Firstly I was talking about 5 servers, not just one so what?
SecondlY I don't think you understood at all, more servers = Multiply the numbers = same result.
If MORE people want to play destruction then Order maxing it per server to same people per side doesn't do *anything*
All it does is create a few servers that end up being balanced and the rest of the servers full of destruction and no order.
Either that or you force them to roll order somehow. The notion that all these people will suddenly just feel happy to roll order is ludicrous at best in my opinion, some will, but it's *highly* unlikely the majority will want to, especially if their friends already rolled destruction somewhere which is extremely likely considering many people will want to (assuming destruction will be the overpopulated side here for arguments sake).
Also mentioning Blizzard here is pointless, they don't have a tug of war as their design. If Mythic doesn't keep the sides equal the game *Fails*. End of Story. You can't have a tug of war with unequal sides.
I don't play wow, but was in the beta. I can't think of anything wow advertised that wasn't in the game at release. They certainly didn't release without a third of the classes and over a year release date push. Be an idiot ignor the continuing patterns that developers do when they lack the management skills to get a game ready for release.
So your feral druid can use its pvp skills? Oh wait no, that class is still broken even now. Warlocks were in but broken etc. Locks got a nice fix feral droods didn't. Now let's play count the individual classes in WoW...er not quite 20.
now I'm not one of those who need to use anything they can to bash WoW. I liked WoW pre-arenas/TBC. Though I was a casual player only really doing AQ20/MC and ZG. There's a very good chance I'll buy the expansion and explore the next 10 levels. I enjoyed the TBC content but its not for me at the mo and so I'm looking to try other things. Also The point Bver is replying to appeared to be mainly aimed at AoC but to say WoW rolled out of the box perfect would be misleading.
To say it rolled out of the box pretty polished and immediately started building a number of different fanbases including rpers, pvp lovers and people with end-game aspirations who liked the way for a few years they got more and more content just for the price of their subscription without paying for expansions is stating the obvious. However the level of scrutiny games come under now is significantly greater as Wow has increased the player base. So to stand a chance of surviving a game has to be in some way better than Wow or why will enough people play it to justify dev costs? So a game will slip if it's not as good as a game that's been out for years and spent those years honing itself or fail if it rushes a release and thereby does not sufficiently define its competitive edge.
To call somebody an idiot for interpreting delays on release as a trend caused by bad management when its been a characteristic of game release going back to the days of space invaders is facile. Unless you have a working knowledge of the way the guys at Mythic operate your assumption that slippage is automatically down to incompetent managers is weak. we have seen evidence that this was probably the case at Flagship and also with the guys behind Vanguard before it was swallowed by Sony but we've been given a sensible explanation by Mythic and I'm curious to know which insider you've been speaking to that allows you to establish the marketing peeps at Mythic are a bunch of liers and you know the real truth.
Similarly, I don't know if you've checked the size of games and compared them to a decade ago. With more complex coding there is more to go wrong and more time is needed to get it running in a manner that the devs intend and is a common cause of slippage which is outside of management control. having bigger dev teams these days means there are more peeps to spot what's causing a problem but until somebody goes 'hey I get what's causing this! we can do...' you have slippage.
The opposite also applies. People who say the future's bright are making a statement of belief as there's no evidence yet. One way or another, there will be evidence just as soon as the NDA lifts. Me, I'm a half-full glass kinda guy so i'll await with enthusiasm. If you prefer being miserable or enjoy laughing at other's misfortune then sit smugly waiting for a lot of WAR fans to have their hearts broken. Either way the truth's out there and it will be all over these forums soon enough giving those that want to plenty of time to cancel their pre-pays.
Firstly I was talking about 5 servers, not just one so what?
SecondlY I don't think you understood at all, more servers = Multiply the numbers = same result.
If MORE people want to play destruction then Order maxing it per server to same people per side doesn't do *anything*
All it does is create a few servers that end up being balanced and the rest of the servers full of destruction and no order.
Either that or you force them to roll order somehow. The notion that all these people will suddenly just feel happy to roll order is ludicrous at best in my opinion, some will, but it's *highly* unlikely the majority will want to, especially if their friends already rolled destruction somewhere which is extremely likely considering many people will want to (assuming destruction will be the overpopulated side here for arguments sake).
Also mentioning Blizzard here is pointless, they don't have a tug of war as their design. If Mythic doesn't keep the sides equal the game *Fails*. End of Story. You can't have a tug of war with unequal sides.
Yes, but how do you know that many people will play one faction? That is pure speculation, and there is no way to support it will happen one way or the other.
Sure the hardcore audience, who go to forums, and support the game by going to conventions, are following destruction mainly, but what about the casual crowd? You have no idea what their consensus will be, and the hardcore demographic makes up very little of the game's overall population.
Mythic designed a game with THREE sides, Dark Age of Camelot, and there were no significant balance issues. They know what they are doing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Currently Waiting For: Nothing, found my addiction for awhile
Currently Playing: Warhammer Online - Oblivion, Warrior Priest, Averheim; Team Fortress 2
Not sure why all the angst over the balance of realms issue. DAoC did well balancing the populations of realms. Why speculate about any system you have no control over and an issue that might not even be an issue thanks to Mythic's previous experience.
cuz we're bored...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
I guess people don't understand the concept of a Beta. This is where the difference between people comes in. Some people (those that are upset right now) are the ones that play a Beta stage just to see if they like the game. The other set of people (Those that are understanding right now) are the ones that play a beta to actually make the game a better product.
I guess they could be like Age of Conan who didn't even allow us to test the Sieges before going live.
Or they could be like numerous other MMO launches that have launched with content that wasn't as good as what it could of been.
People moan and complain saying that companies ship their games in Beta stages and instead Mythic is taking the necessary means to make sure their game ships in Great shape. And still people moan and complain?
I guess that is what trolls do after all.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can be upset at this particular stage of the game. Everyone assumes that the game is right around the corner and that it was ready for release but that just isn't true. Mythic (Mainly through MJ) has always made it clear that their release schedule was in "mud" meaning it could change at anytime.
What people seem to forget is that Warhammer is still a super short Development time. Even if it doesn't launch until 2009 it will have been about a 4 year development cycle. Which would then finally put it around the norm for the market. If it launches in 2008 it will be probably the second fastest development time for a major MMO. I know the fastest development time for an AAA MMO was Mythic's Dark Age of Camelot (which they developed and launched in 18 months).
Currently playing: LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too: Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
Its sad to see a game this early cutting content that it will need.
yes..seige is impossible with 2 cities damn them curse them all! Curse them they cut 2 tanks?! *gasp* horrid! we have no tanks..*eye roll*
...seriously ... the design scope of the game may of gotten 'smaller' in variation and choices but allt he warfare, keep sieging, capital sieging, END game PvPness is still there. The overall scope of the game is relatively the same. It does however completely change the backstory.
Its sad to see a game this early cutting content that it will need.
yes..seige is impossible with 2 cities damn them curse them all! Curse them they cut 2 tanks?! *gasp* horrid! we have no tanks..*eye roll*
...seriously ... the design scope of the game may of gotten 'smaller' in variation and choices but allt he warfare, keep sieging, capital sieging, END game PvPness is still there. The overall scope of the game is relatively the same. It does however completely change the backstory.
the world becomes 10% smaller (at the moment), but the wars become drastically larger and more important.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
I say Mythic should take their time and do it right. I can understand things having to be cut but the game is already not resembling Warhammer that much.
I believe it should have been done differently but oh well. No game producer ever makes their game to please all the people. They have to make it work.
Will still try it out but I have my doubts. I'm used to the dark and gritty world infested with Chaos. Dark horror fantasy. This doesn't resemble that.
Funny how some will cut down other games and call those who support those other games as fanbois. But, it doesn't apply to them. I say play what is fun to you and screw what other people say. I hope Warhammer does turn out to be fun for me. We will see.
I don't play wow, but was in the beta. I can't think of anything wow advertised that wasn't in the game at release. They certainly didn't release without a third of the classes and over a year release date push. Be an idiot ignor the continuing patterns that developers do when they lack the management skills to get a game ready for release.
So your feral druid can use its pvp skills? Oh wait no, that class is still broken even now. Warlocks were in but broken etc. Locks got a nice fix feral droods didn't. Now let's play count the individual classes in WoW...er not quite 20.
I didn't say WOW was perfect (I said I don't remember it dropping any features while I was in it's beta). Your tangent about a single broken feature (that you are obviously over envolved with) has notheing to do with what I was saying. also in response to others about WOW. Yes every game is going to have things at conception that don't make it into the game. But, that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a gmae in beta (not in the development stage or alphs) dropping several classes/areas. Bringing up things that were talked about as possiblities in early deveopment of WOW and didn't make it into the game isn't the samething. It is foolish to make that comparision and sad that you don't understand the difference.
Also The point Bver is replying to appeared to be mainly aimed at AoC but to say WoW rolled out of the box perfect would be misleading.
I never said it was perfect. However it wasn't in the beta with multipule push backs and announcing multipule key features being dropped. By that time WOW was established and making the kind of balance/bug changes in which is what an actual beta is for. They weren't redesigning their game and eliminating.
To call somebody an idiot for interpreting delays on release as a trend caused by bad management when its been a characteristic of game release going back to the days of space invaders is facile.
There has been enough games released that have been pretty solid and horrible that the precedent for where a game falls is well defined. There is an obvious patteren when a game reaches it's re;lease date and the developer of the game realizes it is sub par. These patterens have been pointed out often for several releases. First few times sure maybe you have an argument for why you're not an idiot for acknowledging the trend. But, you start getting into 4+ games where different developers follow the same patterns when a game is a bust...you're an idiot. SWG, Matrix, AOC, D&L, Vanguard, Mythic, The Chronical, Earth & Byond, Darkfall, and I'm sure some I am unaware of. These developers always acted like they had something to hide and it was because they did...crappy games.
Unless you have a working knowledge of the way the guys at Mythic operate your assumption that slippage is automatically down to incompetent managers is weak. we have seen evidence that this was probably the case at Flagship and also with the guys behind Vanguard before it was swallowed by Sony but we've been given a sensible explanation by Mythic and I'm curious to know which insider you've been speaking to that allows you to establish the marketing peeps at Mythic are a bunch of liers and you know the real truth.
No insider just 12 years of experince, the ability to read well, and common sense. And again this is the same argument made by the fanboies of these other flops listed.
Similarly, I don't know if you've checked the size of games and compared them to a decade ago. With more complex coding there is more to go wrong and more time is needed to get it running in a manner that the devs intend and is a common cause of slippage which is outside of management control. having bigger dev teams these days means there are more peeps to spot what's causing a problem but until somebody goes 'hey I get what's causing this! we can do...' you have slippage.
Which is some form of justifacation for releasing half done games and hiding the fact until hundreds of thousands of people have already bought thte game? Your desire to make excuses and not hold publishers accountable for their product is why the industry is crap. Not because managing production is insurmountable.
The opposite also applies. People who say the future's bright are making a statement of belief as there's no evidence yet. One way or another, there will be evidence just as soon as the NDA lifts. Me, I'm a half-full glass kinda guy so i'll await with enthusiasm.
Great then admit that's the case. You hope it's not true and are waiting in anticipation. But don't make a bunch of misguided posts just like other fans foloowing past games, who have since been proven wrong, arguing against patterns that have been well established.
Cabe2323 a beta is not meant for the type of changes that have been announced. These type of changes this late in the development is a signifier that something is extremly wrong on many levels.Again this is the common argument about a game ready to be released into the dumpster and it's a foolish, clueless argument.
Funny fact, the poll in the AOC website that asks "do you think cuts were good for AOC and WAR?" shows almost a complete inverse of what the poll here does.
These are people who have seen first hand the line "it improves balance," "it makes the game MORE fun," "we don't want to put out a class that isn't great"
It was sold to them the same way it is being sold to WAR fans, and now they have changed their mind on the situation. Could be that the fanbois have all left that mmo like locusts.
Anyway, it's an interesting perspective, seeing someone who has finally come to terms with content cuts. You should ask them how they think of zone cuts too...
Cabe2323 a beta is not meant for the type of changes that have been announced. These type of changes this late in the development is a signifier that something is extremly wrong on many levels.Again this is the common argument about a game ready to be released into the dumpster and it's a foolish, clueless argument.
Oh a Beta isn't meant for these types of changes huh? So what is, an Alpha? Haha, yeah, when everything's basically still on paper and it looks good. That's really the time to change it.
Mythic aimed high, they fell short, they had the balls to admit it, they're working around what they can't put in launch so that when it goes in the game it's better, and they're still focusing on releasing the best product they can. If that means another delay, WITH OR WITHOUT this new system in place, so be it. Their decision also has its benefits, which Mark openly told the world, but you're all such geniuses that he's obviously lying and it's just an excuse.
Actually, they said they probably would have made these changes if everything was complete or if they already delayed until 2009. It's because two cities makes focused RvR and allows those two cities to be incredibly detailed. They're talking about rotating city pairs, two at a time, and that may be a good idea as well (by rotating I mean which two cities are attackable at any given time.) So if they think this is a better system and they changed it because of that reason, well, we have to wait and see if it is indeed better.
Alot of games unfortunately have done just that - no wonder why you're so jaded. But how about both sides be reasonable here. You acknowledge the fact that MJ could be telling the truth, that the changes are for the best, that the game will still be great - or at least decent - and that Beta testers arne't all idiots for saying so, and we'll agree that you somehow formed the opinion you have and that you may be right.
-------------------------------------- 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!"
Funny fact, the poll in the AOC website that asks "do you think cuts were good for AOC and WAR?" shows almost a complete inverse of what the poll here does. These are people who have seen first hand the line "it improves balance," "it makes the game MORE fun," "we don't want to put out a class that isn't great" It was sold to them the same way it is being sold to WAR fans, and now they have changed their mind on the situation. Could be that the fanbois have all left that mmo like locusts. Anyway, it's an interesting perspective, seeing someone who has finally come to terms with content cuts. You should ask them how they think of zone cuts too...
Hmm.. except that AoC is live.. and much of the lack of content wasnt known until launch..
For all we know, the game still has plenty of content with only 2/6 cities. The fact that this game has on open beta (unlike AoC) demonstrates to me that it is unlikely the content cut will leave us feeling like the game has little to offer. Lets wait and see.
Oh and stop trolling. You cant seriously think its legitimate to compare WAR with AoC at this moment in time?
Funny fact, the poll in the AOC website that asks "do you think cuts were good for AOC and WAR?" shows almost a complete inverse of what the poll here does. These are people who have seen first hand the line "it improves balance," "it makes the game MORE fun," "we don't want to put out a class that isn't great" It was sold to them the same way it is being sold to WAR fans, and now they have changed their mind on the situation. Could be that the fanbois have all left that mmo like locusts. Anyway, it's an interesting perspective, seeing someone who has finally come to terms with content cuts. You should ask them how they think of zone cuts too...
Hmm.. except that AoC is live.. and much of the lack of content wasnt known until launch..
For all we know, the game still has plenty of content with only 2/6 cities. The fact that this game has on open beta (unlike AoC) demonstrates to me that it is unlikely the content cut will leave us feeling like the game has little to offer. Lets wait and see.
Oh and stop trolling. You cant seriously think its legitimate to compare WAR with AoC at this moment in time?
Don't reason...just shoot
--->
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
Yea the FF11 server system was great... but there are ways to solve the balance...
say the average is ratio 3:2 (since atm it looks like it is)... so what you do... if 15 of 1 side and 11 of the other join a scenario... you spawn 5 npcs (5 because an npc is usualy a worse pvper then a PC)... if it's a siege then you make the guards be X levels higher... for example 20% damage and hp boost... if it's colecting "domination" points or whatever they are called... make one side get 50% more points... so 30 ppl do each 1 quest that's 30 points... while on the other side 20 do each 1 quest but get a 50% bonus and again it's 30 points each...
For guilds/friends, allow for them to invite people to flag destruction on that server. Like 5 flags per person, and a person invited in can't invite others. And once order closes in, destruction is opened up.
Taadaaa.
But really, once the casual people get in, order will dominate, the same way alliance was overpopulated throughout the beginning of wows release.
also
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
Game releases with 2 "raids" more to be added later, ooooo so different. ooooo so much less content then other mmos.
ignoring the fact theres
27 other zones
4-12 battlegrounds
2 end game raids
unknown dungeon amount.
100+ Public quests
27+keeps to fight over.
Sooo it's not like they cut even 10% of the content... maybe 2%
also
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
sorry to have to spam that, but you people just aren't catching on
Faction imbalance? 2000 destruction vs 1000 order. Disable destruction creation. For guilds/friends, allow for them to invite people to flag destruction on that server. Like 5 flags per person, and a person invited in can't invite others. And once order closes in, destruction is opened up. Taadaaa. But really, once the casual people get in, order will dominate, the same way alliance was overpopulated throughout the beginning of wows release.
also CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. Game releases with 2 "raids" more to be added later, ooooo so different. ooooo so much less content then other mmos. ignoring the fact theres 27 other zones 4-12 battlegrounds 2 end game raids unknown dungeon amount. 100+ Public quests 27+keeps to fight over. Sooo it's not like they cut even 10% of the content... maybe 2% also CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE. sorry to have to spam that, but you people just aren't catching on
From what I understand, the 4 capitol cities are not cut from the game, you just won't be able to RvR there. Also, I don't see how "so many necessary classes" are missing. It's only 4 out of 24, and you can still play with people of other races that fulfill the same roll. I am upset over the news, but I will still play the game to see how it turns out. I remember reading that people would not be able to reach the point of taking over capitols for a few months, anyway. If people are selling their CEs on ebay, that's on them. They knew what they were getting into when preordering a game in the first place. I preordered mine knowing I might not like the game, or content might be cut. If WAR fails there is always Aion.
No, the "Cities are in but no siege" news has been officially denied by Mbj. No cities at launch but the 2 we already know.
I guess people don't understand the concept of a Beta. This is where the difference between people comes in. Some people (those that are upset right now) are the ones that play a Beta stage just to see if they like the game. The other set of people (Those that are understanding right now) are the ones that play a beta to actually make the game a better product.
I guess they could be like Age of Conan who didn't even allow us to test the Sieges before going live. Or they could be like numerous other MMO launches that have launched with content that wasn't as good as what it could of been. People moan and complain saying that companies ship their games in Beta stages and instead Mythic is taking the necessary means to make sure their game ships in Great shape. And still people moan and complain?
I guess that is what trolls do after all.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can be upset at this particular stage of the game. Everyone assumes that the game is right around the corner and that it was ready for release but that just isn't true. Mythic (Mainly through MJ) has always made it clear that their release schedule was in "mud" meaning it could change at anytime. What people seem to forget is that Warhammer is still a super short Development time. Even if it doesn't launch until 2009 it will have been about a 4 year development cycle. Which would then finally put it around the norm for the market. If it launches in 2008 it will be probably the second fastest development time for a major MMO. I know the fastest development time for an AAA MMO was Mythic's Dark Age of Camelot (which they developed and launched in 18 months).
I edited your font for you to what it should've been. Yuck man.
People are right to play a beta to see whether or not they should buy the game. What better tool do they have? It's not like they release demos before launch with mmos. I think most can see the difference between a few bugs and things that will probably be fixed and things that are just total deal breakers. Yes, betas are there to decide whether or not one should buy the game.
Firstly I was talking about 5 servers, not just one so what?
SecondlY I don't think you understood at all, more servers = Multiply the numbers = same result.
If MORE people want to play destruction then Order maxing it per server to same people per side doesn't do *anything*
All it does is create a few servers that end up being balanced and the rest of the servers full of destruction and no order.
Either that or you force them to roll order somehow. The notion that all these people will suddenly just feel happy to roll order is ludicrous at best in my opinion, some will, but it's *highly* unlikely the majority will want to, especially if their friends already rolled destruction somewhere which is extremely likely considering many people will want to (assuming destruction will be the overpopulated side here for arguments sake).
Also mentioning Blizzard here is pointless, they don't have a tug of war as their design. If Mythic doesn't keep the sides equal the game *Fails*. End of Story. You can't have a tug of war with unequal sides.
Yes, but how do you know that many people will play one faction? That is pure speculation, and there is no way to support it will happen one way or the other.
Sure the hardcore audience, who go to forums, and support the game by going to conventions, are following destruction mainly, but what about the casual crowd? You have no idea what their consensus will be, and the hardcore demographic makes up very little of the game's overall population.
Mythic designed a game with THREE sides, Dark Age of Camelot, and there were no significant balance issues. They know what they are doing.
The argument was about *overpopulation*. If you're not gonna stick to that just don't comment.
As for Mythic designing Daoc before... this is WAR. Imbalance in Daoc did very little to nothing apart from shift a relic once in a while and open a dungeon every now and then.
War is a clear cut "Tug of war" between 2 sides. A tug of war *fails* if one side is clearly stronger than the other, end of line, period. This isn't Daoc, it's WAR. If you can't overcome the other side in this game you don't just have the ability to ignore it and just be out a few percentages of strength due to lost relics, no you'll not see half the game nor get to experience the best parts of it safe for the defending part.
WAR is *not* Daoc and the same thing would never work in WAR.
Comments
Firstly I was talking about 5 servers, not just one so what?
SecondlY I don't think you understood at all, more servers = Multiply the numbers = same result.
If MORE people want to play destruction then Order maxing it per server to same people per side doesn't do *anything*
All it does is create a few servers that end up being balanced and the rest of the servers full of destruction and no order.
Either that or you force them to roll order somehow. The notion that all these people will suddenly just feel happy to roll order is ludicrous at best in my opinion, some will, but it's *highly* unlikely the majority will want to, especially if their friends already rolled destruction somewhere which is extremely likely considering many people will want to (assuming destruction will be the overpopulated side here for arguments sake).
Also mentioning Blizzard here is pointless, they don't have a tug of war as their design. If Mythic doesn't keep the sides equal the game *Fails*. End of Story. You can't have a tug of war with unequal sides.
should adopt a FF11 type system combined with this where when its maxed you need a world pass to get on.
So your feral druid can use its pvp skills? Oh wait no, that class is still broken even now. Warlocks were in but broken etc. Locks got a nice fix feral droods didn't. Now let's play count the individual classes in WoW...er not quite 20.
now I'm not one of those who need to use anything they can to bash WoW. I liked WoW pre-arenas/TBC. Though I was a casual player only really doing AQ20/MC and ZG. There's a very good chance I'll buy the expansion and explore the next 10 levels. I enjoyed the TBC content but its not for me at the mo and so I'm looking to try other things. Also The point Bver is replying to appeared to be mainly aimed at AoC but to say WoW rolled out of the box perfect would be misleading.
To say it rolled out of the box pretty polished and immediately started building a number of different fanbases including rpers, pvp lovers and people with end-game aspirations who liked the way for a few years they got more and more content just for the price of their subscription without paying for expansions is stating the obvious. However the level of scrutiny games come under now is significantly greater as Wow has increased the player base. So to stand a chance of surviving a game has to be in some way better than Wow or why will enough people play it to justify dev costs? So a game will slip if it's not as good as a game that's been out for years and spent those years honing itself or fail if it rushes a release and thereby does not sufficiently define its competitive edge.
To call somebody an idiot for interpreting delays on release as a trend caused by bad management when its been a characteristic of game release going back to the days of space invaders is facile. Unless you have a working knowledge of the way the guys at Mythic operate your assumption that slippage is automatically down to incompetent managers is weak. we have seen evidence that this was probably the case at Flagship and also with the guys behind Vanguard before it was swallowed by Sony but we've been given a sensible explanation by Mythic and I'm curious to know which insider you've been speaking to that allows you to establish the marketing peeps at Mythic are a bunch of liers and you know the real truth.
Similarly, I don't know if you've checked the size of games and compared them to a decade ago. With more complex coding there is more to go wrong and more time is needed to get it running in a manner that the devs intend and is a common cause of slippage which is outside of management control. having bigger dev teams these days means there are more peeps to spot what's causing a problem but until somebody goes 'hey I get what's causing this! we can do...' you have slippage.
The opposite also applies. People who say the future's bright are making a statement of belief as there's no evidence yet. One way or another, there will be evidence just as soon as the NDA lifts. Me, I'm a half-full glass kinda guy so i'll await with enthusiasm. If you prefer being miserable or enjoy laughing at other's misfortune then sit smugly waiting for a lot of WAR fans to have their hearts broken. Either way the truth's out there and it will be all over these forums soon enough giving those that want to plenty of time to cancel their pre-pays.
Yes, but how do you know that many people will play one faction? That is pure speculation, and there is no way to support it will happen one way or the other.
Sure the hardcore audience, who go to forums, and support the game by going to conventions, are following destruction mainly, but what about the casual crowd? You have no idea what their consensus will be, and the hardcore demographic makes up very little of the game's overall population.
Mythic designed a game with THREE sides, Dark Age of Camelot, and there were no significant balance issues. They know what they are doing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Currently Waiting For: Nothing, found my addiction for awhile
Currently Playing: Warhammer Online - Oblivion, Warrior Priest, Averheim; Team Fortress 2
Not sure why all the angst over the balance of realms issue. DAoC did well balancing the populations of realms.
Why speculate about any system you have no control over and an issue that might not even be an issue thanks to Mythic's previous experience.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
cuz we're bored...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
Its sad to see a game this early cutting content that it will need.
Yeah, god it really destroyed Blizzard when they cut hero classes and siege warfare and world pvp.
http://www.greycouncil.org/
Yeah, god it really destroyed Blizzard when they cut hero classes and siege warfare and world pvp.
OOOOOOOOOOOOO SNAP!
Okay...now that I have -that- out of my system...
QFT!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
I guess people don't understand the concept of a Beta. This is where the difference between people comes in. Some people (those that are upset right now) are the ones that play a Beta stage just to see if they like the game. The other set of people (Those that are understanding right now) are the ones that play a beta to actually make the game a better product.
I guess they could be like Age of Conan who didn't even allow us to test the Sieges before going live.
Or they could be like numerous other MMO launches that have launched with content that wasn't as good as what it could of been.
People moan and complain saying that companies ship their games in Beta stages and instead Mythic is taking the necessary means to make sure their game ships in Great shape. And still people moan and complain?
I guess that is what trolls do after all.
Personally, I don't see how anyone can be upset at this particular stage of the game. Everyone assumes that the game is right around the corner and that it was ready for release but that just isn't true. Mythic (Mainly through MJ) has always made it clear that their release schedule was in "mud" meaning it could change at anytime.
What people seem to forget is that Warhammer is still a super short Development time. Even if it doesn't launch until 2009 it will have been about a 4 year development cycle. Which would then finally put it around the norm for the market. If it launches in 2008 it will be probably the second fastest development time for a major MMO. I know the fastest development time for an AAA MMO was Mythic's Dark Age of Camelot (which they developed and launched in 18 months).
Currently playing:
LOTRO & WoW (not much WoW though because Mines of Moria rocks!!!!)
Looking Foward too:
Bioware games (Dragon Age & Star Wars The Old Republic)
yes..seige is impossible with 2 cities damn them curse them all! Curse them they cut 2 tanks?! *gasp* horrid! we have no tanks..*eye roll*
...seriously ... the design scope of the game may of gotten 'smaller' in variation and choices but allt he warfare, keep sieging, capital sieging, END game PvPness is still there. The overall scope of the game is relatively the same. It does however completely change the backstory.
yes..seige is impossible with 2 cities damn them curse them all! Curse them they cut 2 tanks?! *gasp* horrid! we have no tanks..*eye roll*
...seriously ... the design scope of the game may of gotten 'smaller' in variation and choices but allt he warfare, keep sieging, capital sieging, END game PvPness is still there. The overall scope of the game is relatively the same. It does however completely change the backstory.
the world becomes 10% smaller (at the moment), but the wars become drastically larger and more important.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
I say Mythic should take their time and do it right. I can understand things having to be cut but the game is already not resembling Warhammer that much.
I believe it should have been done differently but oh well. No game producer ever makes their game to please all the people. They have to make it work.
Will still try it out but I have my doubts. I'm used to the dark and gritty world infested with Chaos. Dark horror fantasy. This doesn't resemble that.
Funny how some will cut down other games and call those who support those other games as fanbois. But, it doesn't apply to them. I say play what is fun to you and screw what other people say. I hope Warhammer does turn out to be fun for me. We will see.
So your feral druid can use its pvp skills? Oh wait no, that class is still broken even now. Warlocks were in but broken etc. Locks got a nice fix feral droods didn't. Now let's play count the individual classes in WoW...er not quite 20.
I didn't say WOW was perfect (I said I don't remember it dropping any features while I was in it's beta). Your tangent about a single broken feature (that you are obviously over envolved with) has notheing to do with what I was saying. also in response to others about WOW. Yes every game is going to have things at conception that don't make it into the game. But, that's not what we are talking about here. We are talking about a gmae in beta (not in the development stage or alphs) dropping several classes/areas. Bringing up things that were talked about as possiblities in early deveopment of WOW and didn't make it into the game isn't the samething. It is foolish to make that comparision and sad that you don't understand the difference.
Also The point Bver is replying to appeared to be mainly aimed at AoC but to say WoW rolled out of the box perfect would be misleading.
I never said it was perfect. However it wasn't in the beta with multipule push backs and announcing multipule key features being dropped. By that time WOW was established and making the kind of balance/bug changes in which is what an actual beta is for. They weren't redesigning their game and eliminating.
To call somebody an idiot for interpreting delays on release as a trend caused by bad management when its been a characteristic of game release going back to the days of space invaders is facile.
There has been enough games released that have been pretty solid and horrible that the precedent for where a game falls is well defined. There is an obvious patteren when a game reaches it's re;lease date and the developer of the game realizes it is sub par. These patterens have been pointed out often for several releases. First few times sure maybe you have an argument for why you're not an idiot for acknowledging the trend. But, you start getting into 4+ games where different developers follow the same patterns when a game is a bust...you're an idiot. SWG, Matrix, AOC, D&L, Vanguard, Mythic, The Chronical, Earth & Byond, Darkfall, and I'm sure some I am unaware of. These developers always acted like they had something to hide and it was because they did...crappy games.
Unless you have a working knowledge of the way the guys at Mythic operate your assumption that slippage is automatically down to incompetent managers is weak. we have seen evidence that this was probably the case at Flagship and also with the guys behind Vanguard before it was swallowed by Sony but we've been given a sensible explanation by Mythic and I'm curious to know which insider you've been speaking to that allows you to establish the marketing peeps at Mythic are a bunch of liers and you know the real truth.
No insider just 12 years of experince, the ability to read well, and common sense. And again this is the same argument made by the fanboies of these other flops listed.
Similarly, I don't know if you've checked the size of games and compared them to a decade ago. With more complex coding there is more to go wrong and more time is needed to get it running in a manner that the devs intend and is a common cause of slippage which is outside of management control. having bigger dev teams these days means there are more peeps to spot what's causing a problem but until somebody goes 'hey I get what's causing this! we can do...' you have slippage.
Which is some form of justifacation for releasing half done games and hiding the fact until hundreds of thousands of people have already bought thte game? Your desire to make excuses and not hold publishers accountable for their product is why the industry is crap. Not because managing production is insurmountable.
The opposite also applies. People who say the future's bright are making a statement of belief as there's no evidence yet. One way or another, there will be evidence just as soon as the NDA lifts. Me, I'm a half-full glass kinda guy so i'll await with enthusiasm.
Great then admit that's the case. You hope it's not true and are waiting in anticipation. But don't make a bunch of misguided posts just like other fans foloowing past games, who have since been proven wrong, arguing against patterns that have been well established.
Cabe2323 a beta is not meant for the type of changes that have been announced. These type of changes this late in the development is a signifier that something is extremly wrong on many levels.Again this is the common argument about a game ready to be released into the dumpster and it's a foolish, clueless argument.
Funny fact, the poll in the AOC website that asks "do you think cuts were good for AOC and WAR?" shows almost a complete inverse of what the poll here does.
These are people who have seen first hand the line "it improves balance," "it makes the game MORE fun," "we don't want to put out a class that isn't great"
It was sold to them the same way it is being sold to WAR fans, and now they have changed their mind on the situation. Could be that the fanbois have all left that mmo like locusts.
Anyway, it's an interesting perspective, seeing someone who has finally come to terms with content cuts. You should ask them how they think of zone cuts too...
Elite poster by 82
Oh a Beta isn't meant for these types of changes huh? So what is, an Alpha? Haha, yeah, when everything's basically still on paper and it looks good. That's really the time to change it.
Mythic aimed high, they fell short, they had the balls to admit it, they're working around what they can't put in launch so that when it goes in the game it's better, and they're still focusing on releasing the best product they can. If that means another delay, WITH OR WITHOUT this new system in place, so be it. Their decision also has its benefits, which Mark openly told the world, but you're all such geniuses that he's obviously lying and it's just an excuse.
Actually, they said they probably would have made these changes if everything was complete or if they already delayed until 2009. It's because two cities makes focused RvR and allows those two cities to be incredibly detailed. They're talking about rotating city pairs, two at a time, and that may be a good idea as well (by rotating I mean which two cities are attackable at any given time.) So if they think this is a better system and they changed it because of that reason, well, we have to wait and see if it is indeed better.
Alot of games unfortunately have done just that - no wonder why you're so jaded. But how about both sides be reasonable here. You acknowledge the fact that MJ could be telling the truth, that the changes are for the best, that the game will still be great - or at least decent - and that Beta testers arne't all idiots for saying so, and we'll agree that you somehow formed the opinion you have and that you may be right.
--------------------------------------
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.
Hmm.. except that AoC is live.. and much of the lack of content wasnt known until launch..
For all we know, the game still has plenty of content with only 2/6 cities. The fact that this game has on open beta (unlike AoC) demonstrates to me that it is unlikely the content cut will leave us feeling like the game has little to offer. Lets wait and see.
Oh and stop trolling. You cant seriously think its legitimate to compare WAR with AoC at this moment in time?
Hmm.. except that AoC is live.. and much of the lack of content wasnt known until launch..
For all we know, the game still has plenty of content with only 2/6 cities. The fact that this game has on open beta (unlike AoC) demonstrates to me that it is unlikely the content cut will leave us feeling like the game has little to offer. Lets wait and see.
Oh and stop trolling. You cant seriously think its legitimate to compare WAR with AoC at this moment in time?
Don't reason...just shoot
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guys! I'm hopelessly lost in a mountain of mole hills! Them damn moles!
Yea the FF11 server system was great... but there are ways to solve the balance...
say the average is ratio 3:2 (since atm it looks like it is)... so what you do... if 15 of 1 side and 11 of the other join a scenario... you spawn 5 npcs (5 because an npc is usualy a worse pvper then a PC)... if it's a siege then you make the guards be X levels higher... for example 20% damage and hp boost... if it's colecting "domination" points or whatever they are called... make one side get 50% more points... so 30 ppl do each 1 quest that's 30 points... while on the other side 20 do each 1 quest but get a 50% bonus and again it's 30 points each...
Math... it's real fun sometimes ^^
Faction imbalance?
2000 destruction vs 1000 order.
Disable destruction creation.
For guilds/friends, allow for them to invite people to flag destruction on that server. Like 5 flags per person, and a person invited in can't invite others. And once order closes in, destruction is opened up.
Taadaaa.
But really, once the casual people get in, order will dominate, the same way alliance was overpopulated throughout the beginning of wows release.
also
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
Game releases with 2 "raids" more to be added later, ooooo so different. ooooo so much less content then other mmos.
ignoring the fact theres
27 other zones
4-12 battlegrounds
2 end game raids
unknown dungeon amount.
100+ Public quests
27+keeps to fight over.
Sooo it's not like they cut even 10% of the content... maybe 2%
also
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT STARTING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT TRADING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE NOT MEETING AREAS
CAPITAL CITIES ARE END GAME RAIDS, AKIN TO MOLTEN CORE.
sorry to have to spam that, but you people just aren't catching on
should be its own post
QFT
No, the "Cities are in but no siege" news has been officially denied by Mbj. No cities at launch but the 2 we already know.
correct asaif
I edited your font for you to what it should've been. Yuck man.
People are right to play a beta to see whether or not they should buy the game. What better tool do they have? It's not like they release demos before launch with mmos. I think most can see the difference between a few bugs and things that will probably be fixed and things that are just total deal breakers. Yes, betas are there to decide whether or not one should buy the game.
Yes, but how do you know that many people will play one faction? That is pure speculation, and there is no way to support it will happen one way or the other.
Sure the hardcore audience, who go to forums, and support the game by going to conventions, are following destruction mainly, but what about the casual crowd? You have no idea what their consensus will be, and the hardcore demographic makes up very little of the game's overall population.
Mythic designed a game with THREE sides, Dark Age of Camelot, and there were no significant balance issues. They know what they are doing.
The argument was about *overpopulation*. If you're not gonna stick to that just don't comment.
As for Mythic designing Daoc before... this is WAR. Imbalance in Daoc did very little to nothing apart from shift a relic once in a while and open a dungeon every now and then.
War is a clear cut "Tug of war" between 2 sides. A tug of war *fails* if one side is clearly stronger than the other, end of line, period. This isn't Daoc, it's WAR. If you can't overcome the other side in this game you don't just have the ability to ignore it and just be out a few percentages of strength due to lost relics, no you'll not see half the game nor get to experience the best parts of it safe for the defending part.
WAR is *not* Daoc and the same thing would never work in WAR.