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!

A WoW Player's Guide To Warhammer

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the an-orc-by-any-other-name dept.

Role Playing (Games) 353

With Warhammer Online just around the corner, Zonk wrote up a guide which compares it to the current top dog of the MMO market, World of Warcraft. He highlights the fact that despite the appearance of "War" in both names, Warhammer is much more focused on the struggle between factions, in gameplay and artistic style. Warhammer's open beta started on Sunday, doing well in the US but stumbling in Europe. The full version launches on Sept. 18th, but people who pre-order the game will be able to access live servers up to four days before, thanks to Mythic's head-start program. Mythic CEO Mark Jacobs recently launched a blog to answer questions about the game.

cancel ×

353 comments

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

This is much better (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24950901)

Than MC Hammer's guide to Warhammer. Rapping did not translate well into gameplay.

Attention developers; (3, Insightful)

B5_geek (638928) | more than 5 years ago | (#24950951)

Guild Wars got my money because it works on Linux.
Savage got my money because it works on Linux.
Defcon got my money because it works on Linux.
NeverWinter Night got my money because it works on Linux.

There are many more but you get the idea.

If you want my money, make sure it works on Linux!

Re:Attention developers; (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24950993)

I'm sure they'll mourn the loss of all five of you Linux gamers.

And all the tens of dollars you bring with you.

Re:Attention developers; (4, Insightful)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951419)

Seriously... the cost / benefit ratio there has gotta be something like - Costs a ton / gains us almost nothing. If I'm trying to run a profitable business I'm going to say... don't bother. It's the same reason you don't see the newest WWII FPS's marketed for people over 80. It's a tiny market segment... you won't make enough money to make producing the product worth your time. Sorry!

Re:Attention developers; (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951511)

Trying to sell something to people who expect everything to be free: not a good business idea.

Re:Attention developers; (4, Informative)

RichMan (8097) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951019)

WoW works on Linux fine.

Although I have given up WoW for Guild Wars now.

Re:Attention developers; (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951057)

Same message but replace Linux by Mac, and add "real Mac port, not some lame Cider bullshit". I don't care what you think, Cider sucks on low-end Macs (which is half the Macs, all stuck with GMA950 and X3100).

Re:Attention developers; (2, Informative)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951521)

don't worry, they don't run much better with a GMA950 under Windows, either. Blame it being a Mac, since Mac picked a sucky video chipset for your system.

Owning both, I can safely say, for the same money you could have given up a little case polish and OSX for much more powerful hardware.

Re:Attention developers; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951815)

since Mac picked a sucky video chipset for your system

s/mac/you

i thought when buying from the apple website you could customize your own machine? unless you bought from a shitty place like pc world where you dont really get a choice of anything with any machine

Re:Attention developers; (1)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952177)

How many Apple laptops let you change the video card when ordering it? None. Mac Book Pro, Mac Book, the mini, no video choices. Screen choices (on the laptops) are there. Nothing bout the video card.

If your getting a laptop and plan on gaming on it, you better look at the video card or live/suffer with what it comes with.

Re:Attention developers; (4, Insightful)

edremy (36408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951069)

WoW got 10 million player's money without Linux[1]

The rest of the MMO market in total doesn't add up to WoW's subscriber numbers. Guild Wars is a distant also-ran to WoW.

The MMO makers don't care about you.

[1]; Yes, yes, I know you can run it under Wine. Any guesses as to how many people actually do this?

Re:Attention developers; (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951179)

6,211 at last check.

Re:Attention developers; (4, Insightful)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951799)

So .0006 of Wow players. Aka: insignificant.

Re:Attention developers; (1)

SECProto (790283) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951183)

response to [1]: A fair number did actually. I did when I was still running it, and i found a number of forum posts etc to help me out with addons not working properly on WoW under wine.

But it probably wasnt a significant portion of the 10 million :)

Yep (3, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951239)

While there is certainly nothing wrong with developers targeting Linux, Linux heads need to stop pretending like they are a major market. Linux on the desktop isn't all that common, and Linux on the desktop in a gaming situation is extremely rare. Thus this idea that developers really need to be targeting Linux is silly. To me it seems Linux is finding it's stronghold in business type markets. That's wonderful, but not a target for games.

Re:Yep (1)

Lovedumplingx (245300) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951391)

Good point.

I like Linux and have a distro on my box (dual boot) and I know lots of people who do most of their computing in Linux. But when they game they just face the music and load Windows because that's where it's most accessible.

Maybe after Linux breaks the business barrier more developers will think about it as more than just an afterthought but until then it really is a silly idea.

Re:Yep (1)

Relic of the Future (118669) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951873)

Chicken. Egg.

Re:Yep (1)

Lyrael (1196443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951909)

But unfortunately, that kind of thinking is what's keeping Linux out of the gaming situation. Everyone I know who runs Linux either dual-boots or has a separate Windows box, just for games that don't have native Linux clients. :(

WoW got 10 million with Mac (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951287)

WoW has got 10 million with the mac and just google for 'wow wine' to see just how active a subject it is.

Blizzard apparently cares enough to have reversed its stance on Wine as being a hacker tool earlier. If the market is so small they could have simply kept it banned but they didn't. Explain please if they don't care about linux users.

Re:WoW got 10 million with Mac (0)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951783)

Supporting WoW on Wine doesn't exactly require a whole new development team. All Blizzard did was decide that Wine really wasn't a hacking tool and sort of try to work with it again. Its not like they launched a Linux port of WoW or something and then committed to a port of Starcraft II.

Basically this is how it went at Blizzard:

Linux liking dev: "Hey, can we support Wine again?"

Manager: "Its a hacking tool, Jones told me so."

Dev: "No its not."

Manager: "Is this going to cost me money?"

Dev: "No."

Manager: "Yeah, okay, whatever, Wine is no longer a hacking tool. Knock yourself out."

Dev: "Thanks for caring about Linux!"

Manager: "Yeah, uh that. Thanks. Where's your status report?"

Re:Attention developers; (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951473)

I run WoW under Linux with Wine. Also, there is a thread on the Ubuntu Forums dedicated to this, and a decent amount have posted about it. I doubt it's even 1% of the 10 million users, but they are out there.

Re:Attention developers; (1)

guru42101 (851700) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951595)

^
|
+------ WoW on Linux

It actually performs better in Linux than XP

Re:Attention developers; (1)

Oldstench (1180217) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951665)

Got any proof to back that up with a 1-to-1 hardware comparison?

Re:Attention developers; (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951977)

I don't have proof, but when I did have it working under Linux I noticed definite performance improvements versus under XP.

Of course, under XP I also didn't have to reinstall my video card drivers every Patch Tuesday and pray that they still worked with the updated packages.

Re:Attention developers; (1)

Lyrael (1196443) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951881)

A lot of people I know actually dual-boot XP specifically for the sake of running WoW as Wine can be awkward at times (especially given that I can't find linux drivers for my shitty onboard graphics and everything goes a bit fubar if I try to run anything remotely graphic-intensive).

I'd LOVE for Blizzard to make a Linux port so I could stop dual-booting but I know that they don't care so long as they get our money, which they do regardless. WoW players, Linux geeks or no, are just too hopelessly addicted to boycott WoW in the hopes of convincing Blizzard to give us a Linux port.

Re:Attention developers; (2, Insightful)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951631)

Attention Guild Wars developers: Blizzard got my money for two years cause they support mac.
 
Btw- why are you paying the company for ignoring your needs? When you purchase the windows version, then run it on linux in a windows emulation layer, you are effectively telling the company that you support their decision to not support any platform besides windows.
 
Civil Disobediance has ALWAYS been the most effective way of making a point. If they don't support your platform, the least you can do is not support their business model by pirating the game. Grow a backbone already, but whatever you do, do NOT take pride in fueling their ignorance in marketplace demands.

Re:Attention developers; (1)

Lulfas (1140109) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951855)

People do not buy Macs or run Linux in order to play games. If they do, they are dumb. Buy a computer (a tool) for what you need to do. Buying a Ferarri and taking it 4x4ing isn't a smart move either. Buy Windows: If you want to play games. Buy Mac: If you do graphics or want to appear hip. Acquire Linux: Free OS and open source love.

Re:Attention developers; (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951959)

For sufficiently variable values of "works on Linux", perhaps. NWN and Defcon have native ports, while Guild Wars doesn't. I assume you're using WINE or Cedega?

Re:Attention developers; (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24952209)

Wait, you actually paid for Linux games?

TFA, Distilled: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24950971)

A WoW Player's Guide to Warhammer:
Go back to your blocks, children.

Well, at least that's what I would have liked it to say.

Thoughts (5, Informative)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951033)

I'm in the EU beta.

The beta launch was handled horribly by GOA, the account activation was opened just a few hours before the servers went live and it completely collapsed. It wasn't just the numbers it seemed to be thoroughly broken. There's a reason you allow a few days before launching to let people sort out their accounts and keys.

However now that I'm in I'm enjoying it. The public quests are brilliant fun, the scenarios (think WoW BGs) are easy to get into and the classes are varied and have creative play mechanics.

remains to be seen if I'll still think it's great at level 30 when grind sets in but it's incredibly promising at this stage.

Re:Thoughts (1)

Dragoness Eclectic (244826) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951139)

I'm not surprised. GOA's handling of Mythic's previous MMORPG, "Dark Age of Camelot" was usually handled horribly, according to most European players I heard from.

Re:Thoughts (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951931)

That sucks I'm in the closed Beta (I'm in the US) and we were able to enter our codes WEEKS ago in August. The servers have had relatively few issues too, one brief downtime (scheduled) and its still trucking.

I'm sorry for the folks across the pond. Other than a few isolated incidents with keys not being sent to people (GameCrazy didn't give two of my guild mates who WORK for them their preorder keys until the day before open beta either. One of them missed the preview weekend because of this, the other was an Elder tester and was fine anyways).

Blind Leading the Blind (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951073)

Seriously.

Haven't heard a thing... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951081)

I don't get it... I remember subscribing to various newslettters and alerts regarding their beta program and I haven't heard a thing from them about it. I guess I could've been a little less passive about it but I only just found out the open beta had started after reading this here.

I hope they'll be doing a trial or something, I'm already subscribed to two other MMO's and I'm not paying for another sub unless I'm sure it's worth it.

Warhammer? (4, Funny)

peter_gzowski (465076) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951091)

More like World of Warhammer... Craft...

My experience in beta (1)

koblek (642650) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951093)

I've been in the open beta too and I'm impressed so far. There are a few bugs, but fewer than I recall seeing in WoW at this same stage of release. I have to agree that the public quests are great. They're easy to get into (no worrying about joining a party) and fun. I like what little I've seen of the RvR too.

Re:My experience in beta (3, Informative)

flitty (981864) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951311)

Me too. Playing in vista, my game would crash every half hour. In XP, it crashes once every 3-4 hours. Pq's are great, and the "chickening" of higher level players in lowbie zones is the best Idea i've seen (turning them into easily killable chickens). I think that will even add some "replayability" to the game (playing zones you enjoyed a lot but leveld out of), which isn't common for an MMO.

What I want is more simulation (4, Interesting)

leoboiko (462141) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951131)

Here's what I want from a medieval MMO:

  • An ecosystem. Doesn't need to have full-featured critters like in Spore or Creatures; just make the monsters eat each other, reproduce, and compete for resources in the obvious way. Come on, it's not difficult.
  • An economic system. Again, nothing fancy, just set a few resource sources and sinks (even invisible) and let the market forces decide the item prices. WoW does it for the player market, why not the in-game market as well?
  • Auto-generated, per-player quests. Gearhead can auto-generate quests, why canâ(TM)t you? I mean, most of WoW quests look the same anyway: talk to someone, find something, kill something, or escort.
  • Allow player actions to affect the world. If I kill all predators from an area I expect the ecology to be ruined. If you donâ(TM)t want players ruining the ecology, make it difficult to genocide.

Unlike most players I met in WoW, I find no fun in comparing the size of virtual âoeswordsâ or in optimizing numbers in a game of statistics. I want immersion. The way WoWâ(TM)s world is just some immutable scenario ruined immersion to me.

Re:What I want is more simulation (4, Insightful)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951355)

Allow player actions to affect the world. If I kill all predators from an area I expect the ecology to be ruined. If you donÃ(TM)t want players ruining the ecology, make it difficult to genocide.

As long as it is possible, someone will do it, if only for teh LoLz.

Re:What I want is more simulation (2, Insightful)

qqqlo (1191709) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952055)

This is possibly the truest thing I've ever heard.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951393)

An economic system. Again, nothing fancy, just set a few resource sources and sinks (even invisible) and let the market forces decide the item prices. WoW does it for the player market, why not the in-game market as well?

Because item farmers will drive prices through the roof, then undercut the in-game sellers for real-world profit.

Re:What I want is more simulation (4, Interesting)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951435)

UO initially had ecosystems of a sort. Then the players pillaged and burned and plowed salt into the ground.

Animals? All killed off. Trees? Graphics still there but no lumber generating. Monsters? Hahahahahahahaha. You killed the other players while waiting for the one (1) orc to spawn in the orc fort.

Ecosystems are cool until they come into contact with players.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952153)

UO initially had ecosystems of a sort. Then the players pillaged and burned and plowed salt into the ground.

Animals? All killed off. Trees? Graphics still there but no lumber generating. Monsters? Hahahahahahahaha. You killed the other players while waiting for the one (1) orc to spawn in the orc fort.

Ecosystems are cool until they come into contact with players.

I'm surprised there's enough players left on UO to keep the ecosystem from regenerating.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951459)

I've already seen everything you listed, except for the last one, done in NWN persistent worlds.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

kitsunewarlock (971818) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951523)

I would love an MMORPG with the ability to be a "merchant". The only merchant class I've seen has been in ragnorok and was really more of a "bank character" (if not just "item user" much like the Alchemist from d20 or Rikku from FFX).

Allowing for multiple coins at rates that are increased and decreased based on the prospects of the players, use of the coins and even GM side interference (i.e. "House Lancaster is putting 10% more gold in their coins, causing a 20% rise in price due to its now high use by NPCs.").

But that's the primary problem with MMOs today--very little change, especially based on player input. And I don't mean whining about class balance. I mean GMs aren't real GMs--they are customer support and referees. A "game master", in my tabletop experience at least, is supposed to actually help make and develop the game to fit the needs of the players. If GMs were actually given the powers of a development team (as well as the work-hours, payscale and benefits), it would do a lot of good for an MMORPG. Also, the patch system is outdated. Client side map data is outdated. Quests are outdated. Kill quests as a whole are outdated. The experience, level and class based system is outdated.

Finally, for the love of Zeus, drop the idea that all servers have to be the same (or drop servers all together). My #1 Gripe with WoW is I have 20 friends who all play; on 15 different servers. On top of that on each server one side or the other continuously dominates in PvP. Why? Because whenever a patch comes out to help one side of the game in PvP, half the servers in which one side was dominating gets more and more screwed, while the other half gets only slightly repaired from the negative consequences of the patch that tried to fix the first half.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

ted.hansson (877542) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951837)

Sounds like you want EVE-Online [eve-online.com] then. One single, massive server and a vibrant player industry/market.

simulation != game (5, Insightful)

WinPimp2K (301497) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951533)

And your laundry list of "features" pretty well demonstrates the difference. People play MMOs to have fun with other players. What you would make a good solo game for a micromanager.

Just consider your "ecology"
So what happens when a griefer guild shows up and slaughters all the wolves and bears in your forest? How do prevent this or can they even?

economies: much as I hate to admit it (I like the idea of a player economy as well), player based economies are actually very destructive to game enjoyment. The "Auction Hall" global market with instant results just provides massive encouragement for goldselling services and the resulting rampant inflation. The more resources and money supply is controlled by the publisher, the more the econommy winds up in control of the goldsellers.

If it is so darn "not difficult", why haven't you written your own game and have a few hundred thousand subscribers already?

However, the idea of allowing players to have a real impact on the game world is a good one, but once again darn near impossible in an MMO. Making real changes requires that new content be constantly generated to replace that which is no langer valid. Example: THe players have finally ended the zombie chicken infestation at Farmer Brown's. No longer will zombie chickens trouble the farm. Ever. So what new content do you propose for the beginning characters? Perhaps they could work on the rat infestation over at Farmer Smith's? What if someone gives Farmer Smith a pregnant cat(reproducing)? Oh the ecological horrors - plus the destruction of more content intended for beginning players.

Just ramp up those examples for "end game" content and you get a glimmer of the problem. It just takes too long to come up with new storylines/adventures. So players making real changes in games like this will be best done as solo games.

Or the games will have to have multiple "sub-games" built into them to keep folks occupied. (See Eve Online) which does have a failry robust and involved (although unfortunately corrupt) economy and PvP system.

Re:What I want is more simulation (3, Insightful)

Dutch Gun (899105) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951643)

Like others have intoned, the real problem with this sort of dynamic and open system is people. A percentage of players in online games feel free to act in ways they would never think about in the real world because there are no real consequences for negative actions (worst that can happen is a ban). As such, they feel free to perform actions which, if done in the real world, would merit anywhere from a punch in the nose to lengthy jailtime.

Until this fundamental problem is addressed in some manner, online games will and must remain fairly tightly controlled affairs. Otherwise, chaos will reign and the vast majority of gamers will leave for greener and more pleasant pastures. With the enormous cost of developing MMOs, that's just not something most developers are willing to risk.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951997)

Part of the issue with the WoW ecosystem is that you pretty much found yourself in a world that was sort of selectively shrunken so that you could actually run into people in it, without having to simulate a million npcs and buildings and villages to fill the space.

I mean did we think that the whole World of Warcraft is supported by what, 24 farmsteads in the entire world?

The assumption is that the animals reproduce "off camera" and walk into your little world from the bigger real world. So, genocides are not really ever genocides.

And yes I actually thought about this. All the art sort of supports this fisheye lens sort of world.

I see your point though, but what you want is a full-on medieval fantasy simulation, not necessarily a MMO. And for that, you'll find that the part of the world that any player, even a superhero, can actually effect is rather small. So to create all of what you are looking for, you'd probably need 95% of your code (not to mention client and server resources) devoted purely to environment and "big picture" rather than on game play.

In the end, as big as MMOs like WoW are, they still only pretend to simulate a very, very narrow range of "real" actions and situations.

Re:What I want is more simulation (2, Interesting)

Grandiloquence (1180099) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952073)

Ah, game design from the "Anything I don't understand must be trivial to implement" school.

These issues have been discussed endlessly by many, many, many people. Inevitably real game designers realize that your suggestions are either far to complex to implement or aren't fun in practice.

Re:What I want is more simulation (1)

esampson (223745) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952159)

I've wanted a game with most of those features as well and I actually don't believe they are as impossible as most of the others have said.

  • Ecosystem: I think this is more difficult than you are making it out to be simply because of the amount of computer power required to handle the decision making of all the creatures. It is far from impossible but I wouldn't say it's "not difficult".
  • I think this is definitely doable. UO's economy failed for a lot of reason but just because that doesn't mean it is impossible.
  • This one I've seen done. I'd just like to see it done better.
  • The last one is really tricky. Like people say, if you make it doable by a player some people will do it just for fun and you'll eventually end up with a barren world. That said the solution would probably be to make it a theoretical possibility but a practical impossibility. It isn't as though one person can wipe out an entire species unless the species is seriously endangered to begin with. With large enough populations over large enough areas it will be pretty much impossible for that to happen. Of course this is somewhat at odds with allowing people to have a direct effect on the world and it would require huge amounts of computing power to control so many creatures.

Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (4, Interesting)

Liquidrage (640463) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951173)

There's a few things that standout in this game.

When you kill a person in RvR you get EXP. You get loot (money and items that come from a random pool, not the dead players pockets).

There are repeatable quests for RvR. You join the RvR scenarios (similar to WoW battlegrounds but a faster pace and with more on the line) simply by clicking an icon on yuor screen from anywehere (though your likely to be in a queue for a few minutes before actually getting into the scenario). You have repeatable quests in those scenarios. You truely can level in this game with just RvR.

On the PvE side Public Quests are very well done. Open groups are very well done. In both cases you just walk up and your "part" of something. No need for invites. No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections.

Now, the games not perfect, but it's well done. It certainly is linear in many ways (from zones to loot). And it misses the mini-game casual play of WoW. There's no mini-pets or fishing in WAR. Some like that, some dont. But it will have an impact on the total player base.

Anyways, Massively's got a lot of info on the game that anyone interested should check out so not much more I can really say besides it gets a thumbs up so far.

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951481)

" Open groups are very well done. In both cases you just walk up and your "part" of something. No need for invites. No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections"

Can you explain this in more detail?

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951741)

In games like WoW, usually a group is already formed and only needs one or two more roles filled. They tend to be either a tank or a healer. The problem is when you've got a tank and need a healer you have to reject everyone who wants to also do the quest you're grouping for. In the PQs, everyone in the zone is doing the quest and being rewarded for it. And the more you contribute towards the end (usually killing a boss that spawns after killing two waves of guys) the more likely it will be that you'll get an item reward on top of the exp and area influence you gain.

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (1)

SBacks (1286786) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951751)

There's no invites or instances or anything. So, if you want in on a raid, you just start attacking the mob, or healing people to claim your share of the kill.

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (2, Interesting)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951865)

Does someone else joining in, like throwing you a heal, take away from the EXP, or anything else, that you would have gotten if they did not throw you that heal or help kil lthe mob?

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (1)

geeknado (1117395) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951777)

Open groups are exactly that-- open. If you enter a zone and are not already in a group, you will see an icon that informs you of the presence of open groups in your area. Clicking it, you can join one of these groups without an invite. This is particularly useful for Public Quests, large scale quests which you may automatically and repeatably participate in just by moving into an area. Now, they can still kick you, and one personal gripe that I have is that /all/ groups start open, which definitely isn't my preferred option when tooling around with a few friends, but those are relatively small reservations.

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951911)

"Now, they can still kick you"

Ok, that was one thing I was wondering. Sounds interesting.

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (2, Funny)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951729)

No more "we don't need a tank, we need a healer" rejections.

We always just said that because you were a sucky tank and couldn't keep mobs off the casters.

Re:Mythic has broken some old MMORPG rules.. (1)

PlatyPaul (690601) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952057)

Totally not his fault. That shaman was all Win Omen [penny-arcade.com] .

Another game that doesn't get it... (5, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951175)

"PvP is a much more important part of..."

Ok, so they got a focus group together, and looked on the internet, and people said "More, better PvP!"...

Too bad the niche hardcore players are the only people who speak up in those forums. Here's a big hint to everybody making this type of game: All those casual players that make Warcraft and Diablo crazy, stupid successful.... They play for the co-op and social aspects. They don't PvP. People who post on internet forums and create feature wishlists for these types of games (probably 90+% of the people who read this) aren't representative of the bulk of players no matter how vocal they are, or how important they think they are. If you cater to those players, and "being the next WoW" (in terms of paying playerbase) is your goal, you will fail.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (2, Insightful)

DeadManCoding (961283) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951213)

Damn, it's been too long since I got mod points, otherwise you'd be +5 Insightful right now... WoW appeals to casuals, hence the reason that it's the biggest MMO out there, and quite possibly ever.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (2, Insightful)

CogDissident (951207) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951415)

And if warhammer gets all the hardcore players, it will "still" be profitable. And the casuals of WoW will be happy because they don't have to deal with as many "hardcore" jerks.

You don't have to "beat" WoW to win, you just have to make a game that has a profit margin. And having a devoted fanbase of people who are shown to stick around is a good way to ensure this.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

random256 (676708) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952139)

Actually, WAR isn't even a game for the hardcore pvpers. The hardcore are actually griefers in disguise, and the ability to grief in WAR is amazingly small. Smaller than in WoW. I honestly don't know how to explain how well they actually laid out the game other than to say that I talked my girlfriend into playing the game, who has never pvp'd in her life, and wouldn't because of the hardcore morons, and now I can't tear her away from her computer.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (5, Interesting)

loom_weaver (527816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951281)

You do realize that Mythic is directly targeting those who like to PvP. That percentage of the market is much less than PvE'ers but it exists. Think of all the FPS out there.

One way to imagine WAR is a FPS MMORPG.

I played DAoC quite a bit and I think Mythic got the PvE/RvR balance right in that game. I spent most of my time in PvE but when I felt competitive I had a decent PvP game to partake in.

WAR is not designed to be the next WoW.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (5, Insightful)

CodeBuster (516420) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951625)

Please MOD the parent up.

I also played DAoC right up until the ill-fated Trials of Atlantis (TOA) expansion (Mythic made the mistake with TOA of tying PvP success directly to PvE and by the time they realized their mistake and done something to correct it they had lost too many players and now it is only about 50,000 or so really hard core PvP players left) and it really did have some great features and good ideas. For a while there back in 2001-2003 they really had the best game going in the MMORPG space.

WAR will be more successful if they can successfully differentiate themselves from WoW and Realm vs Realm (RvR) and PvP, which WoW has basically fumbled, is the best way that they can do that. I will probably give WAR a try not because I am huge Warhammer fan, but because I remember the good times in DAoC and hope that Mythic will get it right from the start this time (using the lessons that they learned from DAoC).

Although, personally I would have preferred a more open ended and generic MMORPG type game where pre-conceived storylines and areas (from the Warhammer world in this case) do not intrude upon the gameplay. It would be far more interesting to start with an original world, drawing upon classic fantasy elements but not completely out in left field (i.e. use classic fantasy gaming elements and memes established by LOTR, D&D, and other popular fantasy novels but in a new setting) and let the actions of the players actually build the world as the game progresses.

It is not always necessary to have a pre-existing brand tie-in and it can infact hurt more than it helps (by drawing in lots of Warhammer fanbois who are just playing because its Warhammer and not because they are really interested in a good MMORPG experience). Plus, the publishers (EA\Mythic in this case) have to pay licensing fees or cut in the creator for a share of the profits (Games Workshop in this case) for the use of their copyrights. It seems like every MMORPG is a brand tie-in these days (Star Wars, Warhammer, World of Warcraft, etc) and sometimes (most times? WoW being a notable exception) the brand tie-in actually hurts rather than helps the long term viability of the game.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951307)

I have to disagree.

What about Final Fantasy Online? There is little to no PVP in that game, however they just released a patch that allowes you to level down so you can party with others, but still gain experience. If that's not focused on the casual player I don't know what is. Yet why isn't that game a hit?

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951591)

Final Fantasy XI has to be just about the most casual-hostile game I've ever played. For five full years after the game came out if you wanted to do anything in this game you had spend the time looking for a group, which could take up to an hour or more if your build wasn't exactly right or you had some kind of unacceptable job/subjob combination, or if your support job wasn't properly leveled, or any number of reasons. Once you lucked into a party, you proceeded to one of the overcrowding hunting areas and stood around while the main tank went to find a monster and pulled it back to the group, where you'd have an exciting couple of minutes to kill it off and get a couple hundred XP (if the monster was particularly tough, and your party didn't manage to get itself wiped out), then the tank would be off again to find the next creature while the rest of the group waited around for him to get back.

Try to grind experience after about level 10? It's doable, but only just. After 20? Just not feasible without at least a three person party, and six is better.

And just now, over five years later, a patch arrives to allow the high-level folks to cap their levels so that they can help out the lowbies in the starting areas. This isn't to make the game more casual-friendly, it's because the starting areas are almost all completely deserted. Most of the players in the game have gotten their characters up to high-levels with all the jobs and there just hasn't been an influx of newbies to keep the starting areas occupied. This results in any new folks trying to get into the game with virtually nobody to group with, and then they're likely to leave pretty quickly as a result.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951309)

Except its not hardcore PvP. It's PvP that anyone can queue up for, or anyone can go help capture a keep. It's not exclusive in any way. Log onto a WoW server any given time and see just how many people are playing battlegrounds at any given time. More than are doing arenas, raiding, and almost as many as are leveling up new characters or alts.

WAR is aimed at those players that play WoW BGs all day despite the fact that they're meaningless and give poor rewards. WAR makes that style of PvP meaningful and rewarding.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951327)

Really? I am a casual gamer, and all I do is PvP, I want to get on, kill some people, and be done with it. But nooo, (in WoW) I have to grind up to 70, then when at 70, play retarded amount of hours to try to keep up with the kids that never get off so they have 200x better gear, so when my casual gaming butt gets on I get whacked. PvE usually doesn't work for casual gamers - You have to find a group, wait for correct times (raid junk) this involves alot of sitting around waiting - not what you want when you don't game all day! Warhammer gives XP for PVP, which is something WoW should have done, and I bet will do in the future. Warhammer is a decent game, still a bit buggy with targeting and some NPC stuff, will it knock WoW off? doubt it, but it will have a strong user base.. this game is loads better than Tabula Rasa, or any other mmo out at the moment.

Right (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951337)

Tell that to every korean MMORPG that has PvP.

The problem is that western MMORPG's do PvP wrong, they do open world PvP and that just doesn't belong in a level based game. Warhammer does things different, far closer to Guild Wars. Wether it will work is anybodies guess, but PvP done well with no ganking could easily attract a large enough userbase to make the game succesfull.

Anyway, it is not like the industry needs another PvE MMORPG.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

Tw0Ply (1348341) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951369)

Mythic has said repeatedly they do not want to become the next WoW or view themselves as a WoW killer. And to quickly summarize what Mark Jacobs is saying on his blog. WAR's success means alot to the MMO community. If it succeeds and pulls some good numbers (not WoW sized, but respectable), it will help continue to open the market to more MMO games. Otherwise, investors will be hesitant to dump money into an area that feels it can't compete in while Blizzard is in the race.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951571)

So... Play WAR, or future games will suffer?

Sorry. He loses. If you pick up a game "for the good of the market" you send the message that people should invest in games like that. If WAR fails, it sends the message that they got it wrong, not that Blizzard is unstoppable.

Let me translate what Mark Jacobs was saying: "This was harder than we thought. We don't think we can be as successful as we'd like to be, or as successful as we thought we could be when we started. But we really want to save face."

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

grominar (1099307) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951403)

"PvP is a much more important part of..."

Ok, so they got a focus group together, and looked on the internet, and people said "More, better PvP!"...

Too bad the niche hardcore players are the only people who speak up in those forums. Here's a big hint to everybody making this type of game: All those casual players that make Warcraft and Diablo crazy, stupid successful.... They play for the co-op and social aspects. They don't PvP. People who post on internet forums and create feature wishlists for these types of games (probably 90+% of the people who read this) aren't representative of the bulk of players no matter how vocal they are, or how important they think they are. If you cater to those players, and "being the next WoW" (in terms of paying playerbase) is your goal, you will fail.

You don't know what you are talking about quite honestly. Warhammer is very social, the social element comes into play in a very obvious way, the big difference is you are fighting other people not some cheesy AI. In addition the game appears to have a lot of framework to ensure no abuse of other faction. This is definitely not warcraft and from a game play. socio-political perspective is very much deeper and better.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

andrewd18 (989408) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951527)

The PvP system in World of Warcraft is fundamentally broken. It favors people who play for hours at a time over casual players. The people with the uber PvP gear completely wipe the floor with the casual players, and it ruins the casual player's day.

Guild Wars had a better system, at least. Give everyone access to max-level PvP right away, and give them unfettered access to almost top-of-the-line gear. This, along with the smaller 8-skill skillset, focused the PvP around individual and team strategy, not wtfpwning the other side because you've grinded for months to get your purples.

I'm looking forward to trying WAR, and hopefully the RvR will be just as easy to win for casual players as the hardcore players. I'm hoping the whole "armies versus armies" mindset balances out battles so that they doesn't end up being lopsided against the non-geared. We'll have to wait and see. For the meantime, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951677)

It doesn't matter if the WoW PvP system is broken or not. Most casual players don't want to PvP. Which is why there are 50% more players on PvE realms than on PvP realms in Warcraft. In other words: There are more players on non-PvP WoW servers than there are in all other MMOs combined.

Incidentally, PvE servers have majority Alliance populations, and PvP servers have majority Horde populations.

My prediction for WAR? "Armies vs. Armies" is going to be hard to balance, because the "hardcore players" are going to pick the evil faction.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951981)

While I haven't checked the realmstats to confirm or deny the assertation about the population breakdown of WoW PvE / PvP servers, here's something to consider:

The primary reason why a player would choose Horde over Alliance is for the racials. Horde racials are almost universally better than the Alliance racials.

Many, if not all, of the WoW racials are being changed for Wrath of the Lich King - precisely because of how unbalanced the racials are.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

AP31R0N (723649) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951655)

If you're looking for grind/twink/farmer free pure PvP... try PlanetSide. It's an MMFPS of 24/7 sci-fi warfare. Strategy, tactics, skill and cooperation win the day.

As for MRPGs, i'm waiting for NWN meets WoW but without player trade or grinding. i want to play a game, not have a second job (that *costs* money).

The PvP aspect of WoW was a turn off for me. Spawn, die, spawn, die, spawn, die, log off. Running quests with friends was fun.

And i totally agree with you, trying to make WoW2 is virtually futile. WoW has a magic combination of traits that can be imitated, but the imitation would be transparent (and require players to start over in a game few their friends are *not* playing).

i'd like to give the game a try, but i'm not going to spend 50$ to do it.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

ACupOfCoffee (459804) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951697)

A couple important things that the above post doesn't seem to get:
  • PvP may be a niche market, but if that niche is only 10% - well, I think I'd call a million subscriptions a success.
  • WAR is oriented towards RvR (realm vs. realm). RvR is different in some aspects than a number of common impressions about PvP. In particular:
    • the pvp aspect is voluntary (you choose to go into the area) - no getting ganked when you want to relax
    • you are detached from your enemy and have de facto allies (each realm is one side, your allies can't hurt you and are likely working towards killing your enemies) - side bonus, enemies can't talk trash to you
  • RvR is implicitly cooperative - see above.
  • Just because RvR is a primary feature in this game does not mean there is not a wealth of PvE content. As others in this thread have said, public quests are a wonderful new feature to encourage cooperative play. There is also raid content, dungeons, etc.
  • RvR is just as social as casual pve - perhaps more so because you are more likely to be working on a coordinated objective, unless you are in a coordinated raid (not necessarily casual)... or a public quest!
  • Open parties (an easy way for a casual player to join a group looking for new members) are a huge social mechanic for casual players to meet and play with people.

There are a large number of people who say that they hate pvp because their impression of pvp is running around on a low level character getting killed by higher level min-maxed characters when all they want to do is kill their first fluffy bunny. WAR has an alternative rule set for that style of play, but the core rule set intentionally prevents it.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951849)

Nonsense. There are plenty of PVP players that are not "Hardcore" I play about 15 hours a week and would prefer a well implmeneted pvp to wow bgs anyday or any other content. Problem is there has not been a good pvp game since trials of atlantis ruined daoc.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24952019)

you are not considering the fact that there are millions of Warhammer fans that have been reading and playing warhammer games since the mid 1980s. Many of them have become MMO players. Warhammer is a world they know and competition has always been part of the warhammer gaming franchise.

Re:Another game that doesn't get it... (1)

james_orr (574634) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952099)

What you don't get, is that they aren't trying to take over from WOW. It's a different game with a different market. If you like fishing in WOW, this probably is not the game for you.

WoW (2, Insightful)

Krneki (1192201) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951267)

People only want to enjoy the game, not get their char ganked by some "PvP elite".

Re:WoW (2, Insightful)

Hydian (904114) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951541)

I know this is /. but you could try reading the article. You'll only get ganked if you go someplace (well marked) that has RvR active.

Re:WoW (1)

Awptimus Prime (695459) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952183)

Sort of. WoW's PvP servers have been a success for people who like the freedom to chop up noobs or start fights in opposite faction towns.

I got two characters to 60 on a PVP server, and quite honestly, didn't mind the occasional visit from a ganker. It also made going fishing with someone of the opposite faction a real matter of trust. More often than not, people would just be chill. But, by all lore in the game, you are at war with them and should be able to attack if you want.

People who get their panties in a bunch over a gank are best off sticking with the care bear servers.

But is it like WoW? (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951271)

You know, I played WoW up to 70, and the BG's and isntances were just boring to me.

How does this game play in relation? Is it just another WoW? If you hated WoW would you hate this?

I'm holding out before dishing out 50 bucks for something that may not be innovative.

Re:But is it like WoW? (2, Insightful)

k_187 (61692) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951471)

If you didn't like WoW's battlegrounds and/or Arena, probably not. The PvE side of the game is fun, but definitely not the focus. I'd argue that the PvE side of WAR is even more grindy than WoW's since it has a definite end. WAR is really the PvP lover's WoW in a lot of ways.

That said, I think its a blast.

Re:But is it like WoW? (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951779)

Well I guess the reason I say that was because in WoW I never really had a sense of accomplishment. It was just one BG after another, with no real change in the end game.

Re:But is it like WoW? (1)

haystor (102186) | more than 5 years ago | (#24952171)

In Warhammer, there is the feeling of suspense as you head out to world pvp, not knowing how well defended a keep or tower will be. Then there is all the strategy and politics of gathering forces, the scouting of the enemy, the logistics of deploying siege equipment...etc. Simply nothing comparable in WoW.

RvR is good but... (1)

1WingedAngel (575467) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951313)

I'm an active WoW player and am on the fence on picking up WAR. A lot of people I play WoW with are in the same boat.

The problem is this: We like raiding.

We may also like PvP. Several of us have 3 regular arena teams and are in full S4. But, still, we like raiding.

Now, everything I read on WAR trumpets the virtues of their PvP and RvR system while promising us that there is some sort of mythical PvE endgame without really describing it.

In short, can anyone confirm that there is a PvE endgame where you group up with X friends and fight tough bosses (where X >= the number of fingers you possess)?

That would get my kind of folks interested.

Re:RvR is good but... (1)

loom_weaver (527816) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951395)

If you like raiding then you're already in the right game - WoW.

Re:RvR is good but... (1)

Hydian (904114) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951505)

There is definately large raid content on the high end. Big, scary, nasty stuff.

Re:RvR is good but... (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951507)

I am not a Warhammer expert... but from what I've read the final battles are all based around huge cities that you siege and attack. Apparently the scale is massive enough that it certainly would make sense for it to be the sort of thing that an entire group of people did together. There were originally going to be a ton of cities but I think they've cut it back to two or something for now just to get the game out... they'll add more as time goes on.

Like I said, I'm not that interested in it, so someone can point out anything I've gotten wrong.

Re:RvR is good but... (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951939)

You've got it pretty right. There are two main cities right now, and the goal is to control points leading to them (think Battlefield), finally unlocking the ability to enter the city. In the city is a bunch of quests and also a king to kill.

Re:RvR is good but... (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951581)

In short, can anyone confirm that there is a PvE endgame where you group up with X friends and fight tough bosses (where X >= the number of fingers you possess)?

See, I'm just the opposite. I can't stand raiding most the time. Did it in EQ2, did it in WoW, etc. It is fun for the first time through, but after that it becomes glorified farming. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to pick on you or your preferences. Nothing wrong with liking raiding. Most of the time I play MMORPG games, I am by myself or wish to solo with very little grouping.

I used to play Dark Age of Camelot religiously (Trials of Atlantis can still kiss my ass) and loved the RvR combat. Some of those fights were EPIC. I would sometimes go to work zombified cause I didn't know when to quit (thankfully I learned). I miss that kind of experience.

"Hey, our faction is attacking one of the other factions!"
"Which one?"
"I dunno, but let's jump in on this and see if we can't beat the crap outta something!"

This is just me though. The PvP in WoW felt forced. It was (let's be fair here) an after thought. I look forward to trying out WAR, for hopes of rekindling that love that DAoC gave me towards PvP and RvR combat.

PS - Percival Server, Hibernia, Druid, Chullain - lvl 50 Nurture Druid

Compelling PvP (3, Insightful)

nate nice (672391) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951649)

Compelling PvP cannot exist without these 3 things:

Conflict, consequence and subjectivity.

Players must have a struggle and fight for something in the game. This creates a conflict that players will get involved in and fight over.

Players must feel repercussions for their decisions. Jumping and ganking the wrong people will result in total destruction of everything you and your friends have built by the community you have violated.

Finally, the sides must not be clearly defined at the beginning of the game. Your allies shouldn't be a gameplay decision based on what side of a coin you flip. Alliances need to be built out of a common desire to survive. You cannot possibly have a real hatred for an enemy just because your predisposed to them. But more importantly, you are forced to ally with those you may not want to because you are on the same side.

These static gameplay issues are the same reason WAR will be as interesting as WoW in terms of PvP and that is to say it won't be. Well, it will be fun objective based, tactical PvP.

But the game lacks *real* conflict, any type of consequence and subjectivity.

Pussy Nazi Sez (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24951653)

No pussy for YOU!

Would that translate well? (4, Funny)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 5 years ago | (#24951825)

You enter Games Workshop

You encounter Level 1 Nerd

Punch Nerd (5 damage)

Loot Nerd

Received unpainted minis, bag of dice (commom), potion of asthma healing (inhaler).

Sorry... what were we talking about again?

Load More 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>