Sadly I dont think there is. Most is just speculation by players. However there are no toggles for AA, and other graphical settings right now so I would only assume that those will put implemented. Plus, Nvidia cards have a way that lets people force these settings during the Beta. Regardless, WAR graphics are better than WoWs but no where near AoC. I'll take less than stellar graphics for good play any day. IMHO WAR is very fun and I think it's a plus that it feels "familiar" to WoW. People that have never played anything but WoW will find it easy to pick up and enjoy.
Sadly I dont think there is. Most is just speculation by players. However there are no toggles for AA, and other graphical settings right now so I would only assume that those will put implemented. Plus, Nvidia cards have a way that lets people force these settings during the Beta. Regardless, WAR graphics are better than WoWs but no where near AoC. I'll take less than stellar graphics for good play any day. IMHO WAR is very fun and I think it's a plus that it feels "familiar" to WoW. People that have never played anything but WoW will find it easy to pick up and enjoy.
devs have stated so.
long time no see, acanthus. :laugh:
other users have posted screenshots where they've turned up the antialiasing to max on their vid cards...huge difference from the current settings in beta.
ViviTheMage
Lifer
I am not saying you are wrong, because I had noticed in almost all open beta's, they tone the graphics down...I was just hoping there was proof this time!
I am contemplating pre-ordering Warhammer...46 bucks from Amazon is not a bad deal, plus free shipping...and you get the two free items....
Yeah, there seem to be no Dev posts regarding this. I've looked for days one and never found it. So, right now the best we can do is guess. I keep seeing people say that "devs have posted it" but until I find it, or someone else shows it to me then I wont believe it. I guess it's just the lawyer in me.
ViviTheMage
Lifer
I think the biggest key is that, aside from resolution, none of the settings in the option menu changes anything.
sourceninja
Diamond Member
- Mar 8, 2005
- 8,805
- 65
- 91
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
you're severely underestimating the massive chunk of the mmo playerbase that wants good pvp / rvr. keep in mind that 99% of the wow population never heard of daoc before they jumped into wownow throw a marketing giant, EA, behind warhammer and see what happens.
war succeeds in giving that to them because blizzard shot themselves in the foot by implementing mediocre / terrible pvp.
look at how many fans of pvp there are in the fps market alone. look how many have jumped off the wow ship already. look how big the pvp playerbase was in the starcraft / warcraft battle.net.
look how many used to arena / do the repeititive battleground grind only to have it all wiped out in a matter of months.
and you're saying pvp has a small following? dead wrong again, pve fangirl.
you can love scripted ai, non challenging monster killing all you want. but don't lie your ass off (again) and claim there isn't a large pvp fanbase.
also, make up more excuses for being dead wrong on the definition of "rvr".
You can believe whatever you want. There isn't a "large PvP fanbase". There simply just is a fanbase. But it's ok if you want to pretend it makes up the majority of the market just because you're part of it. Really, it's ok
And you're just simply a fool if you think people are going to jump ship from RTS's or FPS's to PvP in WAR. That's just god damn stupid.
And again, *I* know what RvR is because I knew of it from DAoC years ago when I played EQ. I was explaining why Anubis didn't. For an average WoW player that has never even heard of DAoC, RvR sounds like it means server vs server, because WoW servers are called Realms.
You can call me a PvE "fangirl" all you want. I PvP'd in WoW until I started to hate it. It's fun to do sometimes on the side, but any game that shoves it down your throat isn't for me. PvP'ers ARE a smaller niche group than PvE'ers. You don't need to reply to that statement, because you'll simply see it for yourself a month after WAR comes out.
PvP'ers are generally kids 13-20 (yes, that is a generalization) who have ADD and jump from game to game anyway. That's why Counter-Strike is so popular, and that is pretty much WAR's direct competitor. WAR doesn't need to worry about WoW, because WAR doesn't offer anything to the average WoW player. WAR needs to worry about any game that has PvP, whether it's an RTS or FPS.
I'm sure the game will stay alive for many years, just like Star Wars Galaxies has. Enjoy your perpetual sub-1 million player base and eventual sub-100k player base
Anubis
No Lifer
I?ve played more then WoW but every mmo i played was PVE based from EQ to FF11 to WoW and for the past decade whenever i have read or heard RvR i think server vs server
Even with Drebos nice explanation ?realm? is a really stupid term for team or faction
And I?m really not that big of a wow fangirl as you call it, I actually hope war takes half the wow player base with it, competition just makes for better games. Plus it would take all the annoying 12 year old PVPers as Beev touched on
This whole argument started because you made a stupid statement that there was no PVP in wow which was wrong and I called you out on it as well as you being wrong about wow copying everything from war.
Well, with DAoC, the three different "factions" as you'd call them really and truely were different realms. You had Hibernia (Celts), Albion (Brits, post-Roman occupation), and Midgard (Norse). Each realm was not just a different set of races, but also historically from a different period of time. If you were from Hibernia, your character could never go to Albion or Midgard, and visa-versa. The only way you'd meet other realms was on the battlefield.
So, even though the two realms in WAR are not quite as segregated as in DAoC, most all of the other defining aspects/features of RvR are available in WAR, and thus the tag of RvR is still valid.
VashHT
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2007
- 3,071
- 876
- 136
Wow, what is your problem with pvp, you sound like you had a traumatic experience and have a deep hatred for it. First off, I know a lot of people in their mid/late 20s and 30s who love pvp (myself included). You're right, WoW's pvp leaves a lot to be desired, its more of a side game in WoW, and this is where WAR fills in. PVP is not a side game in it, there are people who want to do pvp all the time and want nothing to do with insanely boring raids, but WoW does not give people the means to do this. Again this is where WAR comes in. And why does RTS or FPS's matter, people want PVP in a MMORPG because they want to fight other people using gameplay design from a MMORPG. For example, I liked pvp in WoW because I like how you control your character and how you get a ton of skills to control your character. What FPS or RTS offers this? Just because you're playing against other people doesn't make it competition, you're generalizing it way too much. A lot of the players who are excited for WAR are people like me, people who like the way the pvp is played out in WoW, but are sick of being forced to take part in the PVE in WoW, and sick of the less than substantial pvp portion of WoW.
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
And I'm sure at one point you enjoyed the PvP in WoW. Tell me, at your peak, not including grinds, how long would you PvP for? And realistically, how long could you repeat it over and over?
I don't hate PvP. I hate PvP'ers, because they're elitist pricks like noto12ious here who think they're game is going to be a godsend when in reality they will simply hop to another game within 6 months. I want WAR to succeed because like Anubis said, competition is good for the consumer because then everyone wins, but at the same time I want it to fail so hard it's servers literally explode from all the fail just to spite people noto12ious.
PvP is repetitive. Always. Always, always, ALWAYS. You encounter another player, use the same combination of buttons (or button, depending) and one of you dies. PvE is the exact same except entirely new content can be patched in. PvP doesn't generally get entirely new content, you get new maps for your same content. Only once in a blue moon does new content happen (battlegrounds were new content, then arena's, now siege weapons). There is an infinite amount you can do with scripting AI for a PvE encounter. There is a finite amount you can do for PvP, and it's literally all already been done before.
I don't hate PvP. I hate PvP'ers, because they're elitist pricks like noto12ious here who think they're game is going to be a godsend when in reality they will simply hop to another game within 6 months. I want WAR to succeed because like Anubis said, competition is good for the consumer because then everyone wins, but at the same time I want it to fail so hard it's servers literally explode from all the fail just to spite people noto12ious.
PvP is repetitive. Always. Always, always, ALWAYS. You encounter another player, use the same combination of buttons (or button, depending) and one of you dies. PvE is the exact same except entirely new content can be patched in. PvP doesn't generally get entirely new content, you get new maps for your same content. Only once in a blue moon does new content happen (battlegrounds were new content, then arena's, now siege weapons). There is an infinite amount you can do with scripting AI for a PvE encounter. There is a finite amount you can do for PvP, and it's literally all already been done before.
Anubis
No Lifer
i was going to post that exact same statement LOL
PVPers are basicially the 4channers of online gaming
and FWIW i used to PVP in wow more then basicially anyone else on this forum
AyashiKaibutsu
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2004
- 9,306
- 3
- 81
VashHT
Diamond Member
- Feb 1, 2007
- 3,071
- 876
- 136
Well I'll tell you what, I played GW for a long long time and pvped over and over and over, I know I can do it for a long time and still have fun. The problem with WoW's pvp is there isn't enough of it like you said. Why can't new pvp be patched in? Even Blizzard patched pvp stuff in, imagine if a game focused on it. I don't see how you can call pvp repetitive either and claim PVE is much better. Raiding guilds run raids over and over, does it get much more repetitive than that? You don't always hit the same buttons, you have to use skills at a certain point depending on what your opponent does, what other opponents are helping him, and what allies are helping you. For example, you'd go about a fight very differently if you had someone healing as opposed to not having a healer, just one example of many that could be given.
As for PVPer's being elitist, you definitely come off as being elitist considering you act like pvper's are all idiots and are just kids looking for a quick fix in a game. I don't know if you've just never had a good pvp match in your life, but to say it goes the same every time and its all been done before is ridiculous. I can't agree with you, facing a human mind will always be a far more random and fulfilling fight over pre-programmed AI.
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
Warrior, priest, warlock, and druid
I'm generalizing when I say all PvP'ers are elitist, because the average PvP'er is. Of course there are people that love to do it over and over and actually have fun, and treat other players with respect. You just don't see them very often... And again, there's an infinite amount of stuff you can do with AI scripting. You can only reinvent the wheel so many times for PvP before you're making CTF into CTObscurePieceOfCloth.
I'm generalizing when I say all PvP'ers are elitist, because the average PvP'er is. Of course there are people that love to do it over and over and actually have fun, and treat other players with respect. You just don't see them very often... And again, there's an infinite amount of stuff you can do with AI scripting. You can only reinvent the wheel so many times for PvP before you're making CTF into CTObscurePieceOfCloth.
Originally posted by: Beev
Warrior, priest, warlock, and druid
I'm generalizing when I say all PvP'ers are elitist, because the average PvP'er is. Of course there are people that love to do it over and over and actually have fun, and treat other players with respect. You just don't see them very often... And again, there's an infinite amount of stuff you can do with AI scripting. You can only reinvent the wheel so many times for PvP before you're making CTF into CTObscurePieceOfCloth.
But, see, that's where you're wrong, I think.
You're way oversimplifying PvP in general based on your experiences with World of Warcraft. PvP in DAoC is rarely the same from one fight to another, even when you're just playing a healer. If you're defending a keep from an attacker, your strategy is different from if you're attacking or fighting in open ground. WAR, with the exception of the little battleground scenario areas, seems to borrow more from this type of play.
Yes, in WoW, PvP is stale...but that's only because the game was not designed with PvP as a fore-front. The game is balanced around PvE.
DAoC on the other hand was designed with PvP as its endgame. I could play for hours and hours, moving from keep to keep, defending or attacking. Throw in the occasional open-ground fight or bridge fight, and it made for an incredibly exciting end game that never got old as long as there were enough people around. Once the PvE aspect of the game started to decline and things got too easy, server populations fell and PvP ceased to be fun.
The difference between this type of PvP (the type that WAR is also based around) and World of Warcraft's PvP is that in WAR, your PvP accomplishments are not wiped out when the instance ends. If you take a town in the Sea of Claws, the town is taken until the other side takes it back. If you take a keep, it's gone until it gets retaken. This is a dynamic that is foreign to people who play World of Warcraft, and most other MMOs as well. In WoW, if you win Alterec Valley, the instance ends and that's it. In GW, you kill off the other side and the arena match ends. In UO, you killed your opponent, but there was no ultimate goal.
In DAoC, the ultimate goal was to take all of the other realms' keeps and relics and keep them as long as possible until someone took them from you. In WAR, you try to control the zones. The persistent aspect of it is what makes it interesting. It's never over, and the battles are never the same. The classes that you have available might influence how you go about your attack or your defense. The numbers playing dictate which objectives you can go after. You don't just play the same scenario over and over again.
Don't let World of Warcraft, in which PvP is a sidegame at best, color purple your view of PvP in all other games. World of Warcraft is just one way to do PvP (and not a good way, at that). There are many others, and DAoC/WAR has one of the best.
Also, I strongly disagree with your statement about how AI scripts are limitless. How often do you alter your fighting style against a computerized mob? Never. They always behave the same, and you always fight them the same. Another person, however, you never know how they will act.
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
Against a single fight no, the fight is the same, but there are limitless possibilities. PvP is governed by flavors of the month. WAR won't be exempt from that.
And I played plenty more than WoW I used to play Planetside, Lineage, and quite a few other, less PvP oriented MMO's. Both of those were about as repetitive as it gets. DAoC barely broke 250k subscribers, ever. Conversely, both EQ AND FFXI had over twice as many concurrently. So, WAR-heads, if DAoC was so damn pristine, and PvP'ers are suuuuuuuuuuuuch a huge portion of players, why didn't DAoC ever even come close to the other big name MMO's?
And I played plenty more than WoW
I used to play Planetside, Lineage, and quite a few other, less PvP oriented MMO's. Both of those were about as repetitive as it gets. DAoC barely broke 250k subscribers, ever. Conversely, both EQ AND FFXI had over twice as many concurrently. So, WAR-heads, if DAoC was so damn pristine, and PvP'ers are suuuuuuuuuuuuch a huge portion of players, why didn't DAoC ever even come close to the other big name MMO's?Planetside flopped almost before it got started.
DAoC came well before the MMORPG boom started, and that's why it never garnered much in the way of subscriber counts. Then again, UO didn't either, and it was by far the best MMORPG released to this date.
FFXI and Lineage don't count, as their subscriber rates are global figures. DAoC was not released in Asia until like midway through 2006. FFXI and Lineage both started out in Korea and Japan, which are entirely different markets from the US with much, much more exposure and generally a higher level of acceptance toward pay-to-play games. This is slowly changing in the US, but not by much.
So, comparing the subscriber counts of a game that was released only in the US to a game that was released in the two biggest gaming markets in the world is not a fair comparison in the slightest.
MMORPGs in the US in the past have always been niche-market games, whether they focused on PvP or not. Blizzard changed this with World of Warcraft, which is the first mass-market game. Because of WoW, the attitude toward persistent online gaming and pay-to-play games is slowly changing in the US, but it will be years yet before it reaches the level of acceptance in Korea and Japan.
Edit: and even with WoW, the US has only a slight edge over Europe in subscribers. Asia still has more subscribers than both put together, though. (Source: http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart11.html )
DAoC came well before the MMORPG boom started, and that's why it never garnered much in the way of subscriber counts. Then again, UO didn't either, and it was by far the best MMORPG released to this date.
FFXI and Lineage don't count, as their subscriber rates are global figures. DAoC was not released in Asia until like midway through 2006. FFXI and Lineage both started out in Korea and Japan, which are entirely different markets from the US with much, much more exposure and generally a higher level of acceptance toward pay-to-play games. This is slowly changing in the US, but not by much.
So, comparing the subscriber counts of a game that was released only in the US to a game that was released in the two biggest gaming markets in the world is not a fair comparison in the slightest.
MMORPGs in the US in the past have always been niche-market games, whether they focused on PvP or not. Blizzard changed this with World of Warcraft, which is the first mass-market game. Because of WoW, the attitude toward persistent online gaming and pay-to-play games is slowly changing in the US, but it will be years yet before it reaches the level of acceptance in Korea and Japan.
Edit: and even with WoW, the US has only a slight edge over Europe in subscribers. Asia still has more subscribers than both put together, though. (Source: http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart11.html )
Beev
Diamond Member
- Apr 20, 2006
- 7,775
- 0
- 0
Doesn't explain why it didn't even have half the subscribers of EQ
And I agree, UO was probably the most fun I ever had in an MMO, but that's because it was new. An online world where I interact pretty much 100% with other players? Wow! Nothing is ever as good as the first time. Also it's pretty common knowledge that full looting PvP like UO had can't work anymore.
And I agree, UO was probably the most fun I ever had in an MMO, but that's because it was new. An online world where I interact pretty much 100% with other players? Wow! Nothing is ever as good as the first time. Also it's pretty common knowledge that full looting PvP like UO had can't work anymore.
This is pure speculation at this point, but I would suspect that EQ's success stemmed from much, much more exposure in press and on store shelves. I remember walking in to Best Buy one day and seeing it on a shelf for $5 and saying "Why not?". This is after I'd been playing UO for a couple years. On the other hand, I can't recall ever seeing a DAoC box on a shelf until well after ToA came out and by that time, there were so many other options that it didn't matter.
Again, this is pure conjecture, but because both of these games came out before broadband was really common place, store shelve exposure was a huge deal for them, and I believe that EQ had more of it. At least, that was my experience.
Again, this is pure conjecture, but because both of these games came out before broadband was really common place, store shelve exposure was a huge deal for them, and I believe that EQ had more of it. At least, that was my experience.
Originally posted by: Beev
Against a single fight no, the fight is the same, but there are limitless possibilities. PvP is governed by flavors of the month. WAR won't be exempt from that.
And I played plenty more than WoW
Pve fangirlism or intentional ignorance?
As other posters have pointed out, nobody even knew about daoc when it was as its peak.
The pvp / rts market on battle.net was so huge that when blizzard released WoW, a good number over them migrated over. And yet you claim there's no pvp base lmfao. Name recognition and mass advertising pulled in the subscription rates for Wow, especially in asia. How funny is it that this huge chunk of pvpers are now disatisfied with wow's pathetic pvp system? Now, what do you think is going to happen when the EA giant steps in to pimp WAR? WAR beta apps almost reached 1 million eve without EA.
Yeah, WAR will fail
Originally posted by: Beev
Originally posted by: noto12ious
you're severely underestimating the massive chunk of the mmo playerbase that wants good pvp / rvr. keep in mind that 99% of the wow population never heard of daoc before they jumped into wow
war succeeds in giving that to them because blizzard shot themselves in the foot by implementing mediocre / terrible pvp.
look at how many fans of pvp there are in the fps market alone. look how many have jumped off the wow ship already. look how big the pvp playerbase was in the starcraft / warcraft battle.net.
look how many used to arena / do the repeititive battleground grind only to have it all wiped out in a matter of months.
and you're saying pvp has a small following? dead wrong again, pve fangirl.
you can love scripted ai, non challenging monster killing all you want. but don't lie your ass off (again) and claim there isn't a large pvp fanbase.
also, make up more excuses for being dead wrong on the definition of "rvr".
You can believe whatever you want. There isn't a "large PvP fanbase". There simply just is a fanbase. But it's ok if you want to pretend it makes up the majority of the market just because you're part of it. Really, it's ok
And you're just simply a fool if you think people are going to jump ship from RTS's or FPS's to PvP in WAR. That's just god damn stupid.
And again, *I* know what RvR is because I knew of it from DAoC years ago when I played EQ. I was explaining why Anubis didn't. For an average WoW player that has never even heard of DAoC, RvR sounds like it means server vs server, because WoW servers are called Realms.
You can call me a PvE "fangirl" all you want. I PvP'd in WoW until I started to hate it. It's fun to do sometimes on the side, but any game that shoves it down your throat isn't for me. PvP'ers ARE a smaller niche group than PvE'ers. You don't need to reply to that statement, because you'll simply see it for yourself a month after WAR comes out.
PvP'ers are generally kids 13-20 (yes, that is a generalization) who have ADD and jump from game to game anyway. That's why Counter-Strike is so popular, and that is pretty much WAR's direct competitor. WAR doesn't need to worry about WoW, because WAR doesn't offer anything to the average WoW player. WAR needs to worry about any game that has PvP, whether it's an RTS or FPS.
I'm sure the game will stay alive for many years, just like Star Wars Galaxies has. Enjoy your perpetual sub-1 million player base and eventual sub-100k player base
Yeah, i'll continue calling you a pve fangirl because that's what you are
You're an idiot when you say those who play rts's or fps's won't enjoy WAR. Where the hell do you think blizzard got the majority of their initial player base? oh yeah, from the pvp games they released such as starcraft and warcraft, all of which were huge on...guess what... pvp.
Funny, I don't see those rts's or fps's with monthly subscription rates. So how exactly will they "compete" with WAR? they also don't require the large timesink commitments. you fail.
Pvpers come in all ages , shapes, and sizes. The difference between those who love pve vs pvp is moot. To deny that there is a large following for either is downright idiotic. congrats beev, you're an idiot.
as another poster stated, it sounds like you couldn't handle half decent pvp, and would rather stick with program / scripted ai without a brain. all good, just don't be an idiot and deny the fact that there's a pretty damn big chunk of pvpers out there
I used to ladder in starcraft exclusively, and never heard about daoc until 2-3 years after its release. only found out about it from seeing a daoc box at an EB store. 1 copy at that.
there was some chatter in the battle.net channels about eq, but never about daoc. frankly, nobody knew about it. the lack of bandwidth options were also an issue.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 11K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 8K
-
Facebook
Twitter