About the summary, keep in mind some details are better explained in the video, like the faction population cap is for users logged in, not total accounts.
That presentation mentioned the silhouette rule that I took for granted till I played AoC. I was stuck wondering what on earth class that guy charging me was and didn't know until they started whacking me, narrowing my tactical options.
Also they mention dye: "Trim color, main color, etc." "Multiple layers and stuff".
And customizable guild heraldries.
One thing that will be different about Warhammer is that each class has their own sets of armor that carry throughout the game (I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere yet, but they talked about it at Games Day so you'll be able to hear it whenever a video comes up).
Similar to World of Warcraft with Tier 1, 2, whatever, each class has that. Except every item you are able to use is a part of one of those tiers, from level 1 to level 40, and is specifically designed to "work" with your class. You aren't going to end up wearing a clown hat and pink parachute pants be cause they don't exist. You'll end up wearing pants that have flames embroidered into them if you are a Bright Wizard, and feathered pants if you are a Zealot.
And I approve of this system because it means that you will never look completely ridiculous, and yet there is still the problem of looking exactly like every other character of your class and general level, which makes things look monotonous.
One thing that will be different about Warhammer is that each class has their own sets of armor that carry throughout the game (I don't know if this has been mentioned anywhere yet, but they talked about it at Games Day so you'll be able to hear it whenever a video comes up).
Similar to World of Warcraft with Tier 1, 2, whatever, each class has that. Except every item you are able to use is a part of one of those tiers, from level 1 to level 40, and is specifically designed to "work" with your class. You aren't going to end up wearing a clown hat and pink parachute pants be cause they don't exist. You'll end up wearing pants that have flames embroidered into them if you are a Bright Wizard, and feathered pants if you are a Zealot.
And I approve of this system because it means that you will never look completely ridiculous, and yet there is still the problem of looking exactly like every other character of your class and general level, which makes things look monotonous.
Which is why i think theyre implenting the dye system...which if they let you dye just the tiniest bits of your armor etc....ill never look like anyone else cuz my armor will be the ballinest shit ever.
About the summary, keep in mind some details are better explained in the video, like the faction population cap is for users logged in, not total accounts.
I do not like this one bit, I'm going to get pretty angry if I'm not able to log on to my lvl 40 main because the server has a sudden population boost and is flooded with a bunch of lvl 1's and such dicking around
I think many people, not just here on PA, are taking their statements way too cut and dry. Until we see it in action, I don't think it is going to be an issue, and they also said they would be providing benefits (remember autoleveling in DAoC) for rolling on undermanned factions.
For you guys who were having issues accessing TSM at work due to filters and what not, could you try accessing http://www.thesixmouths.com and see if it's still being blocked.
I think many people, not just here on PA, are taking their statements way too cut and dry. Until we see it in action, I don't think it is going to be an issue, and they also said they would be providing benefits (remember autoleveling in DAoC) for rolling on undermanned factions.
I'm not sure just how much we're taking that out-of-context, but I think it's fair to be cautious right now and neither embrace nor flip out about the caps since we have no idea how often it will even effect anyone's ability to log in. If it ever does get to the point where people are frequently unable to log in with their main characters and can't play with their friends and guildmates who are already logged into the game, I can understand people flipping their shit. If it ends up effecting a small percentage of people only a small percentage of the time, well, maybe the balancing is worth it.
If anything it seems they're just preparing a contingency plan in case another WoW type effect occurs, with one side absolutely overwhelming another (server by server or across a large portion of the game).
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Speaking as someone who played Horde on an Alliance dominated PvP WoW server, Rebels on an Imperial dominated SWG server and Allies in WWIIOL, I will happily accept ANYTHING that attempts to balance the numbers.
Speaking as someone who played Horde on an Alliance dominated PvP WoW server, Rebels on an Imperial dominated SWG server and Allies in WWIIOL, I will happily accept ANYTHING that attempts to balance the numbers.
Hah I played Allies in WW2OL also, what guild were you in? I was in BKB for a while.
Speaking as someone who played Horde on an Alliance dominated PvP WoW server, Rebels on an Imperial dominated SWG server and Allies in WWIIOL, I will happily accept ANYTHING that attempts to balance the numbers.
Hah I played Allies in WW2OL also, what guild were you in? I was in BKB for a while.
3RTR- 3rd Royal Tank Regiment (which is now The Royals with vRHC). Was CO of 1st Guards for a little bit back before it was given to BKB.
Speaking as someone who played Horde on an Alliance dominated PvP WoW server, Rebels on an Imperial dominated SWG server and Allies in WWIIOL, I will happily accept ANYTHING that attempts to balance the numbers.
First off, Rebel scum. Second, I wish more people still played this game it's actually pretty good now almost everything actually works...most of the time and they've done some nice things with the classes, i do miss odd multiclassing though.
anywase, i really don't think adding an active cap only is going to do any good at all, as stated earlier it's either going to be doing no good at all or making people angry, there is no good way to impliment a system that would incourage afk squating rather thean logging out in fear of not being able to get back on during peak hours
I think the problem should be solved through positive reinforcement rather then a magical crapshoot that has the chance of ruining someones night
or they could try server merges after a month or two they can just merge servers with uneven populations to balance them out
For you guys who were having issues accessing TSM at work due to filters and what not, could you try accessing http://www.thesixmouths.com and see if it's still being blocked.
anywase, i really don't think adding an active cap only is going to do any good at all, as stated earlier it's either going to be doing no good at all or making people angry, there is no good way to impliment a system that would incourage afk squating rather thean logging out in fear of not being able to get back on during peak hours
I think the problem should be solved through positive reinforcement rather then a magical crapshoot that has the chance of ruining someones night
or they could try server merges after a month or two they can just merge servers with uneven populations to balance them out
It's just nice to see that they are considering all options, including bigass sticks like caps if all the carrots do not work. As opposed to Blizzard's fingers-in-ears-while-going-lalalala-I-can't-hear-you-esque stance that there was no substantial population imbalance, that the census sites were wrong.
My biggest beef with server caps is, even if your server is balanced 29 days a month, every time any server comes down, there's a chance all the mouth breathing addicts will start a level 1 character on your server to get their fix while doing nothing productive, and now possibly causing an imbalance locking you out of your character.
No, I'm pretty sure that they'll make the cap low enough that a bunch of dicks can effect it by rolling level 1s. Mythic will never take such a thing into account.
I'm glad for a cap to be honest. I was wondering how they'd balance things out, and I couldn't think of any other way to do it.
Look on the bright side, instanced pvp and 'battlegrounds' are the lazy man's way of making sure pvp happens on a level playing field, having a server cap means we can have less instanced pvp, and have a larger focus on open world pvp. I don't know if this will end up being the case, but the potential exists because there will be a reasonable balance of Wussy Order people vs badassery destruction.
Why would they implement a cap based around accounts on the server? Why not balance it based on people logged on? While having more accounts may well lead to having more active players, you could also have 5,000 accounts Chaos side who are all playing nigh constantly, and 10,000 on Order with only 2-4k playing at a given time.
I suppose it'd make the most sense to cap both to a degree, actually, but capping the number actively online makes more sense. It'd also be easier to track/adjust, as you could also just as easily have 10,000 accounts on each side with a level 40, but one side has dramatically more people still playing after a year or two, making the account caps worthless and even detrimental, as the 'lower' side now has trouble getting more people on and playing; they're already at cap, in theory.
Yeah, both might not be a bad idea, but people online seems like a far better way to take a stab at maintaining balance.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Ah, well good. Reading through some of these replies, I was under the impression they were looking at accounts period. Which is somewhat nonsensical. Unless those people are logged on, screw 'em! (feed 'em to Tzeentch, whatever)
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah the speculation kind of ran wild briefly over something that was stated fairly explicitly--log-in caps, not account caps. We don't have any concrete info about how the caps will actually function (1000 level 20 characters versus 1000 level 40 characters != balanced gameplay!) but the goal and purpose of the caps seems pretty clear.
Well...There's problems both ways, but I would rather have them cap based on account, not number of active players. I would hate to put months of play time into a character and come home friday night and not be allowed to login because there aren't enough order online at that given time for me to be allowed to play.
I'd rather not be able to make a character on a destruction overpopulated server and simply choose another server, instead of not being allowed to play my character at all.
I honestly see it being more of a "no new Destruction characters can be made on this realm"
I hope thats the way it is, though that could be a pain in the ass if a friend is late to the party and wants to play with you. Maybe they'll have some sort of buddy invite system so you can get friends in on capped servers.
The problem with an account cap is that it is hard to track people who have multiple characters on various accounts. Some people skip from server to server until they find one they like. I did this in WoW where I started horde..then alliance..then moved over to another server (Pre character moving) after leveling a paladin to 40.
I also had a couple different friends with characters on different servers that I'd hop over to and roll with...but rarely. So why should those characters I rarely log on count against someone who logs on consistently? As much as I agree with getting pissed at being prevented from logging on my level 40 I don't see how it could work feasibly by account without adding much more complicated tracking, which means more bugs and issues with logging in period or hell...maybe even lagging the login servers.
I would be quite satisfied if they implimented the log in rule but you chose a "Primary" side when you first create a character on the server. That way if the primary side is full, you can roll up on the same server on a character of the opposite side so you can still have shits and giggles with your friends. There's RvR problems with this though so unless those secondary characters can only pose gains for that side and no gains for the other side, it wouldn't work either.
I wouldn't mind an approach to the balancing problem like the guys at Planetside took. I'm not sure if this has been mentioned but they made little incentives like the lowest populated race at the time would get an EXP +1% modifier then the race that was middle would have nothing then the race that was over populated would get something like - 1% to exp.
I realize this wouldn't work for people capped at 40 but I would imagine theres some other aspect of the game that people at 40 grind for which could be affected in the same manner. The difference is ever so slight that you won't really see a difference but the fact that it is there and that people are aware of it may be enough for people to deterred from just massing one race
so they done a class profile on the tank class for DEs yet?
You mean the Black Guard? They did one a while ago. But since then no new information has come out. Which kind of sucks because they're the class I'm most interested in playing.
so they done a class profile on the tank class for DEs yet?
You mean the Black Guard? They did one a while ago. But since then no new information has come out. Which kind of sucks because they're the class I'm most interested in playing.
WS4, S3, heavy armor, halberds, and Hatred. That's about all we know.
Posts
Also, a summary of tidbits is posted here: http://waaagh.wordpress.com/2008/06/15/50-tidbits-from-games-day-2008/
About the summary, keep in mind some details are better explained in the video, like the faction population cap is for users logged in, not total accounts.
Also they mention dye: "Trim color, main color, etc." "Multiple layers and stuff".
And customizable guild heraldries.
The microphone, give it to me.
And I approve of this system because it means that you will never look completely ridiculous, and yet there is still the problem of looking exactly like every other character of your class and general level, which makes things look monotonous.
Which is why i think theyre implenting the dye system...which if they let you dye just the tiniest bits of your armor etc....ill never look like anyone else cuz my armor will be the ballinest shit ever.
SC2: XxKhrushchev.539
I do not like this one bit, I'm going to get pretty angry if I'm not able to log on to my lvl 40 main because the server has a sudden population boost and is flooded with a bunch of lvl 1's and such dicking around
Just PM me your results if you could. Thanks.
I'm not sure just how much we're taking that out-of-context, but I think it's fair to be cautious right now and neither embrace nor flip out about the caps since we have no idea how often it will even effect anyone's ability to log in. If it ever does get to the point where people are frequently unable to log in with their main characters and can't play with their friends and guildmates who are already logged into the game, I can understand people flipping their shit. If it ends up effecting a small percentage of people only a small percentage of the time, well, maybe the balancing is worth it.
3RTR- 3rd Royal Tank Regiment (which is now The Royals with vRHC). Was CO of 1st Guards for a little bit back before it was given to BKB.
First off, Rebel scum. Second, I wish more people still played this game it's actually pretty good now almost everything actually works...most of the time and they've done some nice things with the classes, i do miss odd multiclassing though.
anywase, i really don't think adding an active cap only is going to do any good at all, as stated earlier it's either going to be doing no good at all or making people angry, there is no good way to impliment a system that would incourage afk squating rather thean logging out in fear of not being able to get back on during peak hours
I think the problem should be solved through positive reinforcement rather then a magical crapshoot that has the chance of ruining someones night
or they could try server merges after a month or two they can just merge servers with uneven populations to balance them out
coem to think of it...the six mouths does sound like the name of a porn site
hmm better...
MWO: Adamski
No, I'm pretty sure that they'll make the cap low enough that a bunch of dicks can effect it by rolling level 1s. Mythic will never take such a thing into account.
Look on the bright side, instanced pvp and 'battlegrounds' are the lazy man's way of making sure pvp happens on a level playing field, having a server cap means we can have less instanced pvp, and have a larger focus on open world pvp. I don't know if this will end up being the case, but the potential exists because there will be a reasonable balance of Wussy Order people vs badassery destruction.
I suppose it'd make the most sense to cap both to a degree, actually, but capping the number actively online makes more sense. It'd also be easier to track/adjust, as you could also just as easily have 10,000 accounts on each side with a level 40, but one side has dramatically more people still playing after a year or two, making the account caps worthless and even detrimental, as the 'lower' side now has trouble getting more people on and playing; they're already at cap, in theory.
Yeah, both might not be a bad idea, but people online seems like a far better way to take a stab at maintaining balance.
Apparently that's what they're doing.
I'd rather not be able to make a character on a destruction overpopulated server and simply choose another server, instead of not being allowed to play my character at all.
I hope thats the way it is, though that could be a pain in the ass if a friend is late to the party and wants to play with you. Maybe they'll have some sort of buddy invite system so you can get friends in on capped servers.
I also had a couple different friends with characters on different servers that I'd hop over to and roll with...but rarely. So why should those characters I rarely log on count against someone who logs on consistently? As much as I agree with getting pissed at being prevented from logging on my level 40 I don't see how it could work feasibly by account without adding much more complicated tracking, which means more bugs and issues with logging in period or hell...maybe even lagging the login servers.
I would be quite satisfied if they implimented the log in rule but you chose a "Primary" side when you first create a character on the server. That way if the primary side is full, you can roll up on the same server on a character of the opposite side so you can still have shits and giggles with your friends. There's RvR problems with this though so unless those secondary characters can only pose gains for that side and no gains for the other side, it wouldn't work either.
I realize this wouldn't work for people capped at 40 but I would imagine theres some other aspect of the game that people at 40 grind for which could be affected in the same manner. The difference is ever so slight that you won't really see a difference but the fact that it is there and that people are aware of it may be enough for people to deterred from just massing one race
They should do this, but offer free realm transfers.
You mean the Black Guard? They did one a while ago. But since then no new information has come out. Which kind of sucks because they're the class I'm most interested in playing.
WS4, S3, heavy armor, halberds, and Hatred. That's about all we know.