This topic went 'round the blogosphere a few months back, but I'm revisiting it because the situation on the ground has changed.

I think Mark Jacobs was just playing the marketing game, it was a defensive 'WotLK won't hurt us' much like his recent 'layoffs won't hurt us'. He was just trying to put out fires.

I didn't buy into it. And if it was true, why should Mythic be proud of it?

MMORPGs encompass a variety of activities and gaming urges for the players. So if your game's population is taking time to play another MMO, then you've probably got some gaping holes in your content. In other words, if it was as compelling as it should be, they shouldn't be wandering so easily.

I understand playing other games, that makes sense. MMOs don't cover the same kind of gameplay as say Guitar Hero or Wii Fit. But to jump back and forth between two Diku-derived MMORPGs? These are time and focus consuming: Players invest in their characters.

So it probably wasn't true back in October, but it's becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. I know I clued in that WAR's PvE content lacked a good foundation. And Mythic's emphasis has shifted fully to RvR (PvP) since release. It's become the 'why would you come here for PvE?' game.

On the forums, on the blogs, on the channels in-game-- It's evident that a good deal of players are playing WoW (or EQ2 or LOTRO) for PvE and WAR for PvP. In the blogosphere alone it's getting hard to find WAR players that are solely for WAR, it seems like they've all re-subbed for WotLK. I could make a long list, but more effective is Tome of Knowledge's "A Tale of Two Hunters" comic:

(Note: Not my comic, it just illustrates this so well. Go visit Tome of Knowledge to fully appreciate it.)

The problem for Mythic is whether Blizzard clues in. I suspect it'd be a lot easier for WoW's PvP to get patched into something more compelling, than for Mythic to rework most of WAR's PvE. I'm of the opinion that PvP content is much easier to create, the players do much of the work for you. That's WAR's driving force altogether, in the masses of players.

And here's the bottom line:

I don't think players want to subscribe to multiple MMORPGs. They do it because they want both experiences to be great: PvE and PvP. If one of the games does both well, they wouldn't need the other.

For me at least.

Okay, I still have more than a month's worth of time paid up with Mythic, so I'll likely login to WAR now and then to chat with some peeps, take some last moment screenshots and check out any changes before I go.

Love:

I love the Scenarios. I love the PvP-balanced classes. I love the (Games Workshop inspired) art design. I love the interface. I love my Squig. I love calling Dwarves "Stunties" and Goblins "Gobbos".

And Love Lost:

I find the RvR just dullsville and the PvE even moreso. Public Quests were an illusion that crumbled. Grinding Influence is worse than any grind I've ever played. The questing is oddly too convenient. There's no quality small team content. I could list more disappointments, I could fill a few pages with them.

Primarily I feel the game suffers from misdirection. It's like they pretended to have a world, but much of it is like a cardboard movie set. Push it a little and it falls over. And where it does stand up, where Mythic put their serious effort in, doesn't quite work either. There are too many underlying fatal flaws.

So much potential, parts of the game are really good. It just doesn't hit the magical formula for me. I could go on about how Mythic could improve-- I'm almost compelled to do so, as insight from a critical 'almost-fan'.

Where is it going?

Mythic stubborning hammers away at their big feature (RvR Keep / City capturing), neglecting the rest. A portion of the fanbase is applauding them for doing so, much to my disbelief. I'm not sure Mythic realizes just how niche they've made their game.

I can see WAR improving, but I cannot see it growing.

It's not as disappointing as Age of Conan. Both have great elements that work, both have many that don't, but overall WAR is more playable as an MMO, while AoC plays like a single-player game. For me though, the frustrations are a bit the same. I feel they've built in a shallow pit and they're not willing to re-dig to make it deeper.

For anyone thinking of giving WAR a try, I'll give this advice:

If you like PvP and don't give two hoots about the rest of the game, then WAR can be okay. Parts of it are great, particularly the Scenarios. I could accept WAR as a PvP-only game if there was a greater variety of PvP activities that worked well, but it's mostly the Scenarios that bring the fun factor home.

For me, I don't see much point when I can play Team Fortress 2 (which is currently on sale at Steam for 10 bucks) without a monthly fee.

Update: Apparently Guild Rank calculations do scale somewhat, including idle-to-active ratios with alts.

  ·  ·  ·

Most MMORPGs have what I'd consider a flaw: Being a member of a large guild is a huge advantage. Guildless players and small / medium sized guilds often feel outright punished for their social choices. It's the zerg dilemma but reaching into every aspect of the game.

WAR favours the large guilds as much as any other MMO, perhaps even moreso. Take the Guild Rank system for instance. Gloomy Bears just recently opened up the Guild Vault, we're Rank 4. Casualties of WAR is large but not huge and they're Rank 12.

Keeps are obviously designed for large guilds to hold. Capturing could be done with a small guild, I have no doubt of that from what I've seen, but they wouldn't be able to pay the hefty maintenance fees (barring nefarious gold dealings, ugh).

Alliances are good for small guilds, but so far it looks like Alliances are limited to two guilds pairing up and I'm not sure what Mythic's plans are down the road with this feature.

Unless I'm mistaken, all of the high level Public Quests pretty much require a Warband, although perhaps not a full one.

I don't wish for Mythic to change their core mechanics (although the high gold fees are a welcome invitation to gold sellers) and I don't expect them to work around the inherent ability to form up groups, but there are a number of things they could do to make the unguilded and smaller guilds feel more welcome:

• Alllow guild-to-guild / group-to-group Scenario matches. Premades could face premades in Scenarios and PUGs would face PUGs. Individual players would feel a lot less like suckers facing groups tactically coordinating on Vent. Scheduled guild matches would be nice, although I wouldn't want it to become an e-sport.
• Scale the Guild Rank system. Scaling could still be ramped in favour of larger membership, but it could be curved enough that it wouldn't be so discouraging to small guilds.
• Scale the Keep fees. If you can take it and defend it, you should be allowed to keep it.
• Balance out PQ choices. So far in T3 it looks like they all require Warbands. There should still be PQs that are doable with a few players, even less than a full group, just reduce the chances for blue & gold bags to drop.

These changes could put large guilds in an uproar, I'm sure some of them expect their advantages as an inherent right, although hopefully that'd be a minority.

I love the close-knit camaraderie of smaller guilds. When I've been in a larger guild, even a friendly one, I've always felt like it could just as well be a bunch of people in general chat. I don't mean to offend anyone in them, but it doesn't suit me. It doesn't suit a lot of players.