To many instances suck. At some point it feels like you're in a lobby game or playing Diablo, not an MMORPG if you have to many instances. The Scenarios were instanced, so it felt like a big game of Diablo, not an open world.

Adding Scenarios kept people from RvR, which made the RvR suck.

Quest grinding sucks, and WAR PvE was all about quest grinding.

PQ's sucked. They were just a way to add more solo content, since you don't have to group to do a PQ.

Solo games suck, and WAR PvE wasn't as good a grouping game as DAoC.

The next logical step forward should have been territory you could take over and control, instead of fixed Realms that never changed. That's really all you had to ad to DAoC to move it forward.

I agree with Xasapis to a degree on WoWs open PVP.

In the first few months of wow, well before the start of battle grounds there would be epic battles between xcross and ashenvale and in southshore, there was no reason for 100+ players to fight, it was just fun, battlegrounds came along and althought it wasn't the death of world PvP it deminished it, it was flying mounts that finaly killed world PvP in wow.

Blizzard has tried to get players fighting, we had the sand in silithus, the towers in the east, the spirit towers in TBC and halaa, and we have wintergrasp and PvP daily quests in Wotlk.  So its not like blizzard have not tried.

But they also have not realy tried, they want to add world PvP but make it 100% optional even on PvP servers, and thats not good enough.

I could make 1 change over night to ignite world PvP and that is player loot, not cash or weapons but hooves, ears, tusks, bones etc.  Put venders in the world who will give you gear, potions, vanity items etc for x number of tauran hooves or x number of Nightelf ears you turn in.  now watch as raids form and camp outside horde villages and alliance towns. Have weekly bounties on key NPC... EPIC is back!

Originally posted by Ihmotepp

To many instances suck. At some point it feels like you're in a lobby game or playing Diablo, not an MMORPG if you have to many instances. The Scenarios were instanced, so it felt like a big game of Diablo, not an open world.

Adding Scenarios kept people from RvR, which made the RvR suck.

Quest grinding sucks, and WAR PvE was all about quest grinding.

PQ's sucked. They were just a way to add more solo content, since you don't have to group to do a PQ.

Solo games suck, and WAR PvE wasn't as good a grouping game as DAoC.

The next logical step forward should have been territory you could take over and control, instead of fixed Realms that never changed. That's really all you had to ad to DAoC to move it forward.

Well I don't think those things suck in themselves in a MMORPG, I thought the scenarios and PQs were a lot of fun in themselves, but I agree in an RvR game like WAR everything needs to be geared towards channeling people into gigantic RvR fights and yes I think you need to be able to take over whole regions, actually push the other side back etc and not just endlessly fight over the same ground.

The real reason is simply that humans cannot actually adapt that easily with something new. If it was the case, everyone would be walking around with GSM, smartphones. However, you'll still see a huge majority of the population using the old school CDMA phones.

WOW was there first and therefore, most players that are happy in WOW, won't really feel the need to try something that might be "slightly" better. Instead they will stay on WOW until their forced to change.

 As for the people that don't like WOW, well chances are, they won't like WAR or Lord of the Ring. 

The OP is mostly correct.

Another problem with WAR is that it is too much like WoW and not enough like DAoC.

Mainly in the area of RvR freedom. WAR has a guided/theme park like RvR experience, while DAoC had a free, do I dare to say, sandboxy type of RvR.

In DAoC you could roam around in small gangs or you could follow the zerg or you could run in medium sized guild groups.

You could try to cap all the keeps and go for the relic or you could cap a few keeps and defend or you could cap enough keeps and go to Darkness Falls or you could cap no keeps and go straight for the Relic ( which was harder but possible ).

There were 3 realms which is alot more dynamic than  the 2 realm RvR from WAR, you can see this especially now in the LoTD, with 3 realms you always have some 2 way struggle while a third may be inside the RvR dungeon.

The RvR area was alot bigger, and dying meant something, either you get rezzed, or you have a long walk back ( plus a portal in the old days ).

The seperation of the homeworlds ( PvE ) and the RvR area was also a nice thing, this is also done in WAR to some extent.

WAR also did not feel like a big world, but had this arcade like map. WoW made it's map pretty good, even tho it was not one big world, but 3 continents, the map made it look like one big world.

The areas in themselves in WAR also felt too restricted, more restricted than for example WoW, and ALOT more restricted than in DAoC, where running on foot from snowdonia to cornwall took a long time, and it felt like a big world.

Good memories from DAoC during the SI era ...

 I thought War was entertaining for the 5 months I played.  But thats the thing, I did everything there was to do in 5 months.  I had a great time, the PvP was better than most, but at the end of the day it wasn't persistant enough for me.  And for the record, 5 months of War was more exciting than a year of WoW.

PvP games need to pit players against players in a more maluable world.  War was too static.  The goals were driven by the Dev's not the players.

I didn't read this whole thread so if that's been said....Hat's off

The concept behind WAR was great, they just failed to execute it properly.  Everything get's so repetitive.  All the RvR zones are the same aside from looks.  There really isn't any variety, every keep is the same, and every lord is the same.  I don't know who had the great idea of making players smack a door for 10-15 minutes, but I hope they got fired.  All the PvE zones are split in half, which makes it difficult to run into enemy players outside of the lakes.  This makes the game even more boring since everyone spends most of their time in the lakes.  I always liked running into enemies in WoW.  That rarely happened in WAR, unless you were in a RvR Lake. 

On top of that the game is designed for players to PvP in order to PvE, which is the main problem.  That doesn't make much sense to me.  The whole reason I started playing WAR was for PvP.  Why is it that all the best  gear required PvE (yes keeps and city are PvE)? Sure they have tokens now, but the grind is MUCH worse than WoW's honor system.  It already sucked that it took me forever to get ONE piece of armor.  I would never win the roll no matter how high my contribution was. 

Mythic over-hyped the game and made some horrible decisions.  I was under the impression that these guys made the best PvP MMO to date. I never played DAOC, but it sure as hell couldn't have resembled this game at all. Mythic had their chance to turn the game around.  They had a loyal fanbase who supported them and believed they would fix what was broken.  No, they only provided bandaid fixes and new content in hopes that people would forget the problems. 

This is not the way to treat your customers.  Look at where this got them?  Most of their loyal fans/customers hate this game now.  All of my RL friends who loved the game at first, hate it now.  Only one of them says he loved it, but he quit playing way before I did. The only thing they got right was EXP through PvP.

Originally posted by Xasapis

As I said, and you seem to agree, is that the arena implementation is very good. I also expect it to be further enchanced with the upcoming changes in battle.net.

What is lacking, and what I'm referring to as open world PvP, is something else. Something that wintergrasp or similar battleground like implementations can't provide.

1. There is little incentive to actively seek the opposing faction in WoW in the beautiful open and seamless environment, when you can just hop in an instance very fast. So little if any world PvP is happening. What I'm referring to is the equivalent of the early days crossroads and similar attacks, where people were fighting all over the map for no other reason beyond the conflict.
   Btw, I don't consider gangers a form of meaningful open world PvP.
2. Even if we consider wintergrasp an equivalent of a castle siege, it fails on the very principle of siegeing. There is little incentive in keeping hold of wintergrasp, when there is more to be gained from recapturing every couple hours. At least on my server the lake was changing hands everytime the territory was open for PvP (even though Horde was totally outnumbered by alliance).

So imagine a game where the above characteristics are inversed:

1. A world with no arenas or instanced battlegrounds, where the conflict between the factions can span through whole regions.
2. Castles that are too precious to be handed over to the other side and guilds would fight over their dominion, no matter what the personal loss would be.

Doesn't this sound like a different game to you?

WAR tried to stand somewhere in the middle, which didn't work out that well (I don't dismiss the unresponsiveness of the combat as an added problem).

Aion on the other hand seems to keep the best elements of Lineage 2 (conflict everywhere and territorial control that mattered) and lose some of the problems (insane level grinding), while it remains to be seen if it will lose all problems (botting, hacking etc). We already know that it has a very solid and responsive game engine, even when a lot of people are present. What remains to be seen is how they implemented open world PvP, if territory control is actually meaningful (for now it looks good on paper) and if they take a more aggressive stance against cheaters (botting, hacking, gold farming etc).

My hopes are high for Aion, but if it fails to impress me, I won't care much. The same way I didn't care when AoC and WAR didn't meet my expectations.

The Crossroads and Tauren Mill battles happened because they were brawls.  People just wanted to fight and they did not really care why.  They went to Crossroads and Tauren Mill because they are easy to get to fight whenever you wanted.  There was nothing strategic or meaningfull (in a big picture sense)  to them.  For all intents and purposes they were PvP hubs just as Battlegrounds and Wintergrasp are.  They weren't 'real' world PvP.

I have to strongly disagree with your point about a lack of incentive to fight for Wintergrasp.  On my server WIntergrasp battles are a tooth-and-nail affairs.  Neither side really wants to give up Wintergrasp and the majority of battles are fought out to the bitter end even if one side is obviously winning.  I've been in a few battles where the Horde won the battle with only a few seconds left on the clock.

The primary problem with 'meaningfull' territory control is balance and the corresponding 'Spiral of Defeat'.  People will not fight over territory that has no value to them.  The more valuable the territory the more people are willing to sacrifice to get control of it.   If the territory is really valuable it will give whoever holds it a serious advantage thus making it easier for him to defend it.  Conversly those not holding the territory will be at a disadvantage.  If the power unblaance persist for too long the attackers will start losing players who will switch to the other side so they too can partake of the benefits.

If the attacker concludes that the power balance is too far in their disadvantage, they will stop attacking becasue it would be the stupid thing to do.  They will wait for a better opportunity where they have the advantage.  In a MMORPG that usually means attacking when the defenders are offline.   If the other side cannot reliably defend their territory they will not put as much effort into doing it since it become futile to do so. 

Originally posted by humwha

 

Why Wow is well WoW and war is in decline

 

I really don't know. Everyone likes to think, that they think WAR sucks. But I think it's a great game. I'm playing right now (two monitors).

WAR is way more fun for me than WoW ever was. I just don't get how to have fun it WoW, but I do get how to have fun in WAR.

I do about 50/50 scenarios and RvR with no PvE, and I have a lot of fun. But I also had fun in CoX, another game people didn't really get.   So I just don't jibe with the popular crowd when it comes to MMOs. 

Originally posted by GreenChaos

Originally posted by humwha

 

Why Wow is well WoW and war is in decline

 

 

I really don't know. Everyone likes to think, that they think WAR sucks. But I think it's a great game. I'm playing right now (two monitors).

WAR is way more fun for me than WoW ever was. I just don't get how to have fun it WoW, but I do get how to have fun in WAR.

I do about 50/50 scenarios and RvR with no PvE, and I have a lot of fun. But I also had fun in CoX, another game people didn't really get.   So I just don't jibe with the popular crowd when it comes to MMOs. 

For myself i do PVE while in the Q for scenarios. When the scenario is over i "re Q" and continue on my way to the quest target. Yes i to find Warhammer more fun than WOW but could be do to the fact that i have WOW burnout like so many gamers.

Originally posted by Kyleran

To keep it simple.  I played WOW for about 18 months total, and eventually decided I had enough of that game style and moved on.

I gave WAR, AOC , ROM, and others a try, and in most cases I came to the same conclusion.  This is too similar to WOW, there's no reason for me to play it.

For the past 2 years I've been playing EVE and keep coming back to it, because it does not feel like WOW.

But I do miss swinging a broadsword sometimes.

 

 

I can sort of understand the WAR and WoW comparison (although I think there are a lot more differences than people let on) but in what way, shape, or form is AoC similar to WoW?

Originally posted by humwha

The senario's lack meaning

Did you even play the game?  Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone.  Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.

You're right about T4 being the problem, but not because it was repetitive necessarily.  Everything is repetitive in that perspective.  WoW is very repetitive at endgame, just raid, get gear, raid again, do dailies, raid.

T4 blew due to the broken city siege mechanic.  It also became a problem due to class imbalance and the CC/AoE nonsense.  Game client was problematic & super laggy.  2 factions system with zone lockdowns ended up being a problem for some.  Oh yeah, and city sieges were retarded the way they were structured.

That being said, Warhammer is the best mass PvP game on the market.  If only the developers focused the fixed the right aspects, the game would be flourishing right now.  Mythic also should have never aimed at the WoW crowd, as most WoW players are clueless when it comes to a PvP MMO.  They join a PvP MMO and then complain about lack of WoW like PvE.  Utter morons.

I played both games & quit both games.  If I had to choose one, I would prob play Warhammer again and level my alts through T1-T3, which are a blast.  Warhammer has great potential, but I think EA threw in the towel on it.

Originally posted by arenasb

Originally posted by Kyleran

To keep it simple.  I played WOW for about 18 months total, and eventually decided I had enough of that game style and moved on.

I gave WAR, AOC , ROM, and others a try, and in most cases I came to the same conclusion.  This is too similar to WOW, there's no reason for me to play it.

For the past 2 years I've been playing EVE and keep coming back to it, because it does not feel like WOW.

But I do miss swinging a broadsword sometimes.

 

 

 

I can sort of understand the WAR and WoW comparison (although I think there are a lot more differences than people let on) but in what way, shape, or form is AoC similar to WoW?

It's an MMO.  That's bout where the similarity ends.  AoC is PvP focused.

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

Did you even play the game?  Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone.  Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.

Scenarios were not in anyway important why would you care if the zone flipped did you really look at the bar after a scenario and go yay it went up or down?  .

The only why they would be important if they were in the real zone and you were teleported to them, they should have replaced the stupid BO in each rvr lake. 

it's not like there are any mobs in the lake either, depending on the amount of players in the lake for each side even it out with some bots  Give each player a npc guard or 2 to even it out if there too outnumbered when it started.

Because WoW is easy and accessable to most anyone and anyone can do it because its a simple game with easy combat and raiding.

Originally posted by Zorndorf

Mythic played a perfect game in the field:

(Xn, .... Sn) = Wow. Where X = the number of traditonnal Fantasy mmorpg's and S is the strategies they use.

As long as you make the exact copies of the field winner, you reinforce its position.

Even if you would add some strategy cards to the new game (like Xp through PvP and join BG's (scenarios) from anywhere) you simply add market share to the winner.

Blizzard added joining BG's from anywhere (3.1) and Xp through pure PvP leveling  in patch 3.2.

The result is you can't out Wow - Wow.

Mythic should have made a complete different game mechanic. Just like all those 13 in a dozen clones released and (sigh) to be released.

... and IF you want to push a PvP game ... at least have the best fluid responsive controls possible (War's engine was ... bad)....

 

When you fecking moron stop calling everything as a wow clone...wow is a fucking copy of eq and so on.

If wow has most of the palyer base in eastern world it doesn't give the "GOD" title!

I wonder why i still play wow because i know there are delusionists like you...any change that you were one of those in basement with the "daddy" ...don't you guys do that in there?

Since you talk so much about Warhammer in OP, you should've posted it on the Warhammer area.

I, being no WoW or WAR fanboy, but actually owning both games, have to say WoW giving XP in BGs, acessibility from anywhere, and planning to give out equipment in BGs are really a very considerable copy of what WAR had of different and good in my opinion.

So, who's cloning who after all?

From a gamer's perspective though, we're finnaly beginning to see major games shifting in the direction to award experience for PvP, which is something new to the table. And trust me, as the Behemoth is using it, expect every game from now on to feature it, not that it's bad but I actually like this feature.

 I think a more suitable question would be why gamers (of all tastes and preferences) play WoW and only MMORPG players play WAR?

Short answer since I'm still at work.

I believe we're talking about two schools of MMO progression:

• Every member is trying to be the best it can be and so the guild he/she is in becomes stronger out of it. This is the basic principle of people-centric games like WoW (in the way you described it). Bottom line, a member of a guild doesn't lose much of his personal power or status by leaving this guild.
• Alternatively, a guild or clan is growing stronger and the strength is transferred to its members. In games like EVE or Lineage 2, it's not that much the individual that matters but the whole unit. Bottom line, a member of a guild looses quite a bit of his personal power or status by leaving this guild.

Both schools are valid and there are games that cater to both of them.

As I said earlier in the quoted message, WAR tried to be a successful guild progression based MMO, but ultimately failed to deliver a proper RvR game. Lineage 2 for example, has very successfully implemented territorial control, both in the form of castles and in the form of controlling choke points. Castles is obvious, the difference from WAR is that there is zero incentive to maintain control of the castle, while Lineage 2 gives very strong incentives (to the point where people were willing to delevel, aka losing 100-200 hours worth of exp). EVE has the same situation, people are gambling everything they have to protect their assets in 0.0.

Choke points is controlling part of the map, so that the other faction/guild/clan etc does not control it. Imagine an Alliance guild barring the entrance to Onyxia from Horde, so that the only way for Horde to gain access to Onyxia is to defeat the Alliance. To be fair, Blizzard implemented various points like this in the world map (silithus, Halla etc), but due to little incentive as opposed to arena/battlegrounds, those open world objectives were pretty much ignored. Basically, the same situation as WAR, scenarios had a huge negative impact on open world PvP.

I'm not expecting WAR to improve, unless they either:

• Create scenario free servers or,
• Remove the scenario mechanism altogether.

Since this is unlikely to happen, open world PvP will be sabotaged by scenarios. I'm afraid I have not experienced Land of the Dead to give an accurate account of the RvR involved, but it seems from various posts that PvE this time is hindering open world PvP.

I don't think that I played an MMO that recreated the adrenaline rush involved with barely keeping your castle, while overwhelmed by hordes of enemies. In WoW, my big adrenaline rush was due to raid bosses and belonging/managing the best raid guild in the server. Wintergrasp reminds me a lot (in feeling) to Team Fortress 2, it was enjoyable, fast paced and fun, but also devoid of any emotional attachment. I didn't even feel disappointment when losing the battleground, since in my mind that was inevitable due to the design of the lake.

Hmmm, better stop now, I spent more time than planned.

Originally posted by humwha

Originally posted by Hydroblunt

Did you even play the game?  Scenarios contributed to flipping the zone.  Plus it was a great way to level through PvP.

 

Scenarios were not in anyway important why would you care if the zone flipped did you really look at the bar after a scenario and go yay it went up or down?  .

I don't know why you even bother talking about WAR when you lack the IQ to undestand the concept of Realm versus Realm and WAR being a PvP game.

Regardless, WAR scenarios are lots of fun and great way to level via PvP.