WAR (Warhammer Online)

Originally posted by Meridion

Originally posted by markoraos

Originally posted by Meridion 

Ok, examples are always a good thing right?

LotRO. Again. PvMP in LotRO, you might or might not know it, is centered around taking keeps in one zone of the map by large numbers. Fights around the 100, 150 players mark are happening regularely during peak hours.

Oh I like PvM in LOTRO - actually that's one thing I would like to see in WAR as well - done properly of course.

1. Exactly like you describe, some enthusiasts organize these raids, provide vent/teamspeak, and lead, divert or focus forces, ressources for keep defense devices etc.

2. they are great fun, but do not make - exactly like in WAR - any difference to the game world.

So what we just don't want to confuse here is "effort" and "meaning". Just because seomthing takes manpower and skill doesn't make it any more meaningful.

Keep sieges and open RvR DO make a difference in the world. 1) It is a matter of the tweaking I've been talking about. It'll get there don't you fear. 2) Just the fact that our faction holds most keeps and BOs in the open world DOES influence the ardour players are going at it in scenarios. I've seen it happen - morale plays a huge part in this game.

Another example.

The notorious WoW. Organizing a raid that is well enough equipped to engage in the hardest endgame instances need as LOT of effort, manpower and dedication. Does that make it any more meaningful? No. If you grind instance A 2 times or 200 does not affect anyone.

So the term "meaningful" as I have used it here and in my various other posts is the "meaningful" of EvE, the meaningful of "if I destroy this PoS and take this system I will control this cluster for maybe many months to come, I will be able to prevent trading between my enemies, I will gain power and ressources, the name of my alliance will be known because we as a whole control the playing experience of the ones playing in or near our controlled areas".

Sorry mate, but my alliance "The Mantle" FYI is very meaningful, exactly in that sense on our server. My small but "leet" guild is meaningful as well because whenever there's more than 2 of us in a scenario Order wins 95% of the time. I am meaningful because I get regularly invited for all keep sieges to main tank and my guild is meningful because everybody knows we mean business and can crack a joke while at it. Your point?

This does not include hardcore, it does not include many many playing hours, it does not even include hardened battles. You can mine 15 units of the cheapest ore and put it into the alliance hangar, and you know you have contributed to something that will influence the course of conflict in the game world.

That's what you get in WAR as well. I always play for my faction but I admit I've rarely met people who think like that... yet. However just a few days ago I met a SW in a scenario who gave me a blue helm for my level as a present. Man, I really felt proud to be a member of Order. That's what counts - I could have gone and sieged a 1000 keeps at that moment. That's what counts - morale, gumption, chutzpah, whatever... and not your crappy xp and rp grind mentality you've picked up from god knows where.

I'm not going to spin you stories here... but here's one: Me and my wife (SM and BW) entered talabec dam scenario. We realized we're the only ones on the Order side and she said "oh shit, this ain't good lets go". I said "no way - not one step back". Us 2 managed to hold off 8-9 destros zerging our objective long enough for our team to arrive and steal the bomb. Total and absolute massacre - Order won 500 - 50ish in that scenario. Those 10 minutes alone would have been worth the purchase price of the box for me.

In WAR, you can organize a raid, take every keep there is in a rush, be glorious, witty, organized and battle hardened, and John Smith from the enemy faction will shrug and click on "Tor Anroc - Join"

Endgame zone control mechanics are still being tweaked. It is all about finding the right balance between risks/rewards. Completely trivial if the will is there.

I've been very generous with my images *g*, I hope you get what I mean _now_

M

 

 

As most of the time, I'll point towards Kylerans post.

------

WAR is by no means a bad game, just what you described is way, WAY behind what I would expect from a competetive RVR game. It's artificial in a sense of "no musts".

Your guild might mean business, you might mean business, you might be as hard boild as a 40k space marine, I don't know. What I do know, every destruction player out there can sit back, shrug and play the whole game PvE or scenarioing. When he's in a scenario and sees a guild group, he can laugh and leave, without any penalty, if all the ground is lost, he can still PvE and RvR and scenario with close to no penalty.

I think you get the drift, I get yours. It's all a matter of taste, and WAR, in this respect, does not need "some" tweaking to get "meaning", it would need a whole revamp. Not in a sense of harsher death penalty, but in a sense of a huge LOT harsher territory control penalty. I said this before, like -50% XP, +250% vendor price increase, PQs closed down when territory is lost.

Or short - Make RvR unignorable, make WAR unignorable. If tanks are rolling through your village and all houses are burning you can't say "no sorry, I'm gonna go harvest wheat now or go hunting".

That's what I was expecting and that's the image that was induced by Mythic in various statements.

M

I followed WAR for a couple years and I never got that image. I envisioned something more like DAoC, but add in the features Mythic said WAR would have. However, what you proposed sounds interesting. I wasn't motivated to advance in the game, because there was nothing really pulling me at T4. It sounded like you're going to do the same thing you were doing in your teens, just with different scenery and more skills. The PvP was just too fustrating to endure this as the grind and then as the end game.

I agree AOC will never do 200 v 200 or 400 v 400 for that mater but as far as i can see either will WAR with so many players leaving. I hope it does and can become a very good game as i hope AOC does also but i can't see it happening for WAR for some reason.

No. This is the first game ever that really made me pissed at wasting money on the box.

Originally posted by markoraos

Originally posted by Meridion

Originally posted by markoraos 

(...)

The consequences of  WOW's flawedness combined with its popularity are very evident on this site. 1/2 of the critics hate WAR because it is not similar enough to WoW (whether they know it or not. A lot keep trying to play WAR like WoW even though they are trying to get away with it, simply because they've been conditioned that way through years of that brainwashing) and the other 1/2 hate WAR because it is too much like WoW. Once you clear that POS of a game out of your mind you'll be able to see WAR for what it is.

As a long-time game collector and student of game theory etc I can say that there are only 3 mmos out there right now who've hit the mark regarding what mmos as a game form are and should be: EVE , GW and WAR. The rest is dross - lots of "content" and no point to it whatsoever.

(...)

That's just untrue, I can't speak for the whole crowd of leavers, but the ones I know and talked to left not because of WoW-comparisons but because of unfulfilled expectations, regardless of their status as ex-WoW, non-ex-WoW players. As I said before, Mythic didn't lie, but many expected WAR to be more meaningful, more "effortful" and basically more centered around ongoing conflict, which is at the moment, just not there...

Barnett focused this btw, I myself have been following WAR for over 30 months now and what was announced early as "the next coming of action-centered PvP" pretty much changed to the 50/50 PvE/PvP game we now see...

As for hitting the mark in the MMO department, I'd say this is not clearly defined. What is a good MMORPG? At the end of the day, the only real standard is "is this game fun?" and that depends heavily on what you want to get out of a game. LoTRO for example was spot on concerning roleplaying, so if you're a roleplayer, this game is an AAA, if you're an achiever type, you will not last very long there.

M

 

 

Please do make your mind about what you want.

Sandbox.. more freedom, less classes , less linear progression.. pretty simple actually.

On the one hand you have a crowd of "sandbox" people who keep screaming about the game not giving you enough freedom... Right, it really doesnt give you much freedom, but hey war is a game for rvr'ers they have to do balance somehow right? *snicker*

and then the same crowd goes totally bonkers when the game doesn't hold their hand all the time.

Huh? I think you got that flipped around... sandoxers like myself DO NOT want our hand held... in fact this game does it alot, levels... classes... linear progression... red dots on minimaps to tell you where things are.. no exploration really. No no, i think you are confused with the above part.

My very own and personal experience is that if you want a meaningful RvR experience in this game you have to actually MAKE IT happen. On my server there are a few RvR enthusiasts who were dubbed "generals" by us casual crowd and we love them for it (Karak-Norn, order - you know who you are ) These are the people acually /tell ing people to join up for keep sieges and coordinating stuff. While I'm a casual I'll always go and help out with main tanking or whatever when that call comes up. I couldn't care less about xp or rp gain - I know where my priorities are: my realm and my buddies.

So... let me get this streight though... so... there is conflict right? Shouldnt that MAKE you get into it in a way? If this were so, many more people would be into open world pvp... but they arent, becuase scenarios are easy land for exp. You can say theres conflict there but there really isnt, its just a fps.. and meaninless.. no point.. just as another poster said... and hes completely right.

Long answer short, if there truely is a conflict.. and capitals cities were truely endangered.. you wouldnt have to MAKE it happen.. people would... btw.. i know what you are trying to do.. this isnt one of thos "oh but you want your hand held/" type of arguements... thats different.

I really do not know what are you arsing about. On the one hand you want a "meaningful and engrossing experience" and on the other you want the game to lead you to it. Scenarios are "horrible" and yet you keep playing them thus depleting open RvR from players. What gives?

Hate to tell you, open pvp is screwed up.. due to scenarios... it creates a teeter toter effect, there isnt a true conflict just a back and forth battle, and people wondering where everyone is.

Make up your mind. Are you the one playing the game or do you want to be played by it? If you are really the "hardcore" quality player then prove it and make a change. Don't come here QQ -ing that everybody is in scenarios while you yourself make no effort whatsoever to go open RvR. KMake an effort to read the quest descriptions and PQ tome entries if you're into PvE - don't cry murder because you're not forced to do so  Don't be pathetic, please.

There really is a fine line to what you are asking, again... having your hand held by the game like the pve quests are vs, having a conflict than makes you get involved are two seperate things.. i trust you to understand that without my explaining it... i hope...

Just my two cents really...

The game is far from what was advertised,WAR is a like a jack of all Trade master of none.Secondly Mythic need to fix those CTD with patch 1.1 or it will be a massive exodus.

Originally posted by vidribbin

Originally posted by PyroMod

As a poster above has said WAR has made me appreciate AOC for at least trying something different. I was totally let down by the game. I was let down by AOC also but after playing WAR it might be worth going back to have a look at AOC as at least that had tons of potential. Graphics, Sounds & Quests were top notch in that game it was just lacking in other areas.

Oh well lets hope one of the games coming out soon can improve the genre.

 

with age of conoan , yes it looks good but you wont ever get 200 peeps verses 200 peeps, and thats a fact

warhammer can do 400v400 i have seen it

......pow pow..............war  will be epic

 

Can aoc do 40v40  smoothly really they can't without a supercomputer  NO

 nuff said go to a game that can...pow pow  war

 

 

 

Instead of a huge world with massive open RvR battles I got...

Scenariohammer~~

Choose from three detailed maps for loads of action!

Three tiny maps, less than 99% of the games content, are getting 99% of the play in this game.  That is epic fail.

Making new servers with no scenarios or having a huge nerf of xp and reknown would be a start, but it's almost too late.  They are combining servers from lack of players already.  I doubt they will open new servers.  And most of the people left in this game are the people that just play scenarios all day anyway.  Nerfing the one thing they actually play in this game wouldn't go over well.