This can't be exactly like the tt game, purely because if all the orcs where like Grimgor, it wouldnt be fun. Its exactly like misfit said:

Its an MMO set in the warhammer universe. Its not meant to be a 100% port of the game to an online form.

Hey misfit, Remember Entrari? I used to level wth you in EQ2. :P Check the guild listing for a swashy, I might still be in it.

Originally posted by _Kyle_

It's WoW with more emphasis on PVP. Seriously.. WoW came from a strategy game too. The only thing the same really is the lore.. even then that's like non-existant.

As far as Warhammer Online, the graphics blow. I quit cartoon land years ago. New day of age. Get rid of those god awful graphics. Nuff said. Lame game.

img227.imageshack.us/img227/7281/warvswow6te.jpg

That should clear things up a bit. Enjoy! 

Originally posted by tikovoo

 

 

I have a big problem with griefing, and I think the RvR environment will encourage this. If its the true nature of the table top then its going to be in the game. It looks like its going to be Mob A vs Mob B all pressing the shortcut for auto target, or all on a voice chat saying "lets kill him" - "who?" - "him! - can't you see the name above his head!". Its grief and therefore a grind if the repetitive nature is too do it all over and over again. Granted its probably fun for the first few goes. With the 75% of kiddies playing as you said having no clue about tactics (lets face it - this is th target audience) and mobs rushing at each other, (fun to watch im sure) will lose the tactics and similarites of the table top. Battles like table top just wont happen 90% of the time like they usually play out.

1) Player collisions: An organized guild will be able to have the meat shields form a line with the caster/ranged in the back plugging away. Formations will be hard to keep... but with vent and a core group of people I hope it will make a noticeable difference.

2) No stealth classes: This was huge for me. Stealth was the worst thought of idea in MMO gaming. Invisible classes invite ganking plain and simple.

There will be ganking in any PvP game... I think the Devs have taken steps to at least make it a little more obvious and thus easier to avoid.

Originally posted by jor8888

 

Originally posted by _Kyle_

It's WoW with more emphasis on PVP. Seriously.. WoW came from a strategy game too. The only thing the same really is the lore.. even then that's like non-existant.

As far as Warhammer Online, the graphics blow. I quit cartoon land years ago. New day of age. Get rid of those god awful graphics. Nuff said. Lame game.

wtf u care?  u dont even pvp or u dont even know how lol.  U expect to play with max graphic setting with 500 ppl on ur screen? 

 

 

 What is your F problem? So he doesnt like the graphic's so what?  I dont like them either but i am still going to play because it looks like a fun game that is PvP based not PvE based.   How do you know he doesnt PvP?  I am willing bet 1 v 1 pvp and he will win cause you seem like an idoit.  500 ppl? I expect to play with Max graphics in every game I play reguardless of how many people are on my screen.  That is bad design if the game cannot handle 500 people in one spot.

Originally posted by TdogSkal

 What is your F problem? So he doesnt like the graphic's so what?  I dont like them either but i am still going to play because it looks like a fun game that is PvP based not PvE based.   How do you know he doesnt PvP?  I am willing bet 1 v 1 pvp and he will win cause you seem like an idoit.  500 ppl? I expect to play with Max graphics in every game I play reguardless of how many people are on my screen.  That is bad design if the game cannot handle 500 people in one spot.

Just to bring up a point... It is not usually bad code that causes issues... it is hardware limitation. Many games are now designed for hardware potential that will be coming out... which means on release your gear probably will not be able to handle max settings with hundreds of toons on the screen.

Originally posted by Corto

As someone in the thread pointed out, It seems that they are just trying to even the numbers and levels of chars on both sides and making the fights instanced.  Fingers crossed that the game has some nice mechanisms to make the out-of-instance-PvP worthwhile.  

Watch this video, it will explain it better.

www.warhammeronline.com/english/media/podcast/files/pp_TypesofRvR_bitrate.html

Originally posted by Dameonk

 

Originally posted by Corto

As someone in the thread pointed out, It seems that they are just trying to even the numbers and levels of chars on both sides and making the fights instanced.  Fingers crossed that the game has some nice mechanisms to make the out-of-instance-PvP worthwhile.  

In many of the videos with the developers they have stated that all types of RvR will be important in the game with Open World RvR being the most important.

 

Watch this video, it will explain it better.

www.warhammeronline.com/english/media/podcast/files/pp_TypesofRvR_bitrate.html

That video clearly states that Scenarios, not open-world RvR/PvP, will be the most important form of PvP. It's not disputable. I suggest you watch it again.

Originally posted by Corto

Looking forward to a new way of PvP.

However, good PvP for me includes the usage of "terrain" features in tactics.  Example: high ground gives the opportunity to look farther, climbing slopes slows down movement of troops,  hiding in forests or in the dark gives an opportunity for ambushing and flanking movements by friendly regiments, terrain can be used by scouts to spy on the enemy positions and his army-constitution, etc etc...

Now I read this in the faq:

Q: Will WAR have the players' names over their heads?

A: Yes, although you will be able to control the display on your own client.

 

So I hope the tags are only displayed for friendy PC's.  Otherwise you might as well lock the opposing armies in a square room and let them fight it out as the opportunity to remain hidden or use terrain is unexistant.

I was also surprised to read that WAR will include levelling (max level=40, 4 tiers of 10 levels).  This is so un-warhammer-like.  In the RPG only some professions could increase hitpoints and then only max 2 (assassin 3 if I remember correctly).  I fear that this will reduce the PvP to a stats-game instead of a skill/tactics-based game.

Does anyone know where I can find more info about terrain modelling and levelling-system?

 

 

What is sounds like to me is that you'll be more into something like Tabula Rasa. It is "basically" like a really enhanced version of an FPS that does take advantage of what you just said. Now I also hope that there will be some awesome things like that in WAR, but for an RPG type game it's kind of iffy. Unless they made a MMO out of a turn based strategy like say Shining Force. (Dreams about a shining force MMO witch will probably be ruined by Sega)

Originally posted by tdub

 

Originally posted by Thedrizzle

Originally posted by _Kyle_

It's WoW with more emphasis on PVP. Seriously.. WoW came from a strategy game too. The only thing the same really is the lore.. even then that's like non-existant.

As far as Warhammer Online, the graphics blow. I quit cartoon land years ago. New day of age. Get rid of those god awful graphics. Nuff said. Lame game.

If you knew anything about games jackass, you'd realize they went that route with the graphics so that when 500 people are fighting another 500 people it wouldn't be a lag fest and your video card wouldn't be on fire.  Learn about computers and gaming before you make your half ass comments.

If you would noticed/learn WaR is one of VERY FEW games that  don't care about graphics.... meaning its cartoons not because they are worried about the mass amount of people plaything but its cheaper for them.  More particles and more enties = more B/W which equals more money to their ISP/Server host.  And Second of all I stand with Kyle here, War should have gotten with the time and made better graphics.  Its a remake of WoW and wont last more then a year.... or dear I said something about about War on WarFans.com I mean Mmorpg.com.    Duel 7600 gt 256mb Geforced can handle well over 300 people to 400 people all casting with no lag on Vanguard and that's Vanguard.... You said You need to Learn about computers and games.... err I think you need to learn more.

 

 

WaR took the cheap way and went low graphics applying to about 20% of the gaming community.  The rest 80% have already upgrade and are waiting for URT3 based engine games... I think you need to learn a little more about computers and games before calling someone a jackass..  And for your noobish ways I explain.... URT3 = Unreal tournament 3

Only thing i worry about WAR's pvp is will it get boring after a few months? i mean ur attacking the same city over and over. . . your only goal is to attack the ONE main city and to climb in progression to attack that city. Imho it sounds repetative , if someone knows anything about other PvP related things, please tell me, because atm; this game is starting to look boring . I mean its fun to attack a city with 1000 people and all but is there anything else? like can all factions take over any cities   or is it just set to 1? because if you can take over any city  hehe theres gonna be alot more stratagy then i thought 

Originally posted by Ruiny
That video clearly states that Scenarios, not open-world RvR/PvP, will be the most important form of PvP. It's not disputable. I suggest you watch it again.

You're twisting the statement around to make it mean what you want.  It says Scenarios count more toward victory points than any other form of RvR.  Great - that doesn't reflect how the victory points earned per kill will impact the comparable value of small skirmishes versus large persistent world battles, and; that has nothing to do with my earned experience or personal Renown points (the thing I get my personal rewards for PvP from), which come primarily from player kills.   Where will we make bank - fighting in a small instanced skirmish against something between six and thirty-six enemy players, or defending a persistent world objectives as part of a large force arrayed against 200 enemy players? 

In regards to strategy and tactics in MMO's such as terrain modeling and name tags, WW2Online has gone that route, but since this thread went to crap about graphics instead of answering your question, I guess in a way they answered it ironically. Strategy and Tactics in MMO's involves large battles which some games focused on. WW2Online which I mentioned, Planetside, Shadowbane and Dark Age of Camelot. Of those 4 games I listed, only one is still played by a decent amount of players and that is DAoC. WW2Online is an older game and the graphics are lacking, but like some people know, no matter how rigged a players computer may be, no one is going to be able to handle hundreds of people in a simultaneous battle. That is unless you tone down the polygon count.

So, in regards to the folks bashing WAR graphics for being low quality. Apparently you haven't played much else cause except for Vanguard, there really hasn't been an MMO that brought so much realism to a game. Guess what, Vanguard is constantly having graphical issues, errors, anomolies and latency. I may not have an up to date system, I have 2 computers by the way, but I can still play EQ2 or WoW on max settings just fine and I've been in a few 50-100 vs 50-100 battles on WoW.

DAoC however, I've seen battles with numbers over 300 total with all 3 realms involved. This was taxing on my systems and its not because of graphics, but because of synchronization. You will never see a gaming company fork over an extra percentage of income to support battles this size that don't happen on an hourly basis. You will pay for bandwidth that will suffice for a realistic size battle, which has been 50-100 vs 50-100.

As for WAR, I don't know if terrain will play a role or not like it did in DAoC, like hills and towers increased range of arrows and spells. I do know WAR will have collision based players, which others have noted in detail in this thread already.

If you want a good strategy based PvP game, WAR is it. If you wan't a graphic eye-candy large scale PvP game, go play Vanguard. I do suggest you don't as neither Sigil nor SOE can seem to figure out why that game doesn't run smoothly for everyone with 20-50 people in the area, let alone 200.

Originally posted by TdogSkal

Originally posted by jor8888

 

Originally posted by _Kyle_

It's WoW with more emphasis on PVP. Seriously.. WoW came from a strategy game too. The only thing the same really is the lore.. even then that's like non-existant.

As far as Warhammer Online, the graphics blow. I quit cartoon land years ago. New day of age. Get rid of those god awful graphics. Nuff said. Lame game.

wtf u care?  u dont even pvp or u dont even know how lol.  U expect to play with max graphic setting with 500 ppl on ur screen? 

 

 

 What is your F problem? So he doesnt like the graphic's so what?  I dont like them either but i am still going to play because it looks like a fun game that is PvP based not PvE based.   How do you know he doesnt PvP?  I am willing bet 1 v 1 pvp and he will win cause you seem like an idoit.  500 ppl? I expect to play with Max graphics in every game I play reguardless of how many people are on my screen.  That is bad design if the game cannot handle 500 people in one spot.

Originally posted by Decrebaud

Only thing i worry about WAR's pvp is will it get boring after a few months? i mean ur attacking the same city over and over. . . your only goal is to attack the ONE main city and to climb in progression to attack that city. Imho it sounds repetative , if someone knows anything about other PvP related things, please tell me, because atm; this game is starting to look boring . I mean its fun to attack a city with 1000 people and all but is there anything else? like can all factions take over any cities   or is it just set to 1? because if you can take over any city  hehe theres gonna be alot more stratagy then i thought 

In fact you can wage war against any of your enemies cities. If your an orc or goblin and the dark elves are close to defeating the high elf city, you can if you so wish, transport to their lands and aid them. Doing so lessens your realms defenses, but might be enough to give the dark elves the numbers they need.

Originally posted by Decrebaud

Only thing i worry about WAR's pvp is will it get boring after a few months? i mean ur attacking the same city over and over. . . your only goal is to attack the ONE main city and to climb in progression to attack that city. Imho it sounds repetative , if someone knows anything about other PvP related things, please tell me, because atm; this game is starting to look boring . I mean its fun to attack a city with 1000 people and all but is there anything else? like can all factions take over any cities   or is it just set to 1? because if you can take over any city  hehe theres gonna be alot more stratagy then i thought 

There are three potential targets for attack (three enemy cities, each a full zone unto itself) and getting to that one city will require that we battle through and control of one of three warfronts that each consist of 3 large zones.  Since most people have played WoW at some point - imagine having to battle your way through a stubborn PvP resistance to gain control of all the fortifications and objectives (2-3 instanced PvP Scenarios and 3-10 battlefield objectives) in Ashenvale, then do it again in the Barrens in a whole new set of scenarios and over a completely new set of battlefield objectives, then do it again in Durotar, without losing ground to a counterattack, before finally being allowed to assault the gates of an Orgrimar that's the size of the entire Durotar zone.  Then imagine that there are two other war fronts where others will need to defend an array of scenarios and battlefield objectives while you're trying to gain territory on this war front. 

Add to that an array of 3-10 public quests per zone - region-wide sequential quests automatically assigned to anyone in the area, like orders for the army;  the enemy, meanwhile, pursues a range of sequential quests that run independently and often in direct opposition to our own public quests - sending us out into the open skirmish areas of the zones to play deadly games of stalk the prey with intelligent enemy players.

Compare that to games that give us 2-4 end-game zones and a similar number of raid instances against pre-scripted, easily mastered enemy bots for replayability.

I think your topic is a bit misleading... Its mythic... its WAR, its all about everything you do in the game contributes to the WAR going on around you.  Theres a point to pvp which is usually lacking in many mmos. 

The only let down I can see, if its not as good as DAOC.  But I am sure it will be better as they will improve on what they did in DAOC.  I ve never had the pleasure of playing DAOC, I did the trail but was too lazy/no time/too late to learn and then just end up quitting... I was so close to playing it at release but never did :(, and so many people I have talked to who did play it, say it was amazing... I kick myself for not playing it.

Really in terms of PVP mmos theres nothing really out there thats coming out.  AoC?  If you dont have a dx10 ready computer, your going to have to face facts, you wont be able to handle epic scale fights in that game.  Its almost OCT and its still laggy and choppy in small scale solo pve areas.  What makes you think you'll be able to play reliably, let alone having a game where all ilts functions and features actually work.  And aocs approach has been seperating pve and pvp, whereas WAR incorporates both, but focuses on pvp.

Originally posted by Rhoklaw

In regards to strategy and tactics in MMO's such as terrain modeling and name tags, WW2Online has gone that route, but since this thread went to crap about graphics instead of answering your question, I guess in a way they answered it ironically. Strategy and Tactics in MMO's involves large battles which some games focused on. WW2Online which I mentioned, Planetside, Shadowbane and Dark Age of Camelot. Of those 4 games I listed, only one is still played by a decent amount of players and that is DAoC. WW2Online is an older game and the graphics are lacking, but like some people know, no matter how rigged a players computer may be, no one is going to be able to handle hundreds of people in a simultaneous battle. That is unless you tone down the polygon count.

But no, I'm not looking for another game like that.  I really want to experience good storylines and RPG as well as PvP in WAR.

As for PvP performance, both WWIIOL and EVE (another game I play) could both do with some improvement  (especially EVE).  I guess as you say, its hard to avoid lag in mass-battles so I expect to encounter it in WAR as well.

Originally posted by Decrebaud

Only thing i worry about WAR's pvp is will it get boring after a few months? i mean ur attacking the same city over and over. . . your only goal is to attack the ONE main city and to climb in progression to attack that city. Imho it sounds repetative , if someone knows anything about other PvP related things, please tell me, because atm; this game is starting to look boring . I mean its fun to attack a city with 1000 people and all but is there anything else? like can all factions take over any cities   or is it just set to 1? because if you can take over any city  hehe theres gonna be alot more stratagy then i thought 

If you think you will even see the enemy city in a few months I think you will be mistaken. I believe it will get progressively harder as you take control points to take the next control points. You need to take the main control point in tier 4 to go against the enemies control point then once you take that you have access to the enemy gates. Then you have to fight your way into the city, the whole while you have your enemy with Npcs pounding on you. I really hope it will be like wows OLD AV. Where once you did get to the enemy stronghold it took hours and hours to take the general out even if it was just 20 people defending vs your 40.

You will probably see a lot of fighting back and forth from each side and breaching the enemy gates will be an absolutely huge accomplishment. As for the take over different city question, what do you mean? Chaos can help Greenskins take the dwarven city, Orcs can help take the Empires city, Chaos+Greenskins can help Dark Elves take the High Elves city, and vice versa for the other side.

It isn't going to be like like in each night and take the enemy city or even a weekly event.

Originally posted by Distaste

 

 

If you think you will even see the enemy city in a few months I think you will be mistaken. I believe it will get progressively harder as you take control points to take the next control points. You need to take the main control point in tier 4 to go against the enemies control point then once you take that you have access to the enemy gates. Then you have to fight your way into the city, the whole while you have your enemy with Npcs pounding on you.

And then you have to remember that there is the other side that could potentially be advancing toward one or both of your faction's other cities at the same time.