Enough smack talking. Make your sales prediction here.

[AngryGumball]

Press release

WAR set a company record for the most retail pre-orders placed by consumers for a PC title in EA’s 26 year history. Overall, the company has sold 1.5 million units of WAR to retailers.

Does this really matter when EA has already done their marketing push and admitted they are making way more copies available to retailers in hopes of cashing in on the hype of day one new mmo rush thing. Again just funky wording, Perhaps just say we've cut/pressed this many on initial CD/DVD pressing and hence had our flunkies those underling retailers take on stock all these to capialize on the day one - first week or two buying power. So not to be out of stock and have to rush a second printing.

[EWSpider]

nm, already posted

[Nija]

What does playing a game for a year have to do knowing things? You hate everything.

I think watching the development process for the past year gives me a good vantage point. I've watched the skill system change 3 times. I've seen the landscapes contract and expand. I've played a scrapped class to level 40. I've played two other classes to high 20s. I didn't like very much of it. I've seen them react to things that were perceived as problems. I didn't like how most problems were approached and felt a little left out as there wasn't much discussion on many matters that I considered important.

The people who are approaching this game as PVP "Done Right" are way off base. The pacing is all wrong. The skill system is vanilla, predictable, and boring. The encounters are predictable and boring. The landscape is forgettable - environment and positioning are irrelevant. The classes are cookie cutter with near carbon copies present on either side. I understand this is needed for balance purposes, but they still are lacking on that front as well. There's a lot of "math" to the gameplay. You are dealing with a lot of percentages while you're staring at the "ABILITY NOT READY" notification. In the end, focused fire voice communication will win the day and render the final opinion of the game for most players "more of the same."

I don't think this product is a good use of what little spare time I have. I don't hate everything. Right now, IMO, TF2 is the best mix of time/fun. I've played MMO games since '96 so I don't think you can say that I blindly hate all of them. Those that I hate, I hate for very particular reasons. I could go on, but nobody reads this crap and it's better said on Vent.

[Nebu]

The people who are approaching this game as PVP "Done Right" are way off base.

I agree.  This game is definately not "pvp done right".  I would say that it's more "PvP for the masses".  It's accessible, dumbed down, and viscerally fun.   I don't think it will hold people for long... it just doesn't have the complexity to keep people. 

[Righ]

Over nine thousand.

[Azazel]

So I was inside a game-chain shop today, in the nearby shopping mall and talking to the salesguy.

He told me that they have been totally shocked by "people coming out of the woodwork" to pre-order the game. He talked about how heaps of them were Warhammer players, "with the little figures and all that". There's a GW store about 200m away from this store, so I'm sure that it's had an effect, and clearly my example here is anecdotal, but it goes along with what I was saying before about the Warhammer players being a big market along with the MMO fans that are the only thing most of you can see and many are being douches about. It's not just disenfranchised AoC fans.

[Tarami]

The people who are approaching this game as PVP "Done Right" are way off base.

I agree.  This game is definately not "pvp done right".  I would say that it's more "PvP for the masses".  It's accessible, dumbed down, and viscerally fun.   I don't think it will hold people for long... it just doesn't have the complexity to keep people. 

PvP is about the complexities of fighting other people, not fighting an arbitrary game system. I can't say if WAR got this right or not, but actual game system complexity is really minor for a PvP (not just MMOs) game's stickiness. Pulling in fresh blood is more important than clinging on to a hardcore niche population in any case, it will keep even the hardcores interested longer than just ganking the same old people over and over would.

[amiable]

The people who are approaching this game as PVP "Done Right" are way off base.

I agree.  This game is definately not "pvp done right".  I would say that it's more "PvP for the masses".  It's accessible, dumbed down, and viscerally fun.   I don't think it will hold people for long... it just doesn't have the complexity to keep people. 

I'm having flashbacks to comment boards on WoW's release.  Mythic should be so lucky as to grab the masses.

[Nebu]

PvP is about the complexities of fighting other people, not fighting an arbitrary game system. I can't say if WAR got this right or not, but actual game system complexity is really minor for a PvP (not just MMOs) game's stickiness. Pulling in fresh blood is more important than clinging on to a hardcore niche population in any case, it will keep even the hardcores interested longer than just ganking the same old people over and over would.

Think about this.  Complexity adds to depth and strategy elements.  It's the difference between having 2 abilities and having 20.  If there is no subtle strategy in deciding which buttons to push at which time, then the game devolves to who pushes all their buttons first.  WAR isn't as simple as all that, but it's certainly not as deep as it could be.  Timing abilities, the use of counters, positioning on the battlefield, use of the landscape, etc. all add to depth of gameplay. 

[Tarami]

Think about this.  Complexity adds to depth and strategy elements.  It's the difference between having 2 abilities and having 20.  If there is no subtle strategy in deciding which buttons to push at which time, then the game devolves to who pushes all their buttons first.  WAR isn't as simple as all that, but it's certainly not as deep as it could be.  Timing abilities, the use of counters, positioning on the battlefield, use of the landscape, etc. all add to depth of gameplay. 

I don't disagree, certainly not, that clever systems earn a game alot of depth, but I don't think complexity is needed for PvP to be fun/satisfying. Rather I feel that complexity should be avoided in PvP as much as possible since it makes it harder to balance and appears daunting to new players. It needs to make sense from the get go and for natural reasons, not because some designer thought it was cool to add +1% damage for every feet of elevation you got. PvP in MMOs is full of that kind of thinking - that the mechanics need to be learned first and then you get to learn to use them. It's part of the diku heritage where tabular data is king and theory is more important than practice.

To keep it short, I don't think we've really seen the essence of WAR PvP yet and that the depth might be looked for in the wrong areas. Perceived simplicity, I think, in an MMO is a good thing. Few thought Quake had much depth... until people realised just how much there was to gain from learning a particularly tricky jump.

Edit:
Grammar are hard.

[Nebu]

I think I agree with you and am just arguing with myself.  You're right in that fun should be primary and that complexity shouldn't get in the way of fun.  I think the problem I have is one more of a niche nature.  I like complexity and find fun in having to make on-the-spot decisions often during gameplay.  Any game that forces me to make tough choices quickly during pvp is more fun to me.  A personal thing on my part. 

[Righ]

You will have tough choices. You'll have to decide whether you want to kill another sorceress for the "OMG you just killed 100 sorceresses" achievement, or whether you want to be sensible and take out the healer first.

[Daztur]

Think about this.  Complexity adds to depth and strategy elements.  It's the difference between having 2 abilities and having 20.

Common result of having two abilities: players choose which of the two abilities to use depending on the situation.
Common result of having 20 abilities: players figure out which is the best and spam is over and over and over.

The more complexity you put into a system the more of a chance there will be one choice that is far better than the rest. Simple PvP games usually have more complicated strategy than complicated ones (Chess, Diplomacy, etc.).

[Nebu]

So, you're suggesting that Checkers is more complex than chess?

I get your fundamental point, but I don't think it quite works in this case.  WAR with nothing but auto-attack wouldn't attract much attention. 

[FatuousTwat]

Perhaps he means convoluted?

[Tarami]

So, you're suggesting that Checkers is more complex than chess?

I get your fundamental point, but I don't think it quite works in this case.  WAR with nothing but auto-attack wouldn't attract much attention. 

Go is more complex than chess?

[Nebu]

Go, while very simple in its ruleset is a deeply complex game.  You've made my point for me.    Again, compare checkers to Go.  Similar length of the rules, VERY DIFFERENT game complexity.  It's all in the construction of the mechanics.  The number of options available to the player every move is what makes Chess and Go such tactically rich gaming experiences.   Each move in chess (or Go), there are significantly different options and resulting outcomes. 

[rk47]

So what's the solution? Do you want something like the slotted powerup ala City of Heroes? Where people can choose longer stun duration, less recharge etc? I think it's one avenue they can add in. It may not change the power radically but facing someone who is just a master of snares (longer snare duration, fastest recharge) vs a damage crit freak (higher crit + damage) are totally different experience.

[tazelbain]

I see it as a problem of interface.  Complex mechanics aren't a problem if you can adequately display what is going on in the heat of battle.  Otherwise it feels arbitrary.  The great of advantage of hp is that it is easily groked in a health bar.

[Nebu]

I see it as a problem of interface.  Complex mechanics aren't a problem if you can adequately display what is going on in the heat of battle.  Otherwise it feels arbitrary.  The great of advantage of hp is that it is easily groked in a health bar.

The interface certainly doesn't help. 

If I'm going to be totally objective here, I should confess that I've not played the game past level 35.  I think that my opinions should honestly be held until I've had a chance to play the endgame for an extended period.  In all of the time I've spent playing this game it has always felt like something was missing.  It has much more of a WoW-like pvp feel to me than it does the strategic elements of DAoC.  Perhaps this will change as people overanalyze builds, powersets, buffs/debuffs, etc.  In other words, I'm just giving my gut impressions after months of gameplay.  It's probably best that I give this game a chance and just hold my reaction until the endgame has been reached and allowed to evolve a bit both in the playerbase and through patches.

[rk47]

Yeah my impression has been: 'Don't believe the hype, but it's pretty fun back in beta', so I'm picking a box up tomorrow right during lunch hour and start right away. I'll see what happens then. Maybe I'll see you guys tomorrow.

[Draegan]

I see it as a problem of interface.  Complex mechanics aren't a problem if you can adequately display what is going on in the heat of battle.  Otherwise it feels arbitrary.  The great of advantage of hp is that it is easily groked in a health bar.

The interface certainly doesn't help. 

If I'm going to be totally objective here, I should confess that I've not played the game past level 35.  I think that my opinions should honestly be held until I've had a chance to play the endgame for an extended period.  In all of the time I've spent playing this game it has always felt like something was missing.  It has much more of a WoW-like pvp feel to me than it does the strategic elements of DAoC.  Perhaps this will change as people overanalyze builds, powersets, buffs/debuffs, etc.  In other words, I'm just giving my gut impressions after months of gameplay.  It's probably best that I give this game a chance and just hold my reaction until the endgame has been reached and allowed to evolve a bit both in the playerbase and through patches.

Well the endgame is still under NDA for us elder server folks.  But I can at least tell you it's not more of the same.

[Tarami]

Go, while very simple in its ruleset is a deeply complex game.  You've made my point for me.    Again, compare checkers to Go.  Similar length of the rules, VERY DIFFERENT game complexity.  It's all in the construction of the mechanics.  The number of options available to the player every move is what makes Chess and Go such tactically rich gaming experiences.   Each move in chess (or Go), there are significantly different options and resulting outcomes. 

I was actually agreeing, albeit with a snarky remark.

Actually boardgames in general are very good (and transparent) indicators of what are good mechanics and what are not. Good (modern) boardgames, like Settlers of Catan, or my favourite El Grande, have very few moving parts (systems) but each system interlocks in a way that makes the planning tought because you can't say what is objectively best at a given time. Ancient Go (and it's pronounced "goh", not "go" as in movement ;) is such an example - your move depends entirely on your opponent's move.

Just for the sake of theorycrafting, I think MMO PvP had better odds at being widely appealing if it was, like boardgames, more transparent. Less hidden factors (cooldowns, crazy ass skills, item usables) and more direct information to consider. Make it about making the right decision quickly - not about guessing what items they wear or what cooldowns are up. But that is just a theory. Although, even Magic the Gathering seems transparent when compared to your average diku PvP.

[Johny Cee]

Go, while very simple in its ruleset is a deeply complex game.  You've made my point for me.    Again, compare checkers to Go.  Similar length of the rules, VERY DIFFERENT game complexity.  It's all in the construction of the mechanics.  The number of options available to the player every move is what makes Chess and Go such tactically rich gaming experiences.   Each move in chess (or Go), there are significantly different options and resulting outcomes. 

I was actually agreeing, albeit with a snarky remark.

Actually boardgames in general are very good (and transparent) indicators of what are good mechanics and what are not. Good (modern) boardgames, like Settlers of Catan, or my favourite El Grande, have very few moving parts (systems) but each system interlocks in a way that makes the planning tought because you can't say what is objectively best at a given time. Ancient Go (and it's pronounced "goh", not "go" as in movement ;) is such an example - your move depends entirely on your opponent's move.

Just for the sake of theorycrafting, I think MMO PvP had better odds at being widely appealing if it was, like boardgames, more transparent. Less hidden factors (cooldowns, crazy ass skills, item usables) and more direct information to consider. Make it about making the right decision quickly - not about guessing what items they wear or what cooldowns are up. But that is just a theory. Although, even Magic the Gathering seems transparent when compared to your average diku PvP.

MtG is transparent, at least to high knowledge players.  Formats I'm familiar with,  I know what cards a guy is playing based solely on what their manabase and first or second turn plays are.  MtG also supports low knowledge skill strategies, though in allowing aggro decks to "play a dude,  turn your guys sideways".


Any time you need to "make the right decision quickly"  by and large gameplay devolves into spamming the most universally powerful ability.  (see "Spam doublefrost for the win!!!")

[Tarami]

Go, while very simple in its ruleset is a deeply complex game.  You've made my point for me.    Again, compare checkers to Go.  Similar length of the rules, VERY DIFFERENT game complexity.  It's all in the construction of the mechanics.  The number of options available to the player every move is what makes Chess and Go such tactically rich gaming experiences.   Each move in chess (or Go), there are significantly different options and resulting outcomes. 

I was actually agreeing, albeit with a snarky remark.

Actually boardgames in general are very good (and transparent) indicators of what are good mechanics and what are not. Good (modern) boardgames, like Settlers of Catan, or my favourite El Grande, have very few moving parts (systems) but each system interlocks in a way that makes the planning tought because you can't say what is objectively best at a given time. Ancient Go (and it's pronounced "goh", not "go" as in movement ;) is such an example - your move depends entirely on your opponent's move.

Just for the sake of theorycrafting, I think MMO PvP had better odds at being widely appealing if it was, like boardgames, more transparent. Less hidden factors (cooldowns, crazy ass skills, item usables) and more direct information to consider. Make it about making the right decision quickly - not about guessing what items they wear or what cooldowns are up. But that is just a theory. Although, even Magic the Gathering seems transparent when compared to your average diku PvP.

MtG is transparent, at least to high knowledge players.  Formats I'm familiar with,  I know what cards a guy is playing based solely on what their manabase and first or second turn plays are.  MtG also supports low knowledge skill strategies, though in allowing aggro decks to "play a dude,  turn your guys sideways".


Any time you need to "make the right decision quickly"  by and large gameplay devolves into spamming the most universally powerful ability.  (see "Spam doublefrost for the win!!!")

So sawing a lady in two is a transparent trick. Well, to stage magicians it is? Transparency isn't what you think - it's perfect information, not "most likely, 99% sure, honest". That's experience you're thinking of - knowing best practices, patterns, popular builds and so on. It's actually a near-polar opposite of transparency and applicible to any game with hidden aspects. If you took 60 random cards and shuffled, you wouldn't have a clue what your opponent had on hand, so no, Magic is not very transparent.

As such, transparency disarms the method you described, because since it's out there - in the open - you'd need to be real stupid to fall for the cheapest methods of winning.

[idiot grin]

Any time you need to "make the right decision quickly"  by and large gameplay devolves into spamming the most universally powerful ability.  (see "Spam doublefrost for the win!!!")

I think this is because, by and large, games are poorly designed.  Universally powerful ability = poor game design.  I don't think it's because creating a complex pvp game, a game with many different possible actions, somehow leads inevitably to shallow gameplay.  You can't usefully "queen spam" in chess.   

Virtua Fighter is a good example of a very complex pvp video game series that (usually) hasn't devolved into spamming a few key abilities.  And really, even playing as an elbow-spam Jackie in VF4 is pretty much the opposite of shallow gameplay:  you still need to be constantly aware of and ready to deal with your opponent's (many, many) options in any given situation to be even decent.

[Ingmar]

Go, while very simple in its ruleset is a deeply complex game.  You've made my point for me.    Again, compare checkers to Go.  Similar length of the rules, VERY DIFFERENT game complexity.  It's all in the construction of the mechanics.  The number of options available to the player every move is what makes Chess and Go such tactically rich gaming experiences.   Each move in chess (or Go), there are significantly different options and resulting outcomes. 

I was actually agreeing, albeit with a snarky remark.

Actually boardgames in general are very good (and transparent) indicators of what are good mechanics and what are not. Good (modern) boardgames, like Settlers of Catan, or my favourite El Grande, have very few moving parts (systems) but each system interlocks in a way that makes the planning tought because you can't say what is objectively best at a given time. Ancient Go (and it's pronounced "goh", not "go" as in movement ;) is such an example - your move depends entirely on your opponent's move.

Just for the sake of theorycrafting, I think MMO PvP had better odds at being widely appealing if it was, like boardgames, more transparent. Less hidden factors (cooldowns, crazy ass skills, item usables) and more direct information to consider. Make it about making the right decision quickly - not about guessing what items they wear or what cooldowns are up. But that is just a theory. Although, even Magic the Gathering seems transparent when compared to your average diku PvP.

MtG is transparent, at least to high knowledge players.  Formats I'm familiar with,  I know what cards a guy is playing based solely on what their manabase and first or second turn plays are.  MtG also supports low knowledge skill strategies, though in allowing aggro decks to "play a dude,  turn your guys sideways".


Any time you need to "make the right decision quickly"  by and large gameplay devolves into spamming the most universally powerful ability.  (see "Spam doublefrost for the win!!!")

I think you're not talking about the same thing here. It is not obvious to a player who plays one or two or even five games of MtG what makes an efficient card, how to build decks, what a mana curve is, etc. If MtG was mechanically transparent, you'd have a good idea about how to go about being competitive after just a few games, like people are with Settlers or Puerto Rico.

[idiot grin]

clever systems earn a game alot of depth, but I don't think complexity is needed for PvP to be fun/satisfying. Rather I feel that complexity should be avoided in PvP as much as possible since it makes it harder to balance and appears daunting to new players. It needs to make sense from the get go and for natural reasons

I very much agree with some of this, but I do think complexity is necessary for good pvp in the absence of twitch--  I'd also say twitch is another kind of complexity.  The thing is, avoiding complexity as much as possible...  chess does that.  Go does that.  What do they say about great games...  day to learn, lifetime to master?

I guess what I'm saying is, I'd rather game developers were aiming for chess than for checkers.  Not that any of them are particularly worried about what I think, obviously.

 




  

[mutantmagnet]

Just to complete this thread and get it back on topic:

Paul Barnett's bet.


3 millions subs at WAR's peak.

1 million subs within 12 months.

 

[Zira]

Just to complete this thread and get it back on topic:

Paul Barnett's bet.


3 millions subs at WAR's peak.

1 million subs within 12 months.

 

Interesting interview... nevertheless... he is being rather brave saying it publicly.

[schild]

He needs to talk less.

[Abelian75]

Are they even launching in asia?  Cuz I mean... those are high numbers.

[Hawkbit]

Oddly, I expected peak within the first 12 months.  Not sure if his numbers are going to hold. 

I *hope* they do, because I really want to see the game take off.  But...

[mutantmagnet]

Are they even launching in asia?  Cuz I mean... those are high numbers.

Yes they are. That's why some of us are projecting so high.

[Abelian75]

Yes they are. That's why some of us are projecting so high.

Oops, I am silly and uninformed.