Warhammer Online

[Robert Treder]

Anybody playing the beta? I didn't see a topic for it already.

I finally got the beta going after a bunch of stupid shit (amazon didn't send out the beta key like they said they would, I borrowed a friend's extra beta code to start dling, fileplanet said there was a 1500 minute wait unless I paid their protection money, so I gave them 7 bux and they then told me it would still be 1000 minutes, when I finally started dling and was 58% through, Windows did an auto-update and restarted my comp, which put me at the back of another 1000 minute queue on Fileplanet ... blah)

Anyways, about the game. I'll judge it in relation to other MMOs. The only real MMOs I've played are WoW and AoC, so they will suffice. So pretty much I'm going to assume you've played WoW.
I've played Guild Wars for a while, but that is one of the world's least interesting games of all times, so I'm not going to talk about that. I also played some small-time Korean MMOs, but we all know about those, *I'm a smarmy asshole*? Oh, and I played a trial of LotROL, which should be more like LotRLOL, because seriously, any game based on something which is all about humans vs orcs and they don't have a pvp system ... seriously, wtf.

Solo questing is less cool than WoW but about the same as AoC. Like AoC, the map-based quest tracking is a big improvement on WoW, but combat (the interface, the player-world interaction, etc) is just less polished than WoW. So I guess it depends on your preferences, for me, as I said, I prefer WoW in this arena, but it's not like WAR is leagues behind.
There's a cool added mechanic of "public quests" which are basically little outdoor raid boss spawns and everybody who is in the area contributing gets to roll on loot, but based on their contribution, so like the time they spent there, how much of a help they were, and even whether or not they've won something recently. If the loot system there isn't fair and balanced now, it could easily be with some tweaks. I like this idea.
Word of mouth was that there would be no grinding in this game. So far that's more or less true, there are plenty of kill quests, but no drop rate quests that I've found so far. But questing still just consists of killing guys over and over again, and basically, if you were just grinding mobs over and over again in WoW, you were doing something wrong, so I don't see this as any kind of big improvement. There's still rep to farm, too.

About class balance. Really hard to say so far, since I've only played a little bit and only seen players up to lvl 11 or so, but it seems cool in that pretty much each class is interesting and can own in some way. Making tanking important in pvp is awesome (but kind of a 'duh'; I don't fully understand why this was never done or even attempted in WoW). Bright Wizards and Witch Hunters seem to own so far, but once again, I've been playing in the first tier where people don't even have all their counters and stuff. So pretty much, I can't fully evaluate the balance, but it looks pretty cool.

And fuck all that stuff, we want PVP, right? Well the pvp is pretty cool. You can start doing battlegrounds right away (and it buffs players up to a minimum level in the bg, you just only have the spells available that you have at your natural level, but they're the strength of a minimum level set depending on what level bracket you're playing in. And naturally if you're above that min level, you just play normally, you don't get nerfed). I've already seen people world pvping, but I haven't gotten to a high enough level to really participate. I think you can flag/unflag yourself depending on your zone and server, but I've pretty much done all my research just in game clicking on shit, so I can't say for sure how this works in the big picture.
The bgs are pretty fun, and the combat is cool ... once again I can't say much because of my low level ... pretty much right now clothies are squishy, tanks are op with heals, and healers need to be protected. Some of the ranged dps seems op, but like I said, we don't all have our snares and shit, so we'll see what's what later on.
It's also cool that you get cash from pvp kills pretty much same as pve kills. There will also be uncommon-quality and up loot that drops in pvp (randomly I guess) and you can roll on it. So pretty much you can queue, go quest, when bg pops you play it, requeue and quest, and repeat. As opposed to WoW, where lowbie bging was an utter waste of time if your goal was levelling instead of twinking.

The graphics are all right. They self-admittedly gimped themselves from what could have been simply to allow the max number of people to play the game. I'm totally ok with that, hell, I still think WoW looks good. If the mechanics are good, that's what matters. I'm not trying to fantasize about being Knight Ethan or Sir Dibble or whatever; I don't need everything to be photorealistic so that I can jackoff to my space marine.
So pretty much it looks like WoW with better textures, but I personally prefer WoW's cartoony look. This is obviously a matter of personal taste, though. I hear people with high-end machines are having graphics issues, but I gather those will be smoothed out.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I was in closed beta for a long time (and can talk about it now yey), but I haven't bothered with the open beta for much the same reasons you mentioned. They didn't send me my fucking keys so I won't even be in early access and after a retarded email exchange with some Indian service rep I have no real desire to further bash my head against the unholy wall of Chaos that is EA.

Still, I'm looking forward to the game (if/when my copy arrives), though I was seriously burned by the class cuts. The notion of Orcs without a melee DPS class where everyone else gets one is pretty absurd. My guild is going to have to resort to using Black Orcs specced mostly for DPS.

[White Haven]

Or, yaknow, recognize that the Orcs aren't a faction unto themselves. Because you guys get Witch Elves, which are...eep.

Overall I've been having a blast with it in the short time I've played in open beta. Obviously that hasn't been long enough to both see how things hold up at high levels or how things work over longer periods of time, but I've found PvP to be enjoyable, which Warcraft failed utterly at. Class mechanics, too, are much more widely varied, so it doesn't just feel like you're playing the same class with a different texture map on its abilities over and over again.

[DPDarkPrimus]

The open beta keeps crashing on me! My longest play session was maybe 15 minutes.

I want to play the game but it doesn't want me to.

[Robert Treder]

The open beta keeps crashing on me! My longest play session was maybe 15 minutes.

I want to play the game but it doesn't want me to.

One of my friends is having a similar problem, although he can play for longer bouts. But he gets mysterious crashes pretty frequently. Who knows.

I don't know what White Haven is talking about because pvp in WoW was a lot of fun, but I agree that WAR pvp looks even better, mostly because it seems to be the main focus of the game.

Really though, better/worse, good/bad don't really matter to me that much; what makes a game fun is playing with friends, so if we get into it, it will be cool.

Am I the only one who thinks that the "headstart" is hella stupid? They're marketing it like it's the greatest thing of all times. Think about it, any MMO you've played, at the level cap, do you give a shit if one person played two days before you did?

[Jaevric]

Was in closed beta. Now in Open Beta but not playing much because I'm tired of level 1-15 and waiting for my pocket priest to start playing.

Black Orc damage took a big hit so relying on them for DPS isn't going to go well. As for not being a faction in and of themselves, meh, the class cuts were suck for everyone on both sides. Considering that most people stick with the scenarios of their particular race, the lack of a melee DPS class hurts just like the lack of a tank hurts Order and the Dark Elves compared to their counterparts. Hopefully the classes will get put back in the game ASAP. And it's not about "Destruction not having DPS," it's about ORCS not having dps. Enormous green killing machines who have crappy DPS -- currently lower than the DPS of the Chaos tanks, and said faction also has a DPS class.

For once, Best Buy did me right and got me my codes and everything in time. So I'm actually fairly pleased.

I haven't had any major graphical issues unless it's tabbing out and back in (short-term issues, they smooth out quite quickly) or BIG RvR matches (beta testing the city scenarios).

[Stark]

This sounds like a bit of a shame. After the abortion of AoC, I was curious to see if WHO did the more PvP focused WoW thing a bit better, but this isn't encouraging. I'm particularly interested in class balance - most MMO's struggle to balance half-a-dozen classes over their lives, and WHO's approach means they have to balance more. I actually hope it's a gimmick and everyone's 'warrior' class is fairly similar (for example) otherwise the odds of decent class balance seem very low.

However, talking about how bad graphics are acceptable in an MMO makes me sad. Sure, AoC's engine was a piece of shit, but MMO not looking like Diablo 2 = good. Whatever; it will amuse me for another decade watching people excuse away the laughable graphics of another major game.

[nickolay1]

I was in the closed beta since several months ago. The game was so terrible that I haven't played in two months. The only activity that was remotely enjoyable was hacking the game. Those morons designed it so poorly that I was flying and teleporting in just a couple of days after beginning the effort.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I was in the closed beta since several months ago. The game was so terrible that I haven't played in two months. The only activity that was remotely enjoyable was hacking the game. Those morons designed it so poorly that I was flying and teleporting in just a couple of days after beginning the effort.

lawl

You know what a "beta" is, right? Just trying to clarify that here because you seem pretty stupid. Did you have anything of value to add or are you just spewing shit for fun, or something? Stark catches a lot of flak for slamming just about everything under the sun but his criticisms are usually valid for fuck's sake, all you seem to be doing is piling on hate for its own sake.

[Robert Treder]

This sounds like a bit of a shame. After the abortion of AoC, I was curious to see if WHO did the more PvP focused WoW thing a bit better, but this isn't encouraging. I'm particularly interested in class balance - most MMO's struggle to balance half-a-dozen classes over their lives, and WHO's approach means they have to balance more. I actually hope it's a gimmick and everyone's 'warrior' class is fairly similar (for example) otherwise the odds of decent class balance seem very low.

Yeah, the archetypes are pretty similar, it's more like, to use WoW for an example, having a prot warrior, a prot pally, and a tanking druid. They all have different spells and some strengths and weaknesses, but they all do the same thing and are broadly interchangeable (with the exception of certain specific encounters designed to increase the importance of individual classes, which I'm sure will be the case here too).

However, talking about how bad graphics are acceptable in an MMO makes me sad. Sure, AoC's engine was a piece of shit, but MMO not looking like Diablo 2 = good. Whatever; it will amuse me for another decade watching people excuse away the laughable graphics of another major game.

AoC had "better graphics" than WoW, but it didn't look better. For me, when they try to make things look realistic, they just end up showing how far from realism the graphics are; you're keying in on things you will forgive if everything looks cartoony. Plus, going for cutting edge graphics in an MMO cuts out a chunk of players who can't or won't upgrade their computers.
The Peter Principle is definitely in play with game graphics ... the newest bleeding edge games with the best graphics usually have issues of aesthetics and performance that one or two generations back don't have. I say avoid this with MMOs. I'd play a game with Maple Story graphics if it had complex and enjoyable mechanics.

[Stark]

Yeah, the archetypes are pretty similar, it's more like, to use WoW for an example, having a prot warrior, a prot pally, and a tanking druid. They all have different spells and some strengths and weaknesses, but they all do the same thing and are broadly interchangeable (with the exception of certain specific encounters designed to increase the importance of individual classes, which I'm sure will be the case here too).

Do you mean they've broken the trees/variants into different races, ie one race gets prot pally, one race gets shadown priest, etc? How much variation is there in each race's classes?

AoC had "better graphics" than WoW, but it didn't look better. For me, when they try to make things look realistic, they just end up showing how far from realism the graphics are; you're keying in on things you will forgive if everything looks cartoony. Plus, going for cutting edge graphics in an MMO cuts out a chunk of players who can't or won't upgrade their computers.
The Peter Principle is definitely in play with game graphics ... the newest bleeding edge games with the best graphics usually have issues of aesthetics and performance that one or two generations back don't have. I say avoid this with MMOs. I'd play a game with Maple Story graphics if it had complex and enjoyable mechanics.

Yeah, well I wouldn't, and I'd laugh at it for being mired in the 90's. Games can have good graphics, and using AoC (a complete failure of a game) as the measure of 'better graphics' is dumb. It's engine sucked, it was hopelessly uneven in quality, etc. Let's all be honest - it's this attitude, that people will play any old ugly as shit game that means MMOs will always look like poo. There's no real reason AoC needed to run that badly other than poor design (unless you've never played a non-MMO) and given the infinite money certain industry leaders have, there's no reason not to beyond 'what's the point millions of people will play Warcraft 2 graphics'. This doesn't make it less lame or ugly.

I'm sad you used the totally broken 'cutting edge computer zomg' argument, however. Scalability is very strong on GOOD engines (ie not whatever piece of crap they used in AoC, lol) and it's not like better textures is an ongoing cost. If WoW had 'premium graphics content' or whatever they call it in EVE, that'd be way better than 'hey our graphics were shit in 2004 and we don't care because YOU don't care'. It's not NECESSARY, but I'm not going to stop laughing at MMO's with poor graphics, especially when fucking Guild Wars has better graphics than WoW.

[Block]

Each race has at least 3 unique classes, to be a Black Ork(tank) for example, you have to be an Ork. They also get a squig herder(ranged dps w/pet) and a shaman (healer with some decent dps and an interesting mechanic to enhance both). Chaos gets a zealot (healer/buffer), a Chosen (tank that can self buff some), a magus (ranged dps) and a marauder (melee dps/tank that can mutate it's body).
The Dark elves get witch elves(pure melee dps, underpowered at the moment imo), disciples of Khaine (healer/dps), and the sorceress (ranged dps). Those 3 races are the Destruction faction. Each race has zone pairing with Order, Orks with Dwarves, Chaos with Empire, Dark Elves with High Elves, and each class has a slightly different but close enough mirror on the Order side. I haven't seen any problems with the balance so far, mainly it's who you've got playing, if people can work together, etc.

Working well together is a HUGE deal in this game.

[nickolay1]

You know what a "beta" is, right? Just trying to clarify that here because you seem pretty stupid. Did you have anything of value to add or are you just spewing shit for fun, or something? Stark catches a lot of flak for slamming just about everything under the sun but his criticisms are usually valid for fuck's sake, all you seem to be doing is piling on hate for its own sake.

Yeah, and they redesigned the entire game, including the most awful core game mechanics, in just two months. It's waaaay better now.

[Stark]

Oh. It seems from what you guys are saying that 'working together is a big deal' is the result of more restrictive classes for each race, is this the case? I'm down with teamwork and shit, but limited classes may harm the game's mass appeal.

[Block]

Well there's a bit of a rock paper scissors thing to the game, where melee dps are good for killing ranged dps and healers, tanks are good at killing melee dps, ranged dps are good at killing tanks, healers are decent against everyone except the witch hunters and witch elves. Basically you need to work together because if you run into the wrong class you're free points for them. Plus there's a lot of NPCs in the PVP areas that are champion or hero level, which are two ways of saying, pretty much unsoloable no matter the class, hero much more so than champion.

PvE you can solo a lot, but RvR you'd get swarmed, since the pvp areas are more or less in the middle of the map and have objectives that somewhat focus the pvp into those areas. If you take the objectives your realm gets bonuses on the map for both RvR and PvE stuff while you hold it.

[Block]

You know what a "beta" is, right? Just trying to clarify that here because you seem pretty stupid. Did you have anything of value to add or are you just spewing shit for fun, or something? Stark catches a lot of flak for slamming just about everything under the sun but his criticisms are usually valid for fuck's sake, all you seem to be doing is piling on hate for its own sake.

Yeah, and they redesigned the entire game, including the most awful core game mechanics, in just two months. It's waaaay better now.

They actually did make a huge number of changes over the last two months. If you "hacked" the game like you say, you were a complete fucking waste of a closed beta slot.

[Stark]

Well there's a bit of a rock paper scissors thing to the game, where melee dps are good for killing ranged dps and healers, tanks are good at killing melee dps, ranged dps are good at killing tanks, healers are decent against everyone except the witch hunters and witch elves. Basically you need to work together because if you run into the wrong class you're free points for them. Plus there's a lot of NPCs in the PVP areas that are champion or hero level, which are two ways of saying, pretty much unsoloable no matter the class, hero much more so than champion.

Uh, no shit? I don't see how this is different from any other MMO in history?

PvE you can solo a lot, but RvR you'd get swarmed, since the pvp areas are more or less in the middle of the map and have objectives that somewhat focus the pvp into those areas. If you take the objectives your realm gets bonuses on the map for both RvR and PvE stuff while you hold it.

I don't mean 'restrictive' as in restricting what parts of the game you can do, but restricting class choice or customisation. If one race's healer is a prot healer, for instance, that's restrictive, because in other games you could make whatever healer you wanted regardless.

However, breaking up the trees into races will simplify the balance (even as it means nobody will ever make xyz combination).

[Robert Treder]

Do you mean they've broken the trees/variants into different races, ie one race gets prot pally, one race gets shadown priest, etc? How much variation is there in each race's classes?

Sort of, yeah. It's like, each race has three classes, and they're all of an archetype (melee DPS, tank, healer, ranged DPS). No one class is available to any two races, but all classes share an archetype with at least one other class (and therefore race). To continue the WoW analogy, if I may, it would be like Night Elves can only heal as a Druid, and Dwarves can only heal as a Priest.
That, I believe, is what people are bitching about. They want to be a tank as an Orc, but they can't. I see their point, but I really don't give a shit about the way the characters look, so it doesn't bother me what race they are. If I want to melee dps, I won't play Orc.
Obviously, that's just me, and I don't know that it would break the game for the devs to give the people what they want. I'll still have to hold all real class balance judgement until I see more of the game.

Yeah, well I wouldn't, and I'd laugh at it for being mired in the 90's. Games can have good graphics, and using AoC (a complete failure of a game) as the measure of 'better graphics' is dumb. It's engine sucked, it was hopelessly uneven in quality, etc. Let's all be honest - it's this attitude, that people will play any old ugly as shit game that means MMOs will always look like poo. There's no real reason AoC needed to run that badly other than poor design (unless you've never played a non-MMO) and given the infinite money certain industry leaders have, there's no reason not to beyond 'what's the point millions of people will play Warcraft 2 graphics'. This doesn't make it less lame or ugly.

No, I totally agree. I was using AoC as an example because I don't know of any other new MMOs that try the "high-end graphics" approach. Obviously that game was a failure on many levels.
And for me, I wouldn't say that I prefer old graphics to new, I just don't mind old graphics. I don't buy a game based on how it looks, but rather on how it plays. That doesn't mean that when comparing the game that plays well but looks bad to the game that plays bad but looks good, that the bad-looking game doesn't look bad. It just means I'd still play it.

I'm sad you used the totally broken 'cutting edge computer zomg' argument, however. Scalability is very strong on GOOD engines (ie not whatever piece of crap they used in AoC, lol) and it's not like better textures is an ongoing cost. If WoW had 'premium graphics content' or whatever they call it in EVE, that'd be way better than 'hey our graphics were shit in 2004 and we don't care because YOU don't care'. It's not NECESSARY, but I'm not going to stop laughing at MMO's with poor graphics, especially when fucking Guild Wars has better graphics than WoW.

Once again, I don't disagree with you when you say that better graphics = better graphics. And you can keep laughing at them all you want, but people play WoW, not Guild Wars, because WoW is a better game, despite it's graphics. Although that might not be a fair comparison for me to make, because Guild Wars wouldn't be a good game even if its graphics were like that VR video game from Futurama. Seriously, instanced levelling zones, wtf?


But basically, I'm not trying to make the case for games to settle on a graphics level and never move forward. The point I was trying to make is that gameplay is a much bigger concern for me than graphics. I included a word on the graphics in my initial review because I know that a lot of people focus on them.

Just generally, I want a game with sufficient complexity that endgame stays interesting for a while but without a super-steep learning curve. Gimmicks are all right, but they shouldn't try to cover up for a bad game (remember Red Faction?). I want PvP in a multiplayer game, but not anarchy. We'll never find the perfect game, but WAR looks good enough so far. I'll keep posting more observations as I progress.

EDIT: fixed a mistake in the description of the class system

[Block]

Yeah each race only has one type of healer, one type of tank, etc. There's a mastery system that can allow you to enhance certain abilities but it's not nearly as drastic as the spec system in WoW. I haven't played healers enough to know the differences in them really.

[Brother-Captain Gaius]

I don't mean 'restrictive' as in restricting what parts of the game you can do, but restricting class choice or customisation. If one race's healer is a prot healer, for instance, that's restrictive, because in other games you could make whatever healer you wanted regardless.

However, breaking up the trees into races will simplify the balance (even as it means nobody will ever make xyz combination).

I'm not up-to-date on a lot of the WoW lingo so I'll just try to continue with the healer example as to how the classes work:

Let's take the Empire's Warrior-Priest and the High Elves' Archmage, both healer archetypes for Order (alongside the Dwarfs' Runepriest). The WP is focused around melee combat, and that's where a WP heals best. They gain Righteous Fury points from whacking shit with their hammer, which they use to essentially make the plain mana cost of their heals cheaper. Now, like most other MMOs out there you've got 3 talent trees you can go up. The exact mechanics differ a bit from WoW but the basic idea is the same: One damage spec, one pure heal spec, one buff spec. WAR's system lets you mix and match trees much more viably than WoW, but I suspect there will still be "Wrath WPs" and "Grace WPs" and so on. So, you can spec your WP for pure healing if you want, and you'll be a lot less reliant on melee combat to keep your heals going.

Archmage is sort of a ranged counterpart to WP. They work similarly, except they gain their points via ranged damage nukes and DoTs. Again, they've got three paths (I don't recall what they are off hand but I assume they're similar in that one's damage-based, one's heal-based, and one's more buff/misc). You can spec however you want, and go for a nuker Archmage that's a quasi-caster with heals, or focus on pure healing, or whatever.

Hope that answers your question.

[Stark]

Sort of, yeah. It's like, each race has three classes, and they're all of an archetype (melee DPS, tank, healer, ranged DPS). No one class is available to any two races, but all classes share an archetype with at least one other class (and therefore race). To continue the WoW analogy, if I may, it would be like Night Elves can only heal as a Druid, and Dwarves can only heal as a Priest.
That, I believe, is what people are bitching about. They want to be a tank as an Orc, but they can't. I see their point, but I really don't give a shit about the way the characters look, so it doesn't bother me what race they are. If I want to tank, I won't play Orc.
Obviously, that's just me, and I don't know that it would break the game for the devs to give the people what they want. I'll still have to hold all real class balance judgement until I see more of the game.

I think Block suggested there were these 3 classes as well as others? Or is each race only good at three 'things'? I understand only the very early game is separated by race so this may not be a problem.

No, I totally agree. I was using AoC as an example because I don't know of any other new MMOs that try the "high-end graphics" approach. Obviously that game was a failure on many levels.
And for me, I wouldn't say that I prefer old graphics to new, I just don't mind old graphics. I don't buy a game based on how it looks, but rather on how it plays. That doesn't mean that when comparing the game that plays well but looks bad to the game that plays bad but looks good, that the bad-looking game doesn't look bad. It just means I'd still play it.

Yeah, and I was kinda off on a tangent there, lol. Obviously what a game looks like has no bearing on it's design decisions - I just think it's interesting that WoW + Korean MMOs mean people have really low expectations for MMOs graphically, so you can get away with a super-huge launch that looks like poo.

Once again, I don't disagree with you when you say that better graphics = better graphics. And you can keep laughing at them all you want, but people play WoW, not Guild Wars, because WoW is a better game, despite it's graphics. Although that might not be a fair comparison for me to make, because Guild Wars wouldn't be a good game even if its graphics were like that VR video game from Futurama. Seriously, instanced levelling zones, wtf?

But basically, I'm not trying to make the case for games to settle on a graphics level and never move forward. The point I was trying to make is that gameplay is a much bigger concern for me than graphics. I included a word on the graphics in my initial review because I know that a lot of people focus on them.

Just generally, I want a game with sufficient complexity that endgame stays interesting for a while but without a super-steep learning curve. Gimmicks are all right, but they shouldn't try to cover up for a bad game (remember Red Faction?). I want PvP in a multiplayer game, but not anarchy. We'll never find the perfect game, but WAR looks good enough so far. I'll keep posting more observations as I progress.

Uh oh, you're anti instances. One of THOSE people.

I agree with your priority on actual game engine, poor graphics is just a giggle for me given the money involved. Then agian, you CAN run WoW on some hell lowend hardware (and EVE oldschool runs perfectly fine on a goddamn eeePC) so there's something to be said for it.

I'm not going to agree that WoW is a 'better' game than Guild Wars, however. I found Guild Wars combat -way- more interesting, and the superior effects more so, and the strength of WoW seems to be the meta more than it's inherently superior questing or whatever. Sure, the lack of world-PvP and the lametacular nature of the arena combat was a shame, but graphics and game design are separate enough for me to say 'if these guys can make a better engine for no monthly cost, it's funny that Blizzard can't be assed for billions a month'. It's the nature of games to snowball, and since WoW probably has a larger population than all other MMOs combined, there's no pressure for them to change at all. Anyway, enough about by fascist attitude towards money:graphics ratios - back to the WHO discussion!

[Stark]

Yeah each race only has one type of healer, one type of tank, etc. There's a mastery system that can allow you to enhance certain abilities but it's not nearly as drastic as the spec system in WoW. I haven't played healers enough to know the differences in them really.

Yeah BCG got on it; I'm curious how useful the spec system is, since most of what I'm reading suggests each race's specific classes are weighted pretty strongly in a certain direction. If the warrior priest (or whatever) has a set of ablities and stuff that make them interesting, and you get some choices about what you do with that, that's fine, it sometimes sounds like it'll quickly become LOL YOU MADE AN XYZ YOU A NOOB situation.

[Block]

Ok so what I was saying is that each faction has 3 races. Each race can only be 3 or 4 classes, and those classes are unique to that race. So only a dark elf can be a witch elf, a disciple of Khaine, or a sorceress. Same with the Empire, who can only be a Warrior Priest, a Witch Hunter or a Burning Wizard.

[Block]

Yeah each race only has one type of healer, one type of tank, etc. There's a mastery system that can allow you to enhance certain abilities but it's not nearly as drastic as the spec system in WoW. I haven't played healers enough to know the differences in them really.

Yeah BCG got on it; I'm curious how useful the spec system is, since most of what I'm reading suggests each race's specific classes are weighted pretty strongly in a certain direction. If the warrior priest (or whatever) has a set of ablities and stuff that make them interesting, and you get some choices about what you do with that, that's fine, it sometimes sounds like it'll quickly become LOL YOU MADE AN XYZ YOU A NOOB situation.

Nah, they've REALLY taken the time to balance the classes well. Everyone is useful if they're played right.

[Stark]

I'm not sure if I'm being unclear or if you can't read - I'm asking how FLEXIBLE the SPEC SYSTEM is, not what silly names the classes have. As I said, if WPs strongly tend towards one build, that's going to get pretty lame, but if each class is a flexible set of bonuses that can apply equally across all three spec trees, that'll be pretty cool. BCG's WP example certainly seems that their cost-reduction will be useful no matter what tree you use, for instnace.