Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Road to WAR Website Launched

ScuttleMonkey posted about 6 years ago | from the taking-aim-at-the-entrenched-opponents dept.

64

Last week Mythic launched their "Road to WAR" website, allowing users to declare their allegiance, recruit friends, gather gold for the fight, and participate in a simple battle for self, state, and realm every week. In addition to the "prestige" of being on the leaderboard, you also have the ability to win in-game items and titles for launch. Looks like they really are hitting the warpath.

cancel ×

64 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

And the site is down for maintainence (2, Interesting)

faloi (738831) | about 6 years ago | (#24472175)

I know patches are unavoidable in MMORPGs, but patching the pre-game website on the day it's announced has to be some sort of new record. Hope it's not an omen for the forthcoming game.

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (3, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | about 6 years ago | (#24472623)

or they don't want Slashdot to crash the sever.

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (1)

Starayo (989319) | about 6 years ago | (#24473469)

DAMNIT SLASHDOT! I was trying to use that site. The sudden lack of response all makes sense now...

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (2, Interesting)

Goaway (82658) | about 6 years ago | (#24473505)

The days when Slashdot could bring down a big-money website are long since past. Pipes are ever fatter, but Slashdot sure isn't growing.

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (1)

Narpak (961733) | about 6 years ago | (#24606835)

Maybe there should be some sort of script that would enable all links from Slashdot to swallow up a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. Once again reclaim the might that was Slashdot!

Madness? This is SLASHDOT!!

War! (5, Funny)

PunkOfLinux (870955) | about 6 years ago | (#24472727)

What is it good for?
Absolutely nothing!

Re:War! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24474093)

Quickly deploying enterprise applications!

Re:War! It's good for you and me! (1)

HoppQ (29469) | about 6 years ago | (#24488735)

If you're a republican, you might be more inclined towards the War Song message. Click "The War Song" in the Flash doohickey on Max for president [maxforpresident.org] site. Part of the lyrics:

Ohh, War!
What is it good for? (What is it good for?)
Oh, it strengthens the economy!
It shows the world that we've got stones! (We've got stones!)
And carriers... with fighter drones! (Vo doh dee oh!)

War!
Oh, what is it good for? (What is it good for?)
It's good for you it's good for me!

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (0, Troll)

Goldberg's Pants (139800) | about 6 years ago | (#24474651)

Given the content they're ripped out of the game to make their release, to match up with that, this should only be half a website.

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (1)

Sangui (1128165) | about 6 years ago | (#24492707)

And class, views like this are what we call uninformed.
Not a single MMO has released with everything the developers wanted two years before release.

Re:And the site is down for maintainence (1)

Narpak (961733) | about 6 years ago | (#24606783)

Have played the WAR beta for well over a month now and so far it's bloody good fun. After three years of WoW Warhammer feels fresher, tighter, and better designed. Of course such is to be expected from any MMO that hopes to stick around. We will just have to wait and see how everything comes together.

Personally I am fired up and eagerly awaiting the launch so I can join the WAAAAAAAAGH!!!!

The Road to War Beta is down for maintenance (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | about 6 years ago | (#24472247)

It appears as if the Road to War Beta is down for maintenance.... oh well.

It does seem like a good marketing strategy - to get players involved/committed prior to release. Especially for an MMO which depends on hooking as many players as possible. Hell, having the site down might even cause some even more anticipation in some sort of sick disappoint-the-customer kinda way.

I only hope it lives up to the hype. An MMO's success largely depends on customer satisfaction since it lives off of not only number of units sold, but also monthly subscriptions. Unsatisfied players will quit and along with them the people they could have influenced to join. Words travels fast for both the good and the bad. Now, I'm still iffy to get it (blame the fiance), but I do hope it brings something innovative to the table.

boring (4, Informative)

rpillala (583965) | about 6 years ago | (#24472287)

First, here's the actual site: http://www.road-to-war.com/ [road-to-war.com]

Next, it's down for maintenance, which I guess is temporary but not a good time for an announcement.

This is, though, a better way to promote the game than monthly emails with new information that amount to "no you're still not in the beta."

Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24472571)

Mythic is fighting an uphill battle:

They are launching a fraction of the content they were intending to have. Significant content too. Its like Blizzard shipping WoW with just Stormwind and the Undercity as capital cities.

Blizzard licensed their IP, so a lot of people consider WAR to be WoW with meaner looking/dumber orcs and elves with pointier headgear.

People are content with WoW, especially with a new expansion releasing in 3-4 months. They don't feel like levelling up a new character in a MMO which is redone DAoC content.

No PvE endgame in WAR. Endgame just like DAoC, a game made over five years ago.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (3, Informative)

Traze (1167415) | about 6 years ago | (#24473309)

I hope someone Mods him down. Everything he's said is slanted. Spreading FUD, as AC no less. Cities were cut, because they made the 2 cities so huge, they didn't want to take another 2 years building the other 4 to the same size. Blizzard's IP is based off of WARs IP, I thought everyone knew that... Content with WoW? Sure, I suppose. But as for the leveling up, WAR will level a lot faster than WoW, absolutely. No PvE Endgame? Says who? The King fights ARE PvE, and are the only announced endgame content I know of.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

vertinox (846076) | about 6 years ago | (#24479069)

Blizzard's IP is based off of WARs IP, I thought everyone knew that...

Sadly, the abuse of GW IP is making WHFB fans cry... I'm talking about Mythic, not Blizzard.

And the crazy tunnel vision for a teen rating. Seriously, Khorne is weeping softly for the lack of blood in this game.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

brkello (642429) | about 6 years ago | (#24479829)

Aren't you just as guilty of slanting in the opposite direction? "They couldn't include the four other cities because the first two were so awesome and big! They couldn't fit that much awesomeness on the servers! Blizzard's IP is all from WAR! There is no original ideas and therefor WAR will be better since it has everything from WoW and more (except content)! People complained how easy it was to level in WoW but they were wrong...WAR makes it EVEN EASIER and it actually makes it more awesome since you run out of things to do faster and can have a real life. And there is one and only one thing to do in PvE. Take that WoW!"

Obviously, exaggerating for comedic effect...but that is how you came off to me.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (5, Insightful)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | about 6 years ago | (#24473495)

Since you want to compare Warhammer Online with World of Warcraft so badly...

They are launching a fraction of the content they were intending to have. Significant content too. Its like Blizzard shipping WoW with just Stormwind and the Undercity as capital cities.

They cut four character classes and are still shipping with 20 classes. How many character classes does WoW have right now? 20 classes is a lot to ship an MMO with in the beginning. They felt that those four classes that were cut were just not up to par with their expectations, and they may never see the light.

The capital city cuts were pretty bad, but it would have been worse had they shipped with six half-assed cities. They did discuss the fact that those cut cities will be reinserted into the game and will not charge for it.

They address this information about class and city cuts here [warhammeronline.com] .

People are content with WoW, especially with a new expansion releasing in 3-4 months. They don't feel like levelling up a new character in a MMO which is redone DAoC content.

Speak for yourself - not all people are content with WoW. If you read through some of the Warhammer Online forums, you'll see plenty of people who are getting sick of WoW and cannot stand the daily grind and the static classes. I am quitting WoW as soon as WAR is released. Even if WAR sucks, I'm not going back to WoW. The quests are too redundant, there is absolutely ZERO reward for exploration of the map, your in-game actions have no impact on the environment, and the classes are just too static.

If you want to be successful in dungeons and raiding, you have to follow the same path as anyone else. You almost cannot be versatile in how you play. I'm not sure how it is now in WoW as I haven't played in a few months, but at one point, if you want to be a warrior and play end-game content, you cannot be fury. BM hunters were avoided. Combat rogues were ignored. And so on. Even if you did end up in a decent group as an arcane mage or survival hunter, you couldn't contribute. There was always just one recipe to success and that was what killed the game for me.

And there are plenty of people who feel that WAR is not their cup of tea. That's perfectly fine. WAR was never intended to compete with WoW. WoW has its bright spots that WAR will never touch.

No PvE endgame in WAR. Endgame just like DAoC, a game made over five years ago.

They already discussed endgame content [massively.com] - remember, this is NOT a PvE game. End game content is there, but not completely finished. Many games do not ship out with complete end game content. WoW barely had any in the first year, and Age of Conan has a somewhat broken end-game system.

The bottom line is that you really cannot compare the two games. They seek to cater to two different groups of people - people who want an on-going raid in a realm vs. realm environment with public quests (WAR), and those that want highly polished end-game content with battlegrounds tacked on. (WoW)

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (2, Interesting)

Bloodoflethe (1058166) | about 6 years ago | (#24473821)

Yeah, I know I am cutting your reply to hell, and I agree with most of it but...

The quests are too redundant, there is absolutely ZERO reward for exploration of the map

They are changing this with the new expansion - titles and such.

If you want to be successful in dungeons and raiding, you have to follow the same path as anyone else. You almost cannot be versatile in how you play. I'm not sure how it is now in WoW as I haven't played in a few months, but at one point, if you want to be a warrior and play end-game content, you cannot be fury. BM hunters were avoided. Combat rogues were ignored. And so on. Even if you did end up in a decent group as an arcane mage or survival hunter, you couldn't contribute. There was always just one recipe to success and that was what killed the game for me.

This is a result of people being close-minded, not the way things actually worked. I've played a fury warrior since the inception of WoW and have done quite well the whole way through. In fact, I was upset when they made several of the changes to Fury to make it "better" In some ways it was better, but in others the change sucked. That's the nature of redesigning character builds.

Also, from where I stood, Arcane Mage was (and still is) always the best spec for raiding - people are just too impatient and want to see big numbers or don't pay attention to what they are doing with their characters. *shrug*

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | about 6 years ago | (#24476615)

Yeah, I know I am cutting your reply to hell, and I agree with most of it but...

Hey it's perfectly fine. I'm actually interested in what other people think about the topic. And in the end, I always end up learning a thing or two. Besides, it's the whole point of a forum. Speak your mind. :)

The quests are too redundant, there is absolutely ZERO reward for exploration of the map

They are changing this with the new expansion - titles and such.

That's a very positive sign for at least me. I know a lot of gamers like WoW as-is, and they should, it's a fine game. I just love exploring and getting the sense of finding something different every time I go out somewhere.

I wonder what it would take for such a system to be in place - where every time you visit an area, something new and different is going on? Maybe an NPC that wasn't there before and such. I know the current crop of MMO's cannot do that without having physical people inject content.

Or maybe content that came from the people playing rather than only from NPC's.

You mentioned playing a fury warrior since the inception: Did you ever feel like you were boxed into playing a certain way? Or perhaps the game's content dictated how you should play? Or was that simply other players making it seem like you HAD to play a certain way?

I tried every class, but spent most of the two years playing a combat rogue before switching to an assassination / subtlety combo, and just loved it.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

Bloodoflethe (1058166) | about 6 years ago | (#24486399)

I never felt boxed in by anything but the other players. But then I am extremely individualistic. And I eventually found a guild that welcomed me, my individuality and my tactical abilities.

No, not really (3, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | about 6 years ago | (#24474607)

They cut four character classes and are still shipping with 20 classes. How many character classes does WoW have right now? 20 classes is a lot to ship an MMO with in the beginning. They felt that those four classes that were cut were just not up to par with their expectations, and they may never see the light.

Actually, IMHO 20 classes are entirely too much. I don't know about WAR, but I can compare WoW to EQ2's 24 class bonanza, and actually WoW is the more fun one there.

In WoW, the classes are distinct _and_ have a decent amount of flexibility, allowing them to be more than one-trick ponies. Except in end-game raids, I guess.

By comparison, EQ2's classes are confusing _and_ 1-2 trick ponies all the time. When you spread things that thin, either you have massive overlap, or have to slice abilities too thin to keep them unique. And thus end up with linear, non-interesting classes. Or, if you're bad at it, the worst of both worlds.

E.g., did we need _two_ druid classes in EQ2? One is better at offense, but can put it's talents into becoming a good healer too. The other one starts better at healing, but ends up sucking at both. Well, I guess at least you have a choice ;)

For that matter, why do we even need the druids as yet another healer class too? At least in WoW each druid shape has its unique gamplay, and the class is a unique jack-of-all-trades. In EQ2 they sliced classes too thin, that essentially they have 6 healer classes which differ only in whether they got healing, _or_ healing-over-time, _or_ preventing damage as their primary focus. Or one flavour is actually bad at all 3. The druid's animal shapes are just minor self-buffs. (And in a typical Sony stupidity, you can have two polymorphs, like, say, be a Wolf _and_ a Lion at the same time. But let's not go there.) It just illustrates what I'm talking about. All those classes just mean that each of them gets a small, uninteresting mix of tricks, because they had to slice it too thin.

Or did it need Assassin, Swashbuckler _and_ Brigand as rogues? Wth is wrong with one class and having the Assassin, Combat and Subtlety specs as talent trees, like in WoW? And again, all that slicing classes thin, pegs you into one narrow role from start to finish. Each gets less tricks up your sleeve than a WoW Rogue, which makes for rather less interesting gameplay.

Did the mages really need to be split the hard way into single-target mages and AOE mages? WTF?

Did we really need two Bard classes, where one buffs melee types and one buffs mages? WTF?

Etc.

And worse yet, it makes you choose something from the start, when you don't even know or understand the subtle differences between them all. Which healer class suits your play style better, if you want to be a healer in EQ2? Do you even understand what you forsake by picking Warden instead of Templar, on your very first day when you bought the game? Fuck if I knew, myself.

So, basically, I'm not impressed that it has more classes. More isn't necessarily better, as I've illustrated with EQ2. Now if you were to tell me that WAR has some unique classes that can do things a WoW class never dreamt of, I'd listen and be interested. But just splitting the same abilities among more slices, doesn't make a game better.

The capital city cuts were pretty bad, but it would have been worse had they shipped with six half-assed cities. They did discuss the fact that those cut cities will be reinserted into the game and will not charge for it.

Still sounds like a half arse launch to me, either way.

Speak for yourself - not all people are content with WoW. If you read through some of the Warhammer Online forums, you'll see plenty of people who are getting sick of WoW and cannot stand the daily grind and the static classes. I am quitting WoW as soon as WAR is released. Even if WAR sucks, I'm not going back to WoW.

Ah, yes, that category is the funniest: the born-again WoW-hater. The guy who played WoW for 2 years and swore it's the best thing since sliced bread, and now rants and raves about how everything he liked before either (A) doesn't even exist, or (B) is suddenly the most boring and pointless thing ever. More than one game fucked up by listening to _those_.

Maybe some people just need to realize that if a game hooked you up that long that you even know at all what happens in the end-game grind, it can't have been that boring and pointless. Even a cat goes away if something is bad for her. You're more intelligent than a cat, aren't you? Then why would you stay for months or years in a game where everything is the wrong thing for you? Maybe it's just that _you_ got bored of it, and it wasn't really meant to be played for ever, not that it was horrible in the first place.

The quests are too redundant, there is absolutely ZERO reward for exploration of the map, your in-game actions have no impact on the environment, and the classes are just too static.

Yet, in that orders:

1. the quests are what keeps most people there

2. exploration of the map ultimately happens anyway, so nobody really needs some uber reward to go where they're sent. I must confess that, other than on some made-up "lookit all the things I suddenly hate about WoW" by born-again WoW haters, I haven't actually heard anyone in game complaining about _that_

3. your in-game actions don't have any lasting impact in _any_ MMO. Do you really think that when you'll finish a quest in WAR, anyone will remove it and write a new one?

4. yet, you seem excited about going to a game with even thinner sliced classes.

If you want to be successful in dungeons and raiding, you have to follow the same path as anyone else. You almost cannot be versatile in how you play. I'm not sure how it is now in WoW as I haven't played in a few months, but at one point, if you want to be a warrior and play end-game content, you cannot be fury. BM hunters were avoided. Combat rogues were ignored. And so on. Even if you did end up in a decent group as an arcane mage or survival hunter, you couldn't contribute. There was always just one recipe to success and that was what killed the game for me.

Yet, again,

A. You seem excited to go to a game which pegs you in such a narrow role from the start. Ask any Monk in EQ2 if they're wanted as either Tank or DPS in an end-game raid, and how long they can survive as either. At least you _can_ switch to defense if you want to tank on WoW, but there's no way to switch a Monk to wearing plate. You're stuck in an off-tank role in a game where endgame elite bosses don't need an off-tank. I admire your optimism if you think WAR can possibly have an end-game and be different in that aspect.

B. You even played until that point. Get this: at that point the game is over. You played it, seen most quests, you're given that grind as some tarpit to keep you busy until the next expansion pack is released. There isn't even anything _except_ more grind to do with whatever rewards you might get there. Everything else you did just fine without that grind gear, didn't you?

C. And good luck if you think any game can have a very different endgame. WoW didn't invent the endgame grind. All games face the issue that at some point you've finished the actual content, and you need to be kept busy for another year until they release the next expansion pack. Welcome to the wonderful world of the repetitive endgame grind.

And each tier of that grind _has_ to demand a ridiculous group and gear, because otherwise you'd skip the previous level. If it were possible for a fury warrior to tank a T2 boss, then a defense warrior could skip the T1 gear entirely and tank it just the same. Which defeats the whole purpose of keeping you busy for a long and boring time.

By the very demanding "endgame content" in a game, that's really what you demand and what you'll get.

D. If you nevertheless want to complain about endgame grind, complain about endgame grind then. Don't make it sound like "dungeons" generally have that problem. Any dungeons along the way (i.e., before getting stuck in the endgame tarpit) _can_ be done with any non-standard characters. I have done plenty of dungeons with a fury warrior as a tank, a feral druid as a healer, BM hunter as DPS, and two other equally misfit.

Re:No, not really (2, Insightful)

toolie (22684) | about 6 years ago | (#24475289)

If ignorance was bliss, the majority of posters would be orgasmic. You fit right in with that crowd.

Re:No, not really (1)

brkello (642429) | about 6 years ago | (#24480029)

It amazes me how much people hate WoW on this site. Why the heck would this be modded up? If you disagree, actually counter his points. How is he ignorant? He plays WoW and enjoys it. That just means he has different taste from you not that there is ignorance.

Re:No, not really (1)

toolie (22684) | about 6 years ago | (#24490721)

It amazes me how much people hate WoW on this site. Why the heck would this be modded up? If you disagree, actually counter his points. How is he ignorant? He plays WoW and enjoys it. That just means he has different taste from you not that there is ignorance.

He based his entire argument that WAR has too many classes from another game. The other game isn't even CLOSE to how WAR is set up. That makes him a fucking moron trying to transfer the argument. Much like a ton of other posters on this site, he is talking out of his ass about something he has no clue about. That makes him ignorant.

To see more examples of ignorant posts, find my response to the dumbshit that tried to claim armor doesn't stop bullets based on the fact that primitive firearms did away with full plate armor sets.

Re:No, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24475545)

This pretty much sums up my thoughts, as someone who played WoW for three years. They must have done something right to keep me around for that long, but you can't be expected to play the same game forever... and really it was the player based that finally caused me to leave, not the game itself. I found having fewer classes than other games was superior choice, as it was actually possible to balance the game to a reasonable degree (WoW isn't as unbalanced as some will think). I played WoW far longer than any other MMO.

I don't think MMOs will really grow beyond where they are now very much for a very long time. The graphics will be prettier, and there may be tweaks in areas, but ultimately you're going to hit an end game grind either with endless PvP arenas/battles or endless PvE raiding. The creators simply can't pump out new content fast enough, and changes made to the world by end users will continue to be superficial at best.

Warhammer Online looks pretty cool, but the Warhammer Fanboys are pumping it up as if it's going to be the ultimate MMO that is superior to WoW in every way possible. I'm fairly skeptical on this point. I agree it will likely have superior PvP, but I doubt it will top WoW PvP.

Until AI is sufficiently advanced enough to where the game can literally act as a Dungeon Master for hundreds to thousands of players at once with minimal human interaction (sufficient enough to generate decent quests/adventures on the fly AND and cause permanent and meaningful modifications to the game world based upon player action), I doubt we're going to see much of a change to the current MMO paradigm.

I'm not holding my breath.

Re:No, not really (1)

Clandestine_Blaze (1019274) | about 6 years ago | (#24475555)

I appreciate the well thought-out reply - especially since most people use negative moderation just because they disagree with a post. So I appreciate the fact that you took the time to respond. :)

Actually, IMHO 20 classes are entirely too much. I don't know about WAR, but I can compare WoW to EQ2's 24 class bonanza, and actually WoW is the more fun one there.

I don't disagree your experience with WoW, and am glad you're still having fun with it. But you should have read my post as a response to the OP and not as a stand-alone post. Perhaps you felt that I was attacking WoW, but reread the OP's post again, then read my response.

Anyway, 20 classes may be a lot, but as long as Mythic took the time to create fun, enjoyable classes, I see no problem with that. Also, the OP was making the claim that WAR cut out most of their content, and I was pointing out that even with the cut, there is still a lot there - a lot more than most MMO's when released.

Or did it need Assassin, Swashbuckler _and_ Brigand as rogues? Wth is wrong with one class and having the Assassin, Combat and Subtlety specs as talent trees, like in WoW? And again, all that slicing classes thin, pegs you into one narrow role from start to finish. Each gets less tricks up your sleeve than a WoW Rogue, which makes for rather less interesting gameplay.

And that is where other MMOs fail. They make their classes way too redundant. You're right - having multiple healing or rogue classes with very little diversity makes for boring gameplay. Once you play one, you've played it all. I'm looking forward to WAR simply because where WoW had the same classes for both factions (plus some added racials), WAR actually made their tanking classes distinct for the races. They made their casting classes distinct. And from what they're describing, they're trying to avoid utility classes where all you do is stand and heal. You're not supposed to blend in.

Keep in mind, I haven't played WAR yet. I could be wrong and the game could really suck, and we will both look back at this post and laugh at me. :P

Ah, yes, that category is the funniest: the born-again WoW-hater. The guy who played WoW for 2 years and swore it's the best thing since sliced bread, and now rants and raves about how everything he liked before either (A) doesn't even exist, or (B) is suddenly the most boring and pointless thing ever. More than one game fucked up by listening to _those_.

Is there anything wrong with wanting more? Hey what a concept, it's called CHANGE. It happens - and we all deal with it. The difference is, I'm not much for jumping on and off bandwagons. What I look for in a game is replay value. WoW just didn't deliver that for me. After a major expansion and multiple patches, I have seen nothing new other than added dungeons and quests. Perhaps your experience is difference, and that is perfectly fine. Again, I invite you to reread my post. I really shouldn't have to point this out, but I am talking about this game from my perspective. If that ruins your gameplay experience, then your priorities are a bit screwed up.

Maybe some people just need to realize that if a game hooked you up that long that you even know at all what happens in the end-game grind, it can't have been that boring and pointless. Even a cat goes away if something is bad for her. You're more intelligent than a cat, aren't you? Then why would you stay for months or years in a game where everything is the wrong thing for you? Maybe it's just that _you_ got bored of it, and it wasn't really meant to be played for ever, not that it was horrible in the first place.

Bingo! You finally understand. I didn't say WoW was horrible, I clearly stated that _I_ was sick of the daily grind. You made the leap in logic that I was sick of the game because the game sucked. I didn't. The OP (remember him?) mentioned that people were content with WoW, and while the majority of the 10 million subscribers are, some of us aren't. Again, I should be allowed to share with others why I am leaving the game without having to explain that it is on my own terms and not because the game was horrible.

Yet, in that orders:

1. the quests are what keeps most people there

2. exploration of the map ultimately happens anyway, so nobody really needs some uber reward to go where they're sent. I must confess that, other than on some made-up "lookit all the things I suddenly hate about WoW" by born-again WoW haters, I haven't actually heard anyone in game complaining about _that_

3. your in-game actions don't have any lasting impact in _any_ MMO. Do you really think that when you'll finish a quest in WAR, anyone will remove it and write a new one?

4. yet, you seem excited about going to a game with even thinner sliced classes.

1. In a pure PvE game, the quests are pretty much the only thing there. It builds you up for end-game content, including the dungeons. If you removed the quests, you wouldn't have a game. Trust me, most people don't log in only for an AV zerg. Still, I'll be more clear. The type of quests is what turned me off. Retreiving 25 goblin noses one too many times is what killed the game for me. You hand in the noses, you get some silver, and that's it. I'd prefer to see some environmental impact. For a game like WoW, that's impossible. And that's why I don't like playing it any more. Not because I think it's awful, but because it's not for me.

That's why I'm looking forward to WAR and its public quest system. They will have some of the grinding quests where you retreive items like a trained hamster, but a lot of the quests will impact the overall realm-vs-realm war that is ongoing.

2. So essentially, the only people who bring up points about the game that could be improved are "WoW-haters", like we're some mindless cult. Right. Moving right along...

Exploration is a huge reason why I play these games. I enjoy quests, but more than anything, I want to get in a group, go to some far off distant land, and explore. Rewards for exploration isn't only monetary, either. I don't expect rare or epic loot for finding a new place. But there are times where I just want to scale a mountain, go deep underwater, or fly off somewhere and find new things. Does that make me a WoW-hater?

3. In-game actions do, actually, impact WAR. It's not a PvE game, it's an on-going war between factions. When your capital city is raided, any action or public quest you take up will potentially change the balance of the war. If your city falls, you'll be given opportunities to help drive back the invaders.

4. Take a look at the WAR classes [warhammeronline.com] . Rather than having generic classes for each race, each race will have their classes reflect the lore. It won't be as thinly cut as you point it out to be.

A. You seem excited to go to a game which pegs you in such a narrow role from the start. Ask any Monk in EQ2 if they're wanted as either Tank or DPS in an end-game raid, and how long they can survive as either. At least you _can_ switch to defense if you want to tank on WoW, but there's no way to switch a Monk to wearing plate. You're stuck in an off-tank role in a game where endgame elite bosses don't need an off-tank. I admire your optimism if you think WAR can possibly have an end-game and be different in that aspect.

Where are you getting the idea that you're pegged to a narrow role? Mythic has been saying all along that none of the classes will be considered utility classes. They claim that if you're only here to heal or set traps, you're playing the wrong game.

Your other point regarding endgame grind always being there is quite true. Even in Guild Wars, it was the same, just more restricted as the whole game was instanced. (This will change in Guild Wars 2.) And it's why I'm clinging to my optimism that WAR will be different for me. I'm allowed that much, right? :)

Re:No, not really (1)

brkello (642429) | about 6 years ago | (#24480193)

It's nice to see well-thought out posts rather than just fanboy/anti-fanboy rants.

I just wanted to state one thing. I am sure you are aware that one point in time WoW had a class that wasn't available to both factions (i.e. Shamans and Paladins). With the expansion, they abandoned this. Why? Simply because of balance. In PvE, some bosses were made much easier for one faction than the other. In PvP...well, just think about it. It is hard enough to balance classes with each other...how difficult will it be when each faction is different? Balancing this game will be hell. If they can pull it off, I will give them serious kudos. But the game isn't out yet..so it seems pretty dumb to try to compare it to WoW.

There seems to be this cycle of people spewing venom about WoW when a new MMO is about to come out and how much better it is going to be. They a few months later they all come back to WoW because they just aren't able to pull off something that keeps people's attention as much.

I say this as someone who has quit WoW multiple times. Not out of anger, just because I got bored with it. I go out and play a bunch of other games, then come back because it is fun again. And you actually see how much content they stick in there when you leave for a little while. After the expansion came out, I played my character to 70 and did a bit of EG content. When I came back a few months ago, I didn't know what the heck was going on they added so many things. Funny, you don't notice as it comes gradually...but when you leave for awhile, you see really how much they do.

Re:No, not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24478707)

Mod parent up, good post. 20 classes is way too many. Even if they could do it well, it's too confusing for 'most' people (ie: not uber-nerds who can spend all day researching every class).

5-10 classes with 2-3+ minor variations (eg. through diablo2-style talent specs) is a much better route.

Best of luck to WAR in bringing some competition to market, but it already sounds like they don't know what they're doing...

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

ukyoCE (106879) | about 6 years ago | (#24478651)

I agree with the other response to your post. I've even heard it from blue posts in WOW: 'one spec to rule them all' is caused by players, not game design. They can make all the numbers work out on paper to be perfectly balanced, but if people in the forums and game keep spreading rumors that X is the only viable spec, then that becomes 'truth', because no one lets other specs into groups, etc.

Used to be that everyone said 17 arcane was 'required' for mages to get Imp. AE. The devs gave that to mages free, and then people said 17 in arcane is 'required' for Imp. Counterspell. The other 15 points in arcane are almost literally useless (at least until the next expansion, when they're getting reworked). Screw that. I leveled and played at 60 (and now 70) as an elemental mage, a spec that people won't even talk about in forums for PVE or PVP.

That said, elemental is getting HUGE buffs in the expansion. More than making numbers balance on paper, the designers have to over-buff things perceived as bad to get people to even consider them, and then nerf them back down to match the other specs. Well..except they forgot about the 'nerf back down' part. I'm looking at you, rogues and druids.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

TeraCo (410407) | about 6 years ago | (#24474253)

Blizzard did ship WoW with just Stormwind and the Undercity as capital cities, I don't know if you ever went to Darnassus but it's just an empty shell. ie: completely dead contentwise, even 2 years after launch.

In fact, most of Kalimdor felt unfinished until content was patched in later on (Theramore is the most recent example of this).

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

aeschenkarnos (517917) | about 6 years ago | (#24475975)

Quibble/correction: That's Ironforge and Orgrimmar, or it used to be; Shattrath is now just as, if not more, important. Stormwind and Undercity are "second-stringer" cities; Darnassus and Thunder Bluff, Exodar and ... hell, I can't even remember the blood elf city name ... are pretty much ghost towns.

[2. Trade]Noobzorrz: I wanna buy an chant! for my daggarz!!! Who have daggar chant?

[2. Trade]Ptwink: Sure, I can do it, where are you?

[2. Trade]Noobzoorz (1):Shattrath!

[2. Trade]Ptwink(1): np, omw.

[2. Trade]Noobzoorz (2):Ironforge!

[2. Trade]Ptwink(2): yeah ok.

[2. Trade]Noobzoorz (3):Stormwind!

[2. Trade]Ptwink(3): .. alright but you better tip well

[2. Trade]Noobzoorz (4):Darnassus!

[2. Trade]Ptwink(4): come here and I'll do it.

[2. Trade]Noobzoorz (5):Exodar!

[2. Trade]Ptwink(5): wtf? why are u in Exodar?

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

TeraCo (410407) | about 6 years ago | (#24476097)

In terms of quests/content, I would have thought the undercity was a lot more fleshed out. But I'll admit I never got an orc character to the point where they would have been getting quests out of orctown.

In any case, what I'm getting at is that as a rule of thumb the Eastern Kingdoms was far superior to anything in Kalimdor, either because they did Kalimdor before EK and learned how to do it better. Or because they did EK and then rushed it out with Kalimdor half done.

It's hard to say which is the case.

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

Kharny (239931) | about 6 years ago | (#24477821)

Sorry to correct you there, but the first zones made are elwyn forest and westfall :D

Re:Dead site... hopefully WAR will be better (1)

TeraCo (410407) | about 6 years ago | (#24489775)

Well, given I said 'either/or' you didn't correct me, because I have no way of knowing which scenario was true. If they did EK first, they just ran out of time on Kalimdor. (Or alternatively just didn't give a shit about the quality of the continent, which doesn't sound like the blizzard I know)

So where... (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 6 years ago | (#24472753)

Are the comments decrying this post, like there always are for WoW ones?

Re:So where... (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | about 6 years ago | (#24473661)

Late adopters don't usually care if the lore of the universe is expanded or if they won a battle because they outfitted their skins with shields and placed them in swamp, they just want the game to be easy and fun. When the developers start pandering to them instead of focusing on the early-adopting trendsetters, then we'll see plenty of "This isn't news for nerds!" posts.

On a related side note, I liked reading Malcom Gladwell's The Tipping Point [google.com] , which did an excellent job of explaining trends.

Re:So where... (1)

Knara (9377) | about 6 years ago | (#24473799)

The interested parties are probably still pretty pensive considering the previous announcements on what they had to excise from the game in order to meet their self-imposed release date.

War... (1)

Chyeld (713439) | about 6 years ago | (#24473355)

War, war never changes....

Whoops.. wrong game.

Re:War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24473583)

Give me a kiss to build a dream on...

Re:War... (2, Interesting)

Shihar (153932) | about 6 years ago | (#24474201)

If only...

...actually, I take that back. I can just imagine the horrible WoW grind-fest clone they could make out of a Fallout MMORPG.

Personally, every single time someone announces that some franchise that I really like is getting an MMORPG, I am sad. Right now we are in the "Doom clone" phase of MMORPG design. Doom was original for its time. It knocked people's socks off. Then out came thirty thousand Doom clones that add nothing except cosmetic changes and slight refinements of gameplay. MMORPG design is in the same mode right now. Everquest was made. It was a big success, and now everyone has copied that game to death, tossing basic formulation tweaks onto the same boring well worn game play.

I personally am waiting for someone to break some new ground with MMORPGs. A good FPSMMORPG (I stipulated good, so don't tell me about Planetside) would be a nice start. Imagine an MMORPGFPS that is more than a glorified game of capture the flag. Imagine a FPSMMORPG that of course has fighting, but has more things to do than just fight. I think the Warhammer 40K and Fallout universes both scream out to be quality FPSMMORPGs. Hell, if someone really felt like they had a pair of balls that needed a wheelbarrow to lug around, they could try to simply copy the original Ultima Online design for a "sandbox" world (which has almost nothing to do with that UO was released after beta, and even less with what it is now).

There is a ton of room for innovation in the MMORPG world. I don't know about you, but when I was a kid and I dreamed of MMORPGs (before there were MMORPGs), I sure as hell didn't envision playing 'whack-a-mole' grinding away killing mindless NPCs in the tens of thousands to score more l00t and exp. I personally envisioned fighting through living worlds where clearing out the goblin cave means the bastards stay dead, where undead attacking your city means the city is defended or burns, and where there are no "levels" that stratify the game into gods and peons who couldn't kill a high level even with a small army backing them up.

Re:War... (1)

Hubbell (850646) | about 6 years ago | (#24475627)

Darkfall Online [darkfallonline.com] is getting close to having an actual open beta soon and will support almost 100% player freedom. FFA PVP, full loot, sieges, player cities, player driven storyline, etc. You should definitely check it out.

Re:War... (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | about 6 years ago | (#24476747)

Is this coming after or just before Duke Nuke'em Forever? Mod troll if you want, but being on the internet for years has left me skeptical of such tall tales. Assumign this will make it to release... Even if the game starts of with 100% player freedom (queue here Ultima Online reference) it may not last forever, and more likely won't last for long. As soon as people stop renewing after their free month is up leaving comments like "he killed me and took mah stuff!" I suspect things will change.

Re:War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24477805)

How much experience do you have with Planetside, out of curiosity? When is it from?

Re:War... (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | about 6 years ago | (#24479857)

Then out came thirty thousand Doom clones that add nothing except cosmetic changes and slight refinements of gameplay.

While I don't disagree with your "doom clone" tag, I do disagree with this statement. Unreal, Quake (sure, it was still made by Id), and Half-Life very much added more than slight changes and refinement to the FPS genre. Let along Counter-Strike and Team Fortress and the up-coming Left 4 Dead.

Likewise, on non PC games, Rare created Goldeneye and Perfect Dark and that lead developer went and made Time Splitters. All of which are quite similar, actually, but very fun in their own way. But no more a "doom clone" other than being a FPS.

As with regards to "grind fests". Honestly, that's just how RPG genre's are defined. Not much different than most video games in fact. Puzzle games you do the same thing over and over again. Any RPG from turn-based, hack/slash, to MMO, you do the same thing over and over again, and then you repeat with re-skinned and strong enemies. The difference between MMO's and other RPG's is that MMO's don't have as much epic story to tell because they have to make thousands or millions of people all feel epic in the same world. This causes the grind to be out front, instead of hidden. Unlike single player RPGs, they just have to make one person feel epic in the world, so they can revolve a story line around them with beautiful cut sceens and such that hide the repetitive grind.

"Grind" is always there. It's the part of almost all games. How is baseball, basketball, or football not doing the same thing over and over again at it's roots?

Re:War... (1)

brkello (642429) | about 6 years ago | (#24481267)

If things stay dead, then only one, or a few, get to see that content. In a game with thousands of people, if things stay dead, the game becomes pointless almost immediately as all the content has been knocked down before people can see it.

Though I don't disagree that there could be more innovation and variety. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing a modern version of shattered galaxies.

Re:War... (1)

Shihar (153932) | about 6 years ago | (#24493797)

That is only true if your game is very poorly designed. Taking WoW and then making it so that when creatures die they stay dead would be a very crappy game. I am not suggesting a WoW rip off with a silly gameplay tweak. I am talking about striking out in an entirely new direction.

There is a core gameplay in MMORPGs. The core gameplay of MMORPGs is that you kill shit, killing shit makes you stronger, you kill strong shit shit, rinse and repeat. This is the central core of an MMORPG. If the above doesn't appeal to you, you will never find MMORPGs satisfying. Whatever glitz MMORPGs throw on top of that game play doesn't change what is at the core. I am saying, someone needs to grow a pair and toss that core in the trash.

A few people have actually tried. EvE online breaks the mold somewhat. You still run the "kill shit to get stronger", but they have slightly under emphasized it by taking out experience for killing things. Instead, your power is based upon time and money, and money can potentially be gained in ways other than by killing things. That game isn't my cup of tea, but I give them respect for shifting the mold a little.

So, you want to envision a game where things stay dead? Imagine a game where there are only a couple of cities. Imagine that the rest of the world is extremely hostile and only gets more hostile. Hell, lets make this a zombie game. The plot is that a zombie apocalypse happens and a few humans manage to build a few hold outs in this game world. The world is teaming with billions of zombies and a few humans (players). If you kill a zombie, it stays dead, but well, more zombies wander in from other places.

So, imagine you and a group jump in a truck armed to the teeth and clear out a ruined town. You collect resources from the town (food, ammo, whatever). No zombies respawn. Instead, over time zombies start to head to the town from other places that are far more infested. At first, only a few wander in that are easily dispatched. As time goes on, more and more wander in from other places. If you stick around long enough, you have a wandering zombie horde trying to tear you apart. The core gameplay of this game could be about resource collection instead of grinding for mad exp. It could be FPS like instead of quasi turn based combat.

I am not arguing that this is THE game that needs to be built. Hell, I am not even arguing that it would work and make good game play. I am saying that "OMG there is no way to make an MMORPG other than to rip of Everquest for the next few decades" is silly. There are alternatives, it is just that major developers that can really dump the resources into making them work don't have the balls to try. Instead, they keep shoveling rehashed versions of Everquest and we get unoriginal crap like WoW.

Certainly WoW fills a niche and a demand, but I think that there are other tastes out there that are yet to be satisfied. It is like if someone opened a restaurant that served pasta, it was a hit, and then all of a sudden lots of other places opened that also serve pasta. Yeah, those places might be a hit, but that doesn't mean that there are not people out there bored to death by pasta who want some god damn pizza.

Re:War... (1)

Sinkael (1089531) | about 6 years ago | (#24504025)

This sounds essentially like what we already have, except rather than letting players go to the mobs, the mobs come to the players. How is this different then kill and respawn mechanics? Are there a limited number of mobs per server? What happens when you run out of mobs? Game over? Do more mobs spawn and are just out of sight of the player? What is the player suppose to do while he waits for the mobs to come back? How long does it take for mobs to wander back in? While your idea is interesting on the surface, and actually would be quite fun on a small scale, it won't work well with 2-4k people on a server over 5-10 years. I do understand that this is just an example and that you are not a game designer etc etc. However, I wanted to point out that if the solution to changing the formula was as easy as you make it sound, it would have been done already.

Re:War... (1)

Shihar (153932) | about 6 years ago | (#24504459)

Let me expand a little. There is a fundimental difference in that currently you go out and kill stuff. It never comes to you. You go over to the goblin camp, beat on it for a few hours. Stuff spawns, you beat on the stuff as it spawns in, and then leave. Further, you do silly things like kill goblins within sight of each other. You attack the goblin tribe and the tribe doesn't respond unless you practically run into them. I mean hell, the entire idea behind a "dungeon crawl" revolves around slowly moving through an area, mowing down all the stuff you see, as the stuff just around the corner happily ignores you.

The respawn is not really the issue. I don't care if NPCs magically appear off screen or not. It is instead the idea of the world living, versus the world being a big exp farm put there to give you l3wt and exp. If you marched into a town with zombies (or goblins, or whatever), and they all responded to you, it would be radically different in feel then slowly picking your way killing one or two at a time in sight of others who ignore you. If when they "respawn" it is a horde that slowly mobilizes and threatens to overwhelm instead of random monsters dropping in from nowhere and them promptly ignoring you unless you run face first into them, you would get a sense that this world has a purpose.

Games like WoW feel pointless. It feels like on big exp farm. Things are not there for a rational reason, and certainly for not any reason that you can affect. They are sitting there to be mindlessly killed for exp.

Imagine a game where the world isn't one big exp farm. Hell, kill exp all together. Imagine a world where you do things for a reason. Imagine a world that responds in a reasonable way. It doesn't have to be "realistic", it should just make sense in the context of the world. Instead farming NPCs (and "farming" really is the right word for most MMORPGs), imagine if killing NPCs has a purpose other than scoring exp. Why do you kill zombies? You kill zombies because you need to kill the zombies to loot the ruined town for supplies. You don't go there to farm them. Killing is something you do to achieve a goal, it isn't a goal in it of itself. It is like fighting a war. You don't fight a war to kill people. You fight a way to achieve some political end, and you get that end by killing people.

Games like WoW suffering from a complete lack of purpose beyond the next crack like fix on making your character stronger. Guilds can extend purpose a little, but it is done in a game where the basic game play revolves around making the numbers on your character's score card go up through exp and loot.

Like I said, in all the sci-fi I ever read that had MMORPGs before there were MMORPGs, they never sat around killing goblins as they spawn in for l3wt. No sci-fi writer could even contemplate online worlds being so mindless and devoid of meaning... and for good reason.

Someone needs to grow a pair and try something new. Shift the game away from the "kill shit to be stronger to kill more shit" model to something else. Personally, I think that there is a massive untapped market for MMORPGs. Just because a few million crack addicts love current MMORPGs doesn't mean that a few hundred million people wouldn't love something else.

Re:War... (1)

Narpak (961733) | about 6 years ago | (#24607035)

Like a game focused upon beating other teams and players? Personally I like the concept of an Online Avatar, and I like the concept of fighting other players over objectives and glory. If that game looks like WoW in many ways, and handles like WoW when it comes to interface and hotkeys; I don't much care. All I care about is how much does gear count and will the fighting feel like it have a purpose. If a game can satisfy me in those ways I am happy. Don't have to be new in many other ways, it just have to be good at those things.

Then again principles of evolution comes into play on the computer marked. Lots of shit get manufactured, every once in a while a gem comes along that sticks around for a while and send the expectations of customers in new directions. Doom showed that there where many gamers interested in paying for such an experience, so a lot of knock of crap came along, and a few that pushed the limit.

Eventually the MMO marked will break up as different concepts and worlds becomes available. Over the next decade I feel confident we will see the emergence of several new MMOs that will stick around for a long time. Then again, only time will tell as they say.

Re:War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24474315)

Yeah, article clearly referring to the Web Application aRchive [wikipedia.org] format.

CS? (1, Funny)

Sparr0 (451780) | about 6 years ago | (#24474345)

Obviously since no one thought it prudent to mention what game this post is about, it must be about CounterStrike, since those are the only people with the sort of tunnel vision to think that everyone else in the world plays the same and only game as them.

No Mac support. (1)

skia (100784) | about 6 years ago | (#24474907)

Yawn.

Re:No Mac support. (3, Funny)

Zekasu (1059298) | about 6 years ago | (#24475079)

Welcome to the real world.

Would you like to play most computer games?

[Y/N]?

Y

Buy a PC?

[Y/N]?

Y

Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (1)

skia (100784) | about 6 years ago | (#24475371)

Re-yawn.

Re:Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (1)

Phydeaux314 (866996) | about 6 years ago | (#24477235)

Amazingly enough, this doesn't make him wrong.

Re:Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (1)

skia (100784) | about 6 years ago | (#24480003)

I'm not saying he's wrong. He's absolutely right insofar as gamers buy PCs. That's likely what the developers of WAR (and LotR, and, until recently, EVE...) are thinking as well.

But even being right, Zekasu and EA Mythic are wrong because they are answering the wrong question. The market for MMORPGs like WoW and WAR is not gamers. A quick look at the subscription numbers of WoW vs. sales figures for any other game bears this out.

A non-gamer will not go out and buy new hardware to play a game. They will, instead, buy games that run on their existing hardware. Even if a non-gamer already owns a PC, it's likely a sub-$500 machine with no 3D acceleration that is probably not capable of running any of the current MMORPGs. But an increasingly large segment of non-gamers have Macs, all of which (except, perhaps, the lowest end laptop) have the guts to run, say, WoW.

The Mac users are the low-hanging fruit in this space. Blizzard understands this and is profiting from it. Everyone else is (and, it looks, will be) playing catchup.

Re:Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (1)

Cornflake917 (515940) | about 6 years ago | (#24481367)

The Mac users are the low-hanging fruit in this space. Blizzard understands this and is profiting from it. Everyone else is (and, it looks, will be) playing catchup.

Not really. Everyone else just doesn't have as much capital as Blizzard for it to be economically viable for them to port their game. Macs are still a niche in the gaming market, or at most a minority compared to Windows machines. It's hard to guarantee that porting will justify the costs unless you know your market is huge (see WoW) and you already have the resources to port the games (Blizzard has been porting their games for a while). I think it would be great to see more companies port to Macs (the more competition the better), but I can see why a majority of them are passing for the time being.

Re:Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (1)

brkello (642429) | about 6 years ago | (#24481427)

I think you are wrong when you say he is anti-mac. I think he is just being realistic. Since Macs aren't PowerPC anymore, they can easily run Windows. This makes it even less attractive to support multiple OS's since many Mac users either dual boot or run Windows through a vm. I think I would feel the same as you if I didn't have a Windows box. But I can see how they could make this business decision. Blizzard supporting Macs just shows how committed they are to making quality. Sort of confuses me why so many people on here are so hard on them.

Re:Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (1)

Sinkael (1089531) | about 6 years ago | (#24504063)

I agree with some of your post, however, Blizzards catering to MAC users is not what made them popular.

Re:Anti-mac post on games.slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24479005)

Re-tard.

Re:No Mac support. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 years ago | (#24477765)

Macs can, surprisingly enough, run Windows. The game supports Windows. Therefore it supports Macs. QED

Aussie servers (2, Informative)

fatboyslack (634391) | about 6 years ago | (#24476137)

Good bad or ugly a lot of Aussies are going to play this just because it has servers based in Australia. Hooray! Goodbye 500ms pings!

I played Warhammer Beta... it's alright, fun even. But it's a MMORPGer and I just don't have the time for the grind any more :(

well that explains it... (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 6 years ago | (#24480141)

"Plus, if having your name on the Leaderboard isn't enough incentive to win, there are plenty of valuable prizes at stake, including a Never Ending Bowl of Custard"

Those Australians and their custard.
It's just like New Zealanders and sheep.
Disgusting.

Oh, and I think four classes should be enough for anyone (F/Th/MU/Cl);)

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>