| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Joystiq, and more

Reader Comments (21)

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 3:06PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My opinions :

WoW : Deathknights are great to play, but kind of a cop out in terms of leveling. I feel that these Heroic classes will devalue a lot of the best things about WoW. They are overpowered right now, so players can probably expect some of the skills to be toned down. Impressed by the new Death Grip ability, but it has some issues with moving enemy players to where they may not want to be, rather than impeding progress. I lined up outside SW the other day and three of us standing a little distance apart were able to pull someone between 50-100 years right to a guard (or two), when previously they were well outside agro range.

Downside of WoW, only one hero class, that was pretty inexcusable, it should have been two hero classes at least, as the experience right now is very flat until Northrend.


Warhammer : These needed to be in at launch and there have been problems as a result of the lack of tank classes on the alliance side. In most cases these are really reskins of an opposing faction class, so it will be interesting if Mythic manage to put anything new into the mix.

Nice to do it in an an event, but being able to add in two new classes so quickly, shows the level of preparedness for launch. I've notice a decrease in WAR fanboi's recently, so I don't anticipate much in the way of argument, other than probably one guy here who seems to take WAR comments personally. Hopefully there will be great things, but Mythic need to prove they can compete at the top echelon now.


LOTRO : I've played a warden. The thing about LOTRO, is all of the classes play so differently. I love the Warden combo's (but I fear players will just macro them, losing some of the skill). Rune keepers have to balance their damage/healing in real time, rather than through semi-permanent traits. As a result it's great fun. This issue I had was going all the way, then having to rebalance. These two classes have got my attention, and so I resubbed to LOTRO.

Wardens/Rune keepers were needed as the class selection was anemic in LOTRO. I do feel that other classes have suffered as a result of balancing.

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 4:58PM Abriael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You demonstrate how much you know about warhammer when you call Order "alliance". Luckily Order isn't a fluffy band of banal boy scouts like alliance is.
Anyway, I've been testing the two classes fairly intensively (having wanted to play the KOTBS since it was announced long ago). While the KOTBS is relatively similar to the Chosen (which isn't a bad thing at all, given how much an aura tank, and human at that, is needed and wanted on the order side), the black guard has a definately different gameplay compared to the Iron Breaker. They both are definately enjoyable experiences to play and add a lot to the variety and choices that Warhammer Online offers in term of classes to both sides.

The fact that they have been added so fast simply demonstrate that Mythic is working hard and efficently to make a better game on all levels.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 5:22PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My confusion was only part to how closely these two games resemble one another, which is not a good place for WAR to be, when one is the run away leader of the pack, at least LOTRO stands alone in terms of it's appeal.

Mythic already had to cut content and classes to get this out of the door, and all you are getting now is the stuff you should have had 2 months ago, and players are supposed to be excited by this 'addition'?

However, what about the other capital cities, and more than 2 classes were cut from the game before launch? So for those still enthusiastic about this game, I think it's a great thing, but those numbers have definitely taken a nose dive in recent weeks.

Like I said I hope Mythic can pull this around, but on the server I've played on, it's a hell of a job even finding other folks at times. Sad, but true, as I really like the Warhammer IP.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 5:49PM Abriael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I would like to see your souce on such "skyfalling" news. because you know, xfire isn't exactly the most reliable one around. Seen from inside, the warhammer community seems definately solid, and Mythic didn't even play the card of free trial accounts/buddy codes yet, while all their competition already did that. This, combined with the holidays and the first major content patch, makes for a lot of potential still to be expressed.

WAR and WOW resembling each other? That must be one of the most laughable statements i've seen lately. They have an absolutely opposite game style, one being prevalently PvE (with an absolutely insufficent PvP) and the other being prevalently PvP, and they cater to very different crowds. On the other end, LOTRO, being prevalently PvE as well, is much more similar to WoW than WAR is.

As of the cut content, it always makes me giggle, since in the end warhammer was launched with more and more varied content than basically every other MMO at launch (wow included), despite the cuts. So anything that gets added from now on is most definately an added bonus over an extremely solid content base.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 6:14PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Dude, you've totally got your blinders on. WAR launched with more content than WoW has now? What are you smoking with that insane nonsense? WAR had a cool IP in a grind-heavy game with piss poor writing, and even more lackluster PvE content. Now I undestand that it's a PvP focused game, but all that equates to is more grinding in instanced scenarios and keep sieges that consist of hanging out outside the walls before running in trying to out-zerg your opponents. You might want to think about just how "varied" the content truly is before you make such audacious claims.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 6:14PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Abriael, there is not one item in your response I can possibly agree 100% on really. I'd like to see your source for the number of players and current accounts too, because the last official information is over 3 months old, and Blizzard recently gave some figures as to the number of players returning to WoW. While Blizzard maybe can not be trusted, the same criticism can be leveled at Mythic also.

I completely understand you like this game, but let's not try and fool ourselves here, we are both intelligent people. Content doesn't have to be 'expressed' as you say, that's half the problem here, it needs to be proven reliably and regularly, Mythic has no history other than cutting content right now and the addition of a battleground or two.

Also looking at a community form the inside can be as short-sighted as looking at community from the outside. The numbers are down, it's hard as hell to do things in groups and people are cynical about the content 'additions'. My story is that my WAR sub ran out after the free period, and I didn't even really notice. Never had that happen before in an MMO, pretty sad that my enthusiasm dropped so quickly.

While I commend you for sticking up for 'your game' and I too really wish WAR was better, I can't agree that it offers anything new or exciting with the preferred ways to level in WoW style battlegrounds without the same depth of PvE or openness in the world that WoW has. WAR is like a bunch of maps cut and pasted together, and the linear direction of PvE gameplay has alienated people, PvP fan or not, they all pay subs.

I also agree WAR has more classes than WoW, but do I really need 20 odd ways of still being bored and alone? I don't know how you measure 'amounts of content' other than to say it's purely subjective unless supoorted by anacdotal evidense, so can't agree or disagree here.

In WAR now I have linear maps with 5-10 quests per hub, with every 30 mins to an hour, a new group grind quest, so kill quests, and if I'm lucky a battleground. If I'm really lucky there is a chance to defend a castle that no one really cares about, or to stand no chance to take a keep because no one else is online. The best thing is, I have to go through all of this on a conveyor belt!

I'm happy to entertain intelligent discussion on the subject, but from my experiences and the reaction to the community in general, I don't think my thoughts are too extreme.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 6:55PM Abriael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@Tasogare: you might want to learn to read before criticizing other people. War had more content AT LAUNCH than WoW AT LAUNCH.
As of the writing, your statement is equally laughable. Warhammer's questlines benefit from excellent writing (that you probably didn't even read, but you can't resist from talking out of your rear it seems) and one of the best and most detailed fantasy backstories ever written. while wow's PvE is hindered by the fact that it sports one of the weakest and most lackluster backstories and backgrounds ever seen in a fantasy MMORPG (a warped version of a backstory which is a warped anf pre-teen-ized version of another).

@Mr Angry: I wonder how can you say that the last account data is 3 months old, since the game has just turned 2 months old 4 days ago. Also, Mark Jacobs commented on account retention (which was stated as higher than DAOC's 72%) after Mr. Goon Morhaime went out of his way to give us absolutely marginal data that he really has no grasp on (since many people leaving wow simply sell their accounts, and they get reactivated simply because others buy them).

I really wonder how can you even talk about Warhammer's community, since you haven't been in it lately.

The world is much less linear than many, due to the ability of moving from a pairing to the other, and the contents are most definately abundant and varied (Quests, Public quests, lairs, Open RvR, Scenarios, City sieges, keep sieges, and some of the best dungeons ever seen in a MMO, many other SH, blizzard included, would have a lot to learn, for instance, from the sheer scope of Gunbad, or from the beauty of Lost vale). This without even mentioning the rewards given to exploring which, due to the tome, are higher and more interesting than in basically every other game. Warhammer's world is linear only if you WANT to play it like that. Doesn't take much to walk out of bounds and discover a lot of things, which other worlds definately lack.

You seem to be very keen on talking for the "community in general", but I'm afraid that you lack the ability to do so. Expecially since it definately looks like your experience in the game has been superficial, at most.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 3:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What is sad is Bliz will Nerf Death Knights. DKs should be heroic however PvP whiners will cry and thus the heroic class will just be just like the rest. Example why WoW should dump ALL PvP .. leave it to WAR, Guild Wars, etc. and focus on PvE (thus is what WoW does fantastic).

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 4:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know how you can call Lotr and Warhammer part of "the big three" when Runescape has far more players AND more subscribers than either.

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 4:28PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yes, but Runescape is also not of the same entry price, production and development level as WAR or LotRO.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 4:34PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
So the big three has nothing to do with popularity, only entry price, production, and development costs? Why not include AoC and Tabula Rasa then? Is it because they're not popular enough? ;)

Honestly, this just strikes me as a little bit of the blinders-on mentality. There's a huge ecosystem of MMOs out there, and some of them dwarf all the AAA retail games in popularity aside from WoW.

--matt
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 4:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
No, it's about the entire picture. Blind is where you assume subscriptions -- and not net gain based off operating costs and revenue stream -- is all that matters. Different business models make for different MMOs, it's a little bit like comparing oranges and apples in some ways.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 4:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Business model is just one thing that makes MMOs different. IP is another. Should we not compare Warhammer and WoW because they use different IPs?

What I dislike is the prejudice towards games sold at retail (and Massively is pretty consistently guilty of this, with all due respect to you guys). I mean, Runescape has literally 10x as many players as LOTR, for instance, and generates fairly equivalent revenue as far as I can tell. I understand that your readership is probably more interested in LOTR than Runescape, but I think you do a disservice to MMO-dom in general when you simply ignore the existence of it because you and most of your readers don't understand its appeal (and to be fair, I have a hard time understanding the appeal as well, but there is no arguing that it's far more popular than either Warhammer or LOTR).

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 5:23PM Mr Angry said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Matt you make some interesting points and not something I've really though about before with regards the content on massively.com, it does seem singularly focused on the commercial sector.

I've been shocked to hear just how popular some of these free to play games are, really huge numbers and in some cases, it's pretty high quality stuff.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 5:01PM Abriael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You can't compare the userbase of a free to play MMORPG with that of a pay to play one. Free to play ones have an usually bloated userbase because people don't feel the need to deactivate their accounts, even if they play once a months or don't play at all.

It's easy for free to play MMOs to "look" popular, but their real popularity isn't definately shown by the number of subscribers.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 5:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Abriael, I'm talking about the active players of Runescape, not dead accounts. Last I heard, they have 5.4 million active players (they've got well over 50 million accounts, but as you rightly point out, those are not relevant). That may even be slightly more active players than WoW has in the Western world.

Further, Runescape has over a million people paying a monthly subscription. That's more subscribers than either Warhammer or LOTR have (though Runescape's subscription costs less/month).



--matt
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 5:23PM Abriael said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Active" accounts in a F2P game are much different from those in a P2P game. One that just logs in once a month to say hello to his clan mates would still be considered active, while in a P2P game he would just cancel his sub. Also, a game whose (optional) sub costs 5 dollars (for most) can't really be compared to one that costs 15.
Reply

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 7:42PM Nadril said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ Runescape thing: "Accounts" on that games are characters. When I was 12 and played the game (8 years ago :/) I had like 13 "accounts" on it.


@Warhammer comments: The last thing they need to do is to add in MORE CITIES and MORE LAND as it is spread out enough as is already.

Posted: Nov 21st 2008 9:24PM Jesspiper said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I can't comment on WoTLK because I haven't played WoW since late 04 to early 05. Warhammer's classes are desperately needed and should have been in at launch. Not having a Human Tank has hurt Order immensly because the Human in shining armour is popular in any game and would have given Order the melee muscle it needed.

As for LOTRO I consider the new classes just extra variety. More healers are always nice too. Neither of them were "needed" but the more the merrier, even if there are some crossovers etc.

P.S Oh and lads, it's pretty much impossible to argue anything WAR-related with Abriael, who is easily the most blind, raging WAR fanboi imaginable. It's just not worth the effort, kind of like trying to jam a square peg in a circle hole.



Posted: Nov 22nd 2008 5:46AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What I like about the Warden and Runekeeper is that you have to plan ahead and make educated guesses on what's going to happen if you want to be good at either. Most of LOTRO's classes are real "on the fly" based. You react to what's happening. Someone gets poisoned, you cure it. Someone gets a critical hit on them, you heal them. Very reactionary.

On the other hand, with Wardens and Runekeepers you have to almost play them as if you were playing chess. Their mechanics are new for sure, but their entire play style is different than the other classes as well. The trade off is that they get some powerful versions of spells early on, but if you want to take advantage of that power you have to be a thinking MMO player and not just a button masher.

I'm sure they are going to have to take some adjusting to and the devs might have to change some things around, but these classes are actually even more experimental than people first realize.
| 1 | 2 |

Breaking News

Breaking News

Massively-that-was


Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW