Why do you think that WH Online (Mythic) didn't was successfull?

[Collateral]

Saying that switching guard in a 2-2-2 rarely happens couldn't be farther from the truth. It seems to me that you don't play much in serious groups against serious opposition (not that I'm an absolute pro, but I had a fair share of intense fights). I don't think guard needs a rework. It's a fairly simple system that a tank has to learn (along with timing challenge, which so many people forget) if he really wants to play properly. It defines the class, and being a tank who can switch fast and watch over your group, deciding who needs guard the most if you're outnumbered, separates the good ones from the not so good ones.

[Juppstein]

Same adamtess.
This is why it kinda frustrates me on why player's want to push this game to how current mmo's are working when a lot of the draw is how it was. I don't want to play warhammer online pushed into how new mmo's are handled. Excessively super casual single player friendly atmosphere. If I liked that I wouldn't be playing this game. I'd be playing the new mmo's that are tailor fit to that desire.

I think this unfairly categorizes viewpoints.

I dont think many are saying "make it work like current MMOs"... but rather I think we can all agree that some mechanics ARE antiquated and not ideal. This isnt an all or nothing. There are things to WAR/ROR that are appealing. The new space of gaming is (imo) far too casual and the focus is on casual playing rather than building a community. But this doesnt mean, we need to revert things back to how MMOs were played in 2006 but rather we need to examine each thing in light of a stated objective. In ROR the objective is a great GROUP based PVP game.

Here is how I look at gaming. You have to look at 4 different types of play sessions, based on two factors.

1) Time.
long play sessions versus short play sessions

2) Mechanics.
hardcore mechanics vs softcore mechanics (ill explain further).

So We now have 4 VERY different play sessions:
1) Short time sessions with hardcore mechanics
2) Long time sessions with hardcore mechanics
3) Short time sessions with softcore mechanics
4) Long time sessions with softcore mechanics

I think if a game is to succeed it needs to OFFER something in each category, but should FOCUS on 1-2 of these categories to build the game around.

Spoiler:

Since #2 (harcore vs softcore mechanics) isnt as intuitive as "long vs short" play sessions ill briefly explain what I mean here.

Hardcore mechanics are, at an extreme example, WOW Raids. This requires massive coordination/communication and likely even scheduling raid times. A good WAR/ROR example of this is RVR. You have Warbands that schedule warband times/days and you get on for long periods of time and play.

Now, on the flip side you have "softcore" mechanics. This would be someone logging in and the ability to, more or less, play by themselves with little interaction with other players. Or little FORCED interaction with other players. The closest thing WAR/ROR has would be a PUG SC.


Too many current games have focused on this "softcore" playerbase, when there is still a desire for the "hardcore" and this is why IMO MMOs today fail.


Now, one of the things I think ROR/WAR does do a poor job of, is this "short time" space, and to add to that, the "softcore" space. This game is (in a good way) massively focused on group PVP. This is the goal of the game. However some of the mechanics are ONLY good in coordination (like assisting or Guard for example).

These are things that IMO could be improved, and where we could LEARN from newer games that have modified some of these types of mechanics.

For instance, Guard is probably my biggest beef with ROR/WAR. Its incredibly self-less. It forces the Tank to be more like a "companion" following around his guard-ee. Its frankly rather skill-less in that in a proper group of 2-2-2 you will be guarding someone and wont REALLY have to swap all that much, so you cast once, simply follow them around and your done.

Its also incredibly frustrating as a guard-ee because it puts the ENTIRE reliance on if you get guard, on the tank himself.

So how can we look at this an maybe improve it?

First, the principle of guard should be adjusted so that it has a selfISH benefit to it, and in virtue of having this selfISH benefit, ALL tanks will use it, which then if done right, also creates situations where SOME of the "guard" burden is placed on the guard-ees where if they want guard, rather than /telling a tank to "please guard me and follow me" you merely stay by THEM and get guard in virtue of them using its selfISH properties.

Also, guard is very passive currently (imo) and we can make it more active.

These are things that newer games HAVE adjusted and IMO have done correctly. They may have a poor FOCUS of the game (focusing too much on the casual market) but many of the MECHANICS are actually very well thought out so they are used in BOTH "hardcore" sessions AND "softcore" sessions.

So for guard. How this could work MUCH better would be something like this:
Guard: Increases your defenses giving you 20% increased parry/dodge/disrupt for 8 seconds. During this time, you will intercept HALF the damage intended for any party member within 30 feet (so it might work like a 30 foot aoe aura for 8 seconds). 15 second cooldown. (dont get too hung up on exact numbers, but merely the idea itself).

So now, we have made this a more skill-ful, ACTIVE ability that requires timing and has a downtime (say hello to guard coordination). We have added selfISH benefits to this, so a tank might even use guard to save HIMSELF, while at the same time, if you are now a MDPS class, and you rely HEAVILY on guard, you can now take matters into your own hands and stay near your tank to get it - no longer feeling forced to beg them to cast it on you.

You now also have more ways to counter guard. Rather than punting the current guarding tank, you could punt the SECOND tank in the group, and then DPS during a "downtime" on the first tanks guard.

Things like this are what newer games do better than ROR/WAR. The mechanics appeal to BOTH types of play sessions and gamers. A classic example that ROR DOES do would be "Hold the Line" - it provides YOU a benefit and also your PARTY a benefit. Selfish+selfless uses. Ive seen SNB tanks use HTL in pug warbands/SCs... I RARELY see tanks using guard in PUG SCs/Warbands... because it requires quite a bit of self-sacrifice to use, AND coordiation to use...

Anyways, im creating massive walls of text, but I hope you see the difference between trying to make a GAME more like "new games" versus trying to adopt a few "mechanics" that actually ARE improvements over the "old way" of doing things.

;tldr
Also, I think the time you have to invest into a game should not be the grade upon which you define how hardcore a game is, or simpler put: time investment should not be treated as a hardcore mechanic, but how complex it actually is to play the game.

more detailed:

Spoiler:

I get the feeling that sometimes players put "time invested in the game/per play session" as a hardcore concept for the game. I never got that, because usually time investment comes on its own if you like the game, but it should not be a requirement in order to get to something in the game. Back in Live I asked myself sometimes why some players put the time investment (i.e. 5-10 hours play sessions) as being part of the hardcore mechanic of the game. Probably because oRvR is mainly a time investment thing in order to get elite rewards, not really a mastery of game/combat mechanics.

I always thought that the actual game mechanics, so how complex it is to play the game, is the actual measurement to grade a game hardcore of not. In that regard you could say that the SC scene is the actual hardcore group in WAR/RoR because in an SC you really have to understand the game mechanics. I am not partial to either RvR or SCs, I like both for what they are. But I can see you can be less proficient in the game and still succeed at winning in RvR, because there good communication skills and leadership abilities are often more important than actual game mechanic mastery.

In that regard I think WAR did a poor job in certain aspects because it could be a huge time sink with sometimes questionable rewards.

[Alfinnete]

In my opinion what really ended up with WH Live was the staff did not listen to the community, and by the way here it will not be any different here. I see good topics with constructive criticisms being opened and closed in ignorance!

RoR is a voluntary project made by fans and we can not demand much.

[Darosh]

In my opinion what really ended up with WH Live was the staff did not listen to the community, and by the way here it will not be any different here. I see good topics with constructive criticisms being opened and closed in ignorance!

RoR is a voluntary project made by fans and we can not demand much.

The eternal tale of the vocal minority. If of ~300 people about 20ish keep creating and populating the same threads, while the rest likely couldn't care less, or does not care enough to invest time outside the actual game ~ things aren't as representative, by extension as dire as one would like them to be...

[drmordread]

EA/Bioware and the Players. Both became 50% responsible for killing the live game. We all know what EA Did; From no marketing and an early release that forced Order mastery trees to be rushed, to pulling funding and devs to push other games.

Problem is, no one paid attention to the players, and how they destroyed the player base.

First off you had players who cried about the level/gear gap. People who hit t4 (or any tier) and cried the entire time about other people having better rr stats and better gear. They log on fr the first time and expected equal gear and equal stat ability with someone playing for 4 years. These were the exact same people who sat in wc the whole time taking the freenown ticks, and calling the game boring.

Then you had players who always complained about the other realm being OP. Now granted, I have my own prejudice in this, and to this day I still insist that Destro is primarily OP. The thing is, I provide facts (just because you want to deny the facts does not negate them). The problem was the player who just cried, without any facts.

THE FOLLOWING IS USED AS AN EXAMPLE ONLY
We still have them here in RoR. The shammies and squig herders all cry about how AM's and SW's are OP. The facts though are simple, Shamie and SH have 90% of the cool toys, AM and SW have 10%. So they cry how they also want the 10% the other realm has, while keeping all their toys for themselves too.
Witch Elves cried about how Witch Hunters had ranged finishers till they got them too. But at the same time kept forgetting to mention that they had (and still have) ranged KD (WH does not) and a +15% Crit tactic (WH does not)

Between these two types of players, the dev teams just gave up and did not care anymore (imo). And I can't say I blame them really.

yes, EA did a lot to kill the game (same as any other game they bought up), but the players base helped as well.

[peterthepan3]

Agreed re playerbase ^

[Collateral]

The shammies and squig herders all cry about how AM's and SW's are OP. The facts though are simple, Shamie and SH have 90% of the cool toys, AM and SW have 10%. So they cry how they also want the 10% the other realm has, while keeping all their toys for themselves too.
Witch Elves cried about how Witch Hunters had ranged finishers till they got them too. But at the same time kept forgetting to mention that they had (and still have) ranged KD (WH does not) and a +15% Crit tactic (WH does not)

Ah so something like order crying about destro having op morale gain yet they can reach m3 in 8 seconds

There will always be people crying about something, nothing you can do about that. Of course, some things that are blatantly op have to be dealt with (which destro morale pump wasn't btw).

[Penril]

Mordread would have a point if balance was 100% perfectly fine between both realms and all classes. It never was, and never will be.

Fact is, some complaints from the playerbase are justified and some aren't. It is up to the devs to tell which is which and adjust accordingly without breaking the game. Mythic failed at this, for whatever reasons.

[lilsabin]

Saying that switching guard in a 2-2-2 rarely happens couldn't be farther from the truth. It seems to me that you don't play much in serious groups against serious opposition (not that I'm an absolute pro, but I had a fair share of intense fights). I don't think guard needs a rework. It's a fairly simple system that a tank has to learn (along with timing challenge, which so many people forget) if he really wants to play properly. It defines the class, and being a tank who can switch fast and watch over your group, deciding who needs guard the most if you're outnumbered, separates the good ones from the not so good ones.

so , why do you think "MOST" people playing tanks dont use guard (or forget) p.s. i am not talking about the same pro players who always run in a guild such as avocetti ?

[lilsabin]

In my opinion what really ended up with WH Live was the staff did not listen to the community, and by the way here it will not be any different here. I see good topics with constructive criticisms being opened and closed in ignorance!

RoR is a voluntary project made by fans and we can not demand much.

The eternal tale of the vocal minority. If of ~300 people about 20ish keep creating and populating the same threads, while the rest likely couldn't care less, or does not care enough to invest time outside the actual game ~ things aren't as representative, by extension as dire as one would like them to be...

so , more people SHOULD participate in the forum ? like the US election ?