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!

The Warhammer Online Team Responds

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the lovable-orcs dept.

220

Last month we asked you for questions for the makers of Warhammer Online. The tone of the response made it obvious that many readers were concerned about where the company was taking the Warhammer world. Their responses should, at least somewhat, put those of you frustrated by what you've seen so far at ease. The makers of the upcoming MMOG from Mythic have responded with detail and good humour to the insightful queries you put to them. They were also considerate enough to label their responses, so you know exactly who has answered each question. So, please, read on for the responses from Mythic's Warhammer Online team.1.) What's in for the crafters? by Opportunist (166417)
I'm a crafter at heart, in fact, I play MMORPGs to craft gear. So what do we loonies get? How do you want to avoid the two pitfalls "Making it so easy that everyone is some sort of crafter (see WoW)" and "Making it so hard that you'd rather go with the once-in-a-lifetime-drop (see DAoC)"? Can I sustain myself crafting, or is it at best a hobby for people who have too much money already? Will crafted gear be, economically, be at least on par with drop-only gear? Oh, only one question. Ok: Is being a crafter a choice that can keep you entertained and sustained by itself?

Steve Marvin, Senior Design: I hate to disappoint Slashdot readers here (I'm one myself, albeit just a lurker), and I don't think for a second that I can get away with a song and dance with you guys, either. ;-) So I'll come straight out and admit that we're dodging this question. We just aren't talking about crafting yet beyond the promise that it will be present and fun. Ask us again in six months, and we will be ready to give you some juicy details.

2.) Why not a tabletop port? by randalx (659791)
When I first heard of Warhammer Online I had a slight hope that the designers were going to create an online version of the table top game, something akin to what Wizards of the Coast did with Magic The Gathering Online. That doesn't seem to be the case. Just the same, judging by the people I've talked to, this game would be of great interest to current and former battlegamers. I'd like to know, besides the Warhammer universe, why should this game appeal to a Warhammer battlegamer?

Steve Marvin, Senior Design: Why didn't we do a straight port? Well, as Paul (Paul Barnett, our Design Manager) likes to say, it's kind of like Batman. Batman comes in a multitude of flavors, from big screen to books, cartoons to games, action figures to a million other successful (and unsuccessful) incarnations. Each modifies the base concept to suit the market in which it will be operating, so as to appeal to the current fans, but just as important, to create new fans in a medium in which there were few or none previously. With luck, the new aspect will be a big success, and those new fans will go looking for the other flavors. We really like the folks at Games Workshop (they've been fantastic to work with), and we love the Warhammer universe, and so we hope our game can help expand interest in both.

But we work in the MMO medium. More specifically, MMORPG's. That means that a dominant characteristic of the tabletop experience has already been set aside: the impersonal aspect. Tabletop Warhammer is about the control of lots of individuals at a time by a single person. MMORPG's are about lots of individuals controlling one character at a time.

A better comparison would probably be to compare us to the Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing Game. There you do carry an individual through the Warhammer universe, acquiring power, wealth and experience. The unit types found on the tabletop are recreated in WFRP careers where possible, and new but IP-consistent careers are created to fill out the expectations of a robust FRP game. Of course, WFRP doesn't let you play the "bad guys", and we do.

But even that comparison breaks down, since we aren't a paper and dice game any more than we are a miniatures game. The fact is that we have taken everything that we liked best about the IP, combined it with what we like best about MMO's, and created something we think plays to the strengths of the IP, the genre, and our own strengths as a developer, especially player versus player (PvP) combat and its larger counterpart, Realm versus Realm (RvR). At its heart, RvR online play is the obvious and perfect way to recreate Warhammer as an MMORPG. War on a grand scale, carried out on the personal level.

And coming full circle, that's what the Warhammer tabletop player will enjoy about WAR. We have been working with the folks at GW not so much to make an MMO based on Warhammer, as to translate the core concepts of Warhammer into an MMO. Not as the trappings of it, but the essence of it. Certainly we have Ironbreakers and Squigs and Warrior Priests and Bright Wizards and runes and banners and choppas and Dwarfs and Orcs and Dark Elves and the Empire and Karaz-a-Karak and thousands of other things lifted directly from the source material. But that's the easy bit. We want fans of Warhammer to recognize the kinds of choices we've made as Warhammer choices. Epic, heroic conflict. The same principles of number and mood. The sense of endless struggle against (or for!) the encroaching darkness. Perhaps most of all, the humor and the sense of fun. When you get into WAR, you will recognize it as Warhammer. We're working very hard to get that right, and we hope you'll enjoy it as much as we do.

3.)Removing the grind by Bugmaster (227959)
What are you going to do in order to prevent the repetitive grind that most MMOs are [in]famous for? How many quests in your game follow ye olde template of "kill 20 goblins and bring me their noses... but a goblin only has a 30% chance to drop a nose"?

Destin Bales, Content Director: Time commitment will always be a factor in WAR just as it is in other successful MMO's. That is because the more time you are able to put into the game, the more you'll experience and see of the world, and the more fun you will have. However, I look to three key features within WAR to make time spent online exciting rather than repetitive:

1. Realm vs Realm (RvR) Game play. Warhammer Online allows you to level your character entirely through RvR game play, just as you can through PvE, if you choose to do so. You are able to earn experience, gain access to items and gather valuable coin through this form of PvP combat. This style of play is not only unpredictable, but ever-changing. The community dictates the pace ensuring that each battle is unique from the last.

We also have four different varieties of RvR combat and each offers a unique player experience. In Skirmishes, it's a random encounter with an opponent (or group of opponents!) that leads to battle in the game world. In Battlefields, you are fighting for control of a landmark or resource for the benefit of your army. It could be just you against twenty enemies or a more even fight, depending on the importance placed on the objective at that time by each army. In Scenarios, you'll be able to jump into a "fair" fight of balanced sides (augmented by NPC's if need be). Finally, in the Campaign, you'll be taking land and sacking cities in the RvR endgame.

2. Truckloads of Carrots: Warhammer Online's unique career advancement system awards players several times per rank, rather than once every (or every other) level. Gaining unique abilities, tactics, morale options and more all occur at various times within a single rank. This means that you are never far away from earning your next new enhancement for your character. Additionally, the Tome of Knowledge serves as a game-wide scavenger hunt in which most actions you complete in game will yield results that not only can affect your character but give you further insight into the wondrous inner workings of the Warhammer world and the story of the Age of Reckoning.

3. Content Variety: WAR provides players with many different ways to have fun while growing their characters online. Some examples include community driven, area-based public quests; our deep and enticing RvR game play; solo-able quests, Tome of Knowledge entry unlocking, crafting and more. As MMO's continue to evolve, developers discover new and compelling ways to ensure players are actively having a good time. WAR is filled to the brim with not only industry staples, but new things that I guarantee you've not seen before.

The answer to the second part of the question - "How many quests in your game follow ye olde template of 'kill 20 goblins and bring me their noses... but a goblin only has a 30% chance to drop a nose'?" - is simple: None! When we present players with a quest to gather goblin noses, you'll find that every goblin with a nose on his face is willing to part with it after death. From the first day that we began defining our quest design principles, we made it a priority to avoid this type of quest in WAR altogether. Furthermore, collection style quests make up a very small portion of the quests we have to offer. Our quests are all tied closely to the ongoing war, so most have you infiltrating an enemy compound, assassinating da big boss, or capturing a strategic location wot holds beer!

4.) What makes WAR special? / Why Is It For Me? by Gerad (86818) and eldavojohn (898314)
On a site like Slashdot, a lot of us are caught up in online RPG games and console wars. I read the overview of your game on your site but--like a lot of people--I'm not sold. What's unique about Warhammer Online, other than the universe that its set in? This could be anything, really: design philosophy, new innovations in game play, new technical accomplishments. It appears to have a lot of 'war' involved in it but is there any social aspects to your online game? Is there diplomacy in Warhammer? Put slightly more bluntly, tell me why I should chose Warhammer Online over World of Warcraft.

Josh Drescher, Associate Producer: Fundamentally, Warhammer Online is about real, meaningful conflict. When we say "war is everywhere," we mean it. From the earliest portions of the game straight on through to the high-end invasion campaigns, players will have the chance to take part in robust, meaningful PvP. The options that exist on the market at the moment really treat PvP like a dangerously "extreme" element of the MMO experience and go to great lengths to make it appeal only to a limited percentage of players. Part of this is out of necessity - poorly conceived PvP can be devastatingly off-putting to new players who set one foot out into the world and get murdered on the spot by griefers. So we see some games that restrict PvP to specialized servers or to high level characters in remote areas or that force players to queue up for an hour to go and play through "safe" content that exists outside of the persistent world entirely. It's no surprise that most MMO players eschew PvP for the traditionally more well-implemented PvE experience.

So, at its core, Warhammer Online seeks to address THAT problem. Our solution is what we call Realm vs. Realm content. Unlike our noble competitors, we really want to give players a reason to go out and experience the excitement of battling real, live players without restricting them to countless replays of the same "seize the windmill" content. When you create your character, you aren't just starting a solo journey in the Warhammer world. You're joining an ARMY. And that army is engaged in an epic conflict that can (and likely WILL) bring the war directly to your front door. That grand, enormous capital city you're running around in today could be a ruined tomb tomorrow if you and your fellows do not defend it tooth and nail. To do so, you'll be given the chance to push deeper and deeper into enemy territory until you finally reach THEIR capital, at which point you'll lay siege to it and - if successful - do things that... well, Slashdot is a FAMILY FRIENDLY place, so let's just say that you'll do terrible, terrible things to the huddled, whimpering survivors of the siege.

Now, you may be wondering how we're going to turn the average PvE-loving "kill ten squirrels and collect some magic daisies" player into a wild-eyed, combat-lusting RvR fanatic. Our game is laid out in such a way that players will have the chance to jump right into the fray if they so desire, but it also offers (through specific lines of quests) a chance for more cautious players to slowly get accustomed to the added danger and excitement of facing off against something other than NPC's. Some early quests will simply ask you to enter an RvR-flagged region of the world to hunt for a specific NPC or accomplish some task. Later, you'll be asked to enter an actual contested battlefield area and contribute to your army's efforts. Eventually, you'll be asked to go out and hunt down an actual player. By that point, we're confident that players will be enjoying themselves so much that they'll be 100% ready to go out and take part in the larger-scale RvR content in Warhammer Online.

In terms of socialization, it's this larger-scale RvR content that will drive much of it. Players will find themselves needing to monitor the advancement of the enemy at all times. To be successful, you'll have to do more than plan guild-only events day after day. Players will find it necessary to communicate and cooperate constantly in order to have a chance of surviving. This is because they will find themselves pressed into defending their homes, their friends and their neighbors at any moment and when things REALLY start to hit the fan, EVERYONE has a part to play. Newer characters will be able to get together and - as a group - take on a significantly more powerful enemy and WIN. A wall of tanks outside the city gates WILL be able to halt the advance of enemy forces. The days of "über guilds" ignoring everyone else and dominating the game are over.

As a quick final note, seeing the words "diplomacy" and "Warhammer" in the same sentence brought a smile to my face. If, by "diplomacy," you mean the pillaging, desecration and slaughter of your hated foes, their homes and their belongings, then yes, it's a VERY diplomatic game. If you meant it in any other way, then no, diplomacy isn't really part of the equation.

5.) EA by llchao (969631)
What game design, content, or production decisions (if any) have been affected by the EA take-over of Mythic?

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: Game Design, Content, Art and Production of the game were all well underway before the acquisition took place. Since then, we have received an immense amount of feedback on the game from within EA, and are using this feedback to make the game even better. In general though, they leave us to make the game and the decisions surrounding it. They acquired Mythic for it's MMO expertise, and they are letting us apply that expertise as we think best.

Overall, the purchase of Mythic by EA this year has been a great thing for us and for WAR. Don't get me wrong, there have been bumps along the way, but these are simply growing pains as we at Mythic get used to working within the EA organization. Overall, it has been a great experience and has only lead to positive things for WAR. We have more opportunity to ensure that our production quality is as high as it can possibly be, with a level of polish unprecedented on any Mythic title. To put it simply, EA has supplied us with increased resources, and we are applying those resources to WAR to make the best MMO ever. EA has not changed the focus for WAR in any regard. It has simply enabled us to make it better.

6.) End-Game by milspec74 (472052) and Gerad (86818)
Will the end-game of Warhammer Online focus on Player vs. Player/Realm vs. Realm style play, or be aimed more at the Player vs. Environment experience? As a follow up question, how do you plan on balancing the endgame experience of casual players vs. the endgame experience of hardcores?

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: WAR's "end-game" (though I hate to call it that, for there really is no "end"), is a mix of PvE and RvR. The focus is primarily on RvR and the never ending struggle between the Realm of Order and Realm of Destruction, but there is definitely high end PvE content to be had by those who desire it. This PvE content is various and spread throughout the world in quests, large-group boss encounters and massive dungeons that will test the wits and skills of any player or groups of players.

The entire game actually works this way, with a mix of PvE and RvR choices and possibilities throughout the world. Of course the thing that really sets WAR apart is the RvR campaign game, so we are focusing a massive amount of production time and assets on RvR Skirmish, Battlefields, Scenarios and Campaigns. Specifically the Campaign, City Sieges and Sacking is something that we see engaging and holding our players attention for years to come. Being able to capture enemy zones and drive your enemy before you to the gates of their own capital city is going to be such a great experience! But then top that off with the actual capture, looting and pillaging of the city itself, and we have a formula for amazing amounts of long term fun.

The "casual" versus "hardcore" question comes up in regards to everything that we do within the game, and we are developing the game with accessibility and fun built in for all types of players. We are making sure that if a player only has an hour to play, then they will be able to participate in either RvR or PvE or both, and have a rewarding experience doing so. We are also ensuring that there is a deep and compelling experience for those players who desire longer play sessions or who play more often. We are applying many different types of balancing measures to help with everything from population between the realms to how a casual gamer gets access to the best items in the game. No stone is being left unturned in our efforts to make WAR fun for all.

7.) User introduced art? by RingDev (879105)
One of the most entertaining aspects of Warhammer (IMO) next to strategy, planning, and decimating our enemies is the craft and care of the miniatures. And one of the enjoyable parts of playing MMOs is the mod community, whether sanctioned or not. With DAoC there was a definite progression between Mythic and the Mod community. What started out as a non-existent link slowly became a collaboration between Mythic and the modders. Mythic introduced a tool (or information about the tool) to allow modders to implement custom GUI solutions (an idea that has since been used widely in the MMO field). Are there currently any plans to have a similar system that would allow for the introduction of player contributed art to the game? Banners, skins, assorted textures, and the like? Such a system would allow players to not only take pride in their victories, but also in their craftsmanship.

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: Currently we do have plans for a fully functional and modifiable User Interface that we will be coordinating with the modding community to use. Our UI will be completely customizable and able to look and feel exactly as a player may want. In regards to other types of art within the game, we do not currently have any plans to allow players to modify the in-game art (characters, world, etc...).

8.) Nay-Sayers by Zonk (12082) Despite the obvious debt that the Warcraft setting owes to Warhammer (and D&D, and Tolkien) there have been several comparisons drawn between Warhammer Online and World of Warcraft. It's obvious that any modern fantasy MMOG will have similarities to what has come before; Everquest owes a great deal to MUDs, for example. That said, how would you respond to onlookers who look at your game, look at WoW, and say that you are trying to capitalize on the success of World of Warcraft by aping many elements of Blizzard's title?

Jeff Hickman, Senior Producer: Hmm, this is always a tough question to answer, mainly because the answer is so simple that people don't like it, but here goes: Look at how long Warhammer has been around (almost 25 years), and at the art, look and feel of our game. You will find that WAR is true to the look of WARHAMMER not any other game. If some other game wants to look like WARHAMMER, then that is their prerogative. What is important to us is that WE stay true to the Warhammer look, which we have.

As for game play elements and comparisons, the MMO industry is an ever evolving place and each game grows successively off of its predecessors. Each game raises the bar of what is "standard" in an MMO and what the players will expect. WAR includes many of what players today would call "expected features" - things like overall movement control, a fully fleshed out guild system or the inclusion of crafting, just to name a few. We especially want to make sure that there is a familiarity with controls, movement and other primary functions. Really, our biggest influence was our own game "Dark Age of Camelot". If you want a taste of how RvR and general game play will feel in WAR, compare us to DAoC, not anyone else. We choose to set ourselves apart with features like our deep and compelling RvR system and our Public Quest system. These are the types of things that will make our game shine.

9.) Mac/Linux versions by BMonger (68213)
Has any thought been given to Mac OS X and/or Linux versions of the game?

There are no plans for a MAC or Linux version of the game at this time.

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

Mac Version??? (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17004982)

I got your Mac version right here...it's called "Reboot into Windows"...

Re:Mac Version??? (2)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005594)

NO mac, no linux, guess i'm gonna be playing wow.

Linux WOW? (3, Insightful)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006476)


NO mac, no linux, guess i'm gonna be playing wow.


I find this quote interesting, since WOW has no official Linux client. Instead it uses WineX. What makes you think WAR will not work with WineX the same way?

Re:Linux WOW? (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007570)

You gonna drop probably $50 for the software, agree to a monthly MMORPG service charge and hope that a future update doesn't break it? I went through that with UO a couple of times and it's not fun. I've always found wine to be tempremental, too. UO used to have an "Unofficial" native UO client that broke every time they patched the software and eventually stopped working altogether. Later wine got good enough to run it again, but one of the patches they applied eventually broke that too. I could live without that anxiety.

Unless there's an official client for my OS of choice, I'm not interested. I'm not going to bend over backwards to get the software working with wine and I'm not going to boot into an OS that you can't even install on a machine connected to the Internet without having three virusses and a backdoor installed on it. I have better things to do with my money and time than to put up with that frustration. They'll still make dumpsters full of cash but none of it will be mine.

Re:Linux WOW? (1)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008300)

I have a linux machine and a mac. If there is no client for either, then I'm SoL. WoW has a mac client.

Re:Mac Version??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006514)

Same here. There are many games I'd much rather play than WoW (e.g. Eve Online, checking out WAR, etc) but simply can not due to me having a Mac. Even if I had an intel-mac I still would not install Windows so dual booting is out of the question.

Re:Mac Version??? (0)

cuban321 (644777) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006854)

For what it's worth, I'm the exact same way.

Comment to Josh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005060)

To Josh Drescher, your caps lock key seems to be sporadically sticking. Have it fixed.

Warhammer 40,000 or Fantasy? (1)

Terminus32 (968892) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005068)

Which is it?

Re:Warhammer 40,000 or Fantasy? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005344)

search the fucking internet, or read the fucking questions in which it's compared to war-fucking-craft also, fuck you.

Has me excited. (4, Interesting)

The Living Fractal (162153) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005128)

When I first heard of WoW I pictured Warcraft on the MMO scale. World PvP. City raids. Realm vs. Realm. Epic PvP.

That never materialized. And I think when I say this that I speak for many people: The prospect of it finally arriving (in WAR) has me very excited.

TLF

Re:Has me excited. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005394)

The trouble with wars in a MMO is that you can't win. You can kill all your enemies but they just keep respawning...

I would probably play an MMO wargame that kicked dead players out of the war and allowed one side to win, then reset the server.

Re:Has me excited. (1)

jfodale (1032534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005730)

"The trouble with wars in a MMO is that you can't win. You can kill all your enemies but they just keep respawning..."

A big part of WAR seems to be that you can capture zones that lead up to the destruction of an enemy capitol as the finale to your side's campaign (or the destruction of your own capitol if the war effort isn't going so good). This entire war cycle could take days, weeks, or months. The other side will respawn and rebuild after you destroy them, sure, but that seems like a worthy victory to me.

Re:Has me excited. (1)

mmalove (919245) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005896)

Wow. I wish that I had mod points to spend, for the simple fact that you managed to make a statement about WOW without resorting to invoking "WE", "EVERYONE", or "CASUAL GAMERS" - and actually showed the nuts to state this as your own opinion. Kudos.

That said, /signed. I'd really like to see how Warhammer implements PVP objectives and style gaming differently than Warcraft, and makes it such that lower level players can enjoy pvp alongside higher level players. PVP servers in WOW currently seem to represent PVP as a griefing element more than part of the gameplay/character development. I want to play against other players, but I don't want to constantly lose to someone because they have twice the HP, or a hammer of whacknaros. There's some strategy involved in mass pvp, but it's rarely about pitting this class against that (pikemen vs cavalry type stuff) - and more gangbang the priests. Still, till I see the final product, I carefully reserve judgement.

This is a Shadowbane clone.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006192)

... and that game ended up killing itself. Mythic should be warned.

Re:Has me excited. (1)

eison (56778) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006874)

Meh. Once again, it will never materialize. For all the same reasons - griefers aren't fun, lack of any lasting impact, difficulty with network code for handling hundreds of players, etc.

Re:Has me excited. (1)

erlorad (659059) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007134)

World PVP loses it's charm quickly when sides are not balanced and if you look at DAoC or WoW, sides are far, far from balanced. 2:1, 3:1 is more or less the norm for the "good" vs "evil". The outnumbered suckers are bound to give up sooner or later and simply ignore world pvp (if they can) or leave the game.

no other OS ports planned? (4, Insightful)

overbom (461949) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005146)

Good luck dragging the guild away from Warcraft. It's not going to happen without a Mac port. Too bad, your game sounds fun and my group is a big fan of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying -- I could stand to kill some more Slaanesh.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (3, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005300)

Good luck dragging the guild away from Warcraft.

Yeah, I'm not a WoW addict, but of my friends who play 8 now use Macs. That probably accounts for at least thirty people total that take part in their weekly gaming night that won't be even trying Warhammer.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005416)

No one gives a fuck about people who want to play games on fucking Macs. Be thankful Apple is paying Blizzard for their token Mac support.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

bjackson (576750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006086)

I hate to feed the troll, but...

Obviously people care, because they're asking for the support - whether you like it or not there are a significant amount of Mac gamers out there. Obviously you care, because you felt so strong about it you had to post too. And to turn this back into an interesting discussion instead of an O/S holy war - I'd be interested to know what % of Mac users make up WoW - and how much revenue that represents. That might make the Warhammer folks open their eyes.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

Jupiter Jones (584946) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007246)

I'd like to see the figures too. I'm sure it's a significant percentage since it's practically the only MMORPG out there for the Mac. It's not like we Mac users are dropping WoW for City of Heroes or anything. We're kinda stuck.

(And don't forget, the machinima for the South Park WoW episode was done on a Mac.)

  - JJ

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007970)

Everquest for Mac is doing very well thank you very much. It's a small but very enthusiastic community.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

mobilebuddha (713936) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007988)

while the # of people who play WoW on a mac might be significant, you have to take that into context. It's entirely possible that a decent % of people who play games on Mac play WoW, but if you were to look at the # of such players when compared to the OVERALL player base, it might not be enough to Mythic to warrant a mac client.

I wish the opposite is true, that'd be one more reason for me to buy a mac.. and DAMN do they look good.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

JoostSchuttelaar (863737) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005856)

Yeah, this is too bad. I'm a Mac user and I played a lot of Warhammer a little less than 10 years ago, and would like to try out this game.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

Wylfing (144940) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006336)

I could stand to kill some more Slaanesh.

Maybe you'd be disappointed on multiple levels then. It looks like Chaos is only about Tzeentch right now.

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

Onan (25162) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007358)


Any group ignorant enough to apparently believe that "Mac" is an acronym is probably beyond all hope.

(I'm always grateful when people expressing negative opinions about Apple or Macs feel compelled to spell it as "MAC". It clarifies right away that they have no idea about what they're talking, so their opinions can safely be ignored without any further examination.)

Re:no other OS ports planned? (1)

Gorhammer (1032590) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007454)

/agreed. Our WoW guild doesn't have a lot of Mac users, perhaps only 4-5, but it's enough to keep us all where we are. As an avid GW fan, I'd love to switch to WAR when it comes out, but without a Mac client that's unlikely to happen.

Oh, great. (1, Insightful)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005226)

you'll be given the chance to push deeper and deeper into enemy territory until you finally reach THEIR capital, at which point you'll lay siege to it and - if successful - do things that... well, Slashdot is a FAMILY FRIENDLY place, so let's just say that you'll do terrible, terrible things to the huddled, whimpering survivors of the siege.

You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....

Re:Oh, great. (1)

LordLucless (582312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006982)

You don't think that the media might respond somewhat critically to the idea of an MMO that makes the opportunity for war-rape one of its attractive features, do you? Naww....

You don't think gamers will listen to what the traditional media thinks do you? That's probably why GTA was such a flop.

Re:Oh, great. (1)

jne_oioioi (890078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008098)

And as you can see the word rape was never used. "Horrible horrible things" are in the eye of the beholder. Made me think of stealing stuff and kicking over one's enemy's milk bowl. So that makes you ...

I fear to say it (1)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005266)

This may actually get me interested in MMOs. I can get slightly addicted to things, which is why I have been trying to avoid them ever since I first tried some out.

Something isn't right (5, Insightful)

astrotek (132325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005272)

World of Warcraft has a horrible PVP system because Blizzard never approached Realm vs Realm in a way that made you want to help out your side because it was fun. Add in instanced PVP and the randomness that makes world PVP will always be dead.

Warhammer on the other hand seems to get this somewhat. The only problem I see is that they are asking me to invest what probably amounts to 3-5 games worth of money into their game over a year. Why will this epic combat still be epic down the line when I'm fighting the same people over the same land I've been looking at for a year. Why cant the scenarios take place on the larger battlefield. Instanced Combat is such a cop out.

"Don't worry we will have EPIC combat with predictable balanced encounters"

Re:Something isn't right (1, Insightful)

james_orr (574634) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005702)

Where does it say WAR will have instanced PvP combat? My impression from reading the above is that it won't, or if it does it will not be exclusively instanced.

I do agree that instanced PvP sucks. Even in Guild Wars I do not care for the PvP, but I do like the PvE.

DAoC is 5 years old now and people still play that. Not everybody will play for 5 years of course, but I think that shows it is possible for Mythic to create an RvR game with long-lasting appeal.

Because it's already been done (5, Interesting)

tknd (979052) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005854)

World of Warcraft has a horrible PVP system because Blizzard never approached Realm vs Realm in a way that made you want to help out your side because it was fun. Add in instanced PVP and the randomness that makes world PVP will always be dead.

Warhammer on the other hand seems to get this somewhat. The only problem I see is that they are asking me to invest what probably amounts to 3-5 games worth of money into their game over a year. Why will this epic combat still be epic down the line when I'm fighting the same people over the same land I've been looking at for a year. Why cant the scenarios take place on the larger battlefield. Instanced Combat is such a cop out.

Other games like Shadowbane and Daoc (also owned and developed by EA Mythic) have already been done in this style. I still play Daoc to this day and you have a point, it does more or less work out if you throw enough rules at it. Other games like Shadowbane failed miserably because there were no rules. When there are no rules, and you give players a choice to choose a side, eventually one side wins and becomes a massive zerg. The remaining players are always outnumbered and can never put up a fight against the overwhelming numbers.

The only reason daoc survives is because of a set number of teams, certain tools and group setups that make zerg "busting" possible, and the community's own recognition of the problem. Now, it's no longer small groups whining about zergs or the underpopulated realm whining about being outnumbered (though it still happens to a certain degree). The players have learned to deal with the problem and construct their own communities to keep the game fun and somewhat balanced. For this reason, there exists different types of RvR in daoc: solo, small group, 8v8, and zerg. You're free to participate in all of them and EA/Mythic doesn't even put any rules to say that they exist. The player community has more or less developed these rules. While there's still nothing stopping a full group from killing solos or a zerg killing a small group, there's still a good portion of people willing to respect other fights. Only the solo players suffer because they're pretty much getting hunted by everyone and anyone and a majority of the targets are bigger fish (groups) trying to kill solos.

Anytime I hear about WoW I hear about how it's PvE is great and its PvP is terrible. But the daoc community has given up on PvE and focuses on RvR. The only time we whine about PvE is when EA/Mythic comes even close to introducing a new grind or make the grind harder. We only touch PvE as necessary and most players spend most of their time in RvR.

Re:Because it's already been done (1)

ChronosWS (706209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006886)

Eve Online has no such rules restricting PvP, and after 3 years there is still no single controlling faction. And yet the wars there have actual meaning because territory and resources are genuinely gained or lost based on how the wars go. Additionally, even small groups can engage in conflicts for their own purposes - there aren't just two or three sides to the war, there are as many as people want to create. Warhammer and DAoC fail to offer this because they set up a world that can only have two or three sides, and if you don't fit into one of those molds, your play experience suffers accordingly.

That's all fine and well, of course, if you wish to fight in a world where your actions don't REALLY count because the rules are set up to prevent any ultimate success. This is why most MMO PvP is seen as such a joke and so fatally flawed - it's limited in its scope and has no actual influence on the way the world plays out. Can you imagine the Warhammer guys actually letting one side win? I think not, so they won't let you even attempt to bring it about.

Finally, if the game has a sufficiently well-developed PvP system, the dreaded Zerg won't occur because hegemonies always collapse due to differences of opinion, especially in the online world. The only way it can occur is if the worlds are so small that a relatively small organization can actually control it. Again, Eve doesn't suffer this problem because every player in the game plays in the same world, and there are tens of thousands of them. If WAR goes the 'shard' route, then perhaps they could succumb to the Zerg on any given shard, but that's a flaw with their implementation of the world, and not open PvP.

Re:Because it's already been done (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007908)

eh, DAOC has mordred - you and your guild want to go dominate, go do it. That experiment failed horribly though.

Please... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005292)

No more fantasy, let's have a 40k MMO instead :(

No Skaven,Don't care (5, Insightful)

bigdady92 (635263) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005356)

Did a search for Skaven. Nothing. No mention of the ratmen. How can you have a game without ratmen and still call it Warhammer?

They call themselves evil? Break out the deathmaster, start throwing in some epic underground areas in which players are fighting tooth and nail trying to get through places intead of wide open areas. Cut off movement, bring back stealth and light effects, and make it count.

That's the issue I have with WoW. Everything is so vast and huge and open. I like the challenge and difficulty that is running up the tunnel in WSG carrying the flag and that total chaos that erupts from 10v10 in a small area and having the victor roll out with the flag and carry it home.

Warhammer has a rich underground history with the dwarves and skaven. Use it to their advantage. Build on it, deploy the ratmen with the goblins and you'll see my money flow from WoW to WAR in a heartbeat.

Re:No Skaven,Don't care (3, Informative)

saethone (1032546) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006212)

Skaven are in the game, they've already posted some great concept art for them. They are not a playable race at release though...but Mythic has hinted that they would like to add them in an expansion at a later date.

Re:No Skaven,Don't care (3, Informative)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007888)

If you where a real Warhammer fan you would know that skaven are supposed to be so secretive that most people don't believe in them. The frequency of armies fighting on the table top has nothing to do with the frequency of those battles occurring in the background fluff (eg most battles would be between humans and orcs). Skaven openly attacking a city is some what less frequent then a full scale Chaos invasion.

Follow-Up Question (3, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005396)

9.) Mac/Linux versions by BMonger (68213)
Has any thought been given to Mac OS X and/or Linux versions of the game?

There are no plans for a MAC or Linux version of the game at this time.


What has to happen so that you'll make a Mac version? What has to happen for a Linux version?

Re:Follow-Up Question (2, Insightful)

Sqwubbsy (723014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005526)

What has to happen so that you'll make a Mac version? What has to happen for a Linux version?

I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.

Re:Follow-Up Question (2, Interesting)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006156)

I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.

Take a look at the top 10 games of last year. Notice anything about their Mac support? 9/10 support the mac today. 5/10 supported the mac with the initial release, including all of the top 3. Whether this is causative or simply correlative to some other factor, it does not bode well for this Warhammer game. A lot of people look at the mac and dismiss said market as insignificant. If you think "5% of sales why bother?" maybe you need to rethink. 5% of sales is not 5% of installed machines. Macs pick up a few percent by having 1-2 year longer average lifespan. Then if you discount all the Windows boxes installed in offices that will never get games, you're looking at an even bigger chunk of your potential sales. Then if you look at the relative disposable income of the purchasers you start to get even more nervous. If you estimate how many games those mac users will buy, and then notice how much less competition there is on that platform, you're looking at even more sales. And then if you are selling a MMORPG that has an interoperability component and you realize you can lose 10 sales because one person in a group has a mac and they want to game as a group, well that quick evaluation of 5% may have just knocked your game out of the running for being a blockbuster.

A lot of people who consider themselves part of the gamer community do not realize that "hardcore" gamers are not most of the market. Casual gamers are the moneymakers, which is why the various Sims games and expansions account for 4 of the top 10 games in sales last year. There are a few kinds of companies that ignore that mac game market. Small companies without the capital to invest in cross-platform up front, MS owned companies that strategically avoid the mac, and companies dominated DirectX developers that for one reason or another can't manage the move. Mythic is now owned by EA, and they certainly don't neglect the Mac in general. So we'll see what happens with their future titles, but I suspect at least for now, they are in this last category and it will hurt them.

Re:Follow-Up Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006276)

I'm guessing they'll get a CEO who actually understands that ignoring 20 million potential customers who generally have a lot of money to spend is usually a big mistake.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

hclyff (925743) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008412)

I don't think that's the problem here, they aren't stupid. Let's assume the manager has 500 man hours to spend on anything he chooses. He has to decide between significantly improving the graphics of the game, appealing to hundreds of millions, or to make a port to an alternative OS, appealing maybe millions, if that. What will generate better sales? In other words, it's not about ignoring Linux/Mac markets, more about careful prioritizing.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

Lost Engineer (459920) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006944)

People of the Mac: your machines can run Windows now. Upgrade, pay the Microsoft tax (since you have so much disposable income ;), and reboot when you want to game. Who cares what OS is running behind your game that takes up the whole screen?

Re:Follow-Up Question (1, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007500)

People of the Mac: your machines can run Windows now. Upgrade, pay the Microsoft tax (since you have so much disposable income ;), and reboot when you want to game. Who cares what OS is running behind your game that takes up the whole screen?

I know being a Windows user this may be hard to understand, but I don't quit my programs, let alone reboot my machine. My e-mail reader has been open for a month. My terminals have been running longer than that. I quit them when I reboot, which is when there are updates that affect me and require it. Rebooting to play a game? Absurd. I play games, but I'm not about to quit all my open programs and have to spend 15 minutes restoring my computer to its working state just to play some game. I'd rather just play a game that works natively in my OS of choice, or runs well within a Windows VM. My purchases will reflect that choice.

You do realize you're recommending people repartition their hard drives and shell out for a copy of Windows just to play a game? I've got a news flash for you. A few geeks might do that, but not enough to have any affect upon the sales of a game. People don't buy OS's or install OS's or partition hard drives. They don't even know what OS's are.

So that is why I care what OS is running behind a fullscreen game. Also, if you're a geek do you really only have one monitor? You don't have a second one full of IRC sessions and IM chats and a Web browser looking up something while you wait for something to happen in game? Sorry, you failed to make your sale.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

Guysmiley777 (880063) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008242)

QQ more n00b.

Seriously, take your ball and go home. They said "no", they mean "NO". They don't want your elitist, whiny ass.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008334)

People of the Mac: your machines can run Windows now. [...] reboot when you want to game.

For a selected few games (Oblivion, Guild Wars) that's what I do.

Tell you what: It's a royal pain in the ass. If a Mac version of Oblivion would ship tomorrow, I'd buy it again just so I can get rid of the constant rebooting and the endless pain that brings (half the time XP doesn't find my bluetooth mouse, and it gets horribly confused if I should dare to hibernate it while running on the external display and awaken it without that...).

Rebooting to play a game makes me hate windos more every time I have to. And any game that doesn't have a Mac version, even the top titles on my watchlist - including WAR - has a very good chance of not getting bought, even though I could dual-boot.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

Tom (822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008272)

I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.

Excellent, then it should be out simultaneously.

If you've been living under a rock: The Mac market is still small, but it's growing strong. The MacBook Pro was the best-selling notebook this season. There's definitely more than 5% share right now, and if Vista is as bad as every evidence indicates, there'll be well over 10% by the time WAR ships.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

GNious (953874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005940)

I'm guessing they'd have to drop EA first...

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

molarmass192 (608071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006294)

I'm guessing you're right ... EA has never given a poo (for the kids out there) about non-DirectX based platforms. In a strange bit of coincidence, I haven't purchased an EA title since 1998 and I can guarantee that that will not change until they're have a change of heart. It would take a gun to my head and a few broken appendages ... or barring that, an insane amount of money ... to get me to run Windows ever again.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

Demolira (1032560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006538)

Would they? EA already has Aspyr port games like the Sims to Mac.

Re:Follow-Up Question (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006658)

I'm guessing they'd have to drop EA first...

I doubt it. Mythic seems like a DirectX shop, but EA is not. Ever heard of "The Sims?" I'm pretty sure the numbers they have on mac sales of the Sims 2, which just happens to have phenomenal sales on the Mac (as well as PC) making it into one of the top selling games of all time. I doubt EA is about to ignore the mac market now. I doubt any big established developer not owned by Microsoft can be so clueless as to ignore the mac after doing any market research. Half the best selling games last year were simultaneous Mac/PC launches.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

realmolo (574068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006114)

What has to happen?

There would have to be enough cash-up-front pre-orders for the Mac and Linux version to completely cover the cost of development. Plus %10 profit.

No one cares about the Mac and Linux game markets. They're too small. Hell, a lot of developers don't even care about the *Windows* game market, because it's too small compared to the the console market.

There a reason so many MMORPGs are being made for the PC. It's the only "genre" that can't be done well on consoles (no keyboard), and it's the only genre that makes piracy impossible.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006806)

There would have to be enough cash-up-front pre-orders for the Mac and Linux version to completely cover the cost of development. Plus %10 profit.

Or EA, who owns Mythic, could tell them to do it since it is good business.

No one cares about the Mac and Linux game markets. They're too small.

Umm, that's why 9 of the top 10 selling games of 2005 have a Mac version?

Hell, a lot of developers don't even care about the *Windows* game market, because it's too small compared to the the console market.

Oh, what console will you be aiming at? If you're going for the Xbox, MS is already trying to make it one stop development for Windows and their console. Why not release for both? If it's the PS3, well, if your code is written well to start with and you want the possibility of going to the Wii as well, then Windows and the Mac are easy targets. Why not grab the low hanging fruit?

There a reason so many MMORPGs are being made for the PC. It's the only "genre" that can't be done well on consoles (no keyboard), and it's the only genre that makes piracy impossible.

Bah! Piracy is as big a problem on consoles as it is PCs. Games are developed for PCs and Macs because their is a market and money to be had. Anyone who ignores that market loses out. Blizzard has a clue with the top selling game of last year that just happens to target both the Mac and PC simultaneously and with semi-official support for Linux. People have been claiming the gaming market would move to consoles for over a decade and it never does, because PCs simply have more capabilities and room for innovation and because people need PCs for some tasks and want gaming in the same package. It is not going away anytime soon and with Sony's moves towards open and portable OpenGL models, it is getting easier than ever to target multiple platforms.

Re:Follow-Up Question (1)

C0rinthian (770164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007130)

I would be very curious to see the breakdown of WoW subscribers by operating system. Does anyone know if Blizzard has released those sort of numbers?

Re:Follow-Up Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006588)

Higher Marketshare ...
... or coders with a clue on cross-platform programming and/or an engine that is already cross-platform.
... or an inside conspiracy of coders who secretly port it over ... and then not release it.

I just hope it doesn't end up for them (1)

dr_strang (32799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005398)

...like it did for Air Warrior. EA bought and systematically killed what was arguably the best MMO WWII combat flight simulator... It was really sad. Hope they don't fuck this one up too.

Re:I just hope it doesn't end up for them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006320)

Shush, my heart can't take me hearing the A-W words anymore.

Re:I just hope it doesn't end up for them (1)

dr_strang (32799) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007588)

Don't cry, come over to Aces High! www.hitechcreations.com

Just watch the presentation from the latest E3 (4, Informative)

Soul-Burn666 (574119) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005432)

here [google.com]

If you could find the Gamespot E3 feature with the game devs, you MUST watch it. These guys are totally mad ;)

Late to the party (1)

ObiWanStevobi (1030352) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005442)

I must say that an epic battle between armies actual players sound like the game I've been looking for. However, I've never played an MMORPG. I'm a bit apprehensive about investing in one because I do have a lot of other things going on. All I hear about is that PvP in these games suck because people with nothing else to do become too strong. And that's among the other complaints of being a time/money pit.

Can anyone suggest why this game would be a good one to try out? The gameplay sounds quite cool, but I don't know if I'm up for the MMORPG plunge.

Re:Late to the party (1)

jfodale (1032534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005612)

If you were to jump into an MMORPG (probably ill-advised), this sounds as if it may be a good one for you since (1) they are claiming that it will be accessible to casual players and (2) it seems to have content you enjoy.

Although, the beta is not yet available so no one can really tell you that for sure right now.

Re:Late to the party (1)

le0p (932717) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006300)

Whether or not this will be a good first timer MMO is up in the air right now, the developer can say all they want about how great the game is but until it's in the hands of the community, we won't know for sure. I played DAOC (another Mythic title) for some time and it fell into the trappings you've described. The time and money sinks were substantial as was the requirement of each expansion, in order to stay competitive in RvR. It wasn't fun at times, but it required an enormous commitment. Those that could give the time necessary ended up as the "elite" and dominated (i.e. removed all resemblance of fun) RvR battles.

I expect much of the same from Mythic with this game, the concepts seem very similar to the PvP/RvR structure of DAOC so it doesn't seem like they're changing their formula much. I'll be checking out the progress on this one though, it has potential but the execution is all that matters.

Re:Late to the party (1)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007226)

I find nothing more satisfying in a game than facing a challenging opponent of approximately my skill level.

The trouble with most online gaming is that finding such an opponent (nay, finding 15 opponents, and finding 14 allies of your level) is nigh impossible. One side is usually the "winning team" and the other side is the "losing team." This becomes apparent sooner rather than later to most people, and in place of the actual joy of struggling against a challenging opponent, people turn into O'Brien relish in the lesser, more sadistic joy of trampling over a helpless opponent. This happens so much that blind sadism replaces the desire for a true challenge, and people forget what it's like to win or lose by a nose hair, or to face an opponent who is obviously better than you and at *least* get that one kill.

I know I'm making a bit of a broad generalization here. Sure, there are creeps out there who truly would rather face a weaker opponent. But I think that most people don't start out here, and if they get there they quickly get bored and go away.

I think this is more or less true of all online gaming, but it's especially true of MMOs, despite the fact that an MMO is meant to be less twitchy and more of a cerebral thing.

RTSs and FPSs are twitch games no matter how you cut it. This is pretty obvious in the second category, but even with RTSs, eventually a limited set of preferred strategies come to the fore, and all you're doing is implementing them and dividing your attention between the twitch game of the field and the twitch game of building your base. The worst step that most RTSs make is causing micromanaging battles ("fun") to be far less important than micromanaging your base ("dull"), to the point where a player who simply makes endless armies of one unit and throws them suicidally at an opponent will generally win in most games against an opponent who intensively micromanages battles to the detriment of his base.

In MMOs, and WoW in particular, not only does the gameplay resemble an FPS more than it should, but you're going into every fight with a wide gear/level disparity between you and your opponent, in addition to the fact that a player with the time to run dungeons extensively probably has a bit of a skill edge too. The first part probably needs to be harped on quite a bit: success in PVP usually depends on who gets the first shot off, just like in CS once everybody's got a good rifle, except there's autotargetting. Also, damage and defense have scaled at fundamentally different rates. Battles between two geared players usually take a matter of seconds, whereas battles between two ungeared players could last up to a minute.

It probably also bears mentioning that certain class vs class matchups are woefully and incredibly lopsided. Certain classes have the option to choose to develop their character in such a way that they can be great at both dungeons and PVP, and others do not. Certain classes simply cannot beat a halfway competent member of another particular class. And certain classes are just plain more powerful in PVP than other classes all-around due to scaling mechanics ("It was balanced 2 years ago"). Most people's scapegoat for this is as follows: you can't balance a PVE game, where strategy, healing, tanking (designating a damage soak character to engage big monsters), and positioning are important, with a PVP game, where most of these are irrelevant (see above).

In summation, competing directly against other people online inevitably turns into a twitch game dominated by hyperactive, caffeinated adolescents with nothing to do in the evenings. It's perfectly valid that these games exist, I just get peeved that all of them are fundamentally the same. I used to be absurdly, obscenely good at CS, but then I lost interest in it because it was too time-consuming to find a good fight that wasn't lopsided, and in the meantime I became a young man and lost some of my bristling teenage nerve-endings. I think if WAR manages to be slow and strategic enough (I.E. - a STRATEGY/ROLE-PLAYING game, not an FPS with spells and swords), if it is truly focused around balanced PVP first and foremost, and if the gear disparity between what an average gamer can achieve and what a very committed player can achieve are not mind-boggingly huge - or are somehow compensated for in matchups that are not only lopsided gearwise, but lopsided in numbers - then it will be a rewarding experience for all.

To address GP's post, I would consider WoW on a PVE server to be a pretty good first-timer experience. As much of a joke as its PVP is, the dungeon and questing experience is genuinely fun and rewarding, and there is a lot more social depth to running PVE content than there is to doing PVP. In the beginning of the game, "PVP server" and "PVE server" meant, "Server where PVP occurs" and "Server where PVP does not occur." Now it means "Server where you get griefed" and "Server where you do not get griefed."

Re:Late to the party (2, Informative)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006962)

There was a brief period where Planetside was an excellent all-combat MMO, with massive player vs player battles. I remember some early fights that were truly epic, far and away the best combat experiences I've ever had in a game. Didn't last though...Everything devolved into zergdom, and it ceased to be interesting to me.

Chaos (5, Interesting)

jfodale (1032534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005454)

Although I'm a bit bummed it isn't 40K, I read that this basically sums up one of the first quests for the Chaos race: "You start off attacking a mostly unarmed Empire village. You kill everyone there (some pitifully try to defend themselves). Then you mutilate the bodies. Then you load the mutilated body parts into a cannon. Finally, you fire the cannon into a nearby Empire fort that is under siege to demoralize them." Ok, I'm psyched. I'll gladly take that over killing 10 desert beetles.

Re:Chaos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007734)

Where did you read that?

Another fantasy mmorpg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005580)

Damn, this could be Warhammer 40k Online. I'm tired of the whole fantasy setup.

Re:Another fantasy mmorpg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17006548)

Check out Planetside [sony.com] ...

Tragically, it's by SONY. Other than that though, it may be what you're looking for...

Re:Another fantasy mmorpg... (1)

Howler (17832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006892)

EVE Online? Anarchy Online? Those may suit as well. SWG, well personally, I think it blows.
I actually like Planetside. It can definitely be fun.

gotta love when your questions get skipped (-1, Troll)

RembrandtX (240864) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005644)

gotta love when all of your questions .. which were all modded +5 get skipped. but questions that were +2 or +3 made it.

They can't port it to a system they can't spell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005656)

Would it really be that hard to remember that it's "Mac"?

What could "MAC" possibly stand for?

Re:They can't port it to a system they can't spell (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17005834)

Media Access Control? =)

GET UP (0, Troll)

Techmaniac (447838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17005828)

...out of the chair, and leave Mommy and Daddy's basement for an hour or three.

Limited lifetime (1)

Avatar8 (748465) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006064)

This does sound intriguing and a slight improvement on the MMO... if you like PvP.


I suffered through the first three years of UO with rampant player killing (not consenual PvP).

I quit DAoC not only because it quickly became a tedious grind but also because the heart of the content dealt with RvR play.

I've beta tested numerous MMOG's, but I completely avoided Guild Wars because it sounds similar to WAR - all PvP all the time.

I play characters on normal and PvP realms in WoW. I see the same stereotypical actions on both types of realms - people kill other players because they can and because they like being jerks.

I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice" are the most frequent comments I hear from PvPers (not to be confused with PKers). To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day." Regardless of how balanced the playing field, someone has to lose and I've only come across a handful of good losers in computer gaming in my lifetime. Where there are sore losers, there is revenge, and it sounds like WAR will allow hundreds of sore losers to gang up and exact their revenge on the handful of champions who (probably) rightfully earned that position.

It comes down to a balance system which has yet to be properly implemented in any game (though I feel WoW is the best so far). I expect that within a month all the realms of WAR will be 'pwned' by the thousands of immature, social outcast PKers who thrive on ruining someone's day, the PvPers wanting to dispense justice will get tired of beating their heads against the wall and players really wanting to play a game will go back to a more controlled environment.

If WAR can make their visions come true, I'd really like to see it because I know all other MMO's will learn from it. I just doubt that it can be done.

Re:Limited lifetime (2, Insightful)

AlphaDecay (150156) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006416)

'To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."'

To be honest, your approach to the PvP server is wrong. When you start a character on your server you should think - "at any point in my character's existence I may run into other players that have the sole objective of stopping me from doing what I want to do." If you can get past that statement then you are ready for a PvP server. Thats it.

When I run into a situation where I'm stopped from my immediate objective either I try and find a solution (which is a challenge and what I see as the point of a PvP server) or I find a new immediate objective that gets me out of the current situation. For example, if my corpse is being camped either a.) I need to kill those that are camping me or b.) find a new place to hunt. When you approach the game that way I think you'll find PvP to be alot more acceptable and less of a grief situation.

PvP Servers (1)

everphilski (877346) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006744)

PvP servers just have more NPC's with a little better AI :). Unfortunately in most implementations they don't drop loot ...

Re:PvP Servers (1)

Lemmy Caution (8378) | more than 7 years ago | (#17008052)

While the "NPCs" in PvP have better tactical AI, their natural language processing and generation often leaves a lot to be desired.

I remember when the best conversation I had in an irc channel was with its bot...

Re:Limited lifetime (2, Interesting)

slartibart (669913) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006750)

I don't know that it's even possible to implement a PvP system that's bears any resemblance to actual war, and is also fun.
The problem is that it's a zero sum game. The joy people get from being on the winning side is reflected by equal suffering on the losing side. When you try to scale up the joy (say, by creating month-long campaigns), you scale up the suffering for half your subscribers and they end up quitting. Games are supposed to be fun, after all. After 3 iterations of this, you only have 12% of your subscribers left. Not a smart game design.
The only model that works are quick skirmishes that are run over and over again, a la WoW. So that even when you lose, it's quick and you have another chance to win immediately after. Sure they get old and aren't that rewarding even when you win. But I don't see any other way to do it.

Re:Limited lifetime (1)

phxbadash (883828) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007796)

You've obviously never played EVE then. War is war and it's extremely fun. The difference in EVE is that war actually has a purpose, you can gain ground and lose it but it's not for some pre-programmed NPC faction, it's for a player created one. Teamwork is essential to success.

Guild Wars (2, Informative)

dbug78 (151961) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007066)

While PvP is a prominent feature of GW, it's really not required. I advanced through the entire game (chapter 1) while only participating in a few PvP matches. There's only one point where you're required to play PvP and that's to complete the 'tutorial' section.

Some may argue that playing GW without playing PvP is missing the point, but that's an opinion that will vary with players. Certainly the focus in GW is on matching skills against another team in a complex rock-paper-scissors game, but I still found PvE to be enjoyable. The comparison has been made time and again, but it's really a lot like Magic the Gathering. You may own hundreds of skills, but you can only play with a 'deck' of 8 at any time. You define your character by your combination of skills. You specialize in one or two things and you rely on your party to cover the other bases.

Normal PvP is little more than variations on team deathmatch. GvG (guild vs guild) is a bit more glorified.

Re:Limited lifetime (1)

EastCoastSurfer (310758) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007314)

I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice" are the most frequent comments I hear from PvPers (not to be confused with PKers). To me it always boils down to "ruin someone else's day."

Huh? NPCs are predictable. Once you learn the pattern there is no challenge. If games had an AI that learned as it went then things might be different, but the state (and processing power required to implement) of current AI is lacking.

Take a look at sports games. Sure, it can be entertaining to play against the computer, but it doesn't take long till you figure out what they will do in what situation. Now play against a real person and they won't only do different things, but if you're winning they'll change their strategy accordingly and often much more efficiently than a computer.

Re:Limited lifetime (1)

Obyron (615547) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007344)

I have yet to hear a valid reason of why people like PvP: "Challenge of a human opponent," "Unpredictable," "Fair chance," or "Dispense justice"

You just named four pretty good ones. The problem is that no one is neutral about PvP. You either enjoy the challenge and the dynamics of it, or you cry about the big bad bullies who are obviously deranged serial killers in real life. If I want a PvE experience I'll play console games offline. MMOs are all about interacting with other people. You trade with them, group with them, sell to them, make friends and enemies among them, and race them to get the best gear. How can you not naturally extend this into fighting them?

I've got a lot of experience with online PvP systems going back almost 10 years with MUDs and the like, and I can honestly say that if you're going to implement it, the fairest way is for it to be totally open. The same people who complain about how the big bad PKer killed them without consent is the same person who would act like an asshat if they knew there were no consequences. For the incredibly low percentage of people who DO use PvP to be bullies, there are usually enough bigger badder badasses out there willing to wipe the floor with them for making PvP look bad that they don't get too out of control. The problems in most PvP systems that are notoriously bad usually boils down to some facet of the implementation or the game mechanics. The PvP itself usually isn't what causes trouble.

Re:Limited lifetime (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007412)

Regardless of how balanced the playing field, someone has to lose

Yes, in order for someone to win, someone (often more than one) has to lose.

It sounds like your issue is dealing with the "loss" of hours of grinding when you meet your end PvP. Maybe a solution would be to lower the penalty of death. For example, maybe a 1-hour block, but when you come back, everything is new.

Think about it, Counter-Strike has 50% of the people lose every round. When you are shot, you have to sit out the round and wait for that last camper to be found (and knifed, we hope). However, the round ends and now you can go again. You don't hear about the fact that someone has to lose for that game, or just about any other game where people play against each other. The only thing that is different is the scale, and the amount of time invested.

Would it be wrong... (1)

Raynor (925006) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006078)

To send money now? :D

I also wonder if there will be a large market for goblin noses... or are they going to be a dime a dozen?

Or maybe Goblin brains? a most excellent dish when prepared just right...

Like I feared (1)

dracphelan (916527) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006288)

"If you want a taste of how RvR and general game play will feel in WAR, compare us to DAoC, not anyone else."

I left DAoC because of to much RvR combined with constant "nerfing" of classes. Even on the non-RvR server, the game got old fast. It quickly degenerated into a constant killing of the same old things.

Just like DAoC and others... (2, Interesting)

angelzero (935040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006328)

...this game will fade into obscurity. There's no way to manage real-time PVP in a 24-hour real world where there are players connecting from all over the planet. My uberguild captures your capital at 6pm GMT. Your uberguild retakes it and captures our capital at 6:00am GMT. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Re:Just like DAoC and others... (1)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006516)

Chances are, they're hoping for just that scenario. Instead of capturing a capital, the measurement of success becomes how long you hold it. It lets them hold off on new end-game material (if any) and works up until guilds band together for rotating defense. Or if they go with a multiple shard/world structure like most other MMOGs do, one faction will end up steamrolling the other like usual.

What if you don't like PvP? (2, Interesting)

GJSchaller (198865) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006654)

I wish I had gotten this in there for original questioning, but with a little luck, I may still get some insight...

What if you don't like PvP? What does WAR have to offer?

I have had many, many bad experiences with PvP in multiple games (MMO, FPS, and Live RPGs) that have left a very bad taste in my mouth. Over all, I have found that PvP simply brings out the worst in people. Even if half of the team you are on, or against, are good sports, the rest are not, and things get nasty. Unless you have the choice to explicitly *deny* PvP combat against your character (such as WoW's choice to flag up on a PvE server), you are always at risk of having your experienced ruined by some asshat that feels like being a ganker, or a cascading imbalance in teams that results in one side not being able to ever recover their home city from their opponents (i.e. - if Chaos gets more players, to the point where anyone not playing Chaos just gets steamrollered when they log in, and so the only way to play is to roll Chaos so you can do something... perpetuating the issue).

I greatly enjoy the Warhammer mythos. I like the Tabletop minis game because it is (in theory) balanced by a rules system that defines a fair game for you and your opponent, so I won't get the equivilant of being ganked and corpse camped by a higher level player simply because I'm new. I enjoy WoW's PvE aspect, but dislike its PvP. What can WAR offer me in the way of interest if I don't want to PvP?

Re:What if you don't like PvP? (3, Interesting)

jfodale (1032534) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007022)

One of the new things on the PvE scene of WAR that I've heard about is public quests. Quests where you walk into an area and everyone on your side is automatically given the same quest whether they are grouped or not. Everyone on your team collectively works on this quest together, so when someone does something to forward your objective, everyone benefits.

There were a couple of examples of this that I read about with varying degrees of PvE-ness.

1) PvE - A giant is having his heels nipped at by a pack of squiggs, kill the squiggs off and befriend the giant.

2) Kind of PvE and PvP - Pour barrels of beer down a sleeping giant's throat so that it will go on a drunken rampage through the nearby enemy race's village.

3) PvP - Rescue more than half of the injured dwarven brethren (NPCs) from the battlefield before the opposing race (other players) finds and kills half of them.


If you really don't like PvP and the thought of fighting in an army against other players doesn't intrigue you, the majority of the game content is not directed at you then and you may want to dodge this one.

EA sucks (2, Interesting)

boarder (41071) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006804)

As I was reading this I started getting a little excited. I quit WoW not too long ago for many reasons, and some of the stuff mentioned in this interview seemed to address some of those reasons.

Then I got to the part about EA being involved and I pretty much stopped reading.

I will not buy anything from EA again. I don't like their business practices and feel they are very bad for the gaming industry in the long term.

So grats to Mythic selling out to EA... I'm sure they made a lot of money in the deal. It's just too bad I'll never consider their product now.

Re:EA sucks (1)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007562)

Exactly the same for me. Right down to the quitting WoW and all. So since Mythic sold out to EA, the game I'm waiting for is Darkfall. http://www.darkfallonline.com/ [darkfallonline.com] Take a look at it, maybe it will interest you as well.

RvR (1)

Thrymm (662097) | more than 7 years ago | (#17006900)

The one thing about Dark Age of Camelot that kept me playing for a few years was RvR.... Sure I would level up in PvE areas, and sometimes use the Battlegrounds. But the adrenaline rush of being in the RvR areas even to xp off npc mobs was fun since you didnt know you were being hunted until too late. You would know the risks, and if you didnt like it, you didnt need to go into those areas and then could stay in the PvE zones. Had a little bit of everything for everyone. The sieges were especially fun as well.

Keeping the Land? On my doorstep? (4, Interesting)

Jonah Hex (651948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007690)

Disclaimer: I come from a history of Ultima Online, Chesapeake shard, pre-everything.

How are the political boundaries going to be maintained? Player run towns in UO were not territories, even when they brought in the Faction wars for territory it still didn't mean a particular faction was actually currently holding any land with bodies. (Abyss factions were much better) I've been through the days when someone would get their key looted and you'd come home to an empty house. (and even earlier when it meant they now owned your house) I've had wars with PKs and griefers on my doorstep, and cursed them every time. I've solo'd Faction sigils with GM hiding and not much else, half the time they were totally undefended. I miss fighting against an intelligent enemy, damn Trammel to hell.

So how do you gain and keep territory? Who gives the marching orders for the entire world? Who determines where the border is from day to day and minute to minute, and how does the player find out it needs to be patrolled or their side will lose territory? How can I be part of a world changing side in this fight? And if it's on my doorstep, will I want to give up playing because it's unbalanced?

this has been a rant from the former Mayor of Oberon Pass, DogMeat [MoO]

As usual... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17007858)

9.) Mac/Linux versions by BMonger (68213)
Has any thought been given to Mac OS X and/or Linux versions of the game?

There are no plans for a MAC or Linux version of the game at this time.
And as usual, the Mac and Linux users get to sit on the sidelines and watch.

WHEN is the management at EA going to get a (*^#ing CLUE that there are now a LOT of Macs out there and start developing product for US? And before anyone says "Use a dual OS system, dude," there are also a LOT of Mac users who won't touch Windows with a 10 foot halberd because of all of the security and infection issues, not to mention the constant updating that that kludge of an alleged OS seems to need on an almost hourly basis.

Or has Microsoft gotten SO deep into their pocke- er, uh, heads, that it's not going to happen, ever?

I am SO damn sick of the Windows-centrism in the gaming development world today...!

So get a clue, EA and give us a Mac Attack!

Because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17008020)

because, dude, you're not a big enough market. You are so Mac/Linux centric that you don't get it. If there are enough of you to make a profit the developers will be there for you. But the fact is, your market share SUCKS. It ain't worth it, and as long as you whine like you do, there isn't going to be an increase in your market share. The rest of the world doesn't give a shit that you like acs/Linux. So get over your self-abusive practices and wake up.

If you're lurking... (1)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17007926)

I didn't see this question asked, but... why Warhammer as opposed to Wahammer 40k? Wouldn't a more Sci-Fi oriented game instead of a Fantasy one helped to stake out a new market?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?