Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 29, 2017, 02:03:11 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
Donate! | Subscribe! | Shop: Amazon

***DONATION DRIVE 2 HAS BEGUN:
CLICK HERE TO BURN MONEY***
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Warhammer Online (Moderator: tazelbain)  |  Topic: GDC Austin: Warhammer Online's Biggest Mistakes 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Down Print
Author Topic: GDC Austin: Warhammer Online's Biggest Mistakes  (Read 19115 times)
Soln
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4365

the opportunity for evil is just delicious


Reply #35 on: September 18, 2009, 02:47:50 PM

I wish I'd gone to that, I'd have stood up and called bullshit on him. (Him being Hickman).

They are Retcon'ing their careers.  What do you expect?  Worked for Paul, so far.
Kageru
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4422


Reply #36 on: September 19, 2009, 08:27:00 PM


I think you do need some PvE for those times when PvP isn't available, you want a change or you just want something a bit more relaxed and sociable than chaotic and frenetic PvP. And if you're going to do it at all then you might as well do it well, or at least decently.

Is a man not entitled to the hurf of his durf?
- Simond
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9874


Reply #37 on: September 20, 2009, 09:02:21 AM

I've been of the opinion for a long time that you can either do good PVE or PVP. You cant really do both and attempts to do it always fall flat on their face.

Be principled, but not too principled.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17034


Reply #38 on: September 20, 2009, 11:03:34 AM

I've been of the opinion for a long time that you can either do good PVE or PVP. You cant really do both and attempts to do it always fall flat on their face.

Blizzard begs to differ.  While I agree that WoW pvp is pretty poorly implemented, there's no doubt that it has a significant following. 

I forgot.  We dont' get to use WoW as an example since it's a statistical outlier. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Sir T
Terracotta Army
Posts: 9874


Reply #39 on: September 20, 2009, 11:29:14 AM

WOW has a significant following becasue its from blizzard and its familiar. WOW could launch from a different company tomorrow and people would shit on it for waaa pvp.

Be principled, but not too principled.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17034


Reply #40 on: September 20, 2009, 11:39:21 AM

WOW has a significant following becasue its from blizzard and its familiar. WOW could launch from a different company tomorrow and people would shit on it for waaa pvp.

I agree 100%.  That doesn't change the fact that it disagrees with your earlier statement. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Sheepherder
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5188


Reply #41 on: September 20, 2009, 11:57:04 AM

WOW has a significant following becasue its from blizzard and its familiar. WOW could launch from a different company tomorrow and people would shit on it for waaa pvp.

Warhammer and Mythic are familiar to a fairly consequential number of people and we saw how far that got them.  What are the EU server numbers again?
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #42 on: September 20, 2009, 03:14:08 PM

I've been of the opinion for a long time that you can either do good PVE or PVP. You cant really do both and attempts to do it always fall flat on their face.

There isn't a good pvp game on the market.  PVE and PVP are both crap in WAR.  If they wanted to make a PVE game and fail at it, they were free to do so, no reason to try for pvp, miss the mark and then say, oh we should have concentrated on pve more.  No shit, maybe they should have concentrated on character generation more, WAR might be a better game as a result but still marketed with the tag "war is everywhere".

As for Blizzard, there's no pressure on them to drastically change WoW to make pvp a lot better, what they did works far better than they planned already.  Blizzards next game will be interesting, either they try to top the best pve game on the market or they try to top the best pvp game, the first is a safe bet (they did it before) the second is easy, I'd imagine they will go for whichever they think will be more profitable.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2009, 03:26:19 PM by Arthur_Parker »
Redgiant
Terracotta Army
Posts: 304


Reply #43 on: September 20, 2009, 10:33:19 PM

As someone on VN posted, the Brighthub article says it all, especially from the POV of someone who understands why DAoC worked.

A FUCKING COMPANY IS AT STEAK
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17034


Reply #44 on: September 20, 2009, 11:20:33 PM

As someone on VN posted, the Brighthub article says it all, especially from the POV of someone who understands why DAoC worked.

This article focuses on the wrong things and in the wrong places. 

1) A third realm wouldn't have saved WAR.  I doubt it would have even helped.

2) Too much cc.  This point I agree with.  CC will kill a pvp game quickly.  Giving it to every class was a monumentally stupid idea. 

3) Class imbalance.  Not even close.  Class imbalance didn't kill the game.  It was the realm imbalance that may have.  Class imbalances are necessary and even nurtured.  They allow unskilled players a chance to succeed. 

WAR failed because it

a) Tried to be successful at PvE.  In attempting this, had a large portion of it's endgame be PvE in a PvP outfit.  Veteran gamers sniffed this out quickly. Too much grind focused at the wrong portion of the MMO market.

b) Promised massive PvP battles with an engine ill equipped to deliver.

c) Provided little to no incentive to participate in world pvp.  Castle/Zone swapping became the workaround for bad endgame design.

d) A general lack of stickiness.  There's no reason to keep playing.  No realm pride.  No "worldly" feel.  No sandbox aspects.  Nothing. 

Numerous other reasons: poor itemization, meaningless crafting, pointless economy, etc.

 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Fordel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8290


Reply #45 on: September 21, 2009, 12:29:03 AM

3) Class imbalance.  Not even close.  Class imbalance didn't kill the game.  It was the realm imbalance that may have.  Class imbalances are necessary and even nurtured.  They allow unskilled players a chance to succeed. 


What?


That logic only even begins to work if all the unskilled players magically pick the correct overpowered class. WarriorKnight rules the battle field but you picked WizardMage, have fun being rolled or re-rolling. For every person that sticks with their chosen class despite how crappy it is, there is another dozen that just goes "fuck it" and leaves.

and the gate is like I TOO AM CAPABLE OF SPEECH
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #46 on: September 21, 2009, 02:04:01 AM

WAR had some stupidly broken classes and powers at launch. It took a while to fix them, assuming they ever got fixed.

I disagree about the necessity of a third realm. Perhaps - perhaps - if things were originally designed differently with a third realm it might have been more involved, but if it had just been another realm along the same lines as the existing two, it would have been just another dull, meaningless environment.

I don't think WAR can be turned around. If it really did cost a bit south of $100 million and requires 500k players to break even then every month is adding to WAR's debt. Certainly, shutting down 64-odd servers and letting people go helps with the costs, but can they really drop WAR's costs to the point they are actually making headway into their development debt on a player base of less than 300k? 200k? Fewer than that? I don't think so.


Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #47 on: September 21, 2009, 02:24:14 AM

I don't think WAR can be turned around.

Even with the best will in the world I think that's very true.  The client just isn't up to what they wanted it to do, they would need to revisit the licensing agreement with GW and massively invest to replace the game engine.  I don't think they could do it without some far fetched situation like EA buying Turbine and using their engine. 

The whole realm balancing thing annoys me, it's a problem they made for themselves and the best idea, the very best they can offer is a 20% bonus?  Table top WFB doesn't have population balance problems, if two people turn up with Empire armies the IP allows them to fight each other (civil war whatever).  WAR needed cross realm scenario queueing, I also think going back to original comments we made on this when it was first announced, there was no point in having two sides, they could easily have had 6 six sides and put something interesting in that allowed temporary alliance packs between certain factions.  But Mythic couldn't even set the different scenarios to to rotate within a tier on one server so asking for cross realm scenarios seems like asking for the impossible.
waffel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 711


Reply #48 on: September 21, 2009, 12:27:30 PM

I think the biggest mistake is just bad developers that didn't understand how players would react and use their ideas. They were just so out of touch with what players wanted/would do. Multiple scenarios? Players are going to pick the play the one that offers fastest RPs and hour. Keep attacks and defense? Players going to pick the one that offers the biggest rewards (attacks and swapping) Unbalanced BWs throughout beta and into release? Players are going to flock to the class.

But I knew something was up with the devs when, in beta, mythic dicked around with its PQs. I remember players would form groups, sometimes 1 group, occasionally large 2-3 groups, at public quests. People would converse, finish the stages, level up together. It'd start out with a few people doing it, form into 1 group, and soon /regions were out and you had a nice party going. Mythic decided that players were leveling too fast, and completing the PQs with too few people (sometimes 1 group) and decided, randomly, to turn the final boss into god-mode killing machines and fuck around with the EXP.

The result? Players stopped looking for groups at PQs because they became way too fucking hard and not worth it. I tried to do various PQs with others after they fucked it up and everyone threw their hands in the air in disgust at how retarded it was. PQs you used to run by before that were being completed were now empty.

Then Mythic started pulling people out of the world with scenarios and solo questing became the norm.

The whole concept of working together was gone at that point and they never, ever got it back.
March
Terracotta Army
Posts: 476


Reply #49 on: September 21, 2009, 12:45:14 PM

While I agree that adding a 3rd realm would not constitute a fix for WaR.

I agree with Unsub that the absence of the third (or multiple) realm(s) demonstrated that the game had serious miscues before it even hit beta.  In fact, I think it is indicative that they set-out to build Guild Wars II, and belated switched gears to give us DAOC fubar edition.  Why they wanted to build GW2 is another topic altogether... but the fact that they fucked RvR stikes me as the convergence of massive design changes that did not match the engineering to support it nor the timeline to re-create what would be needed to support such a switch.  At the time I just shrugged and figured they know more about building games than I do.
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #50 on: September 21, 2009, 01:14:34 PM

They wanted to build WoW: Arena Sports.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37195

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #51 on: September 21, 2009, 01:24:36 PM

i really had a long post here but it didn't show up...geez...

Thank you.

Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #52 on: September 21, 2009, 01:36:47 PM

Interesting thread on the official forums.

Contribution in City Siege

Quote from: 08-29-2009
Victory Point contribution in the City Siege is not being calculated correctly.
...
1) Order has a higher total VP in 1:46:32 - 1:43:44 despite the fact that the breakdown shows Destro holding more objectives and an equal amount of skirmish points.  Why does the side with less contribution have nearly twice the victory points?
 
2) The data suggests that scenario contribution far exceeds the suggested 5%.  In fact it suggests the true contribution of scenarios is closer to 50% when the bar is filled all the way.

Quote from: BryantC 09-01-2009
We have passed this issue on to the RVR guys to have them look into the issue.
 
Thanks.

Quote from: BryantC 09-16-2009
I forwarded this on to the RvR team after the OP posted this thread and I have not heard any new news on this issue since.  We have been testing this and trying to get the issue resolved but I have no news for you at thsi time.
 
I sent an email out to request and update and hopefully will hear some news soon.

Quote from: BryantC 09-17-2009
We are currently testing a fix for this issue.  Hopefully we can get this tested and out on the Live servers sometime very soon.  I have no ETA though at the moment though.

Quote from: Karina 09-18-2009
Hey all,
 
The feedback is appreciated and as it is confirmed to have a fix coming we'll close this to prevent it from getting sidetracked with non constructive input.
 
Thanks and locking

The entire end game has been broken for nearly a month and they lock the thread, before the fix is in, to avoid non constructive input on a 4 page thread?
tazelbain
Unknown
Posts: 6603

tazelbain


Reply #53 on: September 21, 2009, 01:40:47 PM

They wanted to build WoW: Arena Sports.
Seriously, you think they made miles and miles of RvR territory because they wanted arena battles?

I think they fell in love with the romantic idea of a campaign to battle from your homeland to heart of your enemies territory and defeat their king.  So they tied quests, battlegrounds, RvR, raid to this goal.  It failed for many reasons: pvp mix with pve, player nature, design was too ambitious for their talent.  So they keep adding duct tape to hold the shambling monstrosity together and that's WAR.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2009, 01:43:14 PM by tazelbain »

"Me am play gods"
Lantyssa
Terracotta Army
Posts: 20848


Reply #54 on: September 21, 2009, 01:59:18 PM

Yes, actually, I do.  Trying to understand their logic will only lead to madness.

Hahahaha!  I'm really good at this!
March
Terracotta Army
Posts: 476


Reply #55 on: September 21, 2009, 03:21:39 PM

They wanted to build WoW: Arena Sports.
Seriously, you think they made miles and miles of RvR territory because they wanted arena battles?

I think they fell in love with the romantic idea of a campaign to battle from your homeland to heart of your enemies territory and defeat their king.  So they tied quests, battlegrounds, RvR, raid to this goal.  It failed for many reasons: pvp mix with pve, player nature, design was too ambitious for their talent.  So they keep adding duct tape to hold the shambling monstrosity together and that's WAR.

Actually, the early designs didn't have miles and miles of RvR... it just had the PvE candyland route with tiny little RvR lakes which were litterally holding grounds where you would go to sign-up for a PvP scenario-something like a GW lobby where you can get ganked?- No Keeps, belatedly a few Battle-ground objectives, but originally just a playpen where they thought some PvP would happen during scenario queuing moments (could only queue for Scenarios from the PvP lakes).

The ultimate reward was going to be some sort of Capital City RvR scenario... but the original design was definitively not open RvR.

So in fact they never fell in love with a campaign... the "campaign" they gave us was more akin to a hastily arranged blind date... there was little romance involved, of that I can assure you.  The romantics of the group who pined for DAOC2 were reminded ever so gently by MBJ that Mythic was definitively not making DAOC2, so get over it.

If you slot that in to your narrative, you can almost see the futile logic of trying to fragment the players in a desperate attempt to keep the game-engine from crashing and burning while knowing all the while that your success depended on funneling players into ever larger battles that your game engine could not handle without, you know, crashing and burning.

For my own sanity, I wish I could learn if the change of direction was based on mis-placed confidence in the game engine or mis-placed trust in the designer's ability to simultaneously fragment and unite the player base at critical moments.
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #56 on: September 21, 2009, 08:25:23 PM

I think they fell in love with the romantic idea of a campaign to battle from your homeland to heart of your enemies territory and defeat their king.  

My biggest complaint about WAR is that Mythic ignored a hell of a lot about how players behave, believing instead in the 'romantic' idea of how players would play. In Mythic's mind, players would do scenarios occasionally, as a slight diversion from the main game of RvR, while there would be players lined up to do PQs one after the other on their way to getting the wards that would then allow them to bash on the gates of the opposing capital.

Romantic is a fantastic way to describe it.

Ashamanchill
Terracotta Army
Posts: 981


Reply #57 on: September 22, 2009, 04:02:51 AM

See, I'm not bashing them for failing to realize how the players would play their game, but failing to do anything positive once they realized what was happening. It took all of, what, half a month? to see that the largest chunk of the playerbase was either standing in warcamps, queueing for scenarios, having no impact on the world around them, or playing magical keeps. But did they make any meaningful changes to affect this? nope.

 Personally, they could have held my firends and I a few weeks more with the simple change of having random scenarios, instead of making us to Tor Annroc again. That's one of those small, simple changes that add up. But no, that didn't match with their ironclad vision of how their game should be played.

A poster signed by Richard Garriot, Brad McQuaid, Marc Jacobs and SmerricK Dart.  Of course it would arrive a couple years late, missing letters and a picture but it would be epic none the less. -Tmon
Mrbloodworth
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15148


Reply #58 on: September 22, 2009, 07:25:51 AM


That's funny, because it has been published over at MORPG.com today, almost word for word.

Today's How-To: Scrambling a Thread to the Point of Incoherence in Only One Post with MrBloodworth . - schild
www.mrbloodworthproductions.com  www.amuletsbymerlin.com
Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #59 on: September 22, 2009, 07:50:05 AM

Link

Dark Age of Camelot: Jeff Hickman on WAR, DaoC and the Future

Quote
Jeff next talked about Warhammer and some of the problems they had when they launched the game. He listed three mistakes they made when designing the game early on. The first being easy of play, by this he said that the opening zones were too easy for players and did not add any risk or value. I can remember flying through the first ten levels without so much as a scratch on my character. This did not invest players enough in the risks of the dark and gritty Warhammer world.
Next Jeff explained that the game lacked certain social tools that worked to bring players together. While guild leveling was an important element, players still had very little reason to play together unless they joined a PvP scenario. Also, if you remember the mail system in Warhammer, it is one of the worst. Mail needed to be more fluid and easier to use for players. These failed efforts in social tools did not give players any reason for players to socialize.
The last place that the game had its problems right from the beginning was with its economy. Mythic was so extreme on getting rid of gold farmers that did not realize it made their economy pointless for the player. Jeff explained that commerce between o people can help build relationships between friends or guilds. With Warhammer's current economy there is very little need for gold. Right from the start this caused problems.

I know the mail system was in my top 2500 issues list.

Quote
Overall Jeff's presentation was a good one. It was afterwards though that I got the chance to pressure him about Dark Age of Camelot. Many players remember DAOC as having the best PvP experience in the online game space. It is often referenced as the prime model for PvP, oddly enough no one has captured its format again. The key to DAOC was that three factions, Albion, Midgard, and Hibernia were all fighting it out for control. Mythic put in some expansions that sadly diluted the experience over time. Trials of Atlantis and New Frontiers were two that many people say did the game in. When Jeff asked me if I would like to go back to DAOC the way it was in the beginning I got excited.

It is great when an Executive Producer says, what would you do with Dark Age of Camelot? Well I explained that maybe a sequel would be the way to go. Or perhaps revamp the game with an updated engine, new graphics and art, and keep the world in its old form with game play very close to the way people remember it. Jeff smiled, smirked is more like it, for a very long time. Jeff said that they are hiring right now on the Dark Age of Camelot team. We can only hope DAOC will see a rejuvenation back to its old awesome PvP self.

Even the interviewer is more interested in talking about DAoC.
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7355


Reply #60 on: September 22, 2009, 11:37:57 AM

It's funny because the mail system in warhammer was what made me quit.  Oh it wasn't by far the biggest issue the game had but it WAS the straw that broke my back.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Ashamanchill
Terracotta Army
Posts: 981


Reply #61 on: September 22, 2009, 01:39:19 PM

God that mail system was brutal. It's like it had a GCD on using it or something.

A poster signed by Richard Garriot, Brad McQuaid, Marc Jacobs and SmerricK Dart.  Of course it would arrive a couple years late, missing letters and a picture but it would be epic none the less. -Tmon
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 37195

Prevent all damage that would be dealt to you and other troops you control.


WWW
Reply #62 on: September 22, 2009, 01:42:04 PM


Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #63 on: September 22, 2009, 03:42:27 PM

It's funny because the mail system in warhammer was what made me quit.  Oh it wasn't by far the biggest issue the game had but it WAS the straw that broke my back.

I remember as a WH, the two best weapons I had didn't even have the correct damage information in their descriptions.  WAR had to have a mail system and an auction house, because WoW had them, even though WAR itemisation was crap.  There was no reason to change weapons once you upgraded, Quake had different weapons, even AC had variation in the weapons you chose to carry due mob vulnerabilities cold, acid etc.  Mythic had to copy Blizzard, missing the point that Blizzard could make a game in which you only had access to a rusty stapler for 3/4 of the game and people would still be falling over themselves to play it.
UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #64 on: September 22, 2009, 11:27:43 PM

Quote
It is great when an Executive Producer says, what would you do with Dark Age of Camelot? Well I explained that maybe a sequel would be the way to go. Or perhaps revamp the game with an updated engine, new graphics and art, and keep the world in its old form with game play very close to the way people remember it.

You can't wind back the clock. Especially a clock viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

Not that a DAOC Classic server won't probably try.

Arthur_Parker
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5865

Internet Detective


Reply #65 on: September 23, 2009, 01:26:19 AM

Some people are being double billed by Mythic, no big deal.

link 1, link 2

Quote
Ok, myself and a few others I know have been double billed by Mythic.
 
When we noticed the problem we called customer support to tell them the issue and our information was taken down.
 
Today we all received emails telling us there would be no refunds until we could prove we were double billed. Calling the customer support number provided in the email with our reference numbers we were told that this meant we needed to provide a bank statement.
 
Is this for real? I'm not about to send a bank statement to some random third party, even if I could(I'm paperless with my bank).
 
I thought no action would be required by the customer once this was investigated. The emails we received say otherwise, and the action required is a bit unreasonable.

 DRILLING AND WOMANLINESS
Hawkbit
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4689

Like a Klansman in the ghetto.


Reply #66 on: September 23, 2009, 06:18:03 AM

Not the first MMO (or company, for that matter) to need a cash infusion and suddenly there's a double billing situation. 
Delmania
Terracotta Army
Posts: 674


Reply #67 on: September 23, 2009, 07:11:00 AM

You can't wind back the clock. Especially a clock viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

Not that a DAOC Classic server won't probably try.

Truth.  It amazes me how people always call preToA DAoC one of the best PvP experiences ever, and yet, even then, many of the issues we're seeing in Warhammer were present:
 Class imbalances, which were worse than Warhammer because the game had 3 sets of classes.
 Crowd Control issues - Stunguard, anyone? 
 Extreme lagging with massive battles.
 Population imbalances.

Seriously, Warhammer's issues are many of the same issues DAoC had, combined with the whole "We want to be WoW" syndrome.  It's only in recent years that DAoC has improved.

ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10475


Reply #68 on: September 23, 2009, 08:49:47 AM

Anytime you have a situation where people can pick and choose sides at will there will eventually be a population imbalance.  In Warhammer it means so much more because it is particularly population dependent.  WOW PvP isn't liked by many due to the staged nature (Arenas, BGs) but they have actually targeted what most online gamers want-  PvP that is easy to pop into and out of and doesn't depend upon having a group of 6 or 24 together before you can really do anything.  In essence, they have created solo-friendly PvP.  Warhammer failed to grasp a major reason for WOWs success:  that the grand majority of people like soloing or duoing, and you really can't participate in War's PvP if that is what you want to do.

Seriously.............city siege? WOW already has this, in essence.  You can attack an enemy city at will any time for any reason.  Sure there are no rewards, but real PvP isn't about the rewards, right?  It is skill.  So at level 80 you should be good to go.  Problem is, hardly anyone attacks the cities on a regular basis.  Surely Mythic could have seen this train wreck coming.  Even if they implement city siege correctly (i.e., making it PvP, not PvE) it will fail to keep appropriate subs for the rest of the game. 
Von Douchemore
Terracotta Army
Posts: 39


Reply #69 on: September 23, 2009, 10:44:41 AM

me how people always call preToA DAoC one of the best PvP experiences ever, and yet, even then, many of the issues we're seeing in Warhammer were present:
 Class imbalances, which were worse than Warhammer because the game had 3 sets of classes.
 Crowd Control issues - Stunguard, anyone?  
 Extreme lagging with massive battles.
 Population imbalances.

Seriously, Warhammer's issues are many of the same issues DAoC had, combined with the whole "We want to be WoW" syndrome.  It's only in recent years that DAoC has improved.


Population imbalance in DAoC was usually fixed by temporal realm alliances, which only made the game more fun for everyone involved.

Also, pre-ToA DAoC was 8 god damn years ago, in that time period, instead of improving their successful game system of RvR and learning from past mistakes, they dismissed everything that made DAoC a "hit" and launched the piece of shit abomination everyone played and uninstalled around December 2008.

Still, I would pre-order DAoC 2  awesome, for real



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Warhammer Online (Moderator: tazelbain)  |  Topic: GDC Austin: Warhammer Online's Biggest Mistakes  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC