So who has Warhammer Online?
Paul
check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
Rob Wynne
I just picked it up, though I don't expect to spend THAT much time on it.
But 2/3 of my old guild are playing it, and I hate feeling like I'm being
left out on the fun.
It'll be one more time killer to occupy me in idle mometns until WotLK
comes out.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Shimrod
I'm enjoying it enough that I canceled WoW...and my WotLK pre-order.
It's a lot of fun in a way that WoW hasn't been for a long time.
And not having to deal with 21,302 faction grinds is just gravy :)
Shimrod
Thomas Hejl Pilgaard
pan.2008.09.19....@myway.com :
It's installed... But I haven't logged in.
Today is Talk like a Pirate day in WoW, and
tomorrow the Brewfest begins.
Besides I also have characters in
Florensia
Archlord
City of Heroes
Conan (admittedly, I'm about to cancel that account)
Perfect World
Guild Wars
and I'm looking forward to AION and I plan to take a look
at Lord of The Rings Online as well...
...
Oi.
There really isn't enough hours in the day.
Rick Berry
On 09/19/2008 1:22 AM, in article pan.2008.09.19....@myway.com,
"Shimrod" <shi...@myway.com> wrote:
Can't...stop....playing!!!! RvR is awesome, whether in the scenarios or
just the open world RvR with the siege weapons, woot.
C J Campbell
I am new to online games and having enough trouble learning WoW.
Besides, Warhammer does not run on Mac.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Palindrome
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Besides, (Insert Name of Game or Application) does not run on Mac.
Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
they know they aren't going to run what they want them to? Nice
machines, and all, but not that much use.
Palindrome
Noon
I've owned Macs and PCs, and I have my preferences, but it's a funny
thing from the UK Mac Usenet group ... when someone points out that
few games are available for a Mac they've been told that Macs aren't
primarily game machines and if you want to play games buy a console or
whatever. Talk about making a virtue out of a necessity.
steve.kaye
Palindrome wrote:
Maybe they didn't buy their Mac to play games on and it can do
everything that they wanted it to do at the time they bought it. Or
maybe they bought it, as I did, knowing that it could play the only
game that was important. I bought a Mac because I don't like Windows
(despite being a Windows developer, I just tolerate the OS really) and
I wanted a change.
steve.kaye
C J Campbell
My Mac runs what I want it to. Warhammer (or, even WoW) is hardly an
essential. My computer is actually used for many more important
business and professional purposes than it is for gaming. Arguably
Windows doesn't run much of anything very well.
All I am saying is, if people don't want to develop for Mac, they are
missing a fairly good sized portion of the market.
Sure, I could run Windows, load my computer up with viruses and
spyware, have to reboot ever so often just to keep the system from
crashing, constantly futz around with my network settings, mess around
with various device drivers all trying to use the same interrupts, etc.
Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time it
came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky obsolete
OS and get a Mac.
Palindrome
Lol, yes :)
Palindrome
Palindrome
<christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2008-09-21 08:31:48 -0700, Palindrome <damon...@tiscali.co.uk> said:
>
>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:58:57 -0700, C J Campbell
>> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Besides, (Insert Name of Game or Application) does not run on Mac.
>>
>>
>> Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
>> they know they aren't going to run what they want them to? Nice
>> machines, and all, but not that much use.
>>
>>
>> Palindrome
>
>My Mac runs what I want it to.
Enjoy your Tetris and Breakout :D
Palindrome
Shammy
CJC> My Mac runs what I want it to.
Does it run WAR? If not then it DOESNT run what you want him to :p
CJC> an essential. My computer is actually used for many more important
CJC> business and professional purposes than it is for gaming. Arguably
What of these stuff wouldnt run on a PC?
CJC> Windows doesn't run much of anything very well.
Yes windows 95 and windows 98 first edition... you are right I agree on
those. Win XP SP2 and Vista SP 1 are not even in the same category.
CJC> All I am saying is, if people don't want to develop for Mac, they
CJC> are missing a fairly good sized portion of the market.
CJC> Sure, I could run Windows, load my computer up with viruses and
CJC> spyware, have to reboot ever so often just to keep the system from
CJC> crashing, constantly futz around with my network settings, mess
CJC> around with various device drivers all trying to use the same
CJC> interrupts, etc.
Last time I saw this problem is 10 years ago on some old windows and some no
name crap 28,800 modem.
CJC> Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time it
CJC> came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky
CJC> obsolete
CJC> OS and get a Mac.
Lol you seem to be talking about windows 95 from 13 years ago... If you
dint try windows XP SP2 or vista SP1 then you have no idea what are you
talking about. Windows XP doesnt crash, doesnt have irq problems etc etc.
Actually I dont even shut it down but just put in standby in the evening
till the next day... cant remember the last time I did a full reboot, maybe
when the power went out :p
As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose a
computer where they are so limited like a mac and having incompatibility
issues with mostof the world.
I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC but I
cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
steve.kaye
> CJC> My Mac runs what I want it to.
>
> Does it run WAR? If not then it DOESNT run what you want him to :p
Who said that he wanted to play WAR? He didn't. He said that he
wasn't playing WAR because he had enough to do playing WoW. As an
aside, he couldn't play WAR because it's not for Macs.
> CJC> Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time it
> CJC> came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky
> CJC> obsolete
> CJC> OS and get a Mac.
>
> Lol you seem to be talking about windows 95 from 13 years ago... If you
> dint try windows XP SP2 or vista SP1 then you have no idea what are you
> talking about. Windows XP doesnt crash, doesnt have irq problems etc etc.
> Actually I dont even shut it down but just put in standby in the evening
> till the next day... cant remember the last time I did a full reboot, maybe
> when the power went out :p
I've had a PC with Vista for about 4 months now and I've already had
more programs crash, had more OS crashes and had more odd problems
than the 2 years that I had a Mac.
> As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose a
> computer where they are so limited like a mac and having incompatibility
> issues with mostof the world.
Incompatability with what? Macs can run Microsoft Office and other
applications that can read and write MS Office documents. They can
connect to Windows networks, view all the same web sites, view PDF
documents, view movie files. I cannot think of a single thing that
I've been unable to because of incompatibility issues.
> I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC but I
> cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
What, other than play most games, can you not do on a Mac that you can
do on a PC?
steve.kaye
steve.kaye
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:08:28 -0700, C J Campbell
> >On 2008-09-21 08:31:48 -0700, Palindrome <damon-no...@tiscali.co.uk> said:
>
> >> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:58:57 -0700, C J Campbell
> >> <christophercampb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Besides, (Insert Name of Game or Application) does not run on Mac.
>
> >> Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
> >> they know they aren't going to run what they want them to? Nice
> >> machines, and all, but not that much use.
>
> >> Palindrome
>
> >My Mac runs what I want it to.
>
> Enjoy your Tetris and Breakout :D
And Peggle - don't forget Peggle (a great game).
steve.kaye
Brent Stroh
>All I am saying is, if people don't want to develop for Mac, they are
>missing a fairly good sized portion of the market.
For certain definitions of "good sized" anyway.
>Sure, I could run Windows, load my computer up with viruses and
>spyware, have to reboot ever so often just to keep the system from
>crashing, constantly futz around with my network settings, mess around
>with various device drivers all trying to use the same interrupts, etc.
>Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time it
>came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky obsolete
>OS and get a Mac.
My only guess here is that Mac people lack the knack for operating a
computer... From the level of issues they tend to report with Wintel
boxes, it's almost shocking that the PC didn't just explode when they sat
down to start typing.
My systems, both personal and for work, tend to be up and running for a
week or more at a time, usually with solid VPN connections throughout. I'll
shut them down when I don't plan on using them the next day, but that's
about it.
My laptop moves from my home office to either of two different offices on
different networks. Different video configurations, too, for that matter.
Seamlessly, and with little or no intervention on my part.
Interrupts? Device drivers? Is it 1995? Plug and play has pretty much
eliminated this as an issue.
XP has been rock solid for me. I didn't have an significant issues with
Win95, for that matter, although it wasn't as stable as NT/XP. Buy a Mac
if you want to buy a Mac, but please stop exaggerating your reasons why.
-Brent
Shammy
You wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:40:05 -0700 (PDT):
sk> On 22 Sep, 11:49, "Shammy" <n...@nothing.com> wrote:
>> CJC> My Mac runs what I want it to.
>> Does it run WAR? If not then it DOESNT run what you want him to :p
sk> Who said that he wanted to play WAR? He didn't. He said that he
sk> wasn't playing WAR because he had enough to do playing WoW. As an
sk> aside, he couldn't play WAR because it's not for Macs.
He couldnt do many things cause it'a a mac and that proves he couldnt run on
the mac what he wants :p
>> CJC> Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time
>> it
>> CJC> came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky
>> CJC> obsolete
>> CJC> OS and get a Mac.
>> Lol you seem to be talking about windows 95 from 13 years ago... If
>> you dint try windows XP SP2 or vista SP1 then you have no idea what
>> are you talking about. Windows XP doesnt crash, doesnt have irq
>> problems etc etc.
>> Actually I dont even shut it down but just put in standby in the
>> evening till the next day... cant remember the last time I did a full
>> reboot, maybe when the power went out :p
sk> I've had a PC with Vista for about 4 months now and I've already had
sk> more programs crash, had more OS crashes and had more odd problems
sk> than the 2 years that I had a Mac.
Was it Vista with SP1 on a decent PC? I use XP SP2 atm and I'm very happy
with it, it's very stable even thouth it loads like 10+ resident program at
start. My co-worker uses Vista on daily bases for a year now and didnt have
1 crash yet and he uses his PC for 3dstudio max and software like that.
>> As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose
>> a computer where they are so limited like a mac and having
>> incompatibility issues with mostof the world.
sk> Incompatability with what? Macs can run Microsoft Office and other
sk> applications that can read and write MS Office documents. They can
sk> connect to Windows networks, view all the same web sites, view PDF
sk> documents, view movie files. I cannot think of a single thing that
sk> I've been unable to because of incompatibility issues.
Office is 1 of the thousands of programs around :) well WAR is 1 program
that wont run apparently, then I read vent or TS is a problem and there are
many things that dont run on a mac that I heard over the years but I would
never dream to buy a mac so I dont go write them down.
>> I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC
>> but I cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
sk> What, other than play most games, can you not do on a Mac that you
sk> can do on a PC?
Well most games IS a big thing, and then there are many programs that wont
run on mac but I dont keep lists since I dont plan to buy 1.
Shammy
The only reason why I replied to this post in the first place is someone
actually talking about interrupt problems on PC that is a so 1995 problem.
steve.kaye
> Hello, steve.kaye!
> You wrote on Mon, 22 Sep 2008 04:40:05 -0700 (PDT):
>
> sk> On 22 Sep, 11:49, "Shammy" <n...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> >> CJC> My Mac runs what I want it to.
> >> Does it run WAR? If not then it DOESNT run what you want him to :p
>
> sk> Who said that he wanted to play WAR? He didn't. He said that he
> sk> wasn't playing WAR because he had enough to do playing WoW. As an
> sk> aside, he couldn't play WAR because it's not for Macs.
>
> He couldnt do many things cause it'a a mac and that proves he couldnt run on
> the mac what he wants :p
So you are saying that you are right because you say so rather than
using any actual facts?
> >> CJC> Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time
> >> it
> >> CJC> came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky
> >> CJC> obsolete
> >> CJC> OS and get a Mac.
> >> Lol you seem to be talking about windows 95 from 13 years ago... If
> >> you dint try windows XP SP2 or vista SP1 then you have no idea what
> >> are you talking about. Windows XP doesnt crash, doesnt have irq
> >> problems etc etc.
> >> Actually I dont even shut it down but just put in standby in the
> >> evening till the next day... cant remember the last time I did a full
> >> reboot, maybe when the power went out :p
>
> sk> I've had a PC with Vista for about 4 months now and I've already had
> sk> more programs crash, had more OS crashes and had more odd problems
> sk> than the 2 years that I had a Mac.
>
> Was it Vista with SP1 on a decent PC?
It is a decent PC but it wasn't SP1 as Microsoft's site said that SP1
was not intended for home use because everything that the home user
would want was downloaded using Windows Update. This week they
obviously changed their minds and Windows Update picked it up. I
installed it and my sound stopped working.
> I use XP SP2 atm and I'm very happy
> with it, it's very stable even thouth it loads like 10+ resident program at
> start. My co-worker uses Vista on daily bases for a year now and didnt have
> 1 crash yet and he uses his PC for 3dstudio max and software like that.
>
> >> As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose
> >> a computer where they are so limited like a mac and having
> >> incompatibility issues with mostof the world.
>
> sk> Incompatability with what? Macs can run Microsoft Office and other
> sk> applications that can read and write MS Office documents. They can
> sk> connect to Windows networks, view all the same web sites, view PDF
> sk> documents, view movie files. I cannot think of a single thing that
> sk> I've been unable to because of incompatibility issues.
>
> Office is 1 of the thousands of programs around :) well WAR is 1 program
> that wont run apparently,
I listed other things that the Mac has no problems with and
concentrating on these incompatibilites that you mentioned assuming
you meant with document exchange and network traffic. Listing
programs that won't run isn't relevant if the task can still be done
on a Mac.
WAR is a game and I've already accepted that the Mac does not compare
to PCs if you want to play games on it.
> then I read vent or TS is a problem and there are
> many things that dont run on a mac that I heard over the years but I would
> never dream to buy a mac so I dont go write them down.
There is only one codec supported by Mac's TS and Vent software but I
just changed the server to use that codec and the problem was solved.
> >> I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC
> >> but I cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
>
> sk> What, other than play most games, can you not do on a Mac that you
> sk> can do on a PC?
>
> Well most games IS a big thing,
It is a big thing only if you like to play games on a computer. It
was one of the reasons why I bought a PC when my Mac needed replacing.
> and then there are many programs that wont
> run on mac
It's not about what programs can or can't be run. It's about what
things can or can't be done. You don't care if Windows Media Player
doesn't run if you can do all the same stuff in iTunes, you don't care
that Nero doesn't run on a Mac because they have iDVD to do the same
job.
> but I dont keep lists since I dont plan to buy 1.
That sounds like a cop out from someone who's making statements that
he can't back up.
steve.kaye
Shammy
>> sk> wasn't playing WAR because he had enough to do playing WoW. As an
>> sk> aside, he couldn't play WAR because it's not for Macs.
>> He couldnt do many things cause it'a a mac and that proves he couldnt
>> run on the mac what he wants :p
sk> So you are saying that you are right because you say so rather than
sk> using any actual facts?
Eh what? I didnt get this. And I dont say so, I just know that I have read
several times about some stuff that isnt made for mac, I dont know too much
about it cause I dont plan to get a mac so I dont rly care and since i dont
rly know much about macs I'd rather not comment them too much :)
sk> I listed other things that the Mac has no problems with and
sk> concentrating on these incompatibilites that you mentioned assuming
sk> you meant with document exchange and network traffic. Listing
sk> programs that won't run isn't relevant if the task can still be done
sk> on a Mac.
Well from work experience I noticed that graphic vector files (that I use
daily on work) that come on PC and are made on are so fucked up many times
that they are unusable :S
sk> WAR is a game and I've already accepted that the Mac does not
sk> compare to PCs if you want to play games on it.
Well on a PC I dont have to leave out anything :)
>> then I read vent or TS is a problem and there are many things that
>> dont run on a mac that I heard over the years but I would never dream
>> to buy a mac so I dont go write them down.
sk> There is only one codec supported by Mac's TS and Vent software but
sk> I just changed the server to use that codec and the problem was
sk> solved.
Only 1 codec, I wonder why.
>> >> I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC
>> >> but I cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
>> sk> What, other than play most games, can you not do on a Mac that you
>> sk> can do on a PC?
>> Well most games IS a big thing,
sk> It is a big thing only if you like to play games on a computer. It
sk> was one of the reasons why I bought a PC when my Mac needed
sk> replacing.
>> and then there are many programs that wont run on mac
sk> It's not about what programs can or can't be run. It's about what
sk> things can or can't be done. You don't care if Windows Media Player
sk> doesn't run if you can do all the same stuff in iTunes, you don't
sk> care that Nero doesn't run on a Mac because they have iDVD to do the
sk> same job.
>> but I dont keep lists since I dont plan to buy 1.
sk> That sounds like a cop out from someone who's making statements that
sk> he can't back up.
Sorry if I dont keep a list of what are all the stuff I cant do on a machine
I never plan to get :p
The few stuff I heard over the years are enough to keep me away :)
sk> steve.kaye
The only thing I'd like to know that no one replied yet is: what can I do on
mac that I cant do on a PC?
lcpltom
Detracting from the Pv vs. Mac argument that I really don't want to
get involved with....
I read a review of Warhammer Online and found something peculiar.
They were talking about the RvR aspect of the game, and how the game
is meant to be multiplayer, but also have loads of solo content as
well. They described content (and I forget the 'technical' name they
gave it) where upon entering an area you are automatically given
quests regarding that area in regards to certain RvR objectives. You
can assist with those objectives as you wish, or you can ignore them,
but if you assist you get the chance for loot at the end. The whole
cycle for this specific area resets every couple hours. The article
called this feature 'innovative' and said it sets it apart from WoW
(they made lots of comparisons to WoW). They even have a method of
preventing higher level players from dominating these areas that are
meant for lower level players.
I thought about this for a minute and realized this isn't much
different from any other MMO out there. They're called raids and
dungeons and battlegrounds, areas with specific content that gives you
the chance for loot at the end that reset on a cycle. Yes, there are
some differences, such as there was no mention of these areas being
instanced. But the overall concept here isn't all that new. Even WoW
has some things like this. The Bone Wastes PvP objective thats been
there for the past 2 years is a good example. Towers that only become
capturable every 6 hours, with a beneficial effect for the winning
side. And while quests for it don't automatically pop into you log
when you enter Bone Wastes, indicators for the tower's status do
automatically appear on your screen and on your map. Every 6 hours
the towers become neutral and the whole thing starts over.
And its true, thats about the only real instance in WoW (currently,
Lake Wintergrasp will be similar to this from what I understand) thats
similar to Warhammer's 'innovation'. There are other areas where you
automatically are confronted with PvP objectives, such as Silithus,
EPL, HFP, Zangarmarsh, and Nagrand, but none of those have a real
lasting effect or a timed reset. But they still automatically attempt
to involve players in the PvP (RvR, seriously, they had to make
different terminology to set themselves apart?).
So, I really don't see anything 'innovative' about Warhammer Online,
not that I would play it if it did. WoW already takes up almost all
my spare time anyway, I really don't have room for another MMO in my
life (I hardly have room for alts in my life).
As others have said, it will make its splash, and it will most likely
keep enough subscribers to keep itself going for a while. But with
the impending release of WotLK, and the content patch that changes
everything right before the release, I see a lot of people trying
Warhammer, but abandoning it for WoW once thy get a chance to play
with all the new stuff.
BombayMix
I’ve been playing it since Wednesday. It’s a very good MMO. It not as
polished as WoW. Its missing loads of little things; like no dressing
room, can’t link items in chat, lack to chat options, taxis between
quest hubs etc. None are major but you notice them not being there.
Does have some nice features WoW doesn’t, eg you get a 32 slot bag and
16 more slots every 10 level, get four actions bars down the bottom,
quest objects show up on maps.
Of the major things it does offer; I’m not totally convinced on RvR.
From what I’ve seen (and I admit not much) it was like how AV/World
PvP used to be, ie one massive never ending battle between two points.
Or late at night you could walk up and tag an objective without seeing
a soul.
The Scenarios (aka BGs) are great fun but no better then WoW’s. Some
are very unfair and unbalanced and need to be fixed.
PQ (Public Quests) and Open Groups, are a partial success. When they
work they are great but they don’t always work right. There’s often a
PQ right near each quest hub. So, people go right their, max their
influence (eg rep) get their items and move on.
Problem is there are other PQ in the zone but since people have
already got their rep and items no one seems to bother with them.
Annoying if like me you want to do everything.
Open groups work great for PQ and RvR, just add yourself to a group
and away you go. But for normal PvE they are a bit of fail. I reckon
the groups I joined were infact private groups by people who didn’t
know the difference. I seemed to get kicked from those groups very
quick!
So a good game, not a AoC epic fail, but no WoW beater.
steve.kaye
> >> sk> Who said that he wanted to play WAR? He didn't. He said that he
> >> sk> wasn't playing WAR because he had enough to do playing WoW. As an
> >> sk> aside, he couldn't play WAR because it's not for Macs.
> >> He couldnt do many things cause it'a a mac and that proves he couldnt
> >> run on the mac what he wants :p
>
> sk> So you are saying that you are right because you say so rather than
> sk> using any actual facts?
>
> Eh what? I didnt get this. And I dont say so, I just know that I have read
> several times about some stuff that isnt made for mac, I dont know too much
> about it cause I dont plan to get a mac so I dont rly care and since i dont
> rly know much about macs I'd rather not comment them too much :)
I said that the OP didn't want to play WAR and you responded that he
couldn't do many things because it's a Mac and that proves he couldn't
run what he wants on the Mac. Yet it is only you who has said that he
can't run what he wants - he has specifically said the opposite.
> >> then I read vent or TS is a problem and there are many things that
> >> dont run on a mac that I heard over the years but I would never dream
> >> to buy a mac so I dont go write them down.
>
> sk> There is only one codec supported by Mac's TS and Vent software but
> sk> I just changed the server to use that codec and the problem was
> sk> solved.
>
> Only 1 codec, I wonder why.
I can only assume that it is because there aren't as many Mac
developers as there are PC developers and so nobody has wanted to put
the time in to develop more when one exists already.
> The only thing I'd like to know that no one replied yet is: what can I do on
> mac that I cant do on a PC?
Well, I'm not interested in that as I'm not claiming that there is
stuff that you can do on a Mac that can't be done on a PC. I was just
objecting to your statement that there is a lot that you can't do on a
Mac that you can do on a PC.
The only reason that I chose a Mac instead of a Windows PC was that I
don't like Windows and wanted to try the Mac OS instead. It could run
everything that I wanted it to at the time so I went with it. I did
prefer OSX and I preferred most of the applications that came with
it*.
* I could have paid for MS Office but I didn't want to as I didn't use
it enough - I used OpenOffice which isn't as good as MS Office IMO (it
did the job and I still use it but it doesn't look as nice).
steve.kaye
steve.kaye
I think that the reset that you talk of is more subtle than that of
the Bone Wastes. The way that I understood it was that you've got two
cities a few zones apart and you start fighting and doing objectives
until one side is beaten back to their city. As they get closer (or
into maybe) to the city the losing side is bolstered by NPCs until the
winning side it beaten back for the cycle to begin again. It's not
just a capture it now and forget about it for 6 hours kind of thing.
> So, I really don't see anything 'innovative' about Warhammer Online,
> not that I would play it if it did.
Well, it needs to be innovative for marketting purposes. :)
> But they still automatically attempt
> to involve players in the PvP (RvR, seriously, they had to make
> different terminology to set themselves apart?).
I see the RvR aspect of it as almost an encouragement to gank based on
RP. There are 6 races, 3 for each side, and each one has a race that
it hates for RP reasons. That's just going to encourage the "I killed
him because my character would have" mentality.
My favourite part of WoW at the moment is PvP so I'm hoping that WAR
will improve on that and actually contain enjoyable world PvP.
> As others have said, it will make its splash, and it will most likely
> keep enough subscribers to keep itself going for a while. But with
> the impending release of WotLK, and the content patch that changes
> everything right before the release, I see a lot of people trying
> Warhammer, but abandoning it for WoW once thy get a chance to play
> with all the new stuff.
I'm probably going to try it as soon as my friend gets his internet
connection back (in a couple of weeks). I expect to play it for a few
weeks or more but still come back to WoW for WotLK. It would be nice
to be pleasantly surprised by it but I'm not expecting it.
steve.kaye
C J Campbell
>
> CJC> My Mac runs what I want it to.
>
> Does it run WAR? If not then it DOESNT run what you want him to :p
As I said, I don't really want to run Warhammer. Who cares about
Warhammer? I simply will not buy it because it does not run on Mac.
There are Linux applications that I will not buy because they do not
run on Mac, either. There are Mac applications you do not buy because
they do not run on Windows. That does not hurt my feelings at all. Why
should it bother you that I will not buy Windows-only applications?
>
>
> CJC> an essential. My computer is actually used for many more important
> CJC> business and professional purposes than it is for gaming. Arguably
>
> What of these stuff wouldnt run on a PC?
Aperture, Final Cut, just to name two.
>
> CJC> Windows doesn't run much of anything very well.
>
> Yes windows 95 and windows 98 first edition... you are right I agree on
> those. Win XP SP2 and Vista SP 1 are not even in the same category.
I have run all those systems. My mileage has obviously differed from yours.
>
> CJC> All I am saying is, if people don't want to develop for Mac, they
> CJC> are missing a fairly good sized portion of the market.
>
> CJC> Sure, I could run Windows, load my computer up with viruses and
> CJC> spyware, have to reboot ever so often just to keep the system from
> CJC> crashing, constantly futz around with my network settings, mess
> CJC> around with various device drivers all trying to use the same
> CJC> interrupts, etc.
>
> Last time I saw this problem is 10 years ago on some old windows and some no
> name crap 28,800 modem.
It took me six hours the other day to get a laptop running XP Service
Pack 2 to connect to my wireless network. Another laptop running the
same system never did connect. And upon connecting the entire network
slowed to a crawl.
>
> CJC> Or I can do what I finally did after using Windows from the time it
> CJC> came out up until about 4 years ago: toss the clunky, creaky
> CJC> obsolete
> CJC> OS and get a Mac.
>
>
> Lol you seem to be talking about windows 95 from 13 years ago... If you
> dint try windows XP SP2 or vista SP1 then you have no idea what are you
> talking about. Windows XP doesnt crash, doesnt have irq problems etc etc.
> Actually I dont even shut it down but just put in standby in the evening
> till the next day... cant remember the last time I did a full reboot, maybe
> when the power went out :p
>
> As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose a
> computer where they are so limited like a mac and having incompatibility
> issues with mostof the world.
> I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC but I
> cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
And I can see many things I can do on a Mac (such as work) that I can't
do on a PC. With a PC I spent most of my time maintaining the system
instead of working. I got tired of it.
If Vista is so great, why all the fuss when Microsoft discontinued XP?
I have been using personal computers since the Apple II. I bought the
IBM PC when it first came out. I bought Windows 1.0. I did not buy the
first Mac because it was a piece of junk. Macs improved, however. PCs
got flakier. So now I have switched back to Mac.
I see no reason for everyone to be running a single world-wide
operating system, nor am I offended that other people do things
differently than I do. I do not find that I need other people to use
Macs to validate my own choices. It seems, though, that a lot of
Windows users are so insecure that they are offended that other people
run other operating systems. Tough.
C J Campbell
>
>
> XP has been rock solid for me. I didn't have an significant issues with
> Win95, for that matter, although it wasn't as stable as NT/XP. Buy a Mac
> if you want to buy a Mac, but please stop exaggerating your reasons why.
>
> -Brent
XP has not been rock solid for me. Neither has Vista. I told you the
problems I was having with Windows. Call me a liar if you wish, but
those were the problems I was having. Just because you were not having
those problems does not mean that I was not. I was spending more time
maintaining the computer than I was working. Enough was enough. I
switched to Mac.
Nemesis
I've found that a majority of M\mac users have this cultist mentality
when it comes to their mac's.
steve.kaye
What kind of sample size did you take? :P
steve.kaye
Nemesis
> On 22 Sep, 16:58, Nemesis <teh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 6:49 am, "Shammy" <n...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> > > As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose a
> > > computer where they are so limited like a mac and having incompatibility
> > > issues with mostof the world.
> > > I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC but I
> > > cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
>
> > when it comes to their mac's.
>
> What kind of sample size did you take? :P
>
> steve.kaye
Just going by ALL the mac users I've come across on the internet.
Behemoth
the only important thing to me is that they work for what you want
them to do
Mac users like their Macs because of the functions that it offers
(though MSN, or TS,Vent on Mac isn't as easily attainable as on PC
coming from someone with issues on that)
and PC users use PC's for the ability to just turn it on and they find
what they need right there and most programs are avaliable to them
there's no reason to create a heated discussion on PC verse Mac ..
will you're opinions directly influence the other party to switch to
another type of Computer OS? ... highly unlikely .. .
as for the point on Warhammer .. and the term RvR (it's actually older
then WoW's verse of PvP (though both of them are even older then
their games)
PvP stands for Player verse Player
RvR stands for Realm verse Realm
the only thing that I wanted from a Game was solid replay value for my
buck and the ability to have seigable content which would get me and
or keep me in the PvP/RvR content .. I found it in DAoC until the
community crashed out and I went to WoW because it was suppost to
change how MMO's did business
It improved on points .. but like i've stated before it's PvP is
rather structured and doesn't have the openness opinion as I'd hoped
for where you could spend hours nightly taking key locations for the
benefit of you're faction
does that mean I'm going to quit WoW because Warhammer offers more PvP
then WoW? .. probably not unless the change is so drastic that it
makes WoW's content seem minisule which it doesn't as of this moment
so WoW is WoW and Warhammer though the new kid on the block is just
that.. the new kid on the block
steve.kaye
> On Sep 22, 12:08 pm, "steve.kaye" <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 22 Sep, 16:58, Nemesis <teh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 22, 6:49 am, "Shammy" <n...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> > > > As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose a
> > > > computer where they are so limited like a mac and having incompatibility
> > > > issues with mostof the world.
> > > > I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC but I
> > > > cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
>
> > > I've found that a majority of mac users have this cultist mentality
> > > when it comes to their mac's.
>
> > What kind of sample size did you take? :P
>
>
Except that you missed all the Mac users that don't really care one
way or the other and so didn't voice an opinion on the internet.
Just like if you read the official wow forums it looks like every
class is beyond repair. Those that think that their class is broken
are much more likely to post a complaint than those that think it's
doing fine and avoid the forums because of the previous group.
steve.kaye
PV
>Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
>they know they aren't going to run what they want them to? Nice
>machines, and all, but not that much use.
I'll take sweeping generalizations for $1000, Alex. *
--
* PV something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
like corkscrews.
PV
>As I said, I don't really want to run Warhammer. Who cares about
>Warhammer? I simply will not buy it because it does not run on Mac.
>There are Linux applications that I will not buy because they do not
>run on Mac, either.
Um, what? Name a linux application that you can buy (note - very small
number in the first place. Linux isn't about buying), that doesn't have an
OSX port, or isn't compilable on a mac. Don't say wacky things. *
PV
>My only guess here is that Mac people lack the knack for operating a
>computer... From the level of issues they tend to report with Wintel
>boxes, it's almost shocking that the PC didn't just explode when they sat
>down to start typing.
Wow, that's just about the stupidest thing possible you could have said.
I've been programming professionally for 30 years, on more platforms than
you could name, and I use macs. Of course I also use PCs and linux boxes and
47 different kinds of embedded OSes and platforms. Amateurs. Feh.
I use a mac at home, because it works well without much tweaking and
upkeep, leaving me to do other things. I have a PC at home too, but only
for games I can't pass up. *
DarkRose
Ok, been watching this thread the whole time, and 2 thoughts come to
mind...
1.) How is this WoW Related?
2.) As for the Mac vs. PC arguement, I'm shocked that one of the very
basics hasn't come up yet, the biggest reason I stay with a PC,
affordability and part/upgrade proliference. There are literally
thousands of vendors and companies that make PC part and upgrades,
most of which can be installed realitvely easily. Who makes hardware
upgrades for Mac? Apple... who else? Apple...
With my PC I can switch out and upgrade video cards, memory, CPU,
sound cards, etc whenever I feel the need (as long as they're the same
type/socket) from whichever vendor I either support loyally, or think
has the better value per dollar.
Can't do that with a Mac.
Palindrome
Yup.
Palindrome
Palindrome
A very, very small one - you just can't amass enough Mac owners to get
a decent sample ;)
Palindrome
Nemesis
> On 22 Sep, 17:24, Nemesis <teh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 22, 12:08 pm, "steve.kaye" <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Sep, 16:58, Nemesis <teh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 22, 6:49 am, "Shammy" <n...@nothing.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > As for macs it always makes me laugh that some people actually choose a
> > > > > computer where they are so limited like a mac and having incompatibility
> > > > > issues with mostof the world.
> > > > > I can see so many stuff that you cant do on mac but you can on a PC but I
> > > > > cant see 1 thing that you can do on mac and cant on a PC.
>
> > > > I've found that a majority of mac users have this cultist mentality
> > > > when it comes to their mac's.
>
> > > What kind of sample size did you take? :P
>
> > Just going by ALL the mac users I've come across on the internet.
>
> Except that you missed all the Mac users that don't really care one
> way or the other and so didn't voice an opinion on the internet.
>
Then I'll correct my statement to read, that I've found that a
majority of mac users that I've come across have this cultist
mentality when it comes to their macs.
SpaceGirl
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 23:08:28 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-09-21 08:31:48 -0700, Palindrome <damon...@tiscali.co.uk> said:
>>
>>> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:58:57 -0700, C J Campbell
>>> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Besides, (Insert Name of Game or Application) does not run on Mac.
>>>
>>> Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
>>> they know they aren't going to run what they want them to? Nice
>>> machines, and all, but not that much use.
>>>
>>>
>> My Mac runs what I want it to.
>
>
>
And WoW, or EvE.
Like some of the other posters here, I play games for a nice break from
the far more important things that I do on my Mac (I'm a multimedia
designer, a stable, fast machine that I just don't ever have to worry
about is essential). I'd like to have tried Warhammer, but if they don't
want my money that's their problem not mine. I have a PS3 and a 360 on a
big TV in the living room for playing other games.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
Palindrome
>Palindrome <damon...@tiscali.co.uk> writes:
>>Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
>>they know they aren't going to run what they want them to? Nice
>>machines, and all, but not that much use.
>
>I'll take sweeping generalizations for $1000, Alex. *
Not that much of a generalization - I HAVE heard it so many times, in
the store I work in, and in conversation over the last five years or
so. On other forums, I regularly see Mac owners use the "Not
available for Mac" lament so many times, I seriously wonder why the
hell they bought one in the first place.
Palindrome
Palindrome
wrote:
>Ok, been watching this thread the whole time, and 2 thoughts come to
>mind...
>1.) How is this WoW Related?
The Intarweb rarely stays on track.
>2.) As for the Mac vs. PC arguement, I'm shocked that one of the very
>basics hasn't come up yet, the biggest reason I stay with a PC,
>affordability and part/upgrade proliference.
>Can't do that with a Mac.
We take that as a given, and we don't like to prod the Mac owners too
much, poor things. ;)
Palindrome
SpaceGirl
Anything reliably. HD video editing, for example. I wouldn't DREAM of
trying to do that on a PC because of just how critical the final renders
are (at least for me). I need to know that I can run PhotoShop,
Illustrator, FinalCutPro (or Premier Pro, for arguments sake) and never,
ever have to worry about anything going wrong. I don't even have to
think about drivers (ever), or about closing a program because the
system has become sluggish (as per the Vista SP1 Dell I use from time to
time). It just works. I never turn my Mac off (it sleeps when I don't
use it), I've never seen programs crash or machine lockups (unlike my
Dell) when coming out of sleep, Illustrator crashes when pasting very
large (1Gb+) artwork (unlike my Dell).
So the one thing no Windows Vista machine (IMO) can do is "reliability".
Would you ever run Windows on a mission critical machine? I would never.
Software alone is never the whole story.
Palindrome
<mch...@ellensgroup.com> wrote:
>there's no reason to create a heated discussion on PC verse Mac ..
We all enjoy it, really :)
Palindrome
SpaceGirl
>
>
>> Sure, I could run Windows, load my computer up with viruses and
>> with various device drivers all trying to use the same interrupts, etc.
>
> computer... From the level of issues they tend to report with Wintel
> boxes, it's almost shocking that the PC didn't just explode when they sat
> down to start typing.
That's a bit of a stretch. Most of the Mac users I know come from a
creative background, as in the movie business. They know a lot more
about computers than any PC people I've met :) (such as all the Unixish
stuff underneath).
As for me, well, I was a PC person until about 3 years ago, when I
project landed on my desk that I need a super super super reliable
laptop that was very good and graphics and a massive battery life. So I
bought a Apple PowerBook. It changed everything for me. Up until then
I'd always used Windows; I'm one of those geeky girls who also built her
own computers (we do exist!). So I knew PCs inside out too, having built
maybe 10 from parts. But this PowerBook was just bliss... Never a crash,
ever. Never a worry about antivirus or using it on open networks,
Everything just worked when I opened the lid (never a wait), all the
apps perfectly stable.
So when it came to replace the desktop machines in our home studio, I
raided my savings account and got myself a beautiful Mac Pro. It made my
life so much easier.
> My systems, both personal and for work, tend to be up and running for a
> week or more at a time, usually with solid VPN connections throughout. I'll
> shut them down when I don't plan on using them the next day, but that's
> about it.
I have a Dell & a HP at the studio I work at during the day, and there
are ALWAYS problems. These machines just run PhotoShop mostly, but
there's always stuff breaking. For example, every 2-3 days I HAVE to
reset the HP because Windows will just stop opening new windows. No
error, it you just double click Explorer or whatever and nothing
happens. It has the latest patches, and the video driver HP supplied.
This is a production machine, I hate it. The Dell isn't much better.
It's aways a pleasure to use either my laptop (I replaced the Powerbook
with a Mac Book Pro last year).
> My laptop moves from my home office to either of two different offices on
> different networks. Different video configurations, too, for that matter.
> Seamlessly, and with little or no intervention on my part.
You're lucky. My boss has an IBM thinkpad. He's forever moving from his
desk dock to go to meetings etc. Almost every time he plugs it into the
dock, it either locks up, forgets which screen applications are on, or
both screens go blank. Lovely. It's running Vista SP1.
> XP has been rock solid for me. I didn't have an significant issues with
> Win95, for that matter, although it wasn't as stable as NT/XP. Buy a Mac
> if you want to buy a Mac, but please stop exaggerating your reasons why.
Personally I don't need to exaggerate. I know Windows inside out. I know
Macs inside out. I'll never use a PC unless forced to :)
C J Campbell
> C J Campbell <christoph...@hotmail.com> writes:
>> As I said, I don't really want to run Warhammer. Who cares about
>> Warhammer? I simply will not buy it because it does not run on Mac.
>> There are Linux applications that I will not buy because they do not
>> run on Mac, either.
>
> Um, what? Name a linux application that you can buy (note - very small
> number in the first place. Linux isn't about buying), that doesn't have an
> OSX port, or isn't compilable on a mac. Don't say wacky things. *
Well, not buy, then. Obtain.
C J Campbell
>>
>
> Ok, been watching this thread the whole time, and 2 thoughts come to
> mind...
> 1.) How is this WoW Related?
Well, precisely. I really did not want to hijack the thread into a PC
vs. Mac argument. I consider such arguments silly and I am more than a
little bit ticked that I have been drawn into one.
> 2.) As for the Mac vs. PC arguement, I'm shocked that one of the very
> basics hasn't come up yet, the biggest reason I stay with a PC,
> affordability and part/upgrade proliference. There are literally
> thousands of vendors and companies that make PC part and upgrades,
> most of which can be installed realitvely easily. Who makes hardware
> upgrades for Mac? Apple... who else? Apple...
> With my PC I can switch out and upgrade video cards, memory, CPU,
> sound cards, etc whenever I feel the need (as long as they're the same
> type/socket) from whichever vendor I either support loyally, or think
> has the better value per dollar.
> Can't do that with a Mac.
Yes, you can. Macs use the same cards, hard drives, memory and other
upgrades that PCs do. I will grant that many vendors do not provide Mac
drivers, but most of them do. For awhile, there, it was easier to find
Mac compatible stuff than Vista compatible stuff. This was especially
true with printers. Vista had no drivers for any of my printers (a
Lexmark color laser, an HP all-in-one, and two Epson PhotoSmart
printers) when it came out. Now that Vista has been out for awhile,
this is no longer true. They are about even now. If I really wanted to,
I could use a WoW keyboard on my Mac.
Personally, I really don't care. If you like your PC, fine. But if you
are a software developer and don't port your software to Mac, I am not
going to buy your software. I got along fine without your software
before you wrote it, so it isn't as if I actually need it.
If Civilization: Beyond the Sword were ported to Mac, I probably would
buy it. Warhammer, though -- you know what? I probably would not get it
even if it ran on a Mac. The fact that it doesn't run on Mac is just
the final nail in the coffin.
Now, it is also true that I can run Windows on my Mac if I really want
to. I used to do that. But I found that I spent less and less time in
Windows and finally removed it a few months after upgrading to Vista.
There just wasn't anything there that I was really using any more.
Now, my wife still uses Windows XP, which is installed on her Mac. She
sews quite a lot and uses Viking's 4D embroidery software. For that,
there is no good Mac equivalent. When it is running Windows the Mac is
just like any other PC running Windows. Her sewing machine is a typical
Plug n Play peripheral: I only had to install the device driver 4 times
to get it to work. Now, this is not a Windows problem -- whoever writes
drivers for Viking should be boiled alive. They somehow managed to
write a device driver that insists that the sewing machine be plugged
in to the same USB port every time. Apparently, they believe it helps
to keep people from stealing their software. Of course, this 'feature'
is not documented anywhere and if you plug the machine into a different
USB port there is a chance it will corrupt the driver, forcing a
reinstall. Plus, another USB port is occupied by a firmware
authorization key. And you have to use the same USB port for it every
time, too. As if their software were really so valuable. They install
their own variant of Explorer which does not show new folders or files
or devices until you deliberately refresh the window. This file browser
only works, of course, for the 4D software. Clunky and annoying.
Fortunately, regular Explorer is still usable on the machine for
everything else, but it will not show previews of embroidery files.
What a piece of crap. Luckily, the Mac has 3 USB ports, so she can
still use a printer to print out her embroidery designs. Oh, and get
this: Viking has a memory stick you can use to transfer embroidery
designs to the sewing machine. It looks just like any other USB memory
stick except that it has "Husqvarna" written on it. Only the stupid
sewing machine will not accept any other memory stick! This memory
stick is 'keyed' to this type of machine! I cannot use my SmartDisk
memory stick on that sewing machine -- it doesn't recognize it! Guess
what operating system runs on the sewing machine? Linux.
My wife uses OS X for everything else.
I had an airplane for a few years that had an Apollo GPS flat panel
screen in it for navigation. It was really nice. The OS for that was
Windows 2000. Weird. When you started up the airplane, it ran through
the whole Windows 2000 diagnostic and boot-up thing, blue screen and
all. It worked most of the time, too. After all, it was a dedicated app
running on a dedicated computer. But it wasn't crash-proof. It could
and did occasionally crash. Gave a whole new meaning to the blue screen
of death. The really nice thing about the unit, though, was its
beautiful screen. Apollo (later bought out by Garmin) chose an SVGA
screen. This, in a day when most moving map displays were not even up
to VGA standards. Apollo's biggest competitor could only manage 32
colors for their screen. Ridiculous. People would come from all over
the airport just to look at my moving map display, it was so pretty.
Even Garmin's latest and greatest, the G1000 display, took a couple
years to get all the features that the Apollo had (although, of course,
they really are not equivalent products -- the G1000 is a complete
glass cockpit, not just a navigational display, and a very nice one,
too). It wasn't until about a year ago that the G1000 would display
airways, for example.
I really miss that airplane. It was a 1999 Cessna 206 Stationair, a
real load hauler. Wish I had never sold it. But it is just as well. I
was unable to fly for a year because of health problems and I have
never really gotten back into it since. But then, if I still had a
plane perhaps I would be flying more, eh? Or maybe not, what with the
price of gas.
PV
>> Um, what? Name a linux application that you can buy (note - very small
>> number in the first place. Linux isn't about buying), that doesn't have an
>> OSX port, or isn't compilable on a mac. Don't say wacky things. *
>
>Well, not buy, then. Obtain.
Obtain is not a problem. The overwhelming majority of programs written for
linux are as a matter of course available for macs and PCs both. Sometimes
you might have to grab the source and build it yourself (often 3 shell
commands) if nobody has bothered with a fink binary port, but that's
becoming very, very rare. I run lots and lots of linux software on my macs.
So I repeat - name one linux program that isn't available for macs (and PCs
for that matter) also. You're talking crazy talk. *
PV
>Ok, been watching this thread the whole time, and 2 thoughts come to
>mind...
>1.) How is this WoW Related?
That didn't stop you from spouting off nonsense too ... *
Brent Stroh
>Wow, that's just about the stupidest thing possible you could have said.
>
>I've been programming professionally for 30 years, on more platforms than
>you could name, and I use macs. Of course I also use PCs and linux boxes and
>47 different kinds of embedded OSes and platforms. Amateurs. Feh.
>
>I use a mac at home, because it works well without much tweaking and
>upkeep, leaving me to do other things. I have a PC at home too, but only
>for games I can't pass up. *
And in your extensive experience, is maintaining your Wintel PC a constant
battle between man and machine, dealing with interrupt conflicts, driver
issues, and locust plagues?
-Brent
C J Campbell
Wow. You get locusts, too? I thought I was the only one...
Urbin
> >> but I dont keep lists since I dont plan to buy 1.
>
> sk> That sounds like a cop out from someone who's making statements that
> sk> he can't back up.
>
> Sorry if I dont keep a list of what are all the stuff I cant do on a machine
> I never plan to get :p
> The few stuff I heard over the years are enough to keep me away :)
I have been an avid PC user for more than two decades now. At uni we were
forced to work on some Mac boxes (can't recall their exact type) and I hated
them with a vengeance. Not necessarily because they were Macs but because
the compiler and editor we had to use there were absolute crap.
For years I fought the religous war from the "right" side (i.e. Wintel) but
in the past few years I have come to the conclusion that it is not so much
an issue of being able to run every PC program I have on a Mac but to find
an equivalent Mac program that does the same as every PC program I have.
With the switch to make MacOS Unix based I have actually considered
switching when my last PC died but in the end inertia kept me on wintel
boxes as even if there are Mac replacements for every tool I have collected
in over 20 years on a PC, I just can't be bothered looking for them :-)
However, my dies of waging my anti-mac crusade have been over for quite some
time. As are my days of linux zealotery and Wintelbashing. Windows XP has
been running amazingly stable, as has NT before that. Even at work where
they force me to use Vista I was amazed that there were much fewer problems
than I had feared.
> The only thing I'd like to know that no one replied yet is: what can I do on
> mac that I cant do on a PC?
Does there need to be something you can do on one machine and not on the
other? As long as Mac users can do everything they need (and probably
everything a PC user can do except for a large part of games) and as long as
PC users can do everythign a Mac user can do (and even some games on top of
that), both can be happy with the box they have.
And as long as gaming is not the main reason for having a computer, I guess
most Mac users will be happy with what they have and accept they can't play
a few games...
Cheers
Urbin, preaching for the end of the OS-wars ;-)
--
Dun Morogh-EU (PvE)
Urbin (70), Dwarven Hunter | Surana (52), Draenei Mage
Mymule (70), Gnomish Warlock | Juran (33), Nightelven Druid
Sunh (70), Nightelven Priest | Gera (26), Human Paladin
Frank E
<bomb...@altavista.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sep 18, 8:08 pm, Paul <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am sure there are some in these parts taking a break from WOW to
>> check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
>>
>> So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
>
>I’ve been playing it since Wednesday. It’s a very good MMO. It not as
>polished as WoW. Its missing loads of little things; like no dressing
>room, can’t link items in chat, lack to chat options, taxis between
>quest hubs etc. None are major but you notice them not being there.
Agreed, it's not as polished as WoW. But it's arguably as polished as
WoW was at release and doesn't have the server and database problems
that WoW had back then. Definitely playable imo.
>The Scenarios (aka BGs) are great fun but no better then WoW’s. Some
>are very unfair and unbalanced and need to be fixed.
I've played through all 6 Tier 1 and 2 scenarios and don't see how you
could call them unbalanced since they're all mirrored.
One nice thing is that you get different scenarios every 10 levels so
the BGs don't get old as fast. I don't suppose that will matter much
once people get to max level though.
>PQ (Public Quests) and Open Groups, are a partial success. When they
>work they are great but they don’t always work right. There’s often a
>PQ right near each quest hub. So, people go right their, max their
>influence (eg rep) get their items and move on.
>
>Problem is there are other PQ in the zone but since people have
>already got their rep and items no one seems to bother with them.
>Annoying if like me you want to do everything.
There are reasons to do the different PQs since the loot drops are
different even if they give the same rep. I don't think players have
figured out that it makes more sense to do each of the 3 PQs in a
chapter once than to repeat one 3 times.
>Open groups work great for PQ and RvR, just add yourself to a group
>and away you go. But for normal PvE they are a bit of fail. I reckon
>the groups I joined were infact private groups by people who didn’t
>know the difference. I seemed to get kicked from those groups very
>quick!
Yup.
My biggest beef so far is actually the chat system. With each zone
split into about 10 different 'global' chat channels, it's virtually
impossible to talk to enough people to form a PvP Keep raid or even to
form groups for some of the lesser run PQs. The way they did their
chat is a horrible implementation IMO.
Agreed that it's not a WoW beater but I think it's worth trying for
anyone that likes the PvP in WoW.
Rgds, Frank
PV
>And in your extensive experience, is maintaining your Wintel PC a constant
>battle between man and machine, dealing with interrupt conflicts, driver
>issues, and locust plagues?
No, just a boring waste of time mostly. *
evins...@gmail.com
> I am sure there are some in these parts taking a break from WOW to
> check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
>
> So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
I'm now playing it a lot more more than I'm playing WoW, which was a
bit of a surprise. I'm interested in MMOs in general, from the
perspective of someone who gets paid to work on games, among other
things, and since I started playing WoW at launch almost four years
ago, I have always had at least one other MMO subscription at the same
time. I haven't ever played any other MMO nearly as much as I played
WoW, though, until WAR came along.
WAR is a very good game. Mythic has done an excellent job with it.
It's not revolutionary, or a hotbed of innovation, or anything like
that. What it is is a very good MMO. It's huge fun to play.
It's similar enough to WoW that any experienced WoW player can figure
out all the essentials in a few minutes. It's different enough that a
few weeks after starting with the first Preview Weekend, there are
still lots of little "Aha!" moments.
It is much more PVP-focused than WoW, and I like WAR's PVP design, and
the way they've chosen to integrate it with the rest of the game, much
better than WoW's. Hearing that it's so PVP-focused might put off some
people who would actually enjoy it. A case in point: my 71-year-old
mother has played WoW almost as long as I have (I started on launch
day). For most of that time, she has steadfastly maintained that PVP
was not for her. Now she is playing several hours of WAR a day, much
of it in RvR combat.
It feels different from WoW, in that in WoW, PVP and the on-again, off-
again conflict between the Horde and the Alliance is just one among a
bunch of features of the world; in WAR the entire game is focused on
the ongoing all-out war between Order and Destruction, and on the PVP
expression of that conflict. Even the design of the geography reflects
that view, in that the entire WAR world is really three long
battlefronts in this worldwide war. In theory there is a larger world
out there; in practice, all you'll ever see of it (at least in the
current release) is the battlefronts. That doesn't mean it's small and
cramped; on the contrary, the world is large and varied and worth
wandering around in. It just means that you are never very far from a
front where the two sides are actively trying to obliterate each
other.
Leveling feels fast and easy, even compared to the current leveling
20-60 in WoW. It rarely, if ever, feels like I am grinding for
anything. There is always a lot of fun stuff to do, and a lot going
on. The designers have a strong and distinctive sense of humor that
shows up all over the place.
Guild support is excellent. There is a guild UI in-game with ways to
display guild contact info such as web and email addresses; a
filterable roster; a calendar that shows guild events as well as
events scheduled for groups of allied guilds, and a signup sheet for
the events; guild heraldry; and lists of guild rewards. Guilds level
up as their members do, and they earn various enhancements by doing
so, such as passive abilities that members can use by virtue of
belonging to the guild.
It's not the game for crafters. Gathering and crafting professions do
exist in WAR, just barely. If you want a rich crafting game, you
should definitely look elsewhere.
There are problems. It's got bugs. There are lots of little things
that we've all come to take for granted in WoW, that are not there in
WAR. UI shortcuts; customization options; chat features; it's still
early days for lots of things like this.
It has somewhat steeper system requirements than WoW. Having a machine
that runs WoW well does not mean it will run WAR well (or at all). The
system requirements are nowhere near as prohibitive as, say, Age of
Conan's, though. Certainly, system requirements haven't kept WAR from
doing a booming business in its opening weeks.
Will it be able to compete long-term? We'll see. Certainly, I hope so.
Maybe in a month or a year I'll be back to playing WoW more than
anything else, but for now, I'm playing a lot more WAR than WoW. I log
on to WoW to keep my guild appointments and my scheduled obligations
to friends, and the rest of my play time goes into WAR. For now, at
least, it's just way more fun.
As a related aside, some of the regular WoW projects group I play with
are recruiting for an all-greenskin project in WAR. Drop me a line if
you're interested in joining us. WAAAGH!
The Terrible Poet
I'd rather his nonsens then your never ending "i've been programming
for 30 years!!!!!1!!111!1!11levenone!11!1" kookiness.
Pete B
no...@tiscali.co.uk says...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2008 06:58:57 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christoph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Besides, (Insert Name of Game or Application) does not run on Mac.
>
>
> Lol, I hear that SO many times. Why the hell do people buy them if
> they know they aren't going to run what they want them to?
They buy them because it runs what they want them to do.
If people who makes programs that they want mac people to run, they must
make a mac version as well.
Pete B
christoph...@hotmail.com says...
> Sure, I could run Windows, load my computer up with viruses and
> spyware, have to reboot ever so often just to keep the system from
> crashing, constantly futz around with my network settings, mess around
> with various device drivers all trying to use the same interrupts, etc.
>
Though in fairness if you did that every day it must be because you like
it ;)
C J Campbell
Yeah, but the scars are starting to heal over. You get too old for some
things. ;-)
Pete B
christoph...@hotmail.com says...
Yeah, i know the feeling.
steve.kaye
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 07:34:57 -0700 (PDT), BombayMix
>
> >On Sep 18, 8:08 pm, Paul <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I am sure there are some in these parts taking a break from WOW to
> >> check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
>
> >> So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
> >The Scenarios (aka BGs) are great fun but no better then WoW’s. Some
> >are very unfair and unbalanced and need to be fixed.
>
> I've played through all 6 Tier 1 and 2 scenarios and don't see how you
> could call them unbalanced since they're all mirrored.
>
> One nice thing is that you get different scenarios every 10 levels so
> the BGs don't get old as fast. I don't suppose that will matter much
> once people get to max level though.
The thing that I like about the scenarios is that they boost your
level if you are too low. You can go in the level 1-11 scenario at
level 1 and you'll have the stats of a level 8 player. You don't get
the abilities but you have as much health and hit as hard as a level
8. I went in at level 3 or 4 and had fun - I was able to solo kill a
level 10 or 11 character.
> >PQ (Public Quests) and Open Groups, are a partial success. When they
> >work they are great but they don’t always work right. There’s often a
> >PQ right near each quest hub. So, people go right their, max their
> >influence (eg rep) get their items and move on.
>
> >Problem is there are other PQ in the zone but since people have
> >already got their rep and items no one seems to bother with them.
> >Annoying if like me you want to do everything.
>
> There are reasons to do the different PQs since the loot drops are
> different even if they give the same rep. I don't think players have
> figured out that it makes more sense to do each of the 3 PQs in a
> chapter once than to repeat one 3 times.
I've only got to level 6 but I've found a second PQ in chapter 2 which
is out of the way. If you miss the quest that sends you over that way
then you'll never find it. There were just 2 of us doing the quest
and it was a bit of a challenge to get to stage 3 and we got easily
beaten by the level 4 hero that was the end boss. (we were level 6
but hadn't gone back for our level 6 abilities yet)
> Agreed that it's not a WoW beater but I think it's worth trying for
> anyone that likes the PvP in WoW.
I like it - I think that it might replace WoW for me in the coming
weeks until Wrath comes out but I doubt that it'll stop me buying
WotLK.
steve.kaye
Rob Wynne
> I am sure there are some in these parts taking a break from WOW to
> check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
>
> So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
Having had more time to play it, here are my thoughts on Warhammer.
Caveat lector: I am primarily a PVE/RP player, who only dabbles in PvP, so
I know that this game isn't really marketed at my audience.
It's not unfair to say that Warhammer Online was one of the most eagerly
anticipated game releases of the year, if only because it gave the gaming
press many chances to breathlessly speculate on if it could be the "WoW
killer". (Age of Conan having failed miserably at even being remotely
playable, let alone a juggernaut. ) And it's not hard to see why some
people were excited. The Warhammer miniatures game has a long history of
fanatic devotees, and the heavy PvP focus of the new online version looked
like it might be just the sort of thing for people who like that sort of
thing. Since I'm really not a hardcore PVPer, I wasn't terribly interested,
but enough people in my Warcraft guild were rabidly excited that I figured
I'd buy it and see what the fuss was about. At worst, I thought, it might
be a diversion until Wrath of the Lich King is released in November.
Unfortunately, the results are fairly underwhelming. Admittedly, I've only
played one character up to level 10 and another up to about 6, but the
things that bug me about the game aren't related to how the classes play.
But first, lest I be accused of just being another Blizzard fanboy who
can't see the awesomeness this new game clearly is, let me talk about the
things that I like about Warhammer:
* Public Quests: This is actually a pretty neat idea. Basically,
there's periodic events associated with particular areas in the game. Each
is divided into three stages. One is a usually a pretty straightforward
"Kill X of Y" quests, as a position is assaulted by waves of the enemy. If
there aren't enough people to accomplish this within a certain time period,
the event ends and it resets. If, however, the objective is completed, a
slightly harder wave of enemies spawns for phase 2, and if those are dealt
with a boss-level mob shows up. At the end, everyone in the area who
participated in the event (even if they're not grouped together) gets
assigned a participation score, which weights their roll for loot. The top
x players get something from the loot chest, and then after a while, the
whole thing resets. This is also where you gain influence, a stat which
allows you to get rewards from a special vendor when you have enough of it.
The system isn't perfect. If you're the only one in the area, you
have no chance of completing the event; even if you can get through phase
one and two, the boss is not soloable. But the idea of periodic world
events where everyone in the area can just pitch in on and then get a
reward is pretty neat.
* Normalized PVP. Whenever you enter a PvP area, either an "Realm vs.
Realm" zone or a battleground, your effective level is set to the same as
everyone else in that area. That means that a level 11 character isn't at a
fundamental disadvantage against a level 19 character. They're both in the
same tier, and both will fight as (say) a level 18 character. Also, if a
character who is vastly over-ranked comes into a lowbie area, they are
changed into an easily dispatched chicken, which is amusing.
The battlegrounds themselves are pretty straightforward
capture-the-flag/hold-the-objective affairs, at least in the first tier.
But at least you can participate in them from day one, rather than needing
to get to the top of a bracket before you can even play.
* The Tome of Knowledge is very pretty, and a fairly organized way to
put all your information in one place.
* Titles. I was a complete badge-whore in City of Heroes, so it's nice
to again be able to accomplish something, get a cool title that displays
under your name. It's utterly trivial, but I like it.
Well, that didn't take long. Now, the complaints.
* The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
Worse, the synchronicity between what's happening and the animations are
rarely quite attuned, so the action that you just took may take a second to
appear on screen, or worse the thing running towards you is often closer
than it appears. The game is also a bit unstable, but I try not to hold
that against a brand new online game, though if they don't have the
technical stuff ironed out in a few weeks, they're going to find themself
in trouble.
* The graphics aren't that good. I suppose they're serviceable, but to
be honest it looks to me like they couldn't decide if they wanted to be
cartoony or realistic, tried to do both at the same time, and fell into the
uncanny valley between them. Some of the vistas are pretty enough, but
nothing that really makes the game go pop.
Worse, there's an incredible sameness about the characters. The
choices of personal appearance is quite limited, and it's very hard to tell
one character from another. Sure, you can tell an elf from a dwarf, but
spotting which of two elves that one is without the name floating overhead
would be nearly impossible. (To be fair, WoW, though better than this,
isn't MUCH better than this. City of Heroes is still the gold standard for
avatar design, IMO).
For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
* The animation isn't that good either. Characters have this sort of
hunched straight-legged run that makes them look like they have a
stomachache. The combat animations look stiff and unnatural.
* The PvE is anemic. I know that the focus of the game is PvP, and
that's what people are excited about, but for someone who really enjoys
questing and following storylines, this really kinda terrible. I've spent
most of the time I've been doing PvE stuff being bored to tears. You don't
stay in one place long enough to really get a feel for it, and most of the
regular quests are simple but unimaginative. Only the Public Quests have
any sense of something really *happening*.
* The lore is shallow. Warhammer fans like to point to the 25 year
history of their world as if it somehow imparted it an epic status.
Frankly, if this is all you've come up with in 25 years, maybe someone
should have put the tape measure down and actually developed the world
beyond "We have always been at war with Eastasia Destruction." Yeah, war is
everywhere, and all parts of the land are touched by it etc. etc. etc.
Praise Khaine and pass the ammunition.
The problem is that this is the *only* storyline, essentially.
There's nothing to make you *care* about a place anymore than you have to
to complete its quests and move on. And there's very little in the way of
stories that don't center on the Ongoing Conflict. You don't get the sense
that anyone really *lives* here. There's just a setting for a giant
conflict. And after a while, you think "Did that. Got the t-shirt, which
has slightly better stats than the last t-shirt. Yawn." I've played
first-person shooters with richer narratives than this.
* The crafting is byzantine and opaque. I'm sure there's something
really exciting lurking here, but it's completely non-intuitive.
* All of the above adds up to the killing blow: The game just doesn't
feel immersive to me. I never lose the sense that I'm playing a game and
just experience the action. And while its the sort of thing that *might*
get better at higher level, if a game isn't grabbing you early, it's not
doing its job.
* Ok, this is a personal gripe, but this is a personal journal, so I
get to complain about this here. I can't have my name. On WoW, my main has
been my hunter Pryderi since nearly the beginning. I took the name from
Welsh mythology, which I've loved since I first read the Mabinogion, and
it's more or less the name my guild knows me by. And it wouldn't let me
take it.
At first, I thought that someone else had gotten it first, and was
merely disappointed. Then I checked on the online roster and found out that
no one has it. Apparently, Mythic compiled a list of forbidden names, and
mine is on it. So I did what any unhappy player does in an online game. I
opened a GM ticket asking if it would be possible to have my name, since
apparently no one else did. Unfortunately, I opened that ticket on
September 20th, and as of yesterday, September 28th, I had not gotten a
response. Not a "No, sorry." Not even a "We have received your query and it
will be answered in the order in which it was received." Radio silence. I
find this, frankly, a simply unacceptable level of customer service.
Honestly, a lot of these things might eventually get fixed, at least in
terms of the game responsiveness and the the bugs, but most of my
complaints are about the fundamental design of the game, and I don't expect
that to change.
I don't want to say that Warhammer is a bad game, because it's not. But
it's a perfectly mediocre game, and doesn't offer anything compelling
beyond a somewhat better PvP environment. I find myself, after 10 levels
(and thus 25% of my way to the level cap) underwhelmed and disappointed.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2009: Jan 9-11, 2009 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
PV
>been my hunter Pryderi since nearly the beginning. I took the name from
>Welsh mythology, which I've loved since I first read the Mabinogion, and
>it's more or less the name my guild knows me by. And it wouldn't let me
>take it.
Unless the name means something obscene in Welsh, or they're taking the
name for their own use since it's a mythical character, I don't get.
There's certainly no bad words hidden in it. Odd. *
steve.kaye
> Paul <meat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am sure there are some in these parts taking a break from WOW to
> > check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
>
> > So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
>
> Having had more time to play it, here are my thoughts on Warhammer.
>
> have no chance of completing the event; even if you can get through phase
> one and two, the boss is not soloable. But the idea of periodic world
> events where everyone in the area can just pitch in on and then get a
> reward is pretty neat.
I think that it's a bit unfair to list this one as a gripe. You're
not supposed to be able to do Public Quests solo. That's the whole
point of them - you're supposed to group together to overcome a
formidable foe. If you could do them solo then they would be too easy
and there'd be no sense of accomplishment.
> * Normalized PVP.
I've not done a scenario above level 8 - do the top level guys in the
scenario bracket get demoted to level 8 when they get in? If so, that
would explain why I was as successful as I was. I was expecting
people between levels 1 and 7 to be promoted (without skills) and that
levels 8+ would be left alone.
I really like this feature. You get a hint before you even get to
level 2 telling you about scenarios and at about 2 or 3 you get a
repeatable quest to go in. It seems that you could literally level
all the way doing PvP.
> * The Tome of Knowledge is very pretty, and a fairly organized way to
> put all your information in one place.
This is nice but I rarely bother reading it. I want to play the game
when the entries are unlocked and I mean to go back and read them but
rarely do.
> * The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
> intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
> its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
> feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
I've not suffered from server lag much*. I do suffer from graphics
lag quite often though. The FPS seems fine and then suddenly it will
freeze for a second and then carry on. A little irritating.
* There's a bug with ranged attacks that seems like lag. You attack
and they stay still for a second or two then teleport to where they
would have been had they run right away. It's got the visual symptoms
of lag but I don't think that it's caused by traditional lag problems
- I just think that it's a bug. It happens to me on every pull (or so
it seems) and I'd have thought lag would be more intermittent. Could
be either though.
> Worse, the synchronicity between what's happening and the animations are
> rarely quite attuned, so the action that you just took may take a second to
> appear on screen, or worse the thing running towards you is often closer
> than it appears.
I've not noticed that.
> The game is also a bit unstable, but I try not to hold
> that against a brand new online game, though if they don't have the
> technical stuff ironed out in a few weeks, they're going to find themself
> in trouble.
I've not found the game to be unstable at all. It hasn't ever crashed
for me and I've never had to restart the game for any reason.
> * The graphics aren't that good.
Some things are great, some awful and some so so. Fire is fantastic,
water looks like colourless jelly. My chaos character and my high elf
character both look good but my dark elves look rubbish. The dark elf
females are almost naked and the skin parts of the model are so jagged
that I had to check to see if anti-aliasing was turned on.
> For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
> than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
> start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
> everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
> couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
They aren't the same item - they just have the exact same model. I
have upgraded various pieces on my shadow warrior and on my chaos tank
character and the replacements were exactly the same except for a
colour change in some cases. I don't know what they were thinking
there - I guess that item model design must have been one of the
things to be cut down on to meet the release date.
I'm trying not to play it too much as I want to wait for my friend so
that we can group up and get into it together but I can't see the game
lasting past 13th November for me.
steve.kaye
Rob Wynne
>> ￜ ￜ * Public Quests: This is actually a pretty neat idea.
>>ￜ ￜ ￜ The system isn't perfect. If you're the only one in the area, you
>> have no chance of completing the event; even if you can get through phase
>> one and two, the boss is not soloable. But the idea of periodic world
>> events where everyone in the area can just pitch in on and then get a
>> reward is pretty neat.
>
> I think that it's a bit unfair to list this one as a gripe. You're
> not supposed to be able to do Public Quests solo. That's the whole
> point of them - you're supposed to group together to overcome a
> formidable foe. If you could do them solo then they would be too easy
> and there'd be no sense of accomplishment.
>
It wasn't really a gripe. I think the public quests idea is really nifty,
and listed it as a strength, not a downside. I was just noting that
depending on when you're playing and who's around at that time, they can be
frustrating becuase you can't complete the objective without folks being
around to help out. (The same could be said of world bosses in WoW, but
those aren't held up as an integral part of your storyline and expected to
be done regularly.)
>
>> ￜ ￜ * Normalized PVP.
>
> I've not done a scenario above level 8 - do the top level guys in the
> scenario bracket get demoted to level 8 when they get in? If so, that
> would explain why I was as successful as I was. I was expecting
> people between levels 1 and 7 to be promoted (without skills) and that
> levels 8+ would be left alone.
Yeah, everyone in the 1-11 bracket gets set to level 8 in PvP areas.
>
> I really like this feature. You get a hint before you even get to
> level 2 telling you about scenarios and at about 2 or 3 you get a
> repeatable quest to go in. It seems that you could literally level
> all the way doing PvP.
>
Indeed, most people intend to. Which is a good thing, because the PvE is
so anemic.
>
>> ￜ ￜ * The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
>> intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
>> its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
>> feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
>
> I've not suffered from server lag much*. I do suffer from graphics
> lag quite often though. The FPS seems fine and then suddenly it will
> freeze for a second and then carry on. A little irritating.
>
> * There's a bug with ranged attacks that seems like lag. You attack
> and they stay still for a second or two then teleport to where they
> would have been had they run right away. It's got the visual symptoms
> of lag but I don't think that it's caused by traditional lag problems
> - I just think that it's a bug. It happens to me on every pull (or so
> it seems) and I'd have thought lag would be more intermittent. Could
> be either though.
>
These are all my impressions based on my own experience playing the game.
I'm sure a lot of them are going to be based on the server I am on, the
time of day, and so on. The ranged bug you mention is quite annoying. But
everything in the game feels a bit sluggish, and other people I've talked
with shared my impression.
>> The game is also a bit unstable, but I try not to hold
>> that against a brand new online game, though if they don't have the
>> technical stuff ironed out in a few weeks, they're going to find themself
>> in trouble.
>
> I've not found the game to be unstable at all. It hasn't ever crashed
> for me and I've never had to restart the game for any reason.
>
Lucky you!
>
>> ￜ ￜ * The graphics aren't that good.
>
> Some things are great, some awful and some so so. Fire is fantastic,
> water looks like colourless jelly. My chaos character and my high elf
> character both look good but my dark elves look rubbish. The dark elf
> females are almost naked and the skin parts of the model are so jagged
> that I had to check to see if anti-aliasing was turned on.
>
Some things DO look good, but that's part of what's so frustrating. You
get the sense that the graphics *could* have been superb, but they didn't
quite make the grade.
WoW's graphics are cartoonish, but the art style is consistant so that
everything looks like it belongs in the same world. Warhammer's graphics
are all over the place, and it makes the world look....not cohesive, for
lack of a better term. This doesn't help with immersion, and immersion is
important in games like this.
>> ￜ ￜ ￜ For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
>> than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
>> start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
>> everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
>> couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
>
> They aren't the same item - they just have the exact same model. I
> have upgraded various pieces on my shadow warrior and on my chaos tank
> character and the replacements were exactly the same except for a
> colour change in some cases. I don't know what they were thinking
> there - I guess that item model design must have been one of the
> things to be cut down on to meet the release date.
>
Same model is what I was complaining about: the look of the game has too
much sameness when it comes to characters and gear. Sure the stats are
different, but you could hardly tell form looking at them what they are.
(One of the reasons I'm unhappy with the upcoming WoW change where +spell
damage and +healing are rolled together is I feel it will lead to more gear
homogeny.)
If it was cut to make the release date, then it just bolsters the
impression that this game was rushed out the door and isn't quite ready for
prime time. All MMOs are to some sense paid betas, since they're never
*entirely* done and always in flux, but Warhammer *feels* very unfinished,
and I have to mark that against it.
> I'm trying not to play it too much as I want to wait for my friend so
> that we can group up and get into it together but I can't see the game
> lasting past 13th November for me.
>
Me either. I was very disappointed with it.
evins...@gmail.com
[Apologies for the length of this. I'm afraid I went on at some
length. It's also maybe off-topic for this group, depending on how you
look at it. Again, apologies for any annoyance caused.]
Rob, you say you aren't much of a PVPer. I spend a majority of my game
time in PVP whether in WoW or WAR; maybe that's a lot of why our
impressions of WAR are different, although I also just disagree with
some of your assessments. But more on that below.
> steve.kaye <nos...@giddy-kippers.co.uk> wrote:
> >> * Public Quests: This is actually a pretty neat idea.
> >> The system isn't perfect. If you're the only one in the area, you
> >> have no chance of completing the event; even if you can get through phase
> >> one and two, the boss is not soloable. But the idea of periodic world
> >> events where everyone in the area can just pitch in on and then get a
> >> reward is pretty neat.
Agreed. An interested reader might also want to know that you don't
have to complete all stages of a Public Quest to get the best rewards.
Completing any stage, including the first, can get you quite good
rewards (including some epics). You can also hang around and complete
just the parts that you can do alone, and build up enough Influence to
get the final rewards from the Rally Master. A few times Rally Masters
have had rewards I liked enough to do that, visiting all the PQs in an
area several times until I got the reward. A PQ resets in just a few
minutes, so it's not a hardship.
I've also repeatedly tried to complete all three stages by myself,
just for fun. You're right that you can't really do that solo (not
when you're at a level where the rewards would matter to you), but I
have several times gotten farther than I thought I could. I enjoyed
that enough to do it again several times.
> It wasn't really a gripe. I think the public quests idea is really nifty,
> and listed it as a strength, not a downside. I was just noting that
> depending on when you're playing and who's around at that time, they can be
> frustrating becuase you can't complete the objective without folks being
> around to help out.
Frustrating? To some extent, I guess. It's true that sometimes I sort
of wish there were more people around so I could do this particular
PQ, but it's never really been a big deal. I've gotten plenty of fun
out of soloing PQs, and HUGE fun out of doing them with groups. And
there is never any PQ that you HAVE to do, even if you want the
rewards. Each chapter has multiple PQs that count toward the same
rewards.
A particularly fun thing to do is to complete all the stages with a
group that is just barely big enough to survive it. That can be pretty
exciting. Another fun thing is to do one of the optionally-PVP PQs
that are scattered around, and flag up on purpose when the enemy
players show up. If they want to play too, much fun ensues.
> (The same could be said of world bosses in WoW, but
> those aren't held up as an integral part of your storyline and expected to
> be done regularly.)
I suppose. That means nothing to me.
> >> * Normalized PVP.
>
> > I've not done a scenario above level 8 - do the top level guys in the
> > scenario bracket get demoted to level 8 when they get in?
No.
> > If so, that
> > would explain why I was as successful as I was. I was expecting
> > people between levels 1 and 7 to be promoted (without skills) and that
> > levels 8+ would be left alone.
>
> Yeah, everyone in the 1-11 bracket gets set to level 8 in PvP areas.
Nope, you're mistaken. Using Tier 1 as the example, players below 8
get reset to 8. Players above 8 don't change. A player 12 or up gets
turned into a low-level chicken when he flags up, and is stuck that
way until someone kills him, so you aren't going to see anyone above
level 11 fighting in TIer 1.
SInce the highest level you will see is 11, a 3-level advantage can
(and often does) occur. Also, you don't get upgraded gear or added
abilities when your level is buffed, so the higher-level players still
have a significant advantage. The salient point, though, is that it's
not a *decisive* advantage. It's an advantage that can be overcome by
skillful use of terrain and character. I've killed 11s with a 4, in
one-on-one fights, and I've also been on the other side of that. The
playing field is not completely flat, but it is much more level than
in WoW PVP.
Add 10 to the level numbers for each Tier: in Tier 2 you get buffed up
to 18; in Tier 3 up to 28; and in Tier 4 up to 38.
> > I really like this feature. You get a hint before you even get to
> > level 2 telling you about scenarios and at about 2 or 3 you get a
> > repeatable quest to go in. It seems that you could literally level
> > all the way doing PvP.
You definitely can. You can also start running scenarios at level 1,
assuming you know about them, and start collecting levels, renown
rank, XP, gold, and good gear that you can use right away.
> Indeed, most people intend to.
This is overstated. Both of the servers I'm regularly playing on have
plenty of PVE activity. It is true, however, that WAR is more PVP-
centric than WoW. From my own idiosyncratic perspective, that's all to
the good.
> Which is a good thing, because the PvE is
> so anemic.
Also overstated. I just don't agree with you about the quality of the
PVE content, and the quantity is certainly no problem. Most likely,
this is a matter of taste.
I like the PVE content and the storyline in WAR. It's true that the
PVE is auxiliary to the PVP in a way that is a sort of mirror image to
WoW, where the PVP is auxiliary to the PVE. But I haven't found the
stories, the quantity, or the quality 'anemic'. On the contrary, I
very much like the ongoing, all-encompassing wars, the stories behind
them, and the numerous pieces of incidental lore that feed into them.
I came into WAR knowing next to nothing about the Warhammer universe,
but I like stories, and it's been a pleasure to dig into the lore.
There's a lot of it.
In this initial release we're seeing a particular cross-section of a
huge bundle of storylines, geographies, and fictional cultures. We get
introduced to a bunch of them in passing as we work our way up the
battlelines to the endgame fortress sieges, and there's plenty of room
for them to add more stuff in expansions. Off the top of my head, they
could give us Skaven and the world beneath, Chaos Dwarves, the Ogre
cities, Bretannia, Naggoroth, the warp vortices and all the stuff
around those, the big thing under Ulthuan that could sink it and end
the world, all the numerous lost cities and weird stuff in Lustria,
Araby, the Southlands, Ind, Cathay, the zillions of Dwarf strongholds
scattered up and down the World's Edge Mountains, the whole thousands-
of-years-old feud between the Dwarves and the High Elves, the various
Beastmen and Lizardmen and their histories and wars and feuds, the
Chaos Gods and the Old Ones, and their various favored races, and a
bunch more stuff I don't even remember.
I'm no Warhammer geek. I knew nothing about this stuff coming into the
game. This is all just stuff I've run across in questing, and
sometimes looked up on Warhammer geek sites because I got interested.
I know there's lots more than this. I keep running into yet more
elements to learn about. The latest new one was the Skaven (rat-men).
I ran across them questing in Talabecland, and discovered there is
this whole involved history and mythology about how they got created,
where they live (underground all over about half the world, it turns
out), what they want (nothing good), and how they're going about
getting it (cutting nasty deals with the Chaos humans that bode ill
for all humans everywhere). Then it turns out that the Warhammer-geek
community has this whole subculture of fandom that is obsessively into
the Skaven, and this whole huge elaborate world built around them, and
Mythic has already said that the Skaven are a strong candidate for a
playable race to be added in an expansion.
I'm not unaware of the PVE content in WoW; I've been playing it since
Novermber 2004 and I have 7 level-70 characters, and many many hours
sunk into PVE activity, both solo and in groups of all sizes (well,
not so much in raiding, as it tends to bore me). And the same general
taste for world-building and lore led me to dig into the Warcraft back-
story as well. I'm also an old Warcraft I, II, and III player. So I'm
not speaking from a lack of exposure to WoW PVE content. At this stage
I'd have to say there's less environmental lore in WoW--a lot less--
than in Warhammer. But it's be fair to say there's more of it in WoW
than in Warhammer *Online*--at least, so far.
I like several things about WAR PVE content better, strictly from the
standpoint of gameplay. For example, Fedex Quests are rare, and when
you do get them they are quickly accomplished for the most part. If I
never again go through the sort of rash of Fedex Quests that
characterizes WoW between about levels 45 and 60, that will suit me
just fine.
And in WAR, if you get a quest to collect manatee spleens, the
manatees all have spleens. I know, it's a trivial point; collect X
spleens quests are just some sugar sprinkled on top of "kill a lot of
manatees to level". But I find the ones that are so common in WoW
annoying. If you want me to kill 400 manatees, just say so, okay? Then
I can make an informed decision about what to do with my time. WAR
gives me what I want here.
Again, I'm guessing that you and I just enjoy different things, and
that accounts for our different impressions here.
> >> * The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
> >> intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
> >> its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
> >> feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
I've seen this, but not much of it. One thing I have seen is an
extreme sensitivity to network latency; I'm not sure whether the
problem is with WAR or with Windows. I use the same hardware to run
both WAR and WoW, but I run WAR under Windows and WoW under Mac OS X.
I am currently having some issues with the reliability of my wireless
network (gonna fix that problem with cat5). WoW under OS X responds by
lagging annoyingly and unpredictably (as you would expect). WAR under
Windows responds by running perfectly most of the time and
occasionally blowing its brains out and crashing to the desktop (about
once per six hours of play, I'd say). I don't have another networked
game I'm playing under Windows to serve as a point of comparison, so I
don't know who's really at fault here. (I *did* have Age of Conan, but
eew.)
> > I've not suffered from server lag much*. I do suffer from graphics
> > lag quite often though. The FPS seems fine and then suddenly it will
> > freeze for a second and then carry on. A little irritating.
Again, I see this some; not very much.
> > * There's a bug with ranged attacks that seems like lag. You attack
> > and they stay still for a second or two then teleport to where they
> > would have been had they run right away. It's got the visual symptoms
> > of lag but I don't think that it's caused by traditional lag problems
> > - I just think that it's a bug. It happens to me on every pull (or so
> > it seems) and I'd have thought lag would be more intermittent. Could
> > be either though.
This one I do see quite a bit. It's annoying. It's clearly a bug they
need to fix. I used to see similar things in WoW quite a lot in the
early days; not so much now. Growing pains, I call it. Your point is
valid, though. It's a bug, and it needs to be fixed. There are some
other annoyances along these general lines as well: pets that get lost
or path weirdly (talk about WoW-related deja vu!), mobs that you can't
hit because of pathing bugs (again, WoW deja vu all over again), stuff
like that.
> These are all my impressions based on my own experience playing the game.
> I'm sure a lot of them are going to be based on the server I am on, the
> time of day, and so on. The ranged bug you mention is quite annoying. But
> everything in the game feels a bit sluggish, and other people I've talked
> with shared my impression.
I don't. The game feels quite responsive to me, as good as WoW. As I
mentioned, I've played a bunch of other MMORPGs for half a year or so
at a time, and I *did* notice that problem in some of them. A special
case is Guild Wars, which is generally very good (though not really
quite to my taste), but which suffers *just* enough in this area to
really put me off.
In the case of WAR, our different impressions might be a matter of a
hardware or driver issue. Several of the folks I play with have one-by-
one started playing WAR, and both the graphic quality and the
responsiveness of the game have varied a lot from machine to machine.
Changing hardware and/or updating drivers has made a world of
difference in several cases. For example, two of the folks in question
changed from "hmmm...WoW looks much better" to "WOW! this looks
GREAT!", and from "omg laaaaaag" to "OMG! SNAPPY!"
> >> The game is also a bit unstable, but I try not to hold
> >> that against a brand new online game, though if they don't have the
> >> technical stuff ironed out in a few weeks, they're going to find themself
> >> in trouble.
>
> > I've not found the game to be unstable at all. It hasn't ever crashed
> > for me and I've never had to restart the game for any reason.
>
> Lucky you!
Preach it, Brother. As I say, I see a crash around once per six hours
of play. I *think* all of them have been network-latency-related, and,
as I say, I can't be sure based on the information I have whether it's
WAR's fault or not. I guess I'll know more after we pull the cat5.
> >> * The graphics aren't that good.
Here I flat disagree. It could either be a mater of taste (WAR is
trying for a different look, and it's one I happen to like), or it
could be a matter of hardware, settings, or drivers (see anecdote
above). I greatly prefer the WAR look to the WoW look. It's very
noticeable to me when I log into WoW for the weekly groups.
Some animations do need work. As an example, take the lions. The
*graphics* are great; the models and textures look terrific (at least
to my eye and on my system :-)). The *animation*, though, is too
stiff. Basically, it looks like they economized on those animations to
unfortunate effect. Maybe I'm extra picky about those fine
distinctions because I've spent the past few weeks getting the
animations in a game to look right. It's a fussy, tweaky process. The
good news for those of us who are enjoying the game is that those
sorts of things can be improved continually and incrementally. And WAR
gets patches pretty frequently.
> >> For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
> >> than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
> >> start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
> >> everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
> >> couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
Again, I flat disagree. At first I thought you were saying that, for
example, all Black Orcs look alike. That's sort of true, especially at
low levels. but you went on to say that you couldn't tell the various
elf classes apart, and then I knew I just disagreed. It took me about
3 days of play, but I can now tell all the classes from each other at
a glance. This is extremely handy in PVP, because I don't need to
consult any on-screen text to figure out which class I'm fighting.
This is a conscious design decision on Mythic's part. They designed
the classes to have distinctive silhouettes for exactly that purpose:
so that you can glance at a character and know what you're fighting
immediately. It works. It *does* mean that it's essentially impossible
to make a Black Orc look like it's not a Black Orc, or to make an
Archmage look like it's some other class. All items available for each
class are, by design, going to make your silhouette look like that
class. Past that, there is a reasonable amount of diversity in models
and colors, and you can increase diversity some further by changing
the colors of your items and by adding trophies, which are pure
cosmetic-plus-bragging-rights items (they don't add any stats or
buffs).
Again, on balance, I prefer the WAR item models to the WoW item
models, with exceptions for some favorite WoW sets. I'm not a fan of
the bag-lady and clown-costume looks that are so common in WoW (though
a lot of that annoyance would go away if I just played the game in
grayscale instead of color, so I have only myself to blame, I
suppose :-)).
> > They aren't the same item - they just have the exact same model. I
> > have upgraded various pieces on my shadow warrior and on my chaos tank
> > character and the replacements were exactly the same except for a
> > colour change in some cases. I don't know what they were thinking
> > there - I guess that item model design must have been one of the
> > things to be cut down on to meet the release date.
No; again, it's an intentional design decision to achieve a
recognizable silhouette. Model diversity increases with rank, but a
Shadow Warrior is always going to look like a Shadow Warrior, and
that's on purpose. I like that; you don't. Different strokes.
> If it was cut to make the release date, then it just bolsters the
> impression that this game was rushed out the door and isn't quite ready for
> prime time. All MMOs are to some sense paid betas, since they're never
> *entirely* done and always in flux, butWarhammer*feels* very unfinished,
> and I have to mark that against it.
I don't exactly disagree, but I do think you're overstating it again.
It doesn't feel any worse to me than my memories of WoW in November of
2004.
> > I'm trying not to play it too much as I want to wait for my friend so
> > that we can group up and get into it together but I can't see the game
> > lasting past 13th November for me.
I'm on the opposite side of that fence. I'm curious to see if WoW's
new stuff can entice me to log in for anything other than my weekly
group. The group has plans for WOTLK, and of course I'll be in WoW for
those plans. Will I be in it for anything else? We'll see. Haven't
been lately. If it was more like WAR in a bunch of ways, maybe so. But
then you'd be unhappy with it, most likely. :-)
Another possible outcome would be that WAR stops being fun somewhere
between level 25 and level 40. That might induce me to play more WoW.
Or it might not. Before I started playing WAR, I didn't notice the un-
fun stuff in WoW so much. I guess I had come to take for granted that
there was some amount of un-fun stuff I needed to do in order to get
to the fun stuff. Now I find that I can't be bothered. If WAR becomes
un-fun, will I find those parts of WoW tolerable again? Or will I just
go looking for something else fun to do instead? I dunno. TIme will
tell.
Rob Wynne
> On Oct 3, 6:57 am, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>
> [Apologies for the length of this. I'm afraid I went on at some
> length. It's also maybe off-topic for this group, depending on how you
> look at it. Again, apologies for any annoyance caused.]
>
> Rob, you say you aren't much of a PVPer. I spend a majority of my game
> time in PVP whether in WoW or WAR; maybe that's a lot of why our
> impressions of WAR are different, although I also just disagree with
> some of your assessments. But more on that below.
And that's ok. :) I'm not the sort of person who can't stand to be
disagreed with, and everything I wrote in my review was my own opinion. I
stand by everything I said, and where we disagree is largely differing
matters of taste, rather than differing on matters of fact.
Thanks for pointing out my error on the PvP normalization. I was under the
impression that everyone was set to the same effective level.
The point about drop quests is well made; lord knows I've been frustrated
by bad drop rates in the past. I still think that the PvE/Lore aspects of
Warhammer are fairly pathetic, though. It isn't that there's not a lot of
it. It's that none of it is particularly interesting. Again, this comes
down to matters of taste.
Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed response. I'm glad that
you're enjoying Warhammer, as much as I'm sorry in many ways that I am not.
Rob
Frank E
> * The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
>intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
>its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
>feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
I find this one surprising. It pretty much runs flawlessly on my 2
year old system. The one exception appears to be when it's loading
textures, either when I enter a new zone or the first time a lot of
spells go off in a scenario.
>Worse, the synchronicity between what's happening and the animations are
>rarely quite attuned, so the action that you just took may take a second to
>appear on screen, or worse the thing running towards you is often closer
>than it appears.
Agreed. Especially the syncroniziation between spell animations and
when the spell actually fires if you're getting hit while casting.
I'm curious whether you played any this weekend. These issues seemed a
lot better for me but I don't know whether that's due to an actual
improvement ingame or whether I was just playing a different character
in zones that weren't as heavily loaded.
> The game is also a bit unstable, but I try not to hold
>that against a brand new online game, though if they don't have the
>technical stuff ironed out in a few weeks, they're going to find themself
>in trouble.
I'd say that I'm getting about 1 CTD every 5-6 hours of playing. Not
great, especially if you compare it to WoW which never crashes on me
but it's not common enough to be more than a minor annoyance.
> Worse, there's an incredible sameness about the characters. The
>choices of personal appearance is quite limited, and it's very hard to tell
>one character from another. Sure, you can tell an elf from a dwarf, but
>spotting which of two elves that one is without the name floating overhead
>would be nearly impossible.
This is, I think, a consciencious design decision on their part. It's
not that all elves look the same, it's that all <insert a class here>
have the same basic look to them. I think they did it so you'd have a
reference in PvP combat. Even if there are 30 enemies around me, I can
still pick the Shaman or Witch Hunter out of a crowd at a glance.
> For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
>than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
>start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
>everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
>couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
I would guess that this isn't going to get much better. Armor is
certainly getting 'cooler' looking as I level but everyone seems to
ahve the same 2 basic upgrade paths, renown items and PQ/influence
rewards.
> * The PvE is anemic. I know that the focus of the game is PvP, and
>that's what people are excited about, but for someone who really enjoys
>questing and following storylines, this really kinda terrible.
Some of the quests are actually pretty good if you take the time to
read them, I've had a couple of quest chains that had 10+ stages with
interesting twists. But overall I'd agree. Not sure why, superficially
the quests don't seem any worse than their WoW equivalents but for
some reason, they just aren't as immersive.
> * All of the above adds up to the killing blow: The game just doesn't
>feel immersive to me. I never lose the sense that I'm playing a game and
>just experience the action. And while its the sort of thing that *might*
>get better at higher level, if a game isn't grabbing you early, it's not
>doing its job.
WoW really 'grabbed' me the first time I ran deadmines with a group of
friends and used that cannon to blow open the door to Van Cleef, so I
was in my teens.
WAR grabbed me at around the same level. My Ironbreaker was out
questing in a PvE zone, not flagged for PvP, when a Rune Priest ran by
being chased by 2 Black Orcs and a Marauder. I didn't even really
think about it, just rushed in, threw a guard on the priest, punted
the marauder off of a conveniently located cliff, and tried my best to
keep the priest alive. He ended up dying anyway but with the help of
another passing dorf, we managed to kill all 3 of them.
It didn't occur to me till afterwards but if that had happened in WoW,
I would have just ignored the fight, minded my own business and moved
on. That was the fight where WAR grabbed me.
Rgds, Frank
steve.kaye
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:05:07 GMT, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
> > * The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
> >intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
> >its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
> >feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
>
> I find this one surprising. It pretty much runs flawlessly on my 2
> year old system. The one exception appears to be when it's loading
> textures, either when I enter a new zone or the first time a lot of
> spells go off in a scenario.
>
> >Worse, the synchronicity between what's happening and the animations are
> >rarely quite attuned, so the action that you just took may take a second to
> >appear on screen, or worse the thing running towards you is often closer
> >than it appears.
>
> Agreed. Especially the syncroniziation between spell animations and
> when the spell actually fires if you're getting hit while casting.
>
> I'm curious whether you played any this weekend. These issues seemed a
> lot better for me but I don't know whether that's due to an actual
> improvement ingame or whether I was just playing a different character
> in zones that weren't as heavily loaded.
I played this weekend and I had no lag problems except for when I
started a new Ironbreaker. My friend and I both started Dwarves - he
was an engineer and I was the ironbreaker. We killed a squig with
difficulty due to it repeatedly saying that our abilities weren't
available yet. That was the last thing we killed. If I tried to
throw an axe the cast bar would start and then end with the same
message anywhere between 25% and 75%. We logged out and played our
high elf characters which were on the same server and had no issues.
> > For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
> >than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
> >start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
> >everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
> >couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
>
> I would guess that this isn't going to get much better. Armor is
> certainly getting 'cooler' looking as I level but everyone seems to
> ahve the same 2 basic upgrade paths, renown items and PQ/influence
> rewards.
My Witch Elf's armour is getting smaller - I didn't think that was
possible looking at her first set of clothes :P
steve.kaye
Rob Wynne
> On Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:05:07 GMT, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>
>> * The game is very laggy. Mythic had to remove a lot of content they'd
>>intended to have in the game at launch just to make their release date, and
>>its pretty clear that they still weren't ready for the load. Everything
>>feels very slow, the frame rates will sometimes drop the pace to glacial.
>
> I find this one surprising. It pretty much runs flawlessly on my 2
> year old system. The one exception appears to be when it's loading
> textures, either when I enter a new zone or the first time a lot of
> spells go off in a scenario.
>
I dunno. My system is neither top of the line nor antique, but the game
just feels sluggish. Some of that may be lag, and some of it may just be
perception, but it all adds up to feeling like you're slogging. (The awful
run animations do NOT help.)
> I'm curious whether you played any this weekend. These issues seemed a
> lot better for me but I don't know whether that's due to an actual
> improvement ingame or whether I was just playing a different character
> in zones that weren't as heavily loaded.
>
I did not, but I find it hard to muster the enthusiasm to go in and play
it. I've been doing various pointless exercises in WoW preparing for the
expansion. (This weekend, I finished visiting every unvisisted spot on the
map. Unless there's a place that's lit up but undiscovered that I
overlooked (which is entirely probably, but I don't know how to target
those), I've unlocked the entire world map. This makes me happy.)
>> The game is also a bit unstable, but I try not to hold
>>that against a brand new online game, though if they don't have the
>>technical stuff ironed out in a few weeks, they're going to find themself
>>in trouble.
>
> I'd say that I'm getting about 1 CTD every 5-6 hours of playing. Not
> great, especially if you compare it to WoW which never crashes on me
> but it's not common enough to be more than a minor annoyance.
>
A lot of those complaints are things that I classed as "bugs" and I expect
they will be fixed. Some of the others are design decisions that I just
don't like, and I don't expect those to get better.
>> Worse, there's an incredible sameness about the characters. The
>>choices of personal appearance is quite limited, and it's very hard to tell
>>one character from another. Sure, you can tell an elf from a dwarf, but
>>spotting which of two elves that one is without the name floating overhead
>>would be nearly impossible.
>
> This is, I think, a consciencious design decision on their part. It's
> not that all elves look the same, it's that all <insert a class here>
> have the same basic look to them. I think they did it so you'd have a
> reference in PvP combat. Even if there are 30 enemies around me, I can
> still pick the Shaman or Witch Hunter out of a crowd at a glance.
>
I suppose so, but it does really make it hard to establish any sense of
identity, which is detrimental IMO to the RPG part of MMORPG.
>> For the first 10 levels, there's not much dropping that's different
>>than the other guy, either. I'm sure that as you rise in level there will
>>start to be a bit more diversity, but in the early stages of the game,
>>everyone pretty much dresses alike, carries the same weapons, and you
>>couldn't pick one from another in a lineup.
>
> I would guess that this isn't going to get much better. Armor is
> certainly getting 'cooler' looking as I level but everyone seems to
> ahve the same 2 basic upgrade paths, renown items and PQ/influence
> rewards.
>
Ibid.
>> * The PvE is anemic. I know that the focus of the game is PvP, and
>>that's what people are excited about, but for someone who really enjoys
>>questing and following storylines, this really kinda terrible.
>
> Some of the quests are actually pretty good if you take the time to
> read them, I've had a couple of quest chains that had 10+ stages with
> interesting twists. But overall I'd agree. Not sure why, superficially
> the quests don't seem any worse than their WoW equivalents but for
> some reason, they just aren't as immersive.
>
Yeah. And I'm the kind of person who really *does* read everything. I
stopped what I was doing everytime I unlocked a tome entry to read it. I'm
a bit of a lore freak, and that's why I'm so disappointed by this aspect of
the game. It's all very pretty and glossy, but it just doesn't feel like
it has any substance to me.
>> * All of the above adds up to the killing blow: The game just doesn't
>>feel immersive to me. I never lose the sense that I'm playing a game and
>>just experience the action. And while its the sort of thing that *might*
>>get better at higher level, if a game isn't grabbing you early, it's not
>>doing its job.
>
> WoW really 'grabbed' me the first time I ran deadmines with a group of
> friends and used that cannon to blow open the door to Van Cleef, so I
> was in my teens.
It was much earlier for me -- my first character was a dwarf, and I did all
the starting area quests in an hour or so and started up to pick up the
quests in Kharanos. Then my friend who played on my server said "Hey, meet
me in Ironforge; I've got some stuff to give you." And I started up that
hill and the gates of Ironforge came into view and I just went "Wow."
> WAR grabbed me at around the same level. My Ironbreaker was out
> questing in a PvE zone, not flagged for PvP, when a Rune Priest ran by
> being chased by 2 Black Orcs and a Marauder. I didn't even really
> think about it, just rushed in, threw a guard on the priest, punted
> the marauder off of a conveniently located cliff, and tried my best to
> keep the priest alive. He ended up dying anyway but with the help of
> another passing dorf, we managed to kill all 3 of them.
>
> It didn't occur to me till afterwards but if that had happened in WoW,
> I would have just ignored the fight, minded my own business and moved
> on. That was the fight where WAR grabbed me.
>
That's a great story. :) Thanks for sharing it.
Pete B
>
> * Titles. I was a complete badge-whore in City of Heroes, so it's nice
> to again be able to accomplish something, get a cool title that displays
> under your name. It's utterly trivial, but I like it.
>
>
I think the level is pathetic in warhammer "you jumped. You get a
badge" they are comming out of your ears. Way too many and silly.
Now the wow ones i'm looking forward to.
Pete B
Paul <mea...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [quoted text muted]
> check out WO as they did AOC and perhaps LOTRO.
>
> So I'm curious about your thoughts on the game?
Dark and depressing. Confusing bad map layout. World is full of load
zones. And the graphics are bad. It totally lacks soul.
The moment they want me to pay subscription, I'm gone.
evins...@gmail.com
> mi...@evins.net <evins.mi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 6:57 am, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>
> > [Apologies for the length of this. I'm afraid I went on at some
> > length. It's also maybe off-topic for this group, depending on how you
> > look at it. Again, apologies for any annoyance caused.]
>
> > Rob, you say you aren't much of a PVPer. I spend a majority of my game
> > time in PVP whether in WoW or WAR; maybe that's a lot of why our
> > impressions of WAR are different, although I also just disagree with
> > some of your assessments. But more on that below.
>
> And that's ok. :) I'm not the sort of person who can't stand to be
> disagreed with, and everything I wrote in my review was my own opinion. I
> stand by everything I said, and where we disagree is largely differing
> matters of taste, rather than differing on matters of fact.
>
> Thanks for pointing out my error on the PvP normalization. I was under the
> impression that everyone was set to the same effective level.
>
> The point about drop quests is well made; lord knows I've been frustrated
> it. It's that none of it is particularly interesting. Again, this comes
> down to matters of taste.
Likely so. WoW's lore is enjoyable enough, but feels designed to me--
artificial. Maybe it's because I remember all the various stages and
revisions it's gone through since Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Blizzard
has several times sort of said, "you remember that stuff we told you
before? Well...naaaaahhh."
Obviously both games are in fact artificial, and both games borrow
very heavily from pre-existing lore from other sources (including
Blizzard borrowing quite a bit from Warhammer--they reportedly tried
at one point to license the IP) but I like the multilayered patchiness
of the Warhammer stuff. It reminds me of actual history which, of
course, is a patchwork of partial and conflicting stories.
> Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed response. I'm glad that
> you're enjoyingWarhammer, as much as I'm sorry in many ways that I am not.
Don't be sorry; play the game you like better and hope it keeps
improving. I'm pretty surprised that a game finally came along and
seduced me away from WoW, and I'm about half inclined to believe that
it won't last.
Rob Wynne
> Likely so. WoW's lore is enjoyable enough, but feels designed to me--
> artificial. Maybe it's because I remember all the various stages and
> revisions it's gone through since Warcraft: Orcs and Humans. Blizzard
> has several times sort of said, "you remember that stuff we told you
> before? Well...naaaaahhh."
>
History is written by the winners. And often re-written by later winners.
Is it that the lore has changed, or just that we discover new variations on
it as it filters through other hands? :)
Ok, in some cases, it changed. C'est la guerre. *grin*
> Obviously both games are in fact artificial, and both games borrow
> very heavily from pre-existing lore from other sources (including
> Blizzard borrowing quite a bit from Warhammer--they reportedly tried
> at one point to license the IP) but I like the multilayered patchiness
> of the Warhammer stuff. It reminds me of actual history which, of
> course, is a patchwork of partial and conflicting stories.
>
I dunno. There just doesn't feel like anything in the Warhammer lore that
drew me in. Discussing this with my co-worker, who also didn't care for
it, and she made a good point: in Warhammer, you're part of an army. In
WoW, you're an adventurer. So by design, you're less individual and more
uniform in Warhammer than in WoW. Unfortunately in my case, this is a
strong point against it.
>> Thanks for taking the time to make such a detailed response. I'm glad that
>> you're enjoyingWarhammer, as much as I'm sorry in many ways that I am not.
>
> Don't be sorry; play the game you like better and hope it keeps
> improving. I'm pretty surprised that a game finally came along and
> seduced me away from WoW, and I'm about half inclined to believe that
> it won't last.
I'm mostly sorry because other people seem to be really enjoying it, and
want me to come enjoy it with them, and I can't find any enthusiasm for it.
I was hoping it would at least be a fun diversion between now and the WoW
expansion.
Ah well. WotLK soon, and then we can start cooking again.
Frank E
>
>I dunno. There just doesn't feel like anything in the Warhammer lore that
>drew me in. Discussing this with my co-worker, who also didn't care for
>it, and she made a good point: in Warhammer, you're part of an army. In
>WoW, you're an adventurer. So by design, you're less individual and more
>uniform in Warhammer than in WoW. Unfortunately in my case, this is a
>strong point against it.
I think that it boils down to the fact that you can't really do much
meaningful stuff solo in WAR other than simple questing. Even if I'm
playing solo, which I do quite often, I'm constantly sliding in and
out of groups for PQs, Scenarios and Open RvR battles. That playstyle
isn't for everyone.
Not sure how else you could do a casual PvP game. The only other way
I've seen to do PvP is Guild vs Guild and that tends to be pretty hard
core since if you aren't active in a good guild, you're screwed.
>I'm mostly sorry because other people seem to be really enjoying it, and
>want me to come enjoy it with them, and I can't find any enthusiasm for it.
>I was hoping it would at least be a fun diversion between now and the WoW
>expansion.
>
Well, your free month isn't up yet. You might want to use that time to
level up to T2, do some keep sieges and maybe find an active guild to
cover your back. Even the plain old scenarios get a lot better with 2
or 3 guildies to cover your back.
Or check out the LOTRO free trial if you haven't already. I hear it's
a decent PvE game, which sounds like it might be more up your alley.
Rgds, Frank
Rob Wynne
>>I'm mostly sorry because other people seem to be really enjoying it, and
>>want me to come enjoy it with them, and I can't find any enthusiasm for it.
>>I was hoping it would at least be a fun diversion between now and the WoW
>>expansion.
>>
>
> Well, your free month isn't up yet. You might want to use that time to
> level up to T2, do some keep sieges and maybe find an active guild to
> cover your back. Even the plain old scenarios get a lot better with 2
> or 3 guildies to cover your back.
>
I'm actually with a guild, which is largely made up of people who came over
from our WoW server. :) And the most fun I've had in WH has been running
scenarios with that crowd.
> Or check out the LOTRO free trial if you haven't already. I hear it's
> a decent PvE game, which sounds like it might be more up your alley.
>
At this point, with WotLK just around the corner, I'm not really shopping
for anything new. The only reason I tried Warhammer was that so many
people in our guild were playing it.
Pete B
> Discussing this with my co-worker, who also didn't care for
> it, and she made a good point: in Warhammer, you're part of an army. In
> WoW, you're an adventurer. So by design, you're less individual and more
> uniform in Warhammer than in WoW. Unfortunately in my case, this is a
> strong point against it.
>
Ah yes, i'd share that point of view as well.
evins...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 15:57:35 GMT, Rob Wynne <d...@america.net> wrote:
>
> >drew me in. Discussing this with my co-worker, who also didn't care for
> >WoW, you're an adventurer. So by design, you're less individual and more
> >strong point against it.
I don't notice that. It could be because I'm by nature 'less
individual and more uniform,' though I imagine that proposition would
draw some enthusiastic laughter from my friends, family, and
especially coworkers. Or it could be that the gameplay appeals to me
more than it does to you, and that those reactions color our
respective impressions of the in-game lore.
I don't feel like much of an adventurer in either game. After all, in
both games you're treading the same prepared path as thousands or
millions of other 'adventurers', in order to get the same exact
rewards as those other 'adventurers,' and after a certain number of
quests you discern the pattern in them and the 'adventure' becomes a
solved puzzle before you've even started the next quest. Talk about
uniformity!
I'm a game programmer and designer by trade part of the time, and
there's an ongoing discussion among a few of us about how to do
something that doesn't work like that. It's a hard problem, so I
intend no disrespect to Mythic or Blizzard for not choosing to tackle
it. There's no guarantee that it's solvable at all in a way that can
make money. But neither WoW nor WAR nor any other MMORPG I've played
involves what I would think of as 'adventuring,' and the nature of the
game design in all of them pretty well confines the player to a pre-
built set of roles, experiences, and rewards, and pretty well
guarantees a certain level of uniformity.
That's dismissive; I should balance it by expressing my considerable
respect to Blizzard and Mythic for their success in making games that
are fun for lots of people. That's hard, and they've both done a good
job. Blizzard, especially, is outstanding at identifying what's going
to make a lot of people want to play a game.
> I think that it boils down to the fact that you can't really do much
> meaningful stuff solo in WAR other than simple questing. Even if I'm
> playing solo, which I do quite often, I'm constantly sliding in and
> out of groups for PQs, Scenarios and Open RvR battles. That playstyle
> isn't for everyone.
It's a good point. I like precisely that aspect of WAR. Others find it
distracting or tiring.
> Not sure how else you could do a casual PvP game. The only other way
> I've seen to do PvP is Guild vs Guild and that tends to be pretty hard
> core since if you aren't active in a good guild, you're screwed.
>
> >I'm mostly sorry because other people seem to be really enjoying it, and
> >want me to come enjoy it with them, and I can't find any enthusiasm for it.
> >I was hoping it would at least be a fun diversion between now and the WoW
> >expansion.
>
> Well, your free month isn't up yet. You might want to use that time to
> level up to T2, do some keep sieges and maybe find an active guild to
> cover your back. Even the plain old scenarios get a lot better with 2
> or 3 guildies to cover your back.
Probably good advice. My guess is that if Rob doesn't like it by now,
he isn't going to; the game had me as soon as I started playing it.
But might as well see if there is any fun to be had, until that first
month runs out.