PDA

View Full Version : flaws with warhammer?



Kram
02-25-2009, 08:07
I never played warhammer but read on these forums that the pvp was stupid and the pve was lame too. Wondering the specifics about the topic.

I know this isn't the warhammer forum, but if you ask there all you hear are the fanboy responses.

So anyway, anybody know?

PoeXXX
02-25-2009, 08:10
Warhammer was ok, I got my moneys worth so I dont bitch to much about it.

However the flaw ran in that it was WoW with a differant backstory, with DAoC siege battles to "farm" up your pvp stuff.

For me I need pvp with some sting for it to have meaning, the dumbed down casual pvp that everyone is pushing now is lame IMO, thus my time with WAR was short.

cfurlin
02-25-2009, 08:33
Warhammer Online is not that bad. The game play is pretty typical, but I've found you get better results if you play around with the classes and forget what professions they were designed for. I have a Zealot who DOES NOT HEAL, but rather I've groomed him as a ranged DD and he's awesome.

I can usually find something good about most games I try. The only two non-PK games that hold my interest are LOTRO and WAR. For PK, I've been playing Requiem, which I like a lot.

bdjhall
02-25-2009, 08:45
Instanced PvP, Open PvP (or oRvR as they call) was rare. That ruined it for me, and the lag, too; nothing like standing in front of a guy, thinking you're blocking him, then he appears thirty yards behind you.

Thry
02-25-2009, 08:45
The end game is an absolute joke. Raid the same undefended NPC battlefield objectives and keeps repeatedly for a chance to raid the other sides city. There are absolutely no PvP consequences so why exactly do I care you raided my NPC city oh noez.

Minotaur
02-25-2009, 08:50
Many flaws imo. Including; the Ward system, the class-mechanic mirror system, EA is behind it, Paul Barnett, better rewards in RvR for avoiding the competition (hence lack of ORvR PvP), ORvR Keep/Fortress sieges are different levels of lame depending on what class role you are during one; they still haven't released the other 4 capital cities they cut, sacking the enemies capital city is more focused on PvE than PvP, the Ward system, they totally killed High Elves, Dwarfs get the ugliest, most annoying mount ever in a MMO; the roflcopter...

I was really hoping for more unique classes in Warhammer with all they had to work with, but they stripped them of all flavor and pigeon-holed them into your generic MMO roles. Their RvR system they boast so much about is totally busted at the time being as well. Population balances on most servers really effect the RvR game. Lots of dead/dieing servers, very few free character transfers offered occasionally.

Plenty more I could probably talk about, but meh.

Ulin
02-25-2009, 10:16
I never played warhammer but read on these forums that the pvp was stupid and the pve was lame too. Wondering the specifics about the topic.

I know this isn't the warhammer forum, but if you ask there all you hear are the fanboy responses.

So anyway, anybody know?

If you played WoW... then warhammer is something like this :

Lvl 1-10 4 times...same stuff... do 5-6 quests in one area move to another ..repeat...in between wait for a period of 30 min to a few hours to play the same battleground over and over... atleast alterac valley had some objectives...

Only cool feature for me was public quests ( allthough also repeatable ) however only for the first few weeks...then you couldnt find anyone around to do them with.

As for pvp...as described no meaning endless zergs from one point to another and back....and doing the same battleground from 1-10 and another from 11-20 and another from 21-30 and another from 31-40...and then the end..:P


In 10 cents a bad copy of wow..

chewbaccasdad
02-25-2009, 11:00
It has some good points...which are...erm, well, different classes for all the races and, well, the aesthetic is very well done, they did a good job with the humour of the Warhammer Universe.

It is very linear tho, and the much touted RVR has been marred by lag, server instability etc. As it is now, it's largely based on keep swapping as people seem to avoid ORVR in favour of grinding loot bags. The instanced RVR is ok, despite some maps sucking, but if I wanted to play a PVP game like that, I'd opt for counterstrike. And the end game is truly awful, the game becomes boring to play from about lvl 25 onwards and by the time you hit 40, all there is to do is grind.

TL;DR It's a game that simply couldn't live up to what it promised, and it's core features have been implemented in the most cock-handed ways.

Lanz
02-25-2009, 11:13
I liked and disliked WAR. It seemed hollow and lacking in content, and I left the game at around level 30 because it was even more repetative then WoW.

That said, I think it's combat system was absolutly beautiful by comparsion, with far more tactical options and things available. I had a riot playing my Swordmaster. I wish I could have cut him out of the game and put him in another game instead.

Smoopidhead
02-25-2009, 11:14
Instanced Everything was stupid.

88Chaz88
02-25-2009, 11:16
Instanced Everything was stupid.

This is actually a point where WAR didn't fail.

I got to rank 30 and apart from the terrible scenarios, only went into 1 instance.

StaticBlack
02-25-2009, 11:38
The whole RvR concept was rediculous. Grats, you just took their city, now watch it all reset back to the beginning, and have fun locking zones when the system encourages people not to pvp.