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

Reader Comments (9)

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 1:21AM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Can you please link me to your MMO news site where you report on a daily basis without making mistakes trustcorapt?

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 4:58AM eNTi said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
if i understand the changes correctly they try to introduce the small squad based combat, that makes t1-t3 so uniquely fun and also keeps people in scenarios?

this also means gear >>> all again. have fun grinding more yet again. this game is no fun unless they level the play field in t4, which would essentially mean two extra tiers or something like that.

those changes also do NOT address the player count imbalance in any way. it will actually make it worse.

...and NO mythic. city "sieges" are not fun. not in the slightest.

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 5:08AM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Now comes the time when ppl start to see the shortcomings of this system. It might be fun to do some changes - for changes sake. And things might look intresting for few day on testserver. But for long term gameplay they could turn out to be horror.

What WAR needs is flexibility - alternative systems. Not always the same. Dwarf campaign requiring diffrent sort of method to lock than chaos for example. Instead Mythic is going for all out changes to everything... Same keep mecanics on all - same this and same that.

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 11:16AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
The more complex you make a system, the more likely there will be errors, glitches, or bugs. You are asking Mythic, a developer well known for its bugs, to create an entirely separate RvR system for the other pairings.

I think that would be a fantastically bad idea, considering that Mythic has finally got the City Siege (almost) right and they've finally got people back into the lakes.

It should be clear that Mythic is attempting to "complete" the RvR game right now. You can argue that its because the game is maintenance mode or whatever you want. The point is that Mythic shouldn't be making the existing system unnecessarily complex right now.
Reply

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 11:38AM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
What Im pointing out that Mythic already (finally) has 1 system almost buggfree. They dont have to change it everywhere. Its just like they didn't need to put exactly 2 ramps in every keep. Or two keep doors... or oil atop of every door.

Why have 20 RVR maps if the goal is always the same? And the process is always the same ? Then most of these maps are totally pointless. We could TOTALLY skip two pairings in WAR and we would end up with exact same outcome. That was Mythic's solution toT1 content. And they have yet to go back and create meaningfull RVR content for the other T1 maps. Be creative !!!

PVP is not complicated - its actually much more easy than PVE. But its based on EXACTLY the same development thinking. And that thinking is... "we want the encounter to go exactly like this". If ppl think outside this box - then its an exploid.

Now... THe good thing about PVE bosses... is that developers have realised that they can leave those bosses like they and just create new ones. There is nothing saying that WAR can't have 1 pairing of the game with the old system - and another pairing with new one... and 3 RAMPS!!!

Reply

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 7:48AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Deadalon, nothing is set in stone at this point. As for the repetitiveness of the campaign, it's a valid concern. I also share the same concern. If you come out to the PTS event on Wednesday, you'll be able to see the changes for yourself. Mythic rarely divulges all the changes they make on a PTS event. For the 1.3.6. test, Mythic turned off friendly collision just to see what would happen and they didn't tell anyone there until after. (I knew about it ahead of time as a Core Tester, but most did not.)

Mythic uses their own vent server for PTS events and the developers are there. You can play with them and they usually do a Q/A session during every event. They do listen to player feedback, a lot more than most think. Mythic is perfectly ok with you being critical of them so long as as it's constructive. I mean, Mythic wanted to turn off friendly collision to improve performance, but the feedback from the community changed their minds. The same thing happened with the stat changes proposed about a year ago. The split Sovereign sets were changed around a few times based on community feedback.

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 11:22AM Deadalon said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Its sometimes very hard to be constructive when the game is not showing the true signs of moving forward based on the orginal values that were started with.

Lets think back and lets talk about those ppl that bougth WAR 2 years ago. They knew for example that there were just two cities in the package - but Im pretty sure that most expeced the game would expand with EXPANDING features that would give the game new dimentions for long term enjoyment. This has not been the case with WAR. Sadly - but then lets be brutally honest - cause thats much more constructive than pretending things are just fine. They are not with WAR. They are getting better acoriding to some - but worse from others point of view.

Constructively speaking - we now know where WAR is going. But we also know where its not going. And... there are plenty of things in between that we don't know anything about - but can kinda guess based on the given values we have.

WAR is now 2 years old - and over these two years the game has not been growing in any way or terms possible. There is less content - and fewer features in the game than were orginally planned. There are far less ppl playing the game than was orginally planned. There are far less ppl working on improving and adding to the game than were planned. And the orginal crew has mostly left the development team.

The arguments that I have been trying to raise for the past 2 years is the POPOSITE of what Mythic is now doing. Mythic is not building on the strength of the game. They are exploring the weakness more and more. And ofc it leads the game into wrong direction for further plans and bigger playerbase.

WAR should NOT be ONLY about RVR cause the RVR features limit the game so much TECHNICALLY. Nothing has changed in the past 2 years that make servers stand more load of zergs... Or even number of ppl in the same map. Games that are based on ALL or NOTHING will ALWAYS face problems. There ARE only so many ppl that can take part in RVR - it has limits in both ends. And then ppl can actually argue the point of the RVR all together... If the point is only to progress your character that ends up beeing more about killing NPCs - then why not improve the PVE content instead ?

Again - for constructive feedback - we need the developers to be brutally honest. They are not. Why are these changes beeing made across the board of every keep areas ? Why not have just 1 pairing use this method? Zerg is not all bad - but its not fun all the time... SPECIALLY if your not the one zerging.

Lets be very constructive here. The problem with WAR is that its way to repetitive - based on doing the same things over and over to gain progress... The progress doesn't lead to new places or content. In other words.... it pointless. Well... Wars usually are...

So - the only real goal that the developers have is to make it FUN for long term enjoyment. You do not do that by making everything exactly the same for 20 maps of content. You do it by having things DIFFRENT.

WAR is not PVE - but lets face constructive facts here. WAR development teams have created 20+ encounters that are EXACTLY the SAME!. In PVE terms - you would be talking about bosses with EXACTLY The same abilites (just diffrent looks). PPL argue here that the PVP aspect changes the encounters... That diffrent sized groups and Warbands will change the encounters and how things are done.. Thats just not true.. All encounters in WAR have the same two way outcome. Winner... Looser...

IF this game was really making some progress at this point - then it should be focusing on how to make some things diffrent than others....

NOt all keeps need to have Oil... - Not all keeps should need the same mecanics to break down the door.... There are endless possibilites ... but Mythic is stuck changing EVERYTHING ... or NOTHING...
Reply

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 9:12AM DennisIsAwesome said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
i love it!

Posted: Oct 5th 2010 9:15AM Panicbutton said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I'm excited to be testing the changes out, I'm not sure what the long term results will be but it's going to be very interesting to get some hands on time to get a first impression and provide some feedback.

My current view is positive in that the changes will promote breaking up the zerg, will give more things for small groups of people to do if you can't field a full warband, should also promote wb vs wb play and will probably benefit realms with a population imbalance (assuming they play in a well coordinated fashion).

I'm anticipating that a lot more mobility will required than we currently see by most groups of players out in the lakes.

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

Joystiq

Joystiq

WoW Insider

WoW

TUAW

TUAW