The game failed (for me) because it was not a Warhammer-like world. It never felt like Warhammer. I felt like I was playing in a series of connected maps the entire time. This game was heavily dependent on population and with too many servers upon release, they shot themselves in the foot. The PQs and RvR were fun despite the lack of an open cohesive world until the players began to leave. What is the point of having PQs all over the place when you don't have the population for it? The entire design screams inflated ego to me as if they thought droves of players would be occupying every area of ever tier map at all times. What BS.

Originally posted by BoudahXL

When a game director is so out of touch that he can list PvE, economics, and blame beta testers as why the game failed, it just contribute to the real reason behind all this.

WAR failed because it has no real direction, because the game director has no clue whatsoever what the game is all about for the players.

PR and Ad dept always pushed the game has best RvR out there... Hell they even legally prevented Fury from using the term RvR. Had Mythic fired this clown, maybe the game would have seen some success.

This is an excellent point. The RvR in this was disjointed and uncompelling. Also, and this may be a personal reason, they didn't include Khorne as a playable faction. As you can tell my avatar is the khorne symbol, why on earth you would take an IP like warhammer and not let players be khorne is beyond me.

But I digress. Quite simply for a game to be based off of full scale war as WAR was supposed to be, you really just don't feel it.

Proof positive... money and a talented staff, but no clue = flop.

They'd have done better with a DAOC II, providing they did follow the original design.

Ken

Originally posted by Skeeterxi

How can he not bring up performance issues. It don't matter how many things they get right or fix, if the game continues to run like crap, people are not going to play it. It could be the most fun game in the world and if it ran like WAR does it would end up frustrating and not fun. If my PC can Lotro and AoC on high, there is no excuse for WAR running like garbage. I'm all for sacraficing graphics for gameplay, but WAR sacraficed both apparently.

Let them take notes from Aion, hundreds on your screen and it runs smooth as silk. Its pathetic.

mm ncsoft has been making those a while they had their share of problem in past game 

but now with all the crew they got they can make some impressivly good looking smooth runing game 

and they re probably using state of the art server wich help a lot too

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

LOL, if you make these critical comments on the Warhammer Alliance & the official forums, it gets deleted and you get banned.  Just like it was with the whole Warbuddy fiasco.  Mythic is in denial mode.

Sad, the game had a lot of promise, but a crappy, stubborn & delusional development team happened to kill it off.  Hopefully another game can do the RvR concept.

But it's ok, most War players going to Aion anyway.

Link to warhammer alliance forums where they are talking about this topic:

www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php

So it didnt get deleted, instead its the mods over there that posted this topic. And of course a huge uproar follows.

Its just a very pathetic way of trying to play down the problem i guess. At least FC acknowledge the true problem of AoC in a video interview being posted here back then.

Very disppointed with mythic, very...

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

Originally posted by Khrymson

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

Hmm, both of your concerns have been adressed a long time ago. Open RvR gives you much more rewards than scenarios now, and there are repeatable quests in RvR areas (tho not as many or as fun as I'd like). On an active server there's plenty of open RvR in all tiers with ocassional scenario pops for a change of pace (if you need it). Maybe you should try a free 10 day return offer?

My reasons for WARs "failure":

(I use quotations because I still play it and I feel I get my money's worth)

1) Just 2 factions which create an inherently unbalanced environment. Why didn't they go for 3 which proved it's worth in DAOC? They were clueless obviously as to what exactly made DAOC work. It seems they stumbled into DAOC's winning design features by pure luck, rather than skill.

2) Too much PvE. Huge tracts of land are reserved for PvE content which is not what WAR should have banked on if it wanted to be competetive. PvP should have been the main "thing" in WAR and this should have been reflected in every aspect of the game, including zone design. In adddition PvE and PvP is forcibly separated through dull and restricting zone design - which diminishes the replayability and unpredictability of both. The game would brighten up enormously if they put some wandering PQs into RvR lakes and give a few PvP infiltration quests into the other faction's PvE zone.

3) The world cut up in all those isolated square maps. Breaks immersion, spreads players too thin and makes it almost impossible to make changes to the game (like adding 3rd faction which could have concievably be done post release if the world map were open).

4) Levels, tiers and crap. This is utterly unacceptable for a PvP game that relies on other people being there in order to work. One of the major reasons for Guild Wars success was its basically level-less advancement scheme that keeps all the players accessible to each other. Mythic is trying to address this issue with upcoming sidekicking system which would enable players from all levels to play together (it both increases or decreases the practical level, depending on where you want to go). However with this system you have to ask yourself "then what is the point of levels at all?"  And you would be right - the game would work much much better if there was a single player "level" and you would advance through collecting skills, unlocking stuff through tome and yes, of course, gear.

5) And oh yeah the client performance.. Tho I never did experience anything that would seriously override my enjoyment of the game. Guess I'm just lucky with my PC configuration and adaptable with regards to what I expect from the game... tho I understand that this is a huge issue for many.

Me 2 cents.

Originally posted by Khrymson

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

Uhm, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not a fan of PvP or the type of game that Mythic concept gears toward.

XP from Scenarios (NOT battleground) was very welcomed by the players.  Yet another concept WoW had to steal.

Warhammer Scenarios was one of the best things in that game.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

@ Markoraos.

So it took you 13 months to ACK those 5 points.

Having slaughtered about anyone who brought up decent remarks about the game and LOL-ing and Rofl all over people who actually would have preferred a REAL Warhammer Lore game.

It took me exactly 10 days to know and see through it.

75K and counting. Does EA support games under 70 K ?

As bad as some mechanics were in War, the fan boys going to Aion are even more naieve to play in the claws of a Korean copycat.

It is sad that a Korean money grabber is now taking money tx to the FUCK up of Mark Jacobs and Co.

If WAR had been done the way it should be, we would ALL play in that magnificent WH TT world I still play with my figs. Instead some will now invest in a game with winged female boyscouts in a loreless moneygrabber.

But Mythic too was only concerned with the hype and an access to the Blizzard goldmine. So stupid.

Games Workshop should gets its license back !

A)  Why are you posting here?   Getting ignored too much in the WoW forum

B)  What are you talking about?

C)  Games Workshop is one of the reasons of Warhammers failure in EU. 

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

Originally posted by Khrymson

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

 

Uhm, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not a fan of PvP or the type of game that Mythic concept gears toward.

XP from Scenarios (NOT battleground) was very welcomed by the players.  Yet another concept WoW had to steal.

Well, actually, WoW had xp from BGs in the form of repeatable quests about three years ago. It was a golden age for me, as I leveled my Mage primarily from AB runs.

I have no freakin idea why they canceled that.

Also - it's not stealing, it's copying. It's the right way to run an MMO, unless you want 2 dozen MMOs with a couple fo good ideas each out there.

 

Warhammer Scenarios was one of the best things in that game.

Sort of, yeah. Most were gimmicky and badly designed (why was there NO siege scenario?)

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

C)  Games Workshop is one of the reasons of Warhammers failure in EU. 

How so?

2 factions instead of 3 is the single biggest factor.

instanced pvp is the 2nd biggest factor.  which wouldnt have been required if they had had 3 or more factions.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

C)  Games Workshop is one of the reasons of Warhammers failure in EU. 

How so?

I agree with that how did Games Workshop do anything that contributed to WAR failing?

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

Originally posted by Khrymson

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

 

Uhm, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not a fan of PvP or the type of game that Mythic concept gears toward.

XP from Scenarios (NOT battleground) was very welcomed by the players.  Yet another concept WoW had to steal.

Warhammer Scenarios was one of the best things in that game.

Funny, I thought scenarios was the worst thing they did.  It takes people out of the main world RvR.  I know, people want fair fights.  To that I say, war is not supposed to be fair.  I like EVE's motto, "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong".

Originally posted by dave6660

Funny, I thought scenarios was the worst thing they did.  It takes people out of the main world RvR.  I know, people want fair fights.  To that I say, war is not supposed to be fair.  I like EVE's motto, "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong".

 

Most people get sick of mismatches.

I am neither a sadist nor a masochist.

War isn't fair - that's one of the horrible things about it. Games need to be fair.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

Originally posted by dave6660

Funny, I thought scenarios was the worst thing they did.  It takes people out of the main world RvR.  I know, people want fair fights.  To that I say, war is not supposed to be fair.  I like EVE's motto, "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong".

 

Most people get sick of mismatches.

I am neither a sadist nor a masochist.

War isn't fair - that's one of the horrible things about it. Games need to be fair.

I agree with the main feeling of imbalances ruined the game, and for me it was also as a long standing Warhammer fan, what they had actualy produced in the name of the ip, the game had scacrificed so much to become a MMO it lost its soul, it lacked direction in general, but with the IP in mind it was worse than a lack of direction it was clueless.

Maybe and its only I thought, if they built a solid PVE warhammer with the factions all correctly done, with their cities and their classes, then built a PVP, now normaly thats almost a sure fire way for a weak PVP, but I honestly think it would of gone the other way with Warhammer......Well it couldnt of been much worse lets put it that way.

All this article does is show us how clueless Mythic are about their own problems, since they don't mention the ACTUAL problems with the game.

I mean we're never going to see Blizzard saying "wow failed because":

• solo friendly
• PvE too easy at the beginning
• in game economy.

you're speaking crap Mythic

I mean get REAL Mythic... the reason your game did badly was because:

• *released too early (6 cities.. hmm... )
• *goa
• *not realising what the gamers wanted
• *crap engine
• *crafting useless
• *Too many PQ's and Fortresses too early [how many players do you see sticking around Tier 2&3], with crap rewards (too many cooks spoil the broth)
• *End Game (there isn't one)
• *not working on balance issues, ignoring them
• *too many live events
• *not enough content
• *creating high res shots of new armour, without telling the community that the armour exists in game but you just jiggled it around

and lots more.... you can't even admitt your own failures.. go look at Net Devils article after Auto Assault died... and understand why your MMO failed. You destroyed a loved fantasy setting.

Best thing Bioware can do, is to tell Mythic where to stick their ideas....

I loved DAoC but i can't get on with the clunky graphics now. I know graphics don't make a decent game (UO best mmorpg ever) but if Mythic had brought out DAoCII with updated graphics i'd have gone back like a shot. I agree with all the comments on why WAR has failed (running through an empty city on a PC that can run AoC full spec and still sticking eventually got to me) but i really enjoyed playing my Witchhunter...

Originally posted by Matt_UK

I loved DAoC but i can't get on with the clunky graphics now. I know graphics don't make a decent game (UO best mmorpg ever) but if Mythic had brought out DAoCII with updated graphics i'd have gone back like a shot. I agree with all the comments on why WAR has failed (running through an empty city on a PC that can run AoC full spec and still sticking eventually got to me) but i really enjoyed playing my Witchhunter...

A lot of the classes are cool to play.

There is a lot of good in the game, but it is buried in the bad.

I'll add my 2 cents:

1) The lack of unity among the factions. The green skins had a seperate area, the chaos did too as well as the dark elves. Thier should have been one or maby two areas for factions to progress.

2) End game pvp was a lagfest joke on the players. People trying to siege had huge amounts of lag and instability.

3) Crafting was garbage in this game. Crafting = economy = player interaction.

It was fun for like a month or two. But dam all that work for a poorly designed product, its a shame.

Another major downside of WAR: It's incredibly zerg-based. You can't really stand out and work on a great tactic that works fine.

You can't be the smart bastard that figured out some great, working mechanic to dominate. This makes PvP extremely satisfying for people who are unexperienced or just button mashing; but at the same time makes it completely pointless to figure out where your strengths and weaknesses are.

Honestly, while button mashing through scenarios or in an open RvR zerg you can contribute, kill and die as much as any other player... so why bother to actually be _good_? You are dark elf number 1241, and you do the dark elf thing, like everybody around you. *shrug*

M

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

Originally posted by Khrymson

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

 

Uhm, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not a fan of PvP or the type of game that Mythic concept gears toward.

XP from Scenarios (NOT battleground) was very welcomed by the players.  Yet another concept WoW had to steal.

Warhammer Scenarios was one of the best things in that game.

Funny, I thought scenarios was the worst thing they did.  It takes people out of the main world RvR.  I know, people want fair fights.  To that I say, war is not supposed to be fair.  I like EVE's motto, "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong".

 

You think scenarios are the worst thing? Imagine if there wasn't ever scenarios. What would happen is the overpopulated side would dominate repeatedly breaking the morale of underpopulated side. Broken morale means no players to PVP against. No matter what you think, without scenarios WAR would have tanked even sooner. It's not a perfect world where everything goes as you see it in your head. No matter how well thought out the ORVR is, when one faction dominates 2:1 it isn't lasting fun for the losing side.

Originally posted by protoroc

Originally posted by dave6660

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

Originally posted by Khrymson

The worst for me was not only the battlegrounds, but the massive amounts of XP you got from doing them also. {Never should have gotten XP from PvP...or at least that much.}  I was never a huge PvP person but I enjoyed it in DAoC and it was amusing in WAR.  It shouldn't have had Battlegrounds at all and was instead entirely focused on open-world PvP, and just make many more quests be interacted with the PvP areas instead so players could not only do PvP but also knock out quests for their XP as well!

 

Uhm, I think it's pretty obvious that you are not a fan of PvP or the type of game that Mythic concept gears toward.

XP from Scenarios (NOT battleground) was very welcomed by the players.  Yet another concept WoW had to steal.

Warhammer Scenarios was one of the best things in that game.

Funny, I thought scenarios was the worst thing they did.  It takes people out of the main world RvR.  I know, people want fair fights.  To that I say, war is not supposed to be fair.  I like EVE's motto, "If you're in a fair fight, you're doing something wrong".

 

You think scenarios are the worst thing? Imagine if there wasn't ever scenarios. What would happen is the overpopulated side would dominate repeatedly breaking the morale of underpopulated side. Broken morale means no players to PVP against. No matter what you think, without scenarios WAR would have tanked even sooner. It's not a perfect world where everything goes as you see it in your head. No matter how well thought out the ORVR is, when one faction dominates 2:1 it isn't lasting fun for the losing side.

Agree here. The game would have been a lot more versatile and less population dependend if they had introduced a third faction and not a block-war. The Warhammer lore provides plenty of opportunity to do so.

Well, many ifs and whens... the game is what it is, no use complaining now since it won't re-skyrocket miraculously. It will sit in its niche and some people will play it. Like Vanguard, like AoC, like HG, all the stars and stars-in-the-making that were to be _the_ second coming of MMORPGs...

M

I remember the first few weeks of warhammer. It was great fun.

Everyone was making use of the PQ's, the bo/keep attacks and not so many yet of the scenarios, so it seemed at least. Though the only problem was socializing. Noone said a single word, not in pq's or in chat. The game felt dead but still people seemed to have fun.

Then once you hit tier 2 and 3 you started to see the game's flaws. Orvr zones were way to small, keep sieges were boring, uninspiring and repetative. Orvr fights would always be around the same hot spots. Noone cared about  bo's and fights would mainly just take place near warcamps where you had guards one shotting you.

So people started to head for scenarios instead and thats where the real trouble began. They were way more rewarding then orvr and noone seemed to care anymore about the pve part of the game. Hardly any PQ's were being done and the orvr zones were deserted and all everyone did was stand in warcamps queing for scenarios.

My personal experience is that this is what killed the game. Scenarios + boring orvr. The orvr zones simply were way to small not to mention the stupid pve mechanic implemented in all orvr tier zones.

But many continued to lvl through scenarios and once they hit tier 4 they'd go for the fortresses to try raid the capital. Here came another huge dissapointment. Raiding the capital city wasnt anything more then another boring pve grind and felt unrewarding and uninspiring.

So mythig continued their ''loot makes a game'' focus and threw in grind-rewards for taking bo's etc to try make orvr more popular. This resulted in only making orvr even more boring then it already was with people joining bo-trains and try to avoid any fight to speed up the grind. Stupidest descision ever.

Mythic screwed up big time with ORVR which was their main component of the game or at least the component to selling it. They focussed to much on loot making orvr interresting instead of making orvr interresting by making it inspiring. Keeps and fortresses were designed so bad that it made every single keep fight the same fight. Orvr lakes to small with zone-border-lag in the wrong places and guards one shotting everyone plus providing a safe spot for everyone to fight at.

Still they continued to throw in more loot to try save orvr. Their mistake was the pyramid tier formed ORVR which they couldnt fix but only expand upon by adding but not by changing. Sure they could make better designed fortresses but thats about all they could do. There'd be no time to redesigned every single map in the game to make the orvr zones bigger and better and more inspiring. That would have meant redesigning the whole game.

Basically their orvr wasnt a game element. It was nothing more then a storyline to get people to rvr in a pve-reward system. They aimed for pve-reward mechanics and not for ORVR.

That's all  there was to it. Using the phrase "ORVR" was just a nice way to sell the game while basically the game wasnt designed around orvr at all. The game was designed around using a pve reward system, like wow's for instance, in a rvr world and ORVR was the only way to implement this lore wise and connect all components together. This is what made warhammer fail. This is why their whole design failed and made it extremely difficult for them to change the way the mechanics worked. 

Even a 3rd side wouldnt have changed this. Sure it would have made it a bit more fun, a bit more interresting and balanced. However the orvr design was a failed concept coz of them aiming in the wrong direction. They gaze was aimed to much at former mmorpgs which aimed at constantly rewarding players, think of wow. They wanted to implement the same system and this is where they failed.

If you look at daoc and why daoc orvr succeeded. It wasnt  the rewards, it was the inspiration that made it succesful. In warhammer with their pve-reward system and ORVR just a way of connecting the pve components they took all this inspiration away and instead made former, daoc's, ORVR nothing more then a solo game where people only cared about loot and nothing else mattered. Big mistake.

This game was hyped way too much by the fans and the developers, I was pretty dissapointed with it, I will be wary of Mythic games from now on, even now it still sounds like they don't quite get it.