Warhammer Online interview about 1.3.2
by Eliot Lefebvre 
Oct 24th 2009 at 7:00PM
Filed under: Fantasy, Interviews, Patches, Warhammer Online
It can be safely said that every Warhammer Online player was absolutely in love with the changes made in patch 1.3.2, for a given value of "every Warhammer Online player" or a very interesting definition of "absolutely in love." Okay, the patch might not have actually been as well-received as all that. There was some controversy, more so than the usual patch day wailing and gnashing of teeth. Love it or hate it, it's hard to claim that the community team is unaware of the fact that they made some large changes and debated choices, which is no doubt part of the reason that Jeff Skalski gave a short interview to MMORPG.com regarding the changes.
If you didn't like the changes, of course, it's unlikely that you'll like the general tone of the interview. Skalski outlines the reasons behind each change and why he feels they were the right choices for the game as a whole, even if they weren't all received warmly by the existing player base. He is, however, clearly very aware of the criticism and complaints that have been leveled for each change, and does his best to address them in turn with a calm attitude and a touch of humor. Take a look at the full interview for a bit more about the process and the rationale, even if you're still a little miffed about where your Shadow Warrior starts off these days.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
my2cents said on 9:08PM 10-24-2009
Wow, what a frustrating interview to read. Any time the interviewer would say, "Are you at all concerned about..." the response was a resounding "Nope!" I've thoroughly enjoyed WAR since its release despite its flaws. In fact I've fiercely defended the game against its critics many times. But I'm really annoyed with two things in this patch:
First, the apprentice system. Its implementation as a way for higher level players to help lowbies is great...but to allow lowbies to aprrentice upward is just stupid to me. Their reasoning according to the interview is, "Why should we deny a paying customer any part of the content?" Isnt' that supposed to be a strong motivator for people to level? It just seems like the devs have forgotten that mmos need to constantly dangle a carrot on a stick just outside the players' reach in order to remain engaging.
Second is the fortress removal. I'm not bothered by that in itself so much as the fact that its lead to constant city sieging. This means no variety in scenarios, keep takes, etc. And frankly, I find the current implementation of the city siege system to be one of their poorest examples of RvR. I wish they would've just made the forts easier to take and more interesting rather than just remove them.
All in all, this patch reeks of desperation. It's at this point in mmos that developers start letting player complaints such as "I don't want to have to level to see endgame!" override their expertise as game developers. The actual combat in WAR is still great but their design decisions are really starting to detract from that. I really hope they turn it around...
Reply
torak said on 3:09AM 10-25-2009
IMHO, anytime you start removing things like parts of the world... you have a problem.
I also think that funneling everyone into Empire from the start is also a poor decision.
At this point I honestly don't see why they even have levels or any other tier but tier4. They have cheapened the value of everything else to the point that you honestly just feel silly and annoyed for having to do it.
I played WAR for about 7 months and it's honestly not a bad game but really, the decisions lately are just stupid.
The end result and fate of WAR is the Prag map, maybe an occasional siege and some random maps and frankly that just isn't worth your monthly fee. It's better then a game like Vanguard or EQII where you essentially have nothing to look forward to but raids but it's just as limited in scope and wears out very fast.
Alz said on 10:24PM 10-24-2009
I hear WAR isn't doing so well especially since Aion came out. Two of my old PvP guilds from past MMOs recently had a mass exodus to Aion. Judging from the WAR forums, it would seem that's about right. I always wanted to try WAR at some point, but I don't know if it will still be around or have a decent enough population to really enjoy it by then.
Reply
Hiravaxis said on 11:54PM 10-24-2009
You get get a ten day trial and find out for yourself. Now is as good a time as any to try it out.
Taawa said on 1:18AM 10-25-2009
WAR's latest patch has been, overall, very positive for me and my guild members.
I and several others have returned to WAR from Aion because WAR better suits our style and doesn't require nearly as much time commitment.
Reply
crsh said on 11:37AM 10-25-2009
Let's just say that I absolutely don't understand what went through their mind with 1.3.2, I find it simply mind-boggling.
I might give WAR another spin the future, I honestly haven't played since LotD went live (not interested in a PvE zone when RvR needed so much work), and as Taawa mentions it, WAR has an advantage over Aion in terms of time commitment
While I like Aion enough, I don't get how players have to spend the first 25 levels in a strictly PvE-only environment to end up in a PvP-only end-game (not to mention you're just basic cannon fodder at lv25) - WAR's tiers easily win there.
That said, I hold no great love for Mythic after the numerous months of messing around and focusing on minor/irrelevant stuff; they're shrinking the game for God's sake, how can that be good? Or is it simply the logical extension of merging servers for lack of a healthy population, they're shrinking the game for the same reasons?
So what comes after that then, down the road, are they going to reduce WAR to a 10-level progression, one zone, two races per faction and one fort to beat?
Reply
Grimnir said on 10:22PM 10-25-2009
A couple of things to keep in mind here.
1. The end-game experience is not entirely accessible to Apprenticed players. They can do T4 RvR, but when it comes to city sieges, and instanced dungeons, they get locked out. Also, the gear, ability, and renown mastery discrepancy still exists for an Apprenticed player, so leveling really does play a part. You can't just get Apprenticed to R40 and expect that to be the end of the game.
2. The T1 revamp is more than likely a work in progress. Populations in the game are too low at the moment to expect more than one zone to have a suitable amount of RvR to be called WAR as opposed to Ganking. This is more exacerbated in T2 and T3. However, with the performance changes, huge battles are much more acceptable. As more people come to WAR and experience no performance issues, the game will grow. As will it's ability to host additional zones for large scale battles.
3. Fortresses WERE horrible, even with the performance boost to the degree that it would be lag-free, all it ended up being was a huge keep. Rumors abound that they'll re-open as a "Relic Raid" reminiscent of DAoC. I would prefer if they were reworked to have shorter timers, and more objectives, forcing the zerg to split up and accomplish multiple goals at once if they want to overtake the Fortress lord.
grimnir.mmofansites.com
Reply