What Went Wrong with Warhammer Online? A Postmortem.

[Cambios]

This is might be controversial, but from reading through recent comments perhaps it won't be. Hopefully you will find the analysis and insights reasonably sound and share your own opinions.


What Went Wrong with Warhammer Online? A Postmortem.


The big question really is whether or not WAR can turn the ship around. Honestly, I am dubious at the moment. The next few months will really tell us a lot, but some of the mistakes listed in that article do not seem like things they can easily correct.

[Dall dies to much]

it wasn't daoc 2 with Warhammer skins

that .. was ... the whole issue

edit: lol.. read the thing... what I say stands


war is under 150k now

[Drakhon]

For some reason they were so set on WAR not being "DAoC 2" that they took it a ridiculous distance in the other direction. They excluded features (like keeps, for a long time) for the sole reason that they were in DAoC, which is actually worse than including a feature just because it's in another game like we see all the time.

[Athelstaine]

That was very well written and spot on.

[Knight_Marshal]

I kind of disagree with the OP of the Witch Elf.

They were designed to do one thing. Kill an enemy player in one on one combat in a RvR game. They did this and did it well. However they were extremely squishy and often behind enemy lines when they did this and very often died.

The problem was that people focused on getting killed once and not the number of times the WE died. So MYTHIC gutted the class to the point that if you were not 40/50 when 1.2 came out you sucked. I wasn't and it became a struggle to do anything with my WE. Then it became a struggle just to log in.

The is not OP, that is bad design.

[Gisli]

Cambios -- Did you write that? In any case, while I think the article hits many important problems, I think it misses some of the most important. I'll list my 4 biggest issues (from a prior post that I made elsewhere, so I can claim to have done this before reading the article ).

1) Terrible performance

I think nearly everyone who quits this game (and even those who stick it out) will agree that this is a major factor in reducing their enjoyment. And it goes beyond the obvious in-your-face damage to gameplay. As a "mitigation" to the lousy performance, Mythic gutted the endgame by instancing and supply lining. Talk about a big tail wagging a little dog!

2) Terrible endgame (supply lined forts, instances in city, PvE mixed into city siege)

The article hit this one.

3) Terrible realm balance

The article hit this one. Of course this is another thing that the typical player sees right off. Mythic has convinced me that all PvP and RvR games should just put identical classes on both sides.

4) A pervasive infrastructure of anti-community features and implementations in a game that should have been fundamentally about building community.

I submit that this a huge feature in Warhammer's failure. Here is just a sampling of the ways this game is anti-community throughout its design.

* No mechanism for communicating in large-scale RvR. Even /2 is broken (it doesn't reach the warcamps), and nothing in Warhammer compares to a DAOC BG channel.
* You can easily solo your way to L40. No reason to group up *ever*. This turns out to be important. In most MMOs, really antisocial jerks tend to get weeded out by the leveling grind, because in most MMOs, you better make at least a few friends to progres. Not so in Warhammer. There is only one thing that you really need to get along with anyone to do in this game, and that is dungeons. There isn't really any reason why someone even needs to join a guild, let alone a strong one. And nothing to filter out people who can't function socially in an MMO.
* You don't really need any help to do crafting. And the "economy" such as it is can be totally anoymous via the auction house. So no communty building there.
* PQs always seem to be held up as this great innovation. Even the article calls this out. But notice that there is no support for this claim, either in the article or anywhere else someone throws out the random "PQs were a good idea." The fact is, PQs were pretty much a failure in Warhammer. There are something like 200 PvE PQs per side scattered throughout the chapters (22 x 3 x 3). Except during the first week or two of launch, in T1 and T2, there was never the population base to sustain this. Almost never will there be enough people to do any given PQ. And there is no real need to do PQs. You don't need them for XP. You don't need them for the gear. The idea might be good. The implementation was terrible, in retrospect.
* Open groups and the open PQ mechanism just added to the lack of realm cohesion. Instead of adding to the opportunities for people to meet each other and interact, they just added to the sense of anonymity and isolation. You pop into a group, do something real quick, and pop back out. Even in RvR, generally speaking you don't need to get invited into a group to participate, like you did in DAOC. So there's nothing to promote class balance within a group (other than after-the-fact shuffling of people) and nothing to enforce good behavior (this jerk never gets invited to groups).

[Lonerloe]

* You can easily solo your way to L40. No reason to group up *ever*. This turns out to be important. In most MMOs, really antisocial jerks tend to get weeded out by the leveling grind, because in most MMOs, you better make at least a few friends to progres. Not so in Warhammer. There is only one thing that you really need to get along with anyone to do in this game, and that is dungeons. There isn't really any reason why someone even needs to join a guild, let alone a strong one. And nothing to filter out people who can't function socially in an MMO.
* You don't really need any help to do crafting. And the "economy" such as it is can be totally anoymous via the auction house. So no communty building there.
* PQs always seem to be held up as this great innovation. Even the article calls this out. But notice that there is no support for this claim, either in the article or anywhere else someone throws out the random "PQs were a good idea." The fact is, PQs were pretty much a failure in Warhammer. There are something like 200 PvE PQs per side scattered throughout the chapters (22 x 3 x 3). Except during the first week or two of launch, in T1 and T2, there was never the population base to sustain this. Almost never will there be enough people to do any given PQ. And there is no real need to do PQs. You don't need them for XP. You don't need them for the gear. The idea might be good. The implementation was terrible, in retrospect.
* Open groups and the open PQ mechanism just added to the lack of realm cohesion. Instead of adding to the opportunities for people to meet each other and interact, they just added to the sense of anonymity and isolation. You pop into a group, do something real quick, and pop back out. Even in RvR, generally speaking you don't need to get invited into a group to participate, like you did in DAOC. So there's nothing to promote class balance within a group (other than after-the-fact shuffling of people) and nothing to enforce good behavior (this jerk never gets invited to groups).

These are major shortcomings if your competitive advantage comes from being able to structure your life around an MMO. If, however, the MMO must be wedged into the interstices of your life, not so much.

The above mentioned qualities are what made WoW and DAoC fail for me and many others. If you are late to the party or your group out levels you the game is over.

If you are part of the ten percent suffering from "low threshold of boredom" (ADD) this is a nice game. With a few well placed alts you can grab a few scenarios for lunch. Dark Crag will always have scenarios popping. Not necessarily because all other servers suck, but because it is the only way to get anything close to a fair fight.

This debate is really much like the previous one and the sides are close to the same. Hard core gamers vs the zerg. But the hard core will always be quick to jump to the next game because the advantage of extra play time has more leverage in a new game. They will become the experts and pundits and perveyers of the new dogma. Fun stuff, no doubt.

1. Here in War the RvR assures some freshness because people are more unpredictable than AI.

2. I don't need two extra accounts for buff bots like DAoC. Rather, every class can find a way to be helpful even at the low end of the tier. The lack of mirrors keeps the balance fuzzy enough that I can always claim underdog status.

3. I don't have to keep up with others or even be guilded because of scenarios and the open grouping.

The very things that mitigate the advantages of the hard core gamer are the same ones that endear this game to the zerg.

So, I agree, you folks are dead right... from your perpective.

Loner

[Fhuul]

These are major shortcomings if your competitive advantage comes from being able to structure your life around an MMO. If, however, the MMO must be wedged into the interstices of your life, not so much.

The above mentioned qualities are what made WoW and DAoC fail for me and many others. If you are late to the party or your group out levels you the game is over.

If you are part of the ten percent suffering from "low threshold of boredom" (ADD) this is a nice game. With a few well placed alts you can grab a few scenarios for lunch. Dark Crag will always have scenarios popping. Not necessarily because all other servers suck, but because it is the only way to get anything close to a fair fight.

This debate is really much like the previous one and the sides are close to the same. Hard core gamers vs the zerg. But the hard core will always be quick to jump to the next game because the advantage of extra play time has more leverage in a new game. They will become the experts and pundits and perveyers of the new dogma. Fun stuff, no doubt.

1. Here in War the RvR assures some freshness because people are more unpredictable than AI.

2. I don't need two extra accounts for buff bots like DAoC. Rather, every class can find a way to be helpful even at the low end of the tier. The lack of mirrors keeps the balance fuzzy enough that I can always claim underdog status.

3. I don't have to keep up with others or even be guilded because of scenarios and the open grouping.

The very things that mitigate the advantages of the hard core gamer are the same ones that endear this game to the zerg.

So, I agree, you folks are dead right... from your perpective.

Loner

Honestly, most "hardcore gamers" have just as many hours tied up with jobs, families, social events, other hobbies as any of the "casual gamers" who list a lack a time as the main reason for their inability to compete. Compare /played time across the board, and I think you'd find it pretty close between the various playstyles. Of course there's gonna be the odd few packing in 12 hour days on this, but they really make up a tiny sliver of your playerbase. Be willing to bet that if you gave those casuals 12 hours a day, they'd still be just as terrible when they face a team of organized and coordinated individuals that only play 2 hours a day.

As for the "Open Party" impact on the community, I agree 100% with Gisli on this. The ability to come and go without forging any kind of bond with the people you are grouping with kills the community building that takes place in most MMOs. I do like that there's an easy way to list groups that have open slots - the only change I'd make is to kill the /join command. It's not a matter of making everyone go through a grueling interview before allowing them to join, and more about just putting a "voice" to the "faces" in your group. A much more human way of interacting with your fellow realm mates, wouldn't you agree?

As it stands in WAR, it caters completely to the social hermits that are to shy to speak up even when they have the benefit of online anonymity to overcome their awkwardness in group settings.

[Cambios]

Witch Elves: KM, I agree. I don't think the WE was OP - especially not BW/WP/WH level OP. But I kinda had to throw that in there, lest I be accused of only slagging Order classes for being OP.

Gisli, yes I wrote it. I need to go back and add a section on server performance. That was indeed huge, and I should not have left it out. I focused my analysis on game design DECISIONS, because I generally find them the most interesting and they provide the best object lessons to other game developers. The technical problems, while huge, are less of an issue for future developers because modern engines just do things a lot better than the one WAR uses.

Also, your point #4 is an extremely good one. I think it is a bit esoteric and hard for the average reader to understand. It is almost a "you had to be there" type issue. But I agree 100% that their terrible community tools really stuck a dagger in the heart of this game's sense of realm pride.

I would really appreciate it if you'd go to the comments in the article and at a minimum add your #4. I have already added a section in the MAJOR problems about server performance, instancing, forts/suppy lines, etc.

[Gisli]

Cambios -- Done. And I added one of the most important points to that, which I forgot above.

* There are many incentives for perverse behavior. For example, rewards for defending turned out to be a bad idea. Many actually wanted the enemy to hit their fort or city for the low-effort rewards.

Regarding server performance: I think Mythic made a design decision to go with a particular game engine. And then endorsed that design decision when the Beta showed them that the game engine clearly was not adequate to the task. That really is a lesson for MMO game designers of the future.

Lonerloe -- I understand why you like the convenience of not needing to engage in social interaction to succeed. This is why the game got designed the way it did. What you don't recognize is how big a cost was paid in return for the convenience in the end game. I don't think anyone realized what would happen before the game went live. I don't recall any of the Beta testers bringing this up as an issue. As I said above, most MMOs have an effective filter for keeping a goodly fraction of the anti-social elements out of the endgame by making it so they don't succeed. And most MMOs train people in working together. But not Warhammer. While being a subtle concept, it has a big impact. Just consider how many antisocial people made it to the endgame in Warhammer.

Life is full of tradeoffs. Sometimes, having to put in more effort (especially if that effort is related to rewarding social skills in a social game) is a good thing. I hope future game designers learn from the mistakes of Warhammer. Before this, I certainly didn't realize that rewarding people for defense in a MMO just as much as for offense is a perverse incentive. Before this, I didn't realize that low-grind/no-group leveling has bad social consequences.