Lol people don't be droll. Psychological addiction is a very well known medical fact, both as a part of larger substance-abuse syndrome and as a phenomenon in itself. Compulsive gambling? Porn addiction? Anyone? In fact the only substances that are in general use that actually do have a real physiological (biological) component to their respective addictions are: nicotine, coffeine, opium derivates and alcohol. All the rest, such as marijuana, LSD , psylocibin, metamphetamine, cocaine etc DO NOT feature a physical addiction component - their addictions are all purely psychological. In fact in most cases getting rid of physical addiction is much much easier than taking care of the attendant psychological one. Brain-washing as well as hypnosis are very powerful psychological tools whose effects can take precedent over even the most basic biological functions and instincts like the one for self-preservation. Denying this only makes you look ignorant. Don't embarass yourselves please.
Yep and the only one who brought up the discussion to bash on a game was you, with a DRUG related topic as ... nicotine (cigarette smoking and Wow remember).
By the way most of the substances you mentioned ARE physical. Try read something on the subject before you post.
Or how short the distance can be between"brain-washing" and paid viral marketing of War on a forum.
At least I don't compare a game with a drug.
Phew man, you should read up on the subject. It is a common misconception that those substances are physically habit-forming while in actuality absolutely no evidence has been found to support that claim.
Imo this is due to typical western view that human psychology is largely irrelevant to the physical well-being. Saying "oh it's just psychological" is tantamount to saying "oh it's just some money problems" when you and your family become homeless due to market meltdown.
As for comparing games with drugs.. well I consider them a part of the same human sphere with a very similar function.
I'll refer you to the excellent "Homo Ludens" (Man the Player) by Johan Huizinga for fantastic historical analysis of the role and impact of games in human history. It is a true and well-recognized classic eminently worth reading by any student of human nature. Mind you the book's been written way before the current gaming craze took off (I'd place that date in 1974 to be precise and before that the last one was during fin-de-siecle with middle class ascendant and bored). I recommend it to any gamer interested in underlying social and psychological aspects of gaming in general.
Thanks for showing you're not the usual and casual "passer by" with just a huge intrest in WAR. I knew that from the very beginning...
As I have a university degree in communciations, I know my traditional sources very well thank you. From Festinger to Lazarsfeld. And I made my thesis on mass sports and gameplay at the end of the XIX century. So don't try tb be too smart here.
----------------------------------
To come back to the original discussion: WAR's marketing is wrong in that it tries to capture a market of "bored" people of other MMORPG's. And from ALL of your past posts that's about all you want to do. CONVINCE bored MMORPG people to come to that "beautiful land" of milk and honey of War (even reinforced by the choice of your avatar)
By doing this it is unoriginal and tries to lure in the bored ones. As a game marketing that's a huge fail to begin with. Because the bored will only get more bored after the initial weeks go along.
Instead they should have just released a fresh new MMORPG with the very rich WH TT lore that existed.
I have my own ideas which would have made WAR a far mor better MMORPG, but that's another story.
They didn't.
Along with Wow I have a 6 months old subscription of PotBS. That game NEVER mentioned Wow, the players in that game don't have a feeling of "luring" in bored people of other MMO's.
It's - by all of it shortcomings - a lot more honest and fresh.
It doesn't thrive on "bored" MMORPG players. OK it's no succes, but at least it is original and not every other forum thread is started with "why War is so much better than Wow".
The moment I saw this IN game mentality of War, the moment I made up my famous sentence 4 weeks ago:
"Every copy of War is a free publicity of WotlK. "
Simple because WotLK is not adressing bored mmo players. It's just an expansion of a highly succesful MMORPG.
Originally posted by vernd I challenge you to attend an Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meeting. Describe some of the common "symptoms" of MMO players, without specifically saying that you're talking about a game. Irrational anger or frustration when servers are down. Reduced contact with friends and family. Increased sick leave to stay home and play. See what happens, see what they have to say about it.
I could go to that same AA meeting and describe those same "symptoms" that make you think something is an addiction, with one exception. I would be talking about Cancer or any number of other ailments. Does that make Cancer an addiction?
You simply cannot take some small segments of an analogy, apply them to anything you want and reach a conclusion in that manner. Frankly I find this method of generating theories just flat out misleading and decpetive. Analogies are a bad way to discuss a topic, because they never share exact similarities and people intentionally ignore the parts that don't support their arguments.
Ask yourself this question, is WoW like crack cocaine as the original poster now wants say or are there just lots of people in this world that have obsessive compulsive personalities. I find the latter to be the truth and those people will find something they enjoy, be it MMOs, cats or tending to their lawns and they will obsess about them. That is how people are by nature. Blaming a video game as the result for peoples behavior makes about as much sense as the fat kid who tried to sue McDonalds for making their french fries an addictive substance and the reason why he was fat.
People need to take a little more accountability of their own actions and stop trying to put the blame on everything else.
I'd say it probably relates more to addictive personality than OCD. Obsessive/compulsive behavior is like washing your hands 50 times a day because you're convinced that your hands are constantly filthy and covered in dangerous germs. That's not addiction. And where did I ever say addicition is in any way an excuse for self-destructive behavior? That's right, I never said it anywhere--though I did comment on it to say such a discussion would be off topic.
By the way, you can preach personal responsibility all you want. It won't make people change if they don't want to. Doesn't make your point any less valid, but come on. You can scream and shout about how people should save money and not go crazy with credit cards but reckless spenders probably won't listen until they're broke and have racked up a couple thousand dollars of debt.
Originally posted by markoraos Could be. I hate WoW with a burning passion. I'm an old school gamer with a lot of it under my belt. In fact I dabble in game design and have a few boardgames tucked away ready for final polish before I start pitching them around. I'm saying this to emphasize that I do have some experience with the way game's rulesets may drastically influence players' behavior patterns and their attitude towards the game.
Several times now you have made similar statements in this thread and it makes it very hard to look at your views as anything but non objective and completely biased.
I'm burned out of WoW also and I would love to find another MMO that offers enough quality to replace it, but I am not going to stretch the truth in an attempt to justify some need. I am trying really hard to like Warhammer, because I want to play with my friends and the PvP at times is really fun, but saying the PvE is this game rocks and is somehow on par with the better PvE games on the market doesn't make much sense, especially when compared in the manor you original did.
Warhammers PvE is very lack luster. Sure there are some nice points like public quests and a few decent storylines here and there. Most fo the game fits those people who want activities to last 10-15 minutes before moving on to the next 15 minute segment of action the game offers, because that seems to be the design goal of the game, 15 minute activities. For the most part though, public quests are just a spruced up version of KILL X quests and are hardly a decent replacement for traditional MMO dungeon crawls, instanced or not.
If the PvE was really that much better than WoW then people would be flocking to do it seeing as how popular WoWs PvE is. Yet people sit around waiting for battlegroud ques instead to the point where they just get burned out on the game. That says something there. I know the experience/renown is better, but if people are quitting instead of switching over to the PvE activities then something is amiss.
The quests almost entirely fit into the kill X catagory. The story lines are almost always the same and have you running down NPCs of the opposing realm. They lack any real challange and even the AI is simplified compared to just about any other game on the market [for example: you can practically walk through any enemy camp without fear of attracting unwanted attention. You can shoot an arrow into an NPC that is having an conversation with another NPC and one will come attack you while the other continues with the conversation.
In fact I have a hard time thinking of the quests in this game as anything other than tasks. Most of the elements that make a quest have been removed. No need to actually read anything, look for help, figure out where to go or what to do, a compelling story to motivate/justify actions, etc. Just click on the NPC, click accept, run to the red blob on the map and kill or click on something depending on the what the quest tracker has reduced the entire task down to 10 words or less on the HUD. Then run back and get your reward and start another task.
I am not saying it is all bad, but I am also not going to slap lipstick on the PvE pig just because I am over exposed to another game.
...personally I think WAR's pve is bloody boring as it stands now. The stiff animations or in some cases, lack of animations breaks the immersion. I was like omgwtfbbq when I first saw the dragon thing at the end of the 1st darkelf pq. Then I saw it didn't animate half the time, it's attack froze and how poorly animated the thing was. Then I was like 'bleh...where is the next scenario thank you very much'
WAR got problems with it's pve. It's just not fun to play. You do the quests for the xp and items only and don't give a damn in the whole lore thing behind them. Not that I expected good pve from this game, being that it's based around rvr, which they failed to implement as well. As long as scenarios stand as the fastest way to endgame, open world rvr is a joke in this game.
Been in a few rvr situations though, both defending and attacking, and while pvp is fun, the other side needs to be there too, but no, they are all busy queueing up for scenarios, and the attackers and defenders that bother to show, put up a half-hearted attempt to do what this game was made to do. Half of them leave after dying a few times anyway.
Game got balance problems regarding scenarios vs rvr. Rvr will be empty as long as scenarios give the xp and reknown they do. 50% more xp in rvr is just not enough to draw people out of the scenarios.
I do try to like this game though, despite it's failings. I won't go back to WoW, and the other mmo's out there don't look that promising, not that I tried. Trialed and subbed more mmo's that I care to remember. Save a few gems, they all failed to capture me.
Well I intentionally left out the answer to this question because it really is a matter of completely subjective opinion.
Is it fun for ME? Yes, it is. Actually it does exactly what I need from a game's PvE - a nice sideline that isn't too demanding and yet is entertaining and varied enough to provide an occasional challenge. I've never been much of a PvE player or really into "stories" in video games. If I want to enjoy a really good, rich story I'll watch a movie or read a book - something non-interactive in any case.
Though I admit some people like their games to be story-based and scripted I never could get into those, especially not in multiplayer games which should, I strongly believe, primarily give players the means and tools to provide content (read stories) to each other. While I can get into some npc's problems in games like Silent Hill or Resident Evil, I simply cannot emphatize with a MMO npc with all the other live players running around. Imo MMOs should either be heavily PvP (or RvR, whatever) or sandbox PvE. Those story-based PvE mmos seem very unnatural to me - they're like playing Monopoly according to a linear script with dialogues and all, with you throwing the dice according to a scripted timeline and a few imaginary players that the "game" throws the dice for.
And before you ask... yes, I'd ditch the whole leveling concept in MMOs if I had the opportunity to build one from scratch. However despite this I find WAR a large step in the right direction - toward more interaction between the players, the world and between themselves. While it is not a "sandbox" game it is definitely moving away from the linear, ultimately single-player "hero's quest" paradigm. Sandboxes are not the end-all of game design, they do have flaws in their core principles and it is not a complete coincidence they are not as popular as the more established and tested concepts. I'd say that a "raw" sandbox as we know it from POTBS and UO is doomed to failure at its inception. On the other hand WAR with its RvR is testing quite a few novel approaches that might, ultimately, push the genre forward into more freedom and true player-run worlds.
For example: Public Quests are fantastic. Scripted and yet non-linear PvE content that is capable of naturally scaling difficulty from solo to raid level. They are an answer to many of the problems plaguing non-linear sandbox PvE mmos. I can see "Public Quests 2.0" as the mainstay of some future sandbox. I'd make them capable of shifting location, for example (say an Ork Village might grow in places without player settlements)... or they might have an added dimension to their difficulty (the Ork village PQ might have several levels of growth, the longer you leave them alone). Imo PQs really are a revolutionary concept that is capable of revitalizing the genre.
Well, each their own. I prefer story-based games. Skirmish-based rts' (ex:Sins of the Solar Empire and the Warhammer 40k expansions) for example don't capture me, I need that story. I'm one of those 'games are art' hippies
Well, each their own. I prefer story-based games. Skirmish-based rpg's for example don't capture me, I need that story. I'm one of those 'games are art' hippies
Oh I completely agree that games are a valid art form, no doubt about it. However we seem to differ in opinion what is the core foundation of that "art"...
For example, until the invention of photography it was a given that painting = realism. The more "realistic" a painting is the better. Only when photography took over the burden of being realistic painting could move away into impressionism and all the other modern styles. Painters realized that the painting, the visuality of it, is more important than its subject matter.
Film is an even better example. Since it was technologically associated with photography it was thought that it's aesthetics are directly based on realistic representation of subject matter. Only later it was discovered that, technology aside, film as an art form has much more in common with theater than photography. Some very learned experts even claimed that editing as such is completely "unnatural" to film and a passing fad because a photograph is the best if it is completely untouched.
I believe that "stories" in games are like "realism" in film. While they can be a pretty important element of a certain style they do not define the artform as such. I'd say that games are defined by interactivity, both with the game itself and the other players... and scripted stories often have to limit that interactivity in order to function.
I do agree that story-based games limit your freedom in the games, but a game without a story is like a cookbook. While it contain some good recipies, it's not something you take and read in bed, or wherever you prefer reading books(it's the bed for me). What I'm saying is that the story and lore is really important for me. It can often make or break a game for me, depending on the game ofcourse. Multiplayer fps for example I play for the action and don't give a damn in the story behind it, or the lore.
I do agree that story-based games limit your freedom in the games, but a game without a story is like a cookbook. While it contain some good recipies, it's not something you take and read in bed, or wherever you prefer reading books(it's the bed for me). What I'm saying is that the story and lore is really important for me. It can often make or break a game for me, depending on the game ofcourse. Multiplayer fps for example I play for the action and don't give a damn in the story behind it, or the lore.
Lore is one thing and story another. You can have a game with fantastically intricate lore and not one scripted or story-driven moment in it... I'm all for rich lore and background in games (I'll call it "setting" because that's the way I've been brought up with pen-and-paper RPGs) but stories as linear things that go from beginning to a conclusion are... not really inherent to games as an artform imo.
But we digress. Lol, look at me hijacking my own thread!
- Missing all the upper loot from PvE solo/group encounter.
End of the consideration, review or whatever.
Obviously this is such an incredibly flawed core game design issue that there is no conceivable hope of it ever being fixed or improved, ever. We all know that editing loot tables is such an amazingly complex and technologically demanding process that a game company such as Mythic, which is well known for completely ignoring their players or the game itself after its released, will never, ever embark on such a massive undertaking.
/sarcasm off, none of the above is true, obviously
..and besides you are referring only to the non-PQ, non-quest PvE group content which is a very minor part of the game. However if this is "end of consideration or discussion" or whatever for the game ever and ever then it is only your own loss.
And besides for the life of me I don't know why you expect that the game should give out the best rewards for one certain style of gameplay... that happens to be the dominant one in a certain other popular MMO? Hmm... it's either "clone" or "not clone enough." At the same time it is "nothing new" but somehow the old principles do not hold true anymore.. which is supposed to be bad as well. Imo the critics should make up their minds.
Yelling "WoW clone" and then in the same paragraph griping that something is bad because it is different from WoW makes no sense whatsoever. (I'm not refering to the quote above, just making a general observation on the flawed approach many habitual WAR critics take, either directly or by clear implication.)
You are obviously answering to someone else than me, or to yourself.
As to editing loot tables afterward, I know better than to hope for those. The commitment is not there toward PvE soloing/grouping, I won't play the game. You seem more affected than me by this situation.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
And before you ask... yes, I'd ditch the whole leveling concept in MMOs if I had the opportunity to build one from scratch. However despite this I find WAR a large step in the right direction - toward more interaction between the players, the world and between themselves. While it is not a "sandbox" game it is definitely moving away from the linear, ultimately single-player "hero's quest" paradigm. Sandboxes are not the end-all of game design, they do have flaws in their core principles and it is not a complete coincidence they are not as popular as the more established and tested concepts. I'd say that a "raw" sandbox as we know it from POTBS and UO is doomed to failure at its inception. On the other hand WAR with its RvR is testing quite a few novel approaches that might, ultimately, push the genre forward into more freedom and true player-run worlds. For example: Public Quests are fantastic. Scripted and yet non-linear PvE content that is capable of naturally scaling difficulty from solo to raid level. They are an answer to many of the problems plaguing non-linear sandbox PvE mmos. I can see "Public Quests 2.0" as the mainstay of some future sandbox. I'd make them capable of shifting location, for example (say an Ork Village might grow in places without player settlements)... or they might have an added dimension to their difficulty (the Ork village PQ might have several levels of growth, the longer you leave them alone). Imo PQs really are a revolutionary concept that is capable of revitalizing the genre.
I can't agree with you more about ditching levels in MMOs. They have always felt artificial and usually cause more problems than they solve. They must make it easier to design content around, but people get so focused on watching those stupid little progress bars, that they begin to think that is what MMO content is all about. Doing meaningless tasks just to advance a progress bar gets really old really fast, unless those tasks are entertaining in themselves and not just something to fill time and keep people subscribing.
Public quests I am not completely sold on yet. They have potential, but from everything I have seen of them so far they create disposable content, offer little to no challenge, eliminate much of the social interaction that makes MMOs interesting and so on. Sure it is cool to jump into a fight for 10-15 minutes and get some instant gratification if you win a loot bag, but they don't support making bonds with people, talking, learning strategies. I really liked how Richard Garriot talked about his version of public quests about a year before Tabula Rasa launched, but those never came to be for many reason. Overall the potential is there for public quests to help MMOs evolve, but Warhammers delivery and reliance on them has not been very engaging.
Public quests at first reminded me of the old days in Ultima Online dungeons. The UO dungeon "wrong" for example where people just worked together killing things, socializing and such until a big ogre lord spawned or some PK's come around to harass the dungeon crawlers. There was no grouping mechanic or loot system, just people playing together in an area. I think the 15 minute timers and constant resetting of public quests is the wrong approach [no pun intended]. It makes me think they were almost designed to give people something to do for 15 minutes, get some treasure and move onto the next stop.
And before you ask... yes, I'd ditch the whole leveling concept in MMOs if I had the opportunity to build one from scratch. However despite this I find WAR a large step in the right direction - toward more interaction between the players, the world and between themselves. While it is not a "sandbox" game it is definitely moving away from the linear, ultimately single-player "hero's quest" paradigm. Sandboxes are not the end-all of game design, they do have flaws in their core principles and it is not a complete coincidence they are not as popular as the more established and tested concepts. I'd say that a "raw" sandbox as we know it from POTBS and UO is doomed to failure at its inception. On the other hand WAR with its RvR is testing quite a few novel approaches that might, ultimately, push the genre forward into more freedom and true player-run worlds. For example: Public Quests are fantastic. Scripted and yet non-linear PvE content that is capable of naturally scaling difficulty from solo to raid level. They are an answer to many of the problems plaguing non-linear sandbox PvE mmos. I can see "Public Quests 2.0" as the mainstay of some future sandbox. I'd make them capable of shifting location, for example (say an Ork Village might grow in places without player settlements)... or they might have an added dimension to their difficulty (the Ork village PQ might have several levels of growth, the longer you leave them alone). Imo PQs really are a revolutionary concept that is capable of revitalizing the genre.
I can't agree with you more about ditching levels in MMOs. They have always felt artificial and usually cause more problems than they solve. They must make it easier to design content around, but people get so focused on watching those stupid little progress bars, that they begin to think that is what MMO content is all about. Doing meaningless tasks just to advance a progress bar gets really old really fast, unless those tasks are entertaining in themselves and not just something to fill time and keep people subscribing.
Public quests I am not completely sold on yet. They have potential, but from everything I have seen of them so far they create disposable content, offer little to no challenge, eliminate much of the social interaction that makes MMOs interesting and so on. Sure it is cool to jump into a fight for 10-15 minutes and get some instant gratification if you win a loot bag, but they don't support making bonds with people, talking, learning strategies. I really liked how Richard Garriot talked about his version of public quests about a year before Tabula Rasa launched, but those never came to be for many reason. Overall the potential is there for public quests to help MMOs evolve, but Warhammers delivery and reliance on them has not been very engaging.
Public quests at first reminded me of the old days in Ultima Online dungeons. The UO dungeon "wrong" for example where people just worked together killing things, socializing and such until a big ogre lord spawned or some PK's come around to harass the dungeon crawlers. There was no grouping mechanic or loot system, just people playing together in an area. I think the 15 minute timers and constant resetting of public quests is the wrong approach [no pun intended]. It makes me think they were almost designed to give people something to do for 15 minutes, get some treasure and move onto the next stop.
Well ofc the PQ concept can be can be improved! That's what's so exciting about it! For example Mythic talked about PvP public quests but then ditched them about 6 months before the release, saying that there are some problems with player motivation, possible exploits and such.
However they did leave a few of the "semi" PvP PQs in dwarf/greenskin areas, probably to test them a bit. They turned out to be the most popular ones by far, with players constantly referring to them as the "best". Now they announced the introduction of RvR influence and a major effort to revitalize RvR zones - which could mean some PvP public quests in RvR lakes (oh, I wish..).
Imo they do have a novel concept on their hands and they are testing it out. This is not like adding a bunch of new quests or "innovating" PvE by placing some scripted bomb run "flying" missions. Imo they are being smart by being careful - those novel ideas can have hidden flaws that get apparent only when it is too late.
For example PQs could have easily bombed completely, taking the whole game along with them... were it not for the influence which ensures that even if you are unlucky with drops, you will get rewarded for your efforts. Without influence PQs would be a totally asocial, elitist-breeding environment - an endless source of greed and frustration.
As for socialization... I find them great places to socialize. Imo the reason why more people arent talking should be looked for elsewhere. When I do a PQ with a group it is always very stimulating devising tactics on the fly, as you must do constantly since you won't do the same PQ more than twice. Good players are very easily spotted, as well as those with a social bent. I usually do guild recruitment while pugging PQs and I almost always end up with a few more people on my friends list.
I don't think Mythic is being safe with public quests at all. I would wager that at least half of the PvE game map real estate taken up by public quests. There has to be over 150 of them considering there are average 7 in each of the races tiered area. I think Mythic was banking on these being a major aspect of the game and somehow building community through teamwork.
Where you seem to find lots of people doing public quest they are ghost towns elsewhere. I am going to have to say that people just are not doing them for many reasons, some listed above and some not obvious yet. From what I have seen of them so far I hope they don't have a big impact on future games unless they change significantly.
I don't think Mythic is being safe with public quests at all. I would wager that at least half of the PvE game map real estate taken up by public quests. There has to be over 150 of them considering there are average 7 in each of the races tiered area. I think Mythic was banking on these being a major aspect of the game and somehow building community through teamwork.
Where you seem to find lots of people doing public quest they are ghost towns elsewhere. I am going to have to say that people just are not doing them for many reasons, some listed above and some not obvious yet. From what I have seen of them so far I hope they don't have a big impact on future games unless they change significantly.
I am with Daffid on this one. The issue with PQs is that there are way too many of them. I love the idea of PQs but 9 out of 10 have 1 person grinding influence and once in a blue moon you may get lucky and finish one in a group. If they reduced PQs to maybe 3 on a map but made them more epic then the crowds would be concentrated. As it stands they dont have much impact at all.
As far as PvE goes WAR is way behind Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, AoC and probably a host of other MMO's. Varied quests doesn't mean different text that means FA. The majority of PvE I saw was mundane and just a grind fest. Not saying the other games listed dont have grind but some of the best PvE I ever saw was in TR especially in the instances. AoC has a lot of kill X amount but there have been some very cool ideas and some nasty story lines. Vanguard have more kill X this and that but still found it more interesting. On a level playing field EVE probably has similar level of PvE but that is PvP hell so PvE is not the game.
Actually the number mentioned by devs was 450+ O.o!
But it is not all about the quantity.. They do have a pretty similar progression - 3 stages mostly and the majority have a normal, champion, hero mob flow. While there are some that are a bit different in that regard, and the formula does allow considerable variety, imo the possibilities of changing those constants are quite staggering.
Imo they did manage to perfect the above formula and then concentrated on making variations, knowing they cant go very wrong. I'll be quite disappointed if we don't see some pretty new PQ types - those with different branching stages (like those "semi-PvP" ones in dwarf zones aready have), those whose stages take place in different areas. Maybe some moving ones, like an attack on a caravan that is on the run? Escort PQs? Maybe PQs that trigger within a keep siege? Who knows?
... as for PQ s being empty/unable to form a group.. well as I said before I never seem to have that problem. Each chapter holds 3 PQs (on average) - within that chapter you're bound to find 5 people willing to PQ a bit. If they are scattered around then just gather them up - being a bit proactive goes a long way.
When you see a lone dude doing the 1st PQ stage, just join him. Make an open group so people can see there are 2 of you doing it.. an average player will think "with me that's 3.. we can try the 2nd stage now and inf does go in faster if there are more of us at it".. The next guy seeing that open group will think "with me that's 4, if those guys are any good we might try to complete the PQ". See? The point is to make that first step - once you have a group the ball usually starts rolling on its own.
Imo the greatest problem with grouping is that a lot of players are still thinking they are playing WoW where there exists a real problem of kill stealing. In fact you gain influence FASTER when grouped than if you solo. In addition there are much more mobs being killed around you so you get a much better chance of a usable random drop. I really cannot fathom why some people refuse to group but I can see that there is less and less of those as the average player realizes that he is not "in Kansas anymore."
... as for PQ s being empty/unable to form a group.. well as I said before I never seem to have that problem. Each chapter holds 3 PQs (on average) - within that chapter you're bound to find 5 people willing to PQ a bit. If they are scattered around then just gather them up - being a bit proactive goes a long way. When you see a lone dude doing the 1st PQ stage, just join him. Make an open group so people can see there are 2 of you doing it.. an average player will think "with me that's 3.. we can try the 2nd stage now and inf does go in faster if there are more of us at it".. The next guy seeing that open group will think "with me that's 4, if those guys are any good we might try to complete the PQ". See? The point is to make that first step - once you have a group the ball usually starts rolling on its own. Imo the greatest problem with grouping is that a lot of players are still thinking they are playing WoW where there exists a real problem of kill stealing. In fact you gain influence FASTER when grouped than if you solo. In addition there are much more mobs being killed around you so you get a much better chance of a usable random drop. I really cannot fathom why some people refuse to group but I can see that there is less and less of those as the average player realizes that he is not "in Kansas anymore."
Here you go again blaming the players for the issues of the game or even worse blaming WoW for Warhammers problems.
Maybe you are one of the lucky people playing on a server with decent population or more likely you are leveling up right along with the "population bubble" that all tend to clump together when a new game/expansion launches. Go pick any low/medium server with an xp boost and tell me how much luck you have there doing public quests and getting groups. Now just look at how many servers are low-medium and do the math.
I would also disagree with your fact of getting more influence [or xp for that matter] grouped than some do solo. Sure if you have enough people to actually complete the public quest, but there are some classes that gain more solo than they do even grouped and they don't need to complete the quest. Just do other things while it times out. Not that it is very entertaining sitting around a public quest area grinding mobs in the hopes something might develope if someone happens to run by.
Grinding mobs for XP [influence or renown] died a long time ago with EQ. The problem is that Mythic did just about everything they could to keep people from communicating. The horrid chat, no forums, etc. Even a decent Looking for Group tool would have done wonders. Even the tiniest of changes to the open group system would have helped. Something like letting you put a note about what you are looking to do: PQ-RvR-Scenarios-Quest. Right now joining an open group might be people doing the same thing or people scattered across the map or even people not doing what you are assume they are doing, because their listing is based on where they are standing, not what they are looking to do if you join the group. Plenty of time the open groups are just passing through an area and not doing what they are listed as doing.
... as for PQ s being empty/unable to form a group.. well as I said before I never seem to have that problem. Each chapter holds 3 PQs (on average) - within that chapter you're bound to find 5 people willing to PQ a bit. If they are scattered around then just gather them up - being a bit proactive goes a long way. When you see a lone dude doing the 1st PQ stage, just join him. Make an open group so people can see there are 2 of you doing it.. an average player will think "with me that's 3.. we can try the 2nd stage now and inf does go in faster if there are more of us at it".. The next guy seeing that open group will think "with me that's 4, if those guys are any good we might try to complete the PQ". See? The point is to make that first step - once you have a group the ball usually starts rolling on its own. Imo the greatest problem with grouping is that a lot of players are still thinking they are playing WoW where there exists a real problem of kill stealing. In fact you gain influence FASTER when grouped than if you solo. In addition there are much more mobs being killed around you so you get a much better chance of a usable random drop. I really cannot fathom why some people refuse to group but I can see that there is less and less of those as the average player realizes that he is not "in Kansas anymore."
Here you go again blaming the players for the issues of the game or even worse blaming WoW for Warhammers problems.
Maybe you are one of the lucky people playing on a server with decent population or more likely you are leveling up right along with the "population bubble" that all tend to clump together when a new game/expansion launches. Go pick any low/medium server with an xp boost and tell me how much luck you have there doing public quests and getting groups. Now just look at how many servers are low-medium and do the math.
I would also disagree with your fact of getting more influence [or xp for that matter] grouped than some do solo. Sure if you have enough people to actually complete the public quest, but there are some classes that gain more solo than they do even grouped and they don't need to complete the quest. Just do other things while it times out. Not that it is very entertaining sitting around a public quest area grinding mobs in the hopes something might develope if someone happens to run by.
Grinding mobs for XP [influence or renown] died a long time ago with EQ. The problem is that Mythic did just about everything they could to keep people from communicating. The horrid chat, no forums, etc. Even a decent Looking for Group tool would have done wonders. Even the tiniest of changes to the open group system would have helped. Something like letting you put a note about what you are looking to do: PQ-RvR-Scenarios-Quest. Right now joining an open group might be people doing the same thing or people scattered across the map or even people not doing what you are assume they are doing, because their listing is based on where they are standing, not what they are looking to do if you join the group. Plenty of time the open groups are just passing through an area and not doing what they are listed as doing.
Actually no... I'm on Karak-Norn which is one of the most severely underpopulated servers in EU and currently on the xp/rp dole.
I'm not "blaming" people - what I am saying is that WAR grouping operates somewhat differently than what is the norm in most other MMOs. Players need time to adjust and find the optimal LFG modes - that is all. It's like you've been playing FPSs where you are upright all the time and now a new one comes along where you can both crouch and go prone... Ofc you'll be dying a lot at first and probably blame the "stupid game" until you get accustomed to changing your stance on the fly. That's perfectly normal imo.
Chat is still sub-standard, no argument about it. Mythic is gradually fixing it but imo it was probably the biggest flaw in the otherwise excellent release.
Oh and I agree that the open group window itself should be improved.. For starters it should display the closest groups at the top, rather than bottom of the screen. Some kind of display showing you where those guys are on the map would be awesome too. An idea bandied on WAR forums is that PQs themselves should display the number of nearby players as well as their current stage when you mouse them over. That might be too much of an easy mode discouraging exploration but on the other hand it might not be such bad thing at all...
... oh and actually you can put a note for your open group that would be seen by everyone LFGing... however you have to do it through a chat command. Its something like /groupnote or whatever. But anyway it is completely unintuitive, which is obvious because absolutely nobody is using it and it should definitely be fixed... which will happen eventually I'm sure.
This is one of the things that irks me the most about many off-hand "reviews" on this site - it is almost taken as a given that WAR somehow has a "gimped" PvE that is somehow an "afterthought". Personally I find this ridiculous. For me in this regard WAR's PvE is so incredibly ahead of other games that I played (though I admit I am more of a PvP man) that it is almost insane. Are those people playing some other game? Anyway, in order not to clog the thread I will simply list the features of WAR PvE that I find truly amazing, if not revolutionary. 1. Vast amounts of solo quests. Three pairings, each being a campaign on its own. While xp gain from soloing does taper off in the beginning of tier 3, you actually can play WAR 6 times without ever seeing the same quest or scenery again. In essence this is like 6 "normal" single player RPGs in one. 2. Solo quests can get amazingly varied. Yes, that is true. For those who played a few tutorial quests in T1 and decided that kill 10 of x is all you'll ever get then I have to say you are missing a lot. I won't give examples of some great solo quests here because it would take too long but they are there. 2b. Quest item drops from mobs are all 100%. This is such a small thing but it is amazing how much grief and frustration it takes away from solo questing. 3. Public Quests. Yes, public quests are PvE. You can solo them for influence, you can pug them, you can do them with a leet band of friends, you can Zerg them in succession with a war band, you can hunt down the rare "epic" ones with amazing loot... In fact if the game was only about the PQs it would be well worth the money. While (most) of them do have 3 stages it doesn't mean they're all the same by far... I personally love the one in elven tier 2 where you advance with 20+ mob allies against wave after wave of enemy monsters... or the dwarf/green skin ones where it is a race which side will complete the stage the fastest with all the attendant RvR and sneaky sabotage... or "mob race" PQ stages where you have to prevent bands of roaming champion mobs from accomplishing their tasks - totally hectic . 4. Exploration and lairs. Whoever isn't aware of those must have been grinding scenarios from rank 1 and is now pissed off because the game has no "freedom". Well take your freedom man! Get out of that scenario and head out into the hills! You might get really surprised by what you'll find there... a desecrated abandoned shrine with an ancient book carelessly tossed into a corner - open it and you might find yourself on an epic quest chain leading you to exclusive rewards and better knowledge of the lore. 5. Dungeons. Many people are completely unaware that there are dungeons in Altdorf starting at rank 10 that you can do to improve the city's ranking.. While they start simplistic (hey, they are starter dungeons) they do get progressively more complex and challenging. While the boss drops are really pathetic, those dungeons are quite sufficient to assuage your instanced PvE hunger pangs. When Mythic gets down to looking into those boss item drops they'll be a viable way to advance your character. 6. Dungeons again. Have you been to mt Gun bad yet? All I can say is that it beats any old WoW dungeon hands down. It is open and setup similar to open world PvE chapters. You get PQs, influence and all but the catch is that the top bosses themselves are instanced and you can get to them only in 6-mans. Simply marvelous - both casual and hardcore at the same time, seamlessly. 7. Policy toward grouping. No, in most cases you are not forced to group in order to access content. Is it a bad thing? NO! You're not forced to group with random people you don't like just in order to see content. You can start on your own and then gradually gather a band that works together to tackle some of the more demanding stuff. No standing in a quest hub and screaming LFG for 2 hours... Now you spend those 2 hours actually playing while the group forms around you. 8. Lore. A lot of lore. Vast amounts of lore. Log in and start reading your TOK. The amount of text and information contained in it is truly stupendous. To those complaining that it is enough just to read the quest summary I'm replying "Do you really need to be forced to do the things you enjoy? Just read the fluff text if you like it." And besides the "fluff" text sometimes holds valuable clues for exploration part of the game. 9. Quest marks on the map. Amazing. Sorry but browsing through my quest log trying to deduce where the heck am I supposed to be doing this quest is not my idea of fun, by far. Sometimes when I'm bored I just open my map and look where's the nearest quest I can do.. and sometimes I travel to other parts of the map because I want to do this particular quest. Freedom and choice. As for those saying that it is "easy mode" or "lore breaking" then just say your character has a real map with him and whenever he is asked to perform some task he asks the quest giver to mark where it is on the said map. It is more immersion breaking for me that my character would be that stupid to go adventuring in the wilderness and NOT ask "please could you mark it for me on this handy map?" So all in all I find PvE in WAR awesome. Not "OK" not "well there are better games out there for that" but simply awesome. In fact I wish Mythic implemented some of those very advanced ideas and mechanics into the open RvR part of the game. Patch 1.1 gives some hope that they do plan to do so with introduction of RvR influence.. whether this entails PQs in RvR lakes as well as keeps as quest hubs we'll see.
/addendum from a later post, but it should be here OK, now that I've gotten it off my chest how awesome WAR PvE is, to be fair I have to list the complaints (yes, even a Fanbois can have some). 1. Buggines. Fair is fair, there are some bugs and lack of polish. Nothing game-breaking for me though and they are quite rare considering how fresh the game is. However I must say I haven't seen a game-breaking bug yet. 2. Visible lack of polish on some later tier open PvE content... I'm talking about quest sites where mobs are just standing there - no patrols, no interesting animations or npc chatter... even the aggro radius is so pitiably small that the whole encounter looks like a placeholder "to be fleshed out later". However other quests in the very same region/tier, usually just a minutes' walk away, are amazingly well polished and interestingly scripted. I guess time will polish those "orphan" quests as well and there isn't many of them tbh... maybe like 5% of later encounters (I did pull that one out of my behind). 3. Itemization on boss mobs outside of PQs and big dungeons is really lame. You kill the boss mob at the end of the first Altdorf sewer dungeon and get a few random greens.. if you're very lucky, otherwise its some gray vendor trash. They should seriously look into this. Imo all rare / boss mobs should have some particular / exclusive reward attached, if only a title unlock or a weird "pocket" item. 4. Solo PvE mob difficulty is not really well scaled to particular quests. For example, a "kill x" quest may involve killing a mob at a time... or those mobs may be patrolling around with 2 of their buddies looking after them. So.. obviously mobs that are solo should be much tougher than those that are grouped. At the moment those solo mobs are too easy to tackle. That's all I could think of atm. Hmm. I'll add to this If I remember something that I missed. .. oh, here's one: 5. A lot of players haven't yet grasped the grouping mechanics in WAR which are considerably different from what is the norm. For example, there are still people out there who refuse to group in PQs.. probably because they are still playing WoW where kill-stealing is a recurring problem. Well guess what? If you group in a PQ you'll get your influence faster and you'll have much more item drops from mobs to choose from! In addition WAR grouping rewards flexibility - don't go to a particular PQ and then gripe because there is no one around. A much better strategy is to join someone already doing a PQ - that's 2 of you doing it which is quite enough for passers-by to start trickling in.
.....Lol, it's amazing that a post this long doesn't actually prove a single thing, as far as the end game being as complex and difficult as Wow is simply....retarded. I've done end game and though i agree with basically everything u say, u didn't actually say anything about what everyone is complaining about, that end game is shallow and without any real depth or strategy, basically the raids are easy mode for dumb a$$'s, and saying that u find them difficult and entertaining simply says allot about u, In the end Blizzard has already stated there putting everything that War has that people left for (PvP loot drop's, PvP xp, Mass RvR) In the new expansion, all this talk of War is basically waste of time, they tried and failed like so many others, should be used to it by now.
Comments
Yep and the only one who brought up the discussion to bash on a game was you, with a DRUG related topic as ... nicotine (cigarette smoking and Wow remember).
By the way most of the substances you mentioned ARE physical. Try read something on the subject before you post.
Or how short the distance can be between"brain-washing" and paid viral marketing of War on a forum.
At least I don't compare a game with a drug.
Phew man, you should read up on the subject. It is a common misconception that those substances are physically habit-forming while in actuality absolutely no evidence has been found to support that claim.
Imo this is due to typical western view that human psychology is largely irrelevant to the physical well-being. Saying "oh it's just psychological" is tantamount to saying "oh it's just some money problems" when you and your family become homeless due to market meltdown.
As for comparing games with drugs.. well I consider them a part of the same human sphere with a very similar function.
I'll refer you to the excellent "Homo Ludens" (Man the Player) by Johan Huizinga for fantastic historical analysis of the role and impact of games in human history. It is a true and well-recognized classic eminently worth reading by any student of human nature. Mind you the book's been written way before the current gaming craze took off (I'd place that date in 1974 to be precise and before that the last one was during fin-de-siecle with middle class ascendant and bored). I recommend it to any gamer interested in underlying social and psychological aspects of gaming in general.
Thanks for showing you're not the usual and casual "passer by" with just a huge intrest in WAR. I knew that from the very beginning...
As I have a university degree in communciations, I know my traditional sources very well thank you. From Festinger to Lazarsfeld. And I made my thesis on mass sports and gameplay at the end of the XIX century. So don't try tb be too smart here.
----------------------------------
To come back to the original discussion: WAR's marketing is wrong in that it tries to capture a market of "bored" people of other MMORPG's. And from ALL of your past posts that's about all you want to do. CONVINCE bored MMORPG people to come to that "beautiful land" of milk and honey of War (even reinforced by the choice of your avatar)
By doing this it is unoriginal and tries to lure in the bored ones. As a game marketing that's a huge fail to begin with. Because the bored will only get more bored after the initial weeks go along.
Instead they should have just released a fresh new MMORPG with the very rich WH TT lore that existed.
I have my own ideas which would have made WAR a far mor better MMORPG, but that's another story.
They didn't.
Along with Wow I have a 6 months old subscription of PotBS. That game NEVER mentioned Wow, the players in that game don't have a feeling of "luring" in bored people of other MMO's.
It's - by all of it shortcomings - a lot more honest and fresh.
It doesn't thrive on "bored" MMORPG players. OK it's no succes, but at least it is original and not every other forum thread is started with "why War is so much better than Wow".
The moment I saw this IN game mentality of War, the moment I made up my famous sentence 4 weeks ago:
"Every copy of War is a free publicity of WotlK. "
Simple because WotLK is not adressing bored mmo players. It's just an expansion of a highly succesful MMORPG.
Rest is history.
I could go to that same AA meeting and describe those same "symptoms" that make you think something is an addiction, with one exception. I would be talking about Cancer or any number of other ailments. Does that make Cancer an addiction?
You simply cannot take some small segments of an analogy, apply them to anything you want and reach a conclusion in that manner. Frankly I find this method of generating theories just flat out misleading and decpetive. Analogies are a bad way to discuss a topic, because they never share exact similarities and people intentionally ignore the parts that don't support their arguments.
Ask yourself this question, is WoW like crack cocaine as the original poster now wants say or are there just lots of people in this world that have obsessive compulsive personalities. I find the latter to be the truth and those people will find something they enjoy, be it MMOs, cats or tending to their lawns and they will obsess about them. That is how people are by nature. Blaming a video game as the result for peoples behavior makes about as much sense as the fat kid who tried to sue McDonalds for making their french fries an addictive substance and the reason why he was fat.
People need to take a little more accountability of their own actions and stop trying to put the blame on everything else.
I'd say it probably relates more to addictive personality than OCD. Obsessive/compulsive behavior is like washing your hands 50 times a day because you're convinced that your hands are constantly filthy and covered in dangerous germs. That's not addiction. And where did I ever say addicition is in any way an excuse for self-destructive behavior? That's right, I never said it anywhere--though I did comment on it to say such a discussion would be off topic.
By the way, you can preach personal responsibility all you want. It won't make people change if they don't want to. Doesn't make your point any less valid, but come on. You can scream and shout about how people should save money and not go crazy with credit cards but reckless spenders probably won't listen until they're broke and have racked up a couple thousand dollars of debt.
Several times now you have made similar statements in this thread and it makes it very hard to look at your views as anything but non objective and completely biased.
I'm burned out of WoW also and I would love to find another MMO that offers enough quality to replace it, but I am not going to stretch the truth in an attempt to justify some need. I am trying really hard to like Warhammer, because I want to play with my friends and the PvP at times is really fun, but saying the PvE is this game rocks and is somehow on par with the better PvE games on the market doesn't make much sense, especially when compared in the manor you original did.
Warhammers PvE is very lack luster. Sure there are some nice points like public quests and a few decent storylines here and there. Most fo the game fits those people who want activities to last 10-15 minutes before moving on to the next 15 minute segment of action the game offers, because that seems to be the design goal of the game, 15 minute activities. For the most part though, public quests are just a spruced up version of KILL X quests and are hardly a decent replacement for traditional MMO dungeon crawls, instanced or not.
If the PvE was really that much better than WoW then people would be flocking to do it seeing as how popular WoWs PvE is. Yet people sit around waiting for battlegroud ques instead to the point where they just get burned out on the game. That says something there. I know the experience/renown is better, but if people are quitting instead of switching over to the PvE activities then something is amiss.
The quests almost entirely fit into the kill X catagory. The story lines are almost always the same and have you running down NPCs of the opposing realm. They lack any real challange and even the AI is simplified compared to just about any other game on the market [for example: you can practically walk through any enemy camp without fear of attracting unwanted attention. You can shoot an arrow into an NPC that is having an conversation with another NPC and one will come attack you while the other continues with the conversation.
In fact I have a hard time thinking of the quests in this game as anything other than tasks. Most of the elements that make a quest have been removed. No need to actually read anything, look for help, figure out where to go or what to do, a compelling story to motivate/justify actions, etc. Just click on the NPC, click accept, run to the red blob on the map and kill or click on something depending on the what the quest tracker has reduced the entire task down to 10 words or less on the HUD. Then run back and get your reward and start another task.
I am not saying it is all bad, but I am also not going to slap lipstick on the PvE pig just because I am over exposed to another game.
You forgot the most important thing:
- Is it fun?
...personally I think WAR's pve is bloody boring as it stands now. The stiff animations or in some cases, lack of animations breaks the immersion. I was like omgwtfbbq when I first saw the dragon thing at the end of the 1st darkelf pq. Then I saw it didn't animate half the time, it's attack froze and how poorly animated the thing was. Then I was like 'bleh...where is the next scenario thank you very much'
WAR got problems with it's pve. It's just not fun to play. You do the quests for the xp and items only and don't give a damn in the whole lore thing behind them. Not that I expected good pve from this game, being that it's based around rvr, which they failed to implement as well. As long as scenarios stand as the fastest way to endgame, open world rvr is a joke in this game.
Been in a few rvr situations though, both defending and attacking, and while pvp is fun, the other side needs to be there too, but no, they are all busy queueing up for scenarios, and the attackers and defenders that bother to show, put up a half-hearted attempt to do what this game was made to do. Half of them leave after dying a few times anyway.
Game got balance problems regarding scenarios vs rvr. Rvr will be empty as long as scenarios give the xp and reknown they do. 50% more xp in rvr is just not enough to draw people out of the scenarios.
I do try to like this game though, despite it's failings. I won't go back to WoW, and the other mmo's out there don't look that promising, not that I tried. Trialed and subbed more mmo's that I care to remember. Save a few gems, they all failed to capture me.
edit:grammar hell...pfft
---
Grammar nazi's. This one is for you.
Well I intentionally left out the answer to this question because it really is a matter of completely subjective opinion.
Is it fun for ME? Yes, it is. Actually it does exactly what I need from a game's PvE - a nice sideline that isn't too demanding and yet is entertaining and varied enough to provide an occasional challenge. I've never been much of a PvE player or really into "stories" in video games. If I want to enjoy a really good, rich story I'll watch a movie or read a book - something non-interactive in any case.
Though I admit some people like their games to be story-based and scripted I never could get into those, especially not in multiplayer games which should, I strongly believe, primarily give players the means and tools to provide content (read stories) to each other. While I can get into some npc's problems in games like Silent Hill or Resident Evil, I simply cannot emphatize with a MMO npc with all the other live players running around. Imo MMOs should either be heavily PvP (or RvR, whatever) or sandbox PvE. Those story-based PvE mmos seem very unnatural to me - they're like playing Monopoly according to a linear script with dialogues and all, with you throwing the dice according to a scripted timeline and a few imaginary players that the "game" throws the dice for.
And before you ask... yes, I'd ditch the whole leveling concept in MMOs if I had the opportunity to build one from scratch. However despite this I find WAR a large step in the right direction - toward more interaction between the players, the world and between themselves. While it is not a "sandbox" game it is definitely moving away from the linear, ultimately single-player "hero's quest" paradigm. Sandboxes are not the end-all of game design, they do have flaws in their core principles and it is not a complete coincidence they are not as popular as the more established and tested concepts. I'd say that a "raw" sandbox as we know it from POTBS and UO is doomed to failure at its inception. On the other hand WAR with its RvR is testing quite a few novel approaches that might, ultimately, push the genre forward into more freedom and true player-run worlds.
For example: Public Quests are fantastic. Scripted and yet non-linear PvE content that is capable of naturally scaling difficulty from solo to raid level. They are an answer to many of the problems plaguing non-linear sandbox PvE mmos. I can see "Public Quests 2.0" as the mainstay of some future sandbox. I'd make them capable of shifting location, for example (say an Ork Village might grow in places without player settlements)... or they might have an added dimension to their difficulty (the Ork village PQ might have several levels of growth, the longer you leave them alone). Imo PQs really are a revolutionary concept that is capable of revitalizing the genre.
Well, each their own. I prefer story-based games. Skirmish-based rts' (ex:Sins of the Solar Empire and the Warhammer 40k expansions) for example don't capture me, I need that story. I'm one of those 'games are art' hippies
---
Grammar nazi's. This one is for you.
Oh I completely agree that games are a valid art form, no doubt about it. However we seem to differ in opinion what is the core foundation of that "art"...
For example, until the invention of photography it was a given that painting = realism. The more "realistic" a painting is the better. Only when photography took over the burden of being realistic painting could move away into impressionism and all the other modern styles. Painters realized that the painting, the visuality of it, is more important than its subject matter.
Film is an even better example. Since it was technologically associated with photography it was thought that it's aesthetics are directly based on realistic representation of subject matter. Only later it was discovered that, technology aside, film as an art form has much more in common with theater than photography. Some very learned experts even claimed that editing as such is completely "unnatural" to film and a passing fad because a photograph is the best if it is completely untouched.
I believe that "stories" in games are like "realism" in film. While they can be a pretty important element of a certain style they do not define the artform as such. I'd say that games are defined by interactivity, both with the game itself and the other players... and scripted stories often have to limit that interactivity in order to function.
Lol at this thread.
Ok I am not going to knock the OP. And I want to say I have really only played on the Destruction side at this point. (Tier 3 "50% completed")
Environment Effects = A+ (well done!)
PVE Experience = C-(after thought maybe?)
RVR Experience = A+ (wow, changed my view on PVP)
War = RVR tailored in my mind
PQ's = training pants were the kids are trained how to work together so when they enter RVR they understand the basic fundamentals of Team Work
RVR = Keeps getting better, the higher the Tier, the more variety!
PVE = Has done nothing but dissapoint me in most cases.
I have now taken on the roll of Full Time RVR, with my down time (time waiting for more RVR) spent at PQ's influencing for the item rewards.
I keep hearing about Crazy Cool Dungeons. Sacullem's are a total dissapointment, I hope I simply haven't found the cool dungeons yet.
---Retired---
WAR - Lots
Vanguard - Lots
---Live---
WoW - LOTS
EQ - LOTS
I do agree that story-based games limit your freedom in the games, but a game without a story is like a cookbook. While it contain some good recipies, it's not something you take and read in bed, or wherever you prefer reading books(it's the bed for me). What I'm saying is that the story and lore is really important for me. It can often make or break a game for me, depending on the game ofcourse. Multiplayer fps for example I play for the action and don't give a damn in the story behind it, or the lore.
---
Grammar nazi's. This one is for you.
Lore is one thing and story another. You can have a game with fantastically intricate lore and not one scripted or story-driven moment in it...
I'm all for rich lore and background in games (I'll call it "setting" because that's the way I've been brought up with pen-and-paper RPGs) but stories as linear things that go from beginning to a conclusion are... not really inherent to games as an artform imo.
But we digress. Lol, look at me hijacking my own thread!
Obviously this is such an incredibly flawed core game design issue that there is no conceivable hope of it ever being fixed or improved, ever. We all know that editing loot tables is such an amazingly complex and technologically demanding process that a game company such as Mythic, which is well known for completely ignoring their players or the game itself after its released, will never, ever embark on such a massive undertaking.
/sarcasm off, none of the above is true, obviously
..and besides you are referring only to the non-PQ, non-quest PvE group content which is a very minor part of the game. However if this is "end of consideration or discussion" or whatever for the game ever and ever then it is only your own loss.
And besides for the life of me I don't know why you expect that the game should give out the best rewards for one certain style of gameplay... that happens to be the dominant one in a certain other popular MMO? Hmm... it's either "clone" or "not clone enough." At the same time it is "nothing new" but somehow the old principles do not hold true anymore.. which is supposed to be bad as well. Imo the critics should make up their minds.
Yelling "WoW clone" and then in the same paragraph griping that something is bad because it is different from WoW makes no sense whatsoever. (I'm not refering to the quote above, just making a general observation on the flawed approach many habitual WAR critics take, either directly or by clear implication.)
You are obviously answering to someone else than me, or to yourself.
As to editing loot tables afterward, I know better than to hope for those. The commitment is not there toward PvE soloing/grouping, I won't play the game. You seem more affected than me by this situation.
- "If I understand you well, you are telling me until next time. " - Ren
I can't agree with you more about ditching levels in MMOs. They have always felt artificial and usually cause more problems than they solve. They must make it easier to design content around, but people get so focused on watching those stupid little progress bars, that they begin to think that is what MMO content is all about. Doing meaningless tasks just to advance a progress bar gets really old really fast, unless those tasks are entertaining in themselves and not just something to fill time and keep people subscribing.
Public quests I am not completely sold on yet. They have potential, but from everything I have seen of them so far they create disposable content, offer little to no challenge, eliminate much of the social interaction that makes MMOs interesting and so on. Sure it is cool to jump into a fight for 10-15 minutes and get some instant gratification if you win a loot bag, but they don't support making bonds with people, talking, learning strategies. I really liked how Richard Garriot talked about his version of public quests about a year before Tabula Rasa launched, but those never came to be for many reason. Overall the potential is there for public quests to help MMOs evolve, but Warhammers delivery and reliance on them has not been very engaging.
Public quests at first reminded me of the old days in Ultima Online dungeons. The UO dungeon "wrong" for example where people just worked together killing things, socializing and such until a big ogre lord spawned or some PK's come around to harass the dungeon crawlers. There was no grouping mechanic or loot system, just people playing together in an area. I think the 15 minute timers and constant resetting of public quests is the wrong approach [no pun intended]. It makes me think they were almost designed to give people something to do for 15 minutes, get some treasure and move onto the next stop.
I can't agree with you more about ditching levels in MMOs. They have always felt artificial and usually cause more problems than they solve. They must make it easier to design content around, but people get so focused on watching those stupid little progress bars, that they begin to think that is what MMO content is all about. Doing meaningless tasks just to advance a progress bar gets really old really fast, unless those tasks are entertaining in themselves and not just something to fill time and keep people subscribing.
Public quests I am not completely sold on yet. They have potential, but from everything I have seen of them so far they create disposable content, offer little to no challenge, eliminate much of the social interaction that makes MMOs interesting and so on. Sure it is cool to jump into a fight for 10-15 minutes and get some instant gratification if you win a loot bag, but they don't support making bonds with people, talking, learning strategies. I really liked how Richard Garriot talked about his version of public quests about a year before Tabula Rasa launched, but those never came to be for many reason. Overall the potential is there for public quests to help MMOs evolve, but Warhammers delivery and reliance on them has not been very engaging.
Public quests at first reminded me of the old days in Ultima Online dungeons. The UO dungeon "wrong" for example where people just worked together killing things, socializing and such until a big ogre lord spawned or some PK's come around to harass the dungeon crawlers. There was no grouping mechanic or loot system, just people playing together in an area. I think the 15 minute timers and constant resetting of public quests is the wrong approach [no pun intended]. It makes me think they were almost designed to give people something to do for 15 minutes, get some treasure and move onto the next stop.
Well ofc the PQ concept can be can be improved! That's what's so exciting about it! For example Mythic talked about PvP public quests but then ditched them about 6 months before the release, saying that there are some problems with player motivation, possible exploits and such.
However they did leave a few of the "semi" PvP PQs in dwarf/greenskin areas, probably to test them a bit. They turned out to be the most popular ones by far, with players constantly referring to them as the "best". Now they announced the introduction of RvR influence and a major effort to revitalize RvR zones - which could mean some PvP public quests in RvR lakes (oh, I wish..).
Imo they do have a novel concept on their hands and they are testing it out. This is not like adding a bunch of new quests or "innovating" PvE by placing some scripted bomb run "flying" missions. Imo they are being smart by being careful - those novel ideas can have hidden flaws that get apparent only when it is too late.
For example PQs could have easily bombed completely, taking the whole game along with them... were it not for the influence which ensures that even if you are unlucky with drops, you will get rewarded for your efforts. Without influence PQs would be a totally asocial, elitist-breeding environment - an endless source of greed and frustration.
As for socialization... I find them great places to socialize. Imo the reason why more people arent talking should be looked for elsewhere. When I do a PQ with a group it is always very stimulating devising tactics on the fly, as you must do constantly since you won't do the same PQ more than twice. Good players are very easily spotted, as well as those with a social bent. I usually do guild recruitment while pugging PQs and I almost always end up with a few more people on my friends list.
I don't think Mythic is being safe with public quests at all. I would wager that at least half of the PvE game map real estate taken up by public quests. There has to be over 150 of them considering there are average 7 in each of the races tiered area. I think Mythic was banking on these being a major aspect of the game and somehow building community through teamwork.
Where you seem to find lots of people doing public quest they are ghost towns elsewhere. I am going to have to say that people just are not doing them for many reasons, some listed above and some not obvious yet. From what I have seen of them so far I hope they don't have a big impact on future games unless they change significantly.
I am with Daffid on this one. The issue with PQs is that there are way too many of them. I love the idea of PQs but 9 out of 10 have 1 person grinding influence and once in a blue moon you may get lucky and finish one in a group. If they reduced PQs to maybe 3 on a map but made them more epic then the crowds would be concentrated. As it stands they dont have much impact at all.
As far as PvE goes WAR is way behind Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, AoC and probably a host of other MMO's. Varied quests doesn't mean different text that means FA. The majority of PvE I saw was mundane and just a grind fest. Not saying the other games listed dont have grind but some of the best PvE I ever saw was in TR especially in the instances. AoC has a lot of kill X amount but there have been some very cool ideas and some nasty story lines. Vanguard have more kill X this and that but still found it more interesting. On a level playing field EVE probably has similar level of PvE but that is PvP hell so PvE is not the game.
Actually the number mentioned by devs was 450+ O.o!
But it is not all about the quantity.. They do have a pretty similar progression - 3 stages mostly and the majority have a normal, champion, hero mob flow. While there are some that are a bit different in that regard, and the formula does allow considerable variety, imo the possibilities of changing those constants are quite staggering.
Imo they did manage to perfect the above formula and then concentrated on making variations, knowing they cant go very wrong. I'll be quite disappointed if we don't see some pretty new PQ types - those with different branching stages (like those "semi-PvP" ones in dwarf zones aready have), those whose stages take place in different areas. Maybe some moving ones, like an attack on a caravan that is on the run? Escort PQs? Maybe PQs that trigger within a keep siege? Who knows?
... as for PQ s being empty/unable to form a group.. well as I said before I never seem to have that problem. Each chapter holds 3 PQs (on average) - within that chapter you're bound to find 5 people willing to PQ a bit. If they are scattered around then just gather them up - being a bit proactive goes a long way.
When you see a lone dude doing the 1st PQ stage, just join him. Make an open group so people can see there are 2 of you doing it.. an average player will think "with me that's 3.. we can try the 2nd stage now and inf does go in faster if there are more of us at it".. The next guy seeing that open group will think "with me that's 4, if those guys are any good we might try to complete the PQ". See? The point is to make that first step - once you have a group the ball usually starts rolling on its own.
Imo the greatest problem with grouping is that a lot of players are still thinking they are playing WoW where there exists a real problem of kill stealing. In fact you gain influence FASTER when grouped than if you solo. In addition there are much more mobs being killed around you so you get a much better chance of a usable random drop. I really cannot fathom why some people refuse to group but I can see that there is less and less of those as the average player realizes that he is not "in Kansas anymore."
I actually Enjoy PQs they give me that raid feel without all the hassle (just what mythic intended).
Someone said the game has 450+ PQs? thats awesome I'm gonna log in right now and do one.
Since I'm not anti-social and actually go looking to START a group I always get my PQs done.
Most people just expect some group to be doing one already, thats the wrong way to go about PQs.
Playing: Nothing
Looking forward to: Nothing
Here you go again blaming the players for the issues of the game or even worse blaming WoW for Warhammers problems.
Maybe you are one of the lucky people playing on a server with decent population or more likely you are leveling up right along with the "population bubble" that all tend to clump together when a new game/expansion launches. Go pick any low/medium server with an xp boost and tell me how much luck you have there doing public quests and getting groups. Now just look at how many servers are low-medium and do the math.
I would also disagree with your fact of getting more influence [or xp for that matter] grouped than some do solo. Sure if you have enough people to actually complete the public quest, but there are some classes that gain more solo than they do even grouped and they don't need to complete the quest. Just do other things while it times out. Not that it is very entertaining sitting around a public quest area grinding mobs in the hopes something might develope if someone happens to run by.
Grinding mobs for XP [influence or renown] died a long time ago with EQ. The problem is that Mythic did just about everything they could to keep people from communicating. The horrid chat, no forums, etc. Even a decent Looking for Group tool would have done wonders. Even the tiniest of changes to the open group system would have helped. Something like letting you put a note about what you are looking to do: PQ-RvR-Scenarios-Quest. Right now joining an open group might be people doing the same thing or people scattered across the map or even people not doing what you are assume they are doing, because their listing is based on where they are standing, not what they are looking to do if you join the group. Plenty of time the open groups are just passing through an area and not doing what they are listed as doing.
Here you go again blaming the players for the issues of the game or even worse blaming WoW for Warhammers problems.
Maybe you are one of the lucky people playing on a server with decent population or more likely you are leveling up right along with the "population bubble" that all tend to clump together when a new game/expansion launches. Go pick any low/medium server with an xp boost and tell me how much luck you have there doing public quests and getting groups. Now just look at how many servers are low-medium and do the math.
I would also disagree with your fact of getting more influence [or xp for that matter] grouped than some do solo. Sure if you have enough people to actually complete the public quest, but there are some classes that gain more solo than they do even grouped and they don't need to complete the quest. Just do other things while it times out. Not that it is very entertaining sitting around a public quest area grinding mobs in the hopes something might develope if someone happens to run by.
Grinding mobs for XP [influence or renown] died a long time ago with EQ. The problem is that Mythic did just about everything they could to keep people from communicating. The horrid chat, no forums, etc. Even a decent Looking for Group tool would have done wonders. Even the tiniest of changes to the open group system would have helped. Something like letting you put a note about what you are looking to do: PQ-RvR-Scenarios-Quest. Right now joining an open group might be people doing the same thing or people scattered across the map or even people not doing what you are assume they are doing, because their listing is based on where they are standing, not what they are looking to do if you join the group. Plenty of time the open groups are just passing through an area and not doing what they are listed as doing.
Actually no... I'm on Karak-Norn which is one of the most severely underpopulated servers in EU and currently on the xp/rp dole.
I'm not "blaming" people - what I am saying is that WAR grouping operates somewhat differently than what is the norm in most other MMOs. Players need time to adjust and find the optimal LFG modes - that is all. It's like you've been playing FPSs where you are upright all the time and now a new one comes along where you can both crouch and go prone... Ofc you'll be dying a lot at first and probably blame the "stupid game" until you get accustomed to changing your stance on the fly. That's perfectly normal imo.
Chat is still sub-standard, no argument about it. Mythic is gradually fixing it but imo it was probably the biggest flaw in the otherwise excellent release.
Oh and I agree that the open group window itself should be improved.. For starters it should display the closest groups at the top, rather than bottom of the screen. Some kind of display showing you where those guys are on the map would be awesome too. An idea bandied on WAR forums is that PQs themselves should display the number of nearby players as well as their current stage when you mouse them over. That might be too much of an easy mode discouraging exploration but on the other hand it might not be such bad thing at all...
... oh and actually you can put a note for your open group that would be seen by everyone LFGing... however you have to do it through a chat command. Its something like /groupnote or whatever. But anyway it is completely unintuitive, which is obvious because absolutely nobody is using it and it should definitely be fixed... which will happen eventually I'm sure.
.....Lol, it's amazing that a post this long doesn't actually prove a single thing, as far as the end game being as complex and difficult as Wow is simply....retarded. I've done end game and though i agree with basically everything u say, u didn't actually say anything about what everyone is complaining about, that end game is shallow and without any real depth or strategy, basically the raids are easy mode for dumb a$$'s, and saying that u find them difficult and entertaining simply says allot about u, In the end Blizzard has already stated there putting everything that War has that people left for (PvP loot drop's, PvP xp, Mass RvR) In the new expansion, all this talk of War is basically waste of time, they tried and failed like so many others, should be used to it by now.
Kudos to the OP! Perfect PvE review!
I also think you are right on about one thing. It seems some people are only playing Scenarios, then concluding the PvE in the game is poor.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
