In .5- you said classes had ALOT of hp. So if your saying like a bright wizard has a lot of HP, then like a black orc would have ALOT AND ALOT MORE Hp..right? Also which type of careers do potentialy more damage, caster(Bright wizard) or Melee(Choppa).
Wow... the game isn't even out yet and there are already WAR detractors.... let's face it.. no game will ever satisfy everything everyone ever wants there will always be people bitching for something.... I'd say play it first before you think if it's good or not...
I'm not trying to be a detractor, I'm being objective. Anyone who is a part of the PvP'er demographics, or knows people who are, will tell you that instancing PvP is something that is not looked favorably upon. PvP isn't supposed to be fair and balanced all the time, and nobody likes fighting over the same objective a million times for no reason. DAOC selling point was the RvR and the frontiers and castles....shifting it towards instanced battlegrounds could be them shooting themselves in the foot.
World of Warcraft's Battleground concept has been successful so far. Instancing an area of conflict is the only way to have any semblance of fair competition. World pvp is more fun and I agree with you that pvp isn't suppose to be fair and balanced all the time however you have to think it thru the minds of the developers. The developers themselves claim that WAR is a deeply pvp-oriented game, and pvp denotes competition and to have a fair competition you need to have equal amounts of participants on both sides of the conflict hence the concept of instanced pvp zone. There are also technical limitations that must be put into consideration, if you stuff 1000s of players into a single area, as of current technology no matter how powerful your servers are it's gonna bring it down to it's knees.. you need a way to separate players into instances or into different server clusters in order to minimize the servers from overloading.
Very well put post. Instanced PvP is a small necessity when dealing with RvR games. Anyway you slice eventually the side with the lowest population. Will either A) roll to another side. Meaning you have EVEN less people to fight against or Just plain quit, which also means you have EVEN less people to fight with.
I don't care how hardcore a pvper you think you are. No one wants to fight a battle they can't win, every day of their avatars life. While also dishing out 15 bucks a month. Sorry that's just not fun.
Gets worse when you factor in class balances. That might cause FOTM classes. They are always good for getting people to switch sides, because in the end. Any one that pvpers just wants to win. Happened in AO, DAOC, Shadowbane, and basically any other MMO you can think of with PvP.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
5) People have A LOT of HP. I beat on a caster with my hammerer for 30 seconds just to kill him. I like this, no getting two shot. More room for strategy.
This is not actually a good news.
Most likely, you are comparing those 30 seconds in WAR in beta to the actual state of WoW where fully itemized lvl 70 characters can kill any cloth wearer within 15 seconds.
Remember when WoW was released? PvP fights didnt take 15, or 30 seconds, they lasted for a good minute. I'm not talking about ganking, i'm talking about real open pvp, out of battlegrounds, with lvl 50 to 60 players in blue equipment.
If killing a caster takes 30 seconds, it's already not enough, and it also means that as people get better items, this duration will shorten.
Not pleased with that news at all, i fled wow because of the 2-shot fest.
My addiction History: >> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore >> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual >> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
Thanks for the post, nice to see some solid info coming from an actual independent gamer rather then a propaganda spouting fan site. I myself have always been a big fan of Mythic and have been a DAOC subscriber for some time now, I was also big fan of the original tabletop Warhammer wargame. That being said, I am really disappointed with the direction the game is going. 130 instances for the PvP .... They said there are also overworld PvP area's but the majority of gamers looking to rack up the big PvP points are all going to be packed into the BG's because that will be the fastest way to rack up points. (that is coming straight from a dev podcast)
"5) People have A LOT of HP. I beat on a caster with my hammerer for 30 seconds just to kill him. I like this, no getting two shot. More room for strategy. "
Well you stated that a bright wizards do big damage and they also have a ton of HP? It takes a melee class 30 sec to drop a pure damage dealing caster..... I could go on a while and splice the shit out of the original post with actual facts why I think they are taking the game in the wrong direction but there is really no point.
The purpose and goal of WAR is to grab the player base of WoW and sink it. I think they will accomplish that if the posters on this site are any indication of the overall MMO player base. Whoever the people are running this ship are smart, they took a respected and recognized name like Warhammer with a large built in fanbase to start with and turned it into a very mainstream friendly pvp game. It will most likely be easy to learn and lets all players run around and wack each other .
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
As for points, they are talking about victory points, not honor points or anything you would turn in for gear. I don't think you are going to see people doing only scenarios because it is the only way to grind gear, like WoW (mainly because you won't be grinding gear). There are a lot of reasons to use instanced PvP (some people enjoy it for one), but moreover it is a big way of addressing realms with large population imbalances. On a really unbalanced realm the more numerous side is gonna steamroll in world PvP (they are also adding the whole dogs of war thing, but don't know how that will work yet).
They did explicitly mention that, "you will be unable to control a zone in RvR if you don't hold any of the world PvP objectives. Scenerios count for a lot but they are not the sole determinate of victory. We forsee most people will end up wanting to do a little of each."
As for HP, classes in general have thier HP scaled up from say WoW, where one or two hits can kill a person. Of course everything is kept in proportion (tanks have A LOT A LOT more HP rather then just A LOT). Of all the classes the bright wizard was a squishiest (I saw him in a 1v1 bash fest with a squig herder and he got dropped in about 15 sec), but he also dealt the most damage.
5) People have A LOT of HP. I beat on a caster with my hammerer for 30 seconds just to kill him. I like this, no getting two shot. More room for strategy.
This is not actually a good news.
Most likely, you are comparing those 30 seconds in WAR in beta to the actual state of WoW where fully itemized lvl 70 characters can kill any cloth wearer within 15 seconds.
Remember when WoW was released? PvP fights didnt take 15, or 30 seconds, they lasted for a good minute. I'm not talking about ganking, i'm talking about real open pvp, out of battlegrounds, with lvl 50 to 60 players in blue equipment.
If killing a caster takes 30 seconds, it's already not enough, and it also means that as people get better items, this duration will shorten.
Not pleased with that news at all, i fled wow because of the 2-shot fest.
I could drop tier 2 warriors in 15 seconds with my blues equiped mage. Don't know what your talking about.
In any event, WoW did have a major scaling problem. This could be solved by simply making sure HP and damage increase in line as you get better gear (or, if it is the way I think, there really won't be a whole lot of gear based progression anyway).
Wow... the game isn't even out yet and there are already WAR detractors.... let's face it.. no game will ever satisfy everything everyone ever wants there will always be people bitching for something.... I'd say play it first before you think if it's good or not...
I'm not trying to be a detractor, I'm being objective. Anyone who is a part of the PvP'er demographics, or knows people who are, will tell you that instancing PvP is something that is not looked favorably upon. PvP isn't supposed to be fair and balanced all the time, and nobody likes fighting over the same objective a million times for no reason. DAOC selling point was the RvR and the frontiers and castles....shifting it towards instanced battlegrounds could be them shooting themselves in the foot.
World of Warcraft's Battleground concept has been successful so far. Instancing an area of conflict is the only way to have any semblance of fair competition. World pvp is more fun and I agree with you that pvp isn't suppose to be fair and balanced all the time however you have to think it thru the minds of the developers. The developers themselves claim that WAR is a deeply pvp-oriented game, and pvp denotes competition and to have a fair competition you need to have equal amounts of participants on both sides of the conflict hence the concept of instanced pvp zone. There are also technical limitations that must be put into consideration, if you stuff 1000s of players into a single area, as of current technology no matter how powerful your servers are it's gonna bring it down to it's knees.. you need a way to separate players into instances or into different server clusters in order to minimize the servers from overloading.
Very well put post. Instanced PvP is a small necessity when dealing with RvR games. Anyway you slice eventually the side with the lowest population. Will either A) roll to another side. Meaning you have EVEN less people to fight against or Just plain quit, which also means you have EVEN less people to fight with.
I don't care how hardcore a pvper you think you are. No one wants to fight a battle they can't win, every day of their avatars life. While also dishing out 15 bucks a month. Sorry that's just not fun.
Gets worse when you factor in class balances. That might cause FOTM classes. They are always good for getting people to switch sides, because in the end. Any one that pvpers just wants to win. Happened in AO, DAOC, Shadowbane, and basically any other MMO you can think of with PvP.
See I went just the other way. I re-rolled to the underpopulated horde because I wanted shorter que times for BGs. Waiting an hour to play WSG was retarded.
In .5- you said classes had ALOT of hp. So if your saying like a bright wizard has a lot of HP, then like a black orc would have ALOT AND ALOT MORE Hp..right? Also which type of careers do potentialy more damage, caster(Bright wizard) or Melee(Choppa). Chamber,
Yes, tanks ave ALOT ALOT more.
Depends, magic seemed to go through armor, but physical ranged seemed to eat up caster (squig herder, engineer). They didn't have a screen for chaos, but the hammerer did good dmg.
tenthring, if more people acted like you. PvP probably wouldn't be in the state it is now. I honestly use to look forward to PvP, in most games I played. Now on the other hand, pvp is just dead in my eyes. The true meaning of PvP seems to have been lost.
Side Note: I really wasn't interested in Warhammer until I read your post. I do not know much about the series. What I do know is from playing Warhammer 40k:Dawn of Chaos (great RTS) which is different from Warhammer. I think i'll be keeping an eye on it for now though. Just some of the class names mentioned so far even sound very interesting.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Thanks for the post, nice to see some solid info coming from an actual independent gamer rather then a propaganda spouting fan site. I myself have always been a big fan of Mythic and have been a DAOC subscriber for some time now, I was also big fan of the original tabletop Warhammer wargame. That being said, I am really disappointed with the direction the game is going. 130 instances for the PvP .... They said there are also overworld PvP area's but the majority of gamers looking to rack up the big PvP points are all going to be packed into the BG's because that will be the fastest way to rack up points. (that is coming straight from a dev podcast)
"5) People have A LOT of HP. I beat on a caster with my hammerer for 30 seconds just to kill him. I like this, no getting two shot. More room for strategy. "
Well you stated that a bright wizards do big damage and they also have a ton of HP? It takes a melee class 30 sec to drop a pure damage dealing caster..... I could go on a while and splice the shit out of the original post with actual facts why I think they are taking the game in the wrong direction but there is really no point.
The purpose and goal of WAR is to grab the player base of WoW and sink it. I think they will accomplish that if the posters on this site are any indication of the overall MMO player base. Whoever the people are running this ship are smart, they took a respected and recognized name like Warhammer with a large built in fanbase to start with and turned it into a very mainstream friendly pvp game. It will most likely be easy to learn and lets all players run around and wack each other .
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
tenthring, if more people acted like you. PvP probably wouldn't be in the state it is now. I honestly use to look forward to PvP, in most games I played. Now on the other hand, pvp is just dead in my eyes. The true meaning of PvP seems to have been lost. Side Note: I really wasn't interested in Warhammer until I read your post. I do not know much about the series. What I do know is from playing Warhammer 40k:Dawn of Chaos (great RTS) which is different from Warhammer. I think i'll be keeping an eye on it for now though. Just some of the class names mentioned so far even sound very interesting.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
You do realize that they haven't exactly specified all these instances, right? And you do realize that DAoC has instanced PvP too, right? They were called battlegrounds. Now, I will give Mythic the benefit of the doubt since I loved DAoC, and look forward to battlegrounds with more in-depth goals to them.
tenthring, if more people acted like you. PvP probably wouldn't be in the state it is now. I honestly use to look forward to PvP, in most games I played. Now on the other hand, pvp is just dead in my eyes. The true meaning of PvP seems to have been lost. Side Note: I really wasn't interested in Warhammer until I read your post. I do not know much about the series. What I do know is from playing Warhammer 40k:Dawn of Chaos (great RTS) which is different from Warhammer. I think i'll be keeping an eye on it for now though. Just some of the class names mentioned so far even sound very interesting.
You should take a look at the tabletop game then.
Dawn of War ROCKED. I only got into MMO backwards by playing Blizzard RTS and figuring I would give it a try. Dawn was a decent game in terms of depth and strategy, even if not outstanding. The thing that was great though was that it was really FUN. The character animations, the units, the pace of play. Control points was the most innovative thing I've seen in awhile in RTS. I love that game.
Thanks for the post, nice to see some solid info coming from an actual independent gamer rather then a propaganda spouting fan site. I myself have always been a big fan of Mythic and have been a DAOC subscriber for some time now, I was also big fan of the original tabletop Warhammer wargame. That being said, I am really disappointed with the direction the game is going. 130 instances for the PvP .... They said there are also overworld PvP area's but the majority of gamers looking to rack up the big PvP points are all going to be packed into the BG's because that will be the fastest way to rack up points. (that is coming straight from a dev podcast)
"5) People have A LOT of HP. I beat on a caster with my hammerer for 30 seconds just to kill him. I like this, no getting two shot. More room for strategy. "
Well you stated that a bright wizards do big damage and they also have a ton of HP? It takes a melee class 30 sec to drop a pure damage dealing caster..... I could go on a while and splice the shit out of the original post with actual facts why I think they are taking the game in the wrong direction but there is really no point.
The purpose and goal of WAR is to grab the player base of WoW and sink it. I think they will accomplish that if the posters on this site are any indication of the overall MMO player base. Whoever the people are running this ship are smart, they took a respected and recognized name like Warhammer with a large built in fanbase to start with and turned it into a very mainstream friendly pvp game. It will most likely be easy to learn and lets all players run around and wack each other .
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
80% RvR is directly from the podcast. That is, 80% of the tier 4 open world is going to be RvR area with objectives.
I think overall there is going to be a lot more PvP content in WoW. 130 may seem like a lot, but consider that they aren't spending 80-90% of developer resources on raid instances like WoW is. It is possible to have a vast array of PvP options if your actually interested in doing it as a company.
As for rewards, I talked about the victory points world pvp thing already. As for gear, the thing you have to understand is that War isn't a gear grind. It isn't a carrot on a stick get shinnier stuff then the other guy type game. Your playing because the content is fun, not because of loot. I don't think you are going to find huge loot disparities in this game.
few things for people who don't follow war and just read a few quotes here and there. War has 33 zones (4tiers with 2 zones per side, 1 neutral zone and 2 capitals, for each of 3 battle fronts) so, 130/33=4.3 or an avergae of 4-5 instances per zone. Since it's most likely not all of the 4-5 instances will be open at the same time, and obviously, if you are no where near enemies ciry in the campaign, then you can't join an instance to siege capital city's gates.
As for rewards, instances give the most victory points (points that determine who will control said zone) they however do not nessassarily give the most rps (personal points) Also, you will need to take control of world pvp objectives or you won't be able to control a zone no matter what you do in an instance.
Sadly scenarios won't be like bg's, since bgs in daoc had no limit to how many could join. But they can still be fun, and with a good number of different scenarios, they shouldn't get stale for a while.
Thanks for the post, nice to see some solid info coming from an actual independent gamer rather then a propaganda spouting fan site. I myself have always been a big fan of Mythic and have been a DAOC subscriber for some time now, I was also big fan of the original tabletop Warhammer wargame. That being said, I am really disappointed with the direction the game is going. 130 instances for the PvP .... They said there are also overworld PvP area's but the majority of gamers looking to rack up the big PvP points are all going to be packed into the BG's because that will be the fastest way to rack up points. (that is coming straight from a dev podcast)
"5) People have A LOT of HP. I beat on a caster with my hammerer for 30 seconds just to kill him. I like this, no getting two shot. More room for strategy. "
Well you stated that a bright wizards do big damage and they also have a ton of HP? It takes a melee class 30 sec to drop a pure damage dealing caster..... I could go on a while and splice the shit out of the original post with actual facts why I think they are taking the game in the wrong direction but there is really no point.
The purpose and goal of WAR is to grab the player base of WoW and sink it. I think they will accomplish that if the posters on this site are any indication of the overall MMO player base. Whoever the people are running this ship are smart, they took a respected and recognized name like Warhammer with a large built in fanbase to start with and turned it into a very mainstream friendly pvp game. It will most likely be easy to learn and lets all players run around and wack each other .
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
80% RvR is directly from the podcast. That is, 80% of the tier 4 open world is going to be RvR area with objectives.
Ah, see I would argue that it doesn't mean that 80% of the PvP will take place in the overworld. % of overworld that is RvR doesn't = % of overall PvP that will take place there. By the same logic probably 70% of WoW's overworld or more is RvR, but probably only 10-20% of RvR on a good day actually happens out there (on PvP servers).
I could drop tier 2 warriors in 15 seconds with my blues equiped mage. Don't know what your talking about. In any event, WoW did have a major scaling problem. This could be solved by simply making sure HP and damage increase in line as you get better gear (or, if it is the way I think, there really won't be a whole lot of gear based progression anyway).
Yes you could kill a newb Tier 2 warrior specced prot who never stepped a foot into a BG and was most likely there before attending his raid with a blue mage. In the real world however, against seasoned T2 warrior, your blue mage was 2 or 3 shotted, you didnt have tiome to sheep anything and you were looking at the successive 900 400 400 1000 1500 swings that killed you under 10 seconds.
Let's get serious.
You're just doing the usual "mage beats warrior" bragging which brings nothing to the table - the pyro mage and the warrior were definitely the leats interesting pvp classes at release. The first could 2 shot anyone with a pyro spec, and the second was killed by everyone.
Either way, my point was that the dmg scaling went completely over the top once most guilds were able to beat BWL and then ran around the battlegrounds. My second point related to WAR is that if it takes 30 secs to kill a caster at release, i fear it's going to get shorter and shorter as time goes on, and 30 seconds AT RELEASE, indicates problems in the future.
My addiction History: >> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore >> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual >> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
tenthring, if more people acted like you. PvP probably wouldn't be in the state it is now. I honestly use to look forward to PvP, in most games I played. Now on the other hand, pvp is just dead in my eyes. The true meaning of PvP seems to have been lost. Side Note: I really wasn't interested in Warhammer until I read your post. I do not know much about the series. What I do know is from playing Warhammer 40k:Dawn of Chaos (great RTS) which is different from Warhammer. I think i'll be keeping an eye on it for now though. Just some of the class names mentioned so far even sound very interesting.
You should take a look at the tabletop game then.
I have a hard enough time getting my friends to turn off their PS3's, Xbox360's, and PCs. Highly doubt I could get them to sit down at a table for a table top game of Warhammer. I could always clone myself. hmmm
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Comments
In .5- you said classes had ALOT of hp. So if your saying like a bright wizard has a lot of HP, then like a black orc would have ALOT AND ALOT MORE Hp..right? Also which type of careers do potentialy more damage, caster(Bright wizard) or Melee(Choppa).
Chamber,
I'm not trying to be a detractor, I'm being objective. Anyone who is a part of the PvP'er demographics, or knows people who are, will tell you that instancing PvP is something that is not looked favorably upon. PvP isn't supposed to be fair and balanced all the time, and nobody likes fighting over the same objective a million times for no reason. DAOC selling point was the RvR and the frontiers and castles....shifting it towards instanced battlegrounds could be them shooting themselves in the foot.World of Warcraft's Battleground concept has been successful so far. Instancing an area of conflict is the only way to have any semblance of fair competition. World pvp is more fun and I agree with you that pvp isn't suppose to be fair and balanced all the time however you have to think it thru the minds of the developers. The developers themselves claim that WAR is a deeply pvp-oriented game, and pvp denotes competition and to have a fair competition you need to have equal amounts of participants on both sides of the conflict hence the concept of instanced pvp zone. There are also technical limitations that must be put into consideration, if you stuff 1000s of players into a single area, as of current technology no matter how powerful your servers are it's gonna bring it down to it's knees.. you need a way to separate players into instances or into different server clusters in order to minimize the servers from overloading.
Very well put post. Instanced PvP is a small necessity when dealing with RvR games. Anyway you slice eventually the side with the lowest population. Will either A) roll to another side. Meaning you have EVEN less people to fight against or
Just plain quit, which also means you have EVEN less people to fight with.
I don't care how hardcore a pvper you think you are. No one wants to fight a battle they can't win, every day of their avatars life. While also dishing out 15 bucks a month. Sorry that's just not fun.
Gets worse when you factor in class balances. That might cause FOTM classes. They are always good for getting people to switch sides, because in the end. Any one that pvpers just wants to win. Happened in AO, DAOC, Shadowbane, and basically any other MMO you can think of with PvP.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
Most likely, you are comparing those 30 seconds in WAR in beta to the actual state of WoW where fully itemized lvl 70 characters can kill any cloth wearer within 15 seconds.
Remember when WoW was released? PvP fights didnt take 15, or 30 seconds, they lasted for a good minute. I'm not talking about ganking, i'm talking about real open pvp, out of battlegrounds, with lvl 50 to 60 players in blue equipment.
If killing a caster takes 30 seconds, it's already not enough, and it also means that as people get better items, this duration will shorten.
Not pleased with that news at all, i fled wow because of the 2-shot fest.
My addiction History:
>> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore
>> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual
>> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
As for points, they are talking about victory points, not honor points or anything you would turn in for gear. I don't think you are going to see people doing only scenarios because it is the only way to grind gear, like WoW (mainly because you won't be grinding gear). There are a lot of reasons to use instanced PvP (some people enjoy it for one), but moreover it is a big way of addressing realms with large population imbalances. On a really unbalanced realm the more numerous side is gonna steamroll in world PvP (they are also adding the whole dogs of war thing, but don't know how that will work yet).
They did explicitly mention that, "you will be unable to control a zone in RvR if you don't hold any of the world PvP objectives. Scenerios count for a lot but they are not the sole determinate of victory. We forsee most people will end up wanting to do a little of each."
As for HP, classes in general have thier HP scaled up from say WoW, where one or two hits can kill a person. Of course everything is kept in proportion (tanks have A LOT A LOT more HP rather then just A LOT). Of all the classes the bright wizard was a squishiest (I saw him in a 1v1 bash fest with a squig herder and he got dropped in about 15 sec), but he also dealt the most damage.
Most likely, you are comparing those 30 seconds in WAR in beta to the actual state of WoW where fully itemized lvl 70 characters can kill any cloth wearer within 15 seconds.
Remember when WoW was released? PvP fights didnt take 15, or 30 seconds, they lasted for a good minute. I'm not talking about ganking, i'm talking about real open pvp, out of battlegrounds, with lvl 50 to 60 players in blue equipment.
If killing a caster takes 30 seconds, it's already not enough, and it also means that as people get better items, this duration will shorten.
Not pleased with that news at all, i fled wow because of the 2-shot fest.
I could drop tier 2 warriors in 15 seconds with my blues equiped mage. Don't know what your talking about.
In any event, WoW did have a major scaling problem. This could be solved by simply making sure HP and damage increase in line as you get better gear (or, if it is the way I think, there really won't be a whole lot of gear based progression anyway).
World of Warcraft's Battleground concept has been successful so far. Instancing an area of conflict is the only way to have any semblance of fair competition. World pvp is more fun and I agree with you that pvp isn't suppose to be fair and balanced all the time however you have to think it thru the minds of the developers. The developers themselves claim that WAR is a deeply pvp-oriented game, and pvp denotes competition and to have a fair competition you need to have equal amounts of participants on both sides of the conflict hence the concept of instanced pvp zone. There are also technical limitations that must be put into consideration, if you stuff 1000s of players into a single area, as of current technology no matter how powerful your servers are it's gonna bring it down to it's knees.. you need a way to separate players into instances or into different server clusters in order to minimize the servers from overloading.
Very well put post. Instanced PvP is a small necessity when dealing with RvR games. Anyway you slice eventually the side with the lowest population. Will either A) roll to another side. Meaning you have EVEN less people to fight against or
Just plain quit, which also means you have EVEN less people to fight with.
I don't care how hardcore a pvper you think you are. No one wants to fight a battle they can't win, every day of their avatars life. While also dishing out 15 bucks a month. Sorry that's just not fun.
Gets worse when you factor in class balances. That might cause FOTM classes. They are always good for getting people to switch sides, because in the end. Any one that pvpers just wants to win. Happened in AO, DAOC, Shadowbane, and basically any other MMO you can think of with PvP.
See I went just the other way. I re-rolled to the underpopulated horde because I wanted shorter que times for BGs. Waiting an hour to play WSG was retarded.
Depends, magic seemed to go through armor, but physical ranged seemed to eat up caster (squig herder, engineer). They didn't have a screen for chaos, but the hammerer did good dmg.
tenthring, if more people acted like you. PvP probably wouldn't be in the state it is now. I honestly use to look forward to PvP, in most games I played. Now on the other hand, pvp is just dead in my eyes. The true meaning of PvP seems to have been lost.
Side Note: I really wasn't interested in Warhammer until I read your post. I do not know much about the series. What I do know is from playing Warhammer 40k:Dawn of Chaos (great RTS) which is different from Warhammer. I think i'll be keeping an eye on it for now though. Just some of the class names mentioned so far even sound very interesting.
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
You should take a look at the tabletop game then.
You do realize that they haven't exactly specified all these instances, right? And you do realize that DAoC has instanced PvP too, right? They were called battlegrounds. Now, I will give Mythic the benefit of the doubt since I loved DAoC, and look forward to battlegrounds with more in-depth goals to them.
You should take a look at the tabletop game then.
Dawn of War ROCKED. I only got into MMO backwards by playing Blizzard RTS and figuring I would give it a try. Dawn was a decent game in terms of depth and strategy, even if not outstanding. The thing that was great though was that it was really FUN. The character animations, the units, the pace of play. Control points was the most innovative thing I've seen in awhile in RTS. I love that game.There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
80% RvR is directly from the podcast. That is, 80% of the tier 4 open world is going to be RvR area with objectives.
I think overall there is going to be a lot more PvP content in WoW. 130 may seem like a lot, but consider that they aren't spending 80-90% of developer resources on raid instances like WoW is. It is possible to have a vast array of PvP options if your actually interested in doing it as a company.
As for rewards, I talked about the victory points world pvp thing already. As for gear, the thing you have to understand is that War isn't a gear grind. It isn't a carrot on a stick get shinnier stuff then the other guy type game. Your playing because the content is fun, not because of loot. I don't think you are going to find huge loot disparities in this game.
few things for people who don't follow war and just read a few quotes here and there. War has 33 zones (4tiers with 2 zones per side, 1 neutral zone and 2 capitals, for each of 3 battle fronts) so, 130/33=4.3 or an avergae of 4-5 instances per zone. Since it's most likely not all of the 4-5 instances will be open at the same time, and obviously, if you are no where near enemies ciry in the campaign, then you can't join an instance to siege capital city's gates.
As for rewards, instances give the most victory points (points that determine who will control said zone) they however do not nessassarily give the most rps (personal points) Also, you will need to take control of world pvp objectives or you won't be able to control a zone no matter what you do in an instance.
Sadly scenarios won't be like bg's, since bgs in daoc had no limit to how many could join. But they can still be fun, and with a good number of different scenarios, they shouldn't get stale for a while.
There is going to be a lot of open world PvP. The final tier of gameplay is 80% RvR area.
Where are you getting this number? You can argue that instancing plays a small role all you want, but when you say that there are 130 of them, it seems to me to be a bit larger then your making it out to be. If those instances are large, it makes you wonder how big the games overworld could have truly been in they eased up. I feel like I am in the minority here questioning the direction of the game. I am not a hater, I just want to know what will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoWs. One poster mentioned the rewards for WoW's PvP sucked, but if that is the case, and Warhammer is making the best rewards come from BGs, doesn't that in turn make people want to go into instances even more? I'm just trying to figure out what it is that everyone here seems to know that I don't that will stop this game's PvP from ending up like WoW.
80% RvR is directly from the podcast. That is, 80% of the tier 4 open world is going to be RvR area with objectives.
Ah, see I would argue that it doesn't mean that 80% of the PvP will take place in the overworld. % of overworld that is RvR doesn't = % of overall PvP that will take place there. By the same logic probably 70% of WoW's overworld or more is RvR, but probably only 10-20% of RvR on a good day actually happens out there (on PvP servers).
TwitchTV Partnered Streamer
MMORPG.com Spotlight Blog Writer
Co-Leader of Inquisition
Youtube Channel
Let's get serious.
You're just doing the usual "mage beats warrior" bragging which brings nothing to the table - the pyro mage and the warrior were definitely the leats interesting pvp classes at release. The first could 2 shot anyone with a pyro spec, and the second was killed by everyone.
Either way, my point was that the dmg scaling went completely over the top once most guilds were able to beat BWL and then ran around the battlegrounds. My second point related to WAR is that if it takes 30 secs to kill a caster at release, i fear it's going to get shorter and shorter as time goes on, and 30 seconds AT RELEASE, indicates problems in the future.
My addiction History:
>> EQ1 2000-2004 - Shaman/Bard/Wizard/Monk - nolife raid-whore
>> WoW 2004-2009 + Cataclysm for 2 months - hardcore casual
>> Current status : done with MMO, too old for that crap.
Good to hear some good news. Lol @ the haters.
You should take a look at the tabletop game then.
I have a hard enough time getting my friends to turn off their PS3's, Xbox360's, and PCs. Highly doubt I could get them to sit down at a table for a table top game of Warhammer. I could always clone myself. hmmm
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.