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

Reader Comments (17)

Posted: Feb 22nd 2010 8:29PM Boruk said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The sad part of all this is the trimming and trimming of content down to help sate the demand of a ever dwindling population at end level due to the fact that the game just doesnt deliver.

The changes they implemented did some good and I think from tier 1 moving up is fun, but right now, all you see at end level is things being removed to force everyone together to be happy at PvP/RvR.

Posted: Feb 22nd 2010 9:16PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
From when I first played WAR, my initial impression was the game was designed around having a large, healthy server population. Everything required having others around to complete - the public quests, seiges, etc.

The population is too small to begin with, which is further exacerbated by the number of zones and areas a player can be in.

Has this changed at all, or can you still run across an entire map and never seen anyone?

I quit during WAR's heyday - I've always wanted to go back and resurrect my Black Orc, Edbusta Jibbliekicka!

Posted: Feb 22nd 2010 10:38PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
You're exactly right. There's just too much going on for too few players. Couple that with the performance issues many (including myself) experienced at launch and after, and the game has little hope--meaning you can't get a bunch of people to do a siege or PQ if the game engine has problems with 100 people launching an attack.

I truly had high hopes for WAR, and love the idea of PvPvE and RvR. Heck, my husband and I bought CEs and I was an administrator for Warhammer Alliance (Ariwyn--Content Lead). Unfortunately, performance and balancing issues caused problems for me.

I think removing some scenarios is actually a good step. Funneling the remaining players into fewer scenarios and allowing Nordenwatch (an almost universally enjoyed scenario) in all four tiers should help increase the "feel" of population and keep players relatively happy. I don't think I'll see anyone really crying over the ones they cut (especially Phoenix Gate--I hated that with a passion. There's a WAH podcast around somewhere with me talking about the idiots in that scenario!).
Reply

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 12:18AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I remember doing Phoenix Gate once and I had a blast, but it was weird compared to the other two. I quit a couple months after launch due to CTDs and Tier 2 scenario slide-shows. I would pay $5.00 a month to do Nordenwatch in just Tier 1. It was the only great part of WAR. I recently started an Endless Free Trial account to check in on the game but it won't let me see enough of the areas that were a problem to me to actually spend $15 a month on the game.
Reply

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 2:26PM Anatidae said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I really liked WAR. I ended up leaving because the population. I did hang in there until it started getting really funky.

But I have to admit that I felt the world is a collection of valleys that you run down to enter the next valley. The RvR lakes feel just like lake beds or craters with only a couple entry/exit points. Somewhat better than the valleys in that it feels slightly more open where the PvE content is clearly "go along this line, as you go the mobs get harder"

I love the public quests and don't mind that they are all a bit repetitive. The rewards were weird though. If you hung in for a long time and got a great drop, it was generally worth it. But the average drop wasn't - so keeping people around for the long haul just didn't work. I hope someone figures out how to do Public Quests right (Champions seems to be a fail too) because I love the general idea of it a lot.

Honestly, I don't like the scenarios. It always felt like they just pulled players out of the world into non-existent instances. When you have low population and half or more is in scenarios, then who is left in the game world? I wish they would have had a scenario-free server at launch (people asked for it). I have the feeling it would have been a better game.

Not to downplay scenarios. They are fine fun and all. I love MW:2, TF2, L4D2... heck, a lot of scenario play. But mostly I get my fix with scenarios with games built to be nothing but that. It seems MMOs want to be instance PvP, world PvE, level RPG, and RvR. Too much. Focus on one or two and excel rather than having a weak sauce of everything.
Reply

Posted: Feb 22nd 2010 9:38PM karnisov said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
cutting content seems an odd choice. seems like it would be better to tweak rewards to influence player activities, but what would I know.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 12:03PM Averice said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah, when War was in development, that team was rwarin to go! Just listening to them talk about it was almost infection by how excited they were. Someone else made that comment before, maybe it was PA, I'm just agreeing with them. The potion crafting sounded like the best part to me. Secret recipes, mixing random stuff, hey what could go wrong! Well, apparently the crafting was just bad, from what I've heard. I don't know what went wrong.

I did the 10 day free trial maybe a month after it was first offered, and honestly, it felt like I was on a test server more than live. I mean everything Worked, but it was also too sticky... or was it slippery, I really can't remember but something just irked me about the way the avatar controlled. I actually hated 6 of the 7 classes I tried too. I leveled 7 classes to level 8 or 9, and only the last one I touched was actually any fun to run around with. It was like trying to play a vanilla Paladin through his first 10 levels in WoW.

I agree with what @Konar said, that the game was built with large populations in mind. And those populations were there for a little while, but then started disappearing. I don't know if they've done server mergers yet, but imo they should do even more if they're suffering from under population. Nothing like an over populated server to make a game feel great imo, even if it does lag because of it.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 12:14AM wjowski said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
This is why you don't base your game solely around group content (pvp and otherwise). There'll always be a point where there's simply nobody to group with and the player gets frustrated...resulting in him or her taking their business elsewhere. DDO before they went F2P would be another good example of this mistake in action.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 12:56AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Warhammer online is the only game I know of where regular patches mean the removal of content not the addition of.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 2:26AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If i can point whats wrong with WAR :):
1st whats wrong is the class balance between the two faction, the order faction keep getting upgrade when the chaos gets nothing. (fine example is the blackguard to its counterpart)

2nd than people swelling up to change server and goes to order, leaving the other faction with no people.

the issues about class balance has been brought on and on, but the developer simply let it slide. again the fine example is the blackguard.

as time go on the other faction is a major force, and the other is a small raiding party LOL.

just look at the forum, people keep asking for balance, and simple fix, but the dev always dodging and keep giving new game content. ( now theya re trimming it? how sad)

for other game dev out there, please listen to what your player are saying.

there are more issues that lead war to where it is now, but i think this is the worst issues.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 2:43AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Warhammer should've had 3 or 4 factions to begin with. That would've solved a lot of problems with the gameplay.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 4:59AM Got Beef said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
It makes all the sense in the world as people are only playing the good scenarios anyhow, can't wait the final implementation to see the full picture with the possible vp changes and such.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 5:42AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
If they are reconstructing existing, less used parts of the content for "a greater good" (population ballance; possible revamps of removed SCs for Warfront Weekends, etc.), it's ok for me. Honestly, I would be pleased with a revamp of PQs as well.

Developing a game on-the-fly is a weird thing for sure, but I really hope that it's achievable.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 7:15AM Damn Dirty Ape said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
My main beef with Warhammer Online is that Mythic seemingly went out of their way to avoid copying "Dark Age of Camelot", even stating numerous times that they "were not trying to make DAoC 2". I happened to like DAoC and always wondered why they were so hellbent on avoiding what made people enjoy it.

I am convinced that if they had gotten rid of the ridiculous 'tier' stuff, had three major factions, and a giant 'frontier' like area the game would have been a hit despite it's technical faults.

Also, although I enjoyed some of the scenarios, the DAoC 'battleground' was definitely more fun when there was enough people around on your side to be competitive.

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 7:29AM tenfootgoatman said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I quite liked this game in its initial months but it only works well when theres a decent server population . Upon returning for a ten day free trial i found it took ages to get into a scenario and there was no world pvp going on that i could find . I ve always felt the pve side of the game was a little poor . Would love to play it as it was ment to be played with healthy server populations but its not worth the subscription fee . Needs to be free to play or reduce its subscription fees by 2/3 rds . If they carry on as they are it ll just limp on for a few more years then close .

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 7:39AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I don't know which server you chose for the trial account, but honestly, there are plenty of actions in T1 (in SCs and ORvR lakes as well) on EU's English servers, and - as far as I know - on Badlands-US too. Existing servers work finely population-wise, imo. (Though SC popping could be different, it depends on your gaming hours, of course...)
Reply

Posted: Feb 23rd 2010 4:06PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The worst part of the game was that the servers simply couldn't handle the amount of people that wanted to play all at once. I remember they had to implement "The Winds of Change" to zone people out of the RvR areas when the RvR lake got too full. I mean, how in the world do you say you're making a game that you want to rival WoW and then not make your servers able to handle all the people who want to play? That's just silly

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW