I believe this is a PvP/RvR Game, so I wouldn't recommend it for players that don't like PvP. I guess there will be PvE content too (ofc) but for strictly PvE you should play WoW or Lotro or something.
To be honest, I hate PvP. I get no pleasure in killing a real player's avatar. In nearly all MMO's Ive played, there was zero point in PvP except for some minor buff, gear that only was useful for more PvP, or ego points. There was one game where I enjoyed PvP and that was Star Wars Galaxies (before the changes). As a jedi, it was thrilling to be constantly looking over my shoulder for a Bounty Hunter. There were no safe zones or any place to hide. There wasnt another instance that I could switch to if I was about to lose (age of conan). I was hunted like an animal and it was awesome. From what Ive read, Warhammer is focusing its content on realm vs realm. Will there be any reason for someone like me to buy this game ? I like PvE sandbox play with the occasional non-forced quest to break up the boredom. I also love crafting and being a dominant force in the economy. Every game Ive played Ive ended up as one of the best-known crafters on that server. If I had my choice, I would strictly be a crafter like my alt was in SWG. Warhammer looks pretty good on the cover but I wonder if it will have anything for me
Warhammer Online is a PVP/RVR designed with PVP in mind from the ground up. There will be PVE but end game will be mostly RVR. DAOC was like this too. Later in DAOC they started to focus on PVE some. THey added the dragon zones in daoc and the first expnasion of DAOC was a PVE expansion. I also heard WAR has PVE quest thta helps with PVP.
But have you ever done RVR? Its more than just klling other players in PVP. Its side vs a side with benefits. I never liked PVP much before DAOC. After playing DAOC i got into RVR and it was some of the most fun I ever had. PVP with distinct sides really is what makes it fun.
Do you like delivering things to NPCs from other NPCs?
Do you like searching, investigating, finding, X for NPC Y?
Do you like to collect # of X for NPC Y?
Do you enjoy killing # of X for NPC Y?
If you answered yes then you will enjoy PvE in WAR or you could save yourself the cost of a box and get ANY other MMORPG on the market. I suggest WoW at least it has blood splatter in it.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
I played DAoC long ago. The RvR experience is sort of a mix of PvP and PvE. The PvP aspect is that the opponents are controlled by actual people. You don't get that WoW arena or open world ganking feeling from it though. You've got a ton of people around who are on your side (similar to a PvE raid). Everyone is working towards a common goal, say taking a keep by killing the keep lord (similar to PvE raid). The main difference is that it's harder than any PvE scripted encounter. Adding real players into the mix make it different every time and more interesting. Some players will still act in the manner of the E-Peen contest, but most people are just playing to have fun.
This can pretty much be summed up by saying my experience with RvR is very different than what people typically consider PvP now. If you have never RvR'ed before, don't lump it into the category of PvP. It's similar in some ways, but very different in others.
That being said, this game will have a heavy RvR focus. If you try RvR and you don't like it, there are probably better games out there for you. If you end up liking it, you have your answer. :P
Do you like delivering things to NPCs from other NPCs? Do you like searching, investigating, finding, X for NPC Y? Do you like to collect # of X for NPC Y? Do you enjoy killing # of X for NPC Y? If you answered yes then you will enjoy PvE in WAR or you could save yourself the cost of a box and get ANY other MMORPG on the market. I suggest WoW at least it has blood splatter in it.
Wtf you talking about?
What about:
- Public Quests
- Open dungeons
- PvP Dungeons
- Tome of knowledge unlocks
- Lairs
.. all contributing to the global RvR effort?
oh.. I remember, those do not matter because "WAR is a WoW clone" and damn those pesky facts to hell.
I find this hard to justify given what we know. To me it's a themepark with an *extremely* clear ultimate goal (capturing your opponents main city) and a whole game that pushes you towards that as areas lock behind you when you conquer it and everyone moves on to the next.
I agree there are *plenty* of small things to do to keep you busy but in the end, from a birds eye view, the game design is very linear and very much laid out for you.
If you want to get to that Capitol you will *have* to take that keep, you will *have* to take that zone, you will *have* to win that scenario to get enough points. You can't skip it, you have no choice to take something else and reach the same goal. Therefor the design is extremely linear and the only diversity comes from mixing it up which front you like to progress/defend on but the way it progresses will always be the same.
You HAVE to press W to move, you HAVE to press a # to use a skill. See were im going? In ANY sort of game that has any amount of progression you are going to HAVE to do something.
If you just want to stand around and do nothing you can do it. In SWG pre-cu/nge you HAD to kill things to level up any combat skill.
You HAD to craft to level up crafting. You HAD to kill kryt dragons (spelt right?) to get their skin for better buffs/items.
Theres always a thing you HAVE to do. And by skipping something like your saying, you HAVE To get to this capitol you have to win this point. If people didnt have to do that then they would just get there with out fighting anything?
Your looking way too into things. And If you want a game to have no focus then wait for darkfall. It will eat up all your sandbox desiers. If it ever comes out.
Try to read before you reply, it helps. I wasn't talking about *having* to do something as a burden. I was talking about having to do something to get somewhere as opposed to having several venues to get to the same place.
There is only one way to the capitol, there are no optional routes to go there, it's a one way street and everything on that street has to be done before you can move on to the next part.
That's what makes it linear.
Also, no, I don't agree that having 3 oneway streets next to eachother makes it suddenly nonlinear. The route to the same place is still exactly the same on all 3 roads, the only difference is is that you might be mixing up which one way route you progress on depending on where the front is.
If there were options in which way you progress towards a capitol then it would be nonlinear, but so far as we know so far, there aren't.
Also, having scenarios and keeps are fine but so far it seems you'll need both to proceed so either one or the other isn't an option. It both has to be done. Sure on a personal level you can chose, but that's about it, and if the keep is already taken, it's not like you have a lot of choice if you want to be of use to the war yet all you need is scenario points.
Latest projection for capitol taking was 3-4 weeks I believe, not months.
I also don't agree much with the strategic value of 3 different fronts in this case. I agree it does add some. However the fact that they say that most objectives will take quite some *time* (Argueably to prevent ninjaing of stuff on the fly) also removes a lot of the strategy from having 3 fronts since the time to move to another front is most likely lower than the time it takes to take an objective. This takes away a very large part of the importance of troop placement, eg "You can't be everywhere at once", however you don't have to be in this case since you have plenty of time to get there.
That means all it comes down to is who is better, not who places their troops better. (argueable from the point of view that dumb people won't have a clue where to be but that is outside the realm of strategy)
Linear as you re describing it yes, linear in the real sense of the word pertaining to a MMO no not at all. There are a ton of options on the way to sacking a city. It all contributes to mive the battle lines back and forth. You don t physically have to be on the front to help. Thus it s not linear the way you re saying.
Linear as you re describing it yes, linear in the real sense of the word pertaining to a MMO no not at all. There are a ton of options on the way to sacking a city. It all contributes to mive the battle lines back and forth. You don t physically have to be on the front to help. Thus it s not linear the way you re saying.
Not true actually since apparently if you're not on the frontier killing people, your points don't count towards moving the frontier. (if you're in an already conquered zone)
I totally agree. On a personal level there's always several options available to you. However some of those won't necessarily progress the war anymore. (Eg keeps taken but still need scenario points to conquer zone)
And still, if you log in and you're in that zone on that point you know exactly what will have to happen next or what's going on. There's no will we take the road passed keep a through to C and then sneak by that side F to get to objective X. No it will always be A -> B -> C with possible doing one before the other but never having an option of A or B or C -> D or E or F -> etc.
I see your point. I think your definition of linear and mine are different:) The fact that i can do alot to help the fight wether i m there or not(rvr on the frontlines) makes it not linear, to me
I find this hard to justify given what we know. To me it's a themepark with an *extremely* clear ultimate goal (capturing your opponents main city) and a whole game that pushes you towards that as areas lock behind you when you conquer it and everyone moves on to the next.
I agree there are *plenty* of small things to do to keep you busy but in the end, from a birds eye view, the game design is very linear and very much laid out for you.
If you want to get to that Capitol you will *have* to take that keep, you will *have* to take that zone, you will *have* to win that scenario to get enough points. You can't skip it, you have no choice to take something else and reach the same goal. Therefor the design is extremely linear and the only diversity comes from mixing it up which front you like to progress/defend on but the way it progresses will always be the same.
You HAVE to press W to move, you HAVE to press a # to use a skill. See were im going? In ANY sort of game that has any amount of progression you are going to HAVE to do something.
If you just want to stand around and do nothing you can do it. In SWG pre-cu/nge you HAD to kill things to level up any combat skill.
You HAD to craft to level up crafting. You HAD to kill kryt dragons (spelt right?) to get their skin for better buffs/items.
Theres always a thing you HAVE to do. And by skipping something like your saying, you HAVE To get to this capitol you have to win this point. If people didnt have to do that then they would just get there with out fighting anything?
Your looking way too into things. And If you want a game to have no focus then wait for darkfall. It will eat up all your sandbox desiers. If it ever comes out.
Try to read before you reply, it helps. I wasn't talking about *having* to do something as a burden. I was talking about having to do something to get somewhere as opposed to having several venues to get to the same place.
There is only one way to the capitol, there are no optional routes to go there, it's a one way street and everything on that street has to be done before you can move on to the next part.
That's what makes it linear.
Also, no, I don't agree that having 3 oneway streets next to eachother makes it suddenly nonlinear. The route to the same place is still exactly the same on all 3 roads, the only difference is is that you might be mixing up which one way route you progress on depending on where the front is.
If there were options in which way you progress towards a capitol then it would be nonlinear, but so far as we know so far, there aren't.
Also, having scenarios and keeps are fine but so far it seems you'll need both to proceed so either one or the other isn't an option. It both has to be done. Sure on a personal level you can chose, but that's about it, and if the keep is already taken, it's not like you have a lot of choice if you want to be of use to the war yet all you need is scenario points.
Latest projection for capitol taking was 3-4 weeks I believe, not months.
I also don't agree much with the strategic value of 3 different fronts in this case. I agree it does add some. However the fact that they say that most objectives will take quite some *time* (Argueably to prevent ninjaing of stuff on the fly) also removes a lot of the strategy from having 3 fronts since the time to move to another front is most likely lower than the time it takes to take an objective. This takes away a very large part of the importance of troop placement, eg "You can't be everywhere at once", however you don't have to be in this case since you have plenty of time to get there.
That means all it comes down to is who is better, not who places their troops better. (argueable from the point of view that dumb people won't have a clue where to be but that is outside the realm of strategy)
There is strategy Look in DaoC for relic raids needed around 80 (less if you are really good and there is no one defending it ) but you still needed to get everyone to go and talk a bit to time attacks not have everyone rush in. you will need strategy (i know it wont be a lot aside from lets attack here and heal the tanks) to be able to do anything in open World RVR and in the scenarios you will need to talk about which points to cap or how to spread everyone out while playing murderball. it not like real war but you do need some strategy.
The three races per side does give some different paths and play styles between the races thus if you normally fight Empire (fight more up close and personal with their healers and witch hunters waiting to ambush you) you will see a change when you fight High elfs (moving quick and hit and run with shadow warriors and sword masters dealing quick damage and magic) No class will play the Exact same....
but i do agree with you the game in its RVR is liner in the sence that you will get to the end game the same way everytime its just in WAR you have 3 capitals to sack therefore 3 endgames (IMO)
I find this hard to justify given what we know. To me it's a themepark with an *extremely* clear ultimate goal (capturing your opponents main city) and a whole game that pushes you towards that as areas lock behind you when you conquer it and everyone moves on to the next.
I agree there are *plenty* of small things to do to keep you busy but in the end, from a birds eye view, the game design is very linear and very much laid out for you.
If you want to get to that Capitol you will *have* to take that keep, you will *have* to take that zone, you will *have* to win that scenario to get enough points. You can't skip it, you have no choice to take something else and reach the same goal. Therefor the design is extremely linear and the only diversity comes from mixing it up which front you like to progress/defend on but the way it progresses will always be the same.
You HAVE to press W to move, you HAVE to press a # to use a skill. See were im going? In ANY sort of game that has any amount of progression you are going to HAVE to do something.
If you just want to stand around and do nothing you can do it. In SWG pre-cu/nge you HAD to kill things to level up any combat skill.
You HAD to craft to level up crafting. You HAD to kill kryt dragons (spelt right?) to get their skin for better buffs/items.
Theres always a thing you HAVE to do. And by skipping something like your saying, you HAVE To get to this capitol you have to win this point. If people didnt have to do that then they would just get there with out fighting anything?
Your looking way too into things. And If you want a game to have no focus then wait for darkfall. It will eat up all your sandbox desiers. If it ever comes out.
Try to read before you reply, it helps. I wasn't talking about *having* to do something as a burden. I was talking about having to do something to get somewhere as opposed to having several venues to get to the same place.
But you have several venues to capital sacking. As I explained earlier.
There is only one way to the capitol, there are no optional routes to go there, it's a one way street and everything on that street has to be done before you can move on to the next part.
Ofc there are diverse routes. This is a multiplayer game and you don't have to follow a certain route to contribute. There are many people playing the game and everybody can choose what suits him or his realm better. For example if I want to do PvE I can do PvE and someone else can do siege PvP.
That's what makes it linear.
It doesn't. You are forgetting another incredibly important factor. That of there being NO ENDING to the game. I know this sounds crazy but that's how it is. Sacking a capital city is NOT AN ENDING. You do not "beat the game" when you sack a capital - the game goes on. It is a homeostatic system based on a collection of negative feedback mechanisms. THE GAME DOES NOT END WITH CITY SACKING.
It is NOT LINEAR. It is a collection of CLOSED LOOPS that keep repeating themselves.
In linear PvE games you do quest A, B, C, D... etc until you finish the last quest, toughest dungeon whatever and then what? Nothing.
In WAR you have an endless war with three separate yet interacting fronts. It never ends. There are three closed loops that are out of synch and which constantly change state and influence each other. This is as far as possible from linear game structure that I can imagine.
Also, no, I don't agree that having 3 oneway streets next to eachother makes it suddenly nonlinear. The route to the same place is still exactly the same on all 3 roads, the only difference is is that you might be mixing up which one way route you progress on depending on where the front is.
Oh yes, it does make it even more non-linear. Those three routes influence each other. How? By there being fixed populations. If there is a lot of Destruction on one front then that means that there is fewer of them on one of the other two. A smart player or guild or realm can take advantage of that.
If there were options in which way you progress towards a capitol then it would be nonlinear, but so far as we know so far, there aren't.
But there are options for each individual player. Those options are called the RvR - all the play modes in game support the collective goal.
Also, having scenarios and keeps are fine but so far it seems you'll need both to proceed so either one or the other isn't an option. It both has to be done. Sure on a personal level you can chose, but that's about it, and if the keep is already taken, it's not like you have a lot of choice if you want to be of use to the war yet all you need is scenario points.
Well I'm a person playing the game and that's the only level that really interests me. What other level should I worry about? I can choose among a many different paths toward contributing to my realm and improving my character.
Latest projection for capitol taking was 3-4 weeks I believe, not months.
We'll see. Anyhow it's plenty of time for all kinds of weird sh*** to happen on all three fronts.
I also don't agree much with the strategic value of 3 different fronts in this case. I agree it does add some. However the fact that they say that most objectives will take quite some *time* (Argueably to prevent ninjaing of stuff on the fly) also removes a lot of the strategy from having 3 fronts since the time to move to another front is most likely lower than the time it takes to take an objective. This takes away a very large part of the importance of troop placement, eg "You can't be everywhere at once", however you don't have to be in this case since you have plenty of time to get there.
See above.
That means all it comes down to is who is better, not who places their troops better. (argueable from the point of view that dumb people won't have a clue where to be but that is outside the realm of strategy)
Ofc I doubt someone is going to be able to direct the war from a strategic viewpoint. However the game is set up in such a way to constantly produce different world states. A poor grunt won't have a clue what's happening on a strategic level. However, what this poor grunt will be able to see is a consistently different environment each time he logs in.
Imo the main thing to consider with WAR is that from a player's perspective it will be an almost stochastic system.
As opposed to what we've come to expect from the "me me me" games where you are the center of the universe forging your fate in a static controllable world, in WAR a player's environment will be dictated by forces that are outside of his control. To put it very plainly - THE WAR IS BIGGER THAN YOU. No, your path won't be linear quite simply because you cannot win the war by yourself and it'll be quite an achievement if your individual contribution gets noticed on a global level. Sacking the capital is not something YOU achieve, even though everything you do contributes to it - the war is an ENVIRONMENT VARIABLE that you can influence. Nothing more and nothing less.
The war itself is not the goal - it is a dynamic environment where you go about achieving your own goals, whatever they may be.
Now you're just being totally inconsistent to try and win an argument.
I said this game was linear from a birds eye view. It is. The 3 fronts change nothing in the fact that the way how you get to each one of them leaves no options whatsoever on a grand scale. The only variation is chosing in which side to advance at a certain point in time but the way it advances is totally fixed.
If all you care about is the game on a personal level don't argue linearity on a birds eye view level. Also, like I said. At some points, if you want to progress the war you will not have the options available to you as you might like.
I'd love to hear you expand on your strange idea that something being circular somehow means that it's not linear. Just because you do A B C and then get to do A B C all over again doesn't somehow make it nonlinear. I never said it was the end, I said there was only one track to get to that point.
You totally skipped the strategy argument about 3 fronts with no arguments whatsoever. There is no confirmed statement yet that pops will be balanced strictly, even then balance is simply not guaranteed. It's gonna amount to which side is stronger than the other. (In skill or whatever you want to call it.) Which side they are fighting on will do little due to the time needed to take something and the time people will have to respond. That simply takes the "Strategy" out of it.
In regards to what was said above I'm not arguing the combat won't have strategy to it, that's a totally different point. It most certainly will but that's not the level I'm discussing here.
Mythic did a good job with PvE in Dark Age of Camelot, their previous RvR focused game. I'm sure they'll do the same now, better even after learning from past mistakes.
Now you're just being totally inconsistent to try and win an argument.
I said this game was linear from a birds eye view. It is. The 3 fronts change nothing in the fact that the way how you get to each one of them leaves no options whatsoever on a grand scale. The only variation is chosing in which side to advance at a certain point in time but the way it advances is totally fixed.
If all you care about is the game on a personal level don't argue linearity on a birds eye view level. Also, like I said. At some points, if you want to progress the war you will not have the options available to you as you might like.
I'd love to hear you expand on your strange idea that something being circular somehow means that it's not linear. Just because you do A B C and then get to do A B C all over again doesn't somehow make it nonlinear. I never said it was the end, I said there was only one track to get to that point.
You totally skipped the strategy argument about 3 fronts with no arguments whatsoever. There is no confirmed statement yet that pops will be balanced strictly, even then balance is simply not guaranteed. It's gonna amount to which side is stronger than the other. (In skill or whatever you want to call it.) Which side they are fighting on will do little due to the time needed to take something and the time people will have to respond. That simply takes the "Strategy" out of it.
In regards to what was said above I'm not arguing the combat won't have strategy to it, that's a totally different point. It most certainly will but that's not the level I'm discussing here.
Imo we have a problem of perception here.
You see the war in WAR as being fought by you, exclusively - "I have to do A, B, C and D to take over a capital"
What I'm saying is that you DON'T have to do A, B, C and D. In fact you CANNOT do A, B, C and D because you are an individual and the war is bigger than any individual. You will have to choose which one of those you will do.
The biggest difference between our viewpoints is that you see the war as a goal while I see it as a dynamic environment in which you pursue your own goals.
Trust me, it is going to be as far as possible from linearity as it can be imagined....
/edit
and as for linear / circular thing.
LInear: start - A -B -C -D - End
Circular (or better tug-of-war) : start - A - B - C - B - C -D - C -B - C - B.. etc. see? No ending implied and you can go both ways. Now multiply it by 3 and add an ability to hop between these three systems. Not linear by a long shot.
Linearity means following a certain path from the beginning to the end. I see no beginning and no end there.
What is meant by linearity in games is that there is a pre-set beginning and an end in a game. However this is an old single-player concept that needs to go. A huge amount of frustration from grinding comes from there being an implication of ending the game (by killing the biggest boss or getting the uber gear). However this is completely unnatural for MMO environments which need to have no ending and no ultimate goals.
Sandboxes are a right step towards that but they've shown to be quite vulnerable if made too open-ended and often lacking in content if this is left to players exclusively. Imo Mythic devs are trying to continue their experiment they started with DAoC - dynamic persistent environment with no ultimate game-ending goals implied but with a clear sense of purpose and a rigid set of rules ensuring game world doesn't descend into anarchy.
You're the one looking at it from a purely personal perspective, not me.
I look at the map, I look at the objectives.
Where we differ in view is linearity. I see A B C D and that's it. I don't care whether it's A B C B C B A B C. It's still one then the other, whether you do one over and over again before you get to the other doesn't make it non linear to me, it makes it take longer to do the same thing. This is no different than getting to do it all over again once you get to D and go back to A.
Non linearity for me is having more than one way to reach the same goal. In other words A1 or A2 or A3 or A4 to get to B or even C and then B1 or B2 or B3 or B4 or C1 or C2 or C3 or C4 to be able to get to get further.
Both of you are retarded. But Its not linear at all. Each of the 3 cities are different PvE and RvR content so even if you win one you're not done and its NOT the same as any other of their cities unless you're only interested in experienceing the seiging of a city one time and then you're forever satisfied. You won't be. You'll want to do it again to do the other instances avaliable. You'll want to take the other cities. Being part of a city seige is the Dragon or god Raid of EQ. It is end of the campaign. That is all. The campaign is just one layer of the gameplay in this world. Your own personal goals with crafting, gear, Tome, and others are always open to you regardless of the campaign unless you want to be in those few very hard to get to places behind the enemies city walls. You, sir, are naming one of the millions of possible things you can do with your time in war and saying you can only do this through one path. Well, yeah, I can only kill the king if I take the city, yep.... you're right... but its not linear.
You are a grunt in a war. Not a general or a superhero one-man-army. You are a grunt. A soldier.
There is a frontline. There are various objectives on that frontline and they all have to be held. But you are just you. You are just one guy. You are not a general. You are a soldier. There is just one of you among the thousands.
You cannot hold all the objectives. Because you are just one guy. However there are other guys around you. You can take one objective while other guys take other objectives. So you make a choice which objective you take.
Your side wins. After a while the war starts again. You are still one guy, among the thousands. Now you get another choice which objective to take. See?
In addition you don't have to take objectives and hold them to contribute to the effort or get promotions and medals which are your true goal. You can guard the rear. You can peel potatoes or drive a truck. You can write humorous anecdotes for Stars and Stripes.
Or you can say "I want to fight in the other war" and get moved there.
This is as far as possible from kill boss in dungeon A so I can kill boss in dungeon B and finally in dungeon C and then say "I've beaten the game now what" or "I'm stuck at dungeon B and I'm seething with frustration because I can't get to dungeon C and there is nothing else meaningful for me to do". If you want a PvP equivalent of this crap just substitute dungeons with arena ratings.
You're the one looking at it from a purely personal perspective, not me.
I look at the map, I look at the objectives.
Where we differ in view is linearity. I see A B C D and that's it. I don't care whether it's A B C B C B A B C. It's still one then the other, whether you do one over and over again before you get to the other doesn't make it non linear to me, it makes it take longer to do the same thing. This is no different than getting to do it all over again once you get to D and go back to A.
Non linearity for me is having more than one way to reach the same goal. In other words A1 or A2 or A3 or A4 to get to B or even C and then B1 or B2 or B3 or B4 or C1 or C2 or C3 or C4 to be able to get to get further.
Ok Pheace, fair enough. You see it as linear. But the rest of us shouldn't. Why? Because they want to make this game like a war. Look at any real war. They all had fighting in them, to push back the enemy and to destroy them (in most cases). Can you think of any other ways of achieving that goal besides fighting? Well, yeah. There were people who made supplies and sent them to the soldiers on the frontlines. They were just as important.
A = Fighting to capture objectives (choosing which objective you want to take) and along with other realm members claim victory.
A1 = Umm...Teleport to the enemy capital and cast a spell of Nuclear Destruction and just laugh?
Doesn't work so well.
-------------------------------------- A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"
its got enough PvE content to keep you happy in your breaks from pvp. if you study the zone maps only a small part (i think it increases the higher the tier) of the map is pvp the rest is for PvE.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Do you like delivering things to NPCs from other NPCs? Do you like searching, investigating, finding, X for NPC Y? Do you like to collect # of X for NPC Y? Do you enjoy killing # of X for NPC Y? If you answered yes then you will enjoy PvE in WAR or you could save yourself the cost of a box and get ANY other MMORPG on the market. I suggest WoW at least it has blood splatter in it.
Wtf you talking about?
What about:
- Public Quests
- Open dungeons
- PvP Dungeons
- Tome of knowledge unlocks
- Lairs
.. all contributing to the global RvR effort?
oh.. I remember, those do not matter because "WAR is a WoW clone" and damn those pesky facts to hell.
Public Quests - Do you know what those public quests amount to? What I mean is: what do you do in order to complete them? What is an EA Mythic example of a RvR PvE public quest?
Open dungeons - no arguement here there are PvE dungeons that will grant you tier 1 gear, but will you get invited to the sexy parties when everyone else is wearing tier 2 and 3 from PvPing? Is the PvE king encounter going to doable with a guy in tier1 or is he going to be treated like an univited guest who is already drunk and has puked on himself?
PvP Dungeons - Look at the freakin name of this damn thread and ask yourself WTF did you even list this for?
Tome of Knowlegde - No argument here their ToK is very innovative and well worth paying 15 dollars a month for, especially when you are locked out of major sections of it because you don't like to PvP.
Lairs - An area to explore and quest in...what kind of quests? hmmmm...none of the kinds I listed i'm sure.
Picture this markoraos:
EA Mythic announces that all the PvP and RvR aspects are removed from Warhammer online. Is it still worth paying 50 dollars for a box and 15 dollars a month to play this game as it would be or are there better PvE games out on the market?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Do you like delivering things to NPCs from other NPCs? Do you like searching, investigating, finding, X for NPC Y? Do you like to collect # of X for NPC Y? Do you enjoy killing # of X for NPC Y? If you answered yes then you will enjoy PvE in WAR or you could save yourself the cost of a box and get ANY other MMORPG on the market. I suggest WoW at least it has blood splatter in it.
Wtf you talking about?
What about:
- Public Quests
- Open dungeons
- PvP Dungeons
- Tome of knowledge unlocks
- Lairs
.. all contributing to the global RvR effort?
oh.. I remember, those do not matter because "WAR is a WoW clone" and damn those pesky facts to hell.
Public Quests - Do you know what those public quests amount to? What I mean is: what do you do in order to complete them? What is an EA Mythic example of a RvR PvE public quest?
Open dungeons - no arguement here there are PvE dungeons that will grant you tier 1 gear, but will you get invited to the sexy parties when everyone else is wearing tier 2 and 3 from PvPing? Is the PvE king encounter going to doable with a guy in tier1 or is he going to be treated like an univited guest who is already drunk and has puked on himself?
PvP Dungeons - Look at the freakin name of this damn thread and ask yourself WTF did you even list this for?
Tome of Knowlegde - No argument here their ToK is very innovative and well worth paying 15 dollars a month for, especially when you are locked out of major sections of it because you don't like to PvP.
Lairs - An area to explore and quest in...what kind of quests? hmmmm...none of the kinds I listed i'm sure.
Picture this markoraos:
EA Mythic announces that all the PvP and RvR aspects are removed from Warhammer online. Is it still worth paying 50 dollars for a box and 15 dollars a month to play this game as it would be or are there better PvE games out on the market?
Your post implied that WAR has no PvE content apart from your standard fare questing. Moreover that it is done as a kind of an afterthought with no innovation whatsoever.
I believe I managed to neatly demolish that notion.
As for whether WAR can be a "better" PvE game than games that are exclusively PvE, I dont know and I cannot know until we see the game.
What I can see from all the info availaible is that WAR devs spent rather more time actually thinking on how to innovate and improve PvE gameplay than any other MMORPG in recent memory and that includes exclusively PvE ones. I cannot recall any MMORPG that contains so many new PvE game concepts and playing modes.
You're the one looking at it from a purely personal perspective, not me.
I look at the map, I look at the objectives.
Where we differ in view is linearity. I see A B C D and that's it. I don't care whether it's A B C B C B A B C. It's still one then the other, whether you do one over and over again before you get to the other doesn't make it non linear to me, it makes it take longer to do the same thing. This is no different than getting to do it all over again once you get to D and go back to A.
Non linearity for me is having more than one way to reach the same goal. In other words A1 or A2 or A3 or A4 to get to B or even C and then B1 or B2 or B3 or B4 or C1 or C2 or C3 or C4 to be able to get to get further.
Ok Pheace, fair enough. You see it as linear. But the rest of us shouldn't. Why? Because they want to make this game like a war. Look at any real war. They all had fighting in them, to push back the enemy and to destroy them (in most cases). Can you think of any other ways of achieving that goal besides fighting? Well, yeah. There were people who made supplies and sent them to the soldiers on the frontlines. They were just as important.
A = Fighting to capture objectives (choosing which objective you want to take) and along with other realm members claim victory.
A1 = Umm...Teleport to the enemy capital and cast a spell of Nuclear Destruction and just laugh?
Doesn't work so well.
In real life war is about disarming your enemy and removing their ability to defend themselves or at least to make offenses thereby bringing peace. It is not about destroying them. Destroying your enemy is called genocide and in real wars most people frown at that sort of thing. I can think of many ways to disarm an ememy without resorting to genocide. A game that has these things in it would be non linear meaning there are multiple ways to achieve peace but this game does not have multiple paths - it has one path - a genocidal racist holy war. Take over area 1 - then area 2 - then area 3 - then attack the main fort - rinse and repeat.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Comments
I believe this is a PvP/RvR Game, so I wouldn't recommend it for players that don't like PvP. I guess there will be PvE content too (ofc) but for strictly PvE you should play WoW or Lotro or something.
Plenty of people only PVE'd and crafted in DaoC. I'd guess you could the same in WAR.
Theree is something for everyone that about explains it.
here are options for a person like you...
1. WoW pve server
2. LoTRO
3.Age of Conan Pve server
4. runescape
5.tabula rasa
go with #2 or 3 i say though (#3 is the best)
But have you ever done RVR? Its more than just klling other players in PVP. Its side vs a side with benefits. I never liked PVP much before DAOC. After playing DAOC i got into RVR and it was some of the most fun I ever had. PVP with distinct sides really is what makes it fun.
Do you like delivering things to NPCs from other NPCs?
Do you like searching, investigating, finding, X for NPC Y?
Do you like to collect # of X for NPC Y?
Do you enjoy killing # of X for NPC Y?
If you answered yes then you will enjoy PvE in WAR or you could save yourself the cost of a box and get ANY other MMORPG on the market. I suggest WoW at least it has blood splatter in it.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
I played DAoC long ago. The RvR experience is sort of a mix of PvP and PvE. The PvP aspect is that the opponents are controlled by actual people. You don't get that WoW arena or open world ganking feeling from it though. You've got a ton of people around who are on your side (similar to a PvE raid). Everyone is working towards a common goal, say taking a keep by killing the keep lord (similar to PvE raid). The main difference is that it's harder than any PvE scripted encounter. Adding real players into the mix make it different every time and more interesting. Some players will still act in the manner of the E-Peen contest, but most people are just playing to have fun.
This can pretty much be summed up by saying my experience with RvR is very different than what people typically consider PvP now. If you have never RvR'ed before, don't lump it into the category of PvP. It's similar in some ways, but very different in others.
That being said, this game will have a heavy RvR focus. If you try RvR and you don't like it, there are probably better games out there for you. If you end up liking it, you have your answer. :P
Wtf you talking about?
What about:
- Public Quests
- Open dungeons
- PvP Dungeons
- Tome of knowledge unlocks
- Lairs
.. all contributing to the global RvR effort?
oh.. I remember, those do not matter because "WAR is a WoW clone" and damn those pesky facts to hell.
You HAVE to press W to move, you HAVE to press a # to use a skill. See were im going? In ANY sort of game that has any amount of progression you are going to HAVE to do something.If you just want to stand around and do nothing you can do it. In SWG pre-cu/nge you HAD to kill things to level up any combat skill.
You HAD to craft to level up crafting. You HAD to kill kryt dragons (spelt right?) to get their skin for better buffs/items.
Theres always a thing you HAVE to do. And by skipping something like your saying, you HAVE To get to this capitol you have to win this point. If people didnt have to do that then they would just get there with out fighting anything?
Your looking way too into things. And If you want a game to have no focus then wait for darkfall. It will eat up all your sandbox desiers. If it ever comes out.
Try to read before you reply, it helps. I wasn't talking about *having* to do something as a burden. I was talking about having to do something to get somewhere as opposed to having several venues to get to the same place.
There is only one way to the capitol, there are no optional routes to go there, it's a one way street and everything on that street has to be done before you can move on to the next part.
That's what makes it linear.
Also, no, I don't agree that having 3 oneway streets next to eachother makes it suddenly nonlinear. The route to the same place is still exactly the same on all 3 roads, the only difference is is that you might be mixing up which one way route you progress on depending on where the front is.
If there were options in which way you progress towards a capitol then it would be nonlinear, but so far as we know so far, there aren't.
Also, having scenarios and keeps are fine but so far it seems you'll need both to proceed so either one or the other isn't an option. It both has to be done. Sure on a personal level you can chose, but that's about it, and if the keep is already taken, it's not like you have a lot of choice if you want to be of use to the war yet all you need is scenario points.
Latest projection for capitol taking was 3-4 weeks I believe, not months.
I also don't agree much with the strategic value of 3 different fronts in this case. I agree it does add some. However the fact that they say that most objectives will take quite some *time* (Argueably to prevent ninjaing of stuff on the fly) also removes a lot of the strategy from having 3 fronts since the time to move to another front is most likely lower than the time it takes to take an objective. This takes away a very large part of the importance of troop placement, eg "You can't be everywhere at once", however you don't have to be in this case since you have plenty of time to get there.
That means all it comes down to is who is better, not who places their troops better. (argueable from the point of view that dumb people won't have a clue where to be but that is outside the realm of strategy)
Linear as you re describing it yes, linear in the real sense of the word pertaining to a MMO no not at all. There are a ton of options on the way to sacking a city. It all contributes to mive the battle lines back and forth. You don t physically have to be on the front to help. Thus it s not linear the way you re saying.
Not true actually since apparently if you're not on the frontier killing people, your points don't count towards moving the frontier. (if you're in an already conquered zone)
I totally agree. On a personal level there's always several options available to you. However some of those won't necessarily progress the war anymore. (Eg keeps taken but still need scenario points to conquer zone)
And still, if you log in and you're in that zone on that point you know exactly what will have to happen next or what's going on. There's no will we take the road passed keep a through to C and then sneak by that side F to get to objective X. No it will always be A -> B -> C with possible doing one before the other but never having an option of A or B or C -> D or E or F -> etc.
At least not that I've seen so far.
I see your point. I think your definition of linear and mine are different:) The fact that i can do alot to help the fight wether i m there or not(rvr on the frontlines) makes it not linear, to me
If you just want to stand around and do nothing you can do it. In SWG pre-cu/nge you HAD to kill things to level up any combat skill.
You HAD to craft to level up crafting. You HAD to kill kryt dragons (spelt right?) to get their skin for better buffs/items.
Theres always a thing you HAVE to do. And by skipping something like your saying, you HAVE To get to this capitol you have to win this point. If people didnt have to do that then they would just get there with out fighting anything?
Your looking way too into things. And If you want a game to have no focus then wait for darkfall. It will eat up all your sandbox desiers. If it ever comes out.
Try to read before you reply, it helps. I wasn't talking about *having* to do something as a burden. I was talking about having to do something to get somewhere as opposed to having several venues to get to the same place.
There is only one way to the capitol, there are no optional routes to go there, it's a one way street and everything on that street has to be done before you can move on to the next part.
That's what makes it linear.
Also, no, I don't agree that having 3 oneway streets next to eachother makes it suddenly nonlinear. The route to the same place is still exactly the same on all 3 roads, the only difference is is that you might be mixing up which one way route you progress on depending on where the front is.
If there were options in which way you progress towards a capitol then it would be nonlinear, but so far as we know so far, there aren't.
Also, having scenarios and keeps are fine but so far it seems you'll need both to proceed so either one or the other isn't an option. It both has to be done. Sure on a personal level you can chose, but that's about it, and if the keep is already taken, it's not like you have a lot of choice if you want to be of use to the war yet all you need is scenario points.
Latest projection for capitol taking was 3-4 weeks I believe, not months.
I also don't agree much with the strategic value of 3 different fronts in this case. I agree it does add some. However the fact that they say that most objectives will take quite some *time* (Argueably to prevent ninjaing of stuff on the fly) also removes a lot of the strategy from having 3 fronts since the time to move to another front is most likely lower than the time it takes to take an objective. This takes away a very large part of the importance of troop placement, eg "You can't be everywhere at once", however you don't have to be in this case since you have plenty of time to get there.
That means all it comes down to is who is better, not who places their troops better. (argueable from the point of view that dumb people won't have a clue where to be but that is outside the realm of strategy)
There is strategy Look in DaoC for relic raids needed around 80 (less if you are really good and there is no one defending it ) but you still needed to get everyone to go and talk a bit to time attacks not have everyone rush in. you will need strategy (i know it wont be a lot aside from lets attack here and heal the tanks) to be able to do anything in open World RVR and in the scenarios you will need to talk about which points to cap or how to spread everyone out while playing murderball. it not like real war but you do need some strategy.The three races per side does give some different paths and play styles between the races thus if you normally fight Empire (fight more up close and personal with their healers and witch hunters waiting to ambush you) you will see a change when you fight High elfs (moving quick and hit and run with shadow warriors and sword masters dealing quick damage and magic) No class will play the Exact same....
but i do agree with you the game in its RVR is liner in the sence that you will get to the end game the same way everytime its just in WAR you have 3 capitals to sack therefore 3 endgames (IMO)
If you just want to stand around and do nothing you can do it. In SWG pre-cu/nge you HAD to kill things to level up any combat skill.
You HAD to craft to level up crafting. You HAD to kill kryt dragons (spelt right?) to get their skin for better buffs/items.
Theres always a thing you HAVE to do. And by skipping something like your saying, you HAVE To get to this capitol you have to win this point. If people didnt have to do that then they would just get there with out fighting anything?
Your looking way too into things. And If you want a game to have no focus then wait for darkfall. It will eat up all your sandbox desiers. If it ever comes out.
Try to read before you reply, it helps. I wasn't talking about *having* to do something as a burden. I was talking about having to do something to get somewhere as opposed to having several venues to get to the same place.
But you have several venues to capital sacking. As I explained earlier.
There is only one way to the capitol, there are no optional routes to go there, it's a one way street and everything on that street has to be done before you can move on to the next part.
Ofc there are diverse routes. This is a multiplayer game and you don't have to follow a certain route to contribute. There are many people playing the game and everybody can choose what suits him or his realm better. For example if I want to do PvE I can do PvE and someone else can do siege PvP.
That's what makes it linear.
It doesn't. You are forgetting another incredibly important factor. That of there being NO ENDING to the game. I know this sounds crazy but that's how it is. Sacking a capital city is NOT AN ENDING. You do not "beat the game" when you sack a capital - the game goes on. It is a homeostatic system based on a collection of negative feedback mechanisms. THE GAME DOES NOT END WITH CITY SACKING.
It is NOT LINEAR. It is a collection of CLOSED LOOPS that keep repeating themselves.
In linear PvE games you do quest A, B, C, D... etc until you finish the last quest, toughest dungeon whatever and then what? Nothing.
In WAR you have an endless war with three separate yet interacting fronts. It never ends. There are three closed loops that are out of synch and which constantly change state and influence each other. This is as far as possible from linear game structure that I can imagine.
Also, no, I don't agree that having 3 oneway streets next to eachother makes it suddenly nonlinear. The route to the same place is still exactly the same on all 3 roads, the only difference is is that you might be mixing up which one way route you progress on depending on where the front is.
Oh yes, it does make it even more non-linear. Those three routes influence each other. How? By there being fixed populations. If there is a lot of Destruction on one front then that means that there is fewer of them on one of the other two. A smart player or guild or realm can take advantage of that.
If there were options in which way you progress towards a capitol then it would be nonlinear, but so far as we know so far, there aren't.
But there are options for each individual player. Those options are called the RvR - all the play modes in game support the collective goal.
Also, having scenarios and keeps are fine but so far it seems you'll need both to proceed so either one or the other isn't an option. It both has to be done. Sure on a personal level you can chose, but that's about it, and if the keep is already taken, it's not like you have a lot of choice if you want to be of use to the war yet all you need is scenario points.
Well I'm a person playing the game and that's the only level that really interests me. What other level should I worry about? I can choose among a many different paths toward contributing to my realm and improving my character.
Latest projection for capitol taking was 3-4 weeks I believe, not months.
We'll see. Anyhow it's plenty of time for all kinds of weird sh*** to happen on all three fronts.
I also don't agree much with the strategic value of 3 different fronts in this case. I agree it does add some. However the fact that they say that most objectives will take quite some *time* (Argueably to prevent ninjaing of stuff on the fly) also removes a lot of the strategy from having 3 fronts since the time to move to another front is most likely lower than the time it takes to take an objective. This takes away a very large part of the importance of troop placement, eg "You can't be everywhere at once", however you don't have to be in this case since you have plenty of time to get there.
See above.
That means all it comes down to is who is better, not who places their troops better. (argueable from the point of view that dumb people won't have a clue where to be but that is outside the realm of strategy)
Ofc I doubt someone is going to be able to direct the war from a strategic viewpoint. However the game is set up in such a way to constantly produce different world states. A poor grunt won't have a clue what's happening on a strategic level. However, what this poor grunt will be able to see is a consistently different environment each time he logs in.
Imo the main thing to consider with WAR is that from a player's perspective it will be an almost stochastic system.
As opposed to what we've come to expect from the "me me me" games where you are the center of the universe forging your fate in a static controllable world, in WAR a player's environment will be dictated by forces that are outside of his control. To put it very plainly - THE WAR IS BIGGER THAN YOU. No, your path won't be linear quite simply because you cannot win the war by yourself and it'll be quite an achievement if your individual contribution gets noticed on a global level. Sacking the capital is not something YOU achieve, even though everything you do contributes to it - the war is an ENVIRONMENT VARIABLE that you can influence. Nothing more and nothing less.
The war itself is not the goal - it is a dynamic environment where you go about achieving your own goals, whatever they may be.
Now you're just being totally inconsistent to try and win an argument.
I said this game was linear from a birds eye view. It is. The 3 fronts change nothing in the fact that the way how you get to each one of them leaves no options whatsoever on a grand scale. The only variation is chosing in which side to advance at a certain point in time but the way it advances is totally fixed.
If all you care about is the game on a personal level don't argue linearity on a birds eye view level. Also, like I said. At some points, if you want to progress the war you will not have the options available to you as you might like.
I'd love to hear you expand on your strange idea that something being circular somehow means that it's not linear. Just because you do A B C and then get to do A B C all over again doesn't somehow make it nonlinear. I never said it was the end, I said there was only one track to get to that point.
You totally skipped the strategy argument about 3 fronts with no arguments whatsoever. There is no confirmed statement yet that pops will be balanced strictly, even then balance is simply not guaranteed. It's gonna amount to which side is stronger than the other. (In skill or whatever you want to call it.) Which side they are fighting on will do little due to the time needed to take something and the time people will have to respond. That simply takes the "Strategy" out of it.
In regards to what was said above I'm not arguing the combat won't have strategy to it, that's a totally different point. It most certainly will but that's not the level I'm discussing here.
Mythic did a good job with PvE in Dark Age of Camelot, their previous RvR focused game. I'm sure they'll do the same now, better even after learning from past mistakes.
Darkfall Travelogues!
Imo we have a problem of perception here.
You see the war in WAR as being fought by you, exclusively - "I have to do A, B, C and D to take over a capital"
What I'm saying is that you DON'T have to do A, B, C and D. In fact you CANNOT do A, B, C and D because you are an individual and the war is bigger than any individual. You will have to choose which one of those you will do.
The biggest difference between our viewpoints is that you see the war as a goal while I see it as a dynamic environment in which you pursue your own goals.
Trust me, it is going to be as far as possible from linearity as it can be imagined....
/edit
and as for linear / circular thing.
LInear: start - A -B -C -D - End
Circular (or better tug-of-war) : start - A - B - C - B - C -D - C -B - C - B.. etc. see? No ending implied and you can go both ways. Now multiply it by 3 and add an ability to hop between these three systems. Not linear by a long shot.
Linearity means following a certain path from the beginning to the end. I see no beginning and no end there.
What is meant by linearity in games is that there is a pre-set beginning and an end in a game. However this is an old single-player concept that needs to go. A huge amount of frustration from grinding comes from there being an implication of ending the game (by killing the biggest boss or getting the uber gear). However this is completely unnatural for MMO environments which need to have no ending and no ultimate goals.
Sandboxes are a right step towards that but they've shown to be quite vulnerable if made too open-ended and often lacking in content if this is left to players exclusively. Imo Mythic devs are trying to continue their experiment they started with DAoC - dynamic persistent environment with no ultimate game-ending goals implied but with a clear sense of purpose and a rigid set of rules ensuring game world doesn't descend into anarchy.
You're the one looking at it from a purely personal perspective, not me.
I look at the map, I look at the objectives.
Where we differ in view is linearity. I see A B C D and that's it. I don't care whether it's A B C B C B A B C. It's still one then the other, whether you do one over and over again before you get to the other doesn't make it non linear to me, it makes it take longer to do the same thing. This is no different than getting to do it all over again once you get to D and go back to A.
Non linearity for me is having more than one way to reach the same goal. In other words A1 or A2 or A3 or A4 to get to B or even C and then B1 or B2 or B3 or B4 or C1 or C2 or C3 or C4 to be able to get to get further.
Both of you are retarded. But Its not linear at all. Each of the 3 cities are different PvE and RvR content so even if you win one you're not done and its NOT the same as any other of their cities unless you're only interested in experienceing the seiging of a city one time and then you're forever satisfied. You won't be. You'll want to do it again to do the other instances avaliable. You'll want to take the other cities. Being part of a city seige is the Dragon or god Raid of EQ. It is end of the campaign. That is all. The campaign is just one layer of the gameplay in this world. Your own personal goals with crafting, gear, Tome, and others are always open to you regardless of the campaign unless you want to be in those few very hard to get to places behind the enemies city walls. You, sir, are naming one of the millions of possible things you can do with your time in war and saying you can only do this through one path. Well, yeah, I can only kill the king if I take the city, yep.... you're right... but its not linear.
Sigh...
Ok. Imagine you are in a real war. OK?
You are a grunt in a war. Not a general or a superhero one-man-army. You are a grunt. A soldier.
There is a frontline. There are various objectives on that frontline and they all have to be held. But you are just you. You are just one guy. You are not a general. You are a soldier. There is just one of you among the thousands.
You cannot hold all the objectives. Because you are just one guy. However there are other guys around you. You can take one objective while other guys take other objectives. So you make a choice which objective you take.
Your side wins. After a while the war starts again. You are still one guy, among the thousands. Now you get another choice which objective to take. See?
In addition you don't have to take objectives and hold them to contribute to the effort or get promotions and medals which are your true goal. You can guard the rear. You can peel potatoes or drive a truck. You can write humorous anecdotes for Stars and Stripes.
Or you can say "I want to fight in the other war" and get moved there.
This is as far as possible from kill boss in dungeon A so I can kill boss in dungeon B and finally in dungeon C and then say "I've beaten the game now what" or "I'm stuck at dungeon B and I'm seething with frustration because I can't get to dungeon C and there is nothing else meaningful for me to do". If you want a PvP equivalent of this crap just substitute dungeons with arena ratings.
A = Fighting to capture objectives (choosing which objective you want to take) and along with other realm members claim victory.
A1 = Umm...Teleport to the enemy capital and cast a spell of Nuclear Destruction and just laugh?
Doesn't work so well.
--------------------------------------
A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"
Order of the White Border.
its got enough PvE content to keep you happy in your breaks from pvp. if you study the zone maps only a small part (i think it increases the higher the tier) of the map is pvp the rest is for PvE.
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Wtf you talking about?
What about:
- Public Quests
- Open dungeons
- PvP Dungeons
- Tome of knowledge unlocks
- Lairs
.. all contributing to the global RvR effort?
oh.. I remember, those do not matter because "WAR is a WoW clone" and damn those pesky facts to hell.
Public Quests - Do you know what those public quests amount to? What I mean is: what do you do in order to complete them? What is an EA Mythic example of a RvR PvE public quest?Open dungeons - no arguement here there are PvE dungeons that will grant you tier 1 gear, but will you get invited to the sexy parties when everyone else is wearing tier 2 and 3 from PvPing? Is the PvE king encounter going to doable with a guy in tier1 or is he going to be treated like an univited guest who is already drunk and has puked on himself?
PvP Dungeons - Look at the freakin name of this damn thread and ask yourself WTF did you even list this for?
Tome of Knowlegde - No argument here their ToK is very innovative and well worth paying 15 dollars a month for, especially when you are locked out of major sections of it because you don't like to PvP.
Lairs - An area to explore and quest in...what kind of quests? hmmmm...none of the kinds I listed i'm sure.
Picture this markoraos:
EA Mythic announces that all the PvP and RvR aspects are removed from Warhammer online. Is it still worth paying 50 dollars for a box and 15 dollars a month to play this game as it would be or are there better PvE games out on the market?
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"
Wtf you talking about?
What about:
- Public Quests
- Open dungeons
- PvP Dungeons
- Tome of knowledge unlocks
- Lairs
.. all contributing to the global RvR effort?
oh.. I remember, those do not matter because "WAR is a WoW clone" and damn those pesky facts to hell.
Public Quests - Do you know what those public quests amount to? What I mean is: what do you do in order to complete them? What is an EA Mythic example of a RvR PvE public quest?Open dungeons - no arguement here there are PvE dungeons that will grant you tier 1 gear, but will you get invited to the sexy parties when everyone else is wearing tier 2 and 3 from PvPing? Is the PvE king encounter going to doable with a guy in tier1 or is he going to be treated like an univited guest who is already drunk and has puked on himself?
PvP Dungeons - Look at the freakin name of this damn thread and ask yourself WTF did you even list this for?
Tome of Knowlegde - No argument here their ToK is very innovative and well worth paying 15 dollars a month for, especially when you are locked out of major sections of it because you don't like to PvP.
Lairs - An area to explore and quest in...what kind of quests? hmmmm...none of the kinds I listed i'm sure.
Picture this markoraos:
EA Mythic announces that all the PvP and RvR aspects are removed from Warhammer online. Is it still worth paying 50 dollars for a box and 15 dollars a month to play this game as it would be or are there better PvE games out on the market?
Your post implied that WAR has no PvE content apart from your standard fare questing. Moreover that it is done as a kind of an afterthought with no innovation whatsoever.
I believe I managed to neatly demolish that notion.
As for whether WAR can be a "better" PvE game than games that are exclusively PvE, I dont know and I cannot know until we see the game.
What I can see from all the info availaible is that WAR devs spent rather more time actually thinking on how to innovate and improve PvE gameplay than any other MMORPG in recent memory and that includes exclusively PvE ones. I cannot recall any MMORPG that contains so many new PvE game concepts and playing modes.
Ok Pheace, fair enough. You see it as linear. But the rest of us shouldn't. Why? Because they want to make this game like a war. Look at any real war. They all had fighting in them, to push back the enemy and to destroy them (in most cases). Can you think of any other ways of achieving that goal besides fighting? Well, yeah. There were people who made supplies and sent them to the soldiers on the frontlines. They were just as important.A = Fighting to capture objectives (choosing which objective you want to take) and along with other realm members claim victory.
A1 = Umm...Teleport to the enemy capital and cast a spell of Nuclear Destruction and just laugh?
Doesn't work so well.
In real life war is about disarming your enemy and removing their ability to defend themselves or at least to make offenses thereby bringing peace. It is not about destroying them. Destroying your enemy is called genocide and in real wars most people frown at that sort of thing. I can think of many ways to disarm an ememy without resorting to genocide. A game that has these things in it would be non linear meaning there are multiple ways to achieve peace but this game does not have multiple paths - it has one path - a genocidal racist holy war. Take over area 1 - then area 2 - then area 3 - then attack the main fort - rinse and repeat.
"The liberties and resulting economic prosperity that YOU take for granted were granted by those "dead guys"