Whats everyone thinking nowa days?

[HesH]

Any ideas we gonna go good or evil?

and what classes are interesting ya so far



Personally im thinking either

Goblin shaman

or

Zealot*

Both* sound excitingly evil.

[stroadt]

Probably Goblin Squig Herder to start.

[Gisli]

I'm going to be a main tank this time. I don't think we've officially decided which side we'll be on. But if you look at all the posts so far, it becomes pretty obvious what the majority wants to do. We'll iron all that stuff out once the Beta is actually on the near horizon...

[Isak]

QUOTE

I'm going to be a main tank this time. I don't think we've officially decided which side we'll be on. But if you look at all the posts so far, it becomes pretty obvious what the majority wants to do. We'll iron all that stuff out once the Beta is actually on the near horizon...[/b]

This tidbit from the latest grab bag give an idea at what they are trying for with the support type off* classes
QUOTE

Q: I've heard it said that there will be no ?healer-only? classes in WAR. I am used to games where there are healers, and there are hybrid healers. Unfortunately, many groups tend to bark at hybrid healers, and say that if you can heal, then that's all you should do for the group.

How are you planning on preventing that, and making it so that a group would want, say a Zealot or War Priest, for something other than a healbot?

A: Oh, this is such a pet peeve of mine. I tend to play games at work, because I have the coolest job ever, but playing at work means I solo ? it?s hard to get groups, and I often have to dart away at a moment?s notice to do my actual job. That?s not fair to the one group I do manage to find, you know? Anyway, my circumstances push me to play a lot of hybrid types ? a little magic, a little brute force, a little healing, etc. Then at night, I find a group... and aaaaaaaall they want is one of my many tricks, and they complain that I fail to be BEST at the trick they want.

But I digress.

The answer is pretty simple. Boiled down, the answer is ?We?re not going to have any one-trick ponies, so your healer will be welcome.? But that?s not nearly as interesting as the conversation I had with Designer Steve and Designer Josh, and I thought you guys would enjoy a peek at the inside of the carnival. It?s no Paul Video Diary, but it?s still cool! It starts up after I sent the original question over to Steve, with my own acerbic commentary for flavor.

STEVE: It boils down to fulfillment of critical roles. Our healers are capable of being a 100% effective healer. They are also capable of fighting, but no healer is ever going to be as good at fighting as a true fighter class.

The reason they will want our healers is because they can fulfill their healing role AND contribute in other ways as well. Besides that, there will be no single-issue healers...all of our healers can fight as well as heal. There will be no preferred healer that is ALL heal, and better at it than the others.

SANYA: Er... no, I think you just directly contradicted the point I made. Players may want to BE the guy that can heal and contribute in other ways, yes, but the groups that those players join do not want their healers fighting. Ever.

JOSH: Being a "pure" healer will be an inefficient play-style based on how our careers are designed. The Warrior Priest, for example, builds Righteous Fury by dealing melee damage. That Fury pool gates some of his support abilities and augments others. If the WP hangs back and just tries to use his baseline, non-fury abilities to act as a pure healer, he will suck like a diesel-fueled vacuum cleaner.

It will be impossible to "focus" on healing rather than damage, so players won't be able to ignore combat healers in favor of "pure" healers because pure healers won't exist.

STEVE: Right. The point I was making is that there is no class that is more effective "just" healing.

For instance, WPs also [at this time] have an aura-based buff system that buffs friendlies IF they are within range of him. This means that he is better off being in the front line where the fighting friendlies can both fight and be in range of his buffs. If he held back and just healed from range, he would not be doing as much good as getting in the thick of it.

SANYA: *squints distrustfully*

STEVE AND JOSH: Have you tried it yet, or are you just assuming?

SANYA: *leaves to go try it*

Okay, Steve and Josh didn?t actually say that last line even though I did give them the evil squinty eye. They didn?t have to. Does this design work in practice as well as theory? Well, so far, so good... you guys should let me know how you feel once beta starts and you get your hands on it all.[/b]

[Athelstaine]

Destruction all the way,cept for the wimpy dark elves,depending on how they do their careers.

[Allure]

Thinking about playing a Squig Herder or a Shaman.* I would prefer the evil side.* But as others have said I will go with the majority.

[Greyalexis]

Gotta be a dwarf

[Anund]

Blackwolf had this discussion a while back and we were all touchingly united in wanting to skin things alive and being generally decadent. It's in our nature. Problem is, seems most people want to be evil, and being part of the numeric majority isn't really appealing...

Personally, I am leaning towards a witch hunter, but we shall see.

[Gisli]

What I'm observing is that most people who played mostly Mids in DAOC want to be destruction/evil. BUT... a lot of people in DAOC played Albs, right? I think a lot of us are betting that the type of person who wanted to be Alb in DAOC will want to be "good" in Warhammer. And, dorf-lovers aside, most people who wanted to be Mid in DAOC seem to like... that other side.

Also, look at WoW. It seemed to have a reasonable balance, if anything the majority arealliance. So I figure that's the most reliable gauge of what Warhammer's population distribution will look like.

Personally, I've sorta gotten used to thinking that I'll be an orc...

[Isak]

My current preference would be either a Chaos Champion or Marauder, although I'm still waiting to see what they come up with for the Dark Elves. The Dark Elves have too many units in the table top game that I think would be fun to play.

For Order the only class that has any interest from me so far is the Witch Hunter.

As for what side will be the most populous will probably be the side that is most identifiable to new people. With stunties, elves, and a human race based on the Holy Roman Empire from the Renaissance seem to me as the more identifiable races in a fantasy setting.
The destruction side doesn't have a race outside of orks that people will know with what they are getting. The other two don't fit into the typical perception of them for people not familiar with Warhammer. The Dark Elves I think show this the best. Most fantasy settings have dark elves that mostly live underground or slightly evil. While the Warhammer dark elves are underhanded and warlike.

Anyway that's just my view from populations from various games. In SWG it seemed the rebels had the superior population, Albs(King Arthur) in DAOC, Alliance with WoW.