The concept behind WAR was great, they just failed to execute it properly. Everything get's so repetitive. All the RvR zones are the same aside from looks. There really isn't any variety, every keep is the same, and every lord is the same. I don't know who had the great idea of making players smack a door for 10-15 minutes, but I hope they got fired. All the PvE zones are split in half, which makes it difficult to run into enemy players outside of the lakes. This makes the game even more boring since everyone spends most of their time in the lakes. I always liked running into enemies in WoW. That rarely happened in WAR, unless you were in a RvR Lake.
On top of that the game is designed for players to PvP in order to PvE, which is the main problem. That doesn't make much sense to me. The whole reason I started playing WAR was for PvP. Why is it that all the best gear required PvE (yes keeps and city are PvE)? Sure they have tokens now, but the grind is MUCH worse than WoW's honor system. It already sucked that it took me forever to get ONE piece of armor. I would never win the roll no matter how high my contribution was.
Mythic over-hyped the game and made some horrible decisions. I was under the impression that these guys made the best PvP MMO to date. I never played DAOC, but it sure as hell couldn't have resembled this game at all. Mythic had their chance to turn the game around. They had a loyal fanbase who supported them and believed they would fix what was broken. No, they only provided bandaid fixes and new content in hopes that people would forget the problems.
This is not the way to treat your customers. Look at where this got them? Most of their loyal fans/customers hate this game now. All of my RL friends who loved the game at first, hate it now. Only one of them says he loved it, but he quit playing way before I did. The only thing they got right was EXP through PvP.
As I said, and you seem to agree, is that the arena implementation is very good. I also expect it to be further enchanced with the upcoming changes in battle.net. What is lacking, and what I'm referring to as open world PvP, is something else. Something that wintergrasp or similar battleground like implementations can't provide.
There is little incentive to actively seek the opposing faction in WoW in the beautiful open and seamless environment, when you can just hop in an instance very fast. So little if any world PvP is happening. What I'm referring to is the equivalent of the early days crossroads and similar attacks, where people were fighting all over the map for no other reason beyond the conflict.
Btw, I don't consider gangers a form of meaningful open world PvP. Even if we consider wintergrasp an equivalent of a castle siege, it fails on the very principle of siegeing. There is little incentive in keeping hold of wintergrasp, when there is more to be gained from recapturing every couple hours. At least on my server the lake was changing hands everytime the territory was open for PvP (even though Horde was totally outnumbered by alliance).
So imagine a game where the above characteristics are inversed:
A world with no arenas or instanced battlegrounds, where the conflict between the factions can span through whole regions. Castles that are too precious to be handed over to the other side and guilds would fight over their dominion, no matter what the personal loss would be.
Doesn't this sound like a different game to you? WAR tried to stand somewhere in the middle, which didn't work out that well (I don't dismiss the unresponsiveness of the combat as an added problem). Aion on the other hand seems to keep the best elements of Lineage 2 (conflict everywhere and territorial control that mattered) and lose some of the problems (insane level grinding), while it remains to be seen if it will lose all problems (botting, hacking etc). We already know that it has a very solid and responsive game engine, even when a lot of people are present. What remains to be seen is how they implemented open world PvP, if territory control is actually meaningful (for now it looks good on paper) and if they take a more aggressive stance against cheaters (botting, hacking, gold farming etc). My hopes are high for Aion, but if it fails to impress me, I won't care much. The same way I didn't care when AoC and WAR didn't meet my expectations.
The Crossroads and Tauren Mill battles happened because they were brawls. People just wanted to fight and they did not really care why. They went to Crossroads and Tauren Mill because they are easy to get to fight whenever you wanted. There was nothing strategic or meaningfull (in a big picture sense) to them. For all intents and purposes they were PvP hubs just as Battlegrounds and Wintergrasp are. They weren't 'real' world PvP.
I have to strongly disagree with your point about a lack of incentive to fight for Wintergrasp. On my server WIntergrasp battles are a tooth-and-nail affairs. Neither side really wants to give up Wintergrasp and the majority of battles are fought out to the bitter end even if one side is obviously winning. I've been in a few battles where the Horde won the battle with only a few seconds left on the clock.
The primary problem with 'meaningfull' territory control is balance and the corresponding 'Spiral of Defeat'. People will not fight over territory that has no value to them. The more valuable the territory the more people are willing to sacrifice to get control of it. If the territory is really valuable it will give whoever holds it a serious advantage thus making it easier for him to defend it. Conversly those not holding the territory will be at a disadvantage. If the power unblaance persist for too long the attackers will start losing players who will switch to the other side so they too can partake of the benefits.
If the attacker concludes that the power balance is too far in their disadvantage, they will stop attacking becasue it would be the stupid thing to do. They will wait for a better opportunity where they have the advantage. In a MMORPG that usually means attacking when the defenders are offline. If the other side cannot reliably defend their territory they will not put as much effort into doing it since it become futile to do so.
I really don't know. Everyone likes to think, that they think WAR sucks. But I think it's a great game. I'm playing right now (two monitors).
WAR is way more fun for me than WoW ever was. I just don't get how to have fun it WoW, but I do get how to have fun in WAR.
I do about 50/50 scenarios and RvR with no PvE, and I have a lot of fun. But I also had fun in CoX, another game people didn't really get. So I just don't jibe with the popular crowd when it comes to MMOs.
I really don't know. Everyone likes to think, that they think WAR sucks. But I think it's a great game. I'm playing right now (two monitors).
WAR is way more fun for me than WoW ever was. I just don't get how to have fun it WoW, but I do get how to have fun in WAR.
I do about 50/50 scenarios and RvR with no PvE, and I have a lot of fun. But I also had fun in CoX, another game people didn't really get. So I just don't jibe with the popular crowd when it comes to MMOs.
For myself i do PVE while in the Q for scenarios. When the scenario is over i "re Q" and continue on my way to the quest target. Yes i to find Warhammer more fun than WOW but could be do to the fact that i have WOW burnout like so many gamers.
To keep it simple. I played WOW for about 18 months total, and eventually decided I had enough of that game style and moved on. I gave WAR, AOC , ROM, and others a try, and in most cases I came to the same conclusion. This is too similar to WOW, there's no reason for me to play it. For the past 2 years I've been playing EVE and keep coming back to it, because it does not feel like WOW. But I do miss swinging a broadsword sometimes.
I can sort of understand the WAR and WoW comparison (although I think there are a lot more differences than people let on) but in what way, shape, or form is AoC similar to WoW?
Did you even play the game? Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone. Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.
You're right about T4 being the problem, but not because it was repetitive necessarily. Everything is repetitive in that perspective. WoW is very repetitive at endgame, just raid, get gear, raid again, do dailies, raid.
T4 blew due to the broken city siege mechanic. It also became a problem due to class imbalance and the CC/AoE nonsense. Game client was problematic & super laggy. 2 factions system with zone lockdowns ended up being a problem for some. Oh yeah, and city sieges were retarded the way they were structured.
That being said, Warhammer is the best mass PvP game on the market. If only the developers focused the fixed the right aspects, the game would be flourishing right now. Mythic also should have never aimed at the WoW crowd, as most WoW players are clueless when it comes to a PvP MMO. They join a PvP MMO and then complain about lack of WoW like PvE. Utter morons.
I played both games & quit both games. If I had to choose one, I would prob play Warhammer again and level my alts through T1-T3, which are a blast. Warhammer has great potential, but I think EA threw in the towel on it.
To keep it simple. I played WOW for about 18 months total, and eventually decided I had enough of that game style and moved on. I gave WAR, AOC , ROM, and others a try, and in most cases I came to the same conclusion. This is too similar to WOW, there's no reason for me to play it. For the past 2 years I've been playing EVE and keep coming back to it, because it does not feel like WOW. But I do miss swinging a broadsword sometimes.
I can sort of understand the WAR and WoW comparison (although I think there are a lot more differences than people let on) but in what way, shape, or form is AoC similar to WoW?
It's an MMO. That's bout where the similarity ends. AoC is PvP focused.
Did you even play the game? Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone. Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.
Scenarios were not in anyway important why would you care if the zone flipped did you really look at the bar after a scenario and go yay it went up or down? .
The only why they would be important if they were in the real zone and you were teleported to them, they should have replaced the stupid BO in each rvr lake.
it's not like there are any mobs in the lake either, depending on the amount of players in the lake for each side even it out with some bots Give each player a npc guard or 2 to even it out if there too outnumbered when it started.
Mythic played a perfect game in the field: (Xn, .... Sn) = Wow. Where X = the number of traditonnal Fantasy mmorpg's and S is the strategies they use. As long as you make the exact copies of the field winner, you reinforce its position. Even if you would add some strategy cards to the new game (like Xp through PvP and join BG's (scenarios) from anywhere) you simply add market share to the winner. Blizzard added joining BG's from anywhere (3.1) and Xp through pure PvP leveling in patch 3.2. The result is you can't out Wow - Wow. Mythic should have made a complete different game mechanic. Just like all those 13 in a dozen clones released and (sigh) to be released. ... and IF you want to push a PvP game ... at least have the best fluid responsive controls possible (War's engine was ... bad)....
When you fecking moron stop calling everything as a wow clone...wow is a fucking copy of eq and so on. If wow has most of the palyer base in eastern world it doesn't give the "GOD" title! I wonder why i still play wow because i know there are delusionists like you...any change that you were one of those in basement with the "daddy" ...don't you guys do that in there?
Since you talk so much about Warhammer in OP, you should've posted it on the Warhammer area.
I, being no WoW or WAR fanboy, but actually owning both games, have to say WoW giving XP in BGs, acessibility from anywhere, and planning to give out equipment in BGs are really a very considerable copy of what WAR had of different and good in my opinion.
So, who's cloning who after all?
From a gamer's perspective though, we're finnaly beginning to see major games shifting in the direction to award experience for PvP, which is something new to the table. And trust me, as the Behemoth is using it, expect every game from now on to feature it, not that it's bad but I actually like this feature.
I believe we're talking about two schools of MMO progression:
Every member is trying to be the best it can be and so the guild he/she is in becomes stronger out of it. This is the basic principle of people-centric games like WoW (in the way you described it). Bottom line, a member of a guild doesn't lose much of his personal power or status by leaving this guild.
Alternatively, a guild or clan is growing stronger and the strength is transferred to its members. In games like EVE or Lineage 2, it's not that much the individual that matters but the whole unit. Bottom line, a member of a guild looses quite a bit of his personal power or status by leaving this guild.
Both schools are valid and there are games that cater to both of them.
As I said earlier in the quoted message, WAR tried to be a successful guild progression based MMO, but ultimately failed to deliver a proper RvR game. Lineage 2 for example, has very successfully implemented territorial control, both in the form of castles and in the form of controlling choke points. Castles is obvious, the difference from WAR is that there is zero incentive to maintain control of the castle, while Lineage 2 gives very strong incentives (to the point where people were willing to delevel, aka losing 100-200 hours worth of exp). EVE has the same situation, people are gambling everything they have to protect their assets in 0.0.
Choke points is controlling part of the map, so that the other faction/guild/clan etc does not control it. Imagine an Alliance guild barring the entrance to Onyxia from Horde, so that the only way for Horde to gain access to Onyxia is to defeat the Alliance. To be fair, Blizzard implemented various points like this in the world map (silithus, Halla etc), but due to little incentive as opposed to arena/battlegrounds, those open world objectives were pretty much ignored. Basically, the same situation as WAR, scenarios had a huge negative impact on open world PvP.
I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:
Create scenario free servers or,
Remove the scenario mechanism altogether.
Since this is unlikely to happen, open world PvP will be sabotaged by scenarios. I'm afraid I have not experienced Land of the Dead to give an accurate account of the RvR involved, but it seems from various posts that PvE this time is hindering open world PvP.
I don't think that I played an MMO that recreated the adrenaline rush involved with barely keeping your castle, while overwhelmed by hordes of enemies. In WoW, my big adrenaline rush was due to raid bosses and belonging/managing the best raid guild in the server. Wintergrasp reminds me a lot (in feeling) to Team Fortress 2, it was enjoyable, fast paced and fun, but also devoid of any emotional attachment. I didn't even feel disappointment when losing the battleground, since in my mind that was inevitable due to the design of the lake.
Hmmm, better stop now, I spent more time than planned.
Did you even play the game? Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone. Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.
Scenarios were not in anyway important why would you care if the zone flipped did you really look at the bar after a scenario and go yay it went up or down? .
I don't know why you even bother talking about WAR when you lack the IQ to undestand the concept of Realm versus Realm and WAR being a PvP game.
Regardless, WAR scenarios are lots of fun and great way to level via PvP.
I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:
Create scenario free servers or, Remove the scenario mechanism altogether.
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
I was thinking about it and i played both for awile not as long as daoc but for a bit, and i was thinking about why one has so many and the other is failing. It's not like there content is that diffrent wow's content was never that diffrent from the other mmo's on the market maby even less so than others. war has some problems with rvr they have been listed time n again it wasen't Lotd either wrong choice by mythic. But the fundementals are there it's everything wow is and more so why so bad? Its user experiance, we play mmo's to be around people and have persistance world so we want content that caters to that and what developers do. wow developed there game in such a way that there content was good it was what we want, but had the luck of a fan base to get the amount of players nessesary to enjoy there content to the level they intended and then some. Eventually word of a great experiance spread and went to bring more players and keep the experiance high. It became a cycle and thats how there numbers got so high. I mean its not like just casual people play wow it takes all kinds hardcore and casual to reach there numbers. War had the hype it had some flaws, it got the strong player base but unlike wow they didn't structure there game properly the content never got the right amount of players to enjoy the experiance properly, the only part that got the right amount of players to play properly the battle ground senario's automated system accessability was right. and no suprise it was most peoples favorite but they burned out doing it to much cause the other content wasen't structured to get the right experiance. War didn't fail due to lack of content, It was there pve wise and pvp wise they just didn't structure it properly. At least in my opinion ;p
IMO, WAR's content is crappy due to low population. There is not enough content to solo level and that was supposed to be made up for by RvR and PQ's. The RvR has gotten a lot better and there is quite a bit more of ORvR on Dark Craag and Iron Rock, but nobody ever, ever, ever, EVER, does PQs.
Can't have much of a discussion when somebody resorts to personal insults. I was curious about your maturity, certainly not indicative of your age bracket.
I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:
Create scenario free servers or, Remove the scenario mechanism altogether.
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Hydroblunt you are right, but at the same time missing Xasapis' point.
Yes the scenarios are one of the better parts of warhammer. Removing them is simply eliminating content and that is never a good thing for a game. However as fun as scenarios are, they work in direct contrast to the so called selling point of the RvR concept of warhammer. They hurt the major goal of the game which is RvR.
As I have heard it stated from beta players, the keep/fort system of RvR was added as a last minute feature. The open world pvp system and the scenario system compete to much with each other instead of complimenting each other.
All of those other points from the forums are very valid as well, but the instanced pvp doesn't really help the open world pvp either.
IMO, WAR's content is crappy due to low population. There is not enough content to solo level and that was supposed to be made up for by RvR and PQ's. The RvR has gotten a lot better and there is quite a bit more of ORvR on Dark Craag and Iron Rock, but nobody ever, ever, ever, EVER, does PQs.
What are you talking about? Low population? Try rolling on the high pop servers. Have you ever played WoW on a low-med pop server? I have, and it sucks just as bad.
You can level solely through quests in WAR, you will just have to fly to the different zones to pick up the slack. And if you actually played on Dark Crag, you would know that there was RvR nonstop, as well as city sieges at least a few times a day. That is until that crappy content patch which sealed the deal for WAR's inevitable death.
I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:
Create scenario free servers or, Remove the scenario mechanism altogether.
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Hydroblunt you are right, but at the same time missing Xasapis' point.
Yes the scenarios are one of the better parts of warhammer. Removing them is simply eliminating content and that is never a good thing for a game. However as fun as scenarios are, they work in direct contrast to the so called selling point of the RvR concept of warhammer. They hurt the major goal of the game which is RvR.
He has no real point because he is wrong and makes little sense. Scenarios were very well received and no they do not work against the goal of the game. Not everyone wants to do RvR nonstop, hump BOs and hit doors to progress through the game. Scenarios appealed to many players who wanted instanced PvP & a way to level through PvP. Scenarios are one of the best features in Warhammer. They are good to variety, as WAR is a PvP focused game, after all.
They contribute to Zone flips, they also provide Renown Points. Take them out and you leave players with less options to do something. Wnat if I want to log for an hour and accomplish something? RvR is time consuming, better off logging into a couple scenarios.
Oh, and the final point, they are FUN. Lots of fun. That's why people play them nonstop.
It failed because it's just another clone of Wow. All these games do is make minor changes compared to Wow then release them and wonder why they fail. They fail because most are looking for something different now and Warhammer does not fit that bill. Why should anyone leave Wow and start over for more of the same? The next one that is getting hype is Aion. I see another failure coming with this one for it's just another wow clone with minor changes. If it's pvp is really good it might survive with that alone as a niche game even though the pvp only crowd is pretty small.
Originally posted by Hydroblunt He has no real point because he is wrong and makes little sense. Scenarios were very well received and no they do not work against the goal of the game. Not everyone wants to do RvR nonstop, hump BOs and hit doors to progress through the game. Scenarios appealed to many players who wanted instanced PvP & a way to level through PvP. Scenarios are one of the best features in Warhammer. They are good to variety, as WAR is a PvP focused game, after all. They contribute to Zone flips, they also provide Renown Points. Take them out and you leave players with less options to do something. Wnat if I want to log for an hour and accomplish something? RvR is time consuming, better off logging into a couple scenarios. Oh, and the final point, they are FUN. Lots of fun. That's why people play them nonstop.
Actually he is correct, but loses points for the presentation by saying their removal will "fix" the game.
Just like I think you are correct and everything you said above is true. Yet at the same time the design of the rvr/pvp concept of the game is at odds with itself. Many many people did not receive scenarios very well.
Removing scenarios would improve the RvR aspect of the game, but at the same time scenarios are one of the few good aspects of the game. I don't think removing them solves the rvr problem, but their existance does hurt it. Not that I really care anymore or think it is a problem that has a solution.
It sounds like the whole keep system of RvR was added as an 11th hour change to warhammer during late beta and it just doesn't work with the rest of the games design. It isn't like people care about scenarios to flip zones or it even gives a feel of contributing to the war aspect of the game. They are just fun instanced pvp.
This is just a situation where you are both right, but there really isn't a good solution.
I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:
Create scenario free servers or, Remove the scenario mechanism altogether.
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Hydroblunt you are right, but at the same time missing Xasapis' point.
Yes the scenarios are one of the better parts of warhammer. Removing them is simply eliminating content and that is never a good thing for a game. However as fun as scenarios are, they work in direct contrast to the so called selling point of the RvR concept of warhammer. They hurt the major goal of the game which is RvR.
As I have heard it stated from beta players, the keep/fort system of RvR was added as a last minute feature. The open world pvp system and the scenario system compete to much with each other instead of complimenting each other.
All of those other points from the forums are very valid as well, but the instanced pvp doesn't really help the open world pvp either.
What you say is a very good reason to support the scenarios. More people do them for a reason, because its fun and War has made it very easy to get into the queue. I see WOW is employing the "button on the map" option for there battlegrounds soon as well. Rvr is fun but the evidence shows that scenarios are more popular.
Scenarios were the only thing that stopped me from quitting earlier then I did, but they still weren't enough to keep me in with all the class issues. That and the fact that everytime they "fixed" the class issues it was actually fixing the wrong issues and thus creating more problems.
The reason WAR isn't doing well is simple that it was poorly made, it's concepts didn't work, it's classes didn't work, and the PvE was as terrible as it gets.
WAR's problem is in no way shape nor form the structure of the content.
His performance is abyssmal there are plenty of games that look twice better than WAR and perform 20x better than WAR. WAR is founded over an 8 years old engine that simply can not support the epic battles marketed, and that was what the playerbase demanded
The RvR mechanics in WAR represent several backsteps from DAOC. any of the things that made DAOC a great game made into WAR
Mythic made their own bed and now they have to sleep in it. They have been marketing WAR like the second coming of Jesus to the MMO world, and it didnt deliver anything other than misery and frustration While failure cannot ever be excused, they wouldnt get this HUGE community backlash had they been more humble in the very beginning,or when the shit started hitting the fan Pretty much all the problems that are killing WAR now were pointed by the beta testers hundreds of times, and the reaction was a cascade of bans and threats. All they wanted to hear were the yay-sayers that told them how amazing the game was, and how hard it would crush WoW
The balance between classes is atrocious You cannot have one realm completly ruling over the other thanks to 3 classes out of 24. also, we all can understand that some skills can work in a different way than intended, that balance is the most tricky feature to pull,and that everybody should deal with a certain margin of nerfs/buffs. But WAR career balance so far has been a total rollercoaster of classes going from GODS to GIMPS (never in between) patch after patch, and now in 1.3 balance is even more out of hand than it ever was at release.
WAR is a gear grind / Failed to meet its audience Mythic as usual, tried to steal players from the top MMO (back then EQ, now WoW) by giving them more of what they are used to, and failing at it, while showing the middle finger to the same loyal playerbase that supported them before
WAR is 90% about bland, uninteresting and repetitive PvE, 10% about PvP. With this, all Mythic got was pissing off both types of players, PvE players that can see WoW is billions of times ahead of WAR, and RvR players that see the RvR in WAR is like a really really bad joke
in a nutshell, WAR is like a Marx Brothers movie. Everything that could go wrong went HORRIBLY wrong, and in 99% of the cases it was due to blatant negligence.
I believe, sir, you managed to summarize exactly why I left so quickly after release, even though I enjoyed some of the beta experience. Well done. I had such high hopes and then...^^^ this. Now my shiny, collector's edition sits on the shelf behind me whilst I play other games.
Comments
The concept behind WAR was great, they just failed to execute it properly. Everything get's so repetitive. All the RvR zones are the same aside from looks. There really isn't any variety, every keep is the same, and every lord is the same. I don't know who had the great idea of making players smack a door for 10-15 minutes, but I hope they got fired. All the PvE zones are split in half, which makes it difficult to run into enemy players outside of the lakes. This makes the game even more boring since everyone spends most of their time in the lakes. I always liked running into enemies in WoW. That rarely happened in WAR, unless you were in a RvR Lake.
On top of that the game is designed for players to PvP in order to PvE, which is the main problem. That doesn't make much sense to me. The whole reason I started playing WAR was for PvP. Why is it that all the best gear required PvE (yes keeps and city are PvE)? Sure they have tokens now, but the grind is MUCH worse than WoW's honor system. It already sucked that it took me forever to get ONE piece of armor. I would never win the roll no matter how high my contribution was.
Mythic over-hyped the game and made some horrible decisions. I was under the impression that these guys made the best PvP MMO to date. I never played DAOC, but it sure as hell couldn't have resembled this game at all. Mythic had their chance to turn the game around. They had a loyal fanbase who supported them and believed they would fix what was broken. No, they only provided bandaid fixes and new content in hopes that people would forget the problems.
This is not the way to treat your customers. Look at where this got them? Most of their loyal fans/customers hate this game now. All of my RL friends who loved the game at first, hate it now. Only one of them says he loved it, but he quit playing way before I did. The only thing they got right was EXP through PvP.
The Crossroads and Tauren Mill battles happened because they were brawls. People just wanted to fight and they did not really care why. They went to Crossroads and Tauren Mill because they are easy to get to fight whenever you wanted. There was nothing strategic or meaningfull (in a big picture sense) to them. For all intents and purposes they were PvP hubs just as Battlegrounds and Wintergrasp are. They weren't 'real' world PvP.
I have to strongly disagree with your point about a lack of incentive to fight for Wintergrasp. On my server WIntergrasp battles are a tooth-and-nail affairs. Neither side really wants to give up Wintergrasp and the majority of battles are fought out to the bitter end even if one side is obviously winning. I've been in a few battles where the Horde won the battle with only a few seconds left on the clock.
The primary problem with 'meaningfull' territory control is balance and the corresponding 'Spiral of Defeat'. People will not fight over territory that has no value to them. The more valuable the territory the more people are willing to sacrifice to get control of it. If the territory is really valuable it will give whoever holds it a serious advantage thus making it easier for him to defend it. Conversly those not holding the territory will be at a disadvantage. If the power unblaance persist for too long the attackers will start losing players who will switch to the other side so they too can partake of the benefits.
If the attacker concludes that the power balance is too far in their disadvantage, they will stop attacking becasue it would be the stupid thing to do. They will wait for a better opportunity where they have the advantage. In a MMORPG that usually means attacking when the defenders are offline. If the other side cannot reliably defend their territory they will not put as much effort into doing it since it become futile to do so.
I really don't know. Everyone likes to think, that they think WAR sucks. But I think it's a great game. I'm playing right now (two monitors).
WAR is way more fun for me than WoW ever was. I just don't get how to have fun it WoW, but I do get how to have fun in WAR.
I do about 50/50 scenarios and RvR with no PvE, and I have a lot of fun. But I also had fun in CoX, another game people didn't really get. So I just don't jibe with the popular crowd when it comes to MMOs.
I really don't know. Everyone likes to think, that they think WAR sucks. But I think it's a great game. I'm playing right now (two monitors).
WAR is way more fun for me than WoW ever was. I just don't get how to have fun it WoW, but I do get how to have fun in WAR.
I do about 50/50 scenarios and RvR with no PvE, and I have a lot of fun. But I also had fun in CoX, another game people didn't really get. So I just don't jibe with the popular crowd when it comes to MMOs.
For myself i do PVE while in the Q for scenarios. When the scenario is over i "re Q" and continue on my way to the quest target. Yes i to find Warhammer more fun than WOW but could be do to the fact that i have WOW burnout like so many gamers.
I can sort of understand the WAR and WoW comparison (although I think there are a lot more differences than people let on) but in what way, shape, or form is AoC similar to WoW?
Did you even play the game? Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone. Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.
You're right about T4 being the problem, but not because it was repetitive necessarily. Everything is repetitive in that perspective. WoW is very repetitive at endgame, just raid, get gear, raid again, do dailies, raid.
T4 blew due to the broken city siege mechanic. It also became a problem due to class imbalance and the CC/AoE nonsense. Game client was problematic & super laggy. 2 factions system with zone lockdowns ended up being a problem for some. Oh yeah, and city sieges were retarded the way they were structured.
That being said, Warhammer is the best mass PvP game on the market. If only the developers focused the fixed the right aspects, the game would be flourishing right now. Mythic also should have never aimed at the WoW crowd, as most WoW players are clueless when it comes to a PvP MMO. They join a PvP MMO and then complain about lack of WoW like PvE. Utter morons.
I played both games & quit both games. If I had to choose one, I would prob play Warhammer again and level my alts through T1-T3, which are a blast. Warhammer has great potential, but I think EA threw in the towel on it.
Playing: EvE, Warhammer free unlimited trial, Allods Online
Played: Anarchy Online, WoW, Warhammer, AoC, Ryzom. Aion
Strongly Recommend: Ryzom, EvE, Allods Online
I can sort of understand the WAR and WoW comparison (although I think there are a lot more differences than people let on) but in what way, shape, or form is AoC similar to WoW?
It's an MMO. That's bout where the similarity ends. AoC is PvP focused.
Playing: EvE, Warhammer free unlimited trial, Allods Online
Played: Anarchy Online, WoW, Warhammer, AoC, Ryzom. Aion
Strongly Recommend: Ryzom, EvE, Allods Online
Scenarios were not in anyway important why would you care if the zone flipped did you really look at the bar after a scenario and go yay it went up or down? .
The only why they would be important if they were in the real zone and you were teleported to them, they should have replaced the stupid BO in each rvr lake.
it's not like there are any mobs in the lake either, depending on the amount of players in the lake for each side even it out with some bots Give each player a npc guard or 2 to even it out if there too outnumbered when it started.
Because WoW is easy and accessable to most anyone and anyone can do it because its a simple game with easy combat and raiding.
Since you talk so much about Warhammer in OP, you should've posted it on the Warhammer area.
I, being no WoW or WAR fanboy, but actually owning both games, have to say WoW giving XP in BGs, acessibility from anywhere, and planning to give out equipment in BGs are really a very considerable copy of what WAR had of different and good in my opinion.
So, who's cloning who after all?
From a gamer's perspective though, we're finnaly beginning to see major games shifting in the direction to award experience for PvP, which is something new to the table. And trust me, as the Behemoth is using it, expect every game from now on to feature it, not that it's bad but I actually like this feature.
I think a more suitable question would be why gamers (of all tastes and preferences) play WoW and only MMORPG players play WAR?
Short answer since I'm still at work.
I believe we're talking about two schools of MMO progression:
Both schools are valid and there are games that cater to both of them.
As I said earlier in the quoted message, WAR tried to be a successful guild progression based MMO, but ultimately failed to deliver a proper RvR game. Lineage 2 for example, has very successfully implemented territorial control, both in the form of castles and in the form of controlling choke points. Castles is obvious, the difference from WAR is that there is zero incentive to maintain control of the castle, while Lineage 2 gives very strong incentives (to the point where people were willing to delevel, aka losing 100-200 hours worth of exp). EVE has the same situation, people are gambling everything they have to protect their assets in 0.0.
Choke points is controlling part of the map, so that the other faction/guild/clan etc does not control it. Imagine an Alliance guild barring the entrance to Onyxia from Horde, so that the only way for Horde to gain access to Onyxia is to defeat the Alliance. To be fair, Blizzard implemented various points like this in the world map (silithus, Halla etc), but due to little incentive as opposed to arena/battlegrounds, those open world objectives were pretty much ignored. Basically, the same situation as WAR, scenarios had a huge negative impact on open world PvP.
I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:
Since this is unlikely to happen, open world PvP will be sabotaged by scenarios. I'm afraid I have not experienced Land of the Dead to give an accurate account of the RvR involved, but it seems from various posts that PvE this time is hindering open world PvP.
I don't think that I played an MMO that recreated the adrenaline rush involved with barely keeping your castle, while overwhelmed by hordes of enemies. In WoW, my big adrenaline rush was due to raid bosses and belonging/managing the best raid guild in the server. Wintergrasp reminds me a lot (in feeling) to Team Fortress 2, it was enjoyable, fast paced and fun, but also devoid of any emotional attachment. I didn't even feel disappointment when losing the battleground, since in my mind that was inevitable due to the design of the lake.
Hmmm, better stop now, I spent more time than planned.
Scenarios were not in anyway important why would you care if the zone flipped did you really look at the bar after a scenario and go yay it went up or down? .
I don't know why you even bother talking about WAR when you lack the IQ to undestand the concept of Realm versus Realm and WAR being a PvP game.
Regardless, WAR scenarios are lots of fun and great way to level via PvP.
Playing: EvE, Warhammer free unlimited trial, Allods Online
Played: Anarchy Online, WoW, Warhammer, AoC, Ryzom. Aion
Strongly Recommend: Ryzom, EvE, Allods Online
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Playing: EvE, Warhammer free unlimited trial, Allods Online
Played: Anarchy Online, WoW, Warhammer, AoC, Ryzom. Aion
Strongly Recommend: Ryzom, EvE, Allods Online
IMO, WAR's content is crappy due to low population. There is not enough content to solo level and that was supposed to be made up for by RvR and PQ's. The RvR has gotten a lot better and there is quite a bit more of ORvR on Dark Craag and Iron Rock, but nobody ever, ever, ever, EVER, does PQs.
A witty saying proves nothing.
-Voltaire
Can't have much of a discussion when somebody resorts to personal insults. I was curious about your maturity, certainly not indicative of your age bracket.
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Hydroblunt you are right, but at the same time missing Xasapis' point.
Yes the scenarios are one of the better parts of warhammer. Removing them is simply eliminating content and that is never a good thing for a game. However as fun as scenarios are, they work in direct contrast to the so called selling point of the RvR concept of warhammer. They hurt the major goal of the game which is RvR.
As I have heard it stated from beta players, the keep/fort system of RvR was added as a last minute feature. The open world pvp system and the scenario system compete to much with each other instead of complimenting each other.
All of those other points from the forums are very valid as well, but the instanced pvp doesn't really help the open world pvp either.
What are you talking about? Low population? Try rolling on the high pop servers. Have you ever played WoW on a low-med pop server? I have, and it sucks just as bad.
You can level solely through quests in WAR, you will just have to fly to the different zones to pick up the slack. And if you actually played on Dark Crag, you would know that there was RvR nonstop, as well as city sieges at least a few times a day. That is until that crappy content patch which sealed the deal for WAR's inevitable death.
Playing: EvE, Warhammer free unlimited trial, Allods Online
Played: Anarchy Online, WoW, Warhammer, AoC, Ryzom. Aion
Strongly Recommend: Ryzom, EvE, Allods Online
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Hydroblunt you are right, but at the same time missing Xasapis' point.
Yes the scenarios are one of the better parts of warhammer. Removing them is simply eliminating content and that is never a good thing for a game. However as fun as scenarios are, they work in direct contrast to the so called selling point of the RvR concept of warhammer. They hurt the major goal of the game which is RvR.
He has no real point because he is wrong and makes little sense. Scenarios were very well received and no they do not work against the goal of the game. Not everyone wants to do RvR nonstop, hump BOs and hit doors to progress through the game. Scenarios appealed to many players who wanted instanced PvP & a way to level through PvP. Scenarios are one of the best features in Warhammer. They are good to variety, as WAR is a PvP focused game, after all.
They contribute to Zone flips, they also provide Renown Points. Take them out and you leave players with less options to do something. Wnat if I want to log for an hour and accomplish something? RvR is time consuming, better off logging into a couple scenarios.
Oh, and the final point, they are FUN. Lots of fun. That's why people play them nonstop.
Playing: EvE, Warhammer free unlimited trial, Allods Online
Played: Anarchy Online, WoW, Warhammer, AoC, Ryzom. Aion
Strongly Recommend: Ryzom, EvE, Allods Online
It failed because it's just another clone of Wow. All these games do is make minor changes compared to Wow then release them and wonder why they fail. They fail because most are looking for something different now and Warhammer does not fit that bill. Why should anyone leave Wow and start over for more of the same? The next one that is getting hype is Aion. I see another failure coming with this one for it's just another wow clone with minor changes. If it's pvp is really good it might survive with that alone as a niche game even though the pvp only crowd is pretty small.
Actually he is correct, but loses points for the presentation by saying their removal will "fix" the game.
Just like I think you are correct and everything you said above is true. Yet at the same time the design of the rvr/pvp concept of the game is at odds with itself. Many many people did not receive scenarios very well.
Removing scenarios would improve the RvR aspect of the game, but at the same time scenarios are one of the few good aspects of the game. I don't think removing them solves the rvr problem, but their existance does hurt it. Not that I really care anymore or think it is a problem that has a solution.
It sounds like the whole keep system of RvR was added as an 11th hour change to warhammer during late beta and it just doesn't work with the rest of the games design. It isn't like people care about scenarios to flip zones or it even gives a feel of contributing to the war aspect of the game. They are just fun instanced pvp.
This is just a situation where you are both right, but there really isn't a good solution.
I have to wonder whether you ever played WAR up to the end game. I have. Scenarios were never and are not the problem. Only a small segment of WAR players seem to believe so, probably because they were dropped on their head as a child one too many times.
Go to War forums, the complaints are clear:
1) Class imbalance
2) Client stability
3) City Sieges
4) Aoe/CC nonsense
WAR Scenarios is one of its best aspects.
Hydroblunt you are right, but at the same time missing Xasapis' point.
Yes the scenarios are one of the better parts of warhammer. Removing them is simply eliminating content and that is never a good thing for a game. However as fun as scenarios are, they work in direct contrast to the so called selling point of the RvR concept of warhammer. They hurt the major goal of the game which is RvR.
As I have heard it stated from beta players, the keep/fort system of RvR was added as a last minute feature. The open world pvp system and the scenario system compete to much with each other instead of complimenting each other.
All of those other points from the forums are very valid as well, but the instanced pvp doesn't really help the open world pvp either.
What you say is a very good reason to support the scenarios. More people do them for a reason, because its fun and War has made it very easy to get into the queue. I see WOW is employing the "button on the map" option for there battlegrounds soon as well. Rvr is fun but the evidence shows that scenarios are more popular.
Scenarios were the only thing that stopped me from quitting earlier then I did, but they still weren't enough to keep me in with all the class issues. That and the fact that everytime they "fixed" the class issues it was actually fixing the wrong issues and thus creating more problems.
The reason WAR isn't doing well is simple that it was poorly made, it's concepts didn't work, it's classes didn't work, and the PvE was as terrible as it gets.
I believe, sir, you managed to summarize exactly why I left so quickly after release, even though I enjoyed some of the beta experience. Well done. I had such high hopes and then...^^^ this. Now my shiny, collector's edition sits on the shelf behind me whilst I play other games.