Can you build player kingdoms and wage epic wars???

dwarflordking

yeah so kinda like AoC, can you have player built castles maybe towns and all of this controlled by powerful guilds???



and maybe war among your own race for land and resources.. the more powerful your guild kingdom the more stuff available to you RTS style.



and maybe a player king in that player kingdom... alll controlled completely by a guild...





or is PVP strictly rvr type stuff..................       and no building at all

Adythiel

You mean like what Shadowbane and Star Wars Galaxies tried to do?

Yeah, no thanks. I'll pass on that. WAR may add player housing, but you won't have player owned cities like in Shadowbane. You also will not fight members of your side outside of dueling.

This is a nice attempt at bashing WAR, but sadly failed. Look at both games that have tried player owned cities. They didn't do so hot. To me, player owned cities that can be destroyed is a highly over-rated system. And based on how both Shadowbane and SWG did, I'd have to say quite a few people also feel the same way. Destroyable cities are a wet dream to gold farming companies.

 

As an aside....WAR is all about WAR. The entire game is based on an epic war between the forces of Order trying to preserve what little is left of the world and the forces of destruction that ultimately want to plunge the world into complete darkness. Warhammer Online is all war all the time.

Zeknichov

There is no correlation between player built/destroyed cities and the failure of SWG and Shadowbane.  The circumstances under which both games failed are completely irrelevent.

 forces of destruction that ultimately want to plunge the world into complete darkness...  Unless I'm mistaken the WAR environment is too static for something such as what you described to happen.  If everyone stopped fighting there would be no concequeneces.  If one side achieves total vicotroy they would really acomplish nothing.  WAR is a static PvP game, what the OP wants is a dynmaic player controlled environment, something WAR isn't.

 

dwarflordking

Originally posted by Zeknichov


There is no correlation between player built/destroyed cities and the failure of SWG and Shadowbane.  The circumstances under which both games failed are completely irrelevent.
 forces of destruction that ultimately want to plunge the world into complete darkness...  Unless I'm mistaken the WAR environment is too static for something such as what you described to happen.  If everyone stopped fighting there would be no concequeneces.  If one side achieves total vicotroy they would really acomplish nothing.  WAR is a static PvP game, what the OP wants is a dynmaic player controlled environment, something WAR isn't.
 

right! that guy is blaming a fantastic idea and gameplay just because others have failed at it... u want wow type forever or what? AoC is doing it and doing it well its just the theme and scenery of conan doesn't appeal to me as much as the look of WAR. 



so static type mmo roll the dice fighting usually wont ever have seige type wars because of the nature of static fighting right??

Volkmar

WAR is static in the sense that outposts, towns and cities do not move around or can be destroyed or built, no. what you have at start is what you will always have (beside updates by the devs)

WAR is a dynamic pvp system because you CAN conquer those static cities, towns and outposts. you CAN wage siege war and that is actually part of the overall campaign (even if we have no idea at this moment of the use of siege weapons, the devs said not too extensive, more personal fighting).

SO, no players cannot create their own cities, but yes, the pvp is dynamic and it will be epic.

ronan32

Originally posted by ricefarmer

yeah so kinda like AoC, can you have player built castles maybe towns and all of this controlled by powerful guilds???



and maybe war among your own race for land and resources.. the more powerful your guild kingdom the more stuff available to you RTS style.



and maybe a player king in that player kingdom... alll controlled completely by a guild...





or is PVP strictly rvr type stuff..................       and no building at all

clearly you are an age of conan fanboi...listen there is no chance age of conan will be better than war, i see age conan being very graphic intensive and buggy, i bet war runs like a dream.

Xennith

---

Originally posted by ricefarmer
u want wow type forever or what? AoC is doing it and doing it well its just the theme and scenery of conan doesn't appeal to me as much as the look of WAR.

so static type mmo roll the dice fighting usually wont ever have seige type wars because of
the nature of static fighting right??

---

ah, now i understand, you are an AoC fanboi who cant stand the idea that people could like other games so you thought you would try to disguise a flame thread behind a question.

i dont understand how people can do this, you like AoC? good for you, i hope its a great game. i like the look of WAR, why do you feel the need to slate things just because they arent the game you are waiting for?

---

how dare people not like the game i like, i must go and flame this game before more people start to like it.

---

this thought process doesnt make sense to me, it speaks of a very disturbed mind.

Crueltylizer

Originally posted by Adythiel


You mean like what Shadowbane and Star Wars Galaxies tried to do?
Yeah, no thanks. I'll pass on that. WAR may add player housing, but you won't have player owned cities like in Shadowbane. You also will not fight members of your side outside of dueling.
This is a nice attempt at bashing WAR, but sadly failed. Look at both games that have tried player owned cities. They didn't do so hot. To me, player owned cities that can be destroyed is a highly over-rated system. And based on how both Shadowbane and SWG did, I'd have to say quite a few people also feel the same way. Destroyable cities are a wet dream to gold farming companies.
 
As an aside....WAR is all about WAR. The entire game is based on an epic war between the forces of Order trying to preserve what little is left of the world and the forces of destruction that ultimately want to plunge the world into complete darkness. Warhammer Online is all war all the time.

SWG has never failed in that department wether you like it or not.



SWG was, before CU, one of the most popular MMO games out there also mainly because of its player housing and city features.

Kyleran

Originally posted by Zeknichov


There is no correlation between player built/destroyed cities and the failure of SWG and Shadowbane.  The circumstances under which both games failed are completely irrelevent.

I disagree with you.  I used to play Shadowbane when it launched.  Really enjoyed the game, was going to leave DAOC for it. However,after a very large player run alliance called the DOO formed, they systematically went around destroying the cities of every other clan. Due to bad game mechanics, while there was a tree that protected 7 buildings from attack (w/o a 2 day warning period) it did nothing to protect the 13 other buildings or the large and expensive walls that our guild had invested in.



We woke up one weekday morning only to find that the DOO had attacked at 3:30 am US EST and destroyed everything but the protected 7 buildings.  While we still had 2 days to defend our final 7 buildings, we knew that we'd never stand against the combined might of this alliance so we disbanded and tried to live off the neutral cities.



Well, the DOO finally got around to destroying even the neutral cites..and since the game was set up so that all high level trainers could only be found in player run cities...I saw no chance for future advancement, (unless I joined the DOO of course)



The scenario was actually  repeated on multiple servers, and many folks did what I did... We quit the game (I went back to DAOC for 2 more years)



The trouble is...players don't always act with enlighted self interest.  While I'm sure it amused the DOO to destroy everyone with their midnight raids, they actually destroyed the game for themselves when everyone left.  You are assuming that there will be a sense of balance, but trust me, there never is any balance.



Take Lineage 2 for example.  The castles there are controlled by alliances of players who have the time to level up to 74+ the quickest..and due to the financial benefits the impart, these alliance cannot be knocked off of the hill until they finally get bored and decide to move on themselves.  On Sieghardt the first year they were called the CBA (Care Bear Alliance) and no one could take one of their castles unless they decided to let them do it. (so they could take it back the next cycle)  I hope that now the game has been out awhile many players have reached the upper levels and there is more of a sense of balance. 



So in the end, assuming that having a dynamic player run world will make a better game isn't really logical.  In fact, those players who have the most time to devote to playing the game will dominate the landscape, and if it suits them, they will make sure no one challenges them in any way. 

iduums

good post Kyleran

Sovrath

Originally posted by Kyleran

Take Lineage 2 for example.  The castles there are controlled by alliances of players who have the time to level up to 74+ the quickest..and due to the financial benefits the impart, these alliance cannot be knocked off of the hill until they finally get bored and decide to move on themselves.  On Sieghardt the first year they were called the CBA (Care Bear Alliance) and no one could take one of their castles unless they decided to let them do it. (so they could take it back the next cycle)  I hope that now the game has been out awhile many players have reached the upper levels and there is more of a sense of balance. 







That's not true on Hindemith. Whether players like it or not, if one alliance starts really pissing people off, the entire server rises up and removes them. It is, in many ways, a very democratic server.



I know people have cried zerg but it so completely transcends that concept when you have an entire server that is tired of how a group of players plays. Another thing that saves Lineage 2 is that the sieges occur at specific times so if people want to attack or defend they can plan accordingly.



I remember trying shadowbane and I'm glad I decided not to play it. Sounds like a nightmare.

Zeknichov

We all know that SWG failed after Sony took over and made that abysmal patch.  I played Shadowbane from the start and it wasn't the ability to destroy your opponents castles that caused the game to fail it was a long list of other factors.  Outdated graphics, dupes, random crashes, lag, dupes, dupes, dupes, lack of objective aside from PvP, no economy, dupes, and poor implementation of game mechanics like you described in your post.

vajuras

Originally posted by Adythiel


You mean like what Shadowbane and Star Wars Galaxies tried to do?
Yeah, no thanks. I'll pass on that. WAR may add player housing, but you won't have player owned cities like in Shadowbane. You also will not fight members of your side outside of dueling.
This is a nice attempt at bashing WAR, but sadly failed. Look at both games that have tried player owned cities. They didn't do so hot. To me, player owned cities that can be destroyed is a highly over-rated system. And based on how both Shadowbane and SWG did, I'd have to say quite a few people also feel the same way. Destroyable cities are a wet dream to gold farming companies.

Have you looked at EvE it has played owned cities (space stations), titans, etc and it is pretty successfull. There is nothing wrong with an MMO that tries to allow a player to impact the universe this post is heavily flawed

vajuras

Originally posted by ricefarmer

Originally posted by Zeknichov


There is no correlation between player built/destroyed cities and the failure of SWG and Shadowbane.  The circumstances under which both games failed are completely irrelevent.
 forces of destruction that ultimately want to plunge the world into complete darkness...  Unless I'm mistaken the WAR environment is too static for something such as what you described to happen.  If everyone stopped fighting there would be no concequeneces.  If one side achieves total vicotroy they would really acomplish nothing.  WAR is a static PvP game, what the OP wants is a dynmaic player controlled environment, something WAR isn't.
 

right! that guy is blaming a fantastic idea and gameplay just because others have failed at it... u want wow type forever or what? AoC is doing it and doing it well its just the theme and scenery of conan doesn't appeal to me as much as the look of WAR. 



so static type mmo roll the dice fighting usually wont ever have seige type wars because of the nature of static fighting right??

Age of Conan will be 'instanced' player controlled structures last time I read their documents on this. Your player owned guild cities will not be in the 'open world'. It's a step down from EvE really in that regard. I still look forward to playing AoC as well they have a lot of good ideas. They some nice innovation in certain areas however it will be a level based grind. WAR will at least have a public quest system and allow factions to take control of areas for a limited time.

In WAR, you are a member of an army. It doesnt make sense for guilds to build up structures really (beyond letting them build forts in faction controlled terriority). It's not about -you- in WAR, its about your entire race/faction.

In RvR, you immediately sort of know who your friends are 'hopefully'. RvR allows for strong role play opportunities, etc.

Not saying AoC wont succeed they have some good ideas but I am still a little of leery of AoC because it will have levels whereas WAR will go 4 tiers + I can get all my gear from pvp. In Age of Conan, the gear you get with Blood money is not as 'flexible' as gear from PvE (pvp earned loot is only useful in PvP versus PvE earned loot good in both PvE/PvP).

AoC is a level based grind which we have all seen before. The combat system sounds neat but I am not liking their attitude that carebears will have best gear they can use in both PvE/PvP from what i gather. But in AoC, pvpers gear that you earn via blood money only good for PvP. So yeah, it remains to be seen how Age of Conan will handle loot. In WAR, we already know we can all level from all PvP. In WAR, a soldier is a first class citizen. In AoC, I think PvPErs will be good in PvP but will lack the flexibility to take their skills back into PvE. Because, according to the Devs, pvpers have PvP-specific levels. Has good ideas we will have to wait to see how it turns out

 

rshandlon

Originally posted by vajuras

Originally posted by Adythiel


You mean like what Shadowbane and Star Wars Galaxies tried to do?
Yeah, no thanks. I'll pass on that. WAR may add player housing, but you won't have player owned cities like in Shadowbane. You also will not fight members of your side outside of dueling.
This is a nice attempt at bashing WAR, but sadly failed. Look at both games that have tried player owned cities. They didn't do so hot. To me, player owned cities that can be destroyed is a highly over-rated system. And based on how both Shadowbane and SWG did, I'd have to say quite a few people also feel the same way. Destroyable cities are a wet dream to gold farming companies.

Have you looked at EvE it has played owned cities (space stations), titans, etc and it is pretty successfull. There is nothing wrong with an MMO that tries to allow a player to impact the universe this post is heavily flawed

Eve Online is just like Shadowbane, a few major Alliances rule all the major areas and decide who gets what and how much they sell them for on the market.  True dynamic player cities and warfare is impossible in our world today, just too many people want to "have it all" at the expense of everyone else around them.  You even see those same bullies here on the forums from time to time.  The only possible way to do any type of dynamic events is a mix of player/npc involvement.  Without a good mix of computer control and player control none of the great ideas for dynamic warfare can work, and even then it will be extremely hard for players not to exploit the system as they do in every game that tries it.

vajuras

my point was EvE has player controller terriority, space stations, etc. The other poster said that there is no game on the market that succeeded at that. I am not interested in discussing what is wrong with it (I dont play EvE but have a few friends that did)

Perfect World (popular in asia) also has player controlled terriority

ghoul31

Originally posted by Zeknichov

We all know that SWG failed after Sony took over and made that abysmal patch.  I played Shadowbane from the start and it wasn't the ability to destroy your opponents castles that caused the game to fail it was a long list of other factors.  Outdated graphics, dupes, random crashes, lag, dupes, dupes, dupes, lack of objective aside from PvP, no economy, dupes, and poor implementation of game mechanics like you described in your post.

/agreed. The ability for guilds to build their own cities and acyually change the world is what makes a game great.

darktravesty

Originally posted by Zeknichov


There is no correlation between player built/destroyed cities and the failure of SWG and Shadowbane.  The circumstances under which both games failed are completely irrelevent.
 forces of destruction that ultimately want to plunge the world into complete darkness...  Unless I'm mistaken the WAR environment is too static for something such as what you described to happen.  If everyone stopped fighting there would be no concequeneces.  If one side achieves total vicotroy they would really acomplish nothing.  WAR is a static PvP game, what the OP wants is a dynmaic player controlled environment, something WAR isn't.
 

Exactly. Shadowbane did not fail because of player cities and sieging, it failed because of a poorly built client/server and a terrible launch, among other technical issues. Player built cities and sieging are a largely undervalued thing in MMOs, one feature that I hope to see more MMOs try in the future again.

Timberwolf0

Why all this reading into the post and crap? This deserves a simple answer: No to epic kingdoms and Yes to epic wars.

dwarflordking

all i know is.... the more options such as , housing, player kingdoms, player this that etc etc... just leaves more room for actual ROLE PLAYING....  nobody really seems to role play a character they just grind the fuck out of them and get items... if u have an establish kingdom and have roles in that kingdom its just more options in my opinion.. and more role playing

elvenangel

Originally posted by ricefarmer

all i know is.... the more options such as , housing, player kingdoms, player this that etc etc... just leaves more room for actual ROLE PLAYING....  nobody really seems to role play a character they just grind the fuck out of them and get items... if u have an establish kingdom and have roles in that kingdom its just more options in my opinion.. and more role playing

Yea... thats why there's so many full role play servers.  /sarcasm off

I love being my character and thats how I interact with the world most often but I always found that all the extra fluff like housing was just a big confusing lag mess.  I still have nightmares of trying to escape monsters in UO only to get trapped between two houses because I couldn't see a rock on the ground properly.   

Your scenario for houses and player kingdoms doesn't FIT the world of Warhammer.  Warhammer has its SET leaders and factions and thats what GamesWorkshop(the creators of Warhammer) and Mythic are sticking to.  

 Warhammer is about WAR not about trapsing about being a diplomat for your city.    Its about taking up arms and marching into battle.  Thats why all the classes are battle classes.   You're a warrior for your country / faction  I think that still leaves plenty of RP for people.

Mythricor

The flamming in this thread makes me said, almost makes me not want to play WAR if people in this game are so quik to flame, all he asked was wiether their would be Player cities and siege like in AoC, and he gets called a AoC fanboi and a few other things, why would it be so hard to just answere his valiade non flamatory post, and i love how you call him a flamer yet you flame him.

 

Btw the answere to the first is no

Second No

Third No

Fourth Yes.

wont stop it from being a good game though

Stellos

I'm not sure but I sure hope they do

elvenangel

Originally posted by Mythricor


The flamming in this thread makes me said, almost makes me not want to play WAR if people in this game are so quik to flame, all he asked was wiether their would be Player cities and siege like in AoC, and he gets called a AoC fanboi and a few other things, why would it be so hard to just answere his valiade non flamatory post, and i love how you call him a flamer yet you flame him.
 

Some people get openly flamed right away because their posts are just plain stupid on PURPOSE and others because they've been flaming and saying lies / misinformation about games to try and turn people away repeatedly but occasionaly try to do a serious post only to get flamedin return. 

This doesn't make it right but you can't blame a whole community of players that don't bother with flaming because a couple of chuckle heads have nothing better to do than flame.  I really didn't see that much flaming in this thread compared to other threads.

I mean honestly look at ghoul31 (not trying to flame but you are a pretty good example of purposely bad posts) he's said nothing but "oh this game isn't gonna be good becaus ethere's no stealth" and now player housing?  I think he's just grasping straws without even bothering to understand the mythos and world thats already in place for Warhammer by its original creators GamesWorkshop.  

I'm by far not an expert on warhammer at all but i definitly know enough to know playerhousing and kingdoms and stealth characters (of the wow fashion) do NOT fit in this game and Im perfectly ok with that.    They've been perfectly up front about what type of game they're making but yet plenty of people are coming up with these crazy assumptions or wild ideas without even reading all the information out there and then just assume they're being ripped off or slighted in some way because the game doesn't offer something several other games do.

Every game is different, every game has different styles they don't all need to be copies.   That doesn't mean of course a person can't say their opinion but they should expect uneducated assumptions and lame attempts to assert themselves without any real knowledge are going to get flamed its just how all forum board communities are unfortantly.

In my opinion the whole reason for this thread is valid yet also lacking in understanding of what the Game world of WarHammer is.  If players were meant to have homes, be diplomats, and have multiple kingdoms inside inside of a single main kingdom they'd have characters like that in the original warhammer games.  

SonofSeth

I said it before and I'll say it again, I just want more choice, not less! Every time I see someone defending WAR, he is highlighting that lack of choice as something that will fix all these broken games. I just find it funny how some of the biggest complaints about MMORPGS, like limitations, instances, lack of crafting, lack lack lack.... get so much praise here.

I just hope that they manage to make up for lack of quanity with some realy awseome quality.

elvenangel

Originally posted by SonofSeth


I said it before and I'll say it again, I just want more choice, not less! Every time I see someone defending WAR, he is highlighting that lack of choice as something that will fix all these broken games. I just find it funny how some of the biggest complaints about MMORPGS, like limitations, instances, lack of crafting, lack lack lack.... get so much praise here.
I just hope that they manage to make up for lack of quanity with some realy awseome quality.

If the 'choice' goes outside the parameters of the game world I'm all for it not being in the game.  Stuff that just gets shoved in just because they can do it and not because it fits in the world always causes chaos and not in the good way.    They've techincallly not said yay or nay on crafting yet.   We don't know how much customization is in the game.  Honestly if your looking for 'world building' you can play shadowbane or horizons both of which are techincally failures or even UO which is ancient and hell on earth to travel through thanks to houses being frigging Everywhere.   I dont know how many times I got stuck or lost in housing areas with a monster smacking me on the head.  

Sometimes too much choice = to many bugs to fix.  

I want my choices to fit in the scope of the game play and the game world.  If this was an Ultima Online style game then I would be sorely disappointed by the lack of choices, but its not.

I personally never found a use for housing i was always out exploring and actually playing the game.   If you use the 'but i can hang my trophies there excuse WAR has already mentioned battle trophies are things you can wear like heads on spikes for the orcs.

Besides what would you do with your house when say the enemy takes over your capital and you lose access to just about everything?  Cry?  Bitch? Moan?