Here's some Critique and Feedback on WAR

Zzulu · October 2009

Hello community. Here's some critique on WAR from another forum. The poster was aiming to write down what he found to be wrong with WAR. Some of it may sound harsh, but it's just really a constructive critique focused on logical assertions. It's worth a read, at least.

What's wrong with Warhammer Online and what it needs:

* A more coherent world. Was it really necessary to chop every area in the game up in 3 parts Mythic? (and on top of it cut it up further into 3 pairings?) Did this RVR game really need a separate area for Order and a separate area for Destruction? The two sides pretty much never cross paths in a game that is based around the two sides crossing paths. And that is just dull. Make it so destruction quests overlap with order quests and have the two geographical locations actually intertwine. There was some extremely basic examples of this in early Greenskin areas, but then it kind of fizzled out. Make it so the regular quests more often than not end up in an RVR zone instead of outside of it. Put PQ's in RVR zones. More random encounters, skirmishes and dynamic PvP is needed.

* Less cramped world. The world is, to be frank, not very well designed. You can barely take 10 steps in any direction without either running into a camp, a landmark or a cluster of mobs. It just feels too much like (and I hate to use the word) a themepark, where you're just moving towards the next ride instead of actually adventuring/raiding in a 'real' world. Immersion is lost. Connection to the lore is lost and the overall feeling of playing the game suffers.

* Improved RVR. So, zerging a keep is fun and all, but after the 50th time the fun is gone. Make the sieges more dynamic, more interesting and more involving for the player. The keep siege experience does not differ much from level 11 to level 40. There needs to be different kinds of keeps with different attributes and different ways to siege/conquer them. Where are the destructible walls, the multiple pathways, the interior design (there is no interior), the scalable climbing points, draw bridges, destructible siege towers, destructible guard towers, special controllable NPC's and intricate customization of each keep by guilds? Sieges should be the meat and highlight of the game, but it's a pretty mundane (to put it lightly) affair in its current iteration - where the side with the most people win, strategy is nearly never needed and immersion completely nonexistent.

* Introduce a third side. This is controversial and many will say "god lol no", but I disagree. Having played both Planetside and DAoC, I think this is going to be more interesting than the current 2 sides going at it forever. Some of the best fights I had in Planetside were 3 way cataclysmic battles where everyone was trying to murder everyone else. Of course, it might be too late to introduce an entirely new side nowadays, which is a bloody shame.

* Improved battlefield objectives. Currently BO's are just kind of there, to be taken. They offer no challenge and little reward as well. They don't even have a thematic purpose to exist. Turn BO's into something more fun and interesting. Something more than just "kill 6 NPC's and click a flag" is desperately needed. Anything from mini-games or PQ's to larger struggles could be implemented here. Make BO's worth fighting over, but more importantly, fun to fight over. Only your imagination is the limit here, really. "Battle Objective" is quite a loose term, after all.

* Improved Siege Weaponry. The siege weapons in WAR are perhaps the most disappointing way to deal damage in the entire game, and it does not make sense. Firing a gigantic, demon infested hell-cannon should alone make me raise an eyebrow and silently whisper "awesome". There should be visceral flair and feedback that makes both me and my target utter expletives. Yet using cannons and artillery in this game is not only largely fruitless, it is also horribly boring. Everything about siege weaponry needs to be revised. Get rid of launching pads, improve the animations, improve the VFX, improve the attributes and mechanics! When the enemy side line up a row of cannons and aim at your face, you should go "oh shi- ". Make the cannons count, but make them more expensive, and voilá you've got another goldsink (something else the game needs). With more detailed keeps, the possibilities for fun and special siege weaponry are plenty. How about summoned daemon siege-breakers? Or mushroom mutated super Squigs or even armored dark elf hydras? Perhaps calling in dwarven flying contraptions to carpet bomb the enemy from above? Too many lost opportunities to count here.

* Meta-game. Right now, there is no meta game in WAR. There is no political situation, and there is barely any guild rivalry. For a game that focuses on Realm vs Realm combat and interaction, this is perhaps the biggest sin of all. There needs to be areas in the game that guilds can own and make their own. There needs to be resources in the game that are so attractive that people will want to take time out of their day to attack/defend them at all costs. A guild can claim a keep, but it's an empty gesture in WAR, and a dull one, at that. Dynamic ways for players to change and affect the world, even in just minor ways is something that would help players feel more involved in the war in WAR. There simply needs to be some sort of political climate brewing, or the game loses all depth it could hope to ever have. Involve the players, involve the players, involve the players. Even just having one extra, special keep in each RVR area that an alliance can own, give a name, customize and use as a guildhall/guildcity would foster more community than the current, completely non-existing community the game never tried to grow. Players need a reason to want to bash the enemy other than why the game tells them to. Give players their own reason to fight, and people will get more invested in the fighting. This is a concept Mythic completely glossed over. This in turn would foster the mythical "Realm Pride" notion, something a game like WAR is lacking but desperately needs.

* City Sieges. Oh Mythic. What on earth was this going to even be? The climactic end to a long and arduous PvP campaign is instanced PvE? After countless hours of destroying the opposite side, thinning their numbers and claiming their lands, your idea of a reward for the player is to have him fight NPC's, in instanced, closed off locations for loot drops? The very premise of this idea is just so wrong to me. Killing the king and the local priests is okay in my book, but having the entire thing fractured and instanced in a dull and mechanical PQ form is not. It's simply not fun. It does not feel like a worthy conclusion to a war of any kind. You're invading Altdorf/Inevitable city here! This part of the game needs an overhaul something fierce. It needs to be more grand, more strategic, more rewarding and above all else - much more fun.

* Cities. Now, I like the cities in WAR. They're really neat. There are lots of easter eggs to find and overall the places are fine. However, they're located in their own little instanced bubbles where no one can touch them, and it ruins the experience a bit. When I first started playing WAR, I was anticipating the first time I'd see the grand walls of Altdorf in the distance, as I ventured my way towards the greatest human city in the lore. Yet, in reality, there was no walls to be seen in the distance, no gate to walk through. You simply fly there, and after a short loading screen you magically appear inside the city. Put the cities out in the open world and have the forts be the obstacle the opposite side has to go through at the end to reach the city.

* Performance. This is a modern day RVR game, based almost entirely on large scale warfare. However, it is built on an antiquated engine that simply can't handle larger battles without suffering. Mythic has made improvements in this area, but the game will never be able to support the truly large battles you could see during the first two months of the games life in any comfortable way. Nor does it seem it will have to, as the 200-300 man sieges seem all but entirely gone these days.

* Graphics. The graphics are poor in WAR. Not just technically, but also aesthetically. Colours are washed out, plain and dull. Not in the "GRISSLY WARHAMMER" way either - it looks more like a sad and disembodied cartoon. Combat effects don't differ much from 2003's DAoC and they're almost wholly uninteresting. Believe it or not, but there were actually more interesting combat effects in closed beta, but they were systematically removed as Mythic thought they were too "visible and obtrusive". So they went with "invisible and depressing" instead. Surely there was some halfway point they could have chosen instead? Beyond visual pet peeves such as that though, they really need to introduce more graphical options. Where is the AA slider? The bloom slider? Where can I enable AF? All of these things can actually be added to the game via outside manipulation, so it's certainly possible within the engine. However, mythic disregards it completely. The game looks much much better with these simple options, yet I'm not sure they've even addressed it yet at all.

* Animations are also quite bad. It was a whole lot worse in beta, where people were nerdraging about them all the time (for good reason, unfortunately) but they're still not good by any definition. They're stiff, unnatural and uninteresting. For a game released in 2008, you simply expected more.

* Scenarios. How about more scenarios? They already have a bunch of scenarios completely finished that they use for events, but they don't want to put them in the regular scenario rotation. This is a strange way to hold out on content for the playerbase. However, scenarios have been elaborated on for so much that I don't really want to get into it too much. What I want to point out though, is that, it seems strange there is not more content in this area one year after launch.

* Combat responsiveness and combat in general. Combat is not that much fun in this game (subjective), and I can't put my finger on why. The feedback is poor and animations are lacking, as are the effects, but there's something else as well. It just does not feel right.

Do you mostly agree? Mostly disagree? Want to add your own notes? Discuss.

carlpuccino · October 2009

Originally posted by Zzulu

Hello community. Here's some critique on WAR from another forum. The poster was aiming to write down what he found to be wrong with WAR. Some of it may sound harsh, but it's just really a constructive critique focused on logical assertions. It's worth a read, at least.

What's wrong with Warhammer Online and what it needs:

* A more coherent world. Was it really necessary to chop every area in the game up in 3 parts Mythic? (and on top of it cut it up further into 3 pairings?) Did this RVR game really need a separate area for Order and a separate area for Destruction? The two sides pretty much never cross paths in a game that is based around the two sides crossing paths. And that is just dull. Make it so destruction quests overlap with order quests and have the two geographical locations actually intertwine. There was some extremely basic examples of this in early Greenskin areas, but then it kind of fizzled out. Make it so the regular quests more often than not end up in an RVR zone instead of outside of it. Put PQ's in RVR zones. More random encounters, skirmishes and dynamic PvP is needed.

* Less cramped world. The world is, to be frank, not very well designed. You can barely take 10 steps in any direction without either running into a camp, a landmark or a cluster of mobs. It just feels too much like (and I hate to use the word) a themepark, where you're just moving towards the next ride instead of actually adventuring/raiding in a 'real' world. Immersion is lost. Connection to the lore is lost and the overall feeling of playing the game suffers.

* Improved RVR. So, zerging a keep is fun and all, but after the 50th time the fun is gone. Make the sieges more dynamic, more interesting and more involving for the player. The keep siege experience does not differ much from level 11 to level 40. There needs to be different kinds of keeps with different attributes and different ways to siege/conquer them. Where are the destructible walls, the multiple pathways, the interior design (there is no interior), the scalable climbing points, draw bridges, destructible siege towers, destructible guard towers, special controllable NPC's and intricate customization of each keep by guilds? Sieges should be the meat and highlight of the game, but it's a pretty mundane (to put it lightly) affair in its current iteration - where the side with the most people win, strategy is nearly never needed and immersion completely nonexistent.

* Introduce a third side. This is controversial and many will say "god lol no", but I disagree. Having played both Planetside and DAoC, I think this is going to be more interesting than the current 2 sides going at it forever. Some of the best fights I had in Planetside were 3 way cataclysmic battles where everyone was trying to murder everyone else. Of course, it might be too late to introduce an entirely new side nowadays, which is a bloody shame.

* Improved battlefield objectives. Currently BO's are just kind of there, to be taken. They offer no challenge and little reward as well. They don't even have a thematic purpose to exist. Turn BO's into something more fun and interesting. Something more than just "kill 6 NPC's and click a flag" is desperately needed. Anything from mini-games or PQ's to larger struggles could be implemented here. Make BO's worth fighting over, but more importantly, fun to fight over. Only your imagination is the limit here, really. "Battle Objective" is quite a loose term, after all.

* Improved Siege Weaponry. The siege weapons in WAR are perhaps the most disappointing way to deal damage in the entire game, and it does not make sense. Firing a gigantic, demon infested hell-cannon should alone make me raise an eyebrow and silently whisper "awesome". There should be visceral flair and feedback that makes both me and my target utter expletives. Yet using cannons and artillery in this game is not only largely fruitless, it is also horribly boring. Everything about siege weaponry needs to be revised. Get rid of launching pads, improve the animations, improve the VFX, improve the attributes and mechanics! When the enemy side line up a row of cannons and aim at your face, you should go "oh shi- ". Make the cannons count, but make them more expensive, and voilá you've got another goldsink (something else the game needs). With more detailed keeps, the possibilities for fun and special siege weaponry are plenty. How about summoned daemon siege-breakers? Or mushroom mutated super Squigs or even armored dark elf hydras? Perhaps calling in dwarven flying contraptions to carpet bomb the enemy from above? Too many lost opportunities to count here.

* Meta-game. Right now, there is no meta game in WAR. There is no political situation, and there is barely any guild rivalry. For a game that focuses on Realm vs Realm combat and interaction, this is perhaps the biggest sin of all. There needs to be areas in the game that guilds can own and make their own. There needs to be resources in the game that are so attractive that people will want to take time out of their day to attack/defend them at all costs. A guild can claim a keep, but it's an empty gesture in WAR, and a dull one, at that. Dynamic ways for players to change and affect the world, even in just minor ways is something that would help players feel more involved in the war in WAR. There simply needs to be some sort of political climate brewing, or the game loses all depth it could hope to ever have. Involve the players, involve the players, involve the players. Even just having one extra, special keep in each RVR area that an alliance can own, give a name, customize and use as a guildhall/guildcity would foster more community than the current, completely non-existing community the game never tried to grow. Players need a reason to want to bash the enemy other than why the game tells them to. Give players their own reason to fight, and people will get more invested in the fighting. This is a concept Mythic completely glossed over. This in turn would foster the mythical "Realm Pride" notion, something a game like WAR is lacking but desperately needs.

* City Sieges. Oh Mythic. What on earth was this going to even be? The climactic end to a long and arduous PvP campaign is instanced PvE? After countless hours of destroying the opposite side, thinning their numbers and claiming their lands, your idea of a reward for the player is to have him fight NPC's, in instanced, closed off locations for loot drops? The very premise of this idea is just so wrong to me. Killing the king and the local priests is okay in my book, but having the entire thing fractured and instanced in a dull and mechanical PQ form is not. It's simply not fun. It does not feel like a worthy conclusion to a war of any kind. You're invading Altdorf/Inevitable city here! This part of the game needs an overhaul something fierce. It needs to be more grand, more strategic, more rewarding and above all else - much more fun.

* Cities. Now, I like the cities in WAR. They're really neat. There are lots of easter eggs to find and overall the places are fine. However, they're located in their own little instanced bubbles where no one can touch them, and it ruins the experience a bit. When I first started playing WAR, I was anticipating the first time I'd see the grand walls of Altdorf in the distance, as I ventured my way towards the greatest human city in the lore. Yet, in reality, there was no walls to be seen in the distance, no gate to walk through. You simply fly there, and after a short loading screen you magically appear inside the city. Put the cities out in the open world and have the forts be the obstacle the opposite side has to go through at the end to reach the city.

* Performance. This is a modern day RVR game, based almost entirely on large scale warfare. However, it is built on an antiquated engine that simply can't handle larger battles without suffering. Mythic has made improvements in this area, but the game will never be able to support the truly large battles you could see during the first two months of the games life in any comfortable way. Nor does it seem it will have to, as the 200-300 man sieges seem all but entirely gone these days.

* Graphics. The graphics are poor in WAR. Not just technically, but also aesthetically. Colours are washed out, plain and dull. Not in the "GRISSLY WARHAMMER" way either - it looks more like a sad and disembodied cartoon. Combat effects don't differ much from 2003's DAoC and they're almost wholly uninteresting. Believe it or not, but there were actually more interesting combat effects in closed beta, but they were systematically removed as Mythic thought they were too "visible and obtrusive". So they went with "invisible and depressing" instead. Surely there was some halfway point they could have chosen instead? Beyond visual pet peeves such as that though, they really need to introduce more graphical options. Where is the AA slider? The bloom slider? Where can I enable AF? All of these things can actually be added to the game via outside manipulation, so it's certainly possible within the engine. However, mythic disregards it completely. The game looks much much better with these simple options, yet I'm not sure they've even addressed it yet at all.

* Animations are also quite bad. It was a whole lot worse in beta, where people were nerdraging about them all the time (for good reason, unfortunately) but they're still not good by any definition. They're stiff, unnatural and uninteresting. For a game released in 2008, you simply expected more.

* Scenarios. How about more scenarios? They already have a bunch of scenarios completely finished that they use for events, but they don't want to put them in the regular scenario rotation. This is a strange way to hold out on content for the playerbase. However, scenarios have been elaborated on for so much that I don't really want to get into it too much. What I want to point out though, is that, it seems strange there is not more content in this area one year after launch.

* Combat responsiveness and combat in general. Combat is not that much fun in this game (subjective), and I can't put my finger on why. The feedback is poor and animations are lacking, as are the effects, but there's something else as well. It just does not feel right.

Do you mostly agree? Mostly disagree? Want to add your own notes? Discuss.

I agree with almost everything but we always expect more of a game then what he give. If all mmo company could stop announcing their upcoming game to be the greatest epic mmorpg ever see, maybe we could appreciate more about what they did cause they never really deliver the epic game they spoke about. however, good critique. I love war but it can be way better and unfortunately, i dont have the skill to join the mythic team and fix this game the way it should be.

DaPrinz · October 2009

I totally agree with you. I just like to add that the graphics seem missing and some npcs move erratically. Spells (especially fire spells) seem not to appear very well or maybe it's supposed to be like that. Also when fighting enemy NPCs, I find them do strange stuff sometimes. They would face the other way and hit you, or run away from you then suddenly appear in front of you, basically erratic movement at times.

Also the spawn rate is INSANE!!!! I mean seriously, some NPCs re-spawn within seconds! It makes it soo hard to quest alone in packed areas (which is most of the game). Some named NPCs re-spawn before the dead bodies of their previous selves disappear.

drajaic · October 2009

I whole heartedly agree with most of this. Especially the pvp aspects of WAR. It had a ton of potential, but just seemed to fall short of what it could do as a pvp-centric game. The broken up areas and lack of a true world pvp killed it for me.

Wind811 · October 2009

I looked soooo forward to Warhammer and quit my other games to play but alas went back to WoW and not quit that. That being said Warhammer is the worst disappointment I have ever played, talk about nothing at the end!! And the stupid flying saucers get stuck everywhere. It was ABSOLUTELY monotonous. Too many games out there that arent finished and you begin to see its "as fast they can" put it together even if its not done. Surprised really that Everquest 1 is still around, I used to play that game for 6 years.

wowfan1996 · October 2009

we could appreciate more about what they did

Would be a valid point for a f2p MMOs. But when people pay monthly, they expect top quality gaming experience anyway. And it's no use to argue that individual fees are low. Everyone knows that they add up en masse. Or they don't, if game fails to deliver. That's what has happened to WAR.

Astralglide · October 2009

One thing that I think would really help, is have 2-3 MASSIVE severs: PvP, General, Role-play. Force the RvR content by having a full world. Even on the more populated servers, there isn't enough people to make the resources or space in the world worth fighting over.

Salvatoris · October 2009

I agree with most of that... but some of it is a little out there. More scenarios.... really? Scenarios are the worst part of the game. I think they are the number one criticism I read from people who haven't played since shortly after launch. Everyone complains about a scenario grind and instancing and no one in the RvR areas because they are all in scenarios. I wish they would lower the scenario contribution to about 10%... and even that is a compromise. If I ran the game I would pull them out completely. Actually, I wouldn't have let the game launch with them in the first place. I believe that the game would have been much more successful at launch without them, and it's a better game now with less people spending all their time in them.

I don't think we need a third realm, and I really don't have any issue with separate PvE areas for the two factions. I would like to see a lot more PvE content in the existing RvR areas. There are tons of cool places in the lakes that no one ever has a reason to go... even inside the keep gates there is a lot of wasted atmosphere. The only other part I didn't really agree with was the graphics. I love the way the game looks and runs on my machine with everything maxed and forced AA and AF. Sure it doesn't have the graphics capabilities of AOC, but I certainly prefer the style of WAR's graphics over the boring sea of brown and green that is Age of Conan..

DillingerEP · October 2009

If all the scenario's were like Reikland Factory, noone would've bitched about them (I know thats not true, lot less would've though). Pissed me off they never kept it... best scenario evar!

Salvatoris · October 2009

The complaint i see about scenarios is that everyone was spending all their time grinding in them at launch... a lot of people were hoping for an open RvR game and found empty battlefields with all the players hanging out in the same few tiny instances with 12-15 people. Pretty much the same kind of PvP you can get for free in guild wars. Nothing "massive" about that.

Pheace · October 2009

Originally posted by Salvatoris

The complaint i see about scenarios is that everyone was spending all their time grinding in them at launch... a lot of people were hoping for an open RvR game and found empty battlefields with all the players hanging out in the same few tiny instances with 12-15 people. Pretty much the same kind of PvP you can get for free in guild wars. Nothing "massive" about that.

Which is probably *much* closer to what they originally intended. ORvR was never really a focus in beta till the outcry came that it was too boring out in the empty fields, so they delayed the game to add in keeps.

Original game was mostly scenario based, which is probably why they didn't really have any population balance measures *at all* when they released, because for a scenario based game it wouldn't have been such an issue.

DillingerEP · October 2009

Originally posted by Salvatoris

The complaint i see about scenarios is that everyone was spending all their time grinding in them at launch... a lot of people were hoping for an open RvR game and found empty battlefields with all the players hanging out in the same few tiny instances with 12-15 people. Pretty much the same kind of PvP you can get for free in guild wars. Nothing "massive" about that.

Yea, but the jerk's at Mythic finally kinda got it right. Problem with SC's in the start was, easier and faster exp/renown gain over ORvR. They ended up giving people more incentive to do ORvR with increased rewards, exp and renown. It helped out by putting more numbers in the RvR lakes, but there was people still SC grinding, cause quest burning with SC's was still faster to lvl. If they would've had kick ass SC's like Reikland Factory, and expanded on that more. Doing SC's atleast would've been more fun to do. But most of the SC's in the game were rather dull and boring, but still offered the quick PvP fixation people wanted.

In way's SC's were a bane in this game, but like Pheace said... this game was originally supposed to be SC based.

Salvatoris · October 2009

They were pretty quick to add in realm xp and renown bonuses fin an attempt at population balance. Since that is how it was handled in DAoC, I assumed it was their plan all along. I do think they made the right changes after launch to correct the lack of open RvR, but post launch is apparently too late. I really don't believe that in this crowded market, an MMO can launch in a mess and ever come back around to a decent subscriber base. Sure, it worked with the MMOS that came out several years ago, but there were far fewer choices at the time, and usually no new games on the horizon. Developers simply don't have the luxury of launching an unfinished, unpolished game and then fixing it after is live any more. I think Vanguard, AOC and WAR prove that sufficiently.

The bummer for me is that it's a game I really enjoy playing, but the level of fun is limited by the number of people playing.. and I don't see that improving. Most people still trash the game on these forums for what is was at launch, insisting that it's still the same way, even though they haven't played it almost a year. Now it gets really ugly and the low number of subscribers doesn't justify much in the way of future development resources. So they can't overcome the initial negative user reviews to gain new players, and the lack of new content will eventually chase away all the existing players. Maybe when the game goes free to play, some of the ignorant nay-sayers will see that it is a much better experience than it was at launch.... but the damage is already done.

DillingerEP · October 2009

I agree, now a day's if a game is launched in a mess. There's no real turn around for it, even if the develepor's improve the game. Warhammers issues stem to deep, just from a problematic start. I've played the game for over a year. Loved playing it a good deal and also hated it a good deal. Mythic has to be one of the most out of touch companies with it's playerbase. Which is the main reason i gave up on Warhammer and quit.

Theres still job's that need love, and jobs that are out of whack. People in the career lead's positions, just simply need to be fired. They suck at what they do, and listen to nothing..

Performance is still a issue in this game, even if it has improved some. This game was poorly coded, and i don't think they will ever be able to fine tune the game.

When people wanted a better RvR expierence in T4. What they do?? Release more PvE bullshit with the Land of the Dead. That helped kill ORvR activity. Not only that, but also made already exsisting armor sets competely useless... with overpowered tailsman's and accessories.

Theres still plenty of shit for people to be pissed about this game. They really didn't do a good job improving it since launch. Class Balance issues, population issues, performance issues, and T4 RvR issues... still plague this game. For you to think that everyone complaining about it is because they haven't played it in a year, is rather absurb. Most of this games problem's from launch are still there.

Mythic needed to pull their head out of their ass, and see the light. But they haven't managed to do that yet.

Salvatoris · October 2009

I don't think they have fixed all the game's issues. I was saying that the number one complaint I read is about the game being one long scenario grind, and that was corrected a long time ago. Issues of class balance and content distribution between PvE and PvP are purely subjective. While I am happy with the game in those areas, I understand that some people aren't. performance varies from one machine to another, but I also have no issues there. Granted, I had to turn off spell effects for other players right out of the gate, but since then the game runs pretty good for me... with the obvious exception of fortress battles.... but even that has been addressed by limiting the number of people that can be involved in one... as bad as that solution may be.

wowfan1996 · October 2009

Originally posted by Salvatoris

Issues of class balance and content distribution between PvE and PvP are purely subjective.

Any opinion is subjective by definition. But when too many players in your community think that classes in your game aren't balanced, it's that kind of subjective opinion which costs you a lot of money in the long run. It's even worse when you have two sides with different classes. Since balance is subjective mainstream crowd will always keep complaining, no matter what you do.

You can prevent it but you can soften the blow.

Blizzard's way out of the trap was to give the same classes to both sides. It had been fully implemented by the time of TBC release. Arena shifted the focus of attention from side vs. side to pure class vs. class balance and it's been one of the major reasons for flaming posts and on the official forums ever since. Blizzard addressed this new issue with a simple workaround they've never announced officially for obvious reasons: a wave-like balancing. In simple words: if your class is over the top today, you may expect it to be nearly ruined tomorrow. And vice versa. This causes a lot of frustration too, but the frustration is different. People who play (subjectively) underpowered classes are more likely to re-roll a 'FoTM' class or wait for an opportunity to get their 'revenge'. Of course, both hopes are futile. A n00b or a casual can never beat a pro player unless he becomes a pro player himself (at which point he doesn't care about class balance anymore). But crowd loves false hopes.

elocke · November 2009

I agree 100% with this post. I also think, the class progression could be deeper and more meaningul, although I realize getting RRs does add to this, yet I can't seem to play any class past tier 2 without being bored to death.

Not sure what it is about this game, I play for a few hours and then I just lose all drive to keep going. So I take a break for a few days, get the urge to roll a new class, play up to about level 8-9ish then get bored again. Probably because I realize the next 3 tiers are more of the same just stretched out over a longer period of time.

I guess what I basically am saying is, my motivation to play the game needs to be ruffled with in game caveats that aren't currently in the game. RVR just to RVR is not fun to me. I need meaning, immersion and tons of options to want to pay to play an mmorpg.

Howdy, Stranger!

Here's some Critique and Feedback on WAR

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Here's some Critique and Feedback on WAR

Comments