Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
WAR is tactical, WoW is not!
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Officers are idiots. Always have been. Ill respect a NCO before Ill give a sh*t about some officer. I remember a guy in my unit thru a grenade into the officers tent. Thats what they get for shiping him off when he was suppose to get out in a matter of weeks.
To the OP I agree. Dont mind the haters, there just mad cause noone makes games for them anymore.
Nono it's not about the cool down. I agree with the OP that this is tactical. The enemies NPC move in a more realistic strategic way. If you kill an NPC that's behind a barcade or something others run around from location to location to fill spots while others patrol. The only thing in WoW is "Patrols" but in this NPCs move around in a combat ready type way.... it' makes it more challening sometimes frustrating but always more rewarding and exciting.
In the business world strategy is what objectives you decide to meet.
For example, a company may pursue a mass production strategy in which its objectives are large econimies of scales. That is one strategy for profit.
Another is product differentiation, in which your objective is establishing a brand name or catering to a niche. The tactics ar ethe short term variables you change to reach these objectives. For example, how much you will ivnest in marketing vs. a competitor's investment in marketing.
What this translates to in war in wow is simply what the point of each match is. There is no other strategy. It's not like in chess where you can win several different ways. You either kill the other players or capture some territory. It's not like a war wher eyou can poison their watersupply, or set up assassinations, or sabotage markets, etc.........The strategy simply is the core game mechanics. Now some games might make it so you can win two different ways, this would in a sense almost be two different strategies, however, usually there is an optimul way to win every time, and this is known to all players, and once adopted, this is the strategy for winning, it never changes.
Tactics, on the other hand are short term variables that can be changed, for example, race/class combinations, physical formations in battle, attack sequences, combo sequences, all these decisions are short term and conditional. But what is not are the overal goals, and these goals are the strategy, which in mmorpg is the same every time you log on, it never changes...so in a sense the strategy is the same for every, its not an rts its an mmorpg....
I have to disagree here completely with you.
Morale and organizational structures do exist in this game - but they are up to the players.
On a tactical level keep battles are won almost exclusively through morale - if the participant players loose the will to win they are toast... and this is where leadership comes into play. Just one player within a warband who manages to project authority is usually enough to ensure victory.
As for strategy - the campaign-level operations - when you look at the WAR campaign as a whole, multi-level organizational structures definitely come into play. Multiple warbands coordinating on multiple fronts attacking/defending different keeps and objectives are a really effective way of beating a more numerous but disorganized opponent.
There is no comparison between WAR and WoW on a STRATEGIC level. WAR has a strategic level and WoW doesn't. Heck, the whole game is one huge campaign with multiple fronts and objectives within them.
Yes, you can play it as a game of chess - I personally led an order warband with an attendant group which managed to steal and hold 2 keeps almost simultaneously under destruction noses even though they outnumbered us 2-1 at least (and during primetime). I was able to use feinting and strategic reconnaissance for example - I got lucky with a pug WB which actually did listen to my suggestions - thanks to a few of my guildies among them. I played the role of strategic leader and was lucky enough to have two other guys who had a good tactical knowledge (they actually knew how to take keeps and took over leadership when the actual siegings begun).
/add
as for "deah respawns on the fly". In WAR world RvR run routes from warcamps to the points of conflict play the role of supply lines. Yes, actually the game is set up to have a logistical component. A viable tactic is to set up a harassing group or two with strong CC to patrol these supply lines and cut off the reinforcements.
I have to disagree here completely with you.
Morale and organizational structures do exist in this game - but they are up to the players.
On a tactical level keep battles are won almost exclusively through morale - if the participant players loose the will to win they are toast... and this is where leadership comes into play. Just one player within a warband who manages to project authority is usually enough to ensure victory.
As for strategy - the campaign-level operations - when you look at the WAR campaign as a whole, multi-level organizational structures definitely come into play. Multiple warbands coordinating on multiple fronts attacking/defending different keeps and objectives are a really effective way of beating a more numerous but disorganized opponent.
There is no comparison between WAR and WoW on a STRATEGIC level. WAR has a strategic level and WoW doesn't. Heck, the whole game is one huge campaign with multiple fronts and objectives within them.
Yes, you can play it as a game of chess - I personally led an order warband with an attendant group which managed to steal and hold 2 keeps almost simultaneously under destruction noses even though they outnumbered us 2-1 at least (and during primetime). I was able to use feinting and strategic reconnaissance for example - I got lucky with a pug WB which actually did listen to my suggestions - thanks to a few of my guildies among them. I played the role of strategic leader and was lucky enough to have two other guys who had a good tactical knowledge (they actually knew how to take keeps and took over leadership when the actual siegings begun).
/add
as for "deah respawns on the fly". In WAR world RvR run routes from warcamps to the points of conflict play the role of supply lines. Yes, actually the game is set up to have a logistical component. A viable tactic is to set up a harassing group or two with strong CC to patrol these supply lines and cut off the reinforcements.
You never saw a guy killed by a bomb next to you did you ? Well I saw a captain killed by a .50. His chest was gone. It isn't even allowed in the Geneva convention.
In your game. You die and go fight again within 30 seconds. And if you are TIRED of the mindless headbashing you leave the game.
That kind of mechanism has nothing to do with warfare, it has everything to do with being bored of dying.
Bored.
I have to disagree here completely with you.
Morale and organizational structures do exist in this game - but they are up to the players.
On a tactical level keep battles are won almost exclusively through morale - if the participant players loose the will to win they are toast... and this is where leadership comes into play. Just one player within a warband who manages to project authority is usually enough to ensure victory.
As for strategy - the campaign-level operations - when you look at the WAR campaign as a whole, multi-level organizational structures definitely come into play. Multiple warbands coordinating on multiple fronts attacking/defending different keeps and objectives are a really effective way of beating a more numerous but disorganized opponent.
There is no comparison between WAR and WoW on a STRATEGIC level. WAR has a strategic level and WoW doesn't. Heck, the whole game is one huge campaign with multiple fronts and objectives within them.
Yes, you can play it as a game of chess - I personally led an order warband with an attendant group which managed to steal and hold 2 keeps almost simultaneously under destruction noses even though they outnumbered us 2-1 at least (and during primetime). I was able to use feinting and strategic reconnaissance for example - I got lucky with a pug WB which actually did listen to my suggestions - thanks to a few of my guildies among them. I played the role of strategic leader and was lucky enough to have two other guys who had a good tactical knowledge (they actually knew how to take keeps and took over leadership when the actual siegings begun).
/add
as for "deah respawns on the fly". In WAR world RvR run routes from warcamps to the points of conflict play the role of supply lines. Yes, actually the game is set up to have a logistical component. A viable tactic is to set up a harassing group or two with strong CC to patrol these supply lines and cut off the reinforcements.
You never saw a guy killed by a bomb next to you did you ? Well I saw a captain killed by a .50. His chest was gone. It isn't even allowed in the Geneva convention.
In your game. You die and go fight again within 30 seconds. And if you are TIRED of the mindless headbashing you leave the game.
That kind of mechanism has nothing to do with warfare, it has everything to do with being bored of dying.
Bored.
WAR is a game FYI. It is not a modern warfare simulator designed to harden troops before actual engagements. It is a multi-level war game.
And FYI your war traumas are of no import to this discussion. I sympathize but you shouldn't be pulling heavy personal artillery into the fray because I've got some of my own... and it wasn't a captain that got it in my case but people much closer to me. Sorry but you Americans never experienced actual warfare on your own soil since the civil war 150 years ago so forgive me if I find your trauma with the captain not really impressive at all. Maybe that is the reason US public is so keen on supporting "war" presidents and us Europeans are more into peaceful solutions.
This is a war game. And I like it precisely because it is a game with glowy special effects and groovy elves and orks rather than a realistic simulator thing because I couldn't bear it that way.
There is no more strategy in WAR than there is in WoW/AOC or any other game out atm. The closest I can think of is EVE, but even then ultimatly it just comes down to numbers.
Saying there is strategy in WAR is laughlable. The side with most numbers win, simple as that.
This is simply not true as demonstrated many times.
It would be true if WAR was fought over one keep. However if you look at the game area as a whole the strategic level is demonstrably present.
Sadly 90% of the players I encountered in the game so far are unable to see beyond the particular pairing or even keep they are in and they do get the impression that if there is too much opposition locally that there is no chance of winning. However this couldn't be further from the truth because WAR is fought on multiple fronts.
Just persuade your warband to rush into another pairing which is weakly defended and here you go - basic blitzkrieg. WoW and AoC don't have anything comparable to this and it is just one of the most basic strategies this game is capable of supporting. Only EVE has a comparable level of strategic complexity built-in into the game world.
With time more players will become aware of WAR's strategic component and we'll see much more interesting situations on the global battlefied arise than what is the norm right now.
I wouldn't call that strategy Mark, just moving away from the opponents to attack somewhere that no one is defending and no one cares about is simply running away from the battle. The OP is talkingn about strategy in terms of battle strategy, ie using tactics, pincer attacks, using tanks to block stairways and so on.
So far I have haven't encountered any of this in WAR (or in any other MMO for that matter).
haha that made me laugh, tactical lol funny guy.
I cant even give my account away lol
HAHA.
"war is about tactics and strategy". hahaha.. how many of you kids are still kidding yourself this game is not about the big zerg steamrolling the smaller zerg?
war is tactical is the biggest BS I have heard in this game. I love war but it sure isnt any tactical at all:
1. There is hardly any reactionary to the skills I use as a WE. I spam same combo over and over again without paying attention to my opponent and still works fine.
2. the open RvR is nothing byt outnumbering the others. There are not tactics. We rush, we steamroll Order and we repeat. No tactics, no strategy.
And these kinds of threads popping up going "this is about strategy" only proves people like me correct. You must feel so insecure that you need to repeat this over and over again and hope to fool yourselves.
Just enjoy the big zerg fest, nothing wrong with the zerg, personally I love it!!
Oh really? Pray tell what is strategy or tactics by your account?
Don't make me laugh. So germans in 1940 didn't use superior strategy on campaign level when they sidestepped the Maginot line and thus won over the numerically and technologically superior french forces?
I suppose that is "running away from battle" for you then? I hope you play on destruction because you'll make my job much easier.
It is very simple:
In WAR tactical level is the keep or objective and its immediate surroundings. WAR has plenty to offer on that level - yes, flanking, pincer attacks, controlled retreat, supply line harrasment... all of this is possible, viable and welcome as means to accomplish victory. If you haven't encountered any of it yet in the game then make an effort and organize and lead your warband or guild. I know I did and I have to say we are winning 80%+ of the time whenever I'm around.
Strategic level is the campaign as a whole fought over different pairings, tiers and individual objectives concurrently. The ultimate strategic goal in the game is taking over the enemy's capital - just like in any other "total" war. I suppose WWII didn't have a strategic component because capital cities were the ultimate goals there as well? LOL. In addition do not neglect the contribution of scenarios to zone control - they act as an additional dimension to mere territory ownership. In that sense scenarios take the place not entirely dissimilar to that of air superiority in modern warfare.
M
QFT
rofl Tactical,
charge in and bash whoever you can is all the game is sheesh, shows its kids who post things like this if they think War is tactical
I more or less agree, though WoW does have room for tactics, they never get used ;p
Yesterday we lost at phoenix gate, not because of flag captures but because of kills, the entire destruction team, realising that the flag carriers just weren't going down just ran up to our base in an organised fashion and gave us a sound thrashing, even without going for the objectives a soound combat group will accomplish a lot.
27 yrs old, most played: EvE-Online. WAR is tactical.
Try again? (y/n)
Yep Exactely. The very first rvr i got into was the biggest was prob a good 30 on 30. It was pretty worthless. You couldn't communicate with everybody. So to get your team to do an all out attack or something was worthless. You had random tanks who thought they'd go in and try and take out a low level guy so he can get some renown, he would die, his team would watch. And kept happening. No side wanted to make any moves, because you can't. Nobody wants to listen to one person and say ok on my mark lets all charge in. Nope no way of communicating that. So tactics? Where exactely are those? If there were guild battles like in Guild Wars it would work, but not in RvR.
One of the giant post-beta WAR-WoW threads: Warhammer and WoW, whats the real difference?