All Posts by heerobya

Originally posted by Dkevlar

 

war better at launch than wow? maybe yes. thank god. not that wow was bad, but it is about time that a game at launch capitalizes on what wow ended up bringing.

war better than wow as game? debatable.

war is for sure a better mass pvp game. Might be a better overall pvp game. Will be a worst half /half pvp/pve game and well behind pve.

Not that this is a shortcoming when we consider that the aim of war devs was to make a  mass pvp game.They looked at the market and picked an area to settle, and explore. they achieved their objective. that also means that they are more limited in the pve since t is not the objective of warhammer to offer state of the art pve. 

blizzard's objective is to cather for all market segments. their game offers then above average quality in pvp and  good  pve. - for he simple fact that the casual crowd preffers randomly to do pve and pvp.

Both games will survive well. war will get a strong mass pvp audience, wow will keep cathering for the people that like pve and preffer non hardcore  pvp.

any way both games will continue to evolve . 

Good post.

Having been in closed beta for months, and playing OB and PW and now playing "live" since Sunday CE-Preorder head start...

It is my opinion that WAR is quite balanced and polished and I have yet to run into any real bugs since Sunday... So, thusly I must conclude that WAR launch will be > then the WoW launch was. I didn't start playing WoW till the end of the first week it was out, mostly due to the fact I couldn't log on and/or stay logged on for too long.

As for the longevity of WAR... the PvP hardcore will enjoy this game, thus far seems very balanced, you can level completely through PvP and it's very addictive.

I'm also a big fan of PvE dungeon crawling and yes, even raiding... so I will miss that aspect of MMO while playing WAR (mostly, there are some PvE type dungeons/raids) but WotLK will satisfy my desire to raid/dungeon crawl.

Thankfully I'll have WAR to satisfy my hungry PvP appetite.

We'll see if I get to max Rank in WAR by Nov 13th and if it offers enough to sustain my subscription.

Originally posted by fingis

All WAR has going for it is large scale combat.

It lacks a lot of combat features that WoW has like stealth, mind control, fear, intercept, blink and so on. It doesn't have the RP features like LOTRO has where you can customize your toons outfit and such.

So the only reason to play war is large scale RvR.

So, my question is: how many people can be in combat at the same time? Is it unlimited? I've seen videos where it looks like twenty people are fighting at the same time. Has anyone actually been in a large fight? More than AV? AV has 40 to a side.

Can hundreds of people fight in WAR at the same time?

 

By "lacking" overpowered features like stealth, mind control, fear, intercept, blink, and so on they games PvP is a LOT more balanced, fast paces, and fun. BTW there are lesser versions of CC in WAR designed to aid and assist in combat, not be a one-trick pony like in WoW.

It does indeed have the RP features to customize your toons outfit with dyes, hundreds of armor sets, and the Trophy system.

I have seen and participated in 40 vs 40 ish fights in the open world (non instanced) and I have seen (and heard from fellow beta testers) 100 vs 100 or more fights over Tier 4 fortresses / keeps.

Besides, AV has hardly any PvP in it because of poor design. It's a PvE race to kill some named Mob at the end. Trust me <---- exalted with Frostwolf Clan.

Oi.. MMORPG.com has a troll infestation... I wonder if they make any pesticides for trolls?

I think Mark "hit the nail on the head" as they say.

I think he's right that the quote "failure" of AoC puts even more pressure on WAR to be the MMO that is finally successful enough to be a serious alternative for the WoW faithful.

I agree that if WAR does indeed flop, it's going to have a negative effect on the industry. Will any current AAA titles in development in NA cease production and closed down because of it? No I don't think so, but it'll definetly effect them.

On the flip side, if WAR is a great success it'll "prove" to the industry that another MMO can exist and be very prosperous in the post-WoW MMO marketplace. This should have a bolstering effect on many of the AAA titles currently in development.

One thing to note, if WAR fails it's not because of any outside factors... it'll be becuase of the game itself. It'll be because it doesn't live up to the hype and because it's too unpolished etc.

After being in closed beta for the past few months, I can say that I believe that game delivers on all that they have promised, that it is at a mostly polished state, and that it will be as successful as the hype builds it to be.

I think their goal of 1 million sustained subs is not at all out of the question, and thus it will be a great boost to the MMO market in general.

Originally posted by jat5560

I have read up on all the available material for this game and to me, it seems like its just 3 battlegrounds with some PvE stuff in the lower zones that lead you to the battles.  How long can someone constatly fight these battlegrounds before you say to yoursel.."ok, what's next?"

When I hear MMORPG I think about huge wide open worlds with tons of freedom to do whatever you want. I just don't see WAR fitting this model....

1. 30 + Scenarios (translation: over 30 WoW-type battleground)

2. Each zone has fully realized RvR content (translation: open world PvP with objectives and keeps/forts to conquer and control)

3. Two massive capital cities to lay siege to (translation: two massive capital cities to lay siege to)

4. Hundreds of Public Quests (translation: hundreds of open world group-oriented mini-world encounters)

5. 30+ zones full of PvE and PvP content (translation: 30+ zones full of PvE and PvP content)

and so forth...

How you can "read" information like this and say that there are "just 3 battlegrounds with some PvE stuff in the lower zones" is totally beyond my ability to explain.

Originally posted by neorandom

no game has ever said here beta for us and we will let you keep your level 40 epic geared full aa chars, never happens, beta is for testing and making sure the game is ready for launch nothing more

Actually Ultima Online did allow beta testers to keep their characters went the game went live.

It was a disaster. All the new players were just being slaughtered right out of the box by the vets from Beta. You can't blame them, they were the first MMO but everyone else since has learned the lesson.

Originally posted by Enigma

Just because a MMO labels themselves as a sandbox does not make it the end all of MMOs.

Like I said in an earlier post:

50% of all sandbox MMOs Ive played were great

50% of all sandbox MMOs Ive played were shitty.

It depends on how that MMO handles the sandbox experience

This post should have ended this thread. Bravo Enigma.

It's a matter of personal preference. Some people like story and direction and just play for fun etc. etc. while others like doing their own thing, going against the grain, making their own legacy etc. etc.

Blame Everquest for the "linear" direction of MMOs. UO vs. EQ and EQ won.

The bright wizard is suppose to be over the top and crazy with huge fireballs and explosions etc. etc. while the Sorceror(ess) is suppose to be more subtle since she/he is a Dark Elf, not a crazy human pyrcomaniac.

If you don't believe that, then blame it on the fact the Sorc. was added to the game a lot later, so maybe they haven't done all the animations yet.

Originally posted by altairzq 

So in time this will be the only difference. Looks like a very poor innovation to me. But it will be fun to find the best combinations for a while, until websites have got all of them.

So don't look them up.

I don't think anyone is forcing you to...

The interwebz sites like thottbot have ruined the MMO experience. It's hard to play a game about adventure and discovery if you have a step by step guide through everything.

It's funny how the best and only FFA PvP system to ever work correctly was 10 years ago with Ultima Online.

I guess I just view techincal support / bug lists as more then polite suggestions.

I just think it sends the wrong message to the players that they classify posts such as these as suggestions.

To me, suggestions would be ideas to change or modify the game for whatever reason. Where as bug fixes and technical problems are issues that need to be resolved because they take away from the playability of the title.

There is a difference, one that I believe is important to recognize.

Thanks for the additional linkage.

Am I the only one who thinks it is complete and total BS that Funcom would view contructive, well written and detailed posts such as these as simply suggestions?

I think it really boils down to the issue of communication from Funcom to their player base. Labeling technical support / bug fixes and "suggestions" really send a bad message to your players.

It's like saying, "we hear you, and we'll think about it, but implementing any/all of these fixes is not something that is high on our list of priorities."

That may not be the truth, but that is how I interpret their message.

What could be higher on their list of priorities then fixing the bugs/technical issues that players are complaining about?

Taken from http://forums.ageofconan.com/showthread.php?t=68535&page=3

So...

Let me get this straight. A list of bugs with the game, technical issues that need to be fixed for various aspects of the game to function correctly... are suggestions?

Suggestions? Are you kidding me? This offer a list of 67 bugs this poster has found, and the rest of the thread consists of players listing other annoying bugs they've encountered that didn't make the list.

Funcom considers bug reporting / technical support simply topics of SUGGESTION?

Well Funcom, here is a suggestion for you.

Fix the game, offer an extra month of free playtime (delay subscription start dates another month so you get two free months game time).

Think about it this way, you now have 60 million dollars (very rough estimate based off of Funcom saying they sold 1,000,000 copies at ~60 USD a pieace) and two months to fix the game and get things to the point they SHOULD have been at for release. Then you can start charging people the monthly fee.

The day a MMO dev team view technical issues / bug reports and merely player SUGGESTIONS is the day that you know without argument that something is screwed up.

Technical issues and bug reports are NOT suggestions, they are problems. They need to be fixed, not something to be lightly taken into consideration.

Seems the people who said "wait a few months to play" were 100% right.

WTF Funcom, WTF

I have to agree with what others have said-

Once WAR is released, you'll wish you never typed this post :)

And you won't care about coming back to the forums and correcting yourself, because you'll be too busy bashing skulls in Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning!

WAR is coming...

I must admit, it took me a good long time to download.

FYI I'm running Vista SP1.

Started the download, completed about 5-6 hours later. Download complete but button on launcher still says "Update" even though it says patch complete. So I exit the launcher, try to run it again. Tells me I need admin priveledges (funny because I'm only user and have full admin access {I work in IT}) so I right click and run as admin...

and it starts the download process all over again.

HA!

So I let it run while I slept, played a little bit before work, came home and played 5-6 hours straight.

Really is a good game, but I know I'm going to need to find a guild STAT in order to stay interested. 

I'd tell ya what server I'm on, but I can't remember.

Originally posted by pyrofreak

Dear fanboys:

Whenever a remotely negative post about your favorite game comes up, do us all a favor and fuck off. Seriously, there is no reason why a guy can ask for advice about a different game to play and get a thread nearly entirely consisting of replies of why the game he doesn't like is great.

/bump for Great Justice

It's like people think they are personally being insulted if someone doesn't have the same interests (and rose colored glasses ) that they do. As long as the criticisms of "your" game are well written and not overly confrontational, let bygones be bygones.

To each their own. Some say "TomAto" some say "Tomato." Live and let live. Follow your own path. etc.etc.

Originally posted by Thillian

Nevertheless, WoW still has instanced dungeons, in addition the zones are very obvious, the transition from one zone to another is usually made of a narrow path and extreme change in terrain.

I know.

It's better then loading screens.

I'll take 10 yards of transition terrain between "extreme changes in terrain" over a 10 second loading screen into extreme changes in terrain any day.

The point is...

Subbing graphics for the "MM" part of MMORPG is not a good idea, in my humble opinion.

1. 20 people in one instanced zone and uber sweet graphics

vs.

2. 200 people in one un-instanced zone and stylized, artistically sound graphics that fit the IP

I'll take door number 2 every time.

Sure, it's not completely open 1 game space like EVE, but I'd rather have content then grind just to get to the "good stuff" i.e. PvP ganking, more grinding, lag-crashing in large battles etc.

:)

Originally posted by urbanmonkey

spending a weekend on a secluded tropical island. Sure the beach is breathtaking and the sunsets magical, but then you find out that there is no bathroom, it's cold at night, the food is raw and by the third day you just want to be back in the comfort of your home.

If Funcom expect me to move there permanently, they better come up with the necessary facilities. A breathtaking is just not enough.

Amen