Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
What are these "fundamental problems" ??
BadSpock
Member UncommonPosts: 7,979
"They are not something that a new designer can just come in and whisk away with a few content patches. There are just to many fundamental problems with the game to be fixed by anything short of a massive overhaul. "
I keep seeing this a LOT.
Please, tell me, what are the fundamental problems with the game?
I'll have to disagree that the fundamentals of this game, on paper, are the best of any MMO to be released, what did fall short was some of the execution and management since then.
So can someone please fill me in, what ARE the fundamental problems?
Or is this just another example of people using buzz words and phrases popular on this site for no reason other then because they are popular buzz words and phrases?
Comments
1. One of the biggest gripes I see is worth performance, that there is a lot of lag in large scale RvR in Tier 4.
I always question whether issues like lag are ever the games fault or if it's just players without the fastest connections and they have their graphics settings too high for such large scale combat.
Like I know in WoW back in the day when you'd see massive armies gather up in world PvP for arranged battles, like marches starting in Un'Goro and ending in Ogrimar kind of thing...
Even with graphics settings at the absolute lowest on a very good and stable connection, still very slow and would often crash the server. This was obviously a problem with the engine/servers where they simply weren't built to handle that kind of load.
With WAR I am doubtful because the game WAS built to handle these kinds of large scale battles.
2. Renown Grind.
I can see this as a problem. Scenarios being better ways to grind Renown for Renown gear then Open world RvR, so what's the point of ORvR?
I've already noticed a 100% increase in EXP and Renown gain in ORvR vs. Scenarios, and plenty of ORvR action on my server.
the problem is that the game is split up into 4 tiers which kills all freedom for the players.
Another problem is that the game has only 2 factions, 3 factions would of made the rvr more dynamic and unpredictable.
The design of the world is horrible, every zone looks the same, you just follow a straight line to the next quest hub.
The enemy A.I has to be the worst ive ever seen, i can stand just feet away from a red mob and they dont notice me, plus its too easy to kill the mobs.
The PvE in WAR is simply the most boring, linear, and easy PvE I've ever had the misfortune to experience. The PVP leaves a lot to be desired as well, but the PvE is absolutely atrocious.
Edit: Oh, and the crafting sucks.
Extremely boring quests, renown grind makes scenarios and rvr boring because the only reason most people are doing them is for renown points and not real competition.
Just re-opened account with 10 day trial - created a slayer - did 2 quests - cancelled - uninstalled.
Wow and here I thought the PvP was the problem.
I love the PvE.
With the Tome of Knowledge and all the unlocks, Public Quests, and so many tiers of content to explore between all the different races there is SO much PvE to do I really enjoy it.
Not to mention you can break up any PvE grind by doing PvP and still leveling your toon...
I think PvE in WAR, at least the leveling experience, is far better then any other MMO.
I don't know what it's like at end-game, haven't gotten there, but the new instances and 1.3 patch for LotD sound promising.
As for the zones I have never noticed that two zones look alike... it's all quite varied.
Even the architexture of all the different armies buildings and such, there is SO much "flavor" in the world with NPC's and they are always battling and there is always explosions...
Much better then WoW where it's just fields of randomly roaming mobs...
He's talking design of the zone, not the look of it
I find it funny people say "the crafting sucks" when it gives you a LOT more freedom of experimentation then most every other MMO out there.
There are no recipes, just components you have to put together and make different things.
Is it only because you can't make weapons/armor?
It's a style choice, they want players to be soldiers so they give players crafting to aid them in combat, leave the blacksmithing and sewing to the NPC's I say.
But those aren't necessarily problems, just preference.
1, the 4 tiers is a design decisioin. For someone who wants to play in an open world then they wouldn't like it. For someone who doesn't mind playing in a world that is not trying to emulate a "world" but a "game world' then it isn't an issue. This is just preference and is not an inherant problem with Warhammer.
2, This is also preference. Aion has 2 sides, WoW has two sides. Yes, adding a 3rd faction could be interesting but so could adding a 4th and 5th. 2 sides focuses the conflict. It's not a bad thing it's a different thing.
3, This is a reflection of a world for a game and not a "world". It's certainly not the world of Vanguard, I'll give you that. However, Warhammer manifests itself as first and foremost a game. This is just a design decision. For players who want or need to play in a full world then they won't like it. For players who have no issue with the "world" being more for a "game" then no biggie. One could say that the world for Guild Wars is equally as bad as there is no world, just cities and linear maps that lead from one area to another. But that is not the purpose it is trying to fulfill.
Here is where I agree with you. The AI is beyond atrocious.
In my opinion, the issues that players have with many games boils down to expectations. They expect that a game will do x and y. When it does z then they start having issues.
I think Warhammer is a fine game. I do have issues with how it does things but I'm not yet clear if that is just my own expectations or if they are really issues.
Because of its design decisions, Warhammer will just not really appeal to hardcore pvp players or players who require more of a world to be in and fight in. It's not Lineage 2 fighing where you have an entire world to battle in. It is a series of battleground areas, whether they be the pvp rvr areas or scenarios.
Some will like this and some won't.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Yes it is quite linear, but it's a STORY told by chapters, the only person making you go from Chap 1 to Chap 2 to Chap 3 of the same story is... YOU!
Go to different racial pairings, don't do the quests just RvR and do PQs....
The game has a lot more of an "open" feel to it then most other MMO's because you do have so many options for leveling your toon.
But I for one enjoy that it's split into Chapters and I enjoy reading the finely crafted lore and experiencing the journey as a JOURNEY and not a race to the finish line.
Sounds like what's holding most of you back from enjoying this game... is you!
Any game where you do nothing but grind quest after quest after quest all by yourself is going to feel linear and you're going to get sick of it. Other games like WoW give you no option BUT to do this!
Very good post Sovrath.
I would disagree that WAR gives PvP more direction then just randomly wandering around ganking lowbies, which a lot of "hardcore PvP" seem to enjoy for their own sadistic reasons.
WAR focuses the action in certain areas and on certain objectives in order to funnel players towards each other and into conflict.
You are right that it is a design decision, not a flaw, and it's all about how you look at it.
If you want to wander around randomly pk'ing people wherever you want, even if they are lowbies, go play some eastern level grinder. Would rather not have your kind in a true PvP game.
I would agree that the Renown grind is a problem.
Solution? It's easy.
Make the best PvP gear come from gaining influence in Tier 4 open RvR areas, and in city siege/capture.
Make it so you can only get certain pieces of the gear sets from attacking and taking objectives/keeps/cities, and certain pieces only from defending and holding objectives/keeps/cities.
Make the Renown gear so the best Renown gear you can get is with Renown level 40.
All the rest comes from open world RvR.
As for scenariors? Well, you still have 80 renown levels and each level gives you points for improving your characters stats.
This will funnel people into open RvR in Tier 4 across the realm and make them focus on attack AND defense equaly, and still give scenarios a reason to be played if you want a quick game to increase your renown rank a bit.
Make the highest level Guild Ranks and rewards only available to guilds who take control of keeps. The longer you hold the keep, and the longer you defend it, the more points you build up. Have the keeps only attackable during prime-time hours for that server to prevent ninja ganking of keeps.
Easy.
It's just like the battlegrounds versus arena in WoW. You want some good, entry level gear you can run scenarios until Renown rank 40 but if you want the REALLY good stuff you have to participate in open world RvR on both offensive and defensive fronts.
You want your guild to get to the max rank you have to organize and batlte over keep control, which btw helps your realm and city and yourself cause open RvR gives best rewards.. etc.
Done.
Well, there are some problems:
1. The game don't appeal to the million of Warhammer fans. both the system is wrong (no Warhammer game is levelbased) and the world. The real Warhammer world is not suitable for kids, it is a dark place filled with horror and madness.
If Mythic would have been closer to the original Warhammer world it would have gotten many of the millions of Warhammer fans into playing it, now everyone I know but one has quited (I know over 30).
2. 3 sides are more fun than 2. Mythic themselves proved that and greenskins and Chaos really shouldn't work so well together.
3. The lack of 4 citys made the endgame a lot poorer. Now you have to take a lot of worthless points instead of fighting for your home city. This might not be fundamental if they actually patch them in but I do suspect that MJ lied when he said they were almost finnished when they cut them out.
4. The scenarios kills of too much RvR. If I just wanted to play scenarios I play a FPS game instead.
That is about what I think is wrong with the game, there are other things like the performance that needs tweaking but that is no fundamental problem. The game also do have good ppoints but I just don't see my beloved Warhammer fantasy roleplaying game in it so therefor I don't play.
The real fundamental problem is probably that MJ and Barnett said that they were aiming to take down Wow, they should have focused more on making the old world into a MMORPG and less on Wow.
@loke666
1. I was never a Warhammer tabletop fan before but I love the world and all the lore and story and how each race and every zone feels so different and unique and the careers really feel iconic... so I guess as a new comer to the Warhammer universe (besides some dabbling in RTS games) I absolutely love the Warhammer world they created for WAR.
2. 3 sides will come, eventually. I would place good money on betting they'll release the first major expansion with 3 new races that all form a 3rd faction. Maybe.. Skaven, Undead... something? Vampire Counts? That'd be popular with the emo kids... lol
3. I don't like the lack of 4 cities either, but choosing to focus the conflict on one racial pairing at a time was a smart move. Problem was they never expanded on it. If they would ahve all 6 cities in and each month switch what pairing you were battling over, to focus the fighting more, it'd be really cool and very well designed. Unfortuantely that hasn't materialized yet.
4. I agree. More needs to be done to encourage open RvR as "the" way to get the best gear and level your renown the fastest, cause that's what most players really care about in the end, read my post above on how to fix this.
Setting your sites on WoW is never smart, I agree, you should try to make a good game and if it is good people will come to it. WAR is a good game, just needs a bit of work. I have faith.
Very good post Sovrath.
I would disagree that WAR gives PvP more direction then just randomly wandering around ganking lowbies, which a lot of "hardcore PvP" seem to enjoy for their own sadistic reasons.
WAR focuses the action in certain areas and on certain objectives in order to funnel players towards each other and into conflict.
You are right that it is a design decision, not a flaw, and it's all about how you look at it.
If you want to wander around randomly pk'ing people wherever you want, even if they are lowbies, go play some eastern level grinder. Would rather not have your kind in a true PvP game.
Well, to clarify I'll use an example form Lineage 2.
It is possible that your alliance arrives at a raid boss only to discover that another alliance that you are warring is already there. Or that a group can show up to a dungeon to grind and then find out that a rival is deep within.
I would agree that ganking, at least to me is not really meaningful pvp. It is pvp conflict but it's not really a fight in any sense of the word. And it's true that more open ffa pvp games will have this.
However, there is a different sense that one gets when one is truly in a world where actual conflict can break out at any time. Such as the time that a party from my alliance was destroyed in the Tower if Insolence and we gathered our entire force and fought out way up to the top in order to anhillate the opposing alliance.
In a game like Warhammer, those conflicts are a bit more premediated simply because of game design. This also causes some issues as well. If (to use the Lineage 2 example) a warring alliance is trying to take your castle, you do whatever it takes in order to fight them and you stay for the duration of the fight. I have seen groups in Warhammer allow the opposing faction to take a fortress in one area and that same group just go to another area where there is no one to oppose them so they can take that area's keep.
This for me is not to my taste as I believe you should do whatever it takes to get the opposition out. But due to the nature of fortress battles in warhammer, this is not always an option.
Since they can happen at practically any time, there might just not be enough people on. Or the group you get into is more interested in flipping battlefield objectives than actually taking and holding a keep.
This is one of my problems with Warhammer though I don't know if this is my preference or if the keep batttles are working as intended.
I have to say that I've had a lot of fun in Warhammer but at the same time have had some disspointments because the scenarios are very fun and have a lot of action and both sides seem to work in earnest to win. I have had less success with the keeps as it just seems that once a fight gets hard, groups don't figure out a way to win, they just move elsewhere.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
What you think of my idea above Sovrath to improve the open world RvR and keep capture/control game?
I agree that it is a bit lack luster.
I don't think there should be any keeps in Tier 2-3.
Would make the competition over keeps in Tier 4 a little better.
Also.. make Tier control of 1-3 a lot more important to Tier 4 control and city siege, and rely mostly on the battlefield objectives on those tiers.
And do so by making character who are high level de-rank to an appropriate level, the opposite of the bolster buff for low level characters, instead of the chicken mechanic. Only use the chicken / chaos chicken if they wander into opposing PvE areas on Core server, never use chicken on PvP servers.
The battling in these lower Tiers for high level players would add to their influence with the Tier 4 area of that racial pairing.
The devs took the worst part of WoW PvP in 2005. (honor grind + Alterec Valley) and made it into it's own game.
That's fundamentally fucked.
Chances are the expansion (if they're still planning one) will be Lustria. It will open an entirely new area, it fits in with the lore and it has two new races - Skaven (Destruction) and Lizardmen (Order).
They've already unleashed Tomb Kings, so a third faction would have to be something like Skaven, Vampire Counts (which are undead that you mentioned above) and. . .chaos dwarves. . but I doubt that'll happen.
To remain somewhat true to the IP, to unleash a new world and to give more races, Lustria is the most likely answer, I would say.
I doubt they'll create a 3rd faction.
Just my $0.02.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/played: EQ, EQ II, DAoC, WoW, LoTRO, AoC, CoH/CoV, WAR, Aion, Tera, Wildstar and many others that don't merit listing
/playing: Clash of Clans, Hearthstone
Well, there are some problems:
1. The game don't appeal to the million of Warhammer fans. both the system is wrong (no Warhammer game is levelbased) and the world. The real Warhammer world is not suitable for kids, it is a dark place filled with horror and madness.
If Mythic would have been closer to the original Warhammer world it would have gotten many of the millions of Warhammer fans into playing it, now everyone I know but one has quited (I know over 30).
2. 3 sides are more fun than 2. Mythic themselves proved that and greenskins and Chaos really shouldn't work so well together.
3. The lack of 4 citys made the endgame a lot poorer. Now you have to take a lot of worthless points instead of fighting for your home city. This might not be fundamental if they actually patch them in but I do suspect that MJ lied when he said they were almost finnished when they cut them out.
4. The scenarios kills of too much RvR. If I just wanted to play scenarios I play a FPS game instead.
That is about what I think is wrong with the game, there are other things like the performance that needs tweaking but that is no fundamental problem. The game also do have good ppoints but I just don't see my beloved Warhammer fantasy roleplaying game in it so therefor I don't play.
The real fundamental problem is probably that MJ and Barnett said that they were aiming to take down Wow, they should have focused more on making the old world into a MMORPG and less on Wow.
1, that is probably very true.
2, I think that is subjective. Why are 3 sides more fun than two? It does add another element but I'm not clear that I would care if there was only 1 other side or 2 or 7.
3, I think it's a good thing that those cities aren't there. The playerbase is spread out so wide that it would be surprised if having all those cities added didn't just wreck the game. AS it is it seem hard to get enough people to take and hold one keep in one area for long.
4, well I like the scenarios as they are concentrated pvp action and (for the most part) the players are there and there to win.
I don't recall them saying they were going to take down wow. As a matter of fact I recall them saying that they weren't aiming to do that but if it happened that would be great. I'll look for the interview, I think it's on IGN.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I actually like that. Make it so that the work done in tier 1-3 matters to what goes in in 4 and make it so that the keeps are high level content. The rest seems good as well.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Thanks.
I believe this game has too much potential to fail.
Updated me blog lol
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/heerobya/062009/4109_Thoughts-on-how-to-revitalize-and-save-WAR-RvR
OH I added another one.
Remove the Healer NPC's! When you die you get a stacking debuff that lowers your stats, it's never an issue because of the silly Healer NPC's you can pay to have it removed. I'd say get rid of it for both PvE and PvP, but if anything just PvP please. Helps prevent the zerg methods of PvP and gives dying some consequence, turns big battles into wars of attrition rather then number zerging.
Guess you can keep the Healer NPC's but they can only heal PvE death related rez sickness.
If I could try to answer your question, for me the fundamental problems that I see that would not be easy to fix would be;
The Engine. Although I prefer gameplay over graphics, it seems like the graphics are not as good as the lag it is producing in open world RvR. One thing that made DAoC very popular was the large scale battles and that is something that Warhammer has yet been able to reproduce.
The Collision. It is improving but slowly. You have to wonder how much work is it to stop players from getting stuck on rocks, walls, posts, etc. It seems like a problem that is deep rooted into the game's physics.
Laggy Animations and inconsistant spell casting. Not sure if this was fixed but combat feels a little bland and unresponsive. I know they keep posting that is has improved but I've been away for a while. It seems when they fix things, other stuff gets broken.
The War Story. It does not make sense to me. There is no pride or drive to sack a city, other than gear and renown. For me personally, the story as a whole lacks immersion.
The Landscape. This is more of a personal preference but I feel that the land masses not being connected is a fundamental problem that is not easy to fix. It does not feel like a world but a bunch of patches of land. Even as you travel through the cloudy little portal to each region, the transition and landscape behind and around the portal does not lead into the next area's design.
Representing IP. Another personal opinion but I feel Warhammer failed to reflect the Warhammer world. I never felt this until I started reading the many novels and race books for the table top game. It's like it was trying to be DAoC and WoW but never Warhammer.
Additional Personal Fodder.
Where are the smaller cities and towns?
Where do resources come into play in the war effort?
Where are the other neutral facitions? It is rare that an entire world is at war...
Who wants to keep a keep, when trading keep is more beneficial to the players?
What is a Battle Objective and what's it used for?
Most of these are personal shots and I understand if you disagree. I usually don't like being so critical but you asked.
The game fundamentally sucks balls. There's your answer.
Thanks for being constructive and adding to the thread
lol