The Warhammer Online Team Responds 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.
Has me excited. (Score:5, Interesting)
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. (Score:2, Interesting)
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. (Score:2)
Re:Has me excited. (Score:2)
That said,
Re:Has me excited. (Score:2)
The "if you can't beat 'em" problem... (Score:2)
At that point, well, I can see lots of slaughtering and such, but won't one side end up being the poor oft-ganked loser team? Until such point as it's essentially hopeless to play on that side? Or will they try to balance things out by assigning carrots (or penalties) when one side becomes too superior to the other?
no other OS ports planned? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no other OS ports planned? (Score:4, Interesting)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:no other OS ports planned? (Score:2)
I'm still looking for a good flight sim for Mac though. Then again, I can always dual-boot XP to get my MS FlightSim X fix until the virtualization abilities we've been promised finally appear.
Oh, great. (Score:2, Insightful)
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. (Score:2)
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. (Score:2)
Maybe. And if it happens it will be a wonderful free marketing campaign for WAR.
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
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....
Who mentioned rape? Personally, I was thinking more of taking the survivors and flaying them alive, and pouring out their blood for the glory of Khorne. And taking their children away into slavery, to grow up as corrupted and mutated abominations of Chaos. Rape is just too mundane.
Re:Oh, great. (Score:2)
Blood for the Blood God! Skulls for the Skull Throne!!!
I fear to say it (Score:2)
Something isn't right (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Some instanced (Score:2)
Because it's already been done (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Please... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Please... (Score:2)
I want to be able to engage in FPS style warfare with 4 other guys in a marine squad.
No Skaven,Don't care (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No Skaven,Don't care (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No Skaven,Don't care (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get caught up in the "If I think it would be neat, then every else must think so too" trap.
Most WoW players are not 'gamers'. They are there because the game is pretty, expansive, easy and fun.
The family demographic generally doesn't like dark, tunnel and confined.
I think you make an excellent suggestion, and I would like to see it as well, but don't kid yourself about market realities.
Follow-Up Question (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm guessing that either OS would have to attain more than 5% market share.
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
6.1 % US market [appleinsider.com]
multiple [arstechnica.com] sources [gadgetopia.com] report [macobserver.com] the share of the notebook market at 12%.
Questions?
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:2, Insightful)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Glad to hear that. But it wasn't whether they care about my ass, I was asking if they want my elitist, whiny money. And there's a very strong correlation between me sending my money their way and them sending a Mac version my way.
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:2)
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
* The original version of Warcraft II can't really be played on PowerPC since it runs too fast, even on a PowerMac 7100. You have to buy the Battlenet edition instead.
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:2)
Re:Follow-Up Question (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
I just hope it doesn't end up for them (Score:2)
Re:I just hope it doesn't end up for them (Score:2)
Just watch the presentation from the latest E3 (Score:5, Informative)
If you could find the Gamespot E3 feature with the game devs, you MUST watch it. These guys are totally mad
Re:Just watch the presentation from the latest E3 (Score:2)
Now THIS [gamespot.com] is the most fucking hilarious video youve ever seen
Late to the party (Score:1)
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 (Score:1)
Although, the beta is not yet available so no one can really tell you that for sure right now.
Re:Late to the party (Score:2)
Even if you can't put in this time, there are plenty of other aspects to the game that are entertaining. Roleplayer, PvP or questing are in the reach of anyone.
Re:Late to the party (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Late to the party (Score:2)
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 slo
Chaos (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Chaos (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh hell yeah. Proper. Evil. Content. I haven't felt this good since I set Zaalbar on Mission.
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD!
Limited lifetime (Score:2)
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 (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
This is what truly bothers me about PvP. I should not have to alter my gameplay just because someone feels like interfering with me. This is a game that I play (and pay) for a limited time some days to enjoy not be fouled up by someone else. For constant interference in my projects and goals, I can always go back to work.
In your example, what if your only objective, something that you must complete before you could continue, was being blocked by a group of the highest level, toughest players on the server and no one was available to come help you? What alternative do you have but to quit? Why should another player have that control over me?
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Why would you want to play a multi-player game if other players cannot interfere with you? If you're playing monopoly do you whine because a griefer put a hotel on Mayfair?
PvP Servers (Score:2)
Re:PvP Servers (Score:2)
I remember when the best conversation I had in an irc channel was with its bot...
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Guild Wars (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
For example - is there any particular reason that an AI would every miss in an FPS combat... They know exactly where they are, exactly where you are, what your direction and rate of movement is, how fast the projectile flys - heck they can even pick up tendencies in your movement patterns. Now they should be able to place a round pretty much exactly where you will be (given your current tendencies) each and every time. Ok, that is FPS games.
For most MMOG games, they know what kind of character you have, what your weapons are - and what the best tactics against each type of character and weapon selection is. They can move faster than you, and in fact have a lower latency connection to the server (since they ARE the server). Conversly - if every NPC in the game wiped the floor with your blood, how long will people stick with it. They set the AI for most (if not all) NPCs in games so the vast majority of people can easily defeat it. NOT so that it is a fair fight.
Look at it this way - with standard PC hardware, a chess AI can beat all but the top couple % of chess players in the world. What makes you think that NPC AI is a significantly more difficult problem than chess AI.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
The developers could also give the computer more health and armor, the problem is that neither are AI. In fact, most would call that cheating (or developers too lazy to create true AI). Using internal game knowledge that the player has little to no knowledge of isn't an example of how to make good AI. Same thing goes for the MMO comment. For a true AI to work it needs to have the same knowledge that the other players have (which is often incomplete). What you're saying is like building a poker bot where the bot gets to see all of the mucked cards. Sure the bot will beat a lot of people, but it is in effect cheating.
Chess is also not a very good example since most of the chess programs I've seen just use a brute force search algorithm. The board contains all of the information (which is actually pretty limited) at which point the computer just has to do the calculations.
If you want to see where true AI is at work look at the game Go [wikipedia.org]. Many players can beat the computer regularly since the solution space is so large (can no longer use a brute force like chess). Also look at poker (in particular the pokibot [ualberta.ca] where players are always working with incomplete sets of information. A decent poker player still can beat computer players simply by changing their game once and awhile. It ends up taking the bots too long to adapt before they are put out.
Real AI, not the shortcut methods you mentioned, require time and a lot of processing power to implement.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Those aren't reasons; those are validations that I hear from the PvPers. It still comes down to "I like to ruin someone else's day."
Spoken like a hardcore PKer that disconnects the people behind the characters. I think quite the opposite of the PKers I've encountered. (Again, not to be confused with PvPers.) PKers are people who enjoy seeing others suffer in a game because they have no control of their real life. PKing is an outlet where they are the ones in charge, not their boss or their mother.
PvPers I respect when it is consensual. I see and respect players wanting to go head to head with another willing opponent. I still do not understand it though. Either a player "wins" by getting money, gear or some reward and others "lose," or it was just a big waste of time.
By being human and using my higher brain functions to negotiate that fighting over virtual property is not worth causing real emotions.
I strongly disagree. The anonymity is what I feel causes PKers to run rampant. Meeting a small portion of the UO community in real life, it was very apparent that PKs were hiding their identity and the general populace disliked the behavior that PKs demonstrated.
I can be completely anonymous in WoW. I could create a character, act nice, join my guild and then start robbing people blind, treat them like crap and get that character kicked out. Then immediately go back to my "good" character and act like nothing ever happened. I do not do that because it is not in my nature to act like an asshat. Anyone that does act that way does have something antisocial within themselves and they believe MMO's are a good place to let them out.
Again I disagree. Just because there is a brick missing in a wall is no reason for someone to walk up with a hammer and start chipping away until the whole thing collapses. Just because I have an opportunity to steal a lady's purse (as I had today at lunch) does not mean I'll do it. There is nothing making anyone do anything except their own initiative. People in general, but PKs especially, choose to be asshats.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Leave your pussy elitist "high level brain" bullshit to the real world. Games are fucking games and if you are emotionally hurt for days over the loss of your character or some frustration, get a new fucking hobby; I hear knitting is pretty calming. Leave the aspiring real men to our hobbies without your smug mental judgements.
Analyze that.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Real men and other mature adults don't speak to each other that way, child. Even if they are losing their bladder contorl internally over how terrified they are of homosexuality, as you seem to be.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
I see that you have major issues and that you applied a number of your issues to what you read within what I wrote.
It's these sort of extremist attitudes about games and the inability to discuss differences intelligently and calmly that end up providing poor images for gaming in general.
Since you made many assumptions and personally attacked me and my opinions, I'll return the favor.
Please, take your Ritalin, go back to school and let the adults talk.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
If PvP/PK causes such deep-seated emotional feelings in you, then I'm sad to say that you're not emotionally secure enough to handle the games you're choosing to play, and -pay for-. Why would anyone choose to shell out money every month for something that they think is emotionally damaging? If you don't like PK, then post suggestions to the developers about how to fix the system. Give them real game-related (and profit-related, for most MMOs) reasons for why it would help. Don't resort to psychodrama about how PvPers are damaging people's psyches. I'd avoid the brick wall analogy too, because it only works if PvP is something that was never intended. In the reality of your analogy, PvP is -one of the bricks-. It was put there to be a cohesive part of the game, and if there's something within that which just isn't working, then it proves my point that the problem isn't PvP, but implementation.
Finally, if your concerns are ignored and you don't feel you're getting redress then leave. Vote with your wallet. Find a game that has no PvP element, or at least one that's closed/opt-in. I could spend hours talking about how, at the end of the day, consensual PvP just doesn't work, but that's mostly my opinion, and that kind of game might suit you.
And just in case you're curious: the game I admin is closed PK/opt-in. I'm a pretty avid fan of allowing players to act in direct competition with one another in combat as well as in other areas, but I'm not the only voice, and I'm fine with that. I advocate a position, but it's not the end of the world when it doesn't pan out my way, and my position may not always be the -best- way. It doesn't tear me up inside emotionally or hurt my feelings. The day it does is the day I resign, and probably quit playing games online, because it'd be a sign that I'm just not capable of handling it. Frankly, I think a lot of people aren't.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
I'm getting a laugh how so many of these replies point back at me and state "if you get emotionally attached..." I guess I was too general. When I first played UO (my first MMO), I did get upset about getting killed by a player. The idea that another player would kill me for no reason at all never occurred to me. I had the (naive) ideal that we'd all play the game cooperatively. That was nine years ago. Death, loss, defeat do not bother me any more than "Ok, I learned this, so next time I'll try this." Heck play a paladin or a priest in WoW and you get used to dieing.
I wouldn't try to draw parallels between online worlds and the real world. It is obvious that the anonymity of the internet in general and MMO's especially bring out a different persona in some people. What I suggest that if the intent is there, then those similar intentions may reveal themselves IRL. I've often been called a "paladin" IRL by my friends. It's just my nature. I help where I see it needed, I have an optimistic view that people are generally good (or can be) and witnessing any unkind acts disappoint me. (So yes, I'm often disappointed by people.)
I do like the PvP implementation in WoW, so much so that I started characters on a PvP realm to play with friends. I have yet to get them to the point of facing "foes" in the open world, but I've already felt the frustration (player interference with quests) that some elements of the PvP consent realms offer. I doubt I'll play them much more.
Online worlds offered the chance for global communities to get together, form friendships and generally brighten everyone's day by trouncing virtual evils. Unfortunately, online worlds have turned into a global social experiment where we see examples of the worst behavior that humans can offer. Sure it's a game, no one gets hurt and when you turn it off, it's gone. But those memories that are created linger and good or bad, they'll have an affect on you and those around you.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Part of the maturation process is learning to deal with winning and losing. The people who can't handle winning or losing are the immature ones. It has little to do with the boasting/whining - you can always
I'm not saying that's *your* problem. But let's keep our eye on the ball here: it's about people who can't handle running around, smacking people around, and then moving on.
-Jeff
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
"Never flagging" would be great if there weren't PvPers who like to wait until PvEers are in combat, then flag and jump into the combat area, hoping to get hit by an AoE. Either the PvEer has to avoid AoEs (which really sucks for some classes), or he gets ganked by the griefer.
It's particularly thrilling when said bully sits on top of a quest objective, or repeatedly kills the escort missions of PCs that are half their level. Oh, wait, I guess they're just looking for a challenge.
I'd pay extra to play on a real "carebear" server, where these emotional cripples had no way to ruin my day.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
I was suggesting that because Warhammer is so PvP centric, it's not going to survive long because of the typical actions of the majority of PvPers I've ever encountered in all the different MMO's I've played or tested.
As tm2b stated, even removing the PvP factor, their are still griefers. Regardless of how many mechanical, technical or logical safeguards are within the game, the griefers will find some way to ruin the game for someone if not everyone. I'm simply predicting that these griefers will ruin Warhammer before it has a chance to prove itself.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Its an interesting behavior. When presented with complete anarchy - the ability to do whatever you want to do... what do you do? It seems many choose to destroy. Its interesting so few choose to build.
My WoW guild is on a RPPvP server. We have fostered a network of friends and alliances with other individuals and guilds. We monitor alerts coming from various cities / towns / outposts for our faction. When we see that there is a definate attack to the town, we tend to send someone as a scout as we marshal our forces. Usually we roll in with members of our guild and join up with individuals also defending the territory. Sometimes the raiders are strong enough that we have to call on our friends / allies not already present. We then commense to destroying those raiders and generally (to paraphrase) ruin their day. My only regret is that raiders can occasionally take over a middling-area town and proceed to gank other players and then leave when confronted without having paid much penalty for the greif they've dealt out. We try to balance that out by corpse-camping, etc. We want raiding a town to have been painful.
Is this your mention of justice? I suppose for us it is justice. We tend to leave others alone unless provoked. And there are, on rare occasion, nights where I'm just watching the alerts waiting for someone unlucky enough to attack one of our towns when we're all set and ready to go.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Defending attackers is definitely within my realm of "justice;" corpse camping, however, I feel is dishonorable, but it is a game mechanic and a way to deter future attacks (maybe).
Back to my theme of "why PvP at all?" Do you enjoy watching the alarm channel? Isn't there something more enjoyable that you'd rather be doing? Why are the actions of the griefers allowed to control what players do? I'd rather not spend my time reacting to a griefer or have my game altered or interrupted because a player feels it is entertaining to watch me struggle or worse, when I do kill them, they simply come back because to them killing or being killed is the sum of the game.
Indeed. Though it is prejudiced and stereotyping, it is typically the immature male (pre-teen, teenager, young adult) that follows this path of destruction. I think it stems from the fact that they have yet to have to struggle to create something or build something worthwhile and they have no concept of what value a creation holds or how precious time is.Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
I suppose at the most basic level, if I didn't enjoy it I wouldn't be doing it. There are plenty of guilds out there that ignore the alarms - we could be one of them if we wished. I could also play on a different server with different rules. In fact, I started playing WoW on a "normal" (usually referred to as PvE) server. A friend of mine was on a PvP server and so I played a couple months there too. When I came back to the PvE server, there was something missing. I was thrilled when Blizzard opened up RPPvP servers - I like the RP environment and I found that I missed the PvP mechanics.
Trying to hash out why I prever PvP is a bit more complex. Do I enjoy watching the alarm channel? Not per se. I have a little Addon that does it for me and lets me see what's going on in the world at a glance. If we're not doing anything particularly engrossing, we respond. There are plenty of times we've ignored attacks. And then there are a few rare times when I find myself watching that little Addon just waiting for someone to attack somewhere and give me (and my guild) a target to go after.
Ultimately me and my guild enjoy PvP. We're not so full of bloodlust that we go picking fights. But then, we don't have to. There's always someone willing to do it for us. That chaos thing in play. Does that mean we're playing at the whim of griefers? Only when we choose to. The amusing thing here is that we have run in to griefers who relished the attention. Kill them again and again, and they'd be back playing cat-and-mouse using lower-level players and NPCs as pawns. Our strategy with those particular individuals was to ignore them - and make it well known that they were being ignored. They went away.
The interesting thing is that we have made a difference. By following certain strategies and policies, we've managed to make the experience less enjoyable and names that would frequently show up in some areas would begin to fade away (off to greener pastures). We also have gained some minor noteriety for being defenders of our areas. There's a certain reward to having made a difference, and being noted for doing so.
There's also a lot of fun having worked with various others to make it possible. Our group fights very well together and that's a pleasure in itself. Granted - its possible to get some of that same feeling downing some major PvE boss. But I suppose there's a different feeling having gone toe-to-toe with other people.
One final note - playing PvP rules adds a certain... exitement to the game. It also adds a lot of stress. When on a PvE server, you pretty much know what you're facing and what you can expect from the environment. You do your thing, collect your reward, and move on. In a PvP environment, you run in to potentially hostile players. You never know for sure where an attack is going to come from. The odd thing is, I don't enjoy being attacked (and especially not ganked). Actually - I get a real kick running in to an opposing player and we just wave at each other and go on. But I must admit - the danger is exciting. It's certainly not for everyone. And that's why there's PvE servers.
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
I've yet to hear a valid reason why people like killing mindless NPCs over and over again. Like manual labour except you ain't getting paid.
Here's a tip: never play Counterstrike, or Quake, or Monopoly, or any sport. Horrible people will be out to beat you and ruin your stay.
Oh nose! Let's eliminate losing, lest someone's feelings me hurt. Think of the children!
Re:Limited lifetime (Score:2)
Just last night my guild took down Rag. It took four tries.
The previous week we took him down on the first try even without using fire protection potions because we doubted we would kill him on the first attempt.
The week before we failed to take him down in three attempts.
Obviously player skill and character equipment are the biggest difference factors. Assume that we had the same people on the same characters with the same gear (which is quite close to reality). Even though Rag basically makes the same attacks, those attacks, his reactions and many other factors of the combat are very unpredictable, and from what I witnessed last night, comprised of a good deal of luck. (AoE knockback attack direction, frequency and resistance.)
I completely understand predictable monsters. I remember in UO when you could pull a monster to a rock and stand on the other side of the rock, untouched, while you skilled up your archery. I do not see any such predictability in the mobs in WoW. The monsters have an array of attacks and the random attack generator (or AI response program) causes every fight to be somewhat different. There are enough variables that mathematically no fight with higher level, complex mobs would ever be the same. Yes, fighting a pig with only one attack would be the same again and again, but what happens if another pig nearby reacts and starts fighting or a new one spawns near you?
Granted I've only played WoW since beta and I only have seven characters above 40 including two 60's. I have yet to see BWL, AQ40 or Naxx. Perhaps when I've "seen it all" like the uber, epiced 24x7 players, I might notice those AI patterns occurring more often. ;-)
Just like DAoC and others... (Score:2, Interesting)
What if you don't like PvP? (Score:2, Interesting)
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? (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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.
I have a less principled opposition. I've just been burned too many times by EA's buggy, unsupported titles. Compare any title EA's ever released with Blizzard's Starcraft, Warcraft, or Diablo. I have occasional complaints about WoW's support, but I can't think of any conceivable way that EA would even provide half the support. Warhammer Online looks great, though, so I'd love for them to prove me wrong.
RvR (Score:2)
Keeping the Land? On my doorstep? (Score:5, Interesting)
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]
If you're lurking... (Score:2)
So who rebuilds the city? (Score:2)
Well, it is a moot point for me anyway. It sounded interesting until they mentioned that there would be no OS X version. So I'll stick with WoW (where I will soon be a duel-wielding Shammy
I'm really hyped about this (Score:2)
Dynamic world PvP? (Score:2)
I have my own reservations that are akin to what others have mentioned. Specifically, what happens when one side gets so far ahead that the balance gets completely thwacked? I'd hope that the WAR guys are smart enough to come up with a world that is large enough that one side can't dominate more than 50-60% of it. In such a setup, the losing side could focus their efforts on another battlefront and then the other side would have to adjust. That's the only way that I could see such a thing working. There would need to be enough simultaneous conflicts taking place that one side couldn't possibly field enough troops at all of them to win them all. Maybe they can come up with something like supply lines, and the need to hold contigious(sp?) territory.
I'm looking forward to checking the game out. I hope that they have some sort of public beta. I've been playing Games Workshop games for a long time. I definitely played far more Warhammer 40K than standard Warhammer but none the less, I'd like an alternative to WoW.
I'm a PvPer at heart and I hate the WoW system where one epic'd out 60 can lay waste to legions of lower level attackers. I hate to use the world "realism" when talking about fantasy games, but still, I like some level of realism. There should be a point where no matter how buff you are, enough of the enemies can get together to take you out. In WoW that simply doesn't happen. The level 60 griefers can hang out just far enough outside of the NPCs aggro range where they can safely gank any lowbie walking by, while at the same time not worry about their own safety. I like all aspects of the PvP system, but specifically I like being able to get together with a group of people and own part of the world. Like another poster was saying about his WoW RPPvP guild running around protecting their territory, that's what PvP should be all about... becoming a character, supporting a faction, actually being a part of the world.
Great answers, good read (Score:2)
By far this is the best set of corporate entity responses. Ever.
What really made this actually enjoyable to read was the fact the responders didn't put any BS out there or try to overshadow questions by pumping themselves up on other points or simply responding without actually answering the question (looking at you Dean Hachamovitch). Bonus points for the one instance where they didn't answer by being straight-forward and saying they didn't know yet instead of something like "it'll be a surprise".
I wish everyone who took part in these "Ask..." sessions was as real, writing in actual human tones instead of practiced public relations and investor-safe dribble.
Re:Mac Version??? (Score:3)
Linux WOW? (Score:4, Insightful)
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? (Score:2)
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? (Score:2)
Re:I hope it avoids the whole "leveling" thing (Score:2)
It would be fun, but like many things that would be fun in an MMORPG it would not work because of griefing.
Of course, killing rats is no fun either.
Re:Because (Score:2)