I’ll second that. Seems to be the norm now with MMO’s. AoC did it and others will do it too. Release the game before it’s ready to generate income and use the first few months of release as the second half of the beta.

Polish and patch every other day until the game is half playable. Sound familiar?!

By Blackwings on Jul 21, 2008

If the game actually turns out to be fun, as is, on release, then I guess it doesn’t matter. Careful additions of cities in the future shouldn’t damage the game too much, as I would think with the addition of even one more city pairing they might be tempted to take out the two fortress capture model despite what they’re saying now.

I still like the idea of a war on 3 fronts (that’s the story arc isn’t it?) and the fortress capture seems to be a cap out just until all the cities are in. I don’t really believe it would be best for the game to have a rotating capturable city pairing unless for some unforseeable reason capturing a city in a free choice environment becomes next to impossible due to division of players (but I would imagine most guilds and players would be smarter than to allow themselves to be divided among goals too often).

By Knash on Jul 21, 2008

I admire your skepticism, man =) but don’t fret too much. I don’t believe they’re lacking faith in their Q&A, but they do only have so many Q&A guys. Spreading them thin on three times the workload would let more bugs slip through.

I am sad that all six cities won’t be in, and I was one of those confused thinking that all six would be “Living”. Based on that confusion, they pulled the four seemingly “for invasion only” cities so they could make them Living too…and that’s pretty cool. Fits in with all the other cool things they’ve done in making this new game.

I’m optimistic. Granted, I didn’t play DAoC, and that affords me some leniency so far as Mythic’s decisions go. Compared to my previous MMO provider (the company that shall not be named), they are extremely up front with what’s going on in-house. It makes me happy.

By Thade on Jul 21, 2008

There is another interview on Massively:

http://www.massively.com/2008/07/21/e308-warhammers-designers-explain-the-career-city-removal/

“Our original spec for what the cities would be was dramatically less expansive than what we having the current game’s living cities.”

I think what they have wanted to due with cities has changed over the whole life of the project, so there are different answers for whatever time period they are thinking back to at the time.

I agree with Thade’s reasoning. Although, I do not expect to see a 3 front war if the current version turns out to be very fun. Rotating keeps would not change the mechanic, just location.

Let the other cities go

By Werit on Jul 21, 2008

In summary, I feel (in real world projects as well as games) phased + quality/polish beats full (lower quality/polish) every time.

By Werit on Jul 21, 2008

Sure you are not too sceptical now? They have done a MMO before, they know what the did right/wrong. So far they have shown great will to deliver a great game, and I’m sure their not stupid enough to make the release a beta like another recent MMO…

By Regis on Jul 21, 2008

Originally they wanted to have regular MMO cities like we’ve seen in almost every mmorpg. Excuse the WoW reference but the original plan was to have 6 Orgrimmar’s. These cities would be sackable (able to be captured by the enemy realm).

Then they decided on the living city model. They decided to get to work on making 2 of these cities living cities - Altdorf and The Inevitable. Along the way they realized that they were really starting to get somewhere with the living city model. They reached a point where they really started to like their living cities and decided that they could not possibly achieve this level of success x3.

Instead of trying to replicate this feat and release with 6 living cities they took a moment to think about the ramifications. Leave them in and risk the monumental disaster of epic problems and risk an Age of Conan style disaster or launch with 2 living cities and 4 normal cities which would essentially bar those other 4 from ever becoming living cities - or remove the other 4 from the game until they can be developed.

The last option is the lesser evil and makes most sense. Release two AMAZING cities. Polish them. Work out the bugs. Get feedback post release. Fix problems that arise. Implement the other 4 and have content for parallel expansion - NEVER a bad thing.

To my knowledge they never once said all 6 capitals would be living cities. In fact, the only cities ever mentioned in relation to the living city model have been Altdorf and The Inevitable. I had always assumed that all 6 were going to be, but turns out I was wrong and now it makes sense as to why.

Personally, I think you’re making far too big a deal out of all of this. What mistake did they make that they need to come crawling back to you and the rest of the community? Taking stuff out of beta? Let’s be real - beta is a development phase where things come and things go. We’re trusting them to make the game. If removing the cities is going to make it a better game then we have to trust or at the very least come to the realization that beta isn’t the final product.

Quality > Quantity. I’ll go to my grave believing in that principle.

By Keen on Jul 21, 2008

At first I was really upset about the missing Cities, but I’ve come around. I think it will actually be better this way. Now everyone will be funneled into 2 main battlefronts, so there will be a lot more happening in concentrated areas, which i think is a good thing, lag permitting. And 6 months down the road or whatever, they can release the next 2 cities, that will be super awesome and have 100 quests and whatnot, and everyone will move on to them– new content! I’m excited.

By Earnest Dodge on Jul 21, 2008

I think I’ve come around on the cities front also. But yes, I had originally expected 6 living cities. I think I would have been disappointed to learn that wasn’t the case whether the cities were in or not. I wouldn’t go as far as deliberate deception but I think they gave that impression after they knew it wasn’t going to happen.

And to be honest, a huge fortress to PvP around in place of a city isn’t a bad swap. If it’s fun (and I think it will be) then we can say with hindsight that it was a good call on their part.

By Spinks on Jul 21, 2008

@Snafzg: What are you saying, that you have seen and played with the living cities? I know you are in beta, but you usually avoid anything involved with it.

As I understand it, old cities just had AH’d, mailboxes and such. Living cities have 100+ quests, several dungeons, Public Quests, city is dynamic with changing levels.

I prefer that to a WoW city which was dead and pointless. Sure, there were some quests and a dungeon but it was all so static. I really had no interest in the city, each was as good as the next. They are just places that house an AH now.

By Werit on Jul 21, 2008

If you don’t play for fluff or immersion, I am not sure why this bothers you so much. All cities in WoW are is fluff. They really do not have much of a function, except Auction Houses now. Living Cities seem much more functional.

I guess I’m just confused about your strong reaction against this now

By Werit on Jul 21, 2008

What’s the definition of “Living City?” Are they just referring to the dungeons and quests that are available in those 2 cities?

Anyways, doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me. Three cities with dungeons and quests seems a little overwhelming. It would be cool if the other 2 cities had something similar to DAoC relics. That way you could capture different cities and still get something valuable.

By Travis on Jul 21, 2008

I been hearing all this whining about the removal of the Capital Cities and classes on every blog, forum, and podcast for the last past two weeks. But you know what I have not heard, I have not heard any of those same people say they are not going to buy Warhammer or they are not going to play it. We may get upset and bitch about all of this but in the end we are going to buy the game and let the gameplay be the deciding fact on if we continue to play it.

By 007deadlysins on Jul 21, 2008

I agree with the Orgrimmar comparison, and I admit when it came to the Greenskin city, Orgrimmar had heavily influenced what I was expecting from that city.

From what I can tell the term “living city” can be exchanged with “interactive city” pretty easily. Instead of the city being an awe inspiring but ultimately symbolic location, now there are a bunch of quests and unlockable areas in it to boot, which is cool and fine with me, but in the first place the cities being “simply” awe inspiring was good enough for me, its a large part of why I like MMOs. I can’t get enough of the cities, and fighting for them being the main goal of the game sounds amazing.

@Snafzg: I agree I wouldn’t have traded living cities for a 4 city delay, but now that they have I guess it’s best to just be optimistic and pray that the greenskin/dwarf pairing is the next one out the door, and that the changes they make to that city are worth the wait. IF it comes within 3-6 months I’m okay with the wait… any longer than that in my opinion would be a huge mistake, I want my city.

By Knash on Jul 21, 2008

You said that Mark must have not had confidence in his beta testers or QA.

The answers a little simpler, I think. Why spend a bunch of time on the “dead” version of the city when you’ll just throw most of it away? You only have a finite amount of development time and you don’t even have enough time to do every great thing you can. So why spend time on something that isn’t great that you’ll probably throw away?

By boatorious on Jul 21, 2008

Behind all the pent up rage you’re probably right, lol, even raiding Orgrimmar would have been a ton of fun if only the servers didn’t crash when people tried it.

Just hope the “living” aspects of the city don’t start to feel like chores, especially on the offensive end of things when things should be at their best

By Knash on Jul 21, 2008

As much as I hate to admit it, I’m agreeing with you more and more as time goes on, Snaf. I ran the whole gamut of emotions like everyone else after hearing the about the cuts, and every time I think I’m getting over it, I read something else that irks me.

What galls me the most are statements from the devs like the one you posted. The way they try to find a silver lining in an admittedly sucky turn of events, and try their best to say to players, “See? It’s really not so bad! Er…this was all according to plan! It’ll be better this way, honest!”

My view of their statements may be overly pessimistic or flawed, but it just strikes me as condescending and almost insulting. I’d almost feel some degree of vindication if they issued a statement like the one you outlined.

By Belial on Jul 21, 2008

Mark and others have stated that the cities will be added later and they will not be in paid expansions.

Also, you have to remember Camelot gave the community more content and small expansions (like Darkness Falls, Foundations, etc) for free than any MMO prior to it.

Mythic made some epic mistakes in the past (Trials of Atlantis). I will give you that. One of the primary reasons those mistakes happened is because they did not listen to testers during the beta phases for that content or determine what was really best for the game (instead of trying to compete with Everquest).

Now, it seems, that they are catching hell for trying to listen to the beta community (internal and external to the company) and doing what seems best for the game.

Given the direction Camelot has taken, the changes they have made to that game, and the fact they seem to actually be listening to the community, I think they deserve some credit and optimism.

By Alby on Jul 22, 2008

Snaf, easy qusetion here. And I apologise if it seems loaded.

Quote
“@Werit - I don’t care about the fluff, which is why the Orgrimmar-esque cities would have been totally fine for me.

Why a city needs “levels” and “unlockable” features, will never make sense to me because I don’t buy into that stuff.”

And Quote
“Heh, the pent up rage is due to the inner conflict I’m feeling right now about this game. I’m about 50/50 on whether or not I am going to play WAR at all. I was about 90% sure before these cuts, but they really lowered my expectations.”

If the cities functionality means nothing to you, why (along with the class cuts) does it irk you so? Immersion has to be there for other people who aren’t just in WAR to smash skulls, but to play Warhammer in a way they never have, or play a new MMO that is in ways unlike the others they have.

Honestly, I’d have been even more pissed if I logged in on day 1 and found that Altdorf has a million things to do and Karak had a vendor and a trainer and that was it.

Yes it hurts that some of the cities were dropped, but if the game ends up better for it, I say go on and drop them. If the cities bounce back and are better than what they would have been? Even better.

In the end they’ve got to compete in the market place and also serve their customers. I severely doubt people want a reskinned WoW with more PvP.

Personally, I’m going to roll with this and remain optimistic.

By Ardua on Jul 22, 2008

@Keen - So you would rather have a pristine 20 dollar bill over 1 million torn up and used 20 dollar bills?

Seriously though, I wish they would just come out and say for sure, “WE WILL RELEASE 4 MORE LIVING CITIES AND 4 MORE WITHIN 1 YEAR OF RELEASE.” That is all I care about. I don’t care if they are paid expansion or anything like that. I just want that content sometime soon, not 2-3 years from now… when a better game may and will probably be out. Don’t forget how many companies are developing MMOs now… I am looking forward to Bioware’s also.

In the end, I am a mixture of Keen and Snafzg. I seriously would play FPS if they finally created a good one with RPG attributes. Still, it has to be somewhat fluffed… otherwise I would play Fury Online…

Hey Snafzg, have you played Mass Effect? That game is awesome. I so wish it was an MMO focused on PvP. I would pay 50 bucks a month for that… literally.

By Photonic on Jul 22, 2008

@Snafzg:

If you are just interested in Open World RvR and scenarios, I can see why you would have no interest in the cities. But the game is more than just those PvP elements, right? I want to play WAR primarily for Open World RvR, so I know where you are coming from.

By Werit on Jul 22, 2008

Personally I’m not really disappointed over the city cut. I started to understand what a living city means when I heard that there will be fully voiced stage plays cycling in the cities depending on the time of the year (one of the Altdorf presentations mentioned it). For me atleast, immersion is just as important in a MMORPG as the competitive aspect of the game. When you have one living city leveling up with you, you’re going to try damn hard to defend it instead of just thinking “hell, we have 2 more, we don’t need to defend it”. I think the cut will only make the game better.

But I really can’t understand people who are stating that competitive aspects are so important to them that cuting out 4 cities can alter their decision on buying the game, while on the other hand there seem to be a lot of benefits to the cut, even if only “fluff” to bring out the RP elements more. It seems as some are looking for a more shallow, action based game. (AoC?)

I myself am looking forward to Open beta and NDA lift, so I can see for myself if Mythic did the job I expect them to do.

Disclaimer: I am not in WAR beta and I have never played AoC.

By Blaq on Jul 22, 2008

Snaf mate I know you’re not trying to dissuade anyone, and hey any holes I can shoot, I shall.

I have a question though. Everyone assumed EA pressured Mythic about release dates and MJB said that they hadn’t.

What about the Games Workshop?

Logically speaking the sooner it is out, and in a manner that they approve, the sooner they get money/recognition/power/sugar/homersimpsonreference/women

That and there is still that WH40k mmo to come.

More thoughts on the city thing later. I will add now that Im all for them having more time. The idea of Karak Eight Peaks being a close match to the Dwarf City but “orced” makes it seem like little effort was put in.

“Hey it just looks like crap with trash everywhere”
“Of course, they’re Orcs”

Rampaging armies now, cities later.

By Ardua on Jul 22, 2008

You are way off base. Delaying the game again would’ve been devastating.

By Juhani Nopanen on Jul 22, 2008

I was just as upset as anyone when they announced the cutting of the 4 classes and the 4 cities, but then I realized… I have never even played this game, so it’s not like I’ve gotten used to something being in the game and now have to adjust to it being removed. That would be a much harder issue to take. Basically, to me, the only people who can really complain are those who are currently involved with the beta since they actually have to make that adjustment, but even then you have to remember that you’re in beta and therefor are used to making adjustments to things being removed and added on a regular basis. I feel pretty confident the game will be as enjoyable as we all expect regardless of the changes. I remember playing EQ2 which only had two major cities and I enjoyed that game very much except that it didn’t have much content even after the first expansion. That was my reason for leaving, but the game play was still a lot of fun once it was cleaned up. I’m just saying that I wouldn’t get upset about something you haven’t had the chance to enjoy.

Moogoo

By Moogoo on Jul 22, 2008

I really don’t know what is wrong with the game and what happened to the cities but it reminds me of something when I was a kid. It might not apply or make sense (it dies to me tho) but here is my story.

When I was a kid I wanted a bike (like all kids). My mother told me to get a job so I can pay for my dream bike. So, I did. I worked my butt off to get that bike but when I had enough for the bike (3.1 mil. Mythic reference), I wanted a better bike. One that was cooler and did more stuff. So, I worked more and more till I had money for the new bike but when I got the money all my friends had new motor cycles. Yes, I saved longer! The summer ended and I had a lot of money but the whole summer I didn’t have any fun because I was worried I wasn’t going to have the best.
As an adult nothing has changed, I still expect more even tho I make enough for that motorcycle. I guess I just expect to have the best and won’t settle for fun.
Maybe as adults we like the hype and not really the fun. I want WAR to be fun because I need to relax and have fun (get that first bike) but I expect way too much from WAR because they want the 30mil motorcycle but all their friends tell them it isn’t good enough so they keep changing their minds.

Or I could just not be making any sense at all. It make sense to me because I lived it and forgot to have fun. My brain hurts:)

By scarybooster on Jul 22, 2008

Ok, I never post comments but this just bothered me.

Photonic’s statement of “@Keen - So you would rather have a pristine 20 dollar bill over 1 million torn up and used 20 dollar bills?”

Is nowhere near an accurate description. To use his analogy, Would you rather have a pristine 20 dollar bill or 1 kinda nice 20 dollar bill and 2 20 dollar bills all torn up and run through sewage?

I’d answer that by saying, it’s not a matter of if I’d take one over the other, it’s a matter of how long I’d keep them. I’m far more likely to keep that pristine chunk of paper around than the other 3 simply because I like the look and feel of it. The others I’d use up and generally want to get rid of as fast as possible.

And for you snaf, I just wanna say that noone can make you want to play the game aside from yourself. No shining hero is going to make you change your mind on what you’ve determined unless Mythic comes along and says “hah, fooled all of ya, they’re really actually all going to be there, we just wanted to see how ya took bad news” even then, with that you’d still be kinda iffy on it, right?

Enough talking for me, I just hope you pep up some rather than being all doom and gloom. I mean, why have a blog about a game that you hate?

By Phoe on Jul 22, 2008

I’m not sure why, but I haven’t had mixed emotions about these changes at all. Maybe it’s my investment into the game, or because I haven’t played DAoC, but I wasn’t worried when I heard the announcements and I’m still not worried.

Ranting about things is great and all, but it’s not going to change things. The ONLY way is by experiencing the final product for yourself. Anything less is all in your mind.

Who knows, maybe I’m the one who is wrong and should worry. Maybe I’m right? It does not matter because nothing short of the final product in our hands is a crapshoot.

About wanting six cities at launch regardless of being “living”… If you’re not a fluff guy, why does it matter which city you hang out in? Each city would give the same benefits. Defending the Greenskin capital for racial pride is fluff, yes? Correct me if I’m wrong here.

On a final note, even if WAR doesn’t turn out to be the game for you Snafzg, there’s always Warhammer 40k and it’s been described as more of a FPS-style MMO.

By Kodo Beast on Jul 22, 2008

Ok I skipped about half the replies, excuse me if this has been brought up.

When I think of “living cities” I think of cities that can be fought over and controlled neighborhood by neighborhood. With real changes to the look and feel of the neighborhoods depending on who controls them, and quest lines that open and close for each faction. Imagine having opposed “la resistance!” and “ferret out the rebel scum” quest lines in an enemy controlled neighborhoods… until the last neighborhood is conquered and all resistance collapses. If I can play in two cities like that, screw having 6 half assed Ogrimar/ Ironforge clones instead.

Is that what they are doing? I haven’t the foggiest idea, I’m not in the beta. But I guess my main point is that I’m willing to wait and see what a “living city” really entails before I get my knickers in a bunch.

By Yeebo on Jul 22, 2008

@Snafg - I just don’t get your complaint. OK so they have 2 cities rather than 6, but surely there will be enough gameplay for some time with those two and more can be added later? If the game isn’t any good with 2 cities it won’t be any good with 6. The reason for canning the other 4 is that they don’t have enough time to implement them right now (to state the blindingly obvious). However, If it is true that they have 2 working, seigable cities and 20 RvR balanced classes that are fun to play, then WAR will be light years ahead of AoC and everything else without all the other promised features.

Still you are in the beta (and I’m not) so there may be a fly in the ointment I can’t see. Currently though your posts (and site) are very unclear as to what that might be.

By Roq on Jul 22, 2008

http://warhammercheats.blogspot.com/2008/07/review-of-end-game-and-betas-current.html

According to this blog, now that guilds are in there are reports of the fighting being a bit slow and boring, the sort where quote

“ …don’t have to and don’t need to react on your opponents actions, you just continue to deal damage and / or heal. “

Can`t wait for the NDA to drop… there is just no way they could possibly make a game where the PvP combat system is worse than WoWs.

By Knash on Jul 22, 2008

@nash

Did you read the entire post you linked? The main point of it is that that European is nuts.

@Snaf

I wouldn’t say I have “faith” in the game. I’d say more that I’m not currently very invested in it, and I’m perfectly willing to wait and see how it turns out. I think the most you could accuse me of is mild optimism

The roller coaster that you are currently going through is one of the major reasons that I don’t do closed betas. You want me to get invested in your game at that phase of development? Then pay me.

By Yeebo on Jul 22, 2008

Yeah, I read the entire post, I just quoted the somewhat inflammitory part and said that I was really looking forward to the NDA being dropped.

I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t have an open beta going by the end of August, aside from something cropping out of the woodwork with the guild beta or the “living guild” idea, but to be honest it doesn’t sound very complicated to me.

By Knash on Jul 22, 2008

There are some things bugging me about this city thing. First, this is just something I dont know, but how do you travel? If its just teleporting, then ok, but if its real time traveling, will this mean you have to spend a lot more time traveling to get to, say the orc place? Imagine WoW with only Ogrimmar and Stormwind.. Now this would, in some cases make it far more tedious to use the city’s facilities, like AH, PVP vendors etc.

The other thing is… why would anybody defend strongholds when you can attack a friggin’ city? Ofc, some would, but most likely the vast majority would want to attack a city. And, being a pvp experience, it think it would be wrong to balance this with npcs. Forced balance does not sound good either. So.. how does this work?

By Meatshield on Jul 23, 2008

Nvm about the sieging, read about it at the site posted by knash. Meeeh, thats not at all what I imagined and hoped for. Instancing? I thought we were invading the cities, not the instances linked to it.

By Meatshield on Jul 23, 2008

@Snafzg

quote [You know what? WoW released four years ago. Expectations were lower then. After playing five different MMORPGs in my career and only sticking with two of them for a decent amount of time, I’ve come to expect more in 2008.]

Boy do I agree with you on that for a full 1000%.

Tbh I expect WAR to be at least 10 times better than WoW.

If it’s ‘as good as’ it will do in the end since I’m just anxiously looking for a WoW replacement. Lotro failed. Aoc fails. What’s left besides WAR ? Should I give Guildwars a shot ?

Played WoW, Lotro, AoC, Silkroad Online and ofc a shitload of other (non MMO) games aswell. I want this game to be good and it needs to be good or I’ll ditch it like I ditched Lotro, AoC and the others and resub WoW again, after 4 years. Wow marketeers will love me since I paid them at least 2.5 years of subs in total. And that’s what EA should understand about WAR : if you make it cool, if you make it good then it will reward you in the end earning the big ca$$$h they hope for. They should invite (pay!) some WoW highend guilds and let them test some endgame (pvp, rvr and pve). It would pay off in the end imho.

Most ppl tell sceptics to give WAR ‘ a chance’ to grow. Well hell no I’m not going to pay 6 months to get WAR from a v0.9 game to a v1.0 game. If others want to do that, fine by me. I’ll be in WAR on launch day and I’ll be out of it before my first month of mandatory subscription ends if it is too much beta or not on par with my expectations. Together with 30+ wow-guildies we’re waiting for launchday but none of those would stay 1 minute longer in the game if it would have critical problems with the gameplay.

WAR could be better after a few months or half a year but the hype and media-attention would be long gone seducing only a very few players to get back in. Just like AoC probably is better currently than it was 2 months ago but well, why risk paying 15$ and running the risk finding the game in the same state as launchday with only some minor tweaks to keep the shallow playerbase happy ?

By Gnoof on Jul 23, 2008

Avoided this one until now, but Snafzg’s comments have drawn me in. Curse you!

My first point is a simple A or B question.
Let’s assume it’s going to take Mythic 6 months to sort out the 4 living cities and 4 classes that were recently dropped.

Would you rather:
A, wait 6 months to play the game so that your first experience is the “full meal deal” or,
B, play now and see those cities and classes added in once they’re ready for mass consumption?

Everyone keeps talking about how another delay would be a huge mistake, but Mythic is sticking to their “we’ll release it when it’s ready” guns. I don’t doubt the game will release in September because it will be ready.

The 4 cut classes and 4 living cities won’t be ready, so they’ll be delayed until they are.

Snafzg, it sounds like you’re bringing a lot of personal hang-ups to your review of the game. You’re reviewing it based on your personal niche interests rather than evaluating what the game actually is. It’s like reviewing a sports car and complaining about the lack of trunk space and poor off-road capability. I can’t wait to hear your reviews once NDA drops, at which point my own experiences will allow me to either refute or agree.

Cheers

By Koroh on Jul 28, 2008

Sounds good. Thanks for generating such a spirited debate!

By Koroh on Jul 28, 2008