New Game Upcoming from War of Roses Maker? Alpha Access

[Gusington]

Customizable beards. And I'm not joking.

[TheCommandTent]

Customizable beards. And I'm not joking.

I already have one of those.

[Gusington]

Is it braided?

[Toonces]

Well the thing is, WotR is a pretty good game.  I've been playing quite a bit of it lately (I actually just sort of forgot I even owned it) along with the CRPG mod for Mount and Blade and, frankly, I prefer most of WotR better.  Certainly the combat feels less chaotic in WotR. 

However, there are a few things that just make WotR not as much fun on several levels.  First, most of the servers can only hold 32 players.  This just isn't all that many, compared to the melee's you get in Rising Storm, for example, or even CRPG with 120+ player maps.  It's way cooler participating in a massive siege or battle with 50 players on each side, you know?

Also, I get one-shotted a ton in WotR.  This is in full plate, helmet, little throat protector thingy, and visor down.  And I still get one-shotted in melee combat all the damn time.  It's not cool.  On the other hand, I very much love the bandage mechanism in WotR that is missing from M&B, but would be a terrific addition.

I love the customization in WotR, but they've really altered the rewards for playing and the cost of gear is astronomical such that you really have to grind to afford decent stuff, or else buy it using micropurchases.  I hate that concept. 

WotR went free to play or something like it, and is relying on the micropurchase means of sustaining the game.  I don't think this was the right direction.  What they really should have done is looked to everything M&B does right and then just copy it, IMO.  If you build a really good game, people will pay for it without all the nickle and dime shit. 

Anyway, what I fear is that these guys are going to take the current state of WotR and use it as the basis for the Viking game.  This is a mistake IMO.  Some of the stuff in WotR works, but a lot doesn't.  I hope that they'll look to their competitors, M&B and Chivalry, figure out what makes those games so much more successful, and they emulate them.

[LongBlade]

War of the Vikings says it will host 64 players.

There's also some kind of hard core mode with no respawns.

[Toonces]

WotR can host 64 also, but almost all of the servers choose to only host 32 for some reason.

[LongBlade]

WotR can host 64 also, but almost all of the servers choose to only host 32 for some reason.

Strange.

[Bison]

I found WotR to be really fun, but Jomni is correct the player base just sort of dropped out from underneath it very quickly for the most part.

[Toonces]

I'm not a game developer, but as a player, I think there are just obvious things these guys could do to make WotV much more popular than WotR:

1.  Larger battles.  64 players is nice, but not as nice as 128 players.

2.  Introduce a campaign aspect.  I LOVE the multiplayer campaign idea going on in Rising Storm/RO2.  It ties battles together and introduces several strategic aspects between battles.

3.  Create an RPG element.  Nothing elaborate here.  Copy CRPG for M&B.  You equip 'a' character.  The character's gear requires purchase and upkeep.  Gear can be sold back at the marketplace, be upgraded, placed for auction, etc.  Stringing map victories together increases the XP/Gold reward.  Reward Gold/XP for both time played and slaying opponents.

These 3 ideas alone would dramatically increase the popularity of WotV IMHO.  Unfortunately, I doubt any of them will be implemented.  What I've read so far indicates this will basically be a re-skinned WotR.   >:(

[Toonces]

^ I copied my post and slapped it on the Steam forums, bunch of illiterate bastards that they are.

[Martok]

Looking at WotR -- and seeing that WotV appears to be similar (although hopefully more than just a Nordic-flavored reskin) -- I keep wondering why I would get it over Mount & Blade.  Not that I have that game either, but it holds a lot more obvious appeal. 

[Toonces]

Good question, and that's sort of my point.

In my opinion, Mount and Blade is better than WotR in almost every single way.  First off, M&B has an amazing, highly moddable single player system in place that allows for almost unlimited replayability.  WotR has no real single player aspect other than bot-practice.  The CRPG mod for multiplayer is icing; it creates an RPG aspect that really ties you to your character in a way that has no equivalent in WotR. 

Where WotR excels is the far better graphics, and the extraordinary customization possible.  I personally find the fighting easier in WotR than M&B; it could be that the M&B players are just much better than me. 

From what I see WotV is basically a reskinned WotR.  That's not necessarily a bad thing; consider that Rising Storm is essentially a reskinned RO2 yet it still has a significantly different feel.  I basically like WotR and although I wish for more, I like it enough for what it is that I'll still get WotV even if they don't improve on WotR.  I just feel the game has more potential.  And, a lot of people don't really care for WotR so, for a multiplayer-focused game it really is important that the masses like it and buy it or it will whither and die. 

Mount and Blade is a much deeper game for sure, but WotR is a much easier game to get into for a few matches on a Friday night with a beer in your hand.  They're similar, but different.  If they were $60 each I'd probably go M&B over WotR, but for the pennies that each tends to go for I see no reason not to just get, and enjoy, both.

[TheCommandTent]

Very interesting points.  Now you make me want to go start a new Mount and Blade campaign.

[Toonces]

I believe I have an extra key for the WotV Alpha.  If you would like it, and if I discover that it is extra, please let me know and I'll send it to you.

If you have WotR:Kingmaker, you automatically got a WotV key it seems.  Should be in your Steam library already.

;D