WAR (Warhammer Online)

Originally posted by Whiskeyjack1

 

Originally posted by tikovoo

 

Originally posted by Pheace

 

 

 

 

Which just illustrates the flaw of the design. Where is the fluency, City gets sacked, move to another spot, set up your base there, have the options to build up certain cities/bases in favor of others due to player activity. Things like that.

There isn't. It's all set, nothing's going to change if people walk into your city, you wait a while or kick them out yourselves and everything is back as it was. Not falling back to another position on the map and making your stand there or anything.

 

Yes, population balance is a problem I know, that's why a 2faction system doesn't really work well in my opinion.

 

Can you imagine how much War and Chaos it would have been if all the WAR races would actually have had their own side? Now that's war! and population imbalance would have seemed a much less problem.

 

I'm sure they are doing the best they can but in my belief, the design is very rigid and static and much like a BG in that regard.

I kinda have to agree from information i've taken in i agree with what you say.

 

But where you say "set your base up there" i thought that all the cities were static and not dynamic or player made. The cities are just....there... so once you know a scenerio its going to be the same over and over and over again - arent keeps in warhammer just building already there too one location all the time, whether fortified or not, and restrictions in place.?

Ever tought of putting it in warhammer context maybe? This ain't AoC nomad/barbarian fest where you setup your backwater citie elsewhere when the previous one is destroyed. Thank god. The warhammer races have lost very important cities , then taken em back. Sometimes not. It's the license whole philosophy , endless war . Order races have been under attack for centuries. Getting sacked , burned and killed. They eventually retake their cities ,then reconstruct. I don't see anything wrong with that. Only someone always seeing glasses half-empty , like Pheace , would. 

 

It's also a game. As no player would like to see years ,  decades or centuries go by inbetween taking and retaking. ( Like  in the warhammer world lore). They just made the processus playable.

For anyone who just dumb down this game to the point of calling it a "big WOW BG" .Can you please just stay there and play the new expansion/grindfest of WOW?.  It would save a lot of headaches in both camps. Using broad similarities is  what people that have no arguments would do.   

It's pvp , has pve quest component and its campaigns reset ... so it's like a BG . Right? Wow , you're a real genius. 

 

I think its going to be different from Daoc in a few ways.

It sounds more like an Alliance Battle in Guild Wars, but on a larger map, with quests in there and some control points on the map and a timer. ther difference being just a few cities/maps.

People will play this game and not give a shit about the lore you know, they will just see two sides, simple as that. People will also make WoW comparisons for years to come thats something your going to have to get used to whether you like it or not.

look im still going to play war, its just you seem to have been brainwashed into making out the game is something its not. its not complicated it doesnt need to be dumbed down.

I guess the best way to describe how the RvR works in WAR is basically like WW2 Online. I've never had a problem with WW2 Online in that regard at all. Basically, this kind of game design prevents a certain realm from being in a constant win status which is far more stagnant then getting a map reset.

AoC is more like Shadowbane, where players could build cities pretty much anywhere and had to defend them 24/7. Granted, sieges in Shadowbane had certain time restraints set by the city owners, such as it couldn't be sieged except for the 2-3 hour window the city owner set it at.

I'm not entirely sure how AoC is setup, but if it's a constant FFA, then it's going to have some serious requirements from the players to keep their cities from being destroyed. I prefer a game where I can actually sleep without worrying about my city being destroyed, if you know what I mean.

I may try AoC just to see what it's all about, but I'm pretty sure the combat system alone will be enough to convince me not to stick with it.

Originally posted by airstrike

 Yes you are extremly right,WAR is a big WoW BG,soo stay away from WAR and play WoW,tell your friends to do the same.

 

Yep pretty much what he said.  You will not do well at WAR dont even waste your time.  Wait for wotlk trust me on this one WoW players are not cut out for a pvp game.

Originally posted by tikovoo

 

Originally posted by Whiskeyjack1

 

Originally posted by tikovoo

 

Originally posted by Pheace

 

 

 

 

Which just illustrates the flaw of the design. Where is the fluency, City gets sacked, move to another spot, set up your base there, have the options to build up certain cities/bases in favor of others due to player activity. Things like that.

There isn't. It's all set, nothing's going to change if people walk into your city, you wait a while or kick them out yourselves and everything is back as it was. Not falling back to another position on the map and making your stand there or anything.

 

Yes, population balance is a problem I know, that's why a 2faction system doesn't really work well in my opinion.

 

Can you imagine how much War and Chaos it would have been if all the WAR races would actually have had their own side? Now that's war! and population imbalance would have seemed a much less problem.

 

I'm sure they are doing the best they can but in my belief, the design is very rigid and static and much like a BG in that regard.

I kinda have to agree from information i've taken in i agree with what you say.

 

But where you say "set your base up there" i thought that all the cities were static and not dynamic or player made. The cities are just....there... so once you know a scenerio its going to be the same over and over and over again - arent keeps in warhammer just building already there too one location all the time, whether fortified or not, and restrictions in place.?

Ever tought of putting it in warhammer context maybe? This ain't AoC nomad/barbarian fest where you setup your backwater citie elsewhere when the previous one is destroyed. Thank god. The warhammer races have lost very important cities , then taken em back. Sometimes not. It's the license whole philosophy , endless war . Order races have been under attack for centuries. Getting sacked , burned and killed. They eventually retake their cities ,then reconstruct. I don't see anything wrong with that. Only someone always seeing glasses half-empty , like Pheace , would. 

 

It's also a game. As no player would like to see years ,  decades or centuries go by inbetween taking and retaking. ( Like  in the warhammer world lore). They just made the processus playable.

For anyone who just dumb down this game to the point of calling it a "big WOW BG" .Can you please just stay there and play the new expansion/grindfest of WOW?.  It would save a lot of headaches in both camps. Using broad similarities is  what people that have no arguments would do.   

It's pvp , has pve quest component and its campaigns reset ... so it's like a BG . Right? Wow , you're a real genius. 

 

But with AoC its all player made therefore I think it will have more meaning. You hold your city/keep for as long as you can, its not detirmined by a timer, it detirmined by strength and tactics. In warhammer there wil ultimately be a timer on everything, whatever the outcome the whole thing magically resets. You can't craft building, you probably will be able to craft siege weapons (from feedback). Everything else though is static, the buildings are in the same place each time, the lay of the land the same each time.

 

I think its going to be different from Daoc in a few ways.

It sounds more like an Alliance Battle in Guild Wars, but on a larger map, with quests in there and some control points on the map and a timer. ther difference being just a few cities/maps.

People will play this game and not give a shit about the lore you know, they will just see two sides, simple as that. People will also make WoW comparisons for years to come thats something your going to have to get used to whether you like it or not.

look im still going to play war, its just you seem to have been brainwashed into making out the game is something its not. its not complicated it doesnt need to be dumbed down.

Meaning doesn't come from how the building is put in place or if the location move. How rebuilding in a slightly different location after being defeated not a "Reset Timer"? . Players will care because they will lose time and resources from the destroyed city . Nothing to do with having more meaning.

Players will care in WAR because of faction/race pride ( much more powerful than a guild one imo) . Losing a capital city have detrimental effects on your whole race. Victory gives you loot , buffs , unlocking of dungeons/misc stuffs . i can only imagine the feeling ,  finally winning a capital after 2-3 months of fighting to get there.You don't just do the whole faction war content in a week , then reset and repeat. Did you even read about this game? 

Winning in AoC give Blood money to buy pvp gear, amazing BG/Arena concept. Great sinkhole of time and money to keep people playing I guess. Always losing and rebuilding will keep players busy grinding for mats and money. If it's too easy and cheap to reconstruct , losing it have no meaning.   

I don't see any similarities between that and guild wars alliance battle at all. Even the scenario instance i've played at gamesday had bigger scope than any fight i've had in GW. Nothing to do with being brainswashed. I just know what I am talking about , unlike you it seems.

Anyways , hopefully you'll drift to AoC. Since you seem to think that WAR is a very simple game with no substance.    

Originally posted by altairzq

 

Originally posted by swainiac

The problem with MMO's today is that all people can do is compare elements of gameplay to WoW. The key malfunction with that logic is that you can't even think outside of what you got in WoW.

Asking questions in comparison to WoW shows that you don't have the mental ability to think outside that realm.

RvR is not a BG. It is not like a BG. It is not similar to a BG. There are tons of videos that explain RvR. Go to youtube and search for the topic.

WoWheads just can't get it. Stop trying to filter games through WoW's gameplay.

This is what worries me. I have watchet podcasts  about RvR, just as much as the average guy interested in this game without being a big fan. System looks complex, all those graphics with arrows, points won there and then having an impact here. OK. But, my concern is about the battle itself. I mean, you can have the best system, but if battles are meaningless due to a lack of death penalty, then all the system is meaningless.

 

For your information I started playing EQ in it's first year, until PoP. Yes I have played WOW too, but you know, so many people have, it's good to know how WAR is different from it, because a lot of gamers want something different, me included.

PvP is meaningful if

it impacts the reason you play

It leads to realm success or failure

It opens up new possibilities in gameplay

It leads to bigger battles that yield rewards in terms of land (cities) and gear (not important to me)

It allows you to level up without "questing"

It is tied into the lore and quests

Death penalty is only one factor

NDA is still ruling, we are still restricted on the amount of information available/shareable.  On the other hand, the game is still being shaped.  It might be a bit too early to drawn fast conclusions.

There is one major difference when talking about RvR (not just PvP) in WAR.  The game is the RVR, its not an add on, a minor side issue.  RVR is the game.  RVR is far bigger than PVP.  Its a Realm against another, not just a duel between 2 persons.

People criticize about the lacking in death penalty.  That is not the way the game is supposed to be played.  Penalty is not on the player, its on the REALM.  Losing the fight means little to any single player personally, but the realm may be suffering.  In the old DAoC days, if you lose in the frontiers you lose relics, you lose combat effectiveness as a realm and you lose access to good dungeons like DF.

If you only focus on yourself in the game, and measures everything by how much you can loot after killing a single enemy, or the death penalty suffered by yourself (or how far you can grief one single enemy) or how well you can win a duel ..., if all you care for is yourself, maybe you would not enjoy the game as much as it was supposed to be.  WAR is a realm game, feel the realm to feel the game.

Originally posted by Whiskeyjack1

 

Ever tought of putting it in warhammer context maybe? This ain't AoC nomad/barbarian fest where you setup your backwater citie elsewhere when the previous one is destroyed.

Ow I'm  just another AoC Fanboy then? I think I saw one video of that game with the horse once. I don't follow AoC, I was going off random thoughts.

My points stand about what I thought would make this game a better thing and nothing you said beyond that point makes any difference to that.