are still there to heal, but actually have to get involved with attacking skills in order to build up higher and better healing spells.

      This sort of keeps healers and other casters from hiding behind tanks the whole time. They can if they still want to, but if they want more powerful heals, they'll have to actually attack.

      My warrior priest, for instance, had to be in the front-lines, dishing out damage while also being able to heal. I was still able to heal without attacking, but my heals became more and more powerful as I attacked more.

      2.) The number of ways that you can gain experience. You're not limited to just PvE grinding. You can gain experience (and influence) through Public Quests, renown points through Scenarios, and just do standard questing. It never feels like a grind, and you always feel rewarded for your actions and if you get bored of doing it one way, you can try another.

      The beauty is that you won't even have to spend hours looking for a group to run an instance. I noticed this in several MMOs. With WAR, you can walk right into a public quest and join in without being in a party.

      3.) Since the object of the game is destroying the other faction's city (pillage and burn!), there is a far greater incentive to see other players get better gear as well.

      4.) Tome of Knowledge. Seriously, it's a huge asset. Sometimes doing even the stupidest things may unlock something from your journal. Dying multiple times in Scenarios, for instance, gets you titles such as "The Anguished", "Snuffed", etc.

      It's nice how the lore is built right into the tome, and how you can keep track of your kills, your achievements, and your quests all in one book.

      5.) No redundant classes. Every class is unique and each faction has different classes. It really makes experiencing each faction worthwhile.

      There are still some minor animation bugs, such as watching a Shadow Warrior release an arrow makes me want to gouge my eyes out. But the attention to detail is magnificent. Even your "starter sword" looks very unique and textured if you zoom into it.

  17. Re:PvP, RvR, PvE... by WallyDrinkBeer · · Score: 2, Informative

    RvR (Realm vs Realm) is just PvP.

    Each "side" (Order v Chaos) is called a realm. The idea is that one half of the server is fighting the other, not just player v player.

    To accomplish this they have big server wide objectives, like capturing a Keep or destroying a city.

    Having said that, it's more of a marketing line, it's really just PvP.

  18. My observations... by huddles · · Score: 2, Informative

    I was in the closed beta briefly, and have been playing the open beta since it started. So far, my observations are:

    • The game feels very linear. Actually, it doesn't feel linear, it *is* linear. There is a well-defined path from where you start to where you need to go next. Sure, you can travel to the other starting zones, but that's just one more direct path to the last tier.
    • For a given career, all the gear looks basically the same. This is especially true for the two careers I've played the most--Zealot and Witch Elf. Upgrades look exactly like your old armor.
    • Regarding variety, some careers are very limited in what kind of gear they use. For instance, Witch Elves dual wield daggers, period. Zealots uses daggers, period. Etc.
    • There's nothing that really sets one [DPS|tank|healer] career apart from the others. In Wow, shamans have totems, priests have shackles, mages have polymorph, etc. Nothing like that, really, in WAR.
    • Somewhat related to the above point, Rune Priest (dwarf healing career) and Zealot (Chaos healing career) are functionally equivalent--just the names of spells are different. There are other pairings, too, for instance in the tank careers.
    • Cultivation is pretty cool, or at least pretty novel. However, it should have been a crafting profession instead of a gathering profession.
    • Crafting is pretty much non-existent. You have Apothecary and Talisman-making, and that's it. And your characters can't take two gathering professions--you're limited to one crafting and one gathering.
    • The game seems to be very much *not* dependent on gear, which I suppose is a good thing. But it also takes away the joy of coming across a good find.

    Overall I like the game, but it's really only for PvP. If you're not into the PvP in other games, there's really nothing for you in WAR. Being so heavily PvP-based, though, Mythic has made sure all of the classes have a decent survivability.

    The pace of the game is very fast--on my healer, just a few seconds of not casting is enough to fully replenish my action points (WAR's version of mana/rage/energy). The fast pace makes the RvR scenarios very chaotic at times. I suppose you could say that WAR is to MMOs what Diablo was to RPGs.

    There are a few other things about the game I don't care for, but I think these they will eventually end up tweaking. For instance, the mail system is a pain to use, and there's no auto-loot feature.

  19. Re:PvP, RvR, PvE... by ZzzzSleep · · Score: 3, Informative

    Realm vs Realm. I think it's meant to be PvP on a much larger scale.

  20. Re:Don't bother with Warhammer, play Conan instead by T.E.D. · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've played both games quite a bit, and I think this is a great post. Just reverse the logic on everything he said, and its 100% accurate!