This has probably been building ever since the testing phase of 1.2. It was around then that I realized that the game I’d fallen in love with was being pushed away from me by its designers. Balance was stripped away bit by bit until I had nothing positive to say about the game. I’ve enjoyed playing WAR, but the truth is if it weren’t for this blog I’d have quit over a month ago.

After this last month and the release of 1.2.1, I’d hoped that things would get better. Instead we’ve gotten the second patch in a row that wasn’t tested and had to be hotfixed repeatedly to make the game remotely playable. I don’t believe Mythic has any direction in WAR. They continue to introduce uncompelling PVE content to endgame. They allow the most epic enemies in the game to be kited to death by Bright Wizards. Meanwhile they repeatedly show a lack of knowledge in balancing PVP content. I knew before hand that Dark Age of Camelot had a lackluster and off-balance PVP system, but from what I’d seen pre-1.2 Mythic had worked out the bugs. Now I’ve only been repeatedly reminded that the early balance and fun wasn’t intentional and has been gradually phased out.

I can’t keep giving money to Mythic to play a game that peaks at low levels. PVE content may not be the focus, but why does it have to be bad as well? PVP isn’t balanced. The game lacks focus… and honestly, I’m not having any fun at all anymore. I see too many players who just wanted an escape from WoW after not being able to stay above a 1500 rating. Too many players who think DAoC was a great game. All that aside though, I love the blogging community and especially the WCPI. We never expected to receive as much of a following as it’s grown into. The spotlights from Warhammer Alliance in particular gave us more viewership than we could ever have hoped.

This blog was made at a time where Omelettez and I were going through a lot of hard times and being embraced as we have been helped a great deal. It might seem cheesy, but you guys didn’t just help get us by in the game, but helped our relationship as well. We’re a lot closer and honestly we’re just at a point where we no longer need to cling to WAR to keep us together.

For Wafflez: I hope the computer problems work themselves out. Sorry we won’t get to play with you anymore.

To Iridar: We enjoyed playing with you as well. It might not been often, or for very long, but it was fun.

To Frank: Thanks for inviting us to the the podcast. I’m glad it was before we became so downtroden, it was very fun.

For Martin: You’re awesome. I wish my arm wasn’t busted up, I’d make you a goodbye-gif.

To everyone else, I hope you guys are having a lot more fun than we have been. I really hope WAR turns around and proves to be something great again. Sorry we won’t be around to cheer alongside you. I still don’t know what to say, or if what I’ve said is enough. This just isn’t the game for me. I wish I’d realized that sooner. Good luck everyone.

If you’ve never seen the Roguecraft movies, you really need to go do that. They’re pretty funny and are a great example of the way some players want to view games. Now, I’m not sure where the rock paper scissors analogy started, but it fits many games very well. Many card games and real time strategy games use this mechanic. So do some class based shooters, such as Team Fortress and Battlefronts. Many fighting games also use this in the same manner: attacks beat throws, guards beat attacks and throws beat guards. When looking at games where this balance scheme works a pattern starts to develop and common themes can be seen in the games.

• Team sizes and resources are kept even between players.
• Players are given multiple choices to select at once.
• The choices are active during gameplay.

First, each team, or each player is given an equal force to the other. This means that in the overall game this is not a ‘rock paper scissors’ game; the opponents are on equal footing. This means that the ‘rock paper scissors’ part of the game is actually a game within the game. This is reinforced by giving players multiple choices. This is particularly true of strategy games where the player, or team will be fielding many units all of which have different properties. Here ‘rock paper scissors’ is not used to determine the winner, but instead to prevent “zerg” strategies. Interestingly the origin of “zergging” is in a strategy game, but unlike its typical use, it actually refers to an early-game rush strategy. It does not refer merely to attacking with a larger force than the opponent. Finally, the choices in all of these games are active choices. None of these games involve, for instance, picking rock and forcing you to play rock permanently.

All of the games which successfully allow this design scheme allow you to fluidly change tactics, just as the real rock paper scissors game. The same cannot be said about MMOs. Here players choose their characters and then build them up over the course of the game by upgrading their equipment, skills and stats. In this case the rock paper scissors style of gameplay can only be applied properly if the game is a fighting game model. This means that while one may be locked into their character, that character has various options to counter other players characters. This causes dramatic problems when an MMO attempts to model itself around strategy, or shooter-style rock paper scissor models.

The largest problem applying this type of model to an MMO deals with character commitment. Since a player is only controlling their set character at any one point they begin to grow attached to the characters they play. Now, take for example three players, aptly named Rock, Paper and Scissors. Rock decides to go for a walk and runs into Scissors. Rock quickly defeats Scissors. However, Scissors happens to be friends with Paper and tells them where Rock was walking. Paper shows up and defeats Rock easily. How does Rock feel? Rock defeated Scissors, but can’t feel good about this because Rock is supposed to beat Scissors. Afterwards Paper defeats Rock, but Rock feels helpless because Rock is supposed to lose to Paper.

This doesn’t apply to a game that is balanced around the fighting game model. Here we have two players, this time named Ken and Chun-Li. Ken decides to go for a walk in the forest and runs into Chun-Li. They face off and Chun-Li decides to pull out a massive pair of scissors, while at the same moment Ken throws a rock at her. The rock breaks the scissors, but the fight continues. Ken decides to throw a second rock, but Chun-Li has caught on to his strategy and catches the rock with a large piece of paper. This goes on for some time and after a long and skillful battle Ken counters a couple dozen scissors in a row, then smacks Chun-Li in the face with a giant rock. Here the players of Ken and Chun-Li were presented with options of how to counter each other instead of being being forced into the decision upon character creation.

The difference in the models when applied to an MMO is that the strategy/shooter model forces decisions out of the players hands, while the fighter model allows players to develop strategies around their playstyle. However, this is not the only problem in basing MMO balance on strategy and shooting games. Another large problem is that most games do not have three options. In WAR’s case there are twenty-four options. This means characters must then be divided into subtypes and balanced accordingly, or characters must be balanced on a class-by-class basis. In the case of WAR this gives us twenty-four characters with twelve on each side that need to be balanced against the twelve opposing classes. This leads to a very complicated balance model, which looks more like a balance web where each character beats half of the opposing classes, but loses to the other half.

The class-by-class method is very complicated. Instead, WAR has broken the classes down in several ways which we can use to subtype the classes. The most important is when looking at the characters roles. In WAR there are five functional roles and a sixth role which is not functional. Those roles are: tanking, melee DPS, ranged DPS, melee support and ranged healing. The sixth role is ranged support, which is incomplete and can’t be fully performed by any class. That leaves the game with five options which need to be balanced against each other. While this is more complex than “paper rock scissors” a model can be created to show balance in a system with five options. In this model each option beats two of the other options, but is beaten by two of the other options as well. There are various ways to balance this, such as in the example below.

Here tanks beat DPS careers. Melee DPS defeat ranged careers. Melee healers beat tanks and melee healers. Ranged DPS wins over healers. Finally melee healers beat tanks and melee DPS. This may, or may not be optimal, but it illustrates how five-way balance works. Even if this is balanced properly it leaves players battle outcomes to be determined by their class role. Since this system is itself very complicated it also allows for the game itself to be thrown off balance by class buffs. Below you can see the actual current balance of WAR’s five class roles.

This leaves most of the power within the game in the hands of two classes. It also places the ranged careers well beneath the melee careers. The objection to this thought process is generally that WAR is not meant to be based on one-on-one conflicts. However, this objection falls short when analyzed further. An easy example of this, using the balanced five-way model, would be to increase the group size. The first step is to assign how much of an advantage a class should have over another class. The lower this number is the closer it will get to being a one-on-one balanced model. The best way to do this would be to assign them ten duels and choose a number that the classes counter should beat it. For instance a tank should beat a melee career six out of ten matches. This is a good place to go with as it gives an easy to read advantage of six to four.

This allows us to analyze some two-versus-two groups. This is again a small scale, but is a large step above one-on-one and a good example is testing how this model works. The next step in this is to decide on the groups to test. An easy starting point is the standard group of a tank and a ranged healer, which is a mainstay of MMOs. The other team will be a simple construction of two melee DPS careers. The healer versus the melee is at a four to twelve disadvantage. Meanwhile the melee versus the tank are at an eight to six advantage. This means that under the five-way model that two melee can simply burn down a classically balanced group.

This is complicated further in very large group where balance changes further. The early diagram showing the state of balance in WAR currently was based on small groups. In large groups the balance in WAR is actually much different, which can be seen below.

This balance shift is caused by the advantage of range and position. This gives a heavy advantage to any ranged class, while also giving a heavy disadvantage to non-tank melee careers. It also points to one of the largest errors in this form of balancing: Attempting to balance a game around a strategy-game model while not allowing players to actively change their group leads to poor balance. When characters are balanced around a fighting game model if a situation like the above presents itself, then the group is able to shift into an anti-ranged strategy to gain the upper hand. This is not possible in the strategy-game model unless a shift can be made in army composition.

The final argument for this type of design is that it creates diversity. This argument is very hard to support, often leaning on the idea that because classes are balanced one-on-one that they become homogenized. This is caused by the misunderstanding of balance and the idea that to be equal classes must be the same. The counter argument is that different class roles and even class mirrors as in WAR allow you to provide diversity; different characters can do things in different ways to produce an equivalent result.

An example of this would be a race between two vehicles. Both vehicles need to transport twenty people from point A to point B. The first vehicle can carry ten people, while the second vehicle can only carry five people, but travels almost twice as fast. It takes the first vehicle a minute to travel from point A, to point B, or back and another minute to load and unload passengers. It takes the second vehicle thirty-five seconds going either way and it only takes fifteen seconds to load or unload. The first vehicle will deliver the twenty passengers in six minutes and in two trips. Meanwhile the second vehicle is required to make four trips, but takes the same six minutes.

This may seem like a silly comparison, but its a good way to show how two very different things can be balanced against one another. It also shows how not only can things be balanced one-on-one, but also balanced in such a way that the skills involved are different. The first vehicles driver will have much different concerns than the second vehicle. The first vehicle needs to be quick and efficient with loading and unloading passengers, while the second vehicle needs to handle the driving aspects to a much greater degree. Some MMO comparisons are the differences between ranged and melee. Ranged classes need to be able to defend themselves from close ranged attackers by being elusive, or utilizing crowd control abilities. Meanwhile melee need to be able to defend themselves at range by either closing distance very quickly, or being able to reduce incoming damage and then once at range need to try to keep their target near them.

This type of balance leads to interesting outcomes in large scale battles. Because melee are now able to defend themselves from ranged attacks they are not in as dire a situation as they would be in a rock paper scissors scheme of balance. Meanwhile in open combat ranged are no longer at huge disadvantages against melee. This means that battle outcomes are no longer determined primarily by class choice and instead lean heavily on player skill level. Good ranged players can defeat mediocre melee players in single combat. At the same time good melee players will not be utterly destroyed in large conflicts. In this way small scale balance serves to even out large scale battles when properly constructed, while ‘rock paper scissors’ balance designs serve to cripple MMO balance.

The old rock paper scissors game functions very well when applied properly to gaming models, but only when done at the proper level. Rock paper scissors should never be implemented in such a way that players do not have the option to change their strategy. Instead it should be implemented in such a way that it allows flexible and quickly changing strategies. This is seen in real time strategy games where a player who is amassing many aerial units may be countered with land units that are particularly strong against airborne attack. It’s seen prominently in fighting games as well, which often emulate an ever-flowing literal version of the rock paper scissors game in which players attack one another with rapid sequences using low, high and mid-level attacks to counter one another. However, this type of design has no place in any game where rock, paper, or scissors is a permanent decision. Instead games should strive for balance which allows players to all be equal, while allowing different strategies and playstyles to thrive. And that is the problem with scissors – they divide things and create a thin line which can be almost impossible to repair.

In all seriousness, though, Pancakez is injured pretty badly. I’m not exactly sure what he did, but his arm is in a lot of pain and immobile for some time yesterday. We’re hoping he doesn’t need surgery or anything, but in the mean time he’ll be taking frequent trips to Vicodine Land. He may or may not be posting as often this week, depending on how he’s feeling and if I’m hitting him with a pillow to get back to bed. Posting aside, I doubt we’ll be playing much of WAR this week due to it. Sorry to our stalkers in Badlands =P

Just thought I’d keep the readers in the loop.

Oi! Listen up stupid ’eads! We iz gonna be goin’ o’a ’ow to make some yummy eggies to munch on when da warboss ain’t payin’ attention. But you gotta ’ave da right stuff before you start firin’ up your pan. So you iz to ’ave da followin’ stuff.

• Dree big eggiez, preferably da brown ones
• Velveeta cheese
• Bacon o’ da turkey variety. Me tummy can’t process pork or beef crap, so deal wiv da fact it’s from a birdie an’ not a piggy
• One big fat onion lookin’ fin’
• Feta cheese stuff
• Sharp an’ pointy cheedar cheese stuff
• Basily leaves
• Pepper

If you don’t ’ave da above stuff, den your omelette is not perfect! Make sure you iz all of dese fings den start firin’ up your skillet. Also be sure to ’ave a bowl ready for smashin’ da eggiez an’ a flip-flip fingy to make your omelette perfect.

First, cook up a couple strips of bacon. I like mine close to burnt, but whateva works for you iz good. But if you want da perfect omelette, burnt is da way to go! Second, take onion lookin’ fin’ an’ chop it up into itty bitty pieces. Sauté da onion pieces until dey’re golden brown, den put dem off to da side for now.

Wiv dat all set up, you can start takin’ your dree eggiez an’ smashin’ dem in da bowl. Be sure not to get any stupid shells bits in da bowl. Den take a fork to beat da eggiez in real good. Don’t use a wisk, dose is for sissy stunties!

When your skillet is flamin’ ’ot, be sure to flick in some butta to grease it up real good. Den take eggies an’ pour dem in. Be sure to ’ave some slices of Veleeta cheese ready to drow in. Usin’ a rubba spatula, stir da cheese into da eggiez right fast. If your skillet iz ’ot enough, it will melt in perfectly an’ make some good cheesy eggiez. If you iz too slow, da eggies will cook too fast an’ make scrambled eggiez. SCRAMBLED EGGIEZ ARE NOT OMELETTES.

Next, crumble up your bacon into on ’alf of da eggiez. Do da same wiv da oinion pieces an’ toss some feta cheese in dere, too. Dis will make it da bestest! Let it cook until da eggiez don’t look as runny anymore. Den take your flip-flip fingy an’ flip da empty side of da omelette o’a to make a perfect fold.

While waitin’ for da omelette to cook fully, take da cheddar cheese an’ put two slices on top. If you put a lid o’a da skillet, da cheddar cheese will melt perfectly on top. Da bestest way to tell when da omellete is done is to make sure da inside aren’t runny. Just poke at it a bit an’ if n’nuffink comes out, den it’s done!

Slide da omelette onto your plate (wot, you didn’t ’ave a plate ready!?) an’ garnish it wiv basil an’ lotza peppa. Don’t use any salt! Da feta cheese ’as enough salt in it to make up for usin’ any salt. Make sure you let your omelette cool down before eattin’ it, or else it’ll be just like dat one time a stuntie knocked me back in Tor Annroc. When you iz ready to eat, stab da omelette wiv your choppa an’ munch away!

WAAAGH! You just made da perfect omelette!

Well, some of you might have been waiting for me to explode into some rant about 1.2.1. I have to admit I’ve been tempted, but I really don’t think I have to this time. The reason is so many other people are feeling the same. So, today we’re promoting 1.2.1 impressions… which in this case might be better summed up as depressions.

Casual WAR channel’s Commodus with Am I not Merciful? The most telling part about his impressions of 1.2.1 is this: Also, in related news, I’ve reinstalled the World of Warcraft client on my machine; I made a new trial account; perhaps my Retribution Paladin will see the light of day once more.

Incoming Pull adds some sarcastic wit to this by going over WAR’s amazing endgame content with WAR’s Swan Song. I can’t help but notice a pattern when I read the end: Hey, I hear AoC has a free trial. Been since launch when I stepped into Hyborea. Maybe it’s time to revisit and see the changes that have taken place.

Mmmmm Gud gives some very orcish ratings with 1.2.1 A brief review. No threats of leaving the game, but when the biggest flaunted features receive the worst rating you have to wonder what Mythic is thinking. It also ties in well with the recent WHA poll with some of the lovely customer service EU players receive: You recently placed a support request concerning a missing item. We are sorry to hear that you have lost an item, however until further notice we are not reimbursing items in your situation.

Bootae’s Bloody Blog gives some slightly more positive impressions with 1.2.1 first day final impressions. Bootae sums this up by saying, “So there you go, first day and first impressions are worrying for PvE (sloppy testing?), but very positive for RvR. With some good hotfixing, this could work out very well.”

How do I feel about 1.2.1? Put it this way, a big patch was released and instead of playing WAR I was watching Ulduar boss videos on Ciderhelm’s YouTube list for TankSpot. Yeah, 1.2.1 is just that good.

I really hope seeing something like the WCPI react this way can help Mythic understand how the community is feeling about their direction with the game. I love the blog community. I may have lost all faith in the primary player base and certainly the forum communities, but worst come to worst I’m very proud to be a part of the WCPI and the Age of Blogging. Keep on keeping on guys and gals.

I’m so glad to see other members of the WCPI voice their opinions on 1.2.1. It’s sad to hear people mentioning they are turning to other games and giving up completely on WAR, but with the lack of direction Mythic has it is truly difficult to remain optimistic. People are bringing to light the issues with the things that were implemented, like the token system, city sieges, and career changes. Then there are people constantly bickering back and forth on what direction Mythic should take. If Mythic was bolder in their ideal direction then perhaps there would be more faith and possibly less bickering amongst the players.

That aside, the above posts are excellent reads. You don’t even have to agree with them. They are well-thought out posts about a game that the posters care about. If they didn’t care anymore, they would have stopped posting. If we all stand up and voice our opinions, I would like to think that sooner or later Mythic will hear us.

If you need an explanation of rock-paper-scissors balance: Look no further!

How does this wonderful system work in WAR?

Melee classes are scissors.

Healers and ranged DPS are paper.

Tanks are rock, unless they’re DPS, then they’re also scissors.

Warrior Priests and Disciple of Khaine are mushrooms.

Scissors beats paper and would beat rock, but rock can turn into scissors and become an unstoppable killing machine. So rock beats paper and scissors runs from rock. Meanwhile mushrooms grow on everything, slowly eating them away from the inside while laughing maniacally… and this is called… balance.

Seriously… Half the classes in WAR dominate the other half. Rock-paper-scissors is bad. It was bad in WoW. It’s bad in WAR. Making classes balanced won’t ruin diversity. It will increase it by making more group compositions viable. </rant>

Thankfully, I’ve yet to be disillusioned by the forums, so let’s get straight to the lawlz.

Number Five. VIDEO – Tcharzanek King Fight… Is this really what we are staying for?
Best Quote. Staring tonight: Tcharzanek – Master Clown of the Inevitable Circus. They could have given him one of those unicycles or what they are called and make him juggle the players while funky circusmusic plays in the background…

While some people are fed up with and complaining about the lack of originality in the endgame fights, others are having fun poking fun at the lack of originality. It’s a great mix of people being serious business with people chucking their computers across the rooms and going STFU. Oh, and you always have to mention WoW here and there, right? Part of the people say WoW PvE sucks, another part says it rules, and then everyone else say this like, “FLYING KITES R FUN.” Too bad there’s an excess of imagery with the king fights, or else this would be more amusing.

Number Four. How to defeat a BW GOD.
Best Quote. You forgot to make a new category: Whine on the forums.

Only reason I picked up on this thread was due to the huge yellow ! symbol next to the thread. It was just begging to be looked at. And then I realized it was a Choppa… complaining about BWs taking him out… 1v1…. What? Apparently this is so much of an issue that a build was devised solely to kill pesky BWs 1 on 1. Because, you know, they’re gods like that. *facepalm* Thankfully people call him out on it, making it even more amusing. *munches on some popcorn*

Number Three. Good Things?
Best Quote. has anyone mentioned how good we look yet? they have already? oh well, how about damage sponges? that too huh?

I tend to lurk in the BG subforum a lot. There’s always drama, but it’s always the same drama over and over. And then I found this post! Oh, such a needed laugh. Yes, we do look good…. but that’s it. BUT WE LOOK DAMN SEXY. Someone even attempted to say we do awesome damage. Oi. Silly BGs thinking we can do stellar damage. Just stick to looking pretty! If it was longer, my popcorn bucket would need some refilling.

Number Two. Peace
Best Quote. Warhammer Alliance overmoderation of forums has made the Warhammer community less enjoyable on the whole. Fascism is a dying breed of government, and its model doesn’t scale down well.

So one of the guilds in Badlands was disbanding, hence this thread, so I got all sad when I started reading it. Then they said the following quote above and I couldn’t stop laughing. The truth is out, guys! People doing their jobs at a popular fansite is making WAR less enjoyable. That makes perfect sense. The whole thread is a mix of “Aww, sorry to see you guys leaving,” Zomg, QQ nubs,” and… wait, why are people talking about the pros and cons of FPS games!? I am so confused! Awesome thread, and definitely soda worthy. Almost deserved number one, but then I found the next one.

Number One. Test: Are you a heretic?!
Best Quote. And we are deeply concerned about the frequency with which you “Stroke the beard”. We have not settled on wether this is heretical or not but healthy, it cannot be.

Absolutely sheer brilliance. The dude who started the thread had some awesome replies and I’m sad he stopped replying after awhile, but the answers people come up with are hysterical. It’s great to see people get into character like this. You guys crack me up so much that I’m out of popcorn.

Would you like to contribute to the Top 5 Bucket o’ Lawlz? Omelettez would love you help, especially seeing she does not read every single server or class forum. Feel free to reply to the thread or PM Nnucifera at Warhammer Alliance with a lawl worthy link to a thread and it could be on the Top 5 list next week, along with a mention to you and your website, if you have one.

So, huzzah, I found something which has probably been promoted already… but needs it again. Why? This is epic as hell. It’s also amazingly long, which gives it some extra bonus marks of approval. Way to go Gaarawarr and company. I’m not even going to talk about it. Go read it and be amazed. This is what having fun is all about.

Strategy: This is the amount of coordination is required. A 0 means the scenario requires no strategy outside of PVP talent. A 10 means that heavy group micromanagement must be performed across the map and coordinated well to see success.

Fun: This is simply how enjoyable I find the scenario. How often do you look up at the time remaining, or score and sigh. How often do you find yourself, or your team waiting around. This is a simple 0-10, with 0 being a dentist visit without Novocaine and a 10 being a swimming pool full of chocolate and marshmallows with life guards from Baywatch.

Time: This score is the relation between the time the scenario takes and the rewards it yields. Scenarios that rarely finish before the fifteen minute time-up get much lower scores because the victory condition reward is rarely gained. Very fast scenarios score much higher. This score is very dependent on the timer which is forced on scenarios — something I find much too short for most maps, many of which would be better suited to half-hour timers.

First a quick update on T1 and T2 reviews post-1.2:

Tier 1-
Nordenwatch (unchanged)
Strategy- 6
Fun- 7
Time- 7
Overall: 8 ½

Gates of Ekrund
Strategy- 0 (was 1)
Fun- 5 (was 7)
Time- 10 (was 8 )
Overall: 6 (was 7 ½ – introduction of Slayer and Choppa has brought this down a peg due to AOE spam.)

Khaine’s Embrace (unchanged)
Strategy- 9
Fun- 6
Time- 1
Overall- 4

Tier 2-

Stonetroll Crossing (unchanged)
Strategy- 4
Fun- 3
Time- 2
Overall- 3

Phoenix Gate (unchanged)
Strategy- 8
Fun- 8
Time- 3
Overall- 5

Mourkain Temple
Strategy- 0
Fun- 6 (was 9)
Time- 10
Overall- 5 (was 9 – AOE spam has ruined the fun here despite speeding up the games even more)

Now on to T3! There was much blood lost and/or burned on both sides to bring you these reviews. Lots of blood.

Tier 3-

Black Fire Basin

Black Fire Basin is a capture-the-flag scenario. The map’s center is a large frozen lake, which is cropped by two valleys. This gives three routes for players to take when attacking the opponents flag spawn, or running the flag back. The center is very wide and open, but the flag spawns and side valleys are cramped. Each base is also guarded by a gate with a wall that defenders can stand on. Most matches consist of turtling due to the massive size and reliable defenses. Like Phoenix Gate before it the scoring system is heavily lacking, which makes the scenario difficult to win.

Strategy- 7
Fun- 3
Time – 1

Overall: I want to love Black Fire Basin, but it has too many faults. The scoring system is abysmal and the map layout spreads out combat much too far for 12v12 to handle. This scenario should be 18v18, or greatly reduced in size. Long matches with low renown turn this diamond in the rough into a jagged and worthless rock. I give Black Fire Basin a painful four out of ten.

Doomfist Crater

Doomfist Crater is a combination murder ball and king-of-the-hill scenario. Combat takes place primarily on tight platforms that force players into one another. Games are fast and bloody and the small size can lead to camping, but smart teams will break the mold using the multiple attack directions to get back into the game. Sadly because of the many line-of-sight issues and the cramped quarters this scenario is dominated by AOE, much like Mourkain Temple before it. This map is also symmetrical, offering no advantage to either side.

Strategy- 5
Fun- 7
Time- 9

Overall: Doomfist Crater is an acquired taste – if you have a lot of AOE, you acquire it. Everyone else will find this scenario painful, but quick. When I gave Mourkain a nine out of ten AOE was not as out of hand as it is now, a score it would not warrant post-1.2. Were this not the case, Doomfist would also gain a nine. However, as we live in a post-1.2 world, Doomfist Crater is AOE’d down to a six out of ten.

High Pass Cemetery

High Pass Cemetery uses a double king-of-the-hill mechanic, but unlike Khaine’s Embrace there is no fiery death explosion. The map is small and open, but presents a lot of angles to hide behind. Unlike previous failures Mythic has stepped up here and most matches do end before time-up. Much of this is due to the simple map lay out facilitating a deathmatch style of game play. This is another symmetrical map.

Strategy- 7
Fun- 8
Time- 7

Overall: High Pass Cemetery does have some time-up games, but they aren’t frequent. The map encourages PVP and both sides have equal opportunity at each capture point leading to fewer turtle games than in many other scenarios. It may not be perfect, but High Pass Cemetery gets a solid eight out of ten.

Lost Temple of Isha

Lost Temple of Isha is another king-of-the-hill/murder ball game. It’s almost Doomfist Crater in reverse. Instead of taking place on platforms, the main combat in Lost Temple is either in the open field in front of the capture point, or in the ancient walled temple. Again this allows heavy exploitation of AOE, but being more open it is not quite as punishing. This is yet another symmetrical map as well, almost always a good thing. The flag here is also highly defensible when compared to most king-of-the-hill objectives.

Strategy- 7
Fun- 7
Time- 7

Overall: Lost Temple of Isha is one step above Doomfist Crater, getting an acceptable seven out of ten. While it does have more time-up games, it is also less exploitable and offers more varied combat. One major concern is the distance from combat one must go to access the murder ball, meaning it rarely if ever comes into play, often killing its carrier before they reach combat.

Talabec Dam

Talabec Dam is a dual bombing run scenario. The map is primarily open field, with some bottlenecks. The goal is to destroy the dam (Order), or the windmill (Destruction) using a bomb found in the center of the map. Sadly this map is not symmetrical: Destruction side tends to turtle often here as the dam is very easy to defend, while Order has much more difficulty. The scoring system once again fails and even when a team is being farmed often the game will go the full fifteen minutes.

Strategy- 8
Fun- 3
Time- 3

Overall: Talabec Dam should be fun and compelling, but as with many maps it suffers from a poor scoring system. This leads to long matches with low rewards. Strategy is a fine point here, but the map is simply not fun to play on and the matches drag out for far too long. Talabec Dam gets a disappointing three out of ten.

Tor Anroc

Tor Anroc is a mini-game in WAR involving a golf game played by tanks. Who’s the ball? You! Just kidding (mostly). Tor Anroc is a murder ball game. The map is played within a volcano on the narrow passageways between the lava and the ball is located on a hill in the center. The problem is the game is played in a volcano on the narrow passageways between the lava and the ball is located on a hill in the center. Battles are cramped and environmental damage is obscene. Any played with some limited skill and a knockback can instantly kill other players. Rough.

Strategy- Lava Golf
Fun- 8
Time- 10

Overall: You’re going to get put in the lava. You’re going to burn and die horribly. The good news? Win or lose it’s over pretty fast. It’s close quarters and can be a great bloody time, but AOE and knockbacks spoil any sense of strategy. Order has a distinct advantage in having wide-area AOE knockbacks at this level as well. Still, it’s fun, people die a lot and the renown is good. Given the other options in T3, I have to give Tor Anroc a seven out of ten.

My overall impression of T3 scenarios is a bit mixed. Several are highly exploitable with AOE and… well, Lava Golf… On the other hand the general quality and mix of scenarios is very well done. It’s definitely a step above T1 and T2 in terms of map design and goal, but it must also be said that T3 characters themselves are much less balanced than in T2 which makes PVP a bit harder to swallow. While in T2 AOE spam was around, it wasn’t quite at this level yet. I can honestly recommend that anyone looking for a good PVP experience should look towards T2, or late T1 for a competitive environment. The time-to-kill is much less frustrating and players have a good stable mix of options. This is particularly true of T2, where EXP is slow enough that characters begin to be well geared. Definitely a big thumbs-up to balance in T2, though I will admit the scenarios in T3 are just plain better than in lower tiers.

So until next time.. and next tier… have fun pwnzoring nubs. Or… at least knocking them into pools of lava.

1. What is your current main character’s name (or names, if you play multiple games)? Explain how you chose the name.
You would like to know, would you? She’s named after one of my favorite drinks. Have fun guessing.

2. What was the name of your very first character in an MMO? Explain how you chose that name.
My first character was named Roxindrith back in FFXI. It was the name of a character I created for a short story I wrote back in high school, so I just carried it into the MMO due to lack of ideas.

3. Have you kept a specific name through various games, or do you tend to change your naming habits based on the individual game?
My usernames are pretty consistent, but the character names really aren’t. The only name that is consistent is Maurynna, a name I give to any ranger type character I make. It’s a homage to my epic Ranger I had in D&D for a while.

4. Do you ever reserve names, planning to use them for characters that you might play later? If so, what are they and why do you hold on them?
Only time I held a name like that was back in WoW before Burning Crusade, and that was Illumanati. Sadly, the correct spelling was taken.

5. Of the three common archetypes in MMOs — tank, healer, DPS — which is your current main character?
Tank.

6. What archetype was your very first character in an MMO? Why did you choose it?
Melee DPS. If you read my post on tanking woes, I explain that I’ve always had an affinity towards rogue characters.

7. Are you usually attracted to one archetype over another, or do you play them equally? Why?
I’m attracted to bad ass-ness. I’m usually sold if the concept art is awesome. Though it truly depends on my mood, but I have to say that WAR is the only MMO where I feel pretty passionate about tanking.

8. What is your favorite feature from an MMO you no longer play?
Arenas in WoW. No, I didn’t like the way loot was distributed. Yes, I loved kicking ass.

9. Is there an MMO that you would play if it was free? Which and why?
Not really. Most free MMOs are pretty out of whack and not something I would want to spend a lot of devoted time to.

10. How do you measure the success of a character in an MMO (total kills, titles accumulated, wealth, rare items collected, level reached, etc.)?
By the amount of people who run in the opposite direction of me when I show up.

And you’re suppose to tag people so they can do it, blah blah blah. You know what? Screw that noise. That’s retarded. Awesome way to single people out. If you want to do this, then slap it on your blog. Everyone’s it now.