That seperate worlds with different conflicts is a pretty good idea and neatly skirts around some of the problems of having more than 2 or 3 playable factions. If I may I will try and break it down to a player perspective and see if I'm close and see what problems/drewbacks I can find.
Lets say the game at launch has 4 armies and for the sake of arguement I'll go with Chaos, Empire of Man, Eldar, Orks. Now when you login for the first time you basicly pick what army you want to fight for and all your character slots for that account have to be in the same army. This is to cut down on the potential for players to create characters of all the armies and use them for the purposes of espionage. This is possibly the first pitfall for a few people but I guess is a chance to moneterise the game by selling additional accounts for people to play in multiple armies. So espionage could very well exist but you would be paying for the privlage.
Next step rather than pick a server you pick a world where your army is in conflict. These worlds would be servers in their own right and only loosly connected to each other for the purposees of giving the illusion of one big universe. You would get news of events from these other worlds like your comrades have captured or lost certain objectives on these worlds or we need reinforcements here and so on. Each world would have different alliances. So one could be all 4 factions fighting each other and only battlefield situational alliances created on what best serves the purpose of the player or their group at that time. Another would have just the Empire of man fighting the Eldar another would have the Empire of man allied with Eldar fighting an alliance of the Orks and Chaos and so on and so forth. Heck you could evan have worlds where it was basicly civil war with Orks fighting Orks, Chaos fighting Chaos, Eldar fighting Eldar and Empire of man fighting Empire of man.
The only problem I forsee with this setup is the amount of worlds that would need to be created and fleshed out that would take a huge amount of time. Not only that but each addition of a race would require exponentionally more worlds to be created for all the variations of new alliances and conflict possabilities. This means expansions would be the size of complete games and you would think have to carry a price to reflect that which after a couple the point of entry cost to enter the game could be a big deterant to new players. Then again a way around this could be multiple mini expansions where the game at release is basicly a limited amount of conflict worlds with new worlds with different conflicts opened up with optional DLC style upgrades priced at a few dollars a pop.
Anyway thats enough of a text wall.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
The only problem I forsee with this setup is the amount of worlds that would need to be created and fleshed out that would take a huge amount of time. Not only that but each addition of a race would require exponentionally more worlds to be created for all the variations of new alliances and conflict possabilities. This means expansions would be the size of complete games and you would think have to carry a price to reflect that which after a couple the point of entry cost to enter the game could be a big deterant to new players. Then again a way around this could be multiple mini expansions where the game at release is basicly a limited amount of conflict worlds with new worlds with different conflicts opened up with optional DLC style upgrades priced at a few dollars a pop.
And that falls apart when you don't have enough players to fill all those worlds at some point. Your player base is scattered among numerous worlds fighting conflicts between handful of players.
No artificial boundaries, every planet in the game should be accessible to every race.
The only problem I forsee with this setup is the amount of worlds that would need to be created and fleshed out that would take a huge amount of time. Not only that but each addition of a race would require exponentionally more worlds to be created for all the variations of new alliances and conflict possabilities. This means expansions would be the size of complete games and you would think have to carry a price to reflect that which after a couple the point of entry cost to enter the game could be a big deterant to new players. Then again a way around this could be multiple mini expansions where the game at release is basicly a limited amount of conflict worlds with new worlds with different conflicts opened up with optional DLC style upgrades priced at a few dollars a pop.
And that falls apart when you don't have enough players to fill all those worlds at some point. Your player base is scattered among numerous worlds fighting conflicts between handful of players.
No artificial boundaries, every planet in the game should be accessible to every race.
One thing that would address the "too many factions = not enough players per faction" issue would be if it were a single-server game (not physically, but in the sense that if you play DMO, you're in the same universe as anyone else playing it). Again, pulling from the EVE book here.
If they handle gameplay ok and don't piss people off, I'd wager that each faction has enough fanboys out there (I mean we're talking DECADES of tabletop gaming here) to fill a battlefield at any given time...as long as they have computers that can play the game...which they could easily afford if they'd just forgo buying GW miniatures for a year and dump it into a new system instead hehe. But seriously, we're not talking about people who have a hard time justifying spending on their hobby.
Of course not every faction would be equal, but who cares? Space Marines can be expected to dominate (same as in the tabletop, they're the biggest selling army, your average player probably has a Space Marine army regardless of what the other thing they play is) perhaps, or someone else, but I'm not looking for an artificially balanced Warhammer 40K universe where everyone has a fair chance of winning.
Following the lore, there ought to be more Orks around than Eldar, plain and simple. Likewise Humanity (in some form) should be all over the place. (And Emperor help us if they make Tyranids playable, they'll be a literal zerg*-fest). There's no harm in having one faction outnumber another in a game with multiple factions. This is the basis for the need for, and advantage of, alliances. Eldar are being pushed back by a bunch of Ork punks, always outnumbered? Make an alliance with a Tau group and fight them off.
Regarding the "too many worlds" problem, obviously it's silly of us to expect all the races to be playable at launch. In fact, if they were to TRY to do that, I'd give up on this game because you can't get several races/factions done correctly right out of the gate.
Sorry to keep bringing up Dawn of War, but look how they did it there. You start off with Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Eldar, and Orks. Then, via expansion, you get Imperial Guard. A while later you get Necron (likely not playable in the MMO ever) and Tau. Then you get Sisters of Battle and Dark Eldar.
I think it'd be natural to expect a similar approach to the MMO. You'll start off with Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Orks, and Imperial Guard as playable. After the game is out and stabilized for a while, they release an expansion that gives, say, Eldar and Dark Eldar--and with the expansion comes a few new "worlds"**. And so on until the game either dies or all the armies are released in some form.
*By the way, since this is a Warhammer 40K game, I'd submit that the term "zerg" to refer to massive hordes of people/players ought to be replaced with "Hive Fleet" or "Tyranid Swarm" or something more appropriate.
**Note that each "world" won't be an entirely fleshed out globe full of vast expanse of NPC mobs and exploration areas. Space Marines don't just drive around looking for nodes of Copper, and Orks are not at all interested in herbalism. In the 41st Millenium, you go to where the fight is. Any of these "Worlds" could simply be a large PvP/RvR map, or series of maps.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2. Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
It would be odd if the Empire of man is trying to seize control of these devices, but for some reason wont set their foot on some planets - or that they trust other races to do their part in the fight, given that (for example) Eldar are to blame for tearing the reality and bringing Chaos to the universe in the first place!
Besides, I rather see a conquerable dynamic battlefield without any coded boundaries (as it is in EvE btw.).
I would like to see more that 2 factions though, but racial conflict specific planets - no thanks.
I think we're on the same page here, and honestly I'd want the conquerable dynamic battlefield too. I just wonder if that's not too much to hope for from a game that is trying to go mainstream in many ways.
And if the Imperium is not present on certain worlds, there's a logical explanation for that. When waging a campaign, you sometimes have limited resources and need to concentrate them on certain areas before proceeding to the next.
I agree that the quote from the site says "2 factions, same factions everywhere, control devices, win, repeat." But the OP's idea in this thread I think was originally to protest that very model. I guess what I've been saying is trying to present practical alternatives to that model.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2. Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
Give me proof that Blizzard stole the idea for WoW from WAR:40k, and ill believe you. Just because the games have orcs doesnt mean that WoW was based on WAR.
Give me proof that Blizzard stole the idea for WoW from WAR:40k, and ill believe you. Just because the games have orcs doesnt mean that WoW was based on WAR.
Not 40k, but warcraft *is* based on Games Workshop's main workhorse and was originally intended to be based on it, but they supposedly never got the rights to use it, so they called it war-craft instead of war-hammer. I can't prove it, but it's been stated for at least 15 years by many notable sources.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Give me proof that Blizzard stole the idea for WoW from WAR:40k, and ill believe you. Just because the games have orcs doesnt mean that WoW was based on WAR.
Blizzard didn't "steal the idea for WoW from WAR:40K"....obviously you don't understand much about the history of gaming.
Should I waste 5 minutes and explain this to you? ....sure why not.
WoW (World of WarCraft) is an MMO based on the RTS game series called "WarCraft" from Blizzard which had 3 installments (+expansions). The original WarCraft was made by Blizzard and was Humans vs Orcs. It was first released in 1994.
Warhammer was a tabletop battle game played with dice and miniatures, also featuring armies of humans, and orcs (and other things). It was first established in 1983.
The story goes that the folks at Blizzard--who were talented computer programmers--also played Warhammer or at least enjoyed the idea so much that they made a video game version of it. I'm not sure on the facts of whether or not they actually tried to license it, but you can basically understand that WarCraft came about as a computer-game adaptation of a tabletop game which had already been around for over a decade.
The reason most people in video-game-world don't realize this is because they were introduced to WarCraft first (such was the case with myself, playing WarCraft II back in the late 90's). Now that World of WarCraft is the most-populated MMO in existence, and Warhammer has been a latecomer (and an undershower, in most cases) to the video game stage, the consciousness of most people is wrong, that WarCraft is the original, and Warhammer is just another clone.
Warhammer 40K is altogether a seperate story, being one of gritty sci-fi. Though if you're interested, there's a little game called StarCraft that essentially takes a lot of the 40K stuff and adapted it.
Seeing the recently released trailer for the 40K MMO trailer is the first time for many WoW players to see Warhammer stuff period (or maybe they saw stuff when WAR was coming out a few years ago). If you have no idea what you're talking about, it's easy to think that "Hey look at those WoW-copiers."
But the in-game models in both WAR and this new 40K MMO happen to look a lot like the Citadel Miniatures used in the tabletop game of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K. Have a look for yourself: Games Workshop 40K Orks Army List
aaaaand that took me more than 5 minutes I think...
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2. Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
The only problem I forsee with this setup is the amount of worlds that would need to be created and fleshed out that would take a huge amount of time. Not only that but each addition of a race would require exponentionally more worlds to be created for all the variations of new alliances and conflict possabilities. This means expansions would be the size of complete games and you would think have to carry a price to reflect that which after a couple the point of entry cost to enter the game could be a big deterant to new players. Then again a way around this could be multiple mini expansions where the game at release is basicly a limited amount of conflict worlds with new worlds with different conflicts opened up with optional DLC style upgrades priced at a few dollars a pop.
And that falls apart when you don't have enough players to fill all those worlds at some point. Your player base is scattered among numerous worlds fighting conflicts between handful of players.
No artificial boundaries, every planet in the game should be accessible to every race.
Well that all depends on how many players you have in total. What is suggested is an Eve type setup where you only have one universe where everyone who plays the game is in the same "server" but could probably be more accuratly thought of as a cloud. The various conflicts could be thought of as your traditional servers but your free to move to the differnt servers in the cloud as the mood takes you. Not your more traditional multiple copies of the same universe where the people who play the game are broken up into groups of 10 or 20 thousand.
The idea is flexable enough that you could open up the more worlds or conflict match ups based on where the population is gathering. So if one faction has a huge population advantage you open conflict worlds where they fight the other factions one on one spreading them out over 5 conflicts while the other factions are only spread out on 2 fronts. If one faction has significantly less population than the other three you open up a 3 way conflict zone to spread the population of the three more populated sides over 2 fronts and the under populated side can concentate at the one. Thats just the simplist of examples the reality would be much more complex but doable simply by monitering the population numbers.
The biggest problem with the suggestion as I see it is the devs seem to be going with the more traditional approach which lends itself to the simplistic pernament alliance system that most here seem to be railing against it doesn't evan matter if it's 2 or 3 factions lore purists arn't going to be happy with a fixed alliance.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
The idea is flexable enough that you could open up the more worlds or conflict match ups based on where the population is gathering. So if one faction has a huge population advantage you open conflict worlds where they fight the other factions one on one spreading them out over 5 conflicts while the other factions are only spread out on 2 fronts. If one faction has significantly less population than the other three you open up a 3 way conflict zone to spread the population of the three more populated sides over 2 fronts and the under populated side can concentate at the one. Thats just the simplist of examples the reality would be much more complex but doable simply by monitering the population numbers.
Nope, sorry I still don't like this idea. I rather see progression of battlefields happen naturally, defined by in-game actions of warring parties rather than dependent on player population. To me all events happening in a persistent world should be made to happen by the players. otherwise having a persistent world becomes meaningless.
On principle I object herding players like cattle to different pastures depending on the size of the herd. Persistent online world should be static in a sense that it won't change due outside influences which have nothing to do with player character actions.
Progress of open world battlefields are always going to be determined by population. The more players one side has the more likely that side is going to win. Sure there may be small periods of victory by the underdog but those victories will be fleeting at best. One way to combat this is to remove the open world conflict and replace it with instances a whole other can of worms that doesn't seem overly popular at least on these forums.
I dunno but if Warhammer 40k MMO is themeparked PvE with 2 or 3 pernament alliances and instanced PvP with multiple servers of 10 to 20 thousand players (or in other words what every developer has done for the last 5 years) then the game is destined for mediocrity and a huge waste of money and time and another IP butchered on the alter of idiocy.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
Prince Damien hit on the head of what I've been thinking, that different worlds would have different PvP setups. (I mean why not, they're different effing planets, there's no reason to think that the conflict on one world will be the same as it is on another world).
The other overwhelming truth of the matter is that we have no idea what Vigil is planning, and no real basis to judge how they will approach an MMO to begin with, other than a few paragraphs on the official site.
Personally I'd hope that they would take the huge potential of the 40K lore (more popular than Warhammer Fantasy, I imagine, especially in video gamer circles, given the 2 Dawn of War titles (plus several expansions) and really nail it in a way that works for a video game.
The different-PvP-on-different planets could work. I mean if we're talking control of worlds in space, it's not as cut-and-dry as war across a continent with harsh territorial boundaries. Say there's one planet where it's IG vs Orks, another where it's Space Marines vs Chaos Marines, another where IG + Space Marines happen to be fighting together against Orks and Chaos....and the only real "faction" that exists is your own race (army).
For example, if I'm an Ork and I'm just mucking about the Ork home town, there should be...well..nothing but other Ork players around me. I should be in an Ork-only guild. However, that doesn't mean that I won't occasionally find myself on the same team as a Chaos Marine from time to time, depending on the battleground I'm fighting on. And it also shouldn't be surprising that I occasionally fight against that same Chaos Marine and his buddies on a different battleground. Likewise, my Ork guild and their Chaos Marine guild should be able to form an alliance and such that has in-game implications. We should also be able to break that alliance.
I guess my point with the guilds/factions thing is that just because one group of Orks decides to ally with Chaos (or Eldar, or Tau, or whatever) at a given time doesn't mean that ALL Orks EVERYWHERE hold the same alliance. If they make the game so that there are no factions except race that determine who is where on what battlefield, and then allow the guilds (players) to forge their own "Factions", I think it would solve the problem of the 2-Factions-Set-in-Stone Order vs Destruction mistake, and also feel more true to the lore.
Of course this might be a little more "sandbox" than Vigil is wanting. Who knows. We've seen this system work in other games like EVE for years (and yes, alliances do get to the Zerg/Goonswarm/BoB levels of ungodliness, and yes alliances do break and really screw up balance of power), but I have no idea (and neither does anyone else, really) what Vigil's goals for this game are.
I guess another element for this would have to be some sort of resource benefits to territory control. MAG on the PS3 has a 3 faction system and all you really control if your faction is doing well is you get a certain "contract" which basically gives you an XP buff or some other buff benefit. This could be that simple for 40K. Or they could go more complex in the effect of if you control this territory, you have access to a Titan or something. Hell, use the campaign mode from Dawn of War Soulstorm and Dark Crusade expansions as inspiration.
You're THQ after all, you've done the Warhammer 40K thing better than anyone expected. Make it happen.
Just don't do 2 factions of Order vs Destruction, or Horde vs Alliance. If we wanted that, we'd still be playing WAR.**
**Note: IMO, the 2 faction system didn't kill WAR. The engine was horrible for what the game needed to do. Also, Stunties + Knockbacks + Lava = ragequit.
Edit: Just a spoonful of colors helps the wall of text go down.
great ideas! i think orcs and elder should be under the xenos faction which basiclly means they can kick the crap out of each and everyone else! or whatever. i think a cool thing which i hope the dev will do would be like for example a battleground between imperium and chaos fighting and for example the elder have to steal something from the battlefield so between to major forces fighting the xeno faction has to steal whatever and get out just to add some more action pact moments have like WTF are eldar doing here. anyways i am having faith in THQ and Vigil since they did an awesome job with dawn of war and there new space marine game looks awesome as well plus darksider.
Did nobody but me notice that there were already three factions?
1. Space Marines
2. Chaos Space Marines
3. Orks
that's three, not two
and if they tried they could squeeze out 2 more from what they have already
Imperial Legion and Daemons
Not to mention that being Warhammer 40k, they will most likely add in Eldar before or shortly after release.
From the tone of this website there is no such thing as an MMO fan anymore, just a bunch of jaded QQers that will find something to incessantly bitch about with every since blasted game that exists. Come on people, go look at the SWTOR threads, most of em are filled with people bitching because Bioware isn't making the game a FPS or Sandbox FFA Full Loot PvP or a space sim or that Bioware are obviously noobs because the game does not have any tauren druids or nightelf hunters. I've seen people on this war40k board complaining about the WoWish graphics when WoW straightout Stole their art design from Warhammer.
Good Luck finding a good game, by the time you find your perfect MMO it'll already be circling the drain because everyone constantly blasted it across the internet and now nobody will even try it.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
Obviously it doesn't say anything that we don't already know (40K is cool, the MMO is a long ways off, etc.) except that the game uses THQ's Darksiders engine (or a modified version of it) which I think is pretty sweet. Gotta say the game does look good for an MMO, and it's cool they're showing that up front, especially when you compare it against the most prominent up-and-coming MMO of SWTOR's gameplay. Cinematics, on the other hand, are another story...though it's not like THQ's group hasn't produced good CG of 40K universe stuff before...does anyone remember this trailer from 2008? Or even this little teaser?
NOTE: Those two videos were for Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 2 which is an RTS game, and not for Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millenium Online, which is the upcoming MMO.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2. Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
2) take other objetives so basically what you are saying is that if you cannot beat the zerg, go take some empty bases while they take your empty bases? RvE is what killed WAR, people would form a zerg and take empty keeps all day in a merry go round. The underdogs would see they are unstoppable, so they would fly to other pairing where the zerg wasnt present, and take empty keeps themselves. and at the end of the day both sides would find out that they spent most of the day avoiding each others they get bored. they leave ruined game
This right here. Destroyed 4th tier gameplay.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
like he said it doesnt make any diff if this is just another instance game with central hub, going to be boring with small player base and cap instance.
Did nobody but me notice that there were already three factions?
1. Space Marines
2. Chaos Space Marines
3. Orks
that's three, not two
and if they tried they could squeeze out 2 more from what they have already
Imperial Legion and Daemons
Not to mention that being Warhammer 40k, they will most likely add in Eldar before or shortly after release.
From the tone of this website there is no such thing as an MMO fan anymore, just a bunch of jaded QQers that will find something to incessantly bitch about with every since blasted game that exists. Come on people, go look at the SWTOR threads, most of em are filled with people bitching because Bioware isn't making the game a FPS or Sandbox FFA Full Loot PvP or a space sim or that Bioware are obviously noobs because the game does not have any tauren druids or nightelf hunters. I've seen people on this war40k board complaining about the WoWish graphics when WoW straightout Stole their art design from Warhammer.
Good Luck finding a good game, by the time you find your perfect MMO it'll already be circling the drain because everyone constantly blasted it across the internet and now nobody will even try it.
I agree with the second half of your post, but "Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction,..." sounds very much like two factions with races (Space Marines, Traitor Marines and Orks) divided between them, especially since Warhammer Online's factions are Order and Destruction. Maybe THQ didn't mean it that way; they just picked up familiar wording for a very vague initial description. I hope so. If there are three factions, they'll be Order, Destruction, and an NPC faction, the Tyranids.
Well what I saw was a lot of Ork Vs Space Marine with some Imperial Guard, maybe some chaos marines but nothing that suggest the latter are playable. This could very well be total Ork Vs Space Marines.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
Comments
That seperate worlds with different conflicts is a pretty good idea and neatly skirts around some of the problems of having more than 2 or 3 playable factions. If I may I will try and break it down to a player perspective and see if I'm close and see what problems/drewbacks I can find.
Lets say the game at launch has 4 armies and for the sake of arguement I'll go with Chaos, Empire of Man, Eldar, Orks. Now when you login for the first time you basicly pick what army you want to fight for and all your character slots for that account have to be in the same army. This is to cut down on the potential for players to create characters of all the armies and use them for the purposes of espionage. This is possibly the first pitfall for a few people but I guess is a chance to moneterise the game by selling additional accounts for people to play in multiple armies. So espionage could very well exist but you would be paying for the privlage.
Next step rather than pick a server you pick a world where your army is in conflict. These worlds would be servers in their own right and only loosly connected to each other for the purposees of giving the illusion of one big universe. You would get news of events from these other worlds like your comrades have captured or lost certain objectives on these worlds or we need reinforcements here and so on. Each world would have different alliances. So one could be all 4 factions fighting each other and only battlefield situational alliances created on what best serves the purpose of the player or their group at that time. Another would have just the Empire of man fighting the Eldar another would have the Empire of man allied with Eldar fighting an alliance of the Orks and Chaos and so on and so forth. Heck you could evan have worlds where it was basicly civil war with Orks fighting Orks, Chaos fighting Chaos, Eldar fighting Eldar and Empire of man fighting Empire of man.
The only problem I forsee with this setup is the amount of worlds that would need to be created and fleshed out that would take a huge amount of time. Not only that but each addition of a race would require exponentionally more worlds to be created for all the variations of new alliances and conflict possabilities. This means expansions would be the size of complete games and you would think have to carry a price to reflect that which after a couple the point of entry cost to enter the game could be a big deterant to new players. Then again a way around this could be multiple mini expansions where the game at release is basicly a limited amount of conflict worlds with new worlds with different conflicts opened up with optional DLC style upgrades priced at a few dollars a pop.
Anyway thats enough of a text wall.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
And that falls apart when you don't have enough players to fill all those worlds at some point. Your player base is scattered among numerous worlds fighting conflicts between handful of players.
No artificial boundaries, every planet in the game should be accessible to every race.
One thing that would address the "too many factions = not enough players per faction" issue would be if it were a single-server game (not physically, but in the sense that if you play DMO, you're in the same universe as anyone else playing it). Again, pulling from the EVE book here.
If they handle gameplay ok and don't piss people off, I'd wager that each faction has enough fanboys out there (I mean we're talking DECADES of tabletop gaming here) to fill a battlefield at any given time...as long as they have computers that can play the game...which they could easily afford if they'd just forgo buying GW miniatures for a year and dump it into a new system instead
hehe. But seriously, we're not talking about people who have a hard time justifying spending on their hobby. 
Of course not every faction would be equal, but who cares? Space Marines can be expected to dominate (same as in the tabletop, they're the biggest selling army, your average player probably has a Space Marine army regardless of what the other thing they play is) perhaps, or someone else, but I'm not looking for an artificially balanced Warhammer 40K universe where everyone has a fair chance of winning.
Following the lore, there ought to be more Orks around than Eldar, plain and simple. Likewise Humanity (in some form) should be all over the place. (And Emperor help us if they make Tyranids playable, they'll be a literal zerg*-fest). There's no harm in having one faction outnumber another in a game with multiple factions. This is the basis for the need for, and advantage of, alliances. Eldar are being pushed back by a bunch of Ork punks, always outnumbered? Make an alliance with a Tau group and fight them off.
Regarding the "too many worlds" problem, obviously it's silly of us to expect all the races to be playable at launch. In fact, if they were to TRY to do that, I'd give up on this game because you can't get several races/factions done correctly right out of the gate.
Sorry to keep bringing up Dawn of War, but look how they did it there. You start off with Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Eldar, and Orks. Then, via expansion, you get Imperial Guard. A while later you get Necron (likely not playable in the MMO ever) and Tau. Then you get Sisters of Battle and Dark Eldar.
I think it'd be natural to expect a similar approach to the MMO. You'll start off with Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Orks, and Imperial Guard as playable. After the game is out and stabilized for a while, they release an expansion that gives, say, Eldar and Dark Eldar--and with the expansion comes a few new "worlds"**. And so on until the game either dies or all the armies are released in some form.
*By the way, since this is a Warhammer 40K game, I'd submit that the term "zerg" to refer to massive hordes of people/players ought to be replaced with "Hive Fleet" or "Tyranid Swarm" or something more appropriate.
**Note that each "world" won't be an entirely fleshed out globe full of vast expanse of NPC mobs and exploration areas. Space Marines don't just drive around looking for nodes of Copper, and Orks are not at all interested in herbalism. In the 41st Millenium, you go to where the fight is. Any of these "Worlds" could simply be a large PvP/RvR map, or series of maps.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2.
Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic
Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
I think we're on the same page here, and honestly I'd want the conquerable dynamic battlefield too. I just wonder if that's not too much to hope for from a game that is trying to go mainstream in many ways.
And if the Imperium is not present on certain worlds, there's a logical explanation for that. When waging a campaign, you sometimes have limited resources and need to concentrate them on certain areas before proceeding to the next.
I agree that the quote from the site says "2 factions, same factions everywhere, control devices, win, repeat." But the OP's idea in this thread I think was originally to protest that very model. I guess what I've been saying is trying to present practical alternatives to that model.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2.
Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic
Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
Give me proof that Blizzard stole the idea for WoW from WAR:40k, and ill believe you. Just because the games have orcs doesnt mean that WoW was based on WAR.
Not 40k, but warcraft *is* based on Games Workshop's main workhorse and was originally intended to be based on it, but they supposedly never got the rights to use it, so they called it war-craft instead of war-hammer. I can't prove it, but it's been stated for at least 15 years by many notable sources.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Blizzard didn't "steal the idea for WoW from WAR:40K"....obviously you don't understand much about the history of gaming.
Should I waste 5 minutes and explain this to you? ....sure why not.
WoW (World of WarCraft) is an MMO based on the RTS game series called "WarCraft" from Blizzard which had 3 installments (+expansions). The original WarCraft was made by Blizzard and was Humans vs Orcs. It was first released in 1994.
Warhammer was a tabletop battle game played with dice and miniatures, also featuring armies of humans, and orcs (and other things). It was first established in 1983.
The story goes that the folks at Blizzard--who were talented computer programmers--also played Warhammer or at least enjoyed the idea so much that they made a video game version of it. I'm not sure on the facts of whether or not they actually tried to license it, but you can basically understand that WarCraft came about as a computer-game adaptation of a tabletop game which had already been around for over a decade.
The reason most people in video-game-world don't realize this is because they were introduced to WarCraft first (such was the case with myself, playing WarCraft II back in the late 90's). Now that World of WarCraft is the most-populated MMO in existence, and Warhammer has been a latecomer (and an undershower, in most cases) to the video game stage, the consciousness of most people is wrong, that WarCraft is the original, and Warhammer is just another clone.
Warhammer 40K is altogether a seperate story, being one of gritty sci-fi. Though if you're interested, there's a little game called StarCraft that essentially takes a lot of the 40K stuff and adapted it.
Seeing the recently released trailer for the 40K MMO trailer is the first time for many WoW players to see Warhammer stuff period (or maybe they saw stuff when WAR was coming out a few years ago). If you have no idea what you're talking about, it's easy to think that "Hey look at those WoW-copiers."
But the in-game models in both WAR and this new 40K MMO happen to look a lot like the Citadel Miniatures used in the tabletop game of Warhammer and Warhammer 40K. Have a look for yourself: Games Workshop 40K Orks Army List
aaaaand that took me more than 5 minutes I think...
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2.
Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic
Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
Well that all depends on how many players you have in total. What is suggested is an Eve type setup where you only have one universe where everyone who plays the game is in the same "server" but could probably be more accuratly thought of as a cloud. The various conflicts could be thought of as your traditional servers but your free to move to the differnt servers in the cloud as the mood takes you. Not your more traditional multiple copies of the same universe where the people who play the game are broken up into groups of 10 or 20 thousand.
The idea is flexable enough that you could open up the more worlds or conflict match ups based on where the population is gathering. So if one faction has a huge population advantage you open conflict worlds where they fight the other factions one on one spreading them out over 5 conflicts while the other factions are only spread out on 2 fronts. If one faction has significantly less population than the other three you open up a 3 way conflict zone to spread the population of the three more populated sides over 2 fronts and the under populated side can concentate at the one. Thats just the simplist of examples the reality would be much more complex but doable simply by monitering the population numbers.
The biggest problem with the suggestion as I see it is the devs seem to be going with the more traditional approach which lends itself to the simplistic pernament alliance system that most here seem to be railing against it doesn't evan matter if it's 2 or 3 factions lore purists arn't going to be happy with a fixed alliance.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
Progress of open world battlefields are always going to be determined by population. The more players one side has the more likely that side is going to win. Sure there may be small periods of victory by the underdog but those victories will be fleeting at best. One way to combat this is to remove the open world conflict and replace it with instances a whole other can of worms that doesn't seem overly popular at least on these forums.
I dunno but if Warhammer 40k MMO is themeparked PvE with 2 or 3 pernament alliances and instanced PvP with multiple servers of 10 to 20 thousand players (or in other words what every developer has done for the last 5 years) then the game is destined for mediocrity and a huge waste of money and time and another IP butchered on the alter of idiocy.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
great ideas! i think orcs and elder should be under the xenos faction which basiclly means they can kick the crap out of each and everyone else! or whatever. i think a cool thing which i hope the dev will do would be like for example a battleground between imperium and chaos fighting and for example the elder have to steal something from the battlefield so between to major forces fighting the xeno faction has to steal whatever and get out just to add some more action pact moments have like WTF are eldar doing here. anyways i am having faith in THQ and Vigil since they did an awesome job with dawn of war and there new space marine game looks awesome as well plus darksider.
IN THE FACE!
Did nobody but me notice that there were already three factions?
1. Space Marines
2. Chaos Space Marines
3. Orks
that's three, not two
and if they tried they could squeeze out 2 more from what they have already
Imperial Legion and Daemons
Not to mention that being Warhammer 40k, they will most likely add in Eldar before or shortly after release.
From the tone of this website there is no such thing as an MMO fan anymore, just a bunch of jaded QQers that will find something to incessantly bitch about with every since blasted game that exists. Come on people, go look at the SWTOR threads, most of em are filled with people bitching because Bioware isn't making the game a FPS or Sandbox FFA Full Loot PvP or a space sim or that Bioware are obviously noobs because the game does not have any tauren druids or nightelf hunters. I've seen people on this war40k board complaining about the WoWish graphics when WoW straightout Stole their art design from Warhammer.
Good Luck finding a good game, by the time you find your perfect MMO it'll already be circling the drain because everyone constantly blasted it across the internet and now nobody will even try it.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. - Douglas Adams
Here's an interview with one of the folks there at E3
Obviously it doesn't say anything that we don't already know (40K is cool, the MMO is a long ways off, etc.) except that the game uses THQ's Darksiders engine (or a modified version of it) which I think is pretty sweet. Gotta say the game does look good for an MMO, and it's cool they're showing that up front, especially when you compare it against the most prominent up-and-coming MMO of SWTOR's gameplay. Cinematics, on the other hand, are another story...though it's not like THQ's group hasn't produced good CG of 40K universe stuff before...does anyone remember this trailer from 2008? Or even this little teaser?
NOTE: Those two videos were for Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War 2 which is an RTS game, and not for Warhammer 40,000: Dark Millenium Online, which is the upcoming MMO.
Currently playing: LOTRO, Guild Wars 2.
Have played: EVE Online; Champions Online; Age of Conan; City of Heroes/Villains; Star Wars Galaxies (pre-CU, pre-NGE); World of Warcraft (Vanilla to Cataclysm); Hellgate: London; Warhammer Online; Lord of the Rings Online; Vanguard: Saga of Heroes; Star Wars: The Old Republic
Wishlist: Mass Effect Online
This right here. Destroyed 4th tier gameplay.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.
like he said it doesnt make any diff if this is just another instance game with central hub, going to be boring with small player base and cap instance.
I agree with the second half of your post, but "Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction,..." sounds very much like two factions with races (Space Marines, Traitor Marines and Orks) divided between them, especially since Warhammer Online's factions are Order and Destruction. Maybe THQ didn't mean it that way; they just picked up familiar wording for a very vague initial description. I hope so. If there are three factions, they'll be Order, Destruction, and an NPC faction, the Tyranids.
Well what I saw was a lot of
Ork Vs Space Marine
with some Imperial Guard, maybe some chaos marines but nothing that suggest the latter are playable. This could very well be total Ork Vs Space Marines.
Sent me an email if you want me to mail you some pizza rolls.