f13.net

Grab Bag #21

Q: Are there any plans for abilities (either core or purchased) to impact non-combat game play? Abilities such as: (non-combat) travel enhancements, group assembly abilities, downtime reduction abilities, and other beneficial abilities to make the out-of-combat experience more fun?

A: We've absolutely discussed and looked at non-combat abilities, but combat-based abilities are a notably higher priority. We'd certainly like to flesh out ability lists with non-combat / utility / "flavor" items, but in a world at war, keeping the player alive and taking down some other poor sod have to be our primary focuses for now.

Q: 20+ abilities per career is a little low for a game of this size, but as long as there are 20+ different abilities, I guess I would be happy. I hope there's no fire1, fire2, fire3 type thing going on here…If the number is in fact 20 (not saying it is), that's only 5 base/core ability's and 15 ability's gained from spec? Or from spec, morale, and tactics combined?

A: Players will NOT be purchasing the same ability over and over and only getting rank 1, 2 and 3 versions of it. Each career will end up with around ~20 guaranteed unique actions between core and base abilities. After that, they can purchase additional supplemental abilities which will increase the player’s total number of abilities by about 10-25%, depending on how you choose to spend your mastery points. Overall we expect most players to have somewhere in the mid to high 20’s of action activates (this does not include Morale).


Q: Going by DAoC's specing rules (and it seems that this is the way you guys are describing it) the more we spec in X line, the base spells of X line get better. If X line has a CC spell, by increasing the spec of X, will it make the duration of the CC last longer like it does in DAoC?

A: When you increase your mastery, you'll “generally” see values increase, not time factors. In other words, the amount of hit points returned by a heal-over-time would increase, but the duration would likely remain the same. For effects like CC, it's not likely that you'll see direct increases to the time, but other aspects may increase (for example, a melee attack which stuns would keep the same stun duration, but the damage from the melee hit would keep on increasing). This is not to say we won’t consider increasing duration values, but we are starting with other aspects of the abilities first.

Q: I can understand how hard it would be to create several hundred skills and make them at least semi-original, but is there any fear of funneling people into taking those "cookie cutter" tree specs?

A: Well, here's the thing: we're fully aware that someone, somewhere, will sit down and write up a multi-page dissertation with graphs and numbers to "prove" that one specific mastery layout is "the best", and word-of-mouth will result in lots of people using that layout (for a few weeks, anyway, until the process repeats again). It's simply human nature, and that's fine. The Careers and Combat team's goal, however, is to ensure that every mastery layout is viable and functional, and suited to someone's play style. Trying to fight against the players who are going to actively go looking for "cookie cutter" layouts is fruitless (and as vocal as they may be on forums, they're honestly the minority). Instead, we're simply making sure that every decision is usable, even if it’s not optimal. We’ll constantly be adjusting each of the lines from Beta until the game shuts down in 3011. Also, depending on the type of situation and the current stage of balance, different builds will be considered “cookie cutter” for min/max players. There is very little we can do about that; it’s the inherit flaw in having specialization systems in general, and the primary reason we allow for respec.

Q: Will there be a situation where a gained Mastery ability is clearly superior to a baseline ability, be it through more damage or the same damage with added effects, or same damage with less energy, and so forth. Basically will (certain) mastery abilities replace the existing baseline abilities, or are they intended to be supplementary abilities?

A: The supplemental abilities are exactly that, they supplement the core and base ability set, and are not meant as replacements for those abilities. If they were simply replacements, then they'd essentially be "Smash Rank 2", and that's no fun. =) The supplemental abilities from any given mastery will generally be things that help focus the career more towards the theme of that mastery, provide new tools relating to that mastery, or open up more options for the player. One thing to note is that you might get, say, a heal or a nuke that is a lot better then your base one. However, it may have a longer cool down timer, or require the target to be below 50% health, etc., so it doesn’t just replace your defaults.

Q: Will there be any ways to get mastery points besides leveling up? Maybe add in a few quests throughout the world that let you get extra mastery points or for some other achievements, as well?

A: For now, you'll only gain them via increasing your rank. More than likely, you’ll never get additional mastery points outside of leveling. RvR and Tome rewards have their own ways of increasing player power beyond masteries.

Q: Will there be gear with + to masteries? Will masteries be able to go over level (or whatever they are capped at if it's not equal to level), with appropriate scaling in the power of skills?

A: The system has been designed to allow for flat bonuses to mastery level or bonuses to individual ability levels via items and item set bonuses. How far we take this has yet to be determined.

Q: Will players be able to access individual skills that must usually be purchased within masteries without investing points in that skill, such as through the use of items that have a + to that skill (similar to Diablo)?

A: No. If we hypothetically grant that you'd be able to increase your mastery level without investing points, you wouldn't gain access to supplemental abilities which would otherwise still be locked.

Q: Will all masteries for all classes be meaningful choices, or will there be some classes where the choices between masteries are along the lines of "sword, axe, or hammer", with just marginally different style effects?

A: The masteries all focus around the question of, "how do you want to play this character?", and are meaningful and impactful decisions. The difference between using a sword, axe, or hammer is fairly cosmetic. An example in terms of masteries might be closer to "defensive abilities with a one-handed axe and a shield, versus offensive abilities with a great sword, versus positional attacks and debuffs with hammers".

Q: Do individual skills within each mastery have multiple tiers as well? For example, if under "fire mastery" you have a supplementary skill called "fireball", could you put multiple points in this skill to make it more powerful, or do you just put a maximum of one point into any given skill, and then boost its power through raising the mastery?

A: The latter. You only need a single point to unlock an ability, and then it scales along with your rank and mastery.

Q: Will masteries contain anything besides actions, tactics, and morale? For example, any background/passive boost effects?

A: The supplemental abilities are currently a mix of actions, tactics, and morale. Remember tactics really are the major passive boosts in the game; you have the flexibility to adjust them on the fly instead of having to go respec your character to change them.

To me, it's all about whether there's a CC class. CC class = constituency for more CC = game goes down the shitter. More open-world RvR is a good sign.

If they implement a system of RvR similar to Daoc before ToA hit i'll be all over it.

I much prefer the battleground system they had vs instancing.  I much prefer the persistent goal based pvp they had with the battlegrounds, compared to the instanced stuff i did in WoW.  I'm also hoping they do something similar to Darkness falls where territory control in the open world is used to determine access.

Yes, because encouraging more people to join the already-dominant team is surely the way forward.  :roll:

We had some advancement in MMO-PVP since DAoC.

I know making RvR with strategic depth is hard, but can we at least get past mindlessly beating on doors? Please EAM, that one little favor for me.

I can only really think of EVE? Which isn't that relevant.

I have trouble thinking of Shadowbane as advancement.

Of course since the beta is filed Mythic Employees and fans of DAoC, "control point tag is boring" gets translated to "keeps please."

I think Mythic's biggest problem here is that they seem to be going with a "fixed homeland" system, whereby you're fighting over the border regions and all, but your Home Base is yours, period.  If you can't displace your enemy -- to where they end up in the hills as partisans, for instance -- what's the point?

The second big problem is hard-coding the teams, rather than letting people form their own alliances, betrayals, and intrigue as they see fit.

An 'alternate ruleset' server that fixed these problems, a-la AC Darktide, would probably eclipse the main servers in popularity.  Mordred and Andred had some potential to do that for the original DAoC, before they succumbed under the weight of the game's colossally, fundamentally fucked game design.

I think Mythic's biggest problem here is that they seem to be going with a "fixed homeland" system, whereby you're fighting over the border regions and all, but your Home Base is yours, period.  If you can't displace your enemy -- to where they end up in the hills as partisans, for instance -- what's the point?

The second big problem is hard-coding the teams, rather than letting people form their own alliances, betrayals, and intrigue as they see fit.

An 'alternate ruleset' server that fixed these problems, a-la AC Darktide, would probably eclipse the main servers in popularity.  Mordred and Andred had some potential to do that for the original DAoC, before they succumbed under the weight of the game's colossally, fundamentally fucked game design.

EVE has it right in so many ways.  Too bad the core gameplay dynamics suck (IMHO).

Haha. WUA and Hoax got used as yardsticks for Hyu. Poor bastards.  :ye_gods:

 :crying_panda:

I blame sandy vagina syndrome from the RMT thread considering the source.

Mordred and Andred sucked because premade groups constantly ran through and killed people who were respawning at the bind stone in town. Groups tore through the towns because that's where they knew the players were most easily found. People got tired of that and quit, so the server populations tanked.

When designing an FFA PVP environment you always need to provide some safe havens for people, and provide them with enough resources to continue the war.  Modred/Andred failed to do this, AC Darktide, and Shadowbane failed to do this.  As a result all three of those environments tanked.

Not to disagree, but I believe Darktide's population rose steadily in the first couple of years.  I'd guess the lack of safe havens there was somewhat offset by the large game world and a portal transportation system that made some areas more easily defended.

Darktide was pretty popular during the first year and a half, but it ultimately died off as a handful of powerful groups dominated all the good areas.  Newbies who came to Darktide in later days were driven off the server due to the lifestone camping. Andred and Mordred were popular too at first, but died out within the first year.

Darktide was pretty popular during the first year and a half, but it ultimately died off as a handful of powerful groups dominated all the good areas....

They haven't restarted beta right?

they did I thought.

Gah, and still no F13 guild or personal invite!  :sad_panda:

I can research this. I think. I don't know how far they are into guild invites or even if they've gone back into them fully.

I can research this. I think. I don't know how far they are into guild invites or even if they've gone back into them fully.

SECRET DOUBLE EDIT:  6)  I don't know why people are celebrating the minimizing of CC.  Without CC, every encounter with a larger force is probably a loss.  CC gives any PvP game an additional tactical dimension.  I'd rather occassionally go "baa" for 15 seconds than to know my side is doomed every time the opposing zerg is larger. 

SECRET DOUBLE EDIT:  6)  I don't know why people are celebrating the minimizing of CC.  Without CC, every encounter with a larger force is probably a loss.  CC gives any PvP game an additional tactical dimension.  I'd rather occassionally go "baa" for 15 seconds than to know my side is doomed every time the opposing zerg is larger. 

Using chokepoints and meat shields for cc >> magic ranged instant mezz.

imo.

It is really gutsy, when you think about it, to have twenty-four separate classes.  Now, it may be that within each side and as-compared to the other side- all tank classes are exactly the same, all ranged DPS the same, with just different racial skins.  They don't seem to want to do this.   

If you have too much variation between classes, you end up with these two dreaded things:

- Required roles for groups that can't also be fun soloable.
- Classes ignored as devs chase classes most played.

Even games that had a dozen+ classes weren't sufficiently diverse enough to justify that. How many abilities exist in MMOs at present? I listed the main ones above. If there's others beyond foozle stuff like Shaman Far Sight or crafting crap, then I'm all ears :-) Seriously, I think the idea that more classes is both better and, well, even achievable at all (budget, time, dev period and live) is still arguable.

And how many players did they end up appealing to in that end?

If we're talking about another generic fantasy title for gamers, I completely agree with you. But if you're trying to hit it big by grabbing a big (Relatively-speaking) IP with a big budget for lots of players, having a confusing array of classes at launch is bad enough. Then expecting them to stick around for four years, numerous expansions and team changes, and for the sole purpose of an endgame that hasn't yet proven to have the mass appeal you were trying to hit with that big IP and budget, is, well, optomistic.

The challenge I have is when all this is factored against an endgame. I long for a day when a PvP game comes out that lets you gain XP from PvP (maybe WAR does?). If someone could PvP all the time, in a game about PvP, then more dabbling, chasing FoTM, the constant ebb and flow of usable abilities, all of that adds the meta to the deathmatch or CTF or whatever form the PvP takes. But right now it's mostly grind2crush, which adds that unfortunate dimensions of wanting more choice without confusing people.

The challenge I have is when all this is factored against an endgame. I long for a day when a PvP game comes out that lets you gain XP from PvP (maybe WAR does?). If someone could PvP all the time, in a game about PvP, then more dabbling, chasing FoTM, the constant ebb and flow of usable abilities, all of that adds the meta to the deathmatch or CTF or whatever form the PvP takes. But right now it's mostly grind2crush, which adds that unfortunate dimensions of wanting more choice without confusing people.

WAR claim to have fixed the rvr from day 1 thing, at a cost of enemies prancing about your pve zone, and out-of-character magic lines which tell you where to fight. We'll see I guess.

I might be wrong - but I didn't think they'd decided for certain what they were going to do with alternate rulesets.

Good clarifications on WAR. How much does level itself matter in combat. Is that removed altogether or do they bracket RvR into level-range maps ala WoW BGs?

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/articles/showentry.php?e=32

That seems pretty definite. 

And how many players did they end up appealing to in that end?

If we're talking about another generic fantasy title for gamers, I completely agree with you. But if you're trying to hit it big by grabbing a big (Relatively-speaking) IP with a big budget for lots of players, having a confusing array of classes at launch is bad enough. Then expecting them to stick around for four years, numerous expansions and team changes, and for the sole purpose of an endgame that hasn't yet proven to have the mass appeal you were trying to hit with that big IP and budget, is, well, optomistic.

I'm a huge fan of experimentation. But more-classes is not the way I'd personally go. I'd rather start with a core and expand outward than start outward and hope to fill it.

Just me though. Sorry for belaboring the point. :-)

Q: Will the game require a monthly fee to play WAR?

A: Yes, and EA Mythic's President Mark Jacobs has stated that the subscription fee will quite possibly be more than the standard $14.99 that most MMOG's charge.

Did we know this already? (http://warhammer.tentonhammer.com/index.php?module=ContentExpress&func=display&ceid=210)

 :uhrr:

Q) I have read that you are going to avoid instances where possible (except for the big boss battles in PVE) but I was wondering if the "dungeons" are going to be instanced?

A) There is minimal instancing in dungeons. Dungeon instancing is generally restricted to final boss encounters.

Tri: I don't think that precludes faction-restricted, non-instatized, PvE-only dungeons.

Not surprising.  $14.99 has been the standard for what, nearly 5 years now? With the inflation and all that other wonderful economic stuff it's probably time for an across the board price hike, it's just a question of who'll do it first and how much.

Valid point, but I expect the competition is what's kept them from increasing before now.  It'll take one game saying they're going to do it, doing it and then being successful at it, and then the rest will follow suit.

I don't think they'll raise above $20 at any time in the next decade, however. As you say, the competition is getting worse and more and more microtrans/ free games are showing up at the same quality level as your traditional MMO; and with more content updates than most.  (Dofus, for example, has had 2-3 I remember getting e-mails for in just the last year.)  It's not just "a post WoW world" of polish and content the big houses have to compete against, it's the smaller ones that are producing the same polish with only a little less depth.

Anyway, I am oppisite I hate ads.  If your game has ads it better be completely gratis like SB.

Tangential and maybe possibly indicative of stirrings in GW: The Warhammer and 40K RPGs are no more. Sudden announcement, literally days after the first 40K book came out and totally sold out. Black Industries is going back to making the 40K novels.

Oh yea, definitely file my opinion under "lesser of two evils". I'll gladly accept ads in something like The Agency (or TF2 or CoD4) or future sci-fi stuff (TR, AO) as it makes sense in the context of the virtual world. Keep you your ads out of my fantasy though.

I cant imagine they'd price it at 20/month.  I could see 16.99 or 17.99 maybe.  But not 20.  Of course I'm just guessing here, I doubt they even know yet.  I remember Mark Jacobs talking about how Bliz set the spending and quality bar really high and pointing out the price per month has been static for a long time now.  It's bound to go up eventually just like anything else.  I doubt they want to be the first to do it but who knows what the financial realities are. 

Trying to fight against the players who are going to actively go looking for "cookie cutter" layouts is fruitless (and as vocal as they may be on forums, they're honestly the minority). Instead, we're simply making sure that every decision is usable, even if it’s not optimal.

Well, who was the first to bump it up before? I believe DAoC raised the bar to 12.99 per month when everyone else was at 9.99, but my memory is cloudy on this one. WoW is chugging along at 15 as is Eve. EQ2 is 15, but then you've got add-on fees for more slots, web features, etc. which can raise it to 20+ per month. Then there's the All-Access Pass which is up to 30 per month. I would be willing to wager they could push the bar to 17.99 per month and get away with it when they release Warhammer Online. I don't know that they will, but it could be done with little to no complaining. That would also increase the range and allow for more "budget" MMOGs to sneak in at the 9.99 range.

Thing is like Draegan said people wouldnt care if it's better than the other stuff out there, but WoW is out there at 15.  So now if you raise it you're saying indirectly:  "We're worth more than WoW".  

That's really sticking yourself out there for criticism.  Still if it's a modest increase I dont think it will be a huge deal.

Be interesting to consider how WoW would have fared with a $20 monthly charge.  I have a hard time believing it would have turned off 25% of their subscribers. 

Besides, WoW actually was significantly better then everything on the market.  I would have a very hard time believing that WAR will be as large a step up from WoW as WoW was from EQ1.  You know?

Is that related to immersion? Would you be okay with a fantasy/archaic setting having ads if they were thematically appropriate - for instance having a town barker calling them?

I do.  I agree.  I think that no matter what WAR does, it will be a decidedly niche game.  I'm just not sure they are willing to accept that.  The saving grace is that WAR may satisfy a larger niche than we've seen in the mmog market before.  Hell, I never would have believed that WoW would have so many PvP servers.  So I should just watch and learn rather than making more bad predicitions. 

WAR will do alot better than anyone here thinks.  Half (or maybe slightly less, I dunno) of WoW's servers are pvp servers.

For people who don't know WoW PvP rules, outside of the newbie zones (generally up to level 20ish) EVERY zone is available for 70 on lvl 25 gankage.

I'll go one further given their RPG division announcement, rash of store closings and four straight years of tanking stocks: if WoW flops or is too niche GW will sell itself to the highest bidder or close within four years of launch.

At 15 bucks WAR has a 5-10% chance of being the next WoW.

I give myself 90-95% wiggle room!  Have you seen the WAR demo videos? There is massive intrest in Warhammer.

There is a HUGE market for realm pvp.  I will consider anything less than a million for WAR an epic fail.  Hell, there are over 560k beta apps alone. 

I just don't see how they are offering much that the WoW fanbase would be willing to leave for.  Beyond the WoW fanbase, here just aren't all that many new subscribers out there.  As optimistic as any analyst can be, I think that getting players in this MMO market means largely taking them from WoW.  

I think WAR will hit the 500k mark, but my optimism doesn't go much beyond that.  I just don't see how they are offering much that the WoW fanbase would be willing to leave for.  Beyond the WoW fanbase, here just aren't all that many new subscribers out there.  As optimistic as any analyst can be, I think that getting players in this MMO market means largely taking them from WoW. 

The question right now is, what counts as niche when one product outsells the rest by a factor of ten?

Warhammer Online December 2008 predictions

Angry.bob: 5 millions
Shapechanger: 3,5 millions
Datagod: 1,8 millions
Modern Angel: 1,5 millions
Darniaq: 1.5 millions
Trouble: 1,5 millions
Arthur Parker: 1 million
Falconeer: 1 million
Riggswolfe: 1 million
Evangolis: 930k
Simond: 750k
Sairon: 700k
Damijin: 650k
Soln: 500k
Comstar: 450k
Eldaec: 350k
Waylander: 350k
HaemishM: 350k
WindUpAtheist: 325k
HRose: 300k
Strazos: 236k
Unsub: 190k
Lantyssa: 175k
Stray: 150k
Xuri: 150k
Cheddar: 45k

  Anyway, my point is there is euthisactic fanbase for WAR and they "could" hit the ball out of park.

Fair enough, though at 500k it would be the second most successful full price MMOG ever in the western markets, and a 100% increase on Mythic's last product, with a publisher who has seen nothing but epic fail in the genre, and with a European partner..... who can be most charitably refered to as 'not having the greatest track record'.

I just have a hard time seeing that as niche or underwhelming performance.


To coin a phrase, it would pretty much be a triumph. I'd be writing a note here, big success.

560k beta apps = "Hey, it's free in beta. Why not sign up?" There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that they'll have a million subs.

And a bunch of excited RTS fanbois != 10 million subscribers, either.  But both are good starting points.  At least Warhammer fans are gamers of a sort, which is better than SWG can say.  And SWG still did awesome on it intial box sales.  Anyway, my point is there is euthisactic fanbase for WAR and they "could" hit the ball out of park.   Which is different than AoC, DDO, LotRO, TR, and VG; they have/had no chance because their fanbase is either to small or mostly non-gamers.  DDO is special case, I think their fanbase was fantigued.

Also, there's still a ton of +pvp servers in WoW because all of the hardcore pve folks went there, for some reason I don't know. 

[...] Risen is hardcore in a way that makes old school FoH look like casuals.

GW doesn't need video game money to stay afloat. They're half way through a cost reduction program that is costing them £4million a year but will save them a lot more down the road and they have a new CEO which is why their stock is low.

New CEOs don't traditionally depress share prices, and nobody ever cost reduced their way to reversing a 30% drop in sales over 3 years.

GW won't be saved or doomed by WAR (and their projections don't appear to count on any contribution from WAR), but it's going to have to think of something.

Is that related to immersion? Would you be okay with a fantasy/archaic setting having ads if they were thematically appropriate - for instance having a town barker calling them?

There is a HUGE market for realm pvp.

PvP is still a niche and more likely a secondary concern for most players.

True but it also smacks of a sense of desperation. Their stock has tanked for nearly four years now with no end in sight. Closing up one guy and some freelancers under the misguided notion that all of the folks who played the pen and paper game are going to flock to Warhammer or 40K to drop 300 bucks an army is absolute lunacy. This is especially true given the corporate mantra of 'no advertising, good word of mouth'.

People always talk about WOW players like they are Warcraft fans.

Warcraft fans are RTS fans. My buddies who played War2 on Kali .. 11 years ago are still playing RTS games. They are playing Supreme Commander, DotA, and TA:Spring. They aren't playing WOW.

What? I don't think that's what they are thinking of or banking on. The company has adapted and changed tack many times over the last 30 years while most of their contemporaries have failed. I doubt that they make the changes expecting to carry all the customers from one from of product to another.

They're Blizzard fans. All the wonderful mouthbreathers from battle.net.

They're Blizzard fans. All the wonderful mouthbreathers from battle.net. Mostly (I imagine) Diablo/D2 vets.

Just to follow on from Darniaq - my belief about WoW's PvP is that a lot of players got through the PvE to the end-game and went "Now what?". And then they picked up PvP and liked it, but it wasn't what brought them to the game. PvP is still a niche and more likely a secondary concern for most players.

So, to recap, WoW pvp servers (half the game) flourished for a year before BGs in an atmosphere where 80% of the zones allowed for random 40-levels differential gankage.  DAoC didn't go this far (PvP only in the common frontier).  COH/V didn't go this far.  EQ1/2 didn't go this far.  Not counting Shadowbane, WoW is the most hardcore PvP gank MMO since UO, and millions play on the gank servers.  That's why I find this PvE propaganda about "all WoW pvpz is arena, lol WoW proves nothing about PvP" so laughable. 

Didn't WAR come out and say your character's gear never changes look depending what you've equiped and the only change is trophies that you can glue on any part of your body.  So end game guys all look the same except some little trinkets?

No.

Yes but the question still remains how much of that 'unrestrained ganking' actually took place. (plus how much of it happens now) And if the deployment of BGs and changes to world PvP weren't in fact caused by people finding out they don't enjoy getting ganked by people 30 levels above them, and Blizzard moving in to maintain their subscribers.

in simpler words: if PvP servers "flourished", why the drastic change to something that supposedly worked so well?

Check out the podcasts (http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/media/podcast/) and the development diaries (http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/behindTheScenes/developmentDiaries/index.php) for insights into the design choices that are being made for WAR.

The newsletter archives (http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/newsletterCentral/archives/) are also full of solid info about the game's direction.

Well, at least one person will play Warhammer Online for the RvR. Me. That is if they don't fuck up the rest of the game. RvR is what drew me to play DAoC. I would say that 500k subscriptions is doable, with a chunk of those coming from current and former DAoC subscribers, and the rest trickling in from other MMOGs. WoW players might come, but most will drift back to WoW simply because people don't handle change well.

[Er, what drastic change?

If what you are saying is true, why did people stick with the "world pvp" servers at all?  They could have all the arenas and BGs they wanted on a PvE server, in that respect the servers are no different.  

But, yet, somehow, people have stuck with servers where leveling their mains and alts means dozens or hundreds more deaths leveling up.

A bunch of excited mini painting dorks* <> 10 million subscribers.

*Let me show you my Tau. Let me show you them...

Er, what drastic change?  To get to all the BGs and Arenas, you had to level to top level.  That involved dozens or hundreds of instances of ganking or getting ganked.  If what you are saying is true, why did people stick with the "world pvp" servers at all?  They could have all the arenas and BGs they wanted on a PvE server, in that respect the servers are no different.  

But, yet, somehow, people have stuck with servers where leveling their mains and alts means dozens or hundreds more deaths leveling up.  

And I really don't get the free pass Warhammer is getting - I just don't see how a game which is going to cost more ever montth than WoW, failed it's beta and had to be redesigned, and now has "reskinned DAoC* as it's end game points towards success.

*A game that, lest we forget, had less subscribers at its peak than Verant-era Everquest and a worse PvE game to boot.

Word apparently leaked about the CE before the arrival of this month's newsletter:

http://www.spelbutiken.se/php-bin/produkt.php?produkt=pc1667

EDIT: According to online currency converters, 999 Swedish Kroner equals U.S. $157  :awesome_for_real:

Collector’s Edition content:
In-Game:
12 exclusive quest (two for each army)12 exclusive quest rewards (one for each quest)
12 exclusive character heads
Special player title
30 days of free game play
In-Box
Game on 2 DVD
Manual
Exclusive Mousepad
WAR Graphic Novel
Art Book/Atlas
Exclusive Warhammer Miniature
War is everywhere in Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning (WAR), the new MMORPG from the creators of Dark Age of Camelot. Based on Games Workshop's popular Warhammer fantasy war game, WAR features next generation Realm vs. Realm (RvR) game play that will immerse players in a world of perpetual conflict.

Upon entering WAR, players must determine their allegiance and join an Army. Those inclined towards the side of good may fight for the Armies of Order as an obstinate Dwarf, noble High Elf, or loyal human soldier of the Empire. Those inclined towards darker deeds may side with the sinister Armies of Destruction as a savage Greenskin (Orc or Goblin), corrupt Dark Elf, or marauding human worshipper of Chaos.

RvR combat takes place on three fronts where ancient foes wage an unending war – Dwarfs vs. Greenskins, High Elf vs. Dark Elf, and Empire vs. Chaos. Players begin the game fighting their ancestral enemy, but are free to journey to other fronts to help their allies in their ongoing struggles.

The ultimate goal in RvR combat is the sacking of an enemy's capital city. To do this, an army must invade and take control of the opposition's homeland. Deciding battles take place on objective-based battlefields and in instanced scenarios - point-balanced battles that make use of NPC mercenaries known as Dogs of War.

For the first time, WAR's RvR system integrates both Player vs. Player (PvP) combat and Player vs. Environment (PvE) quests on the same map. Every aspect of the game, including PvE missions, is geared towards the greater war in some important way. However, players are not required to participate in PvP combat, and may aid in the RvR war effort and enjoy the game in its entirety via PvE content.

Drawing from a quarter century of highly detailed source material, Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning will bring Games Workshop's fantasy world to life in a way that will allow players to create characters destined for great deeds and glory on the field of battle.
Based on Games Workshop's popular Warhammer fantasy world. Dominated by force of arms and magic, this world provides a rich setting for hundreds of thousands of players to experience the epic nature of war and the glory of battle.
Join one of six Armies and fight for the Armies of Order (Dwarf, High Elf and Empire) or the Armies of Destruction (Greenskin, Dark Elf, or Chaos). Wage war across three unique battlefronts.
Next generation Realm vs. Realm game system integrating both PvP combat and PvE quests on the same map in support of the greater war.
Engage in four levels of RvR combat:
Skirmishes: Incidental PvP combat
Battlefields: Objective-based battles in the game world
Scenarios: Instanced, point-based battles balanced with NPC Dogs of War
Campaigns: The invasion of enemy lands culminating in the assault on their capital city
Undertake a wide variety of PvE quest types related to an army's war efforts, including:
Public quests that benefit from the participation of the entire army
Conflict quests that pit players against an enemy with opposing goals
Branching quests that let you choose the outcome of the quest and your reward
Xmas quests that reward exploration with high value loot

A robust combat system introduces Player Tactics (earned powers you equip prior to battle) and Morale Skills (combat options that increase in power when the momentum of battle is in your favor).
Player models that change to reflect the relative power of a character (i.e., Orcs grow in size and Dwarfs' beards get longer). Customizable armor and a visual guild system allow a player to make their character truly unique.
Embark on an epic quest to complete the Tome of Knowledge and unlock Warhammer lore, detailed monster information, and major story plotlines.
Online play requires a subscription and Internet connection.

Engage in four levels of RvR combat:
Skirmishes: Incidental PvP combat
Battlefields: Objective-based battles in the game world
Scenarios: Instanced, point-based battles balanced with NPC Dogs of War
Campaigns: The invasion of enemy lands culminating in the assault on their capital city

Exclusive Mousepad

Hmm. Let's look at their PvP endgame:
So...Tarren Mill/STV ganking, Halaa/Silithis/etc world-pvp stuff, Alterac Valley et al, and invading Org/Stormwind/wherever. Yep, I can certainly see why that's worth a higher monthly fee than WoW.  :uhrr:

  If I was Mythic I'd be be running focus groups with hardcore carebears from WoW to figure out ways to entrice them to pvp early.

Dev Chat Log from Warcry (http://www.warcry.com/articles/view/devchat/2886-Warhammer-Online-Dev-Chat-Log)

Sorry if this is a repost.

<DelmarWynn> {Arenammo}leobassist: How important the PvE content will be to the PvP/RvR content, Will the best itens, money be in the PvE, or it will only be a EXTRA to the game experience?

<[WAR]Wheeler> The best gear is gained via RvR actions, but there is a variety of ways to gather items.
<[WAR]Gersh> High end PvE content will net you some sweet loot
<[WAR]Gersh> but we're also matching those rewards in RvR as well
<[WAR]Gersh> ultimately like Brian said the very best gear will come from Capitol City events which is primarily RvR but does have some PvE components as well
<[WAR]Josh> The question's a TAD misleading, as there will be really great, high-level stuff available from both PvE AND RvR combat. You won't be able to get all of the absolutely best stuff in the game without playing through both parts of the world. With that said, the ultimate, super-awesome items will come from City Siege and capture. Just remember that invading an enemy city opens up new PvE content as well, so it really is a synergy of the two

Anyone still think this is a pure PvP game?

So first you have to raid a city, then raid a dungeon?

I hope it's not instanced so we can compete against other people for those raid mobs.

^ Your talking about Monster play. PvM.

And that set up makes since, and sounds fun.

But they way you describe it is like its a shared horde and alliance raid, and its not.

My wife simply hates the pace involved in PvP (she's slow to decide on things).  There's no way to get her involved as she'll ALWAYS lose.  She has rough times taking on 2-3 mobs at once in PvE and that's 'simpler.'  She's more of a social/ co-op gamer than a killer and that's not going to change.  That's before you even get into the other stuff that turns off my GL.  The dick-waving,  the gimp of certain specs, the unpredictable nature of the opponent, the fact that as a healer he'd spend 60-70% of his time waiting on the ressurection timer.

Maybe its just me, but there seems to be a lot of free-floating hostility concerning WAR.  Yes, people criticize AoC, but there it seems like people don't THINK it will succeed because of various factors:  General Funcom suckitude, bad design decisions, etc.  With WAR, it seems like the haters don't WANT it to succeed.  If the younger ganker-bunker-mentality me were to comment, I'd almost say that the vast carebear conspiracy really wants WAR to fail so they can continue to say nobody likes PvP.

Bingo!  I'm the same.

I have trouble concentrating on things like my health or mana if I have to focus on hitting the button for the newly refreshed power which means I'm not paying much attention to changing battlefield conditions.  Basically the UI fades from my view.  I usually cannot process it all at once.

(Somehow that did not always apply when I played a Druid in WoW.  There were a few times all hell broke lose and we recovered through my rapid shifting yet I'd get confused on what was happening while fighting small, easy groups.  I still don't understand it.)

Maybe its just me, but there seems to be a lot of free-floating hostility concerning WAR.  Yes, people criticize AoC, but there it seems like people don't THINK it will succeed because of various factors:  General Funcom suckitude, bad design decisions, etc.  With WAR, it seems like the haters don't WANT it to succeed.  If the younger ganker-bunker-mentality me were to comment, I'd almost say that the vast carebear conspiracy really wants WAR to fail so they can continue to say nobody likes PvP.

five million subscribers are playing on PvP servers in WoW

Yeah, well, PvP servers on WoW still don't seem to focus on PvP objectives or PvP as acheiver endgame, so I can agree that they don't seem that relevant to WAR.

I'd be interested to hear from high level WoW pvp server people, just how much main-zone pvp do you ever really see?

Bingo!  I'm the same.

I have trouble concentrating on things like my health or mana if I have to focus on hitting the button for the newly refreshed power which means I'm not paying much attention to changing battlefield conditions.  Basically the UI fades from my view.  I usually cannot process it all at once.

(Somehow that did not always apply when I played a Druid in WoW.  There were a few times all hell broke lose and we recovered through my rapid shifting yet I'd get confused on what was happening while fighting small, easy groups.  I still don't understand it.)

I fought that fight a page ago.  Some people have it locked in their heads that "PvP" is whatever the UO ruleset was in December 1997.  If they hold to that standard, they can continue to say "EVERYONE HATES PVP" without any cognitive dissonance. 

I'd be interested to hear from high level WoW pvp server people, just how much main-zone pvp do you ever really see?

WAR has to convince all the old bitter DaoC people, that mythic has learned from its mistakes.


A lot of the released info has folks going "I've heard that before!  :mob: "


Which I suppose can be said for any MMO really, but DaoC had its own little niche of people feeling betrayed and disappointed.

A lot of the 'normal' zones in TBC have PvP objectives & quests for them. Essentially they don't work on most servers, though, because of population imbalances.
L70s riding around and ganking newbies is pretty much it.

A lot of the 'normal' zones in TBC have PvP objectives & quests for them. Essentially they don't work on most servers, though, because of population imbalances.

Ah, but that does indirectly go back to population imbalance. If you were Blizzard and wanted people to fight over the objectives all the time, what's the easiest fix?

A bigger carrot, right? Double or triple the strength of the buff, add extra rewards, etc, etc. Generally make it much more desirable for your side to hold on to the objectives, and fight to get them back when you lose them.

Trouble is that then punishes the underpopulated side even further - not only are they losing the world PvP anyway, but they're also not getting the rewards either. Therefore the objective rewards have to be perks at best...which then means there's no drive to take part in world pvp other than trading captures to finish dailies.

WAR has to convince all the old bitter DaoC people, that mythic has learned from its mistakes.

TOA was the only major fuckup DAOC had post-launch that really pissed people off.  There were balance issues throughout the game also, but when you have that many classes in a PVP focused game, that's always going to be the case. 

As far as the conversation about getting carebears into PVP goes, I think RVR in a lot of ways is actually pretty good at that, or at least it was for me

Personally I think this is mostly because pve focussed games with pvp added on have combat abilities designed for pve.

As the opposition in pve will never do anything clever, the game designs have compensated by making your comabt process more complicated and require quicker clicking.

In a pvp focussed game there is no reason you couldn't slow combat decision making down so it doesn't feel as though it is so much about who clicks first.


This would also allow you to get cleverer about combat ability design and make the game more about picking the right strategy for what you suspectthe other guy is about to do. (a good example of this is EVE, which has all sorts of other accessibility 'challenges', but combat is not about fastest finger first)


I don't think WAR is going to do anything like this - I make the point purely on an academic level.

Ah, but that does indirectly go back to population imbalance. If you were Blizzard and wanted people to fight over the objectives all the time, what's the easiest fix?

A bigger carrot, right? Double or triple the strength of the buff, add extra rewards, etc, etc. Generally make it much more desirable for your side to hold on to the objectives, and fight to get them back when you lose them.

Oh TOA wasn't the only thing, it was just the most egregious and didn't just cost a few people, but coming at a very bad time gutted populations. I'm not sure any game past release has ever shot themselves in the foot quite that badly.

TOA was the only major fuckup DAOC had post-launch that really pissed people off.

WAR has to convince all the old bitter DaoC people, that mythic has learned from its mistakes.


A lot of the released info has folks going "I've heard that before!  :mob: "


Which I suppose can be said for any MMO really, but DaoC had its own little niche of people feeling betrayed and disappointed.

I and most of the people I played DAoC with ended up leaving in disgust after finally getting sick and tired of all the BuffBots.

http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/gameInfo/gameFeatures/Scenarios101.php

examples of WAR PvP scenarios. Well not exactly anything new by the sound of it, but then maybe they found wheel to be round enough alreaedy.

I and most of the people I played DAoC with ended up leaving in disgust after finally getting sick and tired of all the BuffBots.

Your memory's fuzzy. TM/ SS didn't start-up until they added ranks. Or at least that's how it was on my server.  Even then TM/ SS just became 'the place to be' to grind out honor kills for rank because the zone was easily accessible to both sides. (One short flight from the major city on EK, where everyone was because that's where the 55-60 dungeons were.)

When you say Buffbot do you mean 1 real person playing two/three/four different chars at same time, multi-boxing. Or actually having a second char follow you about being your healer/buffer.

In RVR it usually meant have a second account with a cleric or whatever on it, having it buff your main character, and then leaving it at your realms border keep away from harm.

GW had the Ascalon Arena that was levels 1-10, but 6-7 really didn't have a chance and 1-5 were just paste with the way hp scaled.  So we'll see how it works out, I am hopeful. But if level 1s could go out to the teir 1 Scenerios and have fun in it, it would be a blow to Diku regime.

After a month, stop getting high before you play.

Not that I've tried that or anything.

I think this would be similar to saying Blizzard has to convince all the ex-EQ1 players that a new PvE MMORPG is worth their time.

Little birdie says that a new round of invites is going out now, check your spam boxes kids.

I got a notice that current beta testers should update their dxdiag, but I'm not actually in. Kind of mean.

I got a notice that current beta testers should update their dxdiag, but I'm not actually in. Kind of mean.

 :angryfist:

WAR is virtually DaoC 2, whether they (Mythic) like it or not. Hence the "I've heard that before!", since a lot of us HAVE heard all this very same shit before.

It was a truly corrosive situation and Mythics reaction for years was to cover their ears and hum.

I played the first months of DAOC, it was not unbalance.  There was simply no concept of balance.

The funny part about that is the idea of buffbots was brought up even in the early beta phases. There was a realization that some people would use characters solely for buffs, but most people thought buffbots wouldn't be used that extensively because the buffs weren't that overpowering. The buffs were helpful, yes, but not worth spending the money on an additional account. Woops?

Did you guys mostly PVP solo or something?  In 8v8 or zerg on zerg, buffbots weren't as big a factor.  I could see being pissed off as a stealther though since you needed a buffbot to be able to compete with other stealthers.

This mechanic worked against the stealthers because there was a fair bit of stealth warfare that happened on the frontiers in one-vs-one or small stealth group action. Buffbots ruined it for the stealthers who could not run two accounts. They affected other classes less, but the inclination to use them was still there. Mythic addressed buffbots by putting in distance requirements for most buff spells. So players just tagged their bots on autofollow to continue to use them. I think it became less prevalent once the distance limit was put in, but it did not end the use of them entirely. Overall, you were still better off running in a full group or two with guildmates who knew how to play their classes well.

MarkJacobs has forsaken us.

Our plan to get a megainvite by voting DAoC the 2nd best MMO ever (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=11643.0) clearly failed.  Or maybe he's pissed he didn't get 1st  :sad_panda:

Our plan to get a megainvite by voting DAoC the 2nd best MMO ever (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=11643.0) clearly failed.  Or maybe he's pissed he didn't get 1st  :sad_panda:

Just flame enough about Mythic and how they are copying WoW...

On a totally unrelated note, here's January's video of the month for WAR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8T9rAlsups

I can't remember is there some kind of collission detection or whatever?

Sorry to de-rail a bit here, but I signed up for the f13 guild beta invite thing when the thread was around a few months ago, but never heard anything about it since. Did it fall through when they put the beta on hold?

Thanks.

On a totally unrelated note, here's January's video of the month for WAR: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8T9rAlsups

this will beat the crap out of world of warcraft because its warhammer who doesnt like warhammer and warhammer 40000 they are both awesome games and books and WoW doesnt even have a good story line this will

I'll be there to try it out too but, again, it looks so STATIC. Every single video that's remotely related to combat just looks stiff and stationary to me.

Mythic never did figure out music. That God Damn 'fight' music in DaoC could drive you mad if you didn't shut it off.

Played DAoC for 5+ years.  The music got turned off on day 2. 

In other words, I agree.

I can still hear the ultra-annoying sound that spriggans made. Or another monster that used the spriggan art.

That's over 60% of the mobs in Hibernia  :awesome_for_real:

Played DAoC for 5+ years.  The music got turned off on day 2. 

In other words, I agree.

I'll be there to try it out too but, again, it looks so STATIC. Every single video that's remotely related to combat just looks stiff and stationary to me.

Oh man... Those fuckers were a pain. There was a dungeon (I think level 35+) that was full of them. Spent many hours with my headphones off in that one.

The camera is held still and all the characters run straight to their target then just sit there and beat on one another.  They rarely pan the camera, and not in any sweeping manner which might give one the impression of an epic battle.  Characters don't move once in combat, circle one another, or do anything interesting.  It is static, and it makes the game look very, very boring.

Also the battle music is better suited to showing scenes preparing for such, not for the battle itself.  Since they use it for the whole clip, one is left wondering when the fight is going to start even after it has.

Edit: special codes are hard

Did anybody actually listen to the disclaimer in the beginning of the video? This isn't even intended to show anything near a "real" RvR battle, it's rather a tech-preview.

Where's the hot chicks?

Where's the hot chicks?

Hush you.  You'll scare them away!

:hello_thar:

 :uhrr:

:hello_thar:

Did anybody actually listen to the disclaimer in the beginning of the video? This isn't even intended to show anything near a "real" RvR battle, it's rather a tech-preview.

Quote from the vid:

"It's about one minute of super-cool stuff from our game with people bashing each other. It's not video footage of an RvR fight because then they'd all be throwing spells and jumping around like lunatics.  What it is, is a minute's worth of Glory. "

Yup. It'd help if the last podcast wasn't full of injokes and stream-of-consciousness rambling about how the new systems are 'so cool'. Dood, I don't care what's in the CE box, I want to see the gameplay [which should be getting finalized at this point, yesssss?].


-- Z.

They don't want to show you too much of the gameplay, then you might realize it's the same MMORPG you've played time and again. So they focus on the BUT ITZ WARHAMMER NOW WAAAARGH! angle.

Of course you have a point. People looking for the same thing in a new package may very well be quite happy with Warhammer.

I heard it, I just didn't care. If combat is not ready then don't show it and say, "Oh, this isn't actually combat." YES IT IS. It's dudes hitting each other with swords and spells flying through the air. But it was creaky animations while people autoattacked in a perfectly stationary position.  It's combat, okay? And if you want to show something off then for fuck's sake do something better than... whatever that was supposed to be.

Taking it a step further, what does it say about their product?  Are they so desperate to show some sign of progress that they release media that's not ready for prime time?

Are they still pretending this isn't DAoC 2?

Are they still pretending this isn't DAoC 2?

Keeps:  Copy and fucking paste.  And still with the door bashing.

Also a bit underwhelmed by the Scenerios.

Scenarios were exactly as I expected, but I'm interested in what you were hoping for? In practice it looks very similar to other sport pvp concepts? Do any other sport pvp games layer anything else on your basic small arena with objective based gameplay?

I'm a bit underwhelmed by the keeps, I have no idea why they wouldn't implement towers (which would allow groups to support the zerg without actually running with it, and allow you to skip door bashing if it isn't your thing, and you also don't want to use a ranged weapon, heal, block reinforcements, scale the walls, or operate siege weaponry) - but they have instead stuck with the 'tag objectives' that seemed to fail in early beta, supply lines I would also miss, but the fundamental problems in WAR realm design make them irrelevant anyway.


EDIT: Siege pads, wtf? why? What was wrong with being able to put down catapults wherever the hell you want?

This isn't daoc2, seems more like daoc0.9 in RvR terms.

[...]

As a reward for participating in RvR, characters will receive one Renown point per Renown rank reached  . These Renown points can be used to purchase special character advancement rewards from your trainer. These rewards are primarily focused on improving your character’s RvR capabilities
[...]

Examples:
 Hard as Nails I – Increases your Toughness by 3, costs 1 Renown point 
 Hard as Nails V – Increases your Toughness by 42, costs 14 Renown points 

Good to see they've learned from the past, so that after awhile those that are playing aren't so overwhelmingly more powerful then those that are joining new that the new players can never catch up... :uhrr:

Apparently EA have changed their mind and are implementing stealth for certain classes after all.

I thought every class had stealth. It just wasn't turning your toon transparent.

That's AOC.

Apparently EA have changed their mind and are implementing stealth for certain classes after all.

Good to see they've learned from the past, so that after awhile those that are playing aren't so overwhelmingly more powerful then those that are joining new that the new players can never catch up... :uhrr:

Wait till the NDA is lifted.   

Q: Will there be a mechanic in place to prevent other players from 'stealing' our siege weapons?

A: When you deploy a siege weapon, you are automatically the one who controls it. If another player tries to take it over they'll get a big fat "no not yours" message until you relinquish control of the weapon.

omg, flashback (http://forums.f13.net/index.php?topic=8916.0)  :grin:

Anyway, from the latest newsletter:
Anybody spot the minor flaw in this that will get exploited within about five seconds?

If WAR has stealth, then I'll be playing a true stealth class... the kind that doesn't pay for a box or for the monthly fee.  Initiative is too hard to balance in games.  I really hope that they don't cave on this one.

From what i understand they couldn't think of another way to allow melee actually get within range to smack the casters before said caster would rape the melee three different ways with range, damage and knock backs advantage. Amusingly enough they're about to increase said knock backs further at the same time, though.

Nope.

stealth

Was a charge ability like in WoW too difficult to program?

Limitations on CC and dash/sprints for the melee classes seemed to work pretty well in Guild Wars as well.

Was a charge ability like in WoW too difficult to program?  :oh_i_see:

Given the source of this 'rumour' appears to be half an out of context sentence on a video blog from Paul "I-know-nothing-about-mechanics" Barnett, set against Mythic laying down 'no stealth' as a rule from the start, I have my doubts about this.

What's more, the class structure doesn't really have space for stealth classes anyhow.

You mean the charge ability WoW stole from DAoC?

You mean the charge ability Blizzard's Diablo 2 had even before then?

Charge

Charging is a special full-round action that allows you to move up to twice your speed and attack during the action.

Movement During a Charge

You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent.

You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.)

If you don’t have line of sight to the opponent at the start of your turn, you can’t charge that opponent.

You can’t take a 5-foot step in the same round as a charge.

If you are able to take only a standard action or a move action on your turn, you can still charge, but you are only allowed to move up to your speed (instead of up to double your speed). You can’t use this option unless you are restricted to taking only a standard action or move action on your turn.
Attacking on a Charge

After moving, you may make a single melee attack. You get a +2 bonus on the attack roll. and take a –2 penalty to your AC until the start of your next turn.

A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength check made to bull rush an opponent (see Bull Rush, above).

Even if you have extra attacks, such as from having a high enough base attack bonus or from using multiple weapons, you only get to make one attack during a charge.

Lances and Charge Attacks

A lance deals double damage if employed by a mounted character in a charge.

Weapons Readied against a Charge

Spears, tridents, and certain other piercing weapons deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character.

I hope it is DAOC v.2 - because that's what I want to play.

As long as there's no ToA expansion this time!

I hope it is DAOC v.2 - because that's what I want to play.

If they were to add stealth back in, it would not be an improvement.

I kind of agree, but only because of the whining it causes.

Stealth and wall climbing worked pretty well in sieges, and it doesn't seem hard to improve balance through short duration stealth or stealth!=invisibility.

Also, I never really saw what the fuss was about anyway. Admittedly that might be because I was usually a cleric, and so shit loads of HP, and/or BoF, and/or cleric pets would make stealthers irrelevant to me.

Stealth exists in games because it attracts players.  More players = more $$$.  Game balance is only a concern if it drives down the bottom line.

Were it up to me, I'd remove stealth from every game with a pvp component.  Allowing players to pick and choose encounters is inherently unbalancing. 

Can you really say it's a net increase in players, though?  Sure there are some who'll play your game specifically because of stealth classes, but how many players are driven away?  Two of the four level 50 characters I had in DAoC were stealth characters (Minstral and Ranger) so I'm pretty familiar with both perspectives.  In my opinion, putting in stealth in the hope that you'll get a net increase in subscribers is not worth the balancing nightmare you'll subject yourself to.  What will end up happening is either 1) the stealthers will quit because they don't feel they're effective enough or 2) other players will quit because they feel that stealthers are too effective.  WoW gets away with Rogues because the people who would otherwise quit are too addicted to their PvE crack to actually go through with it.  Even so, people still scream bloody murder.

Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning

The release date for this product has changed:

New Release Date: September 2, 2008

Please Note: This date is our best estimate based on the information available, and the date is subject to change at any
time. In our efforts to keep you informed, we are in constant communication with our vendors, and we are committed to
providing you with the most accurate release dates possible.

Are there any classes or units in the original game that has "Stealth"?

wasted cycles balancing something which is inherently unbalancable

In Warhammer? There were a few last I played, but it wasn't really "stealth" per se. Skaven Assasins and some other scout type classes could begin the game hidden in cover. Say a unit of Wood elf archers could start hidden in a piece of wood and wouldn't be deployed on the board until they moved or fired. The Skaven assassin Snitch could do the same thing, anywhere on the board outside of line of sight. I don't know about the RPG, but the amount of stealth characters in the tabletop game was minimal.

Yeah, thats why i brought it up. So, essentially, they are making this up now. What class is getting it?

Stealth ranged class for the Alliance (er, Order)?  Brilliant.  Ask blizzard how well invisiblepyroblast mages worked in beta. 

They are both melee classes. And archers were never really a problem in daoc, at least not after critshot got toned down.

I just don't want to see stealth in MMO games until they implement a Thief-like sub-game (where the Theif is weak, but stealthy, and they make their living/progression based upon how good they are at being stealthy, rather then how well they choose victims to gank.

Stealth ranged class for the Alliance (er, Order)?  Brilliant.  Ask blizzard how well invisiblepyroblast mages worked in beta. 

I'd still love to see stealth removed from any game.  It's not fun for anyone but the person with stealth.  Getting attacked by a stealther (especially something with stuns) is decidedly unfun. 

Do I win?

[...]
At best, everyone is pissed off half the time.

I still don't get why game designers insist on giving the stealthers crits and stuns. The ability to be invisible, go so someplace unseen is a huge advantage in and of itself, especially in a pvp+ game. Save the stuns and things for the frontline melee classes (..)

Guess it could be countered by giving the casters higher ability to detect stealth, then it's gamble of either getting in range and killing caster fast, or getting spotted and having one's ass fried equally fast.

Trouble is, with current technology, it comes down to your RNG vs my RNG, and whoever gets the good dice wins. What's needed to make stealth work is for position to really mean something.

What's needed for stealth to work is for stealth to be based purely on landscape altogether. I shouldn't be able to go invisible in broad daylight. I need shadows, trees, other cover.

(ideas)
That basically simultaneously gives everyone the ability to both stealth and detect, and makes stealth a player skill rather than a dice roll. You just avoid or look closely in the shadows/heavy-cover areas. Maybe (like, if you absolutely gotta), add an initiative factor to people jumping outta shadows.

The idea that stealth needs to be a skill like Fireblast or swinging a sword has always felt foreign to me outside of the context of D&D.

What they really need to do is to remove the "oh so annoying" balance philosophy of "Rock, paper and scissor".  I still have nightmare from DAOC and I know most PvP mmorpg use it.  (..)

MMORPG should follow Sirlin Yomi Layer design philosophy (http://www.sirlin.net/archive/yomi-layer-3-knowing-mind-of-the-opponent/ (http://www.sirlin.net/archive/yomi-layer-3-knowing-mind-of-the-opponent/)).  The actual philosophy is probably not credited to him but it's where I first learned about it.

Problem with that, shadows trees and other junk is usually optional in the graphics settings.

Well that's the thing, these stealthers usually *are* melee but minus heavy damage mitigation. So the idea is generally to give them stuns etc to let them deal enough damage in the beginning so they have somewhat equal odds vs heavy armoured "normal" melee in damage done/damage taken race. It has side-effect though on the long range classes that rely on range as their way to do the same (get enough damage in to stand the chance once that melee gets close) ... since in that sort of fight you have the melee class able to drop enough damage at start of fight to make it one-sided. Guess it could be countered by giving the casters higher ability to detect stealth, then it's gamble of either getting in range and killing caster fast, or getting spotted and having one's ass fried equally fast.

I'm not talking about stealth as a calculated skill that makes a player's avatar go invisible for some X duration in Y setting. I'm talking about just using the environment to one's advantage.

But that's the thing. In my mind (at least) this kind of linear balancing is entirely wrong. The sly stealthy class isn't supposed the be able to stand up to the heavy melee in any way shape or form. It's why it is the stealthy class and not the heavy melee class, in the first place.

(personally i do like the idea, it just feels infeasible with the human douchebag factor added. Like say, the communism. Not that i like that one as i like this stealth concept)

You mean the charge ability Blizzard's Diablo 2 had even before then?

My baseline here is COD4 (Crysis ideally, but we're aways away from that), environments in which players can (and do) use environment to their advantage. Smallish map FPS games with post-AoC graphics sure, but to be able to hide in grass doesn't require uber machines, and you can do it even with toned-down graphics settings. It just requires some of the stuff I talked about (no name plates, no spamming keys for auto-targeting) as well as the maps being designed for it. Doesn't take DX10 to let players crouch behind a rock. You'd also want a bit tighter control on camera manipulation (no Godeye AC2-like pull-out-to-cosmos), like maybe just an over the shoulder view that can be zoomed a bit but not insanely so (or you make that an achievable skill, like a general's scope or somesuch).

I wouldn't mind a "invisible" style stealther in War if they divorced the invisibility ability from the high alpha strike/high damage rogue archetype.  Make it a scouting character/gameplay,  where you achieve by reporting enemy units and movements.  The TF2 Spy style of stealth/infiltration would be interesting as well, though you got me how you'd implement it.

As for 3rd party programs killing environment-based stealth, BF2 HAS radar built-in, and it doesn't really invalidate the use of stealth.

That kind of gameplay is possible, it just requires thinking "outside the box."

As their deadline gets more tight, they are going back to already proven ideas to save on time.

Am I the only person who kind of liked the gameplay aspect WoW?  To be honest if they developed a game that was as polished as WoW, a bit better balanced, and focused on PvP instead of grindy-ass PvE, I would be happy for a long, long time.

BF2 also allows you to shoot the brains of the other guy without having to get within melee range.

So would archery. Or "LIGHTNINGBOLT!LIGHTNINGBOLT!"

I thought this was a funny take on stealth balance (at least in WoW), I think it is a bit old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJWeWMKfa3g

Am I the only person who kind of liked the gameplay aspect WoW?  To be honest if they developed a game that was as polished as WoW, a bit better balanced, and focused on PvP instead of grindy-ass PvE, I would be happy for a long, long time.

Hell, you could have certain points that have to be clicked on by a character with the "Scouting" ability. Clicking on the point (only clickable by scouts of course) would give exp/rp's/whatever unit of advancement measure. If you really wanted to make it challenging, make it so the point couldn't be tabbed onto, and that you had to be within a certain distance to be able to click on it, or even click on it and have a progress bar before you get the scouting exp.

That kind of gameplay is possible, it just requires thinking "outside the box."

As for 3rd party programs killing environment-based stealth, BF2 HAS radar built-in, and it doesn't really invalidate the use of stealth.

I didn't say it would be of NO consequence, just that it really wouldn't matter all that much. If you play a pure melee with no ranged weapons character in something like a fantasy, magic-heavy game like an MMO, you deserve to get ganked from stealth every time. History has shown that Ranged Combat > Melee Combat every time. The only way to balance that is to make ranged combat horribly inaccurate, which would piss off the ranged combat folks something fierce, or give the melee characters serious protection against ranged combat (armor against arrows, magic wards against magic) or give the melee characters some ability to fight back at range.

EDIT: Or make the ranged attacks have a long recycle time (reloading the bow or crossbow, regaining magic power). Mages want to be able to spam spells, so would probably hate a "balanced" game.

If you play a pure melee with no ranged weapons character in something like a fantasy, magic-heavy game like an MMO, you deserve to get ganked from stealth every time. History has shown that Ranged Combat > Melee Combat every time.

If stealth isn't invisibility and is instead environmental stealth, then it becomes a matter of player skill, which if done right, is fun.

Key factor to remember: Losing is always "unfun."

It's Mythic.  Their track record at balanced is absolutely awful.  They won't achieve better balancing than Blizzard, who's probably the best developer for balance.

It's Mythic.  Their track record at balanced is absolutely awful.  They won't achieve better balancing than Blizzard, who's probably the best developer for balance.

It's Mythic.  Their track record at balanced is absolutely awful. 

Is Blizzard really balanced? We're not EQ1 style PVP broken here, but c'mon now. Balance?

WoW is balanced, not that it means anything, since the two sides are identical.

Oh. I interpreted balance to mean "class balance." Which made me do a giant  :awesome_for_real:

re: Stealth

Don't do it.  Its just too hard to balance and the lore doesn't call for it in the slightest since you aren't including Skaven.  Which btw was a terrible call, Skaven are awesome.

I have read that Skaven are one of the races on the list for 1. expansion

I thought this was a funny take on stealth balance (at least in WoW), I think it is a bit old.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJWeWMKfa3g

Thats not really how it works in wow, melee combat has always been tops.

Tell you what. 1v1 with average gear, a hunter shouldn't die to a rogue, every time. I'm not sure how always applies here.

Give evey class the skills needed to defeat every class and let the players choose which ones to go into battle with.

Give evey class the skills needed to defeat every class and let the players choose which ones to go into battle with.

Give evey class the skills needed to defeat every class and let the players choose which ones to go into battle with.

That is of course unless i'm misreading what you're saying, and what you're saying is actually something like "make every class able to defeat any other and then it doesn't matter which one people choose to play" (as they're then all one and the same, just with different names)

Give evey class the skills needed to defeat every class and let the players choose which ones to go into battle with.

now you're talking about first person shooters.

What I think he's talking about is something like GW - classes have a large pool of skills/abilities to choose from, but can only take a limited number out onto the field (of battle).

This model also has it's proponents and detractors - some folks just don't want to spend alot of time juggling/experimenting with power combinations, in fact, I'd say the 'mainstream' probably doesn't have a great deal of patience for this type of activity.

Give evey class the skills needed to defeat every class and let the players choose which ones to go into battle with.

I love it when unreleased games talk about expansion content.  It gives me great hope for their state at release.

You can actually leave the green off of that. Pushing large features to an expansion far in advance may actually mean the developer has a clue about scheduling their resources instead of promising everything and the kitchen sink on day 1.

You're not going far enough.  Give every class a decent hope of winning any match up all the time.  Player skill, preparation, strategy and a hint of luck should decide the outcome of a duel.

Speaking from a MMO company shareholder's position, umm, no.  You CANNOT make an MMO where winning and losing are mostly dependent on skill.  10% of the people win 90% of the time.

PvP balancing WoW-style promises this:

1)  If I am higher level/grind more gear at 70, I'll probably win.

2)  If I face classes X, Y, and Z, I'll probably win.

This gives the unskilled a chance to win, which they wouldn't have had previously.  This is why MMOs will never be FPSes or chess.  A gear/class balance PvP games promises all people victory at least some of the time.

10% of the people win 90% of the time in MMORPG PvP too.

Not really.

There is no other, genre, game or sport I can think of designed to play as scissors-paper-rock, where each player is locked into one or the other for an entire match, let alone their entire playing 'career'.

Counterstrike as analogy.
picking mp5 vs awp users has its merits and downsides. But those with really good twitch skills just run around with AK47 short-burst killing average players on sight with no sweat. Those specialists in AWP are no slouch either, just when you think you get the jump on him, he just swings around and let off a round on your torso. Bang. Any gun can beat any gun. Even pistols or knives. But you can never carry AWP + AK47 + MP5 at the same time. But you're never locked into the role either, if you see a gun lying around during a gun fight, you can choose to drop your current weapon and pick it up. Or just buy a new one after a round ended.

Not really.

There is no other, genre, game or sport I can think of designed to play as scissors-paper-rock, where each player is locked into one or the other for an entire match, let alone their entire playing 'career'.

Hockey; Goalie.

How about focusing time and energy on making the release a success first?  Then you can promise me the moon once I've been hooked. 

I appreciate what you're saying, but many game makers can't even deliver on day one.  Who's to say that an expansion is even warranted?  Do you think Vanguard, Earth & Beyond, or Tabula Rasa should be discussing an expansion? 

Why not just ability to choose any class, then? Simpler and has the same effect (depending on your choice and whoever you run into you'll either rape or get raped) Not to mention giving some class-defeating abilities would be quite difficult when each class can reconfigure themselves.

Like, give the Player dozens of Tactics and Morale Abilities while only giving him enough space to have a few of them active anytime?
Sounds familiar, somehow.

The main complaint about GW model is iirc, when there's fuckton of different abilities to equip it rapidly reaches point where you lose any ability to counter the enemy's moves because you can't tell anymore what the abilty they just activated actually does.

Because players like classes

Is the goal supposed to be a differentiated realm/side with roles to fill,  like football?  Or is it a bunch of solo folks running around that happen to be on the side,  like old school FPSes?

Based on what they have said, I'm assuming they are primarily balancing for team vs team, and not for a bunch of soloists.

Given Mythic's history, I doubt this is the game that solo players are looking for. The two endgame systems seem to be based on daoc and GW, two of the least solo friendly dikuMMOGs in history. (daoc coiuld be PUG friendly - but solo not so much)

I mostly play Clerics. So I don't care. Forced grouping for teh win, come bring the puppet master my xp tribute you dps bitches. But I know other people here won't approve.

10% of the people win 90% of the time in MMORPG PvP too. Because of the level/gear grind needed to achieve that level of "probably winning". RPG-based PvP is only different from FPS-based in how it differentiates between the haves and have nots (heavy emphasis on time, some emphasis on skill vs the reverse in FPS games).

Consider COD4 vs WoW, where a level 10 player is up against a level 50 player.

If you want approachable PvP in an RPG, the first thing you do is remove the levels as a requirement, which, like, contradicts the premise of the experience to begin with. You never need to do that in an FPS.

Now.. if only healing was more than just watching bars empty then refilling them.

Long buffs are beyond retarded and MMOGs need to do away with them in favour of short and powerful buffs like Bloodlust and Icy Veins. Destroying the core of healing classes by making them DPS or be wasted so the DPS OCD mouth breathers will play them is also retarded because some people actually like to heal.

Yes I did just call you a mouth breather. :-P

EDIT: Smilie added to take away hostility of statement!

We've discussed, in other threads, how much reactive healing sucks. You're always behind and the first one blamed.  I'd rather see a lot of proactive healing bits like FF's "shell" and "shield" spells and other such wards.  If the healer has to monitor several short duration but powerful buffs and THEN you toss some of the "make red bar green" spells, then ok.  You've just changed the dynamic a bit made it more proactive and, provided the right type of buffs/ wards, brought the healer into the encounter a bit more than just "Oh, this one makes bars go down fast."

I rolled healers in DAOC, I could never get a group. Everyone had their own personal buffbot/healbot. I remember sitting in Avalon castle and there were like a dozen people there, 6 level 50 botclerics and 6 people levelling solo. No group for me. Healing is not a guarantee of groups in PVP games.

Mythic's fanbase has an institutional tendency towards BOTulism, so they will really have to make it absolutely impossible to bot or they'll get overrun again. My understanding is all the healers in War are supposed to be hybrids, I don't know anything about how they're handling buffs.

Guild Wars does this *extremely* well. Sometimes 'too well' from the DPS point of view  :angryfist:

Nothing prevents developers from explicitly telling you who the skill counters and how. "Man I so tired of all these damn druids. I'll load up 'Wood Rot" and "Leash Law". Let's see how those jackasses like that shit."

>(racial fear immunity in WoW etc for example)
I thought the problem wasn't with the skill itself, but with the fact that its so much better than the everyone else's racial?

Limit buffs to self only and give classes debuffs.  It's no fun being a buffer... ever. 

Buffs shouild be group or AoE, not just self. Then you can spread different buffs across skills/classes.

I don't see the problem.  The whole point of counters to give you a substantial advantage. Obviously, playtesting and balancing is required so that some anti`s aren't vastly more powerful than others.

How about focusing time and energy on making the release a success first?  Then you can promise me the moon once I've been hooked. 

I appreciate what you're saying, but many game makers can't even deliver on day one.  Who's to say that an expansion is even warranted?  Do you think Vanguard, Earth & Beyond, or Tabula Rasa should be discussing an expansion? 

I think the statement that Skaven are in the first expansions was given to calm down the fanbois that bitched around that they are not in at release. Give them some hope and a carrot.

Competitive MP FPSes have an incredible emphasis on time played. In other words the more you play an FPS the better you get (imagine that).

Time spent in an FPS allows you to get knowledgeable and better at an FPS*. Time spent in MMOs only allow you to get more knowledgeable.

* This includes applicable carryover skills, of which there are little in MMORPGs beyond that knowledge.

I believe the rule is that NDA breaking= bad.  Probably shouldn't do it.

Can anyone recall a publicized example of someone being prosecuted for breaking an NDA?  I can't think of any. 

Well, the fact that the game is scheduled to be released in the next quarter and the NDA is still up isays something in itself, to a certain extent.

I believe Mark Jacobs said somewhere that anything less than four weeks between release and the NDA is DANGER WILL ROBINSON, more than four is good, and WoW had the record at 8ish. 

Folks,

I've pretty much said what will be happening on the 26th and it won't be open beta. I can't imagine why anyone would think that quite frankly. Some real simple clues guys:

1) The countdown clock is on GOA's site only

2) There was a leak/multiple threads about possible contents of our CE from a European site

3) In one of the other threads, multiple posters (including a board mod) talked about the contents of the CE being revealed next week in Paris.

So, anyone really want a shot at the title and guess what they are going to be talking about?

I really wish I could say that the date of open beta was going to be talked about but that isn't the case. There will a bunch of things at the GOA event but the date of open beta will not be one of those things. And I can't tell you exactly what we are going to talk about there either for obvious reasons.

Also, as I've said before, don't preorder the CE until you are exactly sure what's the complete story on it unless you were going to order it no matter what. It's only a few more days and everything will be revealed.

Mark

I hope I didn't just steal some super minor thunder from GOA. (http://f13.net/?itemid=726)

I hope I didn't just steal some super minor thunder from GOA. (http://f13.net/?itemid=726)

Interesting.  LIMITED pre-order?  I better order tomorrow...

That's why there's a countdown. They didn't want anyone to let the "cat" out of the "bag."

Unfortunately, when Gamestop gets an email, I get an email.

Brick and Mortar, at open, 10am. Enjoy.

I preordered mine today.  :oh_i_see:

No online option?  REAGAN SMASH.   :cry: :cry:

Fuck it I'm getting it.  Even though I have no idea what a Grumlock and Gazbag is.

I'm surprised this isn't crossposted in that thread Mark posted in about the countdown.

I hope they enjoy the clock.

I tried linking to this over at Only-war, but it was immediately deleted by their head mod.  That board is tightly, tightly controlled.

You're all exited about this?   :uhrr:

Exclusive quest? That's complete bullshit.

I hope I didn't just steal some super minor thunder from GOA. (http://f13.net/?itemid=726)

Bonus In-Game Item - The Librams of Insight - Special Use XP-Gain Modifier.

I'm a suck for that sort of stuff. 

Are you from Roma?

You're all exited about this?   :uhrr:

Exclusive quest? That's complete bullshit.

Electronic Arts has announced that PC MMORPG Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning won't be released until the autumn.

Folks,

So, I'm going to go ahead and create a topic here in which I'll be happy to talk about the change in release day and other associated subjects. As usual, I'll ask people to be polite and I will be so in return. Below this paragraph I have included some questions I expect you'll ask with some answers in advance. Please take the time to read this Q&A before asking me a question in return. I hate to be rude but I don't want to have to answer the same question again and again. Also, please read the entire thread (or at least my responses in it) before asking a question for the same reason.

And please, if you are going to use this thread to either outrage, disappointment and/or anger (real or feigned), I ask you please to do that in another thread. This topic is for people who want to talk to me about the delay, the reasons behind it, the effect on WAR, etc. As I said in the Eurogamer thread I expect lots of visits from trolls (just as we got the last time) from other games looking for an opportunity to pile-on because of this announcement.

Mark

1) When’s the release date? We are only prepared to say that the game will launch Fall 2008. Given the highly competitive nature of the MMO industry right now, we feel it is best not to establish a set launch date at the present time.

2) Will you still be able to launch the European and North American versions of the game simultaneously? That’s always been our plan for WAR and nothing about this delay endangers that at all. Actually, it gives us a little more time to make sure that everything is ready to go at launch.

3) How’s the beta going? It’s going quite well. We’re getting tons of great feedback and overall, we are quite pleased with the game’s progress. Given the rather complicate nature of MMOs in general, and the fact that WAR is both a PvE and an RvR game, getting it right at launch is paramount to the game’s success.

4) Do you think you are going to hit this release date? About as sure as we were the last time, which means that we’ll be sure that we’ll hit the date when the game goes gold master. Our confidence only increases the longer we are in beta.

5) It seems that WAR is taking a long time to develop, is this true? Mythic began work on WAR in Fall 2005. Even with this delay, if the game launches within the new window it will be only a three-year development cycle. That is far less than most other MMORPGs ... other than Dark Age of Camelot, of course.

6) How does EA feel about this delay? They feel the same way about it that we do, sad but supportive. We all would have loved to release this game in the 2nd Quarter but it wouldn’t have been a great game at launch we know it can be. A good game absolutely, but not great. Our CEO has been a vocal proponent within EA and spokesmen outside of it of the need to improve the quality of all games, including EA. We are thrilled to be happy to help meet his trumpet call.

7) It’s going to be a pretty crowded couple of quarters in the MMORPG space, why do you think WAR is going to be able to stand out? One of the lessons from developers like BioWare and Blizzard is that you can’t rush a great game to market. By taking the necessary time to make WAR a great game, we feel it will be able to stand out in any season. We would rather release a great game in the fall then a good one any other time.

Do you see any positives in the delay of the game’s release? Yes, lots of them. Extra time for polish, more time for iteration and a chance to be one of the standout products of the biggest selling season for the industry.

9) Why did you announce the date now? We could have waited to announce a delay, and in doing so take advantage of the hype surrounding the of the Collector’s Edition to sell a ton of copies. However, that has never been the way we’ve done business and that is not about to change now. We’ve always told the community that when a delay was necessary we would tell them right away, and we’re doing just that. I wish I could say all other developers do this but the fact is that they don't. We did what's right for the game but delaying the release and what's right for the community by announcing it now.

10) Will this have any effect on any other overseas launches for WAR? This has no impact on our plans for Asia.

More time is never a bad thing anyway imo.

It is if you're paying the salaries.  Especially for a game like Vanguard, Tabula Rasa, etc. 

Time doesn't help every project.  Let's hope that Mythic has the experience to put it to good use.  6 years still wasn't enough to fix the issues with DAoC, so I'm not entirely optimistic.   

I thought 5-year disasters was the norm.

But the truth about people liking delays is simply that they like to still hope. If the game isn't out you can imagine it anyway you want.

Collector's edition gives you exclusive quests, quest rewards, AND an XP-gain modifier?

Fuck that in its earhole.

XP-gain modifier will most definitely be worth something.

XP-gain modifier will most definitely be worth something.

For those (everyone) who will imply that a delay is "good".

It means the game will cost more money, so, to be successful, it will also need to be more popular. Delays rise the stakes.

It's the same situation of Mythic selling out to EA. Sure, they got money and time, but it also means that every move requires greater payback. Consider it a loan. It's not free money and great games.

The higher you fly, the harder the fall.

But the truth about people liking delays is simply that they like to still hope. If the game isn't out you can imagine it anyway you want.

Its a 3 time use item, at one hour each time. Thats really not a huge advantage worth getting worked up about.

It's enough to piss me off, especially if I can't get the same item through a quest or other means, and it's dangerously close to "pay money for quicker leveling/more power." That there's bad mojo, IMO.

Granted, I'm pretty easy to piss off, but still.  :drill:

Then again, if you were buying the collectors edition, and something like that was not there, you would be pissed about there not being anything of "Worth" in the box. :grin:

Collector's edition are generally worth fuckall, IMO. I don't need a cloth map of a world I'll never visit in any way other than through a computer. Blizzard's useless pets was about as close to anything useful in-game as I ever want to see.

Collector's edition are generally worth fuckall, IMO.

XP-gain modifier will most definitely be worth something.

If they need to entice people with exp bonuses, then they're saying the game isn't fun because you'll want to skip to the end as soon as possible.  Grind? In a Mythic game?  Unpossible!  :awesome_for_real:

I hope they have pirate trees as the first mob in the noob Albio...err human lands.  That would be awesome.

4) Do you think you are going to hit this release date? About as sure as we were the last time, which means that we’ll be sure that we’ll hit the date when the game goes gold master. Our confidence only increases the longer we are in beta.

I don't know why some people are set on seeing this as some sort of credible competitor to WoW.  Personally, I've heard a lot more buzz for Conan, what with its decapitations and whatnot, than I have for "humans vs orcs PVP game from not-Blizzard".