Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP. Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now). Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players. Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond! Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc. Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.
WoW handles much better in Wintergrasp, and Alterac Valley, and another one... can't remember the name... Isle of Conquest?
It's like 40vs40 for AV and IoC, Wintergrasp I think is 100 per side or some such.
Yeah I wish I understood the reasoning behind WAR using a 24v24 scenario as the pinnacle of their entire open world RvR system. Atleast with Wintergrasp, if you lost, you would know what happened and where you messed up. With this new system, you can win your scenario and still lose the campaign because someone in one of the many other instances lost.
I garauntee you that their network code as well as engine/client code is no where near as polished and technically perfected as Blizzard's.
The graphics of WAR are not that high above what WoW can offer (especially in ultra mode and in coming expansion) to justify the extreme loss of fluidity and latency.
They also haven't had nearly 6 years and billions of dollars to perfect it.
I believe the graphics are way better than WoW. I also never had any performance issues with WAR, even with hundreds of players on screen.
Doubter how does multiple instants work out for the city battles? They take the averages of who won each instance?
Under the OLD system there was a victory point total for either side. The results from each instance were added to the respective totals, and the side which reached the required amount 'won' the siege. That was the design at release, I believe. They tinkered a lot with the mechanics after release.
I don't know if it will be the same, but I see no reason to change it.
EDIT: Apparently they have dropped the VP system from the city siege. I'm not sure how it's going to work now. Stay tuned.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I garauntee you that their network code as well as engine/client code is no where near as polished and technically perfected as Blizzard's.
The graphics of WAR are not that high above what WoW can offer (especially in ultra mode and in coming expansion) to justify the extreme loss of fluidity and latency.
They also haven't had nearly 6 years and billions of dollars to perfect it.
The key difference in the engines (besides the quality of the coding) is that WH Online has collision detection, which I am sure is a major drag on preformance. It's possible that the Tome of Knowledge is greater drag than WoW achievement tracking, as well.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP. Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now). Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players. Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond! Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc. Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.
WoW handles much better in Wintergrasp, and Alterac Valley, and another one... can't remember the name... Isle of Conquest?
It's like 40vs40 for AV and IoC, Wintergrasp I think is 100 per side or some such.
Yeah I wish I understood the reasoning behind WAR using a 24v24 scenario as the pinnacle of their entire open world RvR system. Atleast with Wintergrasp, if you lost, you would know what happened and where you messed up. With this new system, you can win your scenario and still lose the campaign because someone in one of the many other instances lost.
I garauntee you that their network code as well as engine/client code is no where near as polished and technically perfected as Blizzard's.
The graphics of WAR are not that high above what WoW can offer (especially in ultra mode and in coming expansion) to justify the extreme loss of fluidity and latency.
They also haven't had nearly 6 years and billions of dollars to perfect it.
You are compeletly WRONG on the networking code. EA Mythic Warhammer Online has the most advanced networking design on the market and can handle 100's of MORE players than W.o.W and Aion.
Windergrasp use to lag around 80vs80 players massivly when it first was introduced and so did Warhammer but Warhammer now can handle 500vs500 players without crashing the servers and there is NO MMORPG that can handle server load like this besides EVE.
EVE even wouldn't be able to handle server load this crazy if it had a Game WORLD, 60 differen't debuffs, 60 differen't buffs, staggers, collision decttion and all the extras the come with Warhammer.
Game Engine W.o.W will win handsdown because it covers both DirectX / OpenGL and Windows/MAC. Besides these two KEY issues the Gamebyro engine is overall better (Latest Version 2.8).
Warhammer Graphics in terms of Polygon count are EXTREMELY higher than W.o.W block design. Textures are extremely higher and would look better 1000% better with the new gamebyro engine. You can't even really compare these two designs because Warhammer is LOADS better.
After reading the details - I am cautiously optimistic.
No - no one hijacked my PC.
We'll obviously have to wait and see how it plays out, but it does appear to be a huge step in the right direction.
Considering they are still centering RvR around
A: instancing the shit out of everything
and
B: Loot bags loot bags loot bags!
I would say they are still in their full on sprint in the opposite direction of where they should be going, as the above are what murdered this game in the first place.
This sounds interesting but I wonder how many will be tempted to go back ( or even stay ) after the recent billing issues .
Too be fair it sounds like a 1000 people max were affected and this HAS HAPPENED to W.o.W before believe it or not and look how many still trust that game. They will no doubt switch to a new 3rd party biller and it will be done with. I was affected and was extremely pissed because I had to ask friends/g.f. to help me out with $$$ for a day (Bank was closed sunday and didn't get my money until 1hr after I contacted my bank on monday.). I will stay for the PVP but if they don't mention an expansion in that huge gamers convetion comming up in june (Forgot the name but it's where 99% of mmorpgs mention an expansion), I and a few others are done with the game.
And the producer of the week keeps rolling out the fail... I wonder who they are going to get to replace her next week? A buddy of mine who left Mythic for Turbine last week told me that EA has tried to "Reach out" to Mark Jacobs four times since Jan 2010, he hasn't returned their calls.
Look for this one to be Earthed and Beyonded (aka shut down) By Christmas.
I don't believe that for a second. It was Jacobs' decisions on game design that gave us the game we have, you know the one that a majority of people who tried it did not want to play. I hardly see them asking him for tips, unless they actually do want it to shut down quicker, which is what your Earth and Beyond comment may have alluded to.
Even though I had left Warhammer a long time ago due to my skull imploding from the sheer boredom and mundaneness of doing the same scenarios over and over again, and rolling up to a RvR happening that turns out to be nothing more than a mexican standoff, I did go to Mythic's site after seeing this earlier.
I'm proud to say, I am a recovering mundane-hound and fought the urge to re-subscribe for a month. Maybe I'll see what others are saying when this patch kicks-in.
Comments
I believe the graphics are way better than WoW. I also never had any performance issues with WAR, even with hundreds of players on screen.
Under the OLD system there was a victory point total for either side. The results from each instance were added to the respective totals, and the side which reached the required amount 'won' the siege. That was the design at release, I believe. They tinkered a lot with the mechanics after release.
I don't know if it will be the same, but I see no reason to change it.
EDIT: Apparently they have dropped the VP system from the city siege. I'm not sure how it's going to work now. Stay tuned.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
The key difference in the engines (besides the quality of the coding) is that WH Online has collision detection, which I am sure is a major drag on preformance. It's possible that the Tome of Knowledge is greater drag than WoW achievement tracking, as well.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I don't think they are way better at high setting, but they certainly are at low settings .
I had significant slowdown inside keeps with more than a dozen participants at release. It did get better (but still noticable) later on.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
This is interesting at least, I wonder how it will work out in practise.
You are compeletly WRONG on the networking code. EA Mythic Warhammer Online has the most advanced networking design on the market and can handle 100's of MORE players than W.o.W and Aion.
Windergrasp use to lag around 80vs80 players massivly when it first was introduced and so did Warhammer but Warhammer now can handle 500vs500 players without crashing the servers and there is NO MMORPG that can handle server load like this besides EVE.
EVE even wouldn't be able to handle server load this crazy if it had a Game WORLD, 60 differen't debuffs, 60 differen't buffs, staggers, collision decttion and all the extras the come with Warhammer.
Game Engine W.o.W will win handsdown because it covers both DirectX / OpenGL and Windows/MAC. Besides these two KEY issues the Gamebyro engine is overall better (Latest Version 2.8).
Warhammer Graphics in terms of Polygon count are EXTREMELY higher than W.o.W block design. Textures are extremely higher and would look better 1000% better with the new gamebyro engine. You can't even really compare these two designs because Warhammer is LOADS better.
P.S.S. I like both games.
RVR in a 24v24 scenario... Thats great... rvr...
I would rather call it 100% scenarios to be fair.
This sounds interesting but I wonder how many will be tempted to go back ( or even stay ) after the recent billing issues .
Considering they are still centering RvR around
A: instancing the shit out of everything
and
B: Loot bags loot bags loot bags!
I would say they are still in their full on sprint in the opposite direction of where they should be going, as the above are what murdered this game in the first place.
Bans a perma, but so are sigs in necro posts.
EAT ME MMORPG.com!
Too be fair it sounds like a 1000 people max were affected and this HAS HAPPENED to W.o.W before believe it or not and look how many still trust that game. They will no doubt switch to a new 3rd party biller and it will be done with. I was affected and was extremely pissed because I had to ask friends/g.f. to help me out with $$$ for a day (Bank was closed sunday and didn't get my money until 1hr after I contacted my bank on monday.). I will stay for the PVP but if they don't mention an expansion in that huge gamers convetion comming up in june (Forgot the name but it's where 99% of mmorpgs mention an expansion), I and a few others are done with the game.
I don't believe that for a second. It was Jacobs' decisions on game design that gave us the game we have, you know the one that a majority of people who tried it did not want to play. I hardly see them asking him for tips, unless they actually do want it to shut down quicker, which is what your Earth and Beyond comment may have alluded to.
Even though I had left Warhammer a long time ago due to my skull imploding from the sheer boredom and mundaneness of doing the same scenarios over and over again, and rolling up to a RvR happening that turns out to be nothing more than a mexican standoff, I did go to Mythic's site after seeing this earlier.
I'm proud to say, I am a recovering mundane-hound and fought the urge to re-subscribe for a month. Maybe I'll see what others are saying when this patch kicks-in.
I always wanted to fight the king of the opposing realm, but a 24v24 scenario is the pinnacle of RVR?
WAR needs to just die already.
the 24V24 works... atleast enough and the main reason i see it happening is due to the fact that the rewards are GEAR.
in 24 V 24 it spreads the gear around.
is it the system i would like to be in the game....no, not by a long shot. but does it end up working...yeah
I don't get how a 24v24 siege works. What about the rest of the server population? If its like scenarios how would the "real" city be effected?
That's the problem; the RvR is nothing but a gear fest now apparently. Bleh.
Time cards, FTW. The ONLY way I will pay for an MMO.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Why is it 24 vs 24 for a RvR match?
Souldnt it be open world or something larger like 100 vs 100
why such a small number?
WAR suppose to be Anti-WoW remember. So why cant they surpass WoW's instanced PvP max count?
I want
Kit Rae' Vorthelok sword gold edition and Valermos Sword