Warhammer Online has not impressed me. There, I've said it. Group PvP is the only part of WAR that I still enjoy. The rest of it is all mind numbing. This is of course my opinion, but what else would you expect on my blog. I still greatly enjoy roaming around in ORvR with anywhere from 2-20 people. I used to be into soloing, but once I made my Rune Priest I dropped that for the most part. I do like losing large groups in the streets of Praag. That is a rush well worth my time, but beyond that solo play holds no interest for me anymore. So to get back on point...group play is where it's at for me atm. If there aren't any guildmates on willing to do some ORvR then I normally log off or hit the AH up while waiting to see if anyone logs in. We still have a healthy number of people in the guild, but many have leveled or are in the process of leveling alts.
I don't see myself playing WAR much longer, unless something really special comes along. I won't say this is a server-wide trend, but I know several people who are getting bored with the game or have already quit. I still maintain that the PvP systems and the classes are fun, but everything else in the game is downright abysmal.
Mythic also scored low points in terms of how they react to the playerbase. I think they do a great job of communicating with the playerbase, but they tend to make changes that leave us all wondering. It's not uncommon for a powerful class to be over-nerfed and a weak class to be over-buffed while some classes receive little to no changes months after release. Mythic seems to like changing several systems at once instead of changing one at a time and observing what effect it has. On a smaller scale this effects class balance as sometimes whole mechanics are nerfed based off of a few skills, and the skills are nerfed as well leaving the class weak. At the same time other classes will be buffed and the entire balance gets destroyed. I will admit that in larger battles this has much less impact, but Mythic does this with larger systems as well. It's just built into their design policy it seems.
So what am I going to do if I leave WAR? Good question. If I pick up another MMO it'll likely be Mortal Online. I had originally intended to try Darkfall, but I'm not all that impressed with it from what I've seen and read. The only thing that appeals to me is the way combat works. Not even the combat itself, just the way it works. I am impressed with what they've managed to pull off and I still hope DFO succeeds, but I won't be purchasing the game. I applied to the Mortal Online beta and hope to get in so I can offer more direct feedback on the game. I'll do a writeup of what the game is advertising in the next few days so that those unfamiliar with the game have a place to start. Spring and Summer are rolling around the bend though, and I'm dreadfully sick of Winter (I live in the Northeast US) and being cooped up so I may take a break from MMOs in general. We'll see =).
Later.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Life...
So on the off chance anyone has been reading this blog at all I thought I should explain why I haven't written lately. I've just been busy and haven't been in game much for the most part. I've lost some interest in WAR, but I gained some of that interest back over the past couple days. I intend to make a few entries over the next few days that review WAR as if it were a new game. Afterwords I'll offer some thoughts on how the game has changed both positively and negatively. It should be a healthy thing to right about as it'll also give me some insight into whether this game still makes sense to be playing or not (hint: I think it still makes sense to be playing WAR at this time).
Friday, March 6, 2009
The Perfect Game
When we play games we often look for certain things. Some folks like simple games that pass the time for them. Some like games that take time to complete and many hours of "work" to get better. Then there are others that are laughing at me for trying to list of the types of players. In the end though it's obvious that there are certain aspects of games that we like (those aspects can be different, of course). I'll take a look at one of the more common ones that I see.
I can't define this need that gamers have. I'm not entirely sure what to call it, but I do know what they want. Many gamers want a game that essentially simulates life. Now you can rightfully ask why. However the answer is unclear and can dig very deep if you allow it to (just like anything else imo). It seems to me though that folks want to experience freedoms in game that they cannot in life. Whether those freedoms are ones we'd partake in or not is up in the air, but having the choice to do so is what matters. Now I'm saying "we", but who exactly "we" is is entirely up to you the reader. I'm going to stop here, and this may bother some which is understandable. However I must stop here with this discussion and leave it to readers to comment/think about this, because it is an endless discussion as I see it. You have to narrow the scope of thought.
So here I'm going to talk about Darkfall. Darkfall is a game that supposedly breaks from the mold and offers choice. I have not played Darkfall so I cannot say from firsthand experience (firsthand experience is overrated often times anyways) what the game is like. However I can comment on the idea behind it and apply it to my original topic. You can never offer complete choice in a game. The reason for that is because games are simple creations. Yes there are graphics, and the internet is involved etc etc, but what you are allowed to do in games is limited. I mean hell, look at a game like Warhammer....you can't even walk around in WAR. You have to run or ride. That's a limitation right there. Apply that to damn near everything in games and you start feeling more and more limited. Often these things are cleverly disguised. Then again some folks don't care. They bought the game to fight, not walk. Anyways back to Darkfall. The game is vast from what I understand. Much larger than most games you can play these days. Add in players from around the (real) world and you've got yourself a digitalized world. Give options on what you can do at any given moment and you've got a best seller. However lets break down what you can do in Darkfall.
1) You can fight other people
2) You can explore
3) You can make stuff (craft)
4) You can chat with other people
5) You can...get the picture?
These are all things we like to do in life, so it's no surprise that we look for these features in games. However they are usually cheap imitations of real life activities. So you have to think...what's the benefit? Is it because you can kill other people? Is that what you feel is missing from life? Is it the competition? Why play games? Does it fill a void? Why do we like for our games to have features that emulate real life then? What void are they filling? Questions...I was trying to avoid those nasty buggers, but I didn't find myself having much choice (haha) about it. No I'm not clever, nor am I trying to be. What I'm trying to do here is write a blog entry that will provoke some thought and maybe get some feedback with a perspective I hadn't considered.
This post is about you, the reader (wait...people read my blog?). Make what you will of this entry. It's not complete, but nothing is for that matter. Do the best you can with it and get back to me. Later.
I can't define this need that gamers have. I'm not entirely sure what to call it, but I do know what they want. Many gamers want a game that essentially simulates life. Now you can rightfully ask why. However the answer is unclear and can dig very deep if you allow it to (just like anything else imo). It seems to me though that folks want to experience freedoms in game that they cannot in life. Whether those freedoms are ones we'd partake in or not is up in the air, but having the choice to do so is what matters. Now I'm saying "we", but who exactly "we" is is entirely up to you the reader. I'm going to stop here, and this may bother some which is understandable. However I must stop here with this discussion and leave it to readers to comment/think about this, because it is an endless discussion as I see it. You have to narrow the scope of thought.
So here I'm going to talk about Darkfall. Darkfall is a game that supposedly breaks from the mold and offers choice. I have not played Darkfall so I cannot say from firsthand experience (firsthand experience is overrated often times anyways) what the game is like. However I can comment on the idea behind it and apply it to my original topic. You can never offer complete choice in a game. The reason for that is because games are simple creations. Yes there are graphics, and the internet is involved etc etc, but what you are allowed to do in games is limited. I mean hell, look at a game like Warhammer....you can't even walk around in WAR. You have to run or ride. That's a limitation right there. Apply that to damn near everything in games and you start feeling more and more limited. Often these things are cleverly disguised. Then again some folks don't care. They bought the game to fight, not walk. Anyways back to Darkfall. The game is vast from what I understand. Much larger than most games you can play these days. Add in players from around the (real) world and you've got yourself a digitalized world. Give options on what you can do at any given moment and you've got a best seller. However lets break down what you can do in Darkfall.
1) You can fight other people
2) You can explore
3) You can make stuff (craft)
4) You can chat with other people
5) You can...get the picture?
These are all things we like to do in life, so it's no surprise that we look for these features in games. However they are usually cheap imitations of real life activities. So you have to think...what's the benefit? Is it because you can kill other people? Is that what you feel is missing from life? Is it the competition? Why play games? Does it fill a void? Why do we like for our games to have features that emulate real life then? What void are they filling? Questions...I was trying to avoid those nasty buggers, but I didn't find myself having much choice (haha) about it. No I'm not clever, nor am I trying to be. What I'm trying to do here is write a blog entry that will provoke some thought and maybe get some feedback with a perspective I hadn't considered.
This post is about you, the reader (wait...people read my blog?). Make what you will of this entry. It's not complete, but nothing is for that matter. Do the best you can with it and get back to me. Later.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
E-leet Gamers
E-leet gamers are super hardcore. They build their homes in RL on hills with deep trenches all around so that they really do have to walk uphill both ways when going anywhere (not that they ever do). They prefer games to take at least a year of nearly non-stop grinding in order to experience the main content of the game, but it usually only takes them a week. Once they get to the main content they master it in a couple of hours. Forums for their games are littered with posts about how noobish everyone else is, and how carebear games are these days. Classes are considered OP because of these players, and these players alone. They take on 10x their numbers with their hardcore raid gear that they got from a super rare dungeon mob. Often these types of players find each other and live together so that they can play in shifts, thus maximizing the amount of time they are in game grinding things (also cuts down on cost of living, assuming they've moved out). They are superior in every way to their fellow gamers (if you can call them gamers). Developers with their self given god powers still fear these players. A normal day of play from these types of gamers requires that they force at least 33% of all players they come across to either quit or reroll from getting roflstomped repeatedly. They hope for a game someday where they can cast aside all the worthless meatshield scrubs they normally play against in these games and just fight against true competetion. Most games are too weak for these players and they often move on after destroying everything in their path and mastering all the content.
E-leet gamers laugh at Chuck Norris jokes. Not because they think they are stupid (even the carebear scrubs think they are stupid jokes), but because Chuck Norris hasn't got shit on them. Ted Bundy is their homeboy. They listen to music while playing. Usually rap because it's, "got a good beat" and because the lyrics remind them of their own hardships. These people are gods to us and we'd best stay out of their way because if we don't they will gladly kill us. In real life.
Are you an E-leet gamer?
E-leet gamers laugh at Chuck Norris jokes. Not because they think they are stupid (even the carebear scrubs think they are stupid jokes), but because Chuck Norris hasn't got shit on them. Ted Bundy is their homeboy. They listen to music while playing. Usually rap because it's, "got a good beat" and because the lyrics remind them of their own hardships. These people are gods to us and we'd best stay out of their way because if we don't they will gladly kill us. In real life.
Are you an E-leet gamer?
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Zerghammer?
Warhammer Online was created with the intent of having massive battles between Order and Destruction. They've accomplished that goal as far as I'm concerned given that I've seen 4-5 warbands (a warband consists of 24 people) fight 4-5 warbands several times, not counting fortress battles. There are much larger battles than that, ones exceeding 200v200 at times and I'm sure each server could tell you stories about large battles they've had. However all along there have been players who have spoken out against "zerging" and have promoted small group play (usually 10 or less people vs 10 or less etc). Now when I talk about zerging I use the term loosely. I consider a zerg to be a mass of players that run around together accomplishing things that can be done with many less. For example if there are 28 Destruction in a zone and Order responds and attacks them with 55 people then I consider that zerging. Is zerging bad? That depends.
WAR awards zerg behavior. Keeps, Battlefield Objectives, Fortresses and beyond all award zerg play. This is funny, because the ultimate goals of those particular things require PvE. WAR is supposedly a PvP game. I think it shines as a PvP game really, but only as long as I refrain from getting caught up in the renown farming PvE cycle. Given that WAR is based around zerg play, small groups will find they do in fact have a role to play. Say Destruction is attacking a keep. Take a 2-6 man force and find a good ambush spot between the Destro warcamp and the most likely approach to the keep. You'll find all sorts of small battles. Another thing you can do is to bait away portions of a zerg. Inevitably the zerg leader will do one of two things. They will either tell everyone to charge you (thus "zerging" you) or they will tell everyone to ignore you in which case at least 5-10% of the zerg will still likely come after you. Here's an example of how zerg minded people are in WAR. Several times I've been running in a small group and we'll come across a zerg waiting in a BO for it to cap (yay 500 Renown!!!). We'll try to bait them out to fight and usually a few will come out. We then usually kill those players (in plain sight of their allies) and run off before those sitting in the BO even consider moving. That doesn't always happen (sometimes they steam roll us), but it happens often enough to give me a sick feeling in my stomach.
So far I know that I sound opposed to zerging. That's because I am. However in a game that rewards that style of play I cannot find fault in those who like to run around in massive clumps. It's what the game is based around and they have every right to do so. That said, I have more respect for those who run in smaller groups to accomplish the same goals the zergs are working at. Do they care? It's likely they don't, but that's the point of having an opinion. Some will agree while others disagree. I can say for sure though that the most fun I have in WAR is when running with 4-6 people and wiping a group of say 8-20 people. For me there's a sense of accomplishment and good play when I'm on the outnumbered side and still win. If I am in a group that doubles the size of the group we're fighting then I almost feel useless. What enjoyment is there if you don't even really need to dismount? I guess it depends on why you play as well. I play to PvP and have fun. From what I've written you can tell what I consider fun when it comes to PvP in WAR.
What do you folks think? Is zerging good? Bad? Necessary? I've expressed my opinion, now express yours.
WAR awards zerg behavior. Keeps, Battlefield Objectives, Fortresses and beyond all award zerg play. This is funny, because the ultimate goals of those particular things require PvE. WAR is supposedly a PvP game. I think it shines as a PvP game really, but only as long as I refrain from getting caught up in the renown farming PvE cycle. Given that WAR is based around zerg play, small groups will find they do in fact have a role to play. Say Destruction is attacking a keep. Take a 2-6 man force and find a good ambush spot between the Destro warcamp and the most likely approach to the keep. You'll find all sorts of small battles. Another thing you can do is to bait away portions of a zerg. Inevitably the zerg leader will do one of two things. They will either tell everyone to charge you (thus "zerging" you) or they will tell everyone to ignore you in which case at least 5-10% of the zerg will still likely come after you. Here's an example of how zerg minded people are in WAR. Several times I've been running in a small group and we'll come across a zerg waiting in a BO for it to cap (yay 500 Renown!!!). We'll try to bait them out to fight and usually a few will come out. We then usually kill those players (in plain sight of their allies) and run off before those sitting in the BO even consider moving. That doesn't always happen (sometimes they steam roll us), but it happens often enough to give me a sick feeling in my stomach.
So far I know that I sound opposed to zerging. That's because I am. However in a game that rewards that style of play I cannot find fault in those who like to run around in massive clumps. It's what the game is based around and they have every right to do so. That said, I have more respect for those who run in smaller groups to accomplish the same goals the zergs are working at. Do they care? It's likely they don't, but that's the point of having an opinion. Some will agree while others disagree. I can say for sure though that the most fun I have in WAR is when running with 4-6 people and wiping a group of say 8-20 people. For me there's a sense of accomplishment and good play when I'm on the outnumbered side and still win. If I am in a group that doubles the size of the group we're fighting then I almost feel useless. What enjoyment is there if you don't even really need to dismount? I guess it depends on why you play as well. I play to PvP and have fun. From what I've written you can tell what I consider fun when it comes to PvP in WAR.
What do you folks think? Is zerging good? Bad? Necessary? I've expressed my opinion, now express yours.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
What Makes a Game Good?
I can't answer this for everyone else, so I'll answer as best as I can for myself and see where you folks stand.
What I like to see in a game is choice. The more choices about things the better. The problem is if the system is complex and over-burdening then it's very easy to say screw it and go pick up something else. However if the game is laid out in an accessible way while still offering plenty of choice to those who want to dig deeper then I usually find myself enjoying my time. That doesn't mean I don't like straight forward shoot em up games from time to time, but I much prefer to have as much impact on the story as possible. I'll rate a few things here on a scale of 1-10 with how much I care about the given feature.
Graphics: 6/10
I like for games to be stylized. That doesn't mean the graphics have to be photo realistic, but I don't like for them to have that fuzzy sort of feel to them. I prefer graphics to have a clean, easy to look at feel. It doesn't matter if the game is cartoonish, photo realistic or somewhere in between as long as there are some appealing sides to it. If it's the equivalent of a black background with dark red text, then I'll likely pass.
Sound: 9/10
I value this very highly. Whether it be the music or the in game sounds from units, spells, NPCs, walking etc it has to sound well done. If the sounds aren't believable then the game isn't believable. Well done music is a huge plus to me. A game like Left 4 Dead for example does great things with music. The tempo and songs change when events occur in game, much like a movie. I eventually turned off music when playing L4D because it kinda bothered me, but the idea itself was brilliant imo. I think an overlooked feature is the opportunity to load your own music in to play as a soundtrack for you over the in game music. Even going so far as allowing you to select triggers for certain specific songs or sounds to occur. Giving the players control over something like this might be a win or it might be a fail, but I'd like to see it tried with a large scale game.
Replayability: 9/10
Very important. I like to get my moneys worth when I buy a game. If it's only going to last me 5-10 hours then I usually have a hard time parting with that $50 (plus whatever subscription fees if applicable). There are times when a 5-10 hour experience with a game is worth having (whether it's in 1 sitting or over the span of a week or two), but only if the story is well done. MMOs are appealing to me partly because they allow you to play 1 game (maybe 1 or 2 on the side) for a year and be happy about it, assuming the game does well. Generally games have to have enough content to keep me busy, but at the same time I prefer quality content over a quantity of it. Tons of content is pointless if there's no fun or reason in participating in said content. It's a balancing act many games have succeeded at and many have failed at.
Story: 7/10
It's nice to have a good story to go with a game whether you pay attention to it or not. In some games I burn through content without reading any quests while in others I take my time and check everything out. An example of a game with an interesting take on telling a story is LotRO. I'm partly biased because I'm a big fan of Lord of the Rings, but they also did a very good job with PvE in general. Turbine made you feel like you were a part of the story. There were key locations and plenty of RP hangouts. I myself didn't RP, but I did enjoy watching people RP in the Prancing Pony in Bree (I played on Landroval, the unofficial RP server). Anyways if a game doesn't have a solid story to explain what's happening then usually you lose focus of what exactly it is you're doing in game. If PvP is the main aspect of the game then I expect that there is a solid reason for us to be fighting each other in the first place and I expect that the story will be driven by our fighting.
Community: 10/10
This only really applies in multiplayer games. Community is the single most important thing to me when I play a multiplayer game. If you meet interesting people then the game will be interesting. If you meet dull, boring people (such as myself) then the game can get boring very quick. Finding a tight community and finding people who are similar to you in terms of play style and maturity is great. Playing alongside a bunch of people who only care about trash talking and ruining your game experience isn't all that much fun. The best players don't need to talk trash. The best people try to help others become better and to have more fun. If you find people who have a combination of those 2 things, then you've hit the jackpot. I feel there are plenty of people who are good players and/or good people, but they often have selfish tendencies. This isn't entirely their fault as many games foster this type of behavior. That's something I watch for in games. Is the goal of this game team or individually oriented. If it's based around grouping and teamwork then the community is often good. I also tend to pick RP servers as the communities there are usually more my style (whether RPing is widespread or not).
There are a few other features that I could grade, but overall I think these are the most important to me. I do want to stress that this is a question that can only really be answered individually and I'm not saying that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. A good game to you may not be a good game to me. There are also a lot of side questions like, why are these features important? Are good games defined by past experiences? Are we generally unwilling to try games that are outside our comfort zone? Perhaps, but that discussion is one that will wait until another day.
What's your take on this subject?
What I like to see in a game is choice. The more choices about things the better. The problem is if the system is complex and over-burdening then it's very easy to say screw it and go pick up something else. However if the game is laid out in an accessible way while still offering plenty of choice to those who want to dig deeper then I usually find myself enjoying my time. That doesn't mean I don't like straight forward shoot em up games from time to time, but I much prefer to have as much impact on the story as possible. I'll rate a few things here on a scale of 1-10 with how much I care about the given feature.
Graphics: 6/10
I like for games to be stylized. That doesn't mean the graphics have to be photo realistic, but I don't like for them to have that fuzzy sort of feel to them. I prefer graphics to have a clean, easy to look at feel. It doesn't matter if the game is cartoonish, photo realistic or somewhere in between as long as there are some appealing sides to it. If it's the equivalent of a black background with dark red text, then I'll likely pass.
Sound: 9/10
I value this very highly. Whether it be the music or the in game sounds from units, spells, NPCs, walking etc it has to sound well done. If the sounds aren't believable then the game isn't believable. Well done music is a huge plus to me. A game like Left 4 Dead for example does great things with music. The tempo and songs change when events occur in game, much like a movie. I eventually turned off music when playing L4D because it kinda bothered me, but the idea itself was brilliant imo. I think an overlooked feature is the opportunity to load your own music in to play as a soundtrack for you over the in game music. Even going so far as allowing you to select triggers for certain specific songs or sounds to occur. Giving the players control over something like this might be a win or it might be a fail, but I'd like to see it tried with a large scale game.
Replayability: 9/10
Very important. I like to get my moneys worth when I buy a game. If it's only going to last me 5-10 hours then I usually have a hard time parting with that $50 (plus whatever subscription fees if applicable). There are times when a 5-10 hour experience with a game is worth having (whether it's in 1 sitting or over the span of a week or two), but only if the story is well done. MMOs are appealing to me partly because they allow you to play 1 game (maybe 1 or 2 on the side) for a year and be happy about it, assuming the game does well. Generally games have to have enough content to keep me busy, but at the same time I prefer quality content over a quantity of it. Tons of content is pointless if there's no fun or reason in participating in said content. It's a balancing act many games have succeeded at and many have failed at.
Story: 7/10
It's nice to have a good story to go with a game whether you pay attention to it or not. In some games I burn through content without reading any quests while in others I take my time and check everything out. An example of a game with an interesting take on telling a story is LotRO. I'm partly biased because I'm a big fan of Lord of the Rings, but they also did a very good job with PvE in general. Turbine made you feel like you were a part of the story. There were key locations and plenty of RP hangouts. I myself didn't RP, but I did enjoy watching people RP in the Prancing Pony in Bree (I played on Landroval, the unofficial RP server). Anyways if a game doesn't have a solid story to explain what's happening then usually you lose focus of what exactly it is you're doing in game. If PvP is the main aspect of the game then I expect that there is a solid reason for us to be fighting each other in the first place and I expect that the story will be driven by our fighting.
Community: 10/10
This only really applies in multiplayer games. Community is the single most important thing to me when I play a multiplayer game. If you meet interesting people then the game will be interesting. If you meet dull, boring people (such as myself) then the game can get boring very quick. Finding a tight community and finding people who are similar to you in terms of play style and maturity is great. Playing alongside a bunch of people who only care about trash talking and ruining your game experience isn't all that much fun. The best players don't need to talk trash. The best people try to help others become better and to have more fun. If you find people who have a combination of those 2 things, then you've hit the jackpot. I feel there are plenty of people who are good players and/or good people, but they often have selfish tendencies. This isn't entirely their fault as many games foster this type of behavior. That's something I watch for in games. Is the goal of this game team or individually oriented. If it's based around grouping and teamwork then the community is often good. I also tend to pick RP servers as the communities there are usually more my style (whether RPing is widespread or not).
There are a few other features that I could grade, but overall I think these are the most important to me. I do want to stress that this is a question that can only really be answered individually and I'm not saying that I'm right and everyone else is wrong. A good game to you may not be a good game to me. There are also a lot of side questions like, why are these features important? Are good games defined by past experiences? Are we generally unwilling to try games that are outside our comfort zone? Perhaps, but that discussion is one that will wait until another day.
What's your take on this subject?
Sunday, February 22, 2009
My WAR History
I thought maybe I should post up what I've done so far in Warhammer so that in future blog entries any readers I may have will know where I'm coming from.
When WAR came out a thread was started by a fellow player on our server forums in Lotro. The point of it was to organize players on the server who wanted to try WAR. After spending a day or so in beta I contacted the person who started the thread (taugrim) and asked if he was interested in starting a guild in WAR to organize players from Landroval (our Lotro server). Eventually we decided it might not be a bad idea and if the guild fell apart after a while then so be it. We thought it'd be cool to pick a name that was reminded us of lotro while also making sense in WAR. Eventually we reached the conclusion that Conjunction would fit the bill (conjunctions were group moves that could be performed in lotro). So once the game went live we formed up with 6 people. Here is a link to our guild stats now (clicking on our name will yeild more info). We've grown a lot and we've stuck together. There have been hard times, but taugrim has proved to be a great guild leader and I can see the guild staying together for a long time. Now on to my play time in WAR...
I started out in open beta playing a Marauder. I had previously played a Champion (mdps) in Lord of the Rings Online and I wanted to pick something I would be somewhat familiar with. On top of that I wanted to play Destruction because they had the "cooler" classes. I ended up dying to 5 mobs in the cemetery near the Chaos starting area. My first quest and I died. Yes it was an accident and I didn't mean to pull the extra mobs, but I took it as an omen and tried a Bright Wizard. I know, you're thinking, "What? You go from playing a mdps on Destruction to playing a rdps on Order just like that?" and the answer is yes. I wanted to test a lot of classes and being uninterested in the Chaos starting zone I thought I'd try Empire. So I loaded my BW in after customizing his look (I made him look as ridiculous as possible given that it was beta) and got to work on some quests and scenarios. I was having an absolute blast. Throwing fireballs around and doing lots of damage seemed like my kind of gig. I couldn't see myself playing anything else.
So I continued playing my Bright Wizard and felt oh so powerful along the whole journey. Topping damage in nearly every scenario I was in felt good and made it feel like I was doing something. It was in T2 and T3 where I started using fraps to capture scenarios and 1v1 fights to then post on youtube. I had learned about this process from taugrim (link to his youtube page). He had made a lot of videos in lotro and they were both entertaining and filled with useful information. I thought I'd try my hand at it, so I started a youtube profile, purchased the full version of fraps and got at it. Here is a link to my youtube page. As you can see I don't have nearly as many videos or followers as taugrim, but I use a similar approach. Anyways to move on, I ranked up my BW to 40 and found that our guild was lacking tanks and mdps, so I decided to roll a White Lion. Taugrim had also been playing a BW at the time, but he switched to Swordmaster so that our guild would have another tank. So now we were short on rdps, but it didn't matter that much to us because we both were having more fun and felt more useful on our melees (this was before the BW nerf).
White Lion was a very fun class. It's incredibly mobile and has all sorts of tools and dps to fit into most situations comfortably. I didn't think I'd like the pet when I first rolled the class, but I found use for it other than just fetching targets. We'll see how 1.2 impacts White Lions, but I don't imagine I'll go back to playing him full time. So to move things along here....I was only R40 on my WL for a month or so when I decided to finally level my Rune Priest. RPs and Zealots are my favorite class in the game which surprised me as I'd never been into the idea of being a healer before. I'm still currently ranking my RP up, but he's R37 now and on the downhill portion of the grind. Yes solo leveling as a healer is a grind and I hate it, but once you get rolling it isn't all that bad.
So I jumped around a little and cut a few things out, but overall that's more or less my WAR history so far. I've been testing Slayers on the pts and it looks like I may have to rank another character up once they release. Anyways there you go. Now you know a little something about me so in future posts I can reference back to this if need be. My future entries will be less about me and more about the games I'm playing.
Later.
When WAR came out a thread was started by a fellow player on our server forums in Lotro. The point of it was to organize players on the server who wanted to try WAR. After spending a day or so in beta I contacted the person who started the thread (taugrim) and asked if he was interested in starting a guild in WAR to organize players from Landroval (our Lotro server). Eventually we decided it might not be a bad idea and if the guild fell apart after a while then so be it. We thought it'd be cool to pick a name that was reminded us of lotro while also making sense in WAR. Eventually we reached the conclusion that Conjunction would fit the bill (conjunctions were group moves that could be performed in lotro). So once the game went live we formed up with 6 people. Here is a link to our guild stats now (clicking on our name will yeild more info). We've grown a lot and we've stuck together. There have been hard times, but taugrim has proved to be a great guild leader and I can see the guild staying together for a long time. Now on to my play time in WAR...
I started out in open beta playing a Marauder. I had previously played a Champion (mdps) in Lord of the Rings Online and I wanted to pick something I would be somewhat familiar with. On top of that I wanted to play Destruction because they had the "cooler" classes. I ended up dying to 5 mobs in the cemetery near the Chaos starting area. My first quest and I died. Yes it was an accident and I didn't mean to pull the extra mobs, but I took it as an omen and tried a Bright Wizard. I know, you're thinking, "What? You go from playing a mdps on Destruction to playing a rdps on Order just like that?" and the answer is yes. I wanted to test a lot of classes and being uninterested in the Chaos starting zone I thought I'd try Empire. So I loaded my BW in after customizing his look (I made him look as ridiculous as possible given that it was beta) and got to work on some quests and scenarios. I was having an absolute blast. Throwing fireballs around and doing lots of damage seemed like my kind of gig. I couldn't see myself playing anything else.
So I continued playing my Bright Wizard and felt oh so powerful along the whole journey. Topping damage in nearly every scenario I was in felt good and made it feel like I was doing something. It was in T2 and T3 where I started using fraps to capture scenarios and 1v1 fights to then post on youtube. I had learned about this process from taugrim (link to his youtube page). He had made a lot of videos in lotro and they were both entertaining and filled with useful information. I thought I'd try my hand at it, so I started a youtube profile, purchased the full version of fraps and got at it. Here is a link to my youtube page. As you can see I don't have nearly as many videos or followers as taugrim, but I use a similar approach. Anyways to move on, I ranked up my BW to 40 and found that our guild was lacking tanks and mdps, so I decided to roll a White Lion. Taugrim had also been playing a BW at the time, but he switched to Swordmaster so that our guild would have another tank. So now we were short on rdps, but it didn't matter that much to us because we both were having more fun and felt more useful on our melees (this was before the BW nerf).
White Lion was a very fun class. It's incredibly mobile and has all sorts of tools and dps to fit into most situations comfortably. I didn't think I'd like the pet when I first rolled the class, but I found use for it other than just fetching targets. We'll see how 1.2 impacts White Lions, but I don't imagine I'll go back to playing him full time. So to move things along here....I was only R40 on my WL for a month or so when I decided to finally level my Rune Priest. RPs and Zealots are my favorite class in the game which surprised me as I'd never been into the idea of being a healer before. I'm still currently ranking my RP up, but he's R37 now and on the downhill portion of the grind. Yes solo leveling as a healer is a grind and I hate it, but once you get rolling it isn't all that bad.
So I jumped around a little and cut a few things out, but overall that's more or less my WAR history so far. I've been testing Slayers on the pts and it looks like I may have to rank another character up once they release. Anyways there you go. Now you know a little something about me so in future posts I can reference back to this if need be. My future entries will be less about me and more about the games I'm playing.
Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
