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

Reader Comments (31)

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 11:54AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Maybe it will involve the Khorne Daemon Prince in the image above." You know that said daemon prince is made out of resin and depicts a special character invented for the 40k universe in any event. http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/khornedpandh.htm

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 12:05PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
lolhammer

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 12:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
A little too late with all the improvements, sounds like a broken record. Seriously with all the new MMO's coming out that look great, Warhammer Online will be an afterthought to be gone like Matrix Online. Only way for them to keep afloat is to elminate the subscription fee and make it free.

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 12:26PM (Unverified) said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
The post was made ... HOURS ago and already ... 3 users answered ... of which two negative.

Yes this game is really flying high.

Please let it die EA and restart from scratch.

First Lesson: let the NEW designers read upon the Lore of Warhammer TT and create proper WH Army identities to play with.
By making a bad WOW clone they even killed the pleasure I had in playing with my painted miniatures.

One can only hope it dies as quickly as possible and GW will give the publishing rights to a new company.

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 2:16PM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Ironically enough, the yanking of said rights from Blizzard ended up creating Warcraft...
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 12:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
ya every article I read about WAR seems to indicate they are making "major changes" It's a fun game for what it is, but gameplay design was flawed at launch, and there's little to no forgiveness that comes from the MMO community.

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 12:58PM DodgyWop said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Warhammer Online has a future?

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 1:05PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I'll say something positive.
If you want a game built on PVP, this is your game.
If you want a game you can play for a few hours a night, this is your game.
If you're sick of other MMOs, give this a shot for a month.

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 1:06PM DrewIW said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hate for WAR???

On MY Massively?!

UNTHINKABLE

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 2:16PM wjowski said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm pretty sure nobody likes any MMOs here.
Reply

Posted: Aug 19th 2009 8:30AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
It is a bit ironic and funny that most of the comments in this MMO blog are from douchebags who seem to hate EVERY MMO.

The changes for WAR are nice to read. I played the game for 8 months and quit because I needed to save money. About 70% of the negative comments on this blog are from idiots who just hate the game, or people associated with the game. Or, they are 12-year-olds (both literally and figuratively) looking for attention.

It's a nice game with some very fun PVP elements that need updating. I found it very fun, but only if you play on a very populated server. Without people, this game simply doesn't work, which makes sense since it is (duh!) an MMO. It is a far superior game to WOW, which is really its own country at this point with its own separate economy. Classes in WAR are far more balanced than WOW ever was, and PVP in WAR is very superior. Entire classes in WOW were useless for years. At least the WAR staff actually work at balancing things. WOW could care.

I enjoyed playing Ironbreaker and Warrior Priest. Engineer was fun, but I much rather prefer getting in close and hacking people. I've also been in beta with Champions for over 5 months, testing it out.
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 1:07PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I think a lot of you are like me...you *really* wanted WAR to be a success because you love the lore and the overall concept. If you could magically fix 3 things in the game to make it playable for you, what would it be?

Here's mine:

1. Eliminate scenarios - Unless things have drastically changed since I left WAR in Jan/Feb, there was virtually no open RvR because folks were constantly in scenarios. Given the current low playerbase, you want to funnel players into the areas that count.

2. Drastically reduce/eliminate the PvE dungeon content. Same reasoning as #1, plus WAR's dungeons are really boring. I mean, WoW's lowbie instances are more interesting. Focus on the RvR, make it great.

3. Make it *really* easy to jump into any tier RvR. The one thing they did really well is their scenario queuing. Right click a button, queue up to all the scenarios in your Tier, do a quick game, then poof you are right back where you left off. Yet another reason people love scenarios (too much). Do the same for open RvR! Want to jump down for some good ol' fashioned T1 oRvR? push a button and poof you are at the T1 Warcamp, want to be notified if the opposing side is capping Battlefield Objectives? Configurable Rally Calls! Mythic makes it dead easy to pop into scenarios, yet terribly difficult to find oRvR action...and they scratch their head wondering what the problem is.

Ok that's my list, how about you guys?

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 1:22PM jwoelich said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Give it to a studio that actually gets the IP. Relic have done a phenomenal job at the 40k RTS games, mainly because playing the game feels like you're acting out one of the novels. With WAR, yeah, you have the races, the setting is passable, but the whole lore and IP behind the game just seems glossed over, as if it were an afterthought. Mythic utterly and completely failed at making a -Warhammer- game. WAR is a decent, if somewhat broken and sloppy MMO, but it never feels like I'm -in- Warhammer.
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 2:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Open RvR is a lot more prominent now than it was just a few months ago, at least of Iron Rock. I had left WAR back in December with my Zealot at level 23 after finding that it was pretty hard to get in a group for anything (even Scenarios) during my usual late night play hours. I came back about a month ago and my Zealot's now level 37 and I've only spent about two hours game time total soloing. (Which is also FAR less painful now as a zealot than it used to be.)

I can tell you that tier 3 oRvR was pretty active while leveling through it and in tier 4 it's very active. Last night at 3am we had a full warband plus a couple smaller groups attacking a keep and Order was right there with us defending it. Anyway, the game's still got flaws, but I don't buy into the whole "it's too late now" attitude that some people have about WAR. I'll take quality late rather than never anytime. Speaking of which I'm dying for those damn servers to come back up so I can check out the new patch!
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 9:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
To me the problem is simple.

Warhammer is about WAR.

Not one or three or five different guys running around smacking each other in a little skirmish.

Armies smashing into each other.

THAT'S Warhammer.

Every player should command a regiment Have between 5 and 50 'pets' at our back in the form of a warhammer regiment. Give us not just equipment for our hero, but weapons, armor and mount upgrades for our single unit of troops. Set up some type of intelligent pathing system where out in the field, they follow us in columns but stay outside when we go in. Change your PVE so that you are taking your regiment into the field and taking on hordes of the enemy. Change PVP so that in order to win, you have to coordinate your attacks with your fellow commanders.

THAT would be an insane game.
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 9:32PM mightfo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Scenarios are very fun. Open RvR is almost never fun. Scenarios are taking people because people want to get to action and have fun, not do boring and lame sieges.

Removing scenarios would take away Warhammer's main and very good source of fun.
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 11:35PM Xii said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Removing scenarios would kill the game. That would make 90% of PvP into whoever has the bigger zerg. What's the fun of that? -- especially with the realm imbalances you see on almost every server.

Scenarios enforce small group combat, and allow for guilds to really show what they're made of.
Reply

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 1:54PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
I don't get all the negative vibes thrown at WAR. Yeah, it has its flaws, but it is the most fun that I've ever had playing an MMO. Granted if you roll on a dead server, it is going to suck. But the active orvr servers are so much fun. It is so easy to keep busy. You can do PQs while you wait for scenarios. You can run with a zerg in orvr to gain influence for your gear. You can run quests. There is a lot to do, and you don't need to grind if you don't want to.

I'm having way more fun than I ever did in WoW, which admittedly I gave up on rather quickly. Having both sides with the same classes to me is just extremely boring, and there is no point to pvp in WoW. Additionally, the battlegrounds with their lack of time limits are absolutely horrible compared to WAR scenarios, which finish quickly and are rewarding in terms of experience and renown points. The class balance also seems far superior to WoW.

Of course, nothing's perfect. The crafting engine is a joke. You can't make items like armor and weapons, as in WoW, which has a pretty beautiful crafting engine. The character models and customization are a bit limited. It is typical to see others of your same class and level that look very similar to you. The rvr can get a bit "samey" once you've played for awhile, e.g. it would be nice if there was some other types of zone conflict rather than just taking battle objectives and keeps, like massive battles and battlefields. I also wish that the 3 uber zones were connected to each other physically rather than just by flight master. More than 1 city per faction would be nice, too. The game also crashes a lot.

But that's all nit-picking. I like the basic feel of the game, and they definitely did the pvp right.

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 2:25PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
1) Whenever a patch comes out, no matter what game, people complain. "Oh noes, they nerfed my Warlock again!" comes to mind. People both revile and love change. Which makes it fitting that Tzeentch is the Chaos god for WAR.

2) DrewIW brings up a good point: a lot of people on here are broken records for making fun of WAR and that's all the contribute. Go to any WAR thread and Bilbo will be there, with the same "lol" drek.

3) Yes, generikb. It would make the game far better if you gave warband leaders in ORVR the option to turn on rally calls for their zone. Or if maps actually depicted what was being attacked or assaulted.

4) Jerm, I'm glad you are trying to defend the game, but at the same time, you aren't really selling it. "You can run with a zerg in orvr" - this is actually one of the reasons a lot of people stopped playing the game. They wanted a game where a small, highly coordinated group of players could have an impact. Now there are instances of this happening, but more often its zerg vs zerg, which gets really tedious.

I also agree that I did have more fun in pvp on WAR than ever in WoW, including when we used to close down Ratchet in the name of the Horde. But we need more diversity. They need to incorporate some of the scenario objectives into ORVR. Ring Around the BOs gets boring, and heaven forbid you have multiple warbands taking over different BOs at the same time. Everyone flips out over the lost INF and RP.

5) Ultimately WAR has had a positive impact on MMOs in general. If this was not the case, WoW and subsequent games wouldn't have copied certain design elements. It is still a flawed game, but I had fun, and I look forward to better games because of it.

Posted: Aug 18th 2009 2:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't understand your point. A 6-man can have plenty of impact by taking battle objectives and defending keeps. If you are arguing that in T4, 6 people should be able to take on an entire war band of the opposing side, that's just rubbish. I don't see how it could possibly work or what (unfair/overpowered) mechanics would have to be implemented to do this.

On orvr servers, in lower tiers, you can be 10 levels above the maximum, so in T2, you can be up to level 31. A 6-man at the level cap could certainly take on an entire war band of lower level characters. But things even out in T4. Why should it be any other way? You want DAOC? "LF Skald" .... LOL. No thanks.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW