A press release from EA today claims that WAR has hit over 500,000 players in the first week. They are now claiming it is the fastest selling MMO in history.
"The Armies of internet addicts have assembled to give up what little life they have and spend every once of their time playing the same video game for the next 3 years"
I was really excited about this game until I read EA's website about it. Looks like just another MMO. I'd hoped it would do for MMO what Dawn of War did for RTS games. Still, chickens, hatching, etc.
Necros wrote:The article should have started with...
"The Armies of internet addicts have assembled to give up what little life they have and spend every once of their time playing the same video game for the next 3 years"
i don't know...that number seems low for a MMO launch of this size. I think age of conan had 400k in its first week and that didn't do anything for it.
RussWakelin wrote:They'll be fine until Wrath of the Lich King hits, then we'll see.
I believe even with Wrath they will ALMOST kill wow. Most of the PVP servers, From what I hear, have become Dead. I played WoW my self and am currently in love with WHO(Warhammer Online) I myself will not stray back to WOW for a while, if ever! Glad to see this game finally got released!
From what I have heard dont buy Warhammer Online if your computer cannot handle the very top end graphics processing. Anything less that a cutting edge graphics card and processor and it will not run properly.
lambadomy wrote:i don't know...that number seems low for a MMO launch of this size. I think age of conan had 400k in its first week and that didn't do anything for it.
AoC gave players very little reason to stick around.
BrookM wrote:All because of half naked dark elves!
Hey now, I resemble that!
I like the ways that WAR is very different than WOW. I love the way the publicly ban spammers/gold farmers. PvP is rather different than wow and takes some getting used to, and definitely relays on getting into groups; 1-on-1 combat seems to be quite rare. I love how you can't kite players- I keep finding WoW idiots that try running in circles around me while I auto-face them.
And yes, it does require a machine with more punch. You won't need a "top of the line machine" but you will need some power.
For those that haven't played: Yes, it really did capture the feeling of the WFB world. Each race feels very different and the characters are awesome. They really did nail look perfectly.
Orlanth wrote:From what I have heard dont buy Warhammer Online if your computer cannot handle the very top end graphics processing. Anything less that a cutting edge graphics card and processor and it will not run properly.
Not true.
If you can't run it, turn the settings DOWN.
Doesn't even have antialiasing yet for heaven's sake.
"From what I have heard dont buy Warhammer Online if your computer cannot handle the very top end graphics processing. Anything less that a cutting edge graphics card and processor and it will not run properly."
Well, I have only an Nvidea 7600 GT Farphics card from BFG and it runs fine on the highest settings. I ocassionaly get some issues with the axe throwing not sowing up but aside from that it works great. (For those of who don't know that Graphics card is around four years old.)
Orlanth wrote:From what I have heard dont buy Warhammer Online if your computer cannot handle the very top end graphics processing. Anything less that a cutting edge graphics card and processor and it will not run properly.
I bootcamped vista on my macbook pro (which is actually not the best laptop in the world for straight up horsepower) and it runs on max pretty well. You can get an equivalent desktop for 700 dollars easy. A lot of people are having difficulty because they switched from WoW (which a gameboy could run) with their PC they bought four years ago.
Nothing will ever kill wow. People will leave, they'll merge servers, people will come back, they'll make new ones again. I mean, hell, people still play the original Everquest. They just keep making new zones so people can abandon the old ones.. same thing over and over. Then WOW2 will come out and all the nerds will collectively wet their pants.
I think WOW is a fun game, in the low levels.. boring as hell as soon as you max your level. Yay, lets do the same raid 80 times so we can get new purple items to replace our old purple items from the last place we raided 80 times! That sounds like fun.
I was gonna look into WAR but I don't want more of the same :( I might just wait for DOW2.
I think WotLK is going to be boring as hell compared to WAR. For crying out loud, Blizzard, fething up the canon of the game is NOT fun. Furthermore, Death Knights are going to be so obscenely powerful that all the other classes will be redundant.
Get back to work on Starcraft 2 you bastards.
Orlanth wrote:From what I have heard dont buy Warhammer Online if your computer cannot handle the very top end graphics processing. Anything less that a cutting edge graphics card and processor and it will not run properly.
Not true.
If you can't run it, turn the settings DOWN.
Doesn't even have antialiasing yet for heaven's sake.
I work in a major computer chain where we've had, in the last week, folks specifically come in to build machines for Warhammer Online and, really, it's not THAT much more intensive than WoW:BC.
You're talking about maybe $30 difference in video card, maybe an additional $20 in RAM. My one year old, mid-bottom of the line PC at the time runs Warhammer Online just fine, without even cutting much in the way of graphics.
I probably shouldn't advertise the company here, but PM me if you need any help putting together an inexpensive machine to play; I can refer you to the appropriate corporate site.
I really want to play it, but I'm trying to not spend any money I don't have to, just in case I need to afford a tri... I mean for WHEN I have to afford that trip to Baltimore.
Darrian13 wrote:@Rated G, I remember going to your mom's site.
At least someone appreciated it, she put a lot of man hours into it.
I can handle reasonably poor game play as long as the story is solid. WoW just seemed to screw that up somewhere along the line for me, everything got so convoluted.
Why resist? I currently have a social life, and do not wish to end up with semi-translucent flesh from lack of sunlight. My flatmate plays WAR more orless non stop, and it's happened to him!
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I am struggling to resist playing WAR.
Why resist? I currently have a social life, and do not wish to end up with semi-translucent flesh from lack of sunlight. My flatmate plays WAR more orless non stop, and it's happened to him!
Yeah I know what you mean but with the way the economy is here in the states it actually cost less to play an MMO instead of going out. Not saying shun social interaction for the sake of gaming but maybe once in a while might save money.
I hope WAR does good in the long run. It would be nice to see it open up more of the mythos and races to players.
I think the main strength, arguably that WAR has over WoW is the expansion potential. Sure, both have an entire world to crack on with, but as WAR opens up new areas for exploitation, people will be chomping at the bit, because they are already well documented elsewhere.
Add in that Black Library might see a swell in interest, and people can easily get hooked!
Darrian13 wrote:@Rated G, I remember going to your mom's site.
At least someone appreciated it, she put a lot of man hours into it.
I see what you did there.
Actually, I've been really enjoying WAR. The PVP feels much nicer than WoW. So if you enjoy fighting against other players with a group(solo PVP is not the focus), then you'll really enjoy WAR.
Rated G wrote:Big deal. My mom's site got half a million hits its first week too.
Link or bust.
If the forum rules disallow the link to be posted... I'll understand.
I've almost purchased WAR. Almost. And considering the fact I've always viewed WoW players as some sort of fleshy pocket calculators... I salute you WAR. You almost got me.
OTOH, if they ever do a Battlefield 40K I'm doomed
How many years did it take them to finally finish the Fantasy MMO though? Weren't they showing screen shots of Skaven in White Dwarf a decade ago? Not gona hold my breath for a 40k MMO, despite how cool it could be.
Aduro wrote:How many years did it take them to finally finish the Fantasy MMO though? Weren't they showing screen shots of Skaven in White Dwarf a decade ago? Not gona hold my breath for a 40k MMO, despite how cool it could be.
Those screens were probably of the cancelled project that a company did before Mythic got the deal instead. I remember following the progress of that one a lot back then. They promised heaps of stuff in the game but were ultimately canned because they failed to produce something cohesive and playable.
Aduro wrote:How many years did it take them to finally finish the Fantasy MMO though? Weren't they showing screen shots of Skaven in White Dwarf a decade ago? Not gona hold my breath for a 40k MMO, despite how cool it could be.
In fairness the fantasy MMO was cancelled for a stretch of time, then got picked up by a new developer who dropped all the work previously done and started new.
Warhammer 40k's MMO has a website, granted it's barebones at the moment but their other game looks really promising. There was an interview in some game magazine a month or so ago. It had them talking about playing as the Horsemen War, butchering screaming busloads of people at Armageddon. Sounds like they have the right attitude for a 40k game at least.
The only real problem I have had at this point is that no one talks. Or responds. It is as if everyone is on TeamSpeak or Ventrillo so they totally ignore the text area. I just know it is the least talkative MMO I have experienced.
Some minor annoyances:
People going into scenarios at level 1. And nude.
Still some memory leaks and hiccups, but that will get fixed.
Overall I have found it a lot of fun and the RvR well balanced. Except for Shamans, or at least that one last night we could seem to kill. I hate him.
Ahtman wrote:The only real problem I have had at this point is that no one talks. Or responds. It is as if everyone is on TeamSpeak or Ventrillo so they totally ignore the text area. I just know it is the least talkative MMO I have experienced.
I know I almost never use the text, as I am indeed always on vent. I like not having to read Chuck Norris jokes all the time.
That said, I am really enjoying Warhammer online not just because its Warhammer, but because Its actually fun. I played WoW for 2 years, and it just got to the point where the game was just pulling teeth. The whole point of WoW is to grind for gear. "hurry to level 60 so you can PvP to get gear or Raid to get gear for bigger raids that need better gear so they give you new gear so you can do the next raid for more gear!". PvP wasn't really about anything, it was just about grinding honor, Raids were just gear farms. The whole game centers around simply acquiring items, nothing more.
WAR just gives out the gear for almost nothing. While yes, there is some grinding involved, its typically of the grinding you'd do anyway, which is killing people. And the the best way to do it is to actually work towards the game objectives of capturing keeps, and sacking cities. There is an actual *point* to WAR, there is an actual conflict going on and its obvious, rather than the non-war border skirmish side-shows of WoW.
Also, WAR is much less gear dependent than WoW. A newly minted level 70 is at a greater disadvantage to a well geared Raider or Arena geared 70 than a level 63 player is to that newly minted 70. In WAR, the gear is an edge, not the deciding factor. If you suck, you will get rolled.
Vaktathi wrote:I like not having to read Chuck Norris jokes all the time.
This isn't the Barrens you know.
You should watch, you never know when people might say something. I am always shouting/looking for people to go and take back the zone if it is contested or fallen to the enemy. I have yet to get anyone to respond to any of it since launch. The only way warbands or parties get made is if you run into each other out in RvR.
if someone's trying to get an RvR raid together, I'll usually come over and respond, but the rest of the time people just seem not to care. it also seems as though most of the big raids start out as a core of guild mates and then just grab people along the way that they find.
huh, I think there's something or a lsit of what servers people are playing on down in the VG forum.
It is not without bugs though. I was playing last night, and instead of doing the whole logout in 20 seconds deal I just exited from within the game impatiently. Come this morning when I try to log on, it says that I'm still logged into the server...ARG!
2 hours to go until my shift, and I won't be able to play for another 4.5 hours...grrr
Ahtman wrote:
Some minor annoyances:
People going into scenarios at level 1. And nude.
You get auto ranked to the average of the scenario so (usually level 8) outside of a lack of skills they aren't completely worthless. The nude stuff is for one of the titles you can get.
My favorite WAR implementation, so far, is the ability to dye all your equipment to match. I hated wearing matching blues instead of purples just so it didn't look like my character found all his gear at a flea market.
Hey, I had a metrosexual Troll shaman that just had to look FABULOUS!
Ahtman wrote:
Some minor annoyances:
People going into scenarios at level 1. And nude.
You get auto ranked to the average of the scenario so (usually level 8) outside of a lack of skills they aren't completely worthless. The nude stuff is for one of the titles you can get.
Ah, I didn't know about the title, but for heaven's sake get to level 3 or 4, which takes no time at all. I know it bumps you to 8 in tier 1, but at level 1 you only have two abilities, of which only one is that great usually. They have no strategy or viabilty, which hurts everyone else's chance of winning.
Ahtman wrote:
Some minor annoyances:
People going into scenarios at level 1. And nude.
You get auto ranked to the average of the scenario so (usually level 8) outside of a lack of skills they aren't completely worthless. The nude stuff is for one of the titles you can get.
Ah, I didn't know about the title, but for heaven's sake get to level 3 or 4, which takes no time at all. I know it bumps you to 8 in tier 1, but at level 1 you only have two abilities, of which only one is that great usually. They have no strategy or viabilty, which hurts everyone else's chance of winning.
Even bumped to level 8 a level 1 is still doing about half the damage a level 11 (The max) would be doing due to mastery points and gear. It's even more noticeable in the later tiers where everyone has a lot of their abilities but some people just do much more with them. I would have liked it more if they didn't allow such a wide level disparity in the scenarios.
Can you download the game for free like WOW yet? Or has it not reached that level? (Tyring to get a friend to play but he is somewhat short on cash right now.)
Ratbarf wrote:Can you download the game for free like WOW yet? Or has it not reached that level? (Tyring to get a friend to play but he is somewhat short on cash right now.)
if it didn't look like the standard mmo I'd play. but as is, I have painting to do before I dedicate my life to leveling up so someone else can kill me thats had the game longer.
wash-away wrote:if it didn't look like the standard mmo I'd play. but as is, I have painting to do before I dedicate my life to leveling up so someone else can kill me thats had the game longer.
You haven't played it, which is fine, but it is also seems that you haven't read about it either. It doesn't work that way. I know everyone thinks WoW is the only MMO out there and that is what they jump to so let me reiterate, this is not WoW. It uses MMO conventions in the same way that Battlefield 1942 and Star Wars: Jedi Outcast used FPS conventions. Sonic and Mario are not the same game because they are both platformers.
wash: In scenarios some of the people will have the playing longer
than you advantage, but they also level players up to a certain threshold
so that they aren't useless in combat. The top level players in any given
tier are tough, but you don't feel completely at their mercy except when
an organized group decides to focus fire on you.
So far I really like the game. The Public quests are great! You have an infamy bar up top on your screen and when you kill enough of the monsters/guys you get infamy. With this infamy you can purchase gear, weapons. Also at the end of each PQ (3 stages) you get a chance on loot bags. The more effort you put in the better bonus roll you get! this system seems very orginal and inovative. But even if you only hit the last guy once you get a roll, and can win the loot over the other guys!! If there are not enough people to do the PQ , like if you are in the Darkelf area or orc area, its still ok because you can still get infamy by killing the same monster/guys over and over, when you reach step 2 you let it reset only takes 2 mins for that.
At higher levels you start to RvR (think Doac) But the cool thing is that you stats are raised up to a general level. So even if you are only level 15 you will RvR at 18! this is great cause it gives you a fighting chance against the higher levels, so even though the level 18 guy who you might be fighting has better gear that has better stats and also he has more abilites, you still have a fighting chance!
Also you can queue for the RvR any where!! Each area has its own scenario, so the Chaos/ humans have one the dwarves/orcs have one and the Elves have one. Queue times are relativly quick if your chaos/human about 15 min, not so much for the other races. Alos when you are done with the battle ground it puts you right back int he area that you came from!! hopefully you don't get wandering mosters that kill you before the screen loads!! doh!
Questing is AMAZING. once you get a quest the area where you need to go lights up red, and once you get the items or kills your map lights up red where you turn it in!! you don't need to read the quest or anything! Once you start to get highlevel you start to explore more and soon you will run out of quests in your own area, making you explore other races areas for their quests which is cool. Also you obtain titles and achievments! one achievment I got was clickng on my charater 100 times and dieing 10 times. The user interface is Unique and well rounded. The action bar is on the bottom and the chat window is on the bottem left. the mini map is in the upperright hand corner, it feels very natural. So far My hope is that this game will destroy WoW, I have never played this, But from reading peoples post it sounds completely different.
As to another reason why I asked the question earlier with the free download thing, I thought I remebered somewhere on their website that it was ready for download. Probably should have just checked it out for myself. Oh well.
@Ratbarf, You missed your chance for almost free play. If you bought a Preorder (5$) you could have played in Beta and headstart, but there is no free trial at the moment.
@ everyone, I'm really enjoying the game. I can talk about RvR combat, Public Quests, or questing in general, but I see lots of people post about that. Some other things that are easy to miss at first but are also very cool are Trophies, Tactics, Morale, and leveling speed.
Trophies are costume add ons that drop from Really tough monsters and all they are is bragging right or costume personalization. Trophies are pretty cool, but what makes them really neat is that fact you can move them around your character, so everyone that got a dragon tooth or deamon horn can display them on different areas of their character. while there are no game play bonuses for equipping a trophy, they make your character look cool and help to differentiate your character from others that are the same class.
Tactics are like passive skills that change the way your character works. As you level up, you gain unlock a lot of tactics, but at a given level you can only have a few active. you have one career tactic until you hit 20, then gain an extra slot each 10 levels. There are so many tactics that you really have to pick and choose what ones you'll "equip", however you can have up to 5 "sets" of tactics ready to be hot keyed up. On my character, my first tactic combo is for solo questing and increases my DPS while decreasing my healing ability, while also speeding up my rune recharge time. My Troll fighting tactics make me recover from knockdowns 50% faster and also makes me more resistant to damage. My PvP setup gives me a DPS bonus and allows one of my dots to proc a Snare. I also have a Healing set and PvP healing set. Additionally you can swap between tactics as long as your not in combat, allowing you to change up your tactics mid battle or dungeon. The list of tactic combos will only grow as I level. I think I just did a really poor job of explaining cool these tactics are and how they help define your characters as yours.
Morale is a power bar that builds up as you fight, and unlocks super powerful attacks and effects. As a Rune Priest, my first Morale ability was a Morale heal that was instant cast, no mana (action point) cost and was 3 times better then my best heal. I've learned other Morale abilities since then and continue to be suprised at there raw power. The catch is that you need to fight and keep fighting to use these abilities while they are all on a 60 second timer and drain all your morale when used, so timing when to use your morale is kinda tricky. I think they add a ton to game play both PvP and PvE.
Finally, you level fast in this game. One week in and I'm level 20 and there are only 40 levels in the game. I did play kinda hardcore, but I"m sure I would have reached this level in two or three weeks at a more casual pace, as It's about 50 hours to get to level 20. The game could slow down at later levels but at this point I'd be suprised if really slowdown.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Ah yes...Wrath of Nagash...sorry, sorry...Lich King.....
You've made a reasonable mistake. People sometimes forget that Warhams copied stuff from Warcraft. In fact, the popular game W(st)arhammer 50K spawned from Starcraft.
Here is a secret picture of World of Warhams. Craft. A World of Warhams.
Wrath of the only accessible content after you buy the previous expansion and level to the max level. Yeah, thats really going to recapture the swing crowd and the new bloods.
WAR is more oriented towards a PvP (and team PvP) oriented crowd, as compared to WoW's PvE oriented and very accessible and soloable approach. One is much darker and graphic, the other is more family friendly.
Different market segments, WAR will not kill WoW, but WAR isn't going to collapse either, especially not because of a simple expansion pack that does little to address what WAR provides (Open RvR and a massive conflict)
wash-away wrote:if it didn't look like the standard mmo I'd play. but as is, I have painting to do before I dedicate my life to leveling up so someone else can kill me thats had the game longer.
You haven't played it, which is fine, but it is also seems that you haven't read about it either. It doesn't work that way. I know everyone thinks WoW is the only MMO out there and that is what they jump to so let me reiterate, this is not WoW. It uses MMO conventions in the same way that Battlefield 1942 and Star Wars: Jedi Outcast used FPS conventions. Sonic and Mario are not the same game because they are both platformers.
no I haven't, I just saw the add with 2 people fighting at a time and thought thought if it really was about big combat they would have shown it and kept on painting.
Orlanth wrote:From what I have heard dont buy Warhammer Online if your computer cannot handle the very top end graphics processing. Anything less that a cutting edge graphics card and processor and it will not run properly.
I bootcamped vista on my macbook pro (which is actually not the best laptop in the world for straight up horsepower) and it runs on max pretty well.
Good to know, Shumagorath. This may be the motivation I need to set up to triple-boot my Mac (can't justify running WAR on the office PCs, even if I claim it "gets me in the mood for marketing meetings."
I am now going to bury my head in the sand, paint as fast as I can, and prepare for the day when the 40K MMO comes out and all social life ends.
The people who say "WAR is not like WoW, it just has MMO features, WoW isn't the only MMO to have these features" amuse me. Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
WAR is very similar to WoW. But it's different (and new) enough to stand on its own as a very enjoyable game. I personally love the hell out of WAR. But after playing for only 10 levels , it made me miss WoW so much that I went back after a year's abstinence. I'm now excited about ramping my characters up for Wrath of the Lich King. It should prove to be a very good expansion pack. Once I'm done with what I want to do in WOTLK, I'll likely return to WAR to give the game its fair shot.
WAR will not kill WoW. People need to understand that there is absolutely no way this will happen. WoW, the greatest (at least most popular, for you argumentitive types) MMO to ever come along, which rocked the very foundations of the MMO world, did not kill the previous reigning king, Everquest, which at its peak had roughly ONE PERCENT of what WoW's subscriber base is now. And EQ was even begining to fade before the time WoW was released. Imagine the miracle that would have to occur for WoW to be toppled? Not possible. Not in the next decade, at least.
For those who say WoW is dead I chuckle, point to the massive server list, and suggest you spend some time in Quel'Danis Isle, Shattrath City, or Ironforge/Orgrimmar.
Sorry to sound like a WoW fanboy. I kind of am, it's true. But I admit WAR is a good game. I look forward to it prospering ALONGSIDE WoW. And stealing some of the player-base, for a little balance.
Scary thing to realize that we're about to reach WoW's 5 year anniversary. Which was when EQ received its sequel. I don't really want WoW2... I want to stay with WoW and have them revolutionize it, as they did with DAOC, to modernize it.
It'd require a rebuilding of the engine, or atleast significant altering of it. And that scares me too.... ok so I'm scared of change.
AlexCage wrote:For those who say WoW is dead I chuckle, point to the massive server list, and suggest you spend some time in Quel'Danis Isle, Shattrath City, or Ironforge/Orgrimmar.
I'm not reading too many folks saying "WoW is dead". I think most are just saying "WAR is worth a look".
I agree that WoW will remain the #1 MMO for a long time to come. But I think WAR is a GREAT experience and the game will do well.
They are both great games, and as such will both do well.
What I find interesting about WAR is that it appeals to me at all. Generally I don't like MMO's (I've dabbled with quite a few), and yet I'm REALLY enjoying WAR. It reminds me very much of games like Starseige Tribes, Planetside, etc. where I'm working on a team to win a global conflict. Not trying to become the single best hero on the planet. I'm not saying this is cooler than the classic MMO concept, just that it is different and is more appealing to a gamer like myself.
Of course your mileage may vary... and that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.
I don't think that anyway has said that WAR is going to ever come close to killing of WoW, nor did Mythic intend to do so, and most people don't think it was meant to or will become anywhere near the size of WoW. WoW is very PvE oriented and about as family friendly as you can get with an MMO. WAR is far more targeted at a smaller market segment, its much darker and unabashedly violent and grim, and is much more PvP oriented than WoW (where PvP/Arena's are really a sideshow to Raiding and PvE)
WAR is focused on the RvR (pvp) market, its not meant to get in the people who enjoy raids, crafting, silly holiday events, etc.
That said, I don't think WoW's success can be attributed to its game design (at least, nowhere near entirely) Its actually fairly simplistic with tons of balance (how many times have they had to redo talent trees and abilities for each class?) and release issues (Hero classes and Ahn'Qiraj were supposed to be in at release...) People will just buy anything with the Blizzard name on it. They could package dog poo as "Blizzard K9 Waste Adventure!" and sell 2 million units and get amazing reviews.
I have five characters on the side of Order and like the game. I don't play it every day and my sessions only last for an hour or two but when I am playing I enjoy it. I really like the journal that is used in the game because it really organizes and tracks your accomplishments nicely.
I've played WoW for three years, and I can say WoW is just going to get better and better with the upcoming expansion.
However, I also bought WAR now, and am in the process of leveling my own Witch Elf (because basically the entire class is a WoW Rogue ripoff, 'combo points' and finishing moves & cloak of shadows and all). The game looks pretty good (not fantastic though) and is entertaining, and I will play it atleast untill WOTLK gets released. I wouldn't say the class balance in WAR is nearly as good as people are claiming though
Everything I hear makes me think 'arcade' more and more. This type of MMO doesnt appeal to me.
I prefered it when it was you, everyone else and the world, all these features and the whole gamestyleare lacking something in the quality of immersion. If I want an arcade game I play an arcade, if I want an RPG I want one I can get game immersion in. Camelot was reasonably good for that, the intrerface was out your way, and it didnt come accross as a statfest.
"I wouldn't say the class balance in WAR is nearly as good as people are claiming though "
I think thats true to some extent, I can't kill healers within one or two level differences unless I pack more action potions than they do. And I'm a DPS based character. (Decent gear, but I prolly just suck!) They heal rather fast in RVR.
WAR is not balanced around 1v1. Its not supposed to be, and its not. Healers will have a hard time dealing with MDPS classes, Tanks are vulnerable to casters, MDPS will get steamrolled by tanks, etc...
The game is balanced around teams. Don't expect to roll a Disciple of Khaine or Warrior Priest and be able to bash face with the best of the melee DPS and still be a main healer, don't expect to roll a Marauder or Witch Hunter and think you can take on a Chosen or Iron Breaker (you can't)
It's a different game than WoW, stop looking at it in the same light. WoW is made to be able to allow every class to do anything, WAR has much more defined roles for each class (even if Chosen for instance can use 2 handers, they will be *far* more effective with a sword and board).
The game balance is centered around teams and realms, not individual classes. While for the most part no class is OP in the overall scheme of things (barring a couple bugged mechanics), there are just some things that some classes won't be able to effectively take on solo, so don't expect to.
The people who say "WAR is not like WoW, it just has MMO features, WoW isn't the only MMO to have these features" amuse me. Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
Actually everything WoW did was previously conceived and executed by other games. All of it. It had virtually no unique aspects too it and indeed many of the facets of the game such as the economy (Diablo style big boss loot drops have always been a major convention of MMO's) or PvP system were shallower than that which it was based off of. What WoW did and what blizzard does with all its games is integrate functional and popular systems within other games into a single extremely well polished IP that favors competitive play and balance over story line or innovation. The colorful atmosphere, good computer performance, addictive diablo style loot system, and high level of balance caused WoW to be a success. Not any form of non existent innovation.
The closes WoW came to innovating was the minimalist and extremely functional UI that was well integrated throughout the system. And yes you're a fanboy.
For those who say WoW is dead I chuckle, point to the massive server list, and suggest you spend some time in Quel'Danis Isle, Shattrath City, or Ironforge/Orgrimmar.
AlexCage wrote:Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
Apparently someone hasn't played any other MMORPGs. If you actually had for any time, you'd realize how wrong your statement is. WoW owes a great debt to DAoC.
Ahtman wrote:
Apparently someone hasn't played any other MMORPGs. If you actually had for any time, you'd realize how wrong your statement is. WoW owes a great debt to DAoC.
QFT! DAoC was out before WoW was a wet spot on it's momma's skirt. That is why the same guys worked on WAR.
AlexCage wrote:Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
Apparently someone hasn't played any other MMORPGs. If you actually had for any time, you'd realize how wrong your statement is. WoW owes a great debt to DAoC.
What did WoW gain from DAoC? I only ever played WoW casually, so I wouldn't have noticed...
AlexCage wrote:Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
Apparently someone hasn't played any other MMORPGs. If you actually had for any time, you'd realize how wrong your statement is. WoW owes a great debt to DAoC.
What did WoW gain from DAoC? I only ever played WoW casually, so I wouldn't have noticed...
While I'm not so sure of what WoW gained form DAoC (never really played it), I do know that much of the WoW development team (tigole/Kaplan) were essentially the big wigs of the EQ community (and rather whiny ones at that too) They got the jobs at Blizzard because they were in a very influential EQ guild that burned through EQ content and always clamored for more, and blizzard decided to hire them for their new MMO, which is why WoW treats PvP as a sideshow to the big raids.
Personally, I really don't think much of their ability as game designers (especially not after how many times they've had to redo the talent trees and abilities for each class, or their stagnant PvE raid model), but man can Blizzard do Marketing.
They got the jobs at Blizzard because they were in a very influential EQ guild that burned through EQ content and always clamored for more, and blizzard decided to hire them for their new MMO, which is why WoW treats PvP as a sideshow to the big raids.
Almost a million dollars has been handed out in prize money this year to WoW Arena teams at tournaments sponsored by Blizzard and/or other companies. I wouldn't call that a sideshow. The PvE players haven't won anything at all, except some beta keys.
They got the jobs at Blizzard because they were in a very influential EQ guild that burned through EQ content and always clamored for more, and blizzard decided to hire them for their new MMO, which is why WoW treats PvP as a sideshow to the big raids.
Almost a million dollars has been handed out in prize money this year to WoW Arena teams at tournaments sponsored by Blizzard and/or other companies. I wouldn't call that a sideshow. The PvE players haven't won anything at all, except some beta keys.
The amount of time, effort and money Blizzards spends developing PvE content far exceeds that of the PvP content. The primary focus of the game isn't the PvP, its gear collection and PvE content. Other than simply being able to attack the opposite faction if flagged for PvP, Blizzard didn't have *any* PvP content in the game 6-7 months after release, and even after the introduction of Battlegrounds, Alterac Valley had a significant PvE aspect for a long time, and Blizzard actively went out of its way to discourage open world PvP, especially town raids, for a very long time after the introduction of the honor system, wanting to keep PvP relegated to ganking, small random open world encounters, and instanced capture the flag matches. Even with WotLK, the vast majority of the content is PvE oriented, with the big PvP thing being an open world castle thingy that they first had made whispers of promising just after release.
A million dollars for tournaments for the PvP content isn't that much either considering the player base, and the vast majority of the player base could care less about such endeavors. Such events are more marketing efforts than anything else, they certainly aren't the focus of the game. Also, how long has that situation been around compared to the life of the game? Granted my big time playing WoW ended in late 2006 and sputtered on for a bit into 2007, with a brief revival this year for a week or two (they forgot to actually deactivate my account after I cancelled it ), but while I was playing, it was always the big raiding guilds that got all the server attention, with a couple exceptions for PvP players that got High Warlord or something after spending *months* in BG's 18 hours a day.
Actually everything WoW did was previously conceived and executed by other games. All of it. It had virtually no unique aspects too it and indeed many of the facets of the game such as the economy (Diablo style big boss loot drops have always been a major convention of MMO's) or PvP system were shallower than that which it was based off of. What WoW did and what blizzard does with all its games is integrate functional and popular systems within other games into a single extremely well polished IP that favors competitive play and balance over story line or innovation. The colorful atmosphere, good computer performance, addictive diablo style loot system, and high level of balance caused WoW to be a success. Not any form of non existent innovation.
The closes WoW came to innovating was the minimalist and extremely functional UI that was well integrated throughout the system. And yes you're a fanboy.
Uh.. Wait... have YOU played other MMOs? If so, you must've played ones that I did not. Can you please name MMOs that had the following features BEFORE November 2004:
Quest Driven Leveling system (that allows you to actually reach the level cap via questing)
A GUI Quest Journal, with all your quests conveniently sorted.
Instanced Dungeons
An item economy based almost ENTIRELY on items that are souldbound, and thus untradeable.
A mini-map that allows you to track specific targets (Specifically your quest givers).
A system similar to Rested XP, which allows casual players to level faster.
I never encountered any of these things in any game prior to WoW, and these are definitely some of the major features that made WoW more successful than other MMOs. These things have made WoW far more accessible to the casual player, who is turned off by the idea of 'the grind'. And it just made playing WoW EASIER on the player. It feels less like a punishment you administer to yourself.
And... you do realize Diablo's loot system is the same as almost every other RPG (if you can call Diablo an RPG), right? It's not unique at all. Beyond the whole 'soulbound' regularity thing, WoW's loot system is exactly like every other MMORPG. Ever. That's something that really doesn't need to be 'innovated'. I fail to see how this system can be dubbed the 'diablo' system.
Also, saying that WoW had a 'high level of balance' is either offensive or hilarious, I'm not sure which. I'm pretty sure no one who played WoW in the first year would say the game had BALANCE. Alot of specs, and even entire CLASSES were virtually useless until they overhauld the talent system. Ask any warrior who leveled as protection, or any balance druid, or any survival hunter, if WoW had a 'high level of balance'. You'll make their day.
ShumaGorath wrote:
For those who say WoW is dead I chuckle, point to the massive server list, and suggest you spend some time in Quel'Danis Isle, Shattrath City, or Ironforge/Orgrimmar.
I don't remember anyone saying that.
therandom007 wrote:
RussWakelin wrote:They'll be fine until Wrath of the Lich King hits, then we'll see.
I believe even with Wrath they will ALMOST kill wow. Most of the PVP servers, From what I hear, have become Dead. I played WoW my self and am currently in love with WHO(Warhammer Online) I myself will not stray back to WOW for a while, if ever! Glad to see this game finally got released!
Ok, so only one person really said it here, but I've seen a couple people bandy similar statements about, so I was just working off memory (which, granted, was probably memories of WAR fanboys/WoW haters proclaiming the sky is falling and other such nonsense). I guess I really should ignore such hyperbole.
Ahtman wrote:
AlexCage wrote:Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
Apparently someone hasn't played any other MMORPGs. If you actually had for any time, you'd realize how wrong your statement is. WoW owes a great debt to DAoC.
Wow... ok you'll need to clarify this statement, as it makes not one iota of sense to me.
I've played MMOs regularly since 2000, and have had at least 2 subscriptions to 2 different MMOs active at any given time during that period. I played DAOC for 3 years, had 3 level 50s across 2 Realms, and RVR'd heavily. I can't, for the life of me, fathom what WoW owes DAoC. WoW borrows from EQ far more than DAoC. Hell, the thing I loved about WoW the most, at first, was how VASTLY different it was from DAoC (ironically, the one thing I hate the MOST about WoW, is how disimilar WoW PVP is to DAoC RVR. Mythic did PvP right.) Of course, if by that statement you meant they owe them because of all the subscribers DAOC provided to WoW.... well yeah, I can see that.
Also, out of curiosity, have you played DAoC recently? It's shameful how many features from WoW they tried to incorporate into that game to try to win back subscribers. Sad, really.
I am a Fanboy, and I approve this message.
(But seriously, I love DAOC and WAR too, both great games)
Quest Driven Leveling system (that allows you to actually reach the level cap via questing)
Umm... basically all MMO's did this before WoW. It's a singular part of MMO's.
A GUI Quest Journal, with all your quests conveniently sorted.
Thats part of the interface that which I had mentioned. A multitude of non MMO RPG games did this long before WoW. It's been a convention of quest driven western RPG's for quite some time. I remember the pip boy keeping track of my quests in the very first fallout title.
Instanced Dungeons
Well, given that city of heroes used them extensively (far more than WoW) and came out a few months before thats a pretty bold thing for you to say. Only replace bold with rabidly fanboyish. Instanced content has been a method of maintaining server lag since the days when MMO's were all text. It's always been there.
An item economy based almost ENTIRELY on items that are souldbound, and thus untradeable.
That is a design choice utilized to attempt to prevent the stone of jordan economy that existed in diablo 2 from occurring again. It was an innovative attempt at basing a fake economy around fake currency rather than fake barter. Of anything that you have said this is about the only innovation that I don't believe previously existed as a trope of the genre.
A mini-map that allows you to track specific targets (Specifically your quest givers).
Actually at launch the minimap didn't track a whole lot. But thats not the issue here. Again, this is something that has been a convention of MMO's and gaming in general for as long as maps have existed. Grand theft auto three kept track of quest givers on the map, as have dozens of games before it. I know that city of heroes does and did at launch, and again. It launched before WoW.
A system similar to Rested XP, which allows casual players to level faster.
This is also a new and innovative feature that was actually initially designed to encourage "alting" and to encourage players to forgo poopsocking for favor of more regular gaming habits. Thus increasing the longevity of the subscription.
Ok, so we have rested XP and soulbound items. Both more attempts at patching the inherent deficiencies with the MMO genre than actual innovations in gameplay or design. Basically the blizard cycle. Take everyone elses ideas, refine them and patch up the problem spots and release it in a colorful world rife with overt pop culture humor and plainly stolen artistic designs. Its a process that is wildly successful.
never encountered any of these things in any game prior to WoW
So I take it WoW was the first game you have ever played. Got it.
These things have made WoW far more accessible to the casual player, who is turned off by the idea of 'the grind'. And it just made playing WoW EASIER on the player. It feels less like a punishment you administer to yourself.
WoW does a great job at masking the grind. However it's actually one of the most grind ridden MMOs in history. There are quests in wow that require you to collect 20 items. These items drop from one in four of a specific monster spawn. This requires that you perform the same action 80 times to complete the quest. It's fun and colorful in doing but it is still a mighty grind. In fact the entire upper level raid system is a repetitive loot grind designed to advocate the tiered loot system that they only maintain by upping level caps and releasing MORE loot to grind up too. The entire basis of the game is the grind.
And... you do realize Diablo's loot system is the same as almost every other RPG (if you can call Diablo an RPG), right? It's not unique at all.
Its not unique? Huh. I wonder why everyone was calling it the diablo style loot grind. I wonder why diablo two had a massive industry of bots collecting items to sell to players for actual real world money. The diablo loot system was revolutionary for its time and has been implemented in almost every loot driven game that has come since.
Also, saying that WoW had a 'high level of balance' is either offensive or hilarious, I'm not sure which. I'm pretty sure no one who played WoW in the first year would say the game had BALANCE. Alot of specs, and even entire CLASSES were virtually useless until they overhauld the talent system. Ask any warrior who leveled as protection, or any balance druid, or any survival hunter, if WoW had a 'high level of balance'. You'll make their day.
I played a moonkin balance druid. I would say the game is very well balanced. In fact if you would pull your head out from between your unmentionables you would also realize that virtually every award, review, and interview relating to the game mentioned and still mentions the task of balance within it and how well it was implemented. But you won't so who cares.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I played a moonkin balance druid. I would say the game is very well balanced. In fact if you would pull your head out from between your unmentionables you would also realize that virtually every award, review, and interview relating to the game mentioned and still mentions the task of balance within it and how well it was implemented. But you won't so who cares.
If WoW is balanced now (it wasn't the last time I played), it's only after almost 4 years and several major overhauls of almost every talent tree and class ability and significant gear meddling. I really don't know of too many people (at least when I was playing) that thought WoW had amazing class and gear balance.
ShumaGorath wrote:
I played a moonkin balance druid. I would say the game is very well balanced. In fact if you would pull your head out from between your unmentionables you would also realize that virtually every award, review, and interview relating to the game mentioned and still mentions the task of balance within it and how well it was implemented. But you won't so who cares.
If WoW is balanced now (it wasn't the last time I played), it's only after almost 4 years and several major overhauls of almost every talent tree and class ability and significant gear meddling. I really don't know of too many people (at least when I was playing) that thought WoW had amazing class and gear balance.
Its never had amazing class and gear balance for a game. It's had amazing class and gear balance for an MMO from the very beginning. The games focus on archtype balance and clearly defined role sets as well as the balance inherent to the PvE party environment has always been one of its strongest suits. The PvP game has always been quite balanced for an MMO as well. Keep in mind however that balancing an MMO around one on one combat is virtually impossible and the inherent weaknesses of the duel system will be apparent no matter what kind of fixes are implemented. However the balance mechanics were good enough for games of capture the flag and whatever other scenario they felt like implementing to not only function, but encourage balanced teams of multiple classes. Which in the end is far more important that one on one balance.
It's not a fighting game. Its a massively multiplayer online rpg. To treat its balancing like that of a one on one fighting game is a mistake.
Its never had amazing class and gear balance for a game. It's had amazing class and gear balance for an MMO from the very beginning.
For an MMO? I can think of others that had far better balance at the beginning, the first few patches were mostly talent updates (remember the Hunter 31pt melee DoT for survival?). And then every patch there'd be one ability for some class that would get adjusted for no apparent reason and then either become totally useless or horrendously OP.
The games focus on archtype balance and clearly defined role sets as well as the balance inherent to the PvE party environment has always been one of its strongest suits.
Except that the archetypes didn't always function until after several talent revisions, and when 40man raids were the big thing, there were classes that weren't always required, who the hell needed Hunters for MC or BWL except for tranq shot on one boss?
The PvP game has always been quite balanced for an MMO as well.
I think you are the only person I've ever seen make this statement. The fluctation from patch to patch and the first two and a half years were horrendous, and there have always been a couple "underdog" classes.
Keep in mind however that balancing an MMO around one on one combat is virtually impossible and the inherent weaknesses of the duel system will be apparent no matter what kind of fixes are implemented.
Granted, but WoW was far from ideal, many other games were able to fix their balance issues in far less time and didn't have the wild variations and ups and downs of class dominance that WoW did.
However the balance mechanics were good enough for games of capture the flag and whatever other scenario they felt like implementing to not only function, but encourage balanced teams of multiple classes. Which in the end is far more important that one on one balance.
You mean like when they banned group queueing for AV because they'd get 40man mage parties that would tear apart the whole BG? No offense, but the BG's were an afterthought to get people to stop raiding the towns that had quest givers, and in CTF games, whoever had the strongest ability to stay alive generally won.
It's not a fighting game. Its a massively multiplayer online rpg. To treat its balancing like that of a one on one fighting game is a mistake.
I don't think anyone was making that comparison.
Other Blizzard games can make a case for good balance (starcraft/warcraft 1&2) but WoW simply isn't among them (or wasn't while I played). Every patch a new heirarchy was established, and the fact that they have had to scrap and redo the talent trees several times since launch (I can't think of another MMO off the top of my head that has needed to do so) is indicative of the problem, especially given the early focus on PvE raiding with the core design team members like Tigole (who was a gigantic @$$ when he played EQ)
AlexCage wrote:Because it's mostly not true, and most 'standard' mmo features nowadays were unique to WoW when it was first released. Other MMOs had to adapt them to even have a chance to survive. Quest driven leveling comes to mind.
Apparently someone hasn't played any other MMORPGs. If you actually had for any time, you'd realize how wrong your statement is. WoW owes a great debt to DAoC.
What did WoW gain from DAoC? I only ever played WoW casually, so I wouldn't have noticed...
WoW improved on lots of ideas that started in DAoC. Mostly questing and kill tasks. Deliberate attempts to balance classes with an eye towards PvP.
Basically you have DAoC, Shadowbane, Others and WoW. DAoC was good. WoW was ... I am going to say 'great'. The others were largely PvE/ unsuccesful. WoW is Trollope to DAoC's whatever it was Trollope was influenced by. You are the English teacher.
also, you guys are making me want to play it, only to know I will be ultimately dissastisfied. Unlike, for example, WG's recent sugar binge into the world of Diablo 2.
GAH.
damn you all.
damn you.
also, damn you.
That, and I might be interested in joining a decent RP guild with cool folks. No epeen teenage girlz pleez. Good old fasioned my business runs itself so I am going to play MMOs beer drinking folk. The way the world was meant to be.
Not for any other reason than what it has done to my Flatmate. Before he picked up on WoW (about 6 months ago) he was a good guy. IF it wasn't for him, I'd be living in Scotland right now.
But then came WoW. In that short period, he's almost lost his job, he's cheated on his girlfriend and expected me to lie for him (she is a mutual friend), lied to me, and had his replacement tart over pretty much every day of the week, rent free. When he goes out to work, she's on the pooter. When he comes home, she's on the PS3, he's on pooter. All of that, and his skin is almost Potato like in it's translucency.
The primary focus of the game isn't the PvP, its gear collection and PvE content.
That's not as clear cut as you make it sound. For the last year and a half, classes have been balanced pretty much solely with PvP in mind. Many PvE players complain that they can't get the abilities they need because the designers only care for how it would affect PvP balance.
Other than simply being able to attack the opposite faction if flagged for PvP, Blizzard didn't have *any* PvP content in the game 6-7 months after release
I would like it if you didn't preach like people here hadn't played just as long as you, and in my case longer, since I still play, and much has changed.
Even with WotLK, the vast majority of the content is PvE oriented, with the big PvP thing being an open world castle thingy that they first had made whispers of promising just after release.
Majority of content? Of course. WoW is a complete MMO experience. The world is massive, like it should be, and there's countless things to see and many different paths to improve your character. However, as per WotLK, WoW has 5 different Arena maps, four instanced battlegrounds, many outdoor PvP areas and one new active outdoor PvP siege-area with battleground level activity, the vehicles and a proper reward system. That's a lot of PvP content, considering that you don't need 50 arena maps and 100 battlegrounds to have a perfect PvP game. In classically succesful FPS games like QW you only need two teams of 4 players each and one or two popular maps to fight on. In Starcraft, 95% of the player base play only two maps (Lost Temple and or some version of Hunters).
A million dollars for tournaments for the PvP content isn't that much either considering the player base
It's a massive sum of money for any e-sport. At the biggest tournaments this year, WoW arena players were handed more prize money than the former kings the Counterstrike players. Less than one fifth of the annual prize money has come from Blizzard or its partners, so the burst of popularity of high level competitive WoW Arena play has nothing to do with simple marketing.
Also, how long has that situation been around compared to the life of the game?
WoW arena is very new compared to the age of the game. Arena and the new PvP reward system is also the biggest reason millions of people still subsribe to WoW. Contrary to what you may think, it's the 10 games per week Arena casual guys who keep WoW absolutely massive. Not the 25 man hardcore raiders.
Granted my big time playing WoW ended in late 2006
Well, vanilla WoW was a completely different experience to TBC, and late TBC different to early TBC.
You mean like when they banned group queueing for AV because they'd get 40man mage parties that would tear apart the whole BG? No offense, but the BG's were an afterthought to get people to stop raiding the towns that had quest givers, and in CTF games, whoever had the strongest ability to stay alive generally won.
You're assuming to know how the designers think when in reality you seem completely clueless. Group queuing was banned at first because they wanted to keep Alterac Valley a fun experience also for the casual players. Most people didn't enjoy being farmed nonstop by premade teams during the last two months of vanilla WoW. Rated arenas are where you're expected to perform and try to win at all costs. Nevertheless, people have been able to group queue to AV now for a long time already. I guess they changed their mind once they realised that the most hardcore groups of players are busy with Arena anyway. Additionally, there's been talks of a rated Warsong Gulch ladder system in a future patch, to revive the old premade vs premade server all-stars games.
Anyway, what I'd like to say is that I find it stupendous that many WAR players who have tried this game for a week are already claiming it's awesome and better than everything. People haven't even entered the endgame yet, and many people are already crying the the class balance is incredibly poor, but still some people are orgasmic about the game and how it's the new be all and end all of PvP. Some of the players that I know who have praised WARPvP have had an unbelievably poor success rate in WoW Arena, not being able to even keep 1500 rating. I am not surprised that they are quick to jump ship and call the game they suck on crap. I also bought Warhammer, and I only hope that its a success because serious competitors make WoW better also, and frankly I've found that the game is so bugged and the 'feel' is so sticky that I simply know that I have to test it for a month or two before I can make an informed decision on whether its a good or a bad game. The only thing I'm sure of is that it was released before it was actually finished. Many of the flaws I've found can be ironed out with patches, and I do hope Mythic is on the ball here.
As far as WoW is concerned, I'm a player who played the game before you could raid Molten Core, and I've been raiding places like UBRS for 60 times and hundreds of hours for a blue item when today you can get an epic item for the same slot by just zerging in AV for a few hours. I've experienced the development of the raid system from MC, BWL, AQ and Naxx, to all the TBC raids and the new heroic dungeons and badge systems, and how the player requirements have been watered down constantly. WoW is much less hardcore than in the early days of Kalgan's and Tigole's raid design, and most people are grateful for it. I know I am. PvP system is what has changed the most though. I've always been one to 'PvE so I can PvP' and for a long time I haven't had to 'PvE to PvP'. PvP gives players everything they need, although there is still a small incentive to do both, which is understandable as players who dedicate themselves to the game should be rewarded for it in game. As far as getting exp in PvP goes, let's face it, who really cares about it? For 99% of your MMO career you will be at max level, and what the content is like there is what decides whether people stay or go. I know I'm not quitting WoW in the foreseeable future. Why should I? It's still the most incredible gaming experience ever made, and will continue to be it untill Blizzard outdoes itself once again.
Was he defensive about his gaming? ie did his ex chastise him openly and frequently
about his gaming? That can certainly push someone to wallow in the mire in
rebellion against people whom you might perceive as trying to control your life. When
you combine stuff like that with an alternative female who shares your interest, then
the result is assured.
Everyone has a potential addiction. WoW can ruin lives just as much as alcohol (at least its your own life usually, and not some innocent victim in another vehicle). I've heard some crazy stories, probably just a drop in the bucket.
And as far as class balance goes, I'm not impressed with WoW, whether in pvp or pve. 99% of the time, paladins were healbots if anything. This may have changed since I stopped playing, but I'd be surprised. And the stories I heard about rogues at launch make me wish I played in the glory days. I don't think I ever played with a moonkin. Balance? Meh.
malfred wrote:Was he defensive about his gaming? ie did his ex chastise him openly and frequently
about his gaming? That can certainly push someone to wallow in the mire in
rebellion against people whom you might perceive as trying to control your life. When
you combine stuff like that with an alternative female who shares your interest, then
the result is assured.
If absurd.
Not particularly. She'd get understandably narky when I declared my destination to be the pub, ask if they were going, and he'd refuse because he was grinding....night after night after night. Seriously, she'd drive him home, he'd jump on the PC and start playing, only stopping to eat his dinner and have a poo now and then. She'd be sat there watching DVDs. The game has eaten his soul! It's the only thing I can think of.
And muggins here bore the brunt of it, as she'd come into my room for cigarette (flatmate doesn't smoke) and a bit of human company.
"Quest Driven Leveling system (that allows you to actually reach the level cap via questing)
A GUI Quest Journal, with all your quests conveniently sorted.
Instanced Dungeons
An item economy based almost ENTIRELY on items that are souldbound, and thus untradeable.
A mini-map that allows you to track specific targets (Specifically your quest givers).
A system similar to Rested XP, which allows casual players to level faster."
The primary focus of the game isn't the PvP, its gear collection and PvE content.
That's not as clear cut as you make it sound. For the last year and a half, classes have been balanced pretty much solely with PvP in mind. Many PvE players complain that they can't get the abilities they need because the designers only care for how it would affect PvP balance.
If so, then thats a recent enough development that I haven't been around for. Either way, the fact that PvP only really comes to the fore after almost 3 years shows what their primary development stance was.
I would like it if you didn't preach like people here hadn't played just as long as you, and in my case longer, since I still play, and much has changed.
I didn't think I was preaching? I don't know how I cam across like that, I didn't intend to. Either way the point still stands that PvP content was sorely lacking for WoW's early life and played 2nd fiddle to PvE raids. Throwing out a strawman argument about me being preachy and ignoring what I actually said isn't doing much.
Majority of content? Of course. WoW is a complete MMO experience. The world is massive, like it should be, and there's countless things to see and many different paths to improve your character.
You mean Gear? unless they've added something new recently, the endgame was always about gear grinding sadly. If your just referring to Talent trees, almost every MMO has some variant of that.
However, as per WotLK, WoW has 5 different Arena maps, four instanced battlegrounds, many outdoor PvP areas and one new active outdoor PvP siege-area with battleground level activity, the vehicles and a proper reward system. That's a lot of PvP content
After 4 years, thats really no a whole lot of PvP content compared with other MMO's, especially as most of it game about more than 2 years after release. WAR's got 12 normal Instanced battleground equivalents (3 for each 10 levels), open world siege areas with player useable siege engines (Hellcannon, ballista's, etc) in every zone, world RvR objectives that people actually fight over, the ability to lay siege to and sack the enemies city, etc...
Hell, you can level entirely doing PvP, on the high pop servers, thats actually the fastest way to do it for most people. repeatable quests for accomplishing certain things in scenarios (or even just for playing them) such as killing "10 Bright Wizards" or "25 enemy players" make PvP a very attractive leveling route, rather than something people only really engage in once they hit the top rank (or are running a twink) and just pop into a couple times a week.
Also, on another quick note, WAR questing is considerably less of a PITA than WoW questing. When WAR tells you to kill wolves for wolf hears, you don't need to grind 97 of thm for a 1.2% drop rate to get one, you just go out and kill a damn wolf and get its heart.
considering that you don't need 50 arena maps and 100 battlegrounds to have a perfect PvP game.
Nobody said you did, but honest to god world PvP thats more than random encounter ganking on PvP servers or slowed item pickup quests in Silithus would make a world of difference.
In Starcraft, 95% of the player base play only two maps (Lost Temple and or some version of Hunters).
given my views on the Starcraft player base, this doesn't surprise me, its like the 40k players that do nothing but play the same list against the same opponent over and over again with the same terrain setup and same mission, and is a large part of why I've always seen Starcraft as incredibly overhyped and overplayed.
It's a massive sum of money for any e-sport. At the biggest tournaments this year, WoW arena players were handed more prize money than the former kings the Counterstrike players.
Again, given the player base and income of WoW, this doesn't surprise me. CS was originally an HL mod that got repackaged as a seperate game, and it had a very focused market segment, and was never a huge money maker by itself. WoW encompasses a much larger player base with a much more aggressive marketing effort on the part of the developer/distributor.
Less than one fifth of the annual prize money has come from Blizzard or its partners, so the burst of popularity of high level competitive WoW Arena play has nothing to do with simple marketing.
Given the games popularity, it doesn't surprise me. If an RTS came out tomorrow that had the same consistent online player base as WoW, you'd see similar prize money.
WoW arena is very new compared to the age of the game. Arena and the new PvP reward system is also the biggest reason millions of people still subsribe to WoW. Contrary to what you may think, it's the 10 games per week Arena casual guys who keep WoW absolutely massive. Not the 25 man hardcore raiders.
Then the game has changed drastically since I last played
Well, vanilla WoW was a completely different experience to TBC, and late TBC different to early TBC.
I played some of TBC, but the game just felt like a grind. Do these quests over and over! Kill the same boss over and over! Fight the same battle in BG's over and over! Kill the same epic background character over and over!
You're assuming to know how the designers think when in reality you seem completely clueless. Group queuing was banned at first because they wanted to keep Alterac Valley a fun experience also for the casual players.
And they didn't want to keep Warsong or Alterac fun for casual players? That's where the biggest problems were.
Most people didn't enjoy being farmed nonstop by premade teams during the last two months of vanilla WoW.
Again, this applies to the other BG's as well, where it was even more of a problem.
Anyway, what I'd like to say is that I find it stupendous that many WAR players who have tried this game for a week are already claiming it's awesome and better than everything.
It's *not* better in everything. It's *not* going to offer the PvE raid content that some people will look for. It's *not* going to offer the sort of "e-football" experience some look for in PvP (something I detest in Blizzard games), and its not going to be something that a casual player who has no idea how to play a class that just wants to solo everything is going to enjoy.
People haven't even entered the endgame yet
most haven't, but endgame city raids have already begun.
and many people are already crying the the class balance is incredibly poor, but still some people are orgasmic about the game and how it's the new be all and end all of PvP.
Most of the class balance issues are perception. People don't realized that, unlike WoW, there are some fights you just won't win. WoW tries to balance around 1v1 fights, so that each class can deal with all the other classes to some degree. In WAR, the archetypes are very strongly enforced, and thus a Shadow Warrior or Witch Hunter (think Rogue) is going to be at a severe disadvantage compared to a Chosen or Black Ork (WoW Warrior). Once you get a decently balanced team fighting another decently balanced team, the game balance becomes apparent at that point.
Some of the players that I know who have praised WARPvP have had an unbelievably poor success rate in WoW Arena, not being able to even keep 1500 rating
Not only is there just about zero correlation there, its also so subjective and variable its not even applicable.
I also bought Warhammer, and I only hope that its a success because serious competitors make WoW better also, and frankly I've found that the game is so bugged and the 'feel' is so sticky that I simply know that I have to test it for a month or two before I can make an informed decision on whether its a good or a bad game.
It's a hell of a lot better than WoW was at release, or Guild Wars, Planetside, EQ, and many others. Is it perfect? Not by a long shot, low population servers almost never have Scenario queues pop up, there are a couple weird targeting bugs, etc, but overall it still much more polished at release than any other MMO I've had any experience with.
The only thing I'm sure of is that it was released before it was actually finished.
Name me a single MMO that wasn't. You won't find one. And again, WoW was in a far worse state at this point in its life as well.
and I've been raiding places like UBRS for 60 times and hundreds of hours for a blue item
This to me is the single largest failing of WoW. the grind for gear for very small drop rates. The game no longer becomes about playing an epic saga of your character, but a repeated grind for gear.
WoW is much less hardcore than in the early days of Kalgan's and Tigole's raid design, and most people are grateful for it.
I won't dispute that, but it took them a very long time to get over it.
far as getting exp in PvP goes, let's face it, who really cares about it? For 99% of your MMO career you will be at max level, and what the content is like there is what decides whether people stay or go.
Given how atrocious WoW questing was (at least IMO, killing gorilla's for some sinew drop for an hour isn't exactly my definition of great PvE questing) I would have loved it. I still prefer it over even WAR's much more fluid questing. I think you'll find that a lot of people would enjoy that.
I know I'm not quitting WoW in the foreseeable future. Why should I?
nobody said you should.
It's still the most incredible gaming experience ever made
that is entirely subjective, and I can think of many other gaming experiences I had that were much better. The only reason I (and I suspect, and know of, many other people that played WoW) stuck with it as long as I did was that all my friends played it, it was a social activity. The game itself was often horrendously frustrating and if I wanted to play something by myself for fun (i.e., if nobody else was on) then I'd load up something else.
and will continue to be it untill Blizzard outdoes itself once again.
Again, that is an entirely subjective judgement value that many people would disagree with, including me. I've always seen Blizzards games as overhyped and overplayed, mainly because they are easy to start and will run on anything. Not that they can't be fun, but I certainly never felt they were worth the accolades they always got, and trampled many other games that should have been more popular than they were as a result because they never got a chance.
Sometimes Mad Doc forgets we don't all speak British slang.
To much of this is WoW vs WAR. Play the one you like. If you haven't played both don't proffer an opinion on comparing them. Since this is an MMO just trying a demo or playing beta for a weekend doesn't count as you aren't getting a good basis for comparison. This is more true if you have been playing any other MMO for a long period of time. It's like quitting smoking. It takes a while to get over the old habits.
In that spirit I ran across this and I lol'd:
World of GrindCraft.
vs
Funhammer Online: Age of Rocking Out.
I've found WAR much more fulfilling then WoW, but I enjoyed WoW when i played it.
They got the jobs at Blizzard because they were in a very influential EQ guild that burned through EQ content and always clamored for more, and blizzard decided to hire them for their new MMO, which is why WoW treats PvP as a sideshow to the big raids.
Almost a million dollars has been handed out in prize money this year to WoW Arena teams at tournaments sponsored by Blizzard and/or other companies. I wouldn't call that a sideshow. The PvE players haven't won anything at all, except some beta keys.
Wow, 300 mil in and a mil out.
Man, that's generous!
Oh right, and Arena is an unbalanced piece of and everyone who actually plays in competitive online games knows this.
Try Guild Wars, if you want to talk about a real arena system.
That actually has a point, not 'can my dr00d rock your mage in 5 seconds'.
AlexCage wrote:Quest Driven Leveling system (that allows you to actually reach the level cap via questing)
Sorry, there is NO game that allows this.
Not WOW, not EQ, not DAOC, not WAR, not COH, NOTHING.
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!
AlexCage wrote:A GUI Quest Journal, with all your quests conveniently sorted.
Yet not USEFULLY sortable without player created add ons, so it's actually worthless (like show me what's in my current zone, combined with a map feature also player created).
Oh and EQ2 had it first.
AlexCage wrote:Instanced Dungeons
Umm...EQ1 had this.
AlexCage wrote:An item economy based almost ENTIRELY on items that are souldbound, and thus untradeable.
Wait, is this a GOOD thing? Right, it isn't for the most part.
You should see how Korean MMO's operate.
Oh, and EQ1 (and before that, UO) had this "feature". It sucked.
If you are saying WOW has a good economy, I like how Blizzard estimates 5% of active accounts are gold farmers.
NEAT!
AlexCage wrote:A mini-map that allows you to track specific targets (Specifically your quest givers).
Daoc, EQ2, yeah Asheron's Call...yes everyone had this before WOW did.
AlexCage wrote:A system similar to Rested XP, which allows casual players to level faster.
It's capped, and it doesn't really do a whole lot.
Those casual players get lapped by hardcore players.
i.e. I level 2 characters to 70 before they level 1 character to 35.
mainly because they are easy to start and will run on anything.
That's another good point. I'm running an intel e8600 processor (didn't bother with quad yet since games dont support it), 4GB RAM, and the brand spanking new Radeon 4870 X2 (2GB GDDR). I play WoW at everything at the highest quality, terrain distance, 1920x1200 resolution (24" wide), everything set as max values. I never go under 130fps (indoor FPS is 450-500 usually), not even in Alterac Valley, and the game is smooth as heck to play. Simply wonderful. WAR however runs allright and doesn't overly lag or anything, but still feels sluggish. Not even the most demanding FPS games like Crysis feel as sluggish as WAR does. I'm not a coder, but I know games can be coded better or worse. Blizzard for example has made numerous improvements to the WoW code that have improved the overall FPS of all players. During my time in WoW I remember atleast three major patches when players in big battlegrounds like AV were asking if everyone else were getting much better FPS and a smoother gaming experience than before.
Therion wrote:That's another good point. I'm running an intel e8600 processor (didn't bother with quad yet since games dont support it), 4GB RAM, and the brand spanking new Radeon 4870 X2 (2GB GDDR). I play WoW at everything at the highest quality, terrain distance, 1920x1200 resolution (24" wide), everything set as max values. I never go under 130fps (indoor FPS is 450-500 usually), not even in Alterac Valley, and the game is smooth as heck to play. Simply wonderful. WAR however runs allright and doesn't overly lag or anything, but still feels sluggish. Not even the most demanding FPS games like Crysis feel as sluggish as WAR does. I'm not a coder, but I know games can be coded better or worse. Blizzard for example has made numerous improvements to the WoW code that have improved the overall FPS of all players. During my time in WoW I remember atleast three major patches when players in big battlegrounds like AV were asking if everyone else were getting much better FPS and a smoother gaming experience than before.
My system is nowhere near that good and I run WAR just fine on Highest Detail. I get the occasional stutter, but that is more about the memory leaks and such that will be patched, just like WoW had to do. Of course I'm not trying to run it at 1900x1200 at 130 fps either.
mainly because they are easy to start and will run on anything.
That's another good point. I'm running an intel e8600 processor (didn't bother with quad yet since games dont support it), 4GB RAM, and the brand spanking new Radeon 4870 X2 (2GB GDDR). I play WoW at everything at the highest quality, terrain distance, 1920x1200 resolution (24" wide), everything set as max values. I never go under 130fps (indoor FPS is 450-500 usually), not even in Alterac Valley, and the game is smooth as heck to play. Simply wonderful. WAR however runs allright and doesn't overly lag or anything, but still feels sluggish. Not even the most demanding FPS games like Crysis feel as sluggish as WAR does. I'm not a coder, but I know games can be coded better or worse. Blizzard for example has made numerous improvements to the WoW code that have improved the overall FPS of all players. During my time in WoW I remember atleast three major patches when players in big battlegrounds like AV were asking if everyone else were getting much better FPS and a smoother gaming experience than before.
A calculator can run WOW.
Grats on spending way more money on a system than WOW ever could use.
Thing is, it's just as pretty on your 2 grand system as on the old 300$ piece of I gave away 2 years ago.
Sad really.
By the by, Radeon is the suck for WAR. I had one, returned it.
I have a 9600GT, it runs fine on it.
42" wide HDTV 1080p.
I never drop below 40fps, and I can't tell the difference.
mainly because they are easy to start and will run on anything.
That's another good point. I'm running an intel e8600 processor (didn't bother with quad yet since games dont support it), 4GB RAM, and the brand spanking new Radeon 4870 X2 (2GB GDDR). I play WoW at everything at the highest quality, terrain distance, 1920x1200 resolution (24" wide), everything set as max values. I never go under 130fps (indoor FPS is 450-500 usually)
Past around 50fps the human eye stops being able to tell the difference, really even much past 30 (movies run at 28fps, and the human eye can't tell the difference between 55fps and 555 fps). My almost 4 year old system (AMD 3500+, GeForce 6800, 2gb RAM) can run WoW with 30-70 FPS with everything maxed.
Now I'm not saying that its a bad thing that Blizzard makes their games with a low minimum specs curve, but none of their games have ever really been big in the eye candy department either.
WAR however runs allright and doesn't overly lag or anything, but still feels sluggish. Not even the most demanding FPS games like Crysis feel as sluggish as WAR does.
A possible reason for that is that WAR renders a much larger world than Crysis (although if you are trying to say that WAR is more sluggish than Crysis I'm going to have to call shenanigans, I've got both on my machine, Crysis is by far more demanding and laggy), and compared with WoW, WAR is light years ahead in terms of graphics (dynamic lighting, shadows, bump mapping, polygon counts, effects, etc...) and thus is far more demanding on systems and so it will be more sluggish than WoW if your system isn't exactly new.
WoW wasn't anywhere near the graphics curve when it was released 4 years ago, its about on par (graphics wise) with Quake 3, a 1999 game, and still taxed systems with only moderate amounts of system and Video ram when it came out.
I'm not a coder, but I know games can be coded better or worse. Blizzard for example has made numerous improvements to the WoW code that have improved the overall FPS of all players.
Again, with a game thats about on par with FPS games from 1999 in terms of graphics, its not hard, especially not when they are pulling in a couple hundred million dollars a year in revenue and only about 25-33% of that is going to cover expenses.
During my time in WoW I remember atleast three major patches when players in big battlegrounds like AV were asking if everyone else were getting much better FPS and a smoother gaming experience than before.
This doesn't surprise me, and I'm sure WAR will smooth out over time as well.
stelek wrote:By the by, Radeon is the suck for WAR. I had one, returned it.
The newer 4850/4870 cards are *amazing* my 4870 runs WAR just fine. The big thing is RAM, both system and video. If you've got 4gb of system ram and a 1gb card (like my 4870 happens to be), and such specs are about average for new systems now, you really won't have any problems.
Again, with a game thats about on par with FPS games from 1999 in terms of graphics, its not hard, especially not when they are pulling in a couple hundred million dollars a year in revenue and only about 25-33% of that is going to cover expenses.
Just to note, despite the very low system requirements world of warcraft is capable of a vast level of particle effects, texture detail, and poly counts when compared to games with similar requirements. It's just much more effectively coded. That combined with the oil paint style of texturing that allows even low res textures to look great in a cartoony fashion has allowed the game to maintain a look of quality and gloss that even today remains impressive.
Just to note, despite the very low system requirements world of warcraft is capable of a vast level of particle effects, texture detail, and poly counts when compared to games with similar requirements. It's just much more effectively coded. That combined with the oil paint style of texturing that allows even low res textures to look great in a cartoony fashion has allowed the game to maintain a look of quality and gloss that even today remains impressive.
Just sayin'.
Well, thats all very subjective. I was never very impressed with WoW's graphics, although I wasn't expecting them too be super flashy either as nobody wants to deal with video lag in an MMO, especially not in 2004. That said, they did well with what they used, but I really wouldn't label them as impressive, rather well utilized (in such ways as going for the cartoony style like you mentioned). Planetside has far better graphics and came out in early 2003, although its also more prone to video lag. Some of the environments are very impressive, but thats atmosphere and design rather than the graphics themselves (similar to the way Unreal 1 is still very impressive, like when you exit the ship in the first level and come out into the world for instance).
BrookM wrote:Oh and suddenly I remember that our Andy Chambers works for Blizzard now
and you wonder where those Terrain Marines got those giant skull bearing shoulderpads in those SC2 screenshots?
Again, with a game thats about on par with FPS games from 1999 in terms of graphics, its not hard, especially not when they are pulling in a couple hundred million dollars a year in revenue and only about 25-33% of that is going to cover expenses.
Just to note, despite the very low system requirements world of warcraft is capable of a vast level of particle effects, texture detail, and poly counts when compared to games with similar requirements. It's just much more effectively coded. That combined with the oil paint style of texturing that allows even low res textures to look great in a cartoony fashion has allowed the game to maintain a look of quality and gloss that even today remains impressive.
Just sayin'.
Yet, it looks like crap and always has from the day it was released.
Even with all the pixellated effects turned up, it just looks like pixellated crap.
Grats on spending way more money on a system than WOW ever could use.
First of all, WoW is not the only game I play. Secondly, I'm not short of pocket money. Thirdly, my previous computer was an e6600 with a piece of crap GFX like your 9600GT, and my new system is a massive increase even for WoW. I used to have steady 40+fps with the old system (and going as high as 120) and now I have a steady 130+ fps (and going as high as 550).
By the by, Radeon is the suck for WAR.
It most certainly doesn't. I have a steady 70-100 FPS in WAR (Fraps doesn't show FPS higher than 100). The FPS never drops below 70. That isn't the issue. The game feels sluggish, and as I said, it's not lag, but it just feels like the character is walking in glue. The in-game physics seem weird. As far as ATI cards are concerned, the Radeon 4870 X2 that I have completely destroys the flagship Nvidia GTX280 card in all benchmarks and all games (20-35% faster for the same money, depending on application). I run everything at max settings.
Vaktathi wrote:WAR is light years ahead in terms of graphics (dynamic lighting, shadows, bump mapping, polygon counts, effects, etc...)
The graphics is more 'advanced' in places, but some of it seems very hastily done and even amateurish. For instance, the water effects in WAR (atleast the Orc and Dark Elf starting areas) seem pathetic in comparison to WoW. The water isn't transparent at all, it doesn't reflect light in a realistic way, and the 'foam' effect of water hitting the shore line looks terrible. I'm just not sure the graphics are good enough to warrant the increased system requirements. My system deals with it sure, without breaking sweat, but the 'memory leaks' in the game plague me too, and I can't even imagine what its like for people with a couple year old systems.
My systems three years old and it works fine on max settings. The only time it started to lag noticably was when I was in a Keep battle with over 50 dudes chillaxin in style all round me. That lagged quite a bit. Aside from and going up to that I never had any lag, at all. I just got into the keep, all hell broke loose, and my comp lagged bad. But thats to be expected. (I think? Medieval II: Total War has similar graphics and I can handle aourn 7000 guys onscreen at once at max settings.)
Again, with a game thats about on par with FPS games from 1999 in terms of graphics, its not hard, especially not when they are pulling in a couple hundred million dollars a year in revenue and only about 25-33% of that is going to cover expenses.
Just to note, despite the very low system requirements world of warcraft is capable of a vast level of particle effects, texture detail, and poly counts when compared to games with similar requirements. It's just much more effectively coded. That combined with the oil paint style of texturing that allows even low res textures to look great in a cartoony fashion has allowed the game to maintain a look of quality and gloss that even today remains impressive.
Just sayin'.
Yet, it looks like crap and always has from the day it was released.
Even with all the pixellated effects turned up, it just looks like pixellated crap.
Sorry to bust the bubble.
I'll side with every professional reviewer that has ever taken a look at WoW as well as the multi million member subscriber base over a guy with a starjammers avatar on this issue. Bubble still intact thank you.
Really, though, WoW isn't impressive at all from a graphics perspective. However, Blizzard did a very good job of maintaining the art style of the previous RTS games, and giving the game a unified, stylized look. If you dislike their art choices, you're going to dislike the game, I guess. I still feel they should be given some credit for trying to innovate in the world of 3D games with a method other than "THROW MORE MATH ATIT!!!!!"
Therion wrote:
The graphics is more 'advanced' in places, but some of it seems very hastily done and even amateurish. For instance, the water effects in WAR (atleast the Orc and Dark Elf starting areas) seem pathetic in comparison to WoW.
Are you kidding me? the water effects are great (not super flashy overexaggerated, but pretty good overall), although water generally also doesn't play as large a role in the gameplay (you aren't going to be fighting things underwater)
The water isn't transparent at all, it doesn't reflect light in a realistic way, and the 'foam' effect of water hitting the shore line looks terrible.
???? I don't think we are seeing the same WAR effects....
ShumaGorath wrote:
I'll side with every professional reviewer that has ever taken a look at WoW as well as the multi million member subscriber base over a guy with a starjammers avatar on this issue. Bubble still intact thank you.
I think you are confusing execution for prowess. Almost every review mentions low polygon counts and the like. What WoW does well is put together environments that look really good with what it has, particularly through the different colors of lighting. Its overall graphics really are no better than Quake 3's, compare the two and you will find them very similar. That said, Quake 3 can still look pretty cool when in a well designed environment.
But don't think that *every* subscriber or reviewer thinks that the graphical power of WoW was amazing. Well executed yes, but not exactly anywhere near cutting edge either even in 2004. Again, refer to Unreal 1 which is very dated by todays standards but still has several areas that look very impressive due to the atmospheric execution.
I'm running at 1162*864, nothing too crazy, but everything else is max. runs quite well, occasional studders but nothing major. system specs are: 3 GB PC6400 DDR2 ram, ATI X1600 pro, intel core2 duo E6400. unsure of frame rate, but it's fairly high. love the game, but needs more quests/more xp from quests in general. also, on the server i'm on, the amount of players on the order side is very low, and almost doubled by those on destruction. otherwise, i likes the fluff, the tome of knowledge is pretty cool, and i'm liking PQ's and stuffs.
I used an interesting site, something like "game requirements lab" or something that a GameStop guy recommended. I wanted to know if my computer could run WAR.
I surpassed the min requirements, but it runs pretty choppy and slow. It is still fun to see the game, but when it comes to big battles I am pretty lost.
Did you complain about AoC too? Come on man, pull your head out.
What does AoC have to do with anything? My head is where? Are you saying I'm blinding myself by saying the new ATI Radeons completely destroy anything Nvidia can throw at them and/or that the WAR graphics are vastly overrated? A better question is, why are you still allowed to post there? You are antagonistic to the max, you never offer any proof or even explanations to your opinions, and are basically worth nothing more than a click on the ignore button.
I think we're just a little scared of the Rabies catching.
You have to admit, you've been proven wrong on several accounts, and instead of justifying, you just jump to another, ill considered and soon countered point.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:I think we're just a little scared of the Rabies catching.
You have to admit, you've been proven wrong on several accounts, and instead of justifying, you just jump to another, ill considered and soon countered point.
I'm sorry, was that reply intended to me? I don't think so but please clarify.
I hope this imageshack crap is working. So that's the graphics 'difference' we should all be so excited about. As far as Radeon cards are concerned, two very good reviews showing all top end cards stand-alone and in crossfire/sli configurations:
WARs problem isn't technical ability, its bad an flat texture work. The dynamic lightning system is well implemented and the poly counts are quite high in comparison to WoW. It's the muddy and simplistic textures in certain areas that cause it to look poor at times. The detail in character models is fantastic. Also because nothing happens underwater in WAR water that would not be clear is not clear. Like the polluted muddy stagnant deathwater in front of the orcish starting zone that you have pictured. most sea areas and lakes in empire or elf lands are transparent with good water effects. The water in the pheonix gate scenario looks fantastic by comparison to some of the dirtier waters in the game.
Did you just say 'professional reviewer'?
Can't defend it yourself, so you fall back on anonymous 'someones'.
Man, that's bloody brilliant!
Go back to Grindcraft. I think you missed a gold quest today.
The water in the pheonix gate scenario looks fantastic by comparison to some of the dirtier waters in the game.
I'm happy to hear that. My poor Witch Elf is at rank 6 so I haven't seen much yet. In any case, I think I've stated and proved everything I felt I had to, and will take my leave. I'll be curiously following how the WAR population develops after most people run out of their free month, and after WoTLK is released.
I've played both WOW and WAR but for me WAR is personally better, mostly because there is less grind and less of the tediously slow "go there, kill ten of those and harvest twenty of those" quests that are quite a travel away. Oh yes and the witch hunter has a gun. A gun that can be fired a lot of times in a row with the right skill. And as mentioned before, yes the classes are imbalanced, but this is more a nod towards working as a team. Yes my witch hunter can't tackle that Black Orc, but she can sure as hell hunt down those Dark Elf witches and mages.
WAR might not be as extensive, large or polished as WOW, but at least it is fun to play and doesn't turn into a boring grind yet. Plus the realm versus realm scenarios are a blast to play, just wait until you get your hands onto siege equipment in one of the earlier town sieges.
I prefer War over WoW, atm though destruction (bad guys) are way too over populated cause all the kool kidz think its fun to be them, but it should all settle out in a month or so when WotLK comes out.. the game is great and fun to play, currently it is being a bit of a grind (r25 WP) but im not to complain, its a real shame for most scenarios to not to be played at all as for the moment t2 most popular scenario is the lava one, which i forget the name i think its anloc or something.. but the only reason is its bugged and the destruction side is closer to the artifact..
on another note the PQ's are freaking fun as when you actually get a group (which is near impossible higher levels). The dye system is great and really customize's your character. once every few days there is like a mad siege attack with over 100+ players and if your in it its hella fun shooting dwarf organ guns and empire hellblasters into massive mobs... this game does actually require skill (not like those fkn druids who kite you and heal >_< for example if you try and solo and go all rambo, ur pretty much dead just thinking of it..
the graphics isnt really a problem for me because believe it or not :O i actually care about the gameplay more then the graphics of water..
overall this game is a blast, heaps fun if your in a good guild or even just with a few mates i give it 5/5
AND the summarise for WAR VS WOW...
war= PvP wow= PvE
Cheers,
Gutteridge
oh and do any of you play on the oceanic server anlec? if so please go on ^^
Most people here seems to have it hit right, if you like large pve raiding against cpu controlled enviroment WoW is for you. If you like raiding castles/cities of other players, War seems to be the way to go, but since the game is in its baby stage yet it still have alot to prove. The balance isssues will switch abit at lv40 but actually seems a ton better then what WoW started with.
Overall Im really happy with War and got feed up with WoW about a year ago, with the same grindfest over and over.
There was some guy who went to one of Blizzard's events where they were giving out a free pet nether whelp. He went around asking all the news people for their redemption cards, since they didn't play, and hardly even knew what it was for. He walked out with something like two dozen of em, and ebayed a bunch of em for ~$100+ I think. Great way to make your money back on the plane ticket and entry costs eh?
I've seen aboot 20 other humans in the game since I got it five days ago. I have never engaged in PvP, and have only seen one enemy, and he was over 2x my level.
The server I'm on is ostensibly Med-High population.
I asked a guy how come nobody was on. He said "it's night time." Huh? Dude, you walk into Stormwind at any hour of the day, and there's at least 100 people in there, running around.
What's this 500,000 players talk? WoW claims 10 million, which is 20 times more. Ok. But WoW also probably has 5 times the servers. So on any given server, I should see a good number of players, right?
Something tells me that this game will die a quiet death when WotLK comes oot.
BrookM wrote:I've played both WOW and WAR but for me WAR is personally better, mostly because there is less grind and less of the tediously slow "go there, kill ten of those and harvest twenty of those" quests that are quite a travel away
Not to mention the things have what they PHYSICALLY SHOULD HAVE. case and point: it took me two weeks for some stupid quest in the hinterlands in WoW for me to get 20 raptor hearts. WHAT THE HELL?! I PROBABLY KILLED 300 RAPTORS by the time I was done.
Phryxis wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't get WAR?
I've seen aboot 20 other humans in the game since I got it five days ago. I have never engaged in PvP, and have only seen one enemy, and he was over 2x my level.
The server I'm on is ostensibly Med-High population.
I asked a guy how come nobody was on. He said "it's night time." Huh? Dude, you walk into Stormwind at any hour of the day, and there's at least 100 people in there, running around.
What's this 500,000 players talk? WoW claims 10 million, which is 20 times more. Ok. But WoW also probably has 5 times the servers. So on any given server, I should see a good number of players, right?
Something tells me that this game will die a quiet death when WotLK comes oot.
Well, I think the genesis of you problem may simply be that you 'don't get WAR'. Your complaints are purely subjective and very difficult to generalize from, yet you're making a very sweeping generalization. In my experience there have been plenty of people on my server, moreover, your comment about Stormwind actually points out one big difference between WoW and WAR; people are hanging around SW instead of questing/leveling/etc because a)there's nothing to do but wait in SW as you span LFG/wait for your BG/arena to pop, B)I should seriously hope that most people are still leveling in WAR, I'm trying to imagine it's not completely poopsoxers, C)in WoW, the racial capitols are deep within your starting territory; Altdorf and the Inevitable City are much, much more remote for someone starting out in the game.
I've been playing WoW at one level or another since a few months after the commercial launch, and I'm very impressed with most of the classes in WAR. Out of the 20 or so classes, most have some mechanism that adds substantial depth beyond the primal archetypes of tank?healer/DPS (though Zealots and Runepriests don't do much for me so far).
BrookM wrote:I've played both WOW and WAR but for me WAR is personally better, mostly because there is less grind and less of the tediously slow "go there, kill ten of those and harvest twenty of those" quests that are quite a travel away
Not to mention the things have what they PHYSICALLY SHOULD HAVE. case and point: it took me two weeks for some stupid quest in the hinterlands in WoW for me to get 20 raptor hearts. WHAT THE HELL?! I PROBABLY KILLED 300 RAPTORS by the time I was done.
Ye gods this is sad... I not only know which quest you are talking about, but that you got the zone wrong. I've wasted my life...
BrookM wrote:I've played both WOW and WAR but for me WAR is personally better, mostly because there is less grind and less of the tediously slow "go there, kill ten of those and harvest twenty of those" quests that are quite a travel away
Not to mention the things have what they PHYSICALLY SHOULD HAVE. case and point: it took me two weeks for some stupid quest in the hinterlands in WoW for me to get 20 raptor hearts. WHAT THE HELL?! I PROBABLY KILLED 300 RAPTORS by the time I was done.
Ye gods this is sad... I not only know which quest you are talking about, but that you got the zone wrong. I've wasted my life...
Agreed. I am apparently one sad useless bastard as well, as I know that A) the quest in question is set in Arathi Highlands, and B) based on doing the quest with at least seven characters (and rampant nerdery), about 1 in 7 raptors drops an intact heart.
What I like about the WAR gather quests is that you just have to kill the critter or thing in question and in most cases you auto-harvest the part in question. No need to farm a field for a week in an attempt to get the item in question as the drop rates are not low.
As for server population, from what I understand the populations are kept low for now but the caps will be removed sooner or later. Mythic has done this to prevent servers from flooding early on as with WoW, where you sometimes had to wait an hour before you could log on because they are so crowded.
Phryxis wrote:Am I the only one who doesn't get WAR?
I've seen aboot 20 other humans in the game since I got it five days ago. I have never engaged in PvP, and have only seen one enemy, and he was over 2x my level.
The server I'm on is ostensibly Med-High population.
I asked a guy how come nobody was on. He said "it's night time." Huh? Dude, you walk into Stormwind at any hour of the day, and there's at least 100 people in there, running around.
What's this 500,000 players talk? WoW claims 10 million, which is 20 times more. Ok. But WoW also probably has 5 times the servers. So on any given server, I should see a good number of players, right?
Something tells me that this game will die a quiet death when WotLK comes oot.
The servers are capped much lower than WoW servers, currently only 2500 players can be on, so total server pops are much lower.
And yes, the low pop servers are dead, they have a problem and they may very well start consolidating many of them soon.
FWIW, I think I discovered two problems I was having with WAR.
One is that Black Orcs kill things very slowly, and are incredibly tough, which leads to the game seeming stupid. I would just go beat on things for hours at a time, catch a bunch of adds, still beat them all.
Second, something was just wrong on the server I was playing. It claimed to be Med/High when I got on, but apparently it just wasn't. When I started a new character (Witch Hunter) on a different server, there were lots of lowbies running around. I saw more there in ten minutes than I saw on the other server in a week.
That said, I still think the game has no chance to compete with WoW. Not that it's a bad game, it has some very nice elements actually, I just think that WoW is so polished and established, a game would have to be MUCH better to pull people away, and I'm not sure it's even possible to be MUCH better than WoW.
I just like the little touches that remind you that yes, you really are adventuring in the Old World.
Like when I was trotting down a trail, looking at the mountains in the distance, and seeing the moon rise between two peaks. Then looking up a few minutes later, and the moon was higher in the sky, and Morrsleib was rising between the peaks behind it. I was struck- yeah, I am in the Warhammer world!
I doubt I would get that from WoW. I mean, the only reason I'm playing WAR is because of the Warhammer tie-in. I find amusing, and a little silly, all the comments about how everyone will bail on WAR when the new expansion for WoW comes out. That's kind of like saying, "Yeah, a lot of people are drinking Coca-cola now, but they'll all stop when the new Pepsi Edge comes out!" Dude, I like Coke, and I don't like Pepsi. A new flavor of Pepsi means nothing to me. I'm glad you enjoy WoW. Why don't you go away now, and play it? And you'll never have to worry about me using up space on your server, either.
Phryxis wrote:One is that Black Orcs kill things very slowly, and are incredibly tough, which leads to the game seeming stupid. I would just go beat on things for hours at a time, catch a bunch of adds, still beat them all.
Black Orc is a tank and not a dps. You summed up what a tank does while simultaneously complaining that it is. We aren't designed to kill as fast as a BW or Marauder.
All of my friends are playing WAR right now and are having a great time. I am envious and I want to try this out so bad, but I would have to give up so much just to play.
It's the little touches that make it feel like Warhammer. I especially like how some Empire characters casually remark "Rats that walk on two legs? Ha, lies!" I am disappointed though that Wolfenburg is nothing but a small hamlet and that the mighty Valmir Raukov walks around in a blue peasant outfit. And how Karl Franz is a fragging giant who towers over Chaos Chosen with ease.
The only annoyance to me is just how many people roll Destruction, even when they see that servers are full on Destruction characters.
Logging in after making a brand new Order character on a Low Order/ Medium Destruction server(/cough Grimnir cough) and always seeing the open RvR objectives in Destruction hands, with Order doing nothing but Scenarios...
Kanluwen wrote:The only annoyance to me is just how many people roll Destruction, even when they see that servers are full on Destruction characters.
Logging in after making a brand new Order character on a Low Order/ Medium Destruction server(/cough Grimnir cough) and always seeing the open RvR objectives in Destruction hands, with Order doing nothing but Scenarios...
Kanluwen wrote:The only annoyance to me is just how many people roll Destruction, even when they see that servers are full on Destruction characters.
Logging in after making a brand new Order character on a Low Order/ Medium Destruction server(/cough Grimnir cough) and always seeing the open RvR objectives in Destruction hands, with Order doing nothing but Scenarios...
It's kinda disheartening :(
Give it time. If they are serious about staying around and reaching their target group they will resolve the issue.
Kanluwen wrote:The only annoyance to me is just how many people roll Destruction, even when they see that servers are full on Destruction characters.
Logging in after making a brand new Order character on a Low Order/ Medium Destruction server(/cough Grimnir cough) and always seeing the open RvR objectives in Destruction hands, with Order doing nothing but Scenarios...
It's kinda disheartening :(
I imagine your scenario queues go quickly though.
Oh sure. They pop fairly fast.
But then you get into a game with half your team just...standing there or running at the other team like lemmings.
Thank God the scenario quests don't involve actually winning.
Kanluwen wrote:The only annoyance to me is just how many people roll Destruction, even when they see that servers are full on Destruction characters.
Logging in after making a brand new Order character on a Low Order/ Medium Destruction server(/cough Grimnir cough) and always seeing the open RvR objectives in Destruction hands, with Order doing nothing but Scenarios...
It's kinda disheartening :(
I imagine your scenario queues go quickly though.
Oh sure. They pop fairly fast.
But then you get into a game with half your team just...standing there or running at the other team like lemmings.
Thank God the scenario quests don't involve actually winning.
That actually happens on both sides. I've played both order and destruction, and I generally find that the order teams are better managed. Lower populations tend to function a little better in PvP environments for whatever reason.
I think it depends on when/where/who you're playing.
More often than not, the groups I see sitting around in the warbands are guild groups that queue together.
If you're not in one of those as the lower population, it makes a bit of a difference.
I find amusing, and a little silly, all the comments about how everyone will bail on WAR when the new expansion for WoW comes out.
I find amusing, and a little silly, that you think everyone, or even a large majority, of the players of WAR are in it because they're hardcore Warhammer fans. I'd wager that for 90% of players, WAR is just a new MMO, not an extension of their tabletop wargaming. Look at player names if you don't believe me.
I'm glad you enjoy Emotional Knee Jerk MMO Defense Game, and its first expansion pack Emotional Flame War Over Which MMO is Best. Why don't you go away now, and play it?
I'm not trying to crap on your precious game. I think it's a nice looking game, with a bunch of nice features. As I already said. I'm just telling you the market realities. WAR is going to get a lot of people coming over from WoW for a break. They're going to bail when WotLK comes oot.
Have you noticed all the people comparing WoW and WAR, based on firsthand experience?
Have you even played WoW? You say "I doubt I would get that from WoW." That implies you're speculating on what WoW would even be like, rather than speaking from experience. Do you really prefer Coke to Pepsi, or do you prefer Coke to something you've never even tasted?
You summed up what a tank does while simultaneously complaining that it is.
I'm well aware what a tank is. I phrased it the way I did, because I found the Black Orc to be excessively overbalanced towards tank plus broken. I found the Black Orc's DPS to be incredibly poor, while it could sit there and get pounded on by such a huge number of adds, it was ridiculous. Sure, that's generally what a tank does. But nowhere in the description of tank does it say "broken tough." Which is what I was getting at. I know what a tank is. I also know what a tank that's overpowered is. When you can just sorta meander around, hitting 1, 2, 3. And then sometimes 5, 4, 3 (your keybinding may vary), and never really have to worry aboot adds, or tactics, or thinking, it makes the game seem a little flat and stupid.
I'm well aware what a tank is. I phrased it the way I did, because I found the Black Orc to be excessively overbalanced towards tank plus broken. I found the Black Orc's DPS to be incredibly poor, while it could sit there and get pounded on by such a huge number of adds, it was ridiculous. Sure, that's generally what a tank does. But nowhere in the description of tank does it say "broken tough." Which is what I was getting at. I know what a tank is. I also know what a tank that's overpowered is. When you can just sorta meander around, hitting 1, 2, 3. And then sometimes 5, 4, 3 (your keybinding may vary), and never really have to worry aboot adds, or tactics, or thinking, it makes the game seem a little flat and stupid
The solo game in WAR is designed around fighting more enemies simultaneously than the one in WoW. A comparable warrior spec in WoW can take maybe two or three equal level adds unsupported in a pve quest whereas a black ork can take four or five. Generally the equal level PVE enemies are a bit weaker in WAR by comparison. Also having played a Black Ork to 12 a squig herder to 20 and a witch hunter to 6 I'm not sure I see the dps disparity you are talking about. Sure it takes a black ork about twice as long to kill an opponent as a witch hunter but thats no different than in WoW when you compare a mage or a rogue to a proc spec warrior or a defensive pally.
Given the larger numbers of enemies in WAR i find that the balance works out pretty well by comparison. Besides if you want to see the tanking system break down go play city of heroes or villains. The brute or tanker classes well made can take upwards of fifteen to twenty adds at once unsupported. But then again that game is skewed towards massive spawns of many enemies, so really it all scales.
It really seems to depend on which server you're on. I'm on Grimnir, and things seem even over there.
However Mythic has recognized that there are population balance issues on some servers, and they've started this little program that just went live yesterday:
Perhaps I'm being flippant, and I would like to make it known that I don't actually play any such games, but why should there be?
For example, WoW (I'm more familiar with this because my mate plays it) Tauren. Massive, geet big Minotaur type thing, fighting a Night Elf, a stringy little git at the best of times. Surely, if it can land a hit, the Tauren make Night Elf go splatbyes, and the best course of action, to remove all chance of the Tauren causing a splaybyes, is to leg it, or have someone with you that can chin the Tauren?
Same goes with WaR. Any Orc should be a physical threat, but with subtlety, they can be overcome (not exactly being noted for their sheer wits etc..)
Just asking an honest question, hopefully without bias.
Phryxis wrote:FWIW, I think I discovered two problems I was having with WAR.
One is that Black Orcs kill things very slowly, and are incredibly tough, which leads to the game seeming stupid. I would just go beat on things for hours at a time, catch a bunch of adds, still beat them all.
Second, something was just wrong on the server I was playing. It claimed to be Med/High when I got on, but apparently it just wasn't. When I started a new character (Witch Hunter) on a different server, there were lots of lowbies running around. I saw more there in ten minutes than I saw on the other server in a week.
Black Orcs aren't a mdps class, but for what its worth they actually do the most damage out of all the tanks.
I suggest you change servers. I had to switch servers and abandon my Rank 13 Black Orc. It was a very sad day. He was nearly invincible and I had him all kitted out with shoulder guards, a cape and a helmet.
Now I run a Witch Elf, Squig Herder, and Zealot on Vortex, and I run a Bright Wizard, Shadow Warrior and a Sword Master on Badlands.
Those are two good servers. Badland being the better. In badlands I almost always get in too a Scenario as soon as I queue it up. Sometimes both servers are so populated I wish people would clear out so I can tackle the Public Quests myself so I can get more INF.
I find amusing, and a little silly, all the comments about how everyone will bail on WAR when the new expansion for WoW comes out.
I find amusing, and a little silly, that you think everyone, or even a large majority, of the players of WAR are in it because they're hardcore Warhammer fans. I'd wager that for 90% of players, WAR is just a new MMO, not an extension of their tabletop wargaming. Look at player names if you don't believe me.
I'm glad you enjoy Emotional Knee Jerk MMO Defense Game, and its first expansion pack Emotional Flame War Over Which MMO is Best. Why don't you go away now, and play it?
I'm not trying to crap on your precious game. I think it's a nice looking game, with a bunch of nice features. As I already said. I'm just telling you the market realities. WAR is going to get a lot of people coming over from WoW for a break. They're going to bail when WotLK comes oot.
Have you noticed all the people comparing WoW and WAR, based on firsthand experience?
Have you even played WoW? You say "I doubt I would get that from WoW." That implies you're speculating on what WoW would even be like, rather than speaking from experience. Do you really prefer Coke to Pepsi, or do you prefer Coke to something you've never even tasted?
I'm playing Emotional Knee Jerk Defense game?
Tell me, in my post, what did I say that leads you to believe that I think a large majority of the WAR players are hardcore Warhammer fans? That I don't think the server population will drop a lot when WotLK comes out? Well, I got no numbers and no data. All I've got is my local group of buddies, who have been waiting on WAR for months. Who play other MMOs. Who mostly got tired of WoW a long time ago, and who have no plans to get WotLK when it comes out, now that they have WAR.
Frankly, if you are right and there are a bunch of players who are just MMO fans, and who have jumped into WAR because it's the fresh new flavour of the month... great! That means that they'll get tired of it soon, and bail, and the high population servers will free up. It means that all the spawn-camping newbie-ganking "i haz mad pwning skilz STFU nOOb!" bullies that seem to populate other MMOs will get bored with WAR and leave, especially since WAR is designed to make difficult that sort of childish gameplay.
No, I've never played WoW. Never wanted to, either. Nor have I played Everquest, DAoC, CoH, Eve Online, that Star Wars game... I have a few hours playing Hyborian Age, and lots of time on Team Fortress 2, which isn't the same kind of game. MMOs are not my cup of tea. I have lots of friends who love them, I have sat and watched as they worked through quests, but it never lit my fire. The fact that WoW may be a better MMO than WAR means squat to me, I'm not playing WAR because it's an MMO, I'm playing it because it's Warhammer. The sooner WotLK comes out and these server-clogging Destruction-playing WoW break-takers go back to their favorite game, the happier I'll be.
Anyway, if you don't like the Black Orc, have you tried any other races/classes? If so, what were they, and how do you like them?
WAR, is an awesome game, and it beats the hell outta WoW.
I like how no matter what I do, I feel like I accomplished something. I get XP, Tome unlocks, Titles, wicked looking armor, I play a Chosen
And honestly, Destruction is way cooler then order. They had no classes I liked. Besides, just roll healer for Order, and run in circles hotting and dont die. Wheres the fun in that?
I find amusing, and a little silly, all the comments about how everyone will bail on WAR when the new expansion for WoW comes out.
I find amusing, and a little silly, that you think everyone, or even a large majority, of the players of WAR are in it because they're hardcore Warhammer fans. I'd wager that for 90% of players, WAR is just a new MMO, not an extension of their tabletop wargaming. Look at player names if you don't believe me.
I'm glad you enjoy Emotional Knee Jerk MMO Defense Game, and its first expansion pack Emotional Flame War Over Which MMO is Best. Why don't you go away now, and play it?
I'm not trying to crap on your precious game. I think it's a nice looking game, with a bunch of nice features. As I already said. I'm just telling you the market realities. WAR is going to get a lot of people coming over from WoW for a break. They're going to bail when WotLK comes oot.
Have you noticed all the people comparing WoW and WAR, based on firsthand experience?
Have you even played WoW? You say "I doubt I would get that from WoW." That implies you're speculating on what WoW would even be like, rather than speaking from experience. Do you really prefer Coke to Pepsi, or do you prefer Coke to something you've never even tasted?
You summed up what a tank does while simultaneously complaining that it is.
I'm well aware what a tank is. I phrased it the way I did, because I found the Black Orc to be excessively overbalanced towards tank plus broken. I found the Black Orc's DPS to be incredibly poor, while it could sit there and get pounded on by such a huge number of adds, it was ridiculous. Sure, that's generally what a tank does. But nowhere in the description of tank does it say "broken tough." Which is what I was getting at. I know what a tank is. I also know what a tank that's overpowered is. When you can just sorta meander around, hitting 1, 2, 3. And then sometimes 5, 4, 3 (your keybinding may vary), and never really have to worry aboot adds, or tactics, or thinking, it makes the game seem a little flat and stupid.
Modquisition powers activate!
This thread has been reported. This is an admonishement to all posters. Please remember the Dakka rules, and also keep this at a polite level. Further reporting may lead to negative consequences, including shutting down the thread. Thank you.
Modquisition off.
TroytheFox wrote:WAR, is an awesome game, and it beats the hell outta WoW.
I like how no matter what I do, I feel like I accomplished something. I get XP, Tome unlocks, Titles, wicked looking armor, I play a Chosen
And honestly, Destruction is way cooler then order. They had no classes I liked. Besides, just roll healer for Order, and run in circles hotting and dont die. Wheres the fun in that?
The fun in Order is pew pewing the crap out of the tanks with the Bright Wizard.
The solo game in WAR is designed around fighting more enemies simultaneously than the one in WoW.
I don't have enough experience to comment too much, but I noticed the Witch Hunter could easily get dragged down by a reasonably small number of enemies. More than two, even if one added late, seemed to be a risk.
By comparison, the Black Orc could stand there all day against 4-5 equal level enemies and never go under 75% health.
I'll have to defer to your experience on the DPS front. My Black Orc is 9 or 10, and my Witch Hunter is 6 or 7. I'm not really sure it's a DPS disparity I noticed (although it did seem pretty profound), so much as a power disparity. The Black Orc just seemed pointlessly tough. The Witch Hunter required more care to avoid getting dragged down.
Tell me, in my post, what did I say that leads you to believe that I think a large majority of the WAR players are hardcore Warhammer fans? That I don't think the server population will drop a lot when WotLK comes out?
Well, it goes a little like this:
I said I thought the game would die when WotLK came oot.
You said that was silly, and untrue. The reason you gave that this was silly and untrue is that when you play WAR you feel immersed in the Warhammer world, a world you enjoy.
Then you suggested I go away. I found this particular comment to be defensive and flamey, and a calculated insult, designed to slip under the MOD radar. "If you like WoW so much, why don't you go marry it, and have little WoW babies?"
In short, if I say something, then somebody feels the need to get snippy aboot it, I assume they disagree with me. It's an added hint that they disagree if they specifically give reasons why they disagree, which you did.
So, to recap:
When I suggest that something will happen, and I am told that my prediction is silly, I assume the other person thinks contrary. That's what leads me to believe that you don't think the server pop will drop when WotLK comes oot.
Further, when somebody calls a prediction silly, and then offers a an example as to why they feel that way, I assume that they actually believe the example to be of merit. When you said you felt immersed in Warhammer, and that's why you liked WAR, and didn't think it would die, I assumed you felt this was a reason people would stay with WAR and not let it die.
So, I must apologize. I was being very linear in my thinking, and assuming that you were saying things with the intent that I would read those things and understand your meaning. Clearly your post was some form of modern art installation, meant to be observed, not to be taken for granted, not to be reduced to simple words and meanings, but instead to simply be experienced and absorbed.
Thank you for showing my the tyranny of language.
No, I've never played WoW. Never wanted to, either.
There's an ongoing undercurrent of contempt for WoW in your posts, and affection for WAR. This is why I was mentioning the defensiveness earlier. Not trying to start a fight, just telling you how it comes off. When somebody keeps being dismissive of a game, keeps suggesting that other games' players are immoral or unfriendly, it's a very partisan sort of attitude, and reeks of the negativity you're busily ascribing to everyone else.
It's especially unflattering to hold such an opinion withoot having actually played WoW.
Why make an analogy of Coke to Pepsi when you never even tried Pepsi?
Why not just say "I've never played WoW, but I really enjoy WAR." Why go with "I like WAR, you and your spawncamper friends can have your stupid WoW." Why are you so mad at WoW?
With 9K+ Banned for selling gold. Thats more gold farmers banned in 3 weeks then Blizzard banns in a year!
Yeah, it's uncanny the gold spamming rate is incredible. I basically don't even notice the chat window it's so laden with uselessness.
"I doubt I would get that from WoW. I mean, the only reason I'm playing WAR is because of the Warhammer tie-in. I find amusing, and a little silly, all the comments about how everyone will bail on WAR when the new expansion for WoW comes out. That's kind of like saying, "Yeah, a lot of people are drinking Coca-cola now, but they'll all stop when the new Pepsi Edge comes out!" Dude, I like Coke, and I don't like Pepsi. A new flavor of Pepsi means nothing to me. I'm glad you enjoy WoW. Why don't you go away now, and play it? And you'll never have to worry about me using up space on your server, either."
Phryxis wrote:
Tell me, in my post, what did I say that leads you to believe that I think a large majority of the WAR players are hardcore Warhammer fans? That I don't think the server population will drop a lot when WotLK comes out?
Well, it goes a little like this:
I said I thought the game would die when WotLK came oot.
You said that was silly, and untrue. The reason you gave that this was silly and untrue is that when you play WAR you feel immersed in the Warhammer world, a world you enjoy.
Then you suggested I go away. I found this particular comment to be defensive and flamey, and a calculated insult, designed to slip under the MOD radar. "If you like WoW so much, why don't you go marry it, and have little WoW babies?"
In short, if I say something, then somebody feels the need to get snippy aboot it, I assume they disagree with me. It's an added hint that they disagree if they specifically give reasons why they disagree, which you did.
So, to recap:
When I suggest that something will happen, and I am told that my prediction is silly, I assume the other person thinks contrary. That's what leads me to believe that you don't think the server pop will drop when WotLK comes oot.
Further, when somebody calls a prediction silly, and then offers a an example as to why they feel that way, I assume that they actually believe the example to be of merit. When you said you felt immersed in Warhammer, and that's why you liked WAR, and didn't think it would die, I assumed you felt this was a reason people would stay with WAR and not let it die.
So, I must apologize. I was being very linear in my thinking, and assuming that you were saying things with the intent that I would read those things and understand your meaning. Clearly your post was some form of modern art installation, meant to be observed, not to be taken for granted, not to be reduced to simple words and meanings, but instead to simply be experienced and absorbed.
Thank you for showing my the tyranny of language.
No, I've never played WoW. Never wanted to, either.
There's an ongoing undercurrent of contempt for WoW in your posts, and affection for WAR. This is why I was mentioning the defensiveness earlier. Not trying to start a fight, just telling you how it comes off. When somebody keeps being dismissive of a game, keeps suggesting that other games' players are immoral or unfriendly, it's a very partisan sort of attitude, and reeks of the negativity you're busily ascribing to everyone else.
It's especially unflattering to hold such an opinion withoot having actually played WoW.
Why make an analogy of Coke to Pepsi when you never even tried Pepsi?
Why not just say "I've never played WoW, but I really enjoy WAR." Why go with "I like WAR, you and your spawncamper friends can have your stupid WoW." Why are you so mad at WoW?
Gosh, you seem to have read an awful lot into my post that I don't remember writing, and you are taking it so personally, too.
Yes, I was- am- rather contemptuous and dismissive of the notion that WoW will kill WAR. Especially as I recall reading several comments by low-post-count people whose general tone was "this game sucks, WoW roolz! Or wait, it will rule, when Liche King comes out! I'm taking a break from it until then, but it is still the ruling!" But 'amusing, and a little silly' is hardly negativity. Condescending, sure. And as for telling them- and you, Phryxis, since you choose to take it so- to go away and play WoW, well: aren't there WoW forums somewhere that you can go and flame WAR with other like-minded WoW players? Why must you come onto a Warhammer forum to spew your fanboy spleen? Wouldn't you rather be playing WoW, especially as you feel it is a superior game?
Phryxis, I am sorry that I hurt your feelings with my insensitive, contemptuous and dismissive comments. Your posts aboot the differences between WoW and WAR are filled with first-hand experience as well as hyperbole, and no doubt offer valuable insights to those Dakkites who play both games.
And I still think it is silly to say WAR will die when WotLK come out, but we'll just have to wait & see on that one. Drain off some players, sure, but kill it? Nah.
Gosh, you seem to have read an awful lot into my post that I don't remember writing, and you are taking it so personally, too.
Now I'm curious. Do you really think I'm angry? I mean, how often does somebody compare one of your posts to a modern art installation in anger?
I feel like you're trying to get me to "GRP PLS" with you for a session of Emotional Flame War Over Which MMO is Best even though I am clearly not interested in that game, and am instead playing the much more fulfilling MMO, Good Natured Ribbing of Internet Random Who Refuses to Read What You Write, Or Even What He Himself Has Written II: Blades of Fell.
This is fun. First you say:
Tell me, in my post, what did I say that leads you to believe that I [snip] don't think the server population will drop a lot when WotLK comes out?
Then you say:
Yes, I was- am- rather contemptuous and dismissive of the notion that WoW will kill WAR.
Awesome! The title of this game promised you'd fail to read what you yourself wrote, and it's living up to it.
"When did I say WotLK wouldn't kill WAR? Oh, right, I said it, but there are other hypothetical people on this thread who suck, so clearly I rule."
And as for telling them- and you, Phryxis, since you choose to take it so
Right, dang... The learning curve on this game is steep. See, I'm used to earlier generation MMOs, like Every Other Notesboard Ever, where if somebody quotes you, and then responds to that quote, it's safe to assume that they're talking to you. Obviously in GNRoIRWRtRWYWOEWHHHW2:BoF, quoting somebody is just a way to ask them to GRP for some EFWOWMMOiB, and is not actually meant to indicate that what follows is directed at the person quoted.
Unfortunately I only became aware of this game mechanic just now, so for the remainder of this post, please assume that when I am quoting you I am also then addressing you with subsequent words, that's just how I'm used to playing this MMO.
<--- Greetings! We hopes you are enjoy your GNRoIRWRtRWYWOEWHHHW2:BoF experience!!! For cheapest GNRoIRWRtRWYWOEWHHHW2:BoF gold anytime please visiting www.22fun.com/GNRoIRWRtRWYWOEWHHHW2:BoF and using keyword CONDESCENDING for special price --->
aren't there WoW forums somewhere that you can go and flame WAR with other like-minded WoW players?
My impression here is that you've fooled yourself into thinking that you're a good person for telling other posters on this notesboard to go away. I'd urge you to think the situation through a little more clearly. I'm not sure why you think you're a hero for telling other posters to leave, and for trying to demonize them, and to provoke flame wars, but clearly you do...
Why must you come onto a Warhammer forum to spew your fanboy spleen?
Ohhh, I get it. This is a "Warhammer forum" so anybody who doesn't like WAR better than WoW is a bad person and it's open season on talking trash at them. I got it. Like I said, this is my first time playing GNRoIRWRtRWYWOEWHHHW2:BoF, so I don't understand all the baseless justifications it's operating upon.
I'm also not sure why you think respect for WoW makes me a fanboy. It's the biggest MMO in the history of the genre. It's probably the biggest computer game of all time, in fact. It's the measuring stick against which all other online games are compared. It's done more to involve non-traditional demographics in computer gaming than any other game. It doesn't take a fanboy to know that. It takes only a tenuous grasp on reality to know it for a simple fact.
Again, new to GNRoIRWRtRWYWOEWHHHW2:BoF as I am, I still think that the real confusion lies with the person who doesn't understand what a massive success WoW is. The very same person who has never actually played WoW, even as he proclaims the numerous flaws of those who have.
Whoa, aggro on you! Quick, mash the key you have bound to your Repeatedly Praise Self For Intolerance of Differing Viewpoints. It combos great with the Total Ignorance buff you cast earlier.
You take personally comments that were made in general. You get all huffy and ask me why I'm being defensive. You tell me you don't want to play the emo flame war game, then spend a lot of time writing well-crafted posts picking apart everything I've said, and implying motives and attitudes to me far beyond anything I've written. Do I really think you're angry? I dunno, but you are sure spending a lot of time and thought on a couple of random sarcastic posts. You must have some emotion invested there.
Wrong. You do know. Let's review a checklist of things that have appeared in my posts.
1) Pretend MMOs with names a dozen words long.
2) Acronyms for those pretend MMOs.
3) Fake gold spamming.
4) Juvenile sarcasm.
5) Specific mention that this is all good natured ribbing.
I'd think it's pretty clear that my motivation for writing these posts is fun. I think it's funny to point oot the foibles of internet randoms, and make jokes aboot it.
Maybe that's a foreign concept for you. You appear to be more motivated by anger you've built up at strawmen and hypotheticals. You seem incapable of even concieving of a light hearted exchange on MMOs, and think everything has to be an angry reproach of people who just aren't cool/mature enough to enjoy MMOs the same way you do.
So, my two cents, because you seem to like things spelled oot: It's a lot more fun to make a few jokes, poke a little fun, and then go play WAR, than it is to get angry, blame a bunch of fictional people for ruining your fun, demand/hope they go away, then play WAR.
See, I too am aboot to go play WAR. But while you're in there, thinking everyone you see is one of those jerkheads from WoW, and fuming at their immorality, I'm going to be having fun, and then when I see the moon rise over the mountains, I will think of you, and have a happy chuckle to myself at the good times we had together.
I also will probably watch some SNL and paint some Sisters.
Hmm, actually I went back on WoW today cause my friends have been asking me for a long time to come bakc. Played for about two hours. half of which I spent looking for Dryshiker Gorge in Arathi Highlands. It really peeved me off coming from WAR which would have bloody shown me where it was and then going to WoW where it isn't even on the map. I actually found the majority of that time was either wasteful, stupid, or downright torture. So I realised how much unfun I was having and went back to my Dwarf Engineer.
It really peeved me off coming from WAR which would have bloody shown me where it was and then going to WoW where it isn't even on the map.
This is really the number one MMO improvement that WAR brings to the table, IMO.
Anybody serious aboot an MMO either knows where quests are from experience, or is using thott (or similar), to find oot. I think there's no excuse for future MMOs to not follow WAR's lead, and mark quest locations on the map. If players don't want this feature, have an option to turn it off.
Personally I feel that the comparisons between WoW and WAR should be kept off for a year or so. WoW has been on the market for five years now, WAR just a few weeks. Gee, I wonder which one looks best right now in terms of technical issues and content?
All I can offer is my opinion:
I played wow for about 3 years. I enjoyed it at first but it soon became mechanical, monotonous and repetitive. I think I was out trying to gather herbs to sell at the auction house to make money when the revelation hit me... "This isn't fun." Then another realization hit me: "I can't remember the last time I had much fun playing this game." Not only is it not fun to pick virtual weeds, but I realized that I was spending tons of time doing busy work just trying to make enough virtual money to do simple things. It's like a Disneyland ride. Wait in a long boring line for 2 hours for a 10 minute ride. In wow you have to sacrifice enjoyment and fun doing boring things so you can have a tiny bit of fun somewhere down the line. Not long after these revelations, I noticed a multitude of annoying time wasters in wow. They deliberately make everything take forever. To name a couple examples: Flight is unnecessarily slow. It was cool to watch the first couple times but has been nothing but a boring time waster since. Aggro a mob and all the mobs in the vicinity will "randomly" gravitate towards you. (a feature designed specifically to get players killed more, which means more running back to your corpse which means more time playing to get simple things done, which adds up to buying more subscription time. Which is money in Blizzards pocket, which is why they do that crap. Ugh.) This is also why they make Graveyards so sparse: unnecessary time wasters which Blizzard implements because wasted time adds up to lots more money for them. They've managed to make a game annoying and petty and addictive at the same time. I'm not going to name all the slowed issues. Suffice it to say I'm not the only one who is fed up with this garbage. Garbage that many of you seem to either turn a blind eye to, or just don't see or see but don't care because you feel the need to stay loyal. Well Blizzard has earned my disloyalty.
I've been playing WAR since launch and I can't help but compare it to wow. In every aspect it outshines and is more enjoyable. Less annoying. Less petty. Less wasting time with useless crap. Everything is more efficient. PvP is not only better balanced, but more varied since both factions have no common classes. You also get good experience killing other players, making pvp not only fun, but productive. I could go on and on. There is no going back to wow. No desire. WotLK won't save it because the game is fundamentally flawed and people like me don't care what trite marketing schemes Blizzard comes up with to save it's sinking ship. Even if there was no WAR, I still wouldn't be playing wow. Call it merely my opinion, but I share it with a fast growing crowd of people who are fed up with the 75% of time in wow being spent doing boring crap. Screw Blizzard. If any of you really know about the company, you know they're notorious for penny-pinching.
WAR, as far as I've experienced, is superior in every way. I felt like wow was all about maximizing my play time for as little fun as possible. WAR is the opposite. I feel like the game is all about having fun, without monotony, repetition or annoying time-wasters getting in the way of fun. To get specific would take more typing than I'm in the mood to do right now. Wow loyalists should watch WARs Production podcasts just for a vague idea. http://www.warhammeronline.com/podcast/index.php
I have a question concerning the differences between Core servers and Open RvR, beyond the explanations given on the website. I thought WAR was built more towards pvp flagging everywhere (Open RvR), not just certain areas (Core). For those who have played either one or both of these servers, what are your thoughts concerning the pvp content.
Basically each side has a "safe zone" for pve quests. However, each side
has an RVR "island" that's clearly marked on the map where you will get flagged
for pvp. There's usually a countdown or warning for you before you get flagged for
RVR.
Open RvR opens up even the pve areas for fighting.
My experience with Core is that many players like to queue up for scenarios. My
brother encounters a few small groups in the open rvr areas, but those numbers
should grow as people continue to level.
There are 2 big differences between "RvR" Servers and "Core" Servers.
1) On Core servers, you can only fight other players in Scenarios and dedicated RvR areas (like keeps, etc.) On RvR servers you can fight other players ANYWHERE, even if they are in their own little town buying stuff from a merchant.
2) On a Core server, when you go into an RvR area (either Scenario or RvR zone) lower level characters are 'buffed up' to a higher level to give them a chance. i.e. if you are in Tier 2 (levels 11-20) and you are level 13 and you enter an RvR area you are buffed to level 18 so level 20's can't just gack ya in combat.
So I have fallen to the temptations of WAR.
Right off let me start by saying it is unfair to compare WAR to WoW since WoW has been around a lot longer then WAR. What should be done is compare WAR to WoW on it's first month of its release.
With that being said...
I like WAR. I like the feel and the atmosphere of the game. From the beginning it has felt like a shotgun of events after event. Now, I haven't made it very far in WAR, 5th lvl Dwarf Eng., but from what I have seen it looks/plays great...for now.
I always experience this with MMOs. They start out great and very engaging but then taper off and get into that grind...not just any type of grind but a grind where I end up feeling like a zombie when I am done. I am waiting to see if WAR ever hits that point.
It's amazing to see the Warhammer Fantasy Universe realized digitally. The artwork is great and very thrilling. For example, it's a really ominous, scary sight to see the Dark Elf Black Arks lined along the shore disgorging invading armies onto Ulthuan.
So whether you like MMORPG's or not it's definitely a game that all true fans of the WFB Universe will want to at least see. So find a friend who has it and check it out.
Personally I feel that the comparisons between WoW and WAR should be kept off for a year or so.
I don't think that's the case...
I agree, it's incorrect to assume they're on totally equal footing, but I don't think the time WoW as had to mature is a one way road. By the same token, WAR has been able to make use of newer graphic technologies and has been built from a higher baseline in that regard. Also, just because WoW spent a couple years learning the best ways to do certain things, that doesn't mean WAR can't lift those things and use them wholesale.
Bottom line, we can look at WAR for new ideas, for features to put it above previous attempts. If it's a fantastic new look at MMORPGs, then great, we can forgive some roughness around the edges. If it's just the same old stuff with a little better graphics, we can assume it won't challenge WoW for dominance.
These games are competitors. To say they can't or shouldn't be compared is ignorning the simple reality that they can and are compared by consumers every day.
I played wow for about 3 years. I enjoyed it at first but it soon became mechanical, monotonous and repetitive.
This is a telling statement... As somebody who has started and stopped playing WoW several times, I think I know what you're saying. At times the game can get incredibly frustrating or dull. However, think aboot what you said... You played for 3 years, but "soon" it became monotonous. Soon? Like, what, after 2 years?
Is it possible that the game was actually so much fun for so long that when it stopped, you couldn't even comprehend it and kept on playing until it got to be annoying?
I have been FURIOUS with WoW in the past. That was my fault for playing past the point I was having fun, after many, MANY hours of having great fun.
They deliberately make everything take forever.
Sure, but as long as we're talking WoW and WAR, I think back to DAoC, done by the same folks as WAR, which required you do hit the "craft" button every time. Not line in WoW where you just say "craft all" and go grab a drink. And the craft times in DAoC were very, very long. I actually wrote a bot to do my crafting for me in DAoC.
Not that this makes this any less annoying, it's just a mechanic that MMORPGs have always had, and oftentimes it's worse. By making such a flexible, modable UI, WoW allows players to avoid some of this.
I'm not too experienced with WAR, but crafting seems to be a drawn oot affair of dragging components to a UI, not just a fire and forget sort of experience.
Aggro a mob and all the mobs in the vicinity will "randomly" gravitate towards you.
I've never observed this. Even if I had I don't think it's a time waster, so much as a game mechanic. I think your frustration is pulling you into conspirancy theory territory.
WAR, as far as I've experienced, is superior in every way.
I don't think you can make a very convincing case when you display such contempt for WoW. Clearly it's not a bad game. Clearly it's the most successful computer game of all time. When you are so obviously angry at a game, it's hard to view your conclusions as objective.
I mean, come on. You spent three years playing a bad game? No... You spent 2.5 years playing one of the best games ever made, and loving it, then you spent 3 months being bored, then you spent 3 months being really frustrated, and then you quit.
Personally I feel that the comparisons between WoW and WAR should be kept off for a year or so.
I don't think that's the case...
I agree, it's incorrect to assume they're on totally equal footing, but I don't think the time WoW as had to mature is a one way road. By the same token, WAR has been able to make use of newer graphic technologies and has been built from a higher baseline in that regard. Also, just because WoW spent a couple years learning the best ways to do certain things, that doesn't mean WAR can't lift those things and use them wholesale.
Bottom line, we can look at WAR for new ideas, for features to put it above previous attempts. If it's a fantastic new look at MMORPGs, then great, we can forgive some roughness around the edges. If it's just the same old stuff with a little better graphics, we can assume it won't challenge WoW for dominance.
These games are competitors. To say they can't or shouldn't be compared is ignorning the simple reality that they can and are compared by consumers every day.
Sadly this is true. MMOs are compared to WoW before they hit the creation phase. WoW has just set a standard for others to compete with that is hard to reach. People will automatically assume if it is not a contender against WoW, then it is crap...well ok, maybe not everyone. But the point is the comparison of them right now is not going to be accurate.
Phryxis wrote:
I don't think you can make a very convincing case when you display such contempt for WoW. Clearly it's not a bad game. Clearly it's the most successful computer game of all time. When you are so obviously angry at a game, it's hard to view your conclusions as objective.
I mean, come on. You spent three years playing a bad game? No... You spent 2.5 years playing one of the best games ever made, and loving it, then you spent 3 months being bored, then you spent 3 months being really frustrated, and then you quit.
Tell me if I'm crazy...
Why must he be objective? Why are his conclusions any less valid? That's a pretty ridiculous statement, when we are talking about things concerning personal preference. Especially when he said, "...as far as I've experienced..." It's clear that he is not forcing his opinion on anybody else, though I'm not so sure I can say the same for you. You've seem to have taken this topic very personally, as evidenced by your discussion with Fellblade. Its obvious that you love WoW, and that's great, but you don't have to proselytize everyone who disagrees.
I found his comments helpful, as I have experienced much of the same things in WoW that he did. And it took me far less time to realize it and move on.
Personally I feel that the comparisons between WoW and WAR should be kept off for a year or so.
I don't think that's the case...
I agree, it's incorrect to assume they're on totally equal footing, but I don't think the time WoW as had to mature is a one way road. By the same token, WAR has been able to make use of newer graphic technologies and has been built from a higher baseline in that regard. Also, just because WoW spent a couple years learning the best ways to do certain things, that doesn't mean WAR can't lift those things and use them wholesale.
Bottom line, we can look at WAR for new ideas, for features to put it above previous attempts. If it's a fantastic new look at MMORPGs, then great, we can forgive some roughness around the edges. If it's just the same old stuff with a little better graphics, we can assume it won't challenge WoW for dominance.
These games are competitors. To say they can't or shouldn't be compared is ignorning the simple reality that they can and are compared by consumers every day.
Sadly this is true. MMOs are compared to WoW before they hit the creation phase. WoW has just set a standard for others to compete with that is hard to reach. People will automatically assume if it is not a contender against WoW, then it is crap...well ok, maybe not everyone. But the point is the comparison of them right now is not going to be accurate.
This. Fair or not, consumers are going to look at the game and compare it with its competitors. Fair or not, if a new game has problems that an older game [does not have/no longer has], they will hold it against the newer game.
I have three reasons to avoid WAR:
1) My two computers are too old, with their dual-core Athlons and 7800/8800 series Nvidia graphics, to make good use of the 24" monitors for WAR.
2) I don't need another time-sink.
3) My wife plays WoW with me, and has zero interest in PvP, regardless of what you label it.
Blizzard got it very, very right when they made their game as modest, hardware-speaking, as they did. We started off playing with a 2004 bargain-basement Dell LAPTOP, and the game ran fine (although the surface of the water wasn't transparent then, which was a serious pain). Beautiful graphics impress hardcore gamers, but automatically lock out a significant number of others who might be willing to drop the $50 on your game, but not the $750 on the hardware needed to run it.
Blizzard got it very, very right when they made their game as modest, hardware-speaking, as they did. We started off playing with a 2004 bargain-basement Dell LAPTOP, and the game ran fine (although the surface of the water wasn't transparent then, which was a serious pain). Beautiful graphics impress hardcore gamers, but automatically lock out a significant number of others who might be willing to drop the $50 on your game, but not the $750 on the hardware needed to run it.
This, for me, is the only thing that I feel would bring me back to WoW. Apart from a small memory upgrade, I had to buy nothing else necessary to run the game. If I were to play WAR, it would require a whole new computer. Which I'm not against, by any means, hehe.
What most people don't realize is you CAN play under the min-specs, you don't need a top of the line PC to play WAR, hell I play it on a PC I bought from wal-Mart a good 6-7 years ago with nothing but a Gfx card update (still 2-3 years old) and added RAM.
Whitescar wrote:WaR, WoW....Shouldn't we all be playing City of Heroes anyway?
I did for a while.
Then I read some Garth Ennis and decided the whole game would be a lot more fun if a
guy with some guns came in and shot all the superheroes and villains out of the sky.
(I did have fun playing, though. I liked the power mechanic with the different upgrades)
Why must he be objective? Why are his conclusions any less valid?
I didn't realize that this even required explanation... Arguments are more credible when they appear to be made by somebody who has no emotional investment, and and is simply dealing with facts.
The fact is, when somebody blames a very popular, highly regarded game for making them angry, it's clear that they're blaming their own mistakes on the game.
Certainly his comments have a value. They show the reader that WoW is addictive, and there's a danger of playing it past the point at which it is fun any longer. We all know that games like this are addictive, though.
Put it this way: If you read a review for anything, be it a game, a car, a hotel, and the reviewer was angry and emotional, would you treat that review as seriously as something written in a more detatched, objective tone?
Why must he be objective? Why are his conclusions any less valid?
I didn't realize that this even required explanation... Arguments are more credible when they appear to be made by somebody who has no emotional investment, and and is simply dealing with facts.
The fact is, when somebody blames a very popular, highly regarded game for making them angry, it's clear that they're blaming their own mistakes on the game.
Certainly his comments have a value. They show the reader that WoW is addictive, and there's a danger of playing it past the point at which it is fun any longer. We all know that games like this are addictive, though.
Put it this way: If you read a review for anything, be it a game, a car, a hotel, and the reviewer was angry and emotional, would you treat that review as seriously as something written in a more detatched, objective tone?
:S I had a feeling I'd get a response like this. Somebody saying that my opinion doesn't count cause I'm irritated, and if I'm irritated with wow then it must be because I "played the game wrong", right?
Well I have no reason to be objective, I'll say that right away. I'm very biased against wow. Mine is a bias that was forged by the endlessly obnoxious things in wow. The game could have been great. It could have been unbeatable. But the endless list of fun-killers in wow that exist on purpose will (if it hasn't already) lead to it's undoing. I know there will always be wow players. I look at them the same way I look at people who still play Acheron's Call...
Why must he be objective? Why are his conclusions any less valid?
I didn't realize that this even required explanation... Arguments are more credible when they appear to be made by somebody who has no emotional investment, and and is simply dealing with facts.
The fact is, when somebody blames a very popular, highly regarded game for making them angry, it's clear that they're blaming their own mistakes on the game.
Certainly his comments have a value. They show the reader that WoW is addictive, and there's a danger of playing it past the point at which it is fun any longer. We all know that games like this are addictive, though.
Put it this way: If you read a review for anything, be it a game, a car, a hotel, and the reviewer was angry and emotional, would you treat that review as seriously as something written in a more detatched, objective tone?
No. An opinion is an opinion, no matter the emotion conveyed within that opinion. Your endless adoration (note, I did not say detached, objective tone) for the game skews your opinion just as much as those who are angry hurr by it. I look at your emotional opinion, and I look at their emotional opinion, and I make what I will of it.
Regardless of which is better, I think WaR is going to do very nicely for itself. Full, immersive background, which to some is already familiar, and to others, should prove a joy to explore.
WoW doesn't really have this to the same degree, and considering they are both *role* playing games, I think background and story are very important to a games longevity, if not overall success.
I don't even know what WoW's back story is. Then again, as I have said before I've only ever watched my mate play the game for hours on end, and never indulged myself, so I am not claiming there is no story to it. K?
JokerGod wrote:What most people don't realize is you CAN play under the min-specs, you don't need a top of the line PC to play WAR, hell I play it on a PC I bought from wal-Mart a good 6-7 years ago with nothing but a Gfx card update (still 2-3 years old) and added RAM.
This is true. I'm playing it on a laptop that is not built for gaming and it runs fine when I use the "Fastest Framerate" option.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Regardless of which is better, I think WaR is going to do very nicely for itself. Full, immersive background, which to some is already familiar, and to others, should prove a joy to explore.
WoW doesn't really have this to the same degree, and considering they are both *role* playing games, I think background and story are very important to a games longevity, if not overall success.
I don't even know what WoW's back story is. Then again, as I have said before I've only ever watched my mate play the game for hours on end, and never indulged myself, so I am not claiming there is no story to it. K?
WoWs background story is very choppy and short, but you can't expect much from a game that is a generic copy of WarHammer.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Regardless of which is better, I think WaR is going to do very nicely for itself. Full, immersive background, which to some is already familiar, and to others, should prove a joy to explore.
WoW doesn't really have this to the same degree, and considering they are both *role* playing games, I think background and story are very important to a games longevity, if not overall success.
I don't even know what WoW's back story is. Then again, as I have said before I've only ever watched my mate play the game for hours on end, and never indulged myself, so I am not claiming there is no story to it. K?
WoWs background story is very choppy and short, but you can't expect much from a game that is a generic copy of WarHammer.
That's not true at all, about WoW's background. Warcraft lore has alot going for it, more than you may think, granted Blizzard has been changing things around lately, such as Mal'Ganis being "Alive" now. Some of the stuff is pretty intreasting, and I don't agree that it is a generic copy of WarHammer.
As for the Games themselves, They're both enjoyable, but I didn't have as much fun Playing WAR. I coulden't really get into the fact that most characters looked the same, and differing Armor wasn't that pleasing.
I'm still a fan of Everquest 2, after playing both of them myself.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Regardless of which is better, I think WaR is going to do very nicely for itself. Full, immersive background, which to some is already familiar, and to others, should prove a joy to explore.
WoW doesn't really have this to the same degree, and considering they are both *role* playing games, I think background and story are very important to a games longevity, if not overall success.
I don't even know what WoW's back story is. Then again, as I have said before I've only ever watched my mate play the game for hours on end, and never indulged myself, so I am not claiming there is no story to it. K?
WoWs background story is very choppy and short, but you can't expect much from a game that is a generic copy of WarHammer.
That's not true at all, about WoW's background. Warcraft lore has alot going for it, more than you may think, granted Blizzard has been changing things around lately, such as Mal'Ganis being "Alive" now. Some of the stuff is pretty intreasting, and I don't agree that it is a generic copy of WarHammer.
As for the Games themselves, They're both enjoyable, but I didn't have as much fun Playing WAR. I coulden't really get into the fact that most characters looked the same, and differing Armor wasn't that pleasing.
I'm still a fan of Everquest 2, after playing both of them myself.
WarCraft and StarCraft are complete rip offs of WarHammer/40K, if you look at the original games you can clearly see they are the same thing with different names and a few small changes here and there.
the WarCraft story line has bin changed and edited so many times that they don't even come close to lining up with the original story line, it has just gotten to the point where Blizzard can't rip off WH any more so they just pull junk out of there arse and say it happened.
Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:Regardless of which is better, I think WaR is going to do very nicely for itself. Full, immersive background, which to some is already familiar, and to others, should prove a joy to explore.
WoW doesn't really have this to the same degree, and considering they are both *role* playing games, I think background and story are very important to a games longevity, if not overall success.
I don't even know what WoW's back story is. Then again, as I have said before I've only ever watched my mate play the game for hours on end, and never indulged myself, so I am not claiming there is no story to it. K?
WoWs background story is very choppy and short, but you can't expect much from a game that is a generic copy of WarHammer.
That's not true at all, about WoW's background. Warcraft lore has alot going for it, more than you may think, granted Blizzard has been changing things around lately, such as Mal'Ganis being "Alive" now. Some of the stuff is pretty intreasting, and I don't agree that it is a generic copy of WarHammer.
As for the Games themselves, They're both enjoyable, but I didn't have as much fun Playing WAR. I coulden't really get into the fact that most characters looked the same, and differing Armor wasn't that pleasing.
I'm still a fan of Everquest 2, after playing both of them myself.
WarCraft and StarCraft are complete rip offs of WarHammer/40K, if you look at the original games you can clearly see they are the same thing with different names and a few small changes here and there.
the WarCraft story line has bin changed and edited so many times that they don't even come close to lining up with the original story line, it has just gotten to the point where Blizzard can't rip off WH any more so they just pull junk out of there arse and say it happened.
Yes, because Warhammer was the first thing ever to Feature Goblins, Orcs, and Humans fighting each other. Oh, and Demons. That's brand new too. They're both fantasy, they're bound to have some similarities.
How can you even Say that Starcraft is ripping off 40k? Once Again, 40k is the not the first thing to feature space humans, and aliens. And it's no where near the same storywise. "Intergalatic Alien threat, that devours everything" Yeah, that's not been done in dozens of books before 40k.
Your claims have no basis whatsoever, for saying they are copy cats. Unless you are saying everything, with Orcs, Goblins, Space People, Aliens and what not is stealing from Warhammer/40k
I will give you that Eldar/Protoss are very much alike though, in a sense they are advanced Aliens with powers. But that's about as far as they go to being the same.
Well, a good law suit from GW suggests otherwise about the direct rip off....
You are right though there is nothing new under the sun, but at least GW have tried to make theirs distinct. Squigs, Night Goblins, Skaven...all GW inventions.
They even have their own unique take on Orcs, making them savage in the extreme, quite a way away from Tolkeins Orcs who were slightly more civilised.
Warcraft however, at first, came very close to the knuckle. Same with Starcraft.
That's not true at all, about WoW's background. Warcraft lore has alot going for it, more than you may think, granted Blizzard has been changing things around lately, such as Mal'Ganis being "Alive" now. Some of the stuff is pretty intreasting, and I don't agree that it is a generic copy of WarHammer.
Warcrafts background stopped being readable with warcraft 3. Up until then the storyline was coherent, inventive, and cool. Unfortunately the ball dropped kung fu pandas and purple elves arrived and everything went to hell. Trying to decipher world of warcrafts fiction is worse than trying to follow harry potter shipper fanficition. It's horrible. Truly.
Only Blizzard can pull that crap off and still feel good about it in the morning. Did you hear that they are splitting StarCraft 2 into three seperate episodes? Nothing is known about price yet but already I can hear the registers go cha-ching.
Anyway, WAR looks like WHFB but at some points it feels odd or off though. Altdorf looks a wee bit too generic fantasy city in my opinion and lacks some of the quirkier things found in the Warhammer world. I was kinda hoping for the designers to take a page or two from the "Blood on the Reik" background book done by BL some years ago.
Blizzard is systimaticaly killing everything good they ever had. First StarCraft2, after a decade of waiting they say its coming and then tell us we are NOT getting the 4th race we where promised at the end of BroodWars, now there splitting it up like they did with Starcraft (Campaign wise) BUT its three separate games you have to pay for. Can you say, 50$ a pop?
And you have to give the Mythic crew a little slack, this is there first game on the new engine, and I am shour they will do the same thing they did with DAoC, start off decent and improve with every patch/Expansion.
BrookM wrote:Only Blizzard can pull that crap off and still feel good about it in the morning. Did you hear that they are splitting StarCraft 2 into three seperate episodes? Nothing is known about price yet but already I can hear the registers go cha-ching.
Anyway, WAR looks like WHFB but at some points it feels odd or off though. Altdorf looks a wee bit too generic fantasy city in my opinion and lacks some of the quirkier things found in the Warhammer world. I was kinda hoping for the designers to take a page or two from the "Blood on the Reik" background book done by BL some years ago.
The original Starcraft came out in 1998. It had ~30 single-player missions, spread across all three races, had multiplayer support through Battle.net, and cost me $50 (in 1998 dollars). The first installment might be out next year sometime, will have at least 30 single-player missions, have multiplayer support (for all three races) through Battle.net, and will cost me about $50 (in 2009 dollars).
I know for a fact that the time/cost ratio of the original Starcraft exceeds any other game I have ever played, even after adding the cost of Brood War. MAYBE I paid 1 cent/hour of Starcraft through 2004. I don't have quite the same free time as once I did, so I fully expect Starcraft 2 to slip - it might hit a nickle an hour, annualized over the next 6 years.
Somehow, I don't feel "ripped off." I just wish my GW habit offered the same cost/benefit returns.
BrookM wrote:Only Blizzard can pull that crap off and still feel good about it in the morning. Did you hear that they are splitting StarCraft 2 into three seperate episodes? Nothing is known about price yet but already I can hear the registers go cha-ching.
Anyway, WAR looks like WHFB but at some points it feels odd or off though. Altdorf looks a wee bit too generic fantasy city in my opinion and lacks some of the quirkier things found in the Warhammer world. I was kinda hoping for the designers to take a page or two from the "Blood on the Reik" background book done by BL some years ago.
The original Starcraft came out in 1998. It had ~30 single-player missions, spread across all three races, had multiplayer support through Battle.net, and cost me $50 (in 1998 dollars). The first installment might be out next year sometime, will have at least 30 single-player missions, have multiplayer support (for all three races) through Battle.net, and will cost me about $50 (in 2009 dollars).
I know for a fact that the time/cost ratio of the original Starcraft exceeds any other game I have ever played, even after adding the cost of Brood War. MAYBE I paid 1 cent/hour of Starcraft through 2004. I don't have quite the same free time as once I did, so I fully expect Starcraft 2 to slip - it might hit a nickle an hour, annualized over the next 6 years.
Somehow, I don't feel "ripped off." I just wish my GW habit offered the same cost/benefit returns.
There splitting one race in to one game, so you will get X missions with ONE race for 50$ (I would imagine you can still play online as all 3 but you never know with them)
Janthkin wrote:The original Starcraft came out in 1998. It had ~30 single-player missions, spread across all three races, had multiplayer support through Battle.net, and cost me $50 (in 1998 dollars). The first installment might be out next year sometime, will have at least 30 single-player missions, have multiplayer support (for all three races) through Battle.net, and will cost me about $50 (in 2009 dollars).
I know for a fact that the time/cost ratio of the original Starcraft exceeds any other game I have ever played, even after adding the cost of Brood War. MAYBE I paid 1 cent/hour of Starcraft through 2004. I don't have quite the same free time as once I did, so I fully expect Starcraft 2 to slip - it might hit a nickle an hour, annualized over the next 6 years.
Somehow, I don't feel "ripped off." I just wish my GW habit offered the same cost/benefit returns.
There splitting one race in to one game, so you will get X missions with ONE race for 50$ (I would imagine you can still play online as all 3 but you never know with them)
Yes, you get 30+ missions with a single race (instead of 30+ missions with multiple races). You also get some serious improvements graphically, non-linear missions, optional missions, and decent refinements to gameplay. And all for effectively less money than the original Starcraft cost (applying the general consumer price index, $50 USD(1998) is approx. $67 USD(2008)).
We have, from press releases and Blizzcon statements, plenty of guarantees that all three races will be available in multiplayer from the launch of the first game.
All this information is out there, if you want to be informed. If you're content to rant ignorantly, please continue.
JokerGod wrote:
There splitting one race in to one game, so you will get X missions with ONE race for 50$ (I would imagine you can still play online as all 3 but you never know with them)
You would rather two expansions, each with a more superficial story? Doing it this way allows the player to be immersed in each race's perspective in single player, while detracting nothing from the multiplayer experience. Each race is fully playable and balanced (or as close as possible, I hope) in multiplayer. In the long run, you are missing out on nothing. But overall, I think you are gaining a much more fluid story, more believable/relatable characters, and increased emotional investment.
Is each game gonna cost 50$? Probably, but that's fine. It was gonna cost that much anyways, no matter how they released their expansions. But now that I think about it, I think Broodwars was cheaper. Either way, I don't think you are going to end up losing too much cash with them releasing it in this manner.
Anyways, back to the original topic. I'm curious how quickly WoW grew within the first few months. I don't remember seeing it in this thread, and don't feel like searching for it. Lazy fingers and all that.
Janthkin wrote:The original Starcraft came out in 1998. It had ~30 single-player missions, spread across all three races, had multiplayer support through Battle.net, and cost me $50 (in 1998 dollars). The first installment might be out next year sometime, will have at least 30 single-player missions, have multiplayer support (for all three races) through Battle.net, and will cost me about $50 (in 2009 dollars).
I know for a fact that the time/cost ratio of the original Starcraft exceeds any other game I have ever played, even after adding the cost of Brood War. MAYBE I paid 1 cent/hour of Starcraft through 2004. I don't have quite the same free time as once I did, so I fully expect Starcraft 2 to slip - it might hit a nickle an hour, annualized over the next 6 years.
Somehow, I don't feel "ripped off." I just wish my GW habit offered the same cost/benefit returns.
There splitting one race in to one game, so you will get X missions with ONE race for 50$ (I would imagine you can still play online as all 3 but you never know with them)
Yes, you get 30+ missions with a single race (instead of 30+ missions with multiple races). You also get some serious improvements graphically, non-linear missions, optional missions, and decent refinements to gameplay. And all for effectively less money than the original Starcraft cost (applying the general consumer price index, $50 USD(1998) is approx. $67 USD(2008)).
We have, from press releases and Blizzcon statements, plenty of guarantees that all three races will be available in multiplayer from the launch of the first game.
All this information is out there, if you want to be informed. If you're content to rant ignorantly, please continue.
Well I have this thing where I don't believe a company that has lied to us hundreds of times already.
And you don't know what your getting with SC2, the SC team LEFT blizzard years ago when WoW came out and all production shifted over to that, the Diablo team also left.
If you want to follow what Blizzard has promised SC2 came out in 2003, there will be a 4th race (Zerg/Protoss mix) and they actually give a gak about there customers.
I am very informed about SC2, I have bin waiting for the game since BroodWars came out and am still going to buy it because I am a true SC fan, how ever, I am not going to blindly follow a company that has lied and cheated its way to the top of the MMO market and ruined there second RTS (WC) by killig there own back story and trampling all over the hopes and dreams of there player base.
you don't know if you will get 30 missions, you don't know what race you will get first, and you don't know if the game story will line up with Broodwars.
Give me a 40K version of WAR with the "Privateer" feel and i would change my stance on the whole MMORPG genre, which as it stands "would rather be doing less interesting things repetatively with an occasional highlight and getting payed for it".
Your claims have no basis whatsoever, for saying they are copy cats. Unless you are saying everything, with Orcs, Goblins, Space People, Aliens and what not is stealing from Warhammer/40k
I will give you that Eldar/Protoss are very much alike though, in a sense they are advanced Aliens with powers. But that's about as far as they go to being the same.
There is a basis for his claim, actually. Chris Metzen, the creative head of Warcraft currently (as far as I know, I don't keep up with who holds what position there), was a Warhammer 40k player back in high school. He also bought and read White Dwarf magazines. His artwork and the gestation of the ideas of what became the Warcraft universe after he joined the team around Warcraft 2 initially came from Games Workshop's IP.
You are right in saying GW was not the first to use the now-standard tenets of fantasy, though. Just providing some knowledge about one of the creative heads at Blizzard.
Janthkin wrote:The original Starcraft came out in 1998. It had ~30 single-player missions, spread across all three races, had multiplayer support through Battle.net, and cost me $50 (in 1998 dollars). The first installment might be out next year sometime, will have at least 30 single-player missions, have multiplayer support (for all three races) through Battle.net, and will cost me about $50 (in 2009 dollars).
I know for a fact that the time/cost ratio of the original Starcraft exceeds any other game I have ever played, even after adding the cost of Brood War. MAYBE I paid 1 cent/hour of Starcraft through 2004. I don't have quite the same free time as once I did, so I fully expect Starcraft 2 to slip - it might hit a nickle an hour, annualized over the next 6 years.
Somehow, I don't feel "ripped off." I just wish my GW habit offered the same cost/benefit returns.
There splitting one race in to one game, so you will get X missions with ONE race for 50$ (I would imagine you can still play online as all 3 but you never know with them)
Yes, you get 30+ missions with a single race (instead of 30+ missions with multiple races). You also get some serious improvements graphically, non-linear missions, optional missions, and decent refinements to gameplay. And all for effectively less money than the original Starcraft cost (applying the general consumer price index, $50 USD(1998) is approx. $67 USD(2008)).
We have, from press releases and Blizzcon statements, plenty of guarantees that all three races will be available in multiplayer from the launch of the first game.
All this information is out there, if you want to be informed. If you're content to rant ignorantly, please continue.
Well I have this thing where I don't believe a company that has lied to us hundreds of times already.
And you don't know what your getting with SC2, the SC team LEFT blizzard years ago when WoW came out and all production shifted over to that, the Diablo team also left.
If you want to follow what Blizzard has promised SC2 came out in 2003, there will be a 4th race (Zerg/Protoss mix) and they actually give a gak about there customers.
I am very informed about SC2, I have bin waiting for the game since BroodWars came out and am still going to buy it because I am a true SC fan, how ever, I am not going to blindly follow a company that has lied and cheated its way to the top of the MMO market and ruined there second RTS (WC) by killig there own back story and trampling all over the hopes and dreams of there player base.
you don't know if you will get 30 missions, you don't know what race you will get first, and you don't know if the game story will line up with Broodwars.
Well, people can decide if they want to play 30 of the x missions when the game is first
released. One of my original complaints about SC was that I didn't want to shift so many
perspectives in a single campaign. It was good from a storytelling perspective, but not
from a gameplay perspective. So 30 missions with one race at a time sounds good to me.
Somebody saying that my opinion doesn't count cause I'm irritated
I don't think I need to say much more than that. If you're too emotional to read what people write, why post in response to them?
I look at them the same way I look at people who still play Acheron's Call...
What a bizzare thing to say... Do you ever wonder if the whole world is crazy, and you're the only sane one left?
Seriously, how disjointed from reality do you have to be to look at the current king of the MMO market as some sort of has been with a tiny, eccentric following? WoW is the big dog. People who play it aren't strange, they're the very definition of "normal" in the MMO market.
"Oh, you still use a phone to communicate remotely? Loser..."
But that's not all... Not only have you completely misunderstood the size of the demographic groups at play here, but you (like the previous "angry at WoW" poster), both have this attitude of personal distaste for WoW players. To your credit, at least you've played the game... But both of you seem to be very angry at, or at least feel superior to, people who play WoW.
This is why I was saying that your emotionalism detracts from the credibility of your conclusions. If you're angry at the game, ok, maybe it's just a very bad game and makes people angry. But you're mad at the people who play it too. And maybe they're just lame people... But we all know, there's something like 10 million players, and they're probably as close to a natural cross section of society as any gaming community has ever had. So basically you're just mad at "everyone."
Mad at everyone, and also mad at WoW. Sounds like somebody who just gets mad at stuff to me.
Maybe not. I'm just saying, it detracts from the credibility of your arguments.
Your endless adoration
Since when do I have endless adoration for the game? I'm not playing it. I haven't played it in some time. I think virtually everything I've said in praise of it is objective fact. It is the most successful game of all time, is it not?
I don't even know what WoW's back story is.
It has a very deep backstory. Whether it appeals to you or not, that's another story.
Somehow, I don't feel "ripped off." I just wish my GW habit offered the same cost/benefit returns.
I think the same should be said of WoW. People love to bemoan all the time wasting, and penny pinching, but there's really not much you can do that gives more bang for the buck than playing an MMO. This is true for all MMOs, really, I just mention WoW because people attack it like it's the only one that is trying to make a profit.
It has a very deep backstory. Whether it appeals to you or not, that's another story.
The power rangers have a deep backstory too. Just because bad writers have textwalled in every warcraft game since 1995 doesn't mean that it's a good backstory. The WoW backstory is a confusing mix of dragonball Z style escalation of power mixed with a bizarre elemental creation story that is as self contradicting as it is childish and bad. The story is just an excuse for giant setpieces and pastel terrain features.
"Since when do I have endless adoration for the game? I'm not playing it. I haven't played it in some time. I think virtually everything I've said in praise of it is objective fact. It is the most successful game of all time, is it not?"
Actually I believe the Halo series is, if I am not mistaken Halo 3 alone sold over 13 million copies.
Ratbarf wrote:"Since when do I have endless adoration for the game? I'm not playing it. I haven't played it in some time. I think virtually everything I've said in praise of it is objective fact. It is the most successful game of all time, is it not?"
Actually I believe the Halo series is, if I am not mistaken Halo 3 alone sold over 13 million copies.
In terms of revenue generation WoW likely crushes the Halo series. Keep in mind that the average subscription time is something like 18 months, with a box cost of 50$ and a monthly fee of 13$. With the first month free you have 17 13$ dollar installments ~271$ per customer give or take sales and free subscription time offers. Over five times the box cost of halo three. With a running account total of ~11 million subscribers world wide thats 2,981,000,000$ in revenue for blizzard. keep in mind that's not taking into account actual sales figures, just current running subscriptions. The total box sales are likely far higher. Probably driving them in excess of three billion USD in profits.
With 11 million subscribers they are pulling in 143 million a month in sales. Iron man which was a wild box office hit pulled down about 575 million once all was said and done. Blizzard pulls an iron man every 4 months.
Actually I believe the Halo series is, if I am not mistaken Halo 3 alone sold over 13 million copies.
Depends on your metrics, I guess. Series or game? I'm sure Madden, as a series, has sold a lot.
I'm talking more in terms of earnings from a single game. No monthly fee for Halo.
Also, Halo is primarily a console game, and we're talking computer games.
According to wikipedia: "As of January 3, 2008, Halo 3 has sold 8.1 million copies"
That'd be less than WoW's claimed membership, but there are a lot of months since then.
Bottom line, 10 million players, times $15 a month, times 12 months, that's $1,800,000,000. Over four or five years now? Now, clearly, not all 10 million are paying at the same time, and clearly 10 million didn't start on day one, but that's a HUGE sum of money. Even if you divide it in half, it's more than I've seen anybody suggesting Halo 3 has made.
TroytheFox wrote:Man, I love WAR Way more then I liked WoW, but theres no point in arguing semantics here. Seriously, we can all let it go, and be happy.
No actually we can't. This is the internet, and a forum based around WarHammer, there will be endless bickering about what game is better, who is right and who is a "moron".
No one cares who is right or if they have there facts wrong, its just a lot of ego stroking, and if we all started acting grown up and civil to one another over the internet the world would implode.
So, you should all thank me when I act like a jackass. I am stopping the world from imploding!
Actually I believe the Halo series is, if I am not mistaken Halo 3 alone sold over 13 million copies.
Depends on your metrics, I guess. Series or game? I'm sure Madden, as a series, has sold a lot.
I'm talking more in terms of earnings from a single game. No monthly fee for Halo.
Also, Halo is primarily a console game, and we're talking computer games.
According to wikipedia: "As of January 3, 2008, Halo 3 has sold 8.1 million copies"
That'd be less than WoW's claimed membership, but there are a lot of months since then.
Bottom line, 10 million players, times $15 a month, times 12 months, that's $1,800,000,000. Over four or five years now? Now, clearly, not all 10 million are paying at the same time, and clearly 10 million didn't start on day one, but that's a HUGE sum of money. Even if you divide it in half, it's more than I've seen anybody suggesting Halo 3 has made.
Not that I think your point is wrong, but it's fair to note that many players (read: China) don't have the $15/month subscription rates; it runs on purchased minutes there, which are quite cheap.
But on the flip side, Blizzard's numbers are active accounts at the time of the announcement, not total accounts ever (so if you canceled three years ago, they aren't counting you now).
TroytheFox wrote:Man, I love WAR Way more then I liked WoW, but theres no point in arguing semantics here. Seriously, we can all let it go, and be happy.
No actually we can't. This is the internet, and a forum based around WarHammer, there will be endless bickering about what game is better, who is right and who is a "moron".
No one cares who is right or if they have there facts wrong, its just a lot of ego stroking, and if we all started acting grown up and civil to one another over the internet the world would implode.
So, you should all thank me when I act like a jackass. I am stopping the world from imploding!
Congratulations! You have earned yourself a chance to actually tell us what is better about WoW.
Good luck - that's one rusty game. Note that fanboism trumps credibility.
1. Are chaos warriors totally friggin awesome or are they totally friggin awesome?
2. Are magus's still considered "under powered" compared to the other DPS classes?
1. Do you mean Chosen or Marauders? They are both Warriors for Chaos. Either way the answer is yes.
2. I would guess compared to DPS classes they are underpowered since they aren't a DPS class. They are a great harasser and defensive class with lots of nasty AoE later on. If you try to play it like a Bright Wizard/Sorceress you won't get as much out of it, which tends to be the problem.
TroytheFox wrote:Man, I love WAR Way more then I liked WoW, but theres no point in arguing semantics here. Seriously, we can all let it go, and be happy.
No actually we can't. This is the internet, and a forum based around WarHammer, there will be endless bickering about what game is better, who is right and who is a "moron".
No one cares who is right or if they have there facts wrong, its just a lot of ego stroking, and if we all started acting grown up and civil to one another over the internet the world would implode.
So, you should all thank me when I act like a jackass. I am stopping the world from imploding!
Congratulations! You have earned yourself a chance to actually tell us what is better about WoW.
Good luck - that's one rusty game. Note that fanboism trumps credibility.
1. Are chaos warriors totally friggin awesome or are they totally friggin awesome?
Chosen? They are amazing tanks and take forever to die.
2. Are magus's still considered "under powered" compared to the other DPS classes?
Magus's were never really underpowered, they just don't have the same role as a Bright Wizard of straight huge dps. THey are much more of a support caster rather than a raw damage dealer. Properly augmenting a group, a decent Magus can make or break a game.
Is WAR like a computer game version of Warhammer Quest, just with more outdoor stuff?
BYE
I'd saw WAR is like WHFB except instead of playing the general commanding the whole army you are sometimes any one of the following:
- The third Black Ork from the left in the 2nd rank of unit 2.
- The guy firing the bolt thrower
- The Standard bearer in the unit (guild standards are a cool mechanic in this game)
- The solo assasin running round killing key enemy models
- The chaos Marauder mutating his arm
- The wizard casting fire ball into a unit of enemies
- The guy dumping boiling oil from the castle wall
- The shaman channeling Waaagh energy
- The guy that says "Wow, that's a cool model" when a greater deamon of Tzeench shows up.
You get the idea. The game does not feel like Mordheim or skirmish to me, except maybe in the VERY early portions of the game. In later tiers it DEFINITELY goes army scale. 40 v 40 and larger player engagements happen around keeps quite a bit.
That's not true at all, about WoW's background. Warcraft lore has alot going for it, more than you may think, granted Blizzard has been changing things around lately, such as Mal'Ganis being "Alive" now. Some of the stuff is pretty intreasting, and I don't agree that it is a generic copy of WarHammer.
As for the Games themselves, They're both enjoyable, but I didn't have as much fun Playing WAR. I coulden't really get into the fact that most characters looked the same, and differing Armor wasn't that pleasing.
I'm still a fan of Everquest 2, after playing both of them myself.
WarCraft and StarCraft are complete rip offs of WarHammer/40K, if you look at the original games you can clearly see they are the same thing with different names and a few small changes here and there.
the WarCraft story line has bin changed and edited so many times that they don't even come close to lining up with the original story line, it has just gotten to the point where Blizzard can't rip off WH any more so they just pull junk out of there arse and say it happened.
The funny thing is that the original warcraft actually had something to the point of "We'd like to thank Games Workshop, for the inspiration.... blah blah blah.. " I am paraphrasing cause it's been so damn long since I actually looked at it.. But it was clear even back then that Blizzard looked to Gw for inspiration in their game.s
Warcraft has actually been made family friendly and features happy endings mostly, something I hope to never expect in Warhammer. I mean come on, the good guy rides off with the woman after slaying the evil drooling monster?
Sure Blizzard gone and done something along the lines of a hero becoming corrupted by a magical sword, but that is pretty softcore compared to the stuff that happens in Warhammer on a daily basis.
WarCraft and StarCraft are complete rip offs of WarHammer/40K, if you look at the original games you can clearly see they are the same thing with different names and a few small changes here and there.
I hear that all the time, but seriously, the stories are very very different. Even the artistic design outside of marine armor suits is totally different. The art design of 40k is high gothic science fiction with minimalist and monolithic imperial structures adorned with ridiculous amounts of heraldry and shinny crap. The artistic design of starcraft terrans is more reminiscent of industrial 80's anime designs with traditional blizzard wacky proportions thrown in. Even the powered armor suits aren't really all that similar any more.
Warcraft however lifted its artistic design almost part for part from the fantasy settings art direction (though again with wacky blizzard anatomy thrown in). However in the years since warcraft one and two even it has shifted greatly from it's roots becoming a pastel korean anime influenced bag of pop culture references and ridiculous set pieces.
ShumaGorath wrote:
In terms of revenue generation WoW likely crushes the Halo series. Keep in mind that the average subscription time is something like 18 months, with a box cost of 50$ and a monthly fee of 13$. With the first month free you have 17 13$ dollar installments ~271$ per customer give or take sales and free subscription time offers. Over five times the box cost of halo three. With a running account total of ~11 million subscribers world wide thats 2,981,000,000$ in revenue for blizzard. keep in mind that's not taking into account actual sales figures, just current running subscriptions. The total box sales are likely far higher. Probably driving them in excess of three billion USD in profits.
With 11 million subscribers they are pulling in 143 million a month in sales. Iron man which was a wild box office hit pulled down about 575 million once all was said and done. Blizzard pulls an iron man every 4 months.
Well if I remeber correctly they have made well over 100 million dollars from the series. As for boxed sales, the Halo series has sold much higher than the Warcraft Series and is more widely known. The halo series has also spawned much more succesful side items like toys, books, (all the halo books were best sellers) etc. So yes, I do think that the Halo series was much more succesful than the Warcraft series, and also if I remember correctly Blizzard has made around 300 million dollars from the game. And if we want to get really technical we could also run in the cost for the xbox 360 needed to play Halo 3 (since both Bungie and Xbox are parts of Microsoft) and quite a few of the Xbox live Gold subscriptions needed to play it online as well as the points to download the extra maps and such. (Personally i believe I have spent nearly 350 dollars on Halo stuff minus both xboxes. I have only spent 90 dollars on my WoW account. Total.
On January 3, 2008, Microsoft announced that Halo 3 has sold 8.1 million copies.
World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade was the best-selling PC game of 2007 in North America and Europe, and it is also the fastest-selling PC game of all time, selling nearly 2.4 million copies in its first 24 hours and approximately 3.5 million in its first month.[24]
With more than 10.9 million monthly subscribers,[7] World of Warcraft is currently the world's largest MMORPG in those terms,[7][8][9] and holds the Guinness World Record for the most popular MMORPG.
Now thats 10.9 million current subscribers. With an average 18 month subscription the games total box sales are roughly double that number, in excess of twenty million copies moved. Extrapolated from the history of subscription lengths over the lifespan of the game...
~20 million boxes moved x 50$ = 1,000,000,000$.
Average 18 month subscription rates over ~20 million customers (normalized between lifers and those that drop the game in the first few months) = 260,000,000 x 13 = 3,380,000,000
~six million copies of the burning crusade moved world wide (which is probably a sever underestimate) ~300,000,000$
1,000,000,000
3,380,000,000
300,000,000
4,680,000,000$ In revenue for blizzard, discounting paraphernalia such as books, shirts, action figures, keyboards, mice, manga, etc. You know, merch. Considering if you combine TBC and WoW boxes moved they roughly triple the total sales of halo 3 without counting subscription revenues (I'm not counting the two previous games because then i would have to look up market data for six of the previous warcraft games as well) you have a pretty stark contrast.
Azeroth makes more money annually then several nations, the U.N.S.C. has pretty much made it's millions and now flies around bargain bins in gamestops everywhere. It even lost its mantle of most played live game to CoD 4 for like six months, and probably will again when Gears 2 comes out. Frankly there isn't a whole lot of competition, even in the areas of merchandise where the excellent sales of halo 3 figures is offset by the run away success of the WoW CCG.
The Halo series did one thing and that was saving the first X-Box from a swift death. Other than that it brings nothing new to the FPS scene. But they like it! Just look at how mad the fans have gone over the announcement that a Halo MMO has been cancelled and how much they fap over the upcoming Halo Recon next year. How can people like such a boring and simple game?
BrookM wrote:Warcraft has actually been made family friendly and features happy endings mostly, something I hope to never expect in Warhammer. I mean come on, the good guy rides off with the woman after slaying the evil drooling monster?
Sure Blizzard gone and done something along the lines of a hero becoming corrupted by a magical sword, but that is pretty softcore compared to the stuff that happens in Warhammer on a daily basis.
Does no one remember Arthas wiping out a town full of innocents, for fear they might have been corrupted by the Scourge? And you had to play it, not just read about some Exterminatus occuring someplace with a Gothic-sounding name. Or the sacrifice of a whole race's immortality? Or the obsession that led Illidan to transition from hero of his people, to master of demons?
I'll give you that GW's fluff makes grander wholesale statements, but I personally find Warcraft's (retail) approach to character-driven story far more interesting. I mean, did anyone actually care about Be'lakor's first opportunity to shine on his own? And it helps that Blizzard is actually willing to advance the story - HOW LONG has Abaddon been rebelling against authority again?
BrookM wrote:The Halo series did one thing and that was saving the first X-Box from a swift death. Other than that it brings nothing new to the FPS scene. But they like it! Just look at how mad the fans have gone over the announcement that a Halo MMO has been cancelled and how much they fap over the upcoming Halo Recon next year. How can people like such a boring and simple game?
Then again, I wonder the same about WoW..
Halo gave us a cooperative FPS campaign on a console. That was all that was necessary for me.
People have been playing Chess for a hell of a long time, and it's got all of 6 unique pieces.
Does no one remember Arthas wiping out a town full of innocents, for fear they might have been corrupted by the Scourge? And you had to play it, not just read about some Exterminatus occuring someplace with a Gothic-sounding name. Or the sacrifice of a whole race's immortality? Or the obsession that led Illidan to transition from hero of his people, to master of demons?
Yes and the arena masters in the outlands are he-man and skeletor, gnomes ride mechanical chickens while sporting bright blue anime haircuts, and there is an island which is home to a race of japanese kung fu pandas.
When the demon god Archimonde was killed by flying blue gobs at the behest of the purple elves while he climbed a giant tree the game lost all sense of scale, plot, and inventiveness that it might have had. Partway through WC3 it became a bad fanfic.
BrookM wrote:Warcraft has actually been made family friendly and features happy endings mostly, something I hope to never expect in Warhammer. I mean come on, the good guy rides off with the woman after slaying the evil drooling monster?
Sure Blizzard gone and done something along the lines of a hero becoming corrupted by a magical sword, but that is pretty softcore compared to the stuff that happens in Warhammer on a daily basis.
Does no one remember Arthas wiping out a town full of innocents, for fear they might have been corrupted by the Scourge? And you had to play it, not just read about some Exterminatus occuring someplace with a Gothic-sounding name. Or the sacrifice of a whole race's immortality? Or the obsession that led Illidan to transition from hero of his people, to master of demons?
I'll give you that GW's fluff makes grander wholesale statements, but I personally find Warcraft's (retail) approach to character-driven story far more interesting. I mean, did anyone actually care about Be'lakor's first opportunity to shine on his own? And it helps that Blizzard is actually willing to advance the story - HOW LONG has Abaddon been rebelling against authority again?
There's a difference between advancing the story and just killing off lore characters for phat lewtz.
Chosen? They are amazing tanks and take forever to die.
I noticed that they seemed pretty hard... I get the impression, tho, that WAR is more aggressively rocks, paper, scissors than WoW is. Everyone knows the whole cloth kills plate, plate kills leather, leather kills cloth thing. Or, put differently, Bright Wizard kills Chosen, Chosen kills Witch Hunter, Witch Hunter kills Magus (or whatever).
In WoW this holds true, but it's not impossible, or even particularly hard, to buck the trend. In WAR, it feels a lot more entrenched. I found my Witch Hunter failing miserably against Chosen a lot, but absolutely tearing up Destruction caster types.
Chosen? They are amazing tanks and take forever to die.
I noticed that they seemed pretty hard... I get the impression, tho, that WAR is more aggressively rocks, paper, scissors than WoW is. Everyone knows the whole cloth kills plate, plate kills leather, leather kills cloth thing. Or, put differently, Bright Wizard kills Chosen, Chosen kills Witch Hunter, Witch Hunter kills Magus (or whatever).
In WoW this holds true, but it's not impossible, or even particularly hard, to buck the trend. In WAR, it feels a lot more entrenched. I found my Witch Hunter failing miserably against Chosen a lot, but absolutely tearing up Destruction caster types.
Thats by design. The combat is based around groups of players, each one performing his role specific to his class. Those plate users are supposed to block those leather wearers from getting to your cloth wearers so that they can in turn shoot the enemy plate users. It's a team game, it doesn't hold up well at all in one on one.
Those plate users are supposed to block those leather wearers from getting to your cloth wearers so that they can in turn shoot the enemy plate users.
Which brings up another interesting angle: Toons actually fill space in WAR. In WoW, everything slides right through everything else. In WAR, you can get blocked by enemies. It's an interesting change, but not one that I've seen make much difference so far. Movement is so fast, and the game runs so choppy, it's impossible to really block somebody.
Those plate users are supposed to block those leather wearers from getting to your cloth wearers so that they can in turn shoot the enemy plate users.
Which brings up another interesting angle: Toons actually fill space in WAR. In WoW, everything slides right through everything else. In WAR, you can get blocked by enemies. It's an interesting change, but not one that I've seen make much difference so far. Movement is so fast, and the game runs so choppy, it's impossible to really block somebody.
It runs fine for me, it always ends up more an issue with uncoordinated teams. Though the ability of a coordinated team over teamspeak to utterly crush its opposition through good use of formations and tactics is something that I actually look foreword too someday. Competitive play like that in WoW was more about stat building and keeping track of timers than it was any real form of tactical movement.
Those plate users are supposed to block those leather wearers from getting to your cloth wearers so that they can in turn shoot the enemy plate users.
Which brings up another interesting angle: Toons actually fill space in WAR. In WoW, everything slides right through everything else. In WAR, you can get blocked by enemies. It's an interesting change, but not one that I've seen make much difference so far. Movement is so fast, and the game runs so choppy, it's impossible to really block somebody.
I hope there aren't any doorways, then. Clipping is all well and good, until you get two people who want to grief their own side.
1. Are chaos warriors totally friggin awesome or are they totally friggin awesome?
2. Are magus's still considered "under powered" compared to the other DPS classes?
A great article about the nature of classes in WARis this blog post. In contrast to WoW's essentially 4 class archetypes (Tank, melee DPS, Ranged DPS and healers), WAR has more like 12 (although I would raise some quibbling with the authors specifics).
For example, trying to compare the Magus to a WoW class can be frustrating, as there is no exact analogue. It initially seems a straight ranged DPS caster with sub-par DPS, until you realize it can summon deamons to fight with them. But it's a mistake to compare a magus to a WoW hunter; the hunter in WoW uses his pet as a personal tank/supplementary melee DPS; the magus' daemons are immobile and used ranged attacks. Then you realize the magus is analogous to the dwarf engineer; daemons are the class' turret.
That said, there are a few classes in WAR that are more then passing familiar to the WoW player. Witch Elves and Witch hunters are heavily weighted towards a combo point based melee DPS, albeit with the alteration of the combo points being a self buff, rather then on the player/mob you are attacking. Zealots and runepriests are, supposedly, the purest analogues to healers that WoW relies on (that may not be entirely fair, but my limited exposure to them has not encouraged me to push particularly far).
The classes I find most exciting so far are those that really break from the WoW mold (at least, break as far as the constraints of an MMO allow);
-Chaos Marauders: a dual-wielding class where the offhand attack is generated by their own mutated left arm, Marauders can focus on debuffs, AoE damage or single target damage, depending on the player's favored mutation type.
-Bright wizards/DE Sorcerers: the strategy inherent in these is awesome, build 'dark energy' and do substantially more damage (but run the risk of blowing yourself up), or bleed off your bad karma and do less damage (but be safer).
-Archmages/shaman: healers/magic DPS, but unlike WoW classes with that capacity, the mechanics encourage you to do both, building high magic or Gork/Mork power (typically casting 5 offensive spells will make your next healing spell instant cast, or simply much stronger and vice versa).
-Disciples of Khaine/Warrior Priests: melee DPS whose offensive melee abilities build a second resource that allows them to cast healing (mainly) spells.
Ultimately, if you like the idea of an MMO, like Warhammer and don't mind the price, my advice is to give the game a try. The in-game feel from graphics, sound and character designs are farther from WoW then you would initially imagine, but it retains a lot of WoW's ease of use interface (the Tome of Knowledge really is fantastic). But like the Matrix,you have to experience it for yourself.
Those plate users are supposed to block those leather wearers from getting to your cloth wearers so that they can in turn shoot the enemy plate users.
Which brings up another interesting angle: Toons actually fill space in WAR. In WoW, everything slides right through everything else. In WAR, you can get blocked by enemies. It's an interesting change, but not one that I've seen make much difference so far. Movement is so fast, and the game runs so choppy, it's impossible to really block somebody.
I hope there aren't any doorways, then. Clipping is all well and good, until you get two people who want to grief their own side.
Clipping only occurs in RvR (PvP) and is a fun mechanic. We had a battle in a mid level keep where two ironbreakers held the ramp up to the keep lord until destruction gave up. It was 2 tanks, 3 healers and a bright mage vs about 40 destruction. The few that broke through would aggro the keep lord and get smeared. My only complaint about the game so far is the mail server is horrible.
Those plate users are supposed to block those leather wearers from getting to your cloth wearers so that they can in turn shoot the enemy plate users.
Which brings up another interesting angle: Toons actually fill space in WAR. In WoW, everything slides right through everything else. In WAR, you can get blocked by enemies. It's an interesting change, but not one that I've seen make much difference so far. Movement is so fast, and the game runs so choppy, it's impossible to really block somebody.
I hope there aren't any doorways, then. Clipping is all well and good, until you get two people who want to grief their own side.
Blocking only seems to work in RVR and PVP zones. Whenever I enter a keep or in I can walk past and through people without a problem, thus removing the frustration of those blocking bastards in non-combat zones.
Swoop wrote:My only complaint about the game so far is the mail server is horrible.
Believe it or not, they deliberately made it take 5 sec to do everything with mail. They implemented that to foil the gold farmer mail spamming. Which has worked for the most part. You can count on one hand the # of gold ads I've gotten in the mail since launch. But you are right, it makes simply mailing and receiving mail a headache. I can't tell if it's worth it...
Swoop wrote:My only complaint about the game so far is the mail server is horrible.
Believe it or not, they deliberately made it take 5 sec to do everything with mail. They implemented that to foil the gold farmer mail spamming. Which has worked for the most part. You can count on one hand the # of gold ads I've gotten in the mail since launch. But you are right, it makes simply mailing and receiving mail a headache. I can't tell if it's worth it...
If they didn't you would have 5x the amount of mail spam that you have now. Its well worth keeping the game fair and stopping the farmers from ruining the game.
You can't grief your own side unless you're trying to keep someone from running away so
that the enemy can kill them. Blocking is useful. MDPSers will try to run around and get
behind an enemy to limit their escape options. Healers are much safer behind tanks as
tanks have a few snares and knockbacks to keep enemies in place and off paperweights.
I've used my tank to jam an opponent up against DPSers so that there is enough time to
kill them before they escape. It's more like blocking in basketball rather than a full out shield wall.
Being able to block is a huge game mechanic that was missing from WoW and pissed me off the moment I played in their closed beta. In War it makes so many things better and useful.
Examples:
- Terrain layout matters even more(choke points, ramps, door ways in keeps, etc)
- Tanks can TANK!
- Back stabbing requires you to manuever unlink in WoW where you can back up through a person or run through a mouse flick.
- MDPs classes like maurader can slow down fleeing opponents by cutting them off or chargeing after them and blocking their flight over and over.
- Many other tactics and strats that are just pointless in WoW are now possible in WAR assuming you have a co-ordinated force (via teamspeak, skype, vent, etc) and makes the game so much more involving. Instead of random chat about what you ate last night during a raid(WoW) you can be discussing actual tactics and strats(WAR).
The other gameplay change I still get a chuckle over in WAR from WoW. Is when I see someone frantically running around my rune priest bumping into him and trying to get to his back, while they leap through the air trying to break my attack line of sight. Only to find themselves pasted before they can even do a decent amount of damage to him. The reason being two fold, one collisions stop them from flying through me and mouse flicking to hit me in the back with their ability and two the fact that if you stand still while fighting or casting your guy auto rotates and swings at his opponent so my back will never be facing them if they are the only opponent. The downside is you sacrafice your movement mobility for this effective combat casting/fighting stance.
War is great fun all around and is greatly enhanced by having access to vent/teamspeak and some friends/guild to play with for sure.
Hmm, I like it especially when you are in the RPOpenRvR servers. My current guild is engineers only and called Thorgrims Rifles. When we do the battleground Public quests toegether its rather funny. Ever treid to kill twenty something RDPS dudes who can also deliver some really nasty AOE the closer you get? WE pretty much paste the Destro that shows up.
Anyone know of some decent forums for WAR? Seems like most of the suggested ones are pretty full of suck. I really miss the sense of community that forums give a game.
sourclams wrote:Anyone know of some decent forums for WAR? Seems like most of the suggested ones are pretty full of suck. I really miss the sense of community that forums give a game.
Mythic just announced that two classes will be implemented this winter: the Knight of the Blazing Sun and the Black Guard. They are also still working on getting the medium and heavy mount into the game along with the option of fighting from your mount along with slowly implementing all other features that they couldn't get in at the time of release.
Lordhat wrote:So how is this game if you absolutely refuse to PVP? I hate PVP, always have, always will. Does WAR have a good PVE game?
I felt the same way, but I've had a blast with this game. You really get into the feeling of being part of a team and get defensive about the intruders/interlopers coming in. You can do a lot without doing any RvR, but the end game (getting to the level cap) is pretty much all RvR as that is where the real battles begin for each others capitols.
Lordhat wrote:So how is this game if you absolutely refuse to PVP? I hate PVP, always have, always will. Does WAR have a good PVE game?
If you don't like PvP, it doesn't have much to offer. The questing is better than WoW's, its more streamlined and less grindy, and the PQ's are cool, but that's about it for PvE, PvP is the games focus. If you don't want to PvP, then Warhammer *really* isn't the game for you, there are no end-game PvE raids or anything like that, and the small handfull of PvE instances really aren't much to talk about, it's all about PvP raids on large keeps and cities, as well as Scenarios. That said, WAR's PvP is much less aggravating than WoW's, and actually means something other than just honor grinding.
It's much more like a Third Person Shooter with overlying world settings than it is a WoW-style MMO. The purpose is definitely not to hop into an instance with 24 buddies and kill a boss.
Siege scenarios are fun to play and really require a good team effort to breach the gates and get inside. Even manning the battering ram requires a team of four to bash in that door good and proper while the others in your warband cover you from enemy raiders.
There are Dungeons for PvE as well don't forget, the Lost Vale being the main Lvl 40 one other than the King encounter. Something folks forget when talking about WoW is how many of the Dungeons where added later, especially the Endgame ones.
I'm mainly PvE, but did a little PvP in WoW, honour grinding mostly, but the PvP here in WaR has kept me very happy, and I done several Scenarios all which have in general been more fun that battlgrounds, I say generally as so far its all been 10 players, not hit anything Alterac Valley sized yet.
Anyways, the PvE has kept me very happy so far, and I've not even found time for a Dungeon yet, just a great and fun game to play no matter which direction you go tbh.
My take on WAR. I played WoW since last December. Was in a guild that worked it's way into T6 raiding. Due to differances between myself and the guild leader, I decided to give WoW up. So I picked WAR up, and have been playing for the last few weeks. I've only got a lvl 15 character, but I've been taking time to explore the game, not power level.
I'll be blunt when I say WAR outclasses WoW in nearly every aspect so far. PVE and PVP have drastic improvements over them that make it much more enjoyable.
An aspect of WoW that I hated was the PVP. There simply was no escape from it. (I played on an RP-PVP server joining a bunch of friends who already played there). I can't count the times I simply logged off the game because I was tired of some group of pink haired gnome rogues camping me for a half hour. It's something I really enjoy with WAR though. Camping is impossible with how ressing works, and in the 3 weeks I've been playing, I've been ganked twice. The way the zones are split up really helps to limit Order and Destruction interaction outside of established battlegrounds. When you want to partake in PVP, there are plenty of RVR's to take part in, or you can go to the battlegrounds that have interactive scenery and defensable positions and war machines. PVP is easily attainable when you want it, and rarely forced onto you when you don't. Big bonus in my book.
PVE has many aspects that outstrip WoW as well. If your into the story line, the quests are pretty decent, with some that lead onto pretty lengthy chains. There usually seems to be more quests in an area then is required for progression, which is nice because it gives those who aren't playing the game to get a level 40 character in 2 weeks something extra to do. PQ's are nice as well. The rewards are worth working towards, and it makes grinding seem to have more purpose then just gaining XP. The feeling of being locked into a big battle with most of these helps to add a sense that your actually taking part in something big as well. WoW had a problem with that, since almost everything was solo based until you got into raiding. Group quests where pretty much a sham of escorting, or just killing this one big creature. On top of everything else though, you've got your book. The rewards it gives for seemingly inane things keeps you looking for more, and the way it opens up the story of the game to you is very nice. Again, it makes you feel like your actually a part of a story, not just someone whose paying someone else to kill pixellated gnomes.
So, yeah, I think WAR eventually has the capability of turning WoW into what EQ is today. A game that'll still exist, but no longer reign as MMO king.
Somehow I doubt that WAR will topple WOW from the throne of best MMO ever. I agree that WAR is superior but about 99% of the people who play MMO's will stick to the real thing and don't bother with the "knock offs".
and everyone who actually plays in competitive online games knows this.
begin.
for example if you try and solo and go all rambo, ur pretty much dead just thinking of it..
