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.

Comments

Re:Attention developers;

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Attention developers;

[RichMan]

WoW works on Linux fine.

Although I have given up WoW for Guild Wars now.

Thoughts

[abigsmurf]

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.

Re:Attention developers;

[edremy]

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?

Warhammer?

[peter_gzowski]

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

Re:Warhammer?

[Drakin020]

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

World of Warhammer Onlinecraft.

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

What I want is more simulation

[leoboiko]

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.

Re:What I want is more simulation

[PlatyPaul]

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.

Re:What I want is more simulation

[Duradin]

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.

Re:What I want is more simulation

[Chris Burke]

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.

Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules..

[Liquidrage]

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.

Another game that doesn't get it...

[ivan256]

"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.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it...

[loom_weaver]

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.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it...

[CodeBuster]

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.

Re:Attention developers;

[JCSoRocks]

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!

simulation != game

[WinPimp2K]

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.

Re:Attention developers;

[Lulfas]

So .0006 of Wow players. Aka: insignificant.

Would that translate well?

[decipher_saint]

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?

Re:Attention developers;

[not already in use]

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.

Impressions from the closed and open betas

[Fross]

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.

Re:Attention developers;

[pyrr]

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.

Re:Attention developers;

[Trevelyan]

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.