Originally posted by Daffid011

Originally posted by JGMIII 

First of all calm yourself before you have a heart attack.

-ok I guess

Second, You brought up what people may say if WAR ommitted pvp not me.

Third, I don't give a shit what MMO you played.

I never said WARs pve was just as good as every other games, I said it wasnt bad and i've seen other games with worst (i never said which ones).

News flash buddy, WAR is a pvp game if your leaving due to lack of pve stuff then you don't belong in game.

I don;t log into FFXI and bitch on the forums because it lacks pvp, same for lotro.

 Edit: when you actually played UO did you also bitch due to lack of pve? wait maybe you were a pro-Trammel player......

 

1) Yes heart attack, thanks for the advice doctor.  I'll get right on that.

No worries wouldn;t want some crazy fanboi getting all dead on us how will we continue these wonderful mmo arguments in the future.

 

2) You said war is a pvp game and that pve players "didn't" belong.  Just to quote you

"Edit: to any posters in this thread complaining about lack of raids or dungeon content you weren't intended to even be playing WAR. This game is a pvp game lol. Pve in WAR equals PQs, crafting, quests and a few minor dungeons."

This is true, if WAR was a pve focused game wouldnt Mythic a developement house certainly capable of a good MMO (DAoC) make more progression dungeons and litter the game world with more pve stuff? Even as limited as it is I still enjoy it that's why I say its "Good".

If you had opened your mind just a little bit you would see that mythic spent a great deal of time on the PVE portion of the game.  I would wager that there is more real estate dedicated to pve than there is to pvp in your self proclaimed pvp only game.  There are numberous videos of mythic developers talking about how players can player from start to finish without ever joining in pvp.  So you would be wrong in your assestment on many levels in a game where pvp was billed as being optional.

Yes pvp and pve as an option for leveling, Quests, Pq;s and ToK help with that but WAR is still far from a Pve focused game.

Also, the keep seiging was not part of the original game design and only added in the late hours of beta, because players were saying the game was lacking.  Before you go off telling people they don't belong somewhere you may want to do just a little research, because warhammer almost was the game without RvR that we both agree no one would have subscribed to. 

We both know EA forced these bastards to release WAR early if they didnt we would have had more Rvr shit in the game and siegeing wouldnt have shown up late. WAR has always been a pvp focused game just watch the PR campaigns. sure they have Pve as a side game but Orvr and Scenarios make up the meat of the game kind of like WoWs Raids and dungeons do in that game.

 

3) Now you don't care what games I have played, because you directly asked me if, and I quote you, "Are you new to MMOs? was WoW your first game where you need every MMO you play to be a jack of all trades mmo to even be interesting to you?"

Didn;t need you to answer, was mostly a slam against you in good fun. Didn't matter what game you played the way you push for a Everything to everyone MMO makes you seem like a brand new MMO newb.

So please don't act like you were not trying to paint me into some bad light with that type of comment or whatever other gross generalization you inflate to give yourself some sense of credibility. 

I was and I did and it was fun.

Furthermore, it was not my desire or anyone elses desire for warhammer to have a pve aspect to the game.  That is how mythic designed it.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Players are just reacting to what mythic made and how they billed it. 

Mythic added in Pve as a side game to RvR what's so hard to understand?

 

Never said warhammers pve just as good as the rest of the market?  Actually you said it was the same as every other game as far as quests, dungeons, etc.  Except when you said there were worse games, which we can both agree one.

"I don;t think the Pve content was bad in WAR...The quests were like every other MMO, the PQs were fun, the dungeons were decent and the ToK was a blast." My quoted statement on WARs pve is correct that still doesnt make it a pve focused game and yes WAR's pve is better than a ton of games

I think you will be hard pressed to find many people who think warhammers pve was on par with the rest of the market and would be overwhemled with people who found it stale, repetitve and uninspiring to say the least. 

 

Yes because other MMos don;t have generic Quests, bland dungeons and repetitive grinds... oh wait!

 

 

Originally posted by sceeZ

Originally posted by Scyris

Originally posted by sceeZ

i dont agree to th whole mmo's are PvE games with some pvp added. i play mmo's for PvP and personally i hate PvE and im sure alot of people tried WAR for that exact reason. been a lack of good pvp mmo's out so when one comes out everyone that isnt the raiding type from WoW or whatever wants to try it.

 

im my opinion WAR failed because of population issues. way to many servers at launch caused the general population of the game to be spread way to thin and you could never get any open world pvp started and it all became scenarios and you can get the same battleground instanced pvp "crap" in WoW.

 

Why play a PVP game if all it offer is the same kind of boring PvP that more rounded games with more content already has? Im sad it failed though and hoping aion will do better as a more pvp focused mmo

 

Aion won't its a korean grinder at its core so expect long grinds for levels that is boring as hell even more so than usual, so have fun grinding for days for one level XD. Just to go and get owned by someone a few levels higher. I got into the beta for aion and pretty much cancelled my pre-order after playing it for a day or 2. I wrote it off as generic korean grinder with above average graphics.

 

well plaync or ncsoft or whatever have said the game is getting tweaked for EU/US release. im sure they know the western markets dont enjoy grinding as much as koreans do and will probably shorten it

They have already stated that there is no change for the NA release that will NOT affect the current game. In other words the grind will stay the same, as that may upset their current base. 

Originally posted by JGMIII

Furthermore, it was not my desire or anyone elses desire for warhammer to have a pve aspect to the game.  That is how mythic designed it.  What is so hard to understand about that?  Players are just reacting to what mythic made and how they billed it. 

Mythic added in Pve as a side game to RvR what's so hard to understand?

 

I'll just comment on this and ignore the rest of your usual bile filled tripe.

Mythic made a game that attempted to cater to a wide audience which included the pve crowd.  Warhammer has more pve content than it does pvp content if that tells you anything.  Even the pvp content has a very strong pve focus of dungeons, PQs, raids on npcs, etc.  The developers have talked numberous times about the pve focus of the game and the pvp focus while making sure to say that pvp was optional.   Did you read that last part again?  What sort of pvp only game has optional pvp? 

Just because the pve content sucks, doesn't make it a side item, an after thought or justified for being bad, because the pvp is better.  It just means it is not up to par and nothing else.

As for mythic being forced to release early... I recall their deadline getting extended twice.  Sounds like they had extra time to me and the fact that they didn't add in the rvr combat until near the end says no, they didn't plan on adding it until player feedback said that the game needed something more than it had. 

Maybe you are right and mythic just spent years working on the game and forgot to add in the rvr portion of what you think is a pvp only game.  Lucky for mythic they got a extra year of development time so they could add in keep sieges in the last 6 months of beta testing right.  Rather odd design priorities for a game that you seem to think is pvp or get out.  Spending all that time making all that pve content so they can try to attract the pvp crowd.  

Yeah I think you have a firm grasp on the situation....

Originally posted by JGMIII

Originally posted by ericbelser

How does a single one of those, let alone all of them, equate to the idea that any of us  "want every game to be exaclty the same"??

My post came after an argument with someone bitching about Pve in a pvp game and wanting more of a jack of all trades game. Reread the thread please.

Perhaps if you stood on fewer soap-boxes? That didn't come across as a specific response, it read like a generic dismissal of the everyone you disagreed with, given how you repeatedly used terms like "most people" "most of you" and other non-specific, plural terms.

Since you agree with so many of the specific complaints, what exactly is your issue again? Yes, it could have been great, yeah there is plenty of room in the market for a RvR-centric game...but Mythic clearly isn't the one to do it, how badly the flubbed this and the ways they flubbed it clearly show they didn't learn any of the right lessons from DAoC.

Good article. (You guys seem to find some well written ones)

I'd say Mythic's arrogance led to the failure of this game. They assumed there was as many people who wanted to play their PvP game as there was that wanted to play a mostly PvE game like WoW.

The vast majority of people playing Wow and other MMOs are not into heavy pvping as the main thing. It's a side game for most of them and most gamers in general. The majority like to quest with friends, craft, fish, play with dance emotes, adventure around without actually killing stuff at times, group grind mobs in dungeons for loot, and a whole host of other things. As much as the WAR fans try and malign them, WoW fans and PvE fans in general are probably way more diverse than WAR fans and Mythic failed to realize this.

WAR fans just want to PvP pretty much.. they dont' want to craft or fish or do that other stuff; its a pretty one-dimensional crowd. That's why WAR doesn't even have /dance emotes; Mythic doesn't think that it's not "hardcore" enough, lol. Blizzard knows what it's audience whats to do for fun and they give it to them; diversity. Mythic gave little real diversity (other than PvP) or even how to make it all work. The tome was nice, but that's really not much when the PvE is boring. There just isn't enough to do in WAR that's fun when there aren't enough enemies to kill and the PvP is broken, and that was broken since Day 1.

They simply were too arrogant as a company and overestimated the amount of people that would truly stick around after the first couple of months. They tried to go after the WoW pvp base and steal them when they failed to release that they already were kind of a small, casual lot in the first place.

---

Originally posted by JGMIII

We both know EA forced these bastards to release WAR early if they didnt we would have had more Rvr shit in the game and siegeing wouldnt have shown up late.

---

Mythic Myth #353: EA forced Mythic into releasing Warhammer too early.

Mythic didn't even put keeps in until the last minute and that was only because the beta testers TOLD them the game would be a disaster.

Mythic had already announced a delay long before EA was even in the picture. I'm not sure why you hadn't heard of this before but it's pretty much common knowledge by now.

Originally posted by Hathi

 I concur this game would have been better. 

Now lets figure out what can be done to save it

It cant be save. Unless they're willing to shut down this game for maybe a year or 2 and redo the engine, or buy another software engine. And given that all these periods EA is willing to provide what they need. LOL

The software is bug, that's why you cant have huge battles without huge lag. Maybe something to do with their collision detection. So they implement the quick fix by kicking out players once a cap is met...

The selling point of this game is massive battles, yet it cant deliver. Sooner or later players patience will run out, and pop will start to fall further. I can not but see a sad ending for this game...

 Edit: Just to add a personal view of minor flaw: The npc talk waaayyyy too much...

What went wrong IMHO?

a) The "war" was a fundamentally stupid idea.

If team A wins, and winning gives a bonus to A, causing more players to play on team A - then B is immediately in a death spiral.  This was not rocket science.

b) Open warfare is won by "who has the most players", the only counter is a force-multiplier (like AoE CC - which is hated).

In short, players want 8 million people in a zone.  If you deliver that - the performance will be terrible, it'll be 5 million vs 3 million, people will complain that it's a "zerg-fest", it crashes/slows, and the population will slowly drain away.

c) Public quests.

They are a great idea....  if you have enough people. If you don't they just make it even more apparent how few people you've got.

d) Repetitive leveling.

You can gain EXP  in zones A1, A2, or A3.  Yipee!  But in practice, you'll usually end up having to do ALL of A1,A2 and A3 - repeat for every character you want to level with, and it gets seriously tiring.

e) Too many servers, far too slow to offer merges.

I seem to remember that a 3rd party misrepresented the number of orders that helped this occur, but it was 'fatal' - certainly my server died as the population never approached a viable level.

f) PvP when there are no opponents.

If you're opponents are PvE'ing/ having a meeting/doing something in RL then a PvP-oriented game gets horribly boring.

g) Arbitrary rewards for 'doing stuff better than other people'.

Your party has a wizard, a thief, cleric and a warrior - and 1 prize.  Who gets it?  Should the healer get it for conserving mana, or for amount healed?  what if the healer has an ability to prevent damage?  what if the warrior doesn't take any damage?  what if the thief has a DPS of 28-million:1 due to only hitting once?

When you get to 48 people, and 1 prize - practically everyone will feel that a formula is unfair.

h) The 3rd side.

Hard to argue against this, 2 sides was a huge, fundamental mistake.

---

For me, the reason I quit was a mix of 'severe population problems', 'population imbalance' and the insanely repetitive/pointless endgame.

[whilst N months would have helped conan etc., I do not believe that the problems with WAR were ever recognized by the developers - more time in beta would have added more content - something that would have made things much worse]

Really it's quite simple. Mythic didn't follow what went well for DAOC and why people still years later talk about how awesome the original premise of DAOC was.

WAR needed 3 sides. They needed less scenarios, or at a minimum very little to zero exp and realm pts from winning scenarios. Really scenarios should of been a side diversion and a practice area for the real world Open RvR, which this game also didn't deliver on.

If Mythic followed DAOC model, you would of had dedicated zones  aka Frontiers to fight in. That would of been the main areas to fight, not the crappy queue up anywhere scenarios where people sat in camps afk until there scenario popped.

Honestly also CC needed to be more in line with DAOC. AOE CC was the strategy behind small groups taking out large zergs in DAOC. It works and could of been balanced even more then it was in DAOC. People would complain, but when do people not complain?

There's more, but really the fact that they didn't follow the good points of DAOC  and impliment that, that is what ultimately killed them.

Dark Age of Camelot was a very successful MMO in its era (350,000+ subscribers). As a result, fans of the game (and all the friends they bragged to for years) were excited for a spiritual successor. Furthermore, the tabletop game of Warhammer has an enormous following of millions worldwide. Lastly, after years of raid/gear grinding, many WoW players were desperate for something new (especially WoW PvPers). These three groups of people (of which there was some crossover) anxiously awaited the release of Warhammer. There were millions of potential customers who really wanted Warhammer to succeed. Their disappointment is almost immeasurable.

....from the article.

So true. I really really wanted it to succeed. Mythic had the Realm vs Realm experience and were doing a "version 2", the great Warhammer IP backing it up, and money to boot from EA. Argghhhh, the fools, the fools, how did they screw it up! I quit after the first month, yet I followed it for atleast 6 months afterwards, monitoring the patches, the changes. Even jumped back in when the Slayer dropped on the 10 day freebie.

Its a dead duck.

Great article, I agree with it all. I dont think the game can be salvaged. That would take radical changes and they dont look to be forthcoming. It will likely die a slowly withering death.

its interesting the way mmo gamers dissect and pick over new mmo's these days. I've recently started playing Warhammer onine. I have a 13 runepriest and a lvl 7 disciple of khaine. Done a few scenarios along the way, done a few public quests and its been pretty decent thus far.

Then I remember what WoW was like when it was released:

No PvP. Honor system and battlegrounds didnt come out until well into 2005. THere was some World pvp on PvP servers but if you were on a Normal server thats it. You were stuck with PvE only.

Only endgame 2 raids for 8 months.

Broken classes for almost a year. Warlocks and hunters were broken until their talent reviews in patches 1.6 and 1.7 in the 2nd half of 2005. Until their talent reviews paladins werent even good healers let alone dps or tanks. All a paladin did until their talent review was cleanse and redo 5 minute blessings. Thats it. And even the better classes only had 1 decent talent tree.

Once you got to lvl 60 all you had to do was raid or if you were on a PvP server raid crossroads or join the tarren mill/southshore zergs.

Thats it.

Quite simply if WoW was released today, as it was back in late Nov 2004 it would be receive a savage mauling. But if you look at the subscriber numbers WoW actually increased  the rate of new players in the 2nd half of 2005 which, funnily enough, was when Blizzard really started to polish the game with talent reviews and releasing massive amounts of content.

People just have unrealistic expectations. The veteran mmo players have become ultra critical and cynical and the new players blind and stupid.

Originally posted by Slampig

 I re-installed the game a few days ago and was tooling around the starter areas, there was a good amount of people there playing low level toons. I don't expect to see the starter areas filled to the brim as I am sure most players are at the top tiers but there seemed, to me anyway, that the game had a good number of people, at least in the starting zone. I still wish the game was doing much better though...

Simple reason for this.  T1-T3 is fun, T4 is a failure of Biblical proportions.  You can only roll so many alts with no endgame to look forward to.

Just another loot treadmill.

Originally posted by Scyris

You wanna know what went wrong with it? this was why.

 

Rule#1 - MMORPGs are PVE games with PVP elements, not the other way around.
Rule#2 - Any MMO that forces PVP fails.
Rule#3 - Enticing PVEers to PVP is different than forcing them to. NO scenario/idea that forces it has succeeded.
Rule#4 - The same as Rule#3 can be applied to RP - you cannot force it.
Rule#5 - Before you get lippy, remember Rule#1.

 

It failed rule number 1 and 2 and also 3. Warhammer online has a very poor pve part to it. and the fact it forces pvp to get decent gear that should be availble as mob drops is another reason it failed. Devs need to learn that pvp based mmorpg's just won't get the casual players. I like pvp myself, but I still have a retail warhammer online cd-key I haven't used. Thought the game sucked when I was in the early access part. Even though world of warcraft is a crappy game by most peoples standarts, its a mmorpg setup for the casual mmo player, that and the fact its by blizzard is why its doing so well.

 

 

Absolute rubbish.  The game failed because there was no balance,  conflict could be avoided but the rewards were still there, and most of all, the performance of the game engine in mass PvP was abysmal.

Originally posted by chunky_slice

Quite simply if WoW was released today, as it was back in late Nov 2004 it would be receive a savage mauling. But if you look at the subscriber numbers WoW actually increased  the rate of new players in the 2nd half of 2005 which, funnily enough, was when Blizzard really started to polish the game with talent reviews and releasing massive amounts of content.

People just have unrealistic expectations. The veteran mmo players have become ultra critical and cynical and the new players blind and stupid.

 

Are you so sure?

The word "polished" was not something used to describe mmos until wow released.  It did not receive savage mauling in the state it released, because it was a huge step up from what the market was used to.  Yes wow raised the bar even if is was as bad as you claim it was. 

The problem with games today and even prior to wow, is that the players can overlook problems if one condition is met.  If the game is fun and not a total train wreck as far as performance and coding goes, then people are willing to give a game time to mature.  No one expects prefect balance, massive endgame content and the polish of a five year old game.

However they do want a game that offers fun now, not the potential to be fun 12 months down the road based on developer promises of things they are hard at work on, because their core design is tragically flawed.  A game doesn't need 500 endgame raids at release.  It only needs enough endgame content to occupy the majority of players until they can add more content to the game.  Bottom line is that any game releasing now needs to measure up to the current market if it wants people subscription dollars.   It is useless to compare 2009 with 2004, because new games are not competing with the market 5 years ago.  They are competing now and that is all that matters.

People will give a good game the time it needs to resolve its release issues, but it better offer a compelling reason for players to stay.  If they can have more fun playing their old game, what reason is there to stick around and hope something changes.

Originally posted by Scyris

You wanna know what went wrong with it? this was why.

 

Rule#1 - MMORPGs are PVE games with PVP elements, not the other way around.

No. The majority of MMORPG's you have been seeing SO FAR have been PvE games with PvP elements. That doesnt mean its a rule which all mmo's must follow. MMORPGs are online games shared by thousands of players so they have the capability of being PvE focused or PvP focused games.....or a mixture of both. It depends purely on the design of the game. You cant apply a simplistic rule to the entire genre as every game can be something totally different. Also single player games are PvE games with optional online PvP elements. Why make mmos like single player games? Take a look to the future and the way mmos are now beginning to shift towards PvP gameplay.

Rule#2 - Any MMO that forces PVP fails.

No let me correct you. Any BADLY MADE mmo that hasnt been designed to deal with the problems that can arise from forced PvP fails. A well made one has every chance of doing well. It also doesnt fail at all for all the people who enjoy player conflict and the varied and changing gameworld that can come from it......something you dont really get when playing against a computer with limited AI and scripted encounters. Considering there are hardly any PvP games around at the moment, any pure PvP game that comes out is a good thing as it adds variety to the PvE saturated mmo market.

At the moment I can only think of 5 games which have forced PvP in them and two of those games have been great successes. EVE and Ultima Online have been doing very well, better than most PvE focused games actually....although EvE doesnt really have forced PvP in it but it is the focus of the game. Darkfall came out fairly recently so we cant really judge whether it will fail or not. I'm sure the people currently playing and enjoying it couldnt care less. Shadowbane failed.......but then did it? The game was up and running for 6 years. Hardly a short run of time......but then it simply wasnt a very well made game which was why it failed (not because it was a PvP game). Fury also failed rather quickly I believe but I dont know anything about that game. Sorry but I cant think of any more mmos with forced PvP in them. Ok so thats 5 games that have been made. Its hardly a lot is it and certainly not enough for you to be able to say "Any mmo that forces PvP fails", especially considering 2 out of those 5 are actually still going and doing rather well. Compare those 3 failed games to the list of failed mmos with forced PvE in them. Vanguard isnt doing very well. Tabula Rasa has closed. Star Wars Galaxies is dieing a slow death. AoC isnt doing brilliantly. What do they all have in common? Oh they are all games with forced PvE. That must mean that mmos with forced PvE are doomed to fail right? Oh hang on.....no thats a silly thing to say isnt it. They have not done very well because they were not particularly good games. Its not because they have forced PvE in them is it.

Of course games like WAR which copy the game design of previous PvE games (WoW) and then simply dump a bunch of playpens on the map and call it a PvP game is asking to fail.

The point is that you are basing your judgement on a very tiny number of games. Just because a tiny handful of games that got made eventually failed doesnt mean that forced PvP = failure. If hundreds of PvP games got made and all of them failed then yeah you might have a point. But thats not the case is it.

Games dont fail because they have PvP or PvE in them. They fail because they are badly made games or lack support. When more PvP games have been made then people will be able to judge their success accurately. Until then you're just speculating.

Rule#3 - Enticing PVEers to PVP is different than forcing them to. NO scenario/idea that forces it has succeeded.

You're just repeating Opinion#2. See above.

Rule#4 - The same as Rule#3 can be applied to RP - you cannot force it.

Kind of true.....but then it depends on the design of the game. If players can actually interact with npcs in a more meaningful way then actually players CAN be forced to roleplay to a certain degree if they are put in situations where they have to communicate with others to get something done. Here is an example.....

A player has created his character. He chose roleplaying features during the character creation process which the game recognises and responds to. This particular player chose additional "qualities" such as being an [Artist], he comes from [Nobility] and he has an [Aggressive appearance]. He approaches the npc and talks to him....a merchant whose wagon has broken down. The npc recognises that the player does not have the appropriate background traits to help him, so he asks the player if he knows anyone that could fix his wagon. The player then asks around to see if anyone knows how to fix a wagon......or maybe he already knows someone who can. He finds the person, returns with him to the merchant and the wagon is fixed and they get a reward. Hurrah!

The person may never have roleplayed in their life and yet the game managed to "force" them to roleplay to a certain degree. The problem with the mmos we have been seeing so far is that NONE of them are actual roleplaying games. Having the word "roleplaying game" in its description doesnt mean it actually is one. The only "roleplaying" people can do is to type silly pretend stories into the chat channel which has nothing to do with game itself and isnt really roleplaying at all. If games are designed with roleplayers in mind then yeah I think roleplaying can be enforced to a degree.

Rule#5 - Before you get lippy, remember Rule#1.

Actually its Opinion#1......but its ok I have refrained from getting lippy even though I dont agree with any of your opinions. 

It failed rule number 1 and 2 and also 3. Warhammer online has a very poor pve part to it. and the fact it forces pvp to get decent gear that should be availble as mob drops is another reason it failed. Devs need to learn that pvp based mmorpg's just won't get the casual players. I like pvp myself, but I still have a retail warhammer online cd-key I haven't used. Thought the game sucked when I was in the early access part. Even though world of warcraft is a crappy game by most peoples standarts, its a mmorpg setup for the casual mmo player, that and the fact its by blizzard is why its doing so well.

Actually Warhammer didnt fail at Opinion#1. It stuck to it rather well because it actually is heavily based on a PvE game. It was closely modeled after WoW afterall. It failed because like you said the PvE was very poor and yet the PvP aspect was also really dull and pointless. It was advertised as a PvP game and yet the first half of the game which I played through was nearly all PvE areas. I had great difficulty in finding any players to fight and even when I did I couldnt really see any reason to fight them apart from personal level gaining. Oh there were some empty patches of the map where players could go and have a fight if they wanted to.......big deal. Most people just wandered by and carried on ploughing their way up the level grinding ladder like a flock of sheep (WoW style) by grinding through the boring PvE or hopping into scenarios. I'd hardly call that forced PvP. In fact because it wasnt forced it meant that the player population was so thinly spread over 3 different play styles (PvE, PvP playpens and scenarios) that many of the servers seemed like ghost towns. No wonder the game was boring. It tried to cater to everyone and ended up being weak and crappy as a result.

If the game actually WAS a pure PvP game where the entire map was open to player conflict, with control points that could be taken and lost then I think the game would have done much better. It would have been like a real Warhammer game instead of being Wowhammer. PvE elements would still be needed to flesh the world out, such as npc guards and civilians to protect, and npc heroes that could be set upon the enemy by activating certain events but players wouldnt have had to focus on them to "level up". They would simply gain experience by defeating the champions of the enemy realms (other players) which is how it should be in a supoosed PvP game. The game could have been great.....but instead they stuck to your Opinion#1 and made it like any other mmo where PvE must come first with PvP as an afterthought. Will devs who want to make a PvP game ever learn? Well Mythic probably wont but other games companies certainly could, judging by the pvp games on the horizon (Global Agenda, Earthrise, Fallen Earth etc).

PvP games wont get the casual players? Errr what? You've heard of console games right? Those things where groups of people sit together and CASUALLY blow the living crap out of each other or log online and do the same thing. LOTS of people love competing against each other and would really enjoy the chance to hop online into a virtual world for a little while to engage in a little bit of harmless conflict. Shouldnt it be the other way round anyway? PvE games wont get the casual players? But then of course that isnt true either is it.....because "casual players" arent defined by PvE or PvP. Every individual has their own preference and plays whatever they feel like regardless of whether someone has placed them into a meaningless bracket.

Like I said before, PvP mmos have every potential to be successful. Devs just need to stop attaching PvP elements to PvE games as an afterthought and then falsely advertising them as PvP games.

ps. Apologies for the essay.

Originally posted by Daffid011

The end result is that warhammer was a great mmo on paper, but a very flawed game in execution.

The list of flaws is long.  The lack of forethought is even longer.  The lack of viable resolutions is long. 

 

Warhammer is just a big example that throwing loads of money and developers at a project cannot speed up the process.  Quality takes time and 2-3 years development time is unrealistic for a game of this size.

 

 

As to the pve content of the game, who cares if it is a pvp focused game.  That is not an excuse to have terrible pve content.  Why even have pve content in the first place if this was the attitude taken?

I agree with all of that but I especially agree with your last statement. If its supposed to be a PvP game then whats the point of having crappy PvE quests in it just like every other mmo around? Mythic were just too scared to actually do something new and instead tried to appeal to everyone by churning out something that all the WoW players would feel familiar with.

Warhammer is supposed to be about armies of men and monsters marching around and waging war on each other. It should have been a gigantic open tactical war game.....where players would have to rush and defend their cities, forts and villages while trying to take over enemy control points. PvE elements should have been used to provide events that players could activate, such as a Dwarven priest being able to do something to a particular shrine that summons a bunch of rock golems to go and attack an enemy castle. It should not have been used as a source of level grinding. There should never have been any over-arcing story elements for players to follow like dumb robots.

The public quests were a good idea and could have been used well but like you said it looked good on paper but the execution was terrible. Kill 100 mini monsters, kill 10 medium monsters, kill the boss and his henchmen. Repeat. Yawn. 

What I would like to know is what 3rd faction you would add to WH without breaking the canon that Games Workshop has built?

Warhammer online has 2 groups, the evil (chaos, orcs) and the good (elves, empire) so there really isn't a third faction. But what Warhammer the world has is that all the races and political groups really only ally when it is conveinent and then hack at each other the rest of the time.

But how do you impliment this in an MMO?

I found that, with WAR, I really enjoyed the lower rank game.

One thing that the game did right was that RvR was there at every step of the way from rank 1 whereas most MMOs pretty much require you to be fully skilled/levelled up to be even remotely competitive.

It wasn't until the later ranks that I found that the game devolved into a mind-numbing chase from keep to keep to keep and whilst seiges were initially fun, it all got very samey.

World RvR was little more than zerg vs zerg or blatant keep switching (frequently arranged in advance).

It was often a case that, at the time that I was playing, there was little reason to defend anything as exploits to bypass the keeps defences (wall-hopping, postern-breaking et al) were common on both sides.

Originally posted by chunky_slice

its interesting the way mmo gamers dissect and pick over new mmo's these days. I've recently started playing Warhammer onine. I have a 13 runepriest and a lvl 7 disciple of khaine. Done a few scenarios along the way, done a few public quests and its been pretty decent thus far.

Then I remember what WoW was like when it was released:

No PvP. Honor system and battlegrounds didnt come out until well into 2005. THere was some World pvp on PvP servers but if you were on a Normal server thats it. You were stuck with PvE only.

Only endgame 2 raids for 8 months.

Broken classes for almost a year. Warlocks and hunters were broken until their talent reviews in patches 1.6 and 1.7 in the 2nd half of 2005. Until their talent reviews paladins werent even good healers let alone dps or tanks. All a paladin did until their talent review was cleanse and redo 5 minute blessings. Thats it. And even the better classes only had 1 decent talent tree.

Once you got to lvl 60 all you had to do was raid or if you were on a PvP server raid crossroads or join the tarren mill/southshore zergs.

Thats it.

Quite simply if WoW was released today, as it was back in late Nov 2004 it would be receive a savage mauling. But if you look at the subscriber numbers WoW actually increased  the rate of new players in the 2nd half of 2005 which, funnily enough, was when Blizzard really started to polish the game with talent reviews and releasing massive amounts of content.

People just have unrealistic expectations. The veteran mmo players have become ultra critical and cynical and the new players blind and stupid.

 

WoW vanilla releasing today would still get better rating than all the MMO that have come out in the last 5 years. Listing the past shortcomings of WoW wouldnt change the fact that the journey from 1-60 (especially the first one) was the greatest thrill in videogames history.