I personally want a three faction system, for numerous reasons, but am not going to harp about the game failing if it doesn't. 2 factions can work, if done right,
What is right? well I don't think the flip flopping thing will work, if I play a race that could flip flop, and I had been fighting for 45 minutes to overtake a keep with comrades, and all of a sudden i got some report that we switched sides, and all of a sudden its like a trojan horse scenario, where all of us are inside, well that would suck, or lets say were slaughtering the forces of order, and we have to switch, so we get teleported out, I'm not going to be happy about getting taken out of the fray in the heat of battle. To go to the side I was just killing. I'd log, which would help perpetuate me being back on the side that I want.
but we can speculate all we want, it looks like it will be a two faction game, which ultimatly is ok, its not what i want but if I had that, I'd have enough money someone would be typing this for me as I eat peeled grapes.
Honestly, three factions is as retarded as two factions.
Space Marines, Chaos/Chaos Space Marines, Ordo Malleus, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Tau Empire, Tyrannids, Ordo Hereticus... and guess what, groups within those groups fight each other as well as each other... or sometimes they work togther for a period of time, only to fight against each other again.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Validate your responce with some type of explination with refrence to my OP please.
Why do you think a 3-faction system is the only way to make this type of game work?
The 40K system has all races pretty much fighting each other, so even a 3 faction system would be "lore-breaking" (Unless each faction was limited to one and only one army) A 2 faction system with interchangable sides seem to me, to be much more in line with the lore of the game. Any given conflict was 2 sides (factions) fighting each other. After said conflict sides could change and often did. The attraction of the game is that anyone can fight anyone and, Except in a few specific cases, most races could allie with other races for a single conflict of campaign until thier individual objectives were met.
Ideally we'd have as many factions as there are races and sides would constantly be in flux. This is'ent really achieveable though. In order to maintain a balanced playing environment we have to give the game devs some way to achieve population control. Look to WAR, one of its biggest failings (not to say its only failing) was that Devs had no way to control populations. Bonus XP and Coin just dont cut it.
The Devs have to see the big picture and be able to move sides around in order to maintain some sort of balance. This IP has a great "out" in the lore that sides switch as they see fit ... Devs could therefore switch races/armys sides to maintain balance and still adhear to the spirit of the game.
Is it realistic? Not really, if the Orcs (for example) were weak all races would prob seek to destroy them once and for all. Would that be "fun" though? (Remember its a game - fun is the objective) Not at all, would'ent be fun for the orcs (who likely quit or re-roll and long term it would'ent be fun for the others who'd lose opposition to play against.) Realistically the races would be destroyed in order of weakest first and on ... we want to play a game though so having the Dev's "fudge" a reason for an alliance with in game context (They offer a mining planet for an alliance, they offer new tech etc - whatever) we all win with a more stable and fun game.
I guess I am asking people to read my OP and comment on that version of a 2-faction system. Yes it is 2 factions at its heart but its not a traditional static faction system and people need to understand that before commenting "2 factions dont work its gotta be 3"
Problem is, you're expecting people to actually read. Some of us can read just fine and do it quite frequently while others get headaches, nose bleeds, begin drooling on themselves, and have seizures when asked to read more than 1 line of text.
If you expect some of the latter to bother reading and replying to anything you're better off titling the thread something like "OOOOOOH SHINY!!!!" and just saying "2 main factions with some of the races able to switch factions" and just leave it at that. But then the rest of us get shafted :-( Guess you're better off just ignoring the people who cant be bothered to actually read anything on a forum.
Yer unfortunatly that seems to be the case.
Most are reading the title of the thread and commenting on that directly insead of reading the actual post which outlines How a 2-faction system can be adapted to work in a game and be used as population controls etc.
I expected a fair amount of posts like that ... unfortunatly I was most dissapointed to see a Blue (Garrett) respond in such a way. Guess I expected more from a blue ... points to why other posters can troll and post usless crap without fear since they are following the example of a blue /sigh.
I had hoped for some interesting discussion and back and forth about how it could be made to work or peoples opinions as to why it could never work .. instead most posters read the title and reply with "3 factions or elz lulz" which is not constructive at all.
People wonder why MMO gaming is going down the gutter ... all they need is pointing to MMO forums to figure out the reason. All hail WoW and the lowest common denominator I suppose /shrug.
As long as both factions are equally appealing then it works. Perfect example of how it does not work is Guild Wars : Factions. They made Kurzick so much cooler than Luxon and when they released Factions more than 3/4ths of the population chose Kurzick because they all loved the goth look. Same thing happene sin Warhammer Online. They made Destruction so much cooler and Order was so crappy looking.
Well with WAR, agreed Destro looke dmuch better, but once the initial wave of people got over the looks and realized that nearly every mirror class on the order side, except for Squig Herders vs Shadow Warriors, was better in several ways than Destruction in T4 people started quickly switching to order to roll easy mode. That was the shittiest thing the devs pulled, making "mirror" classes so unbalanced. Eventually it became the same on nearly every server... Destro owned T1 and T2, Order owned T3 and T4 the majority of the time. Think was probably only 1 server that actually wound up fairly well balanced because of a lack of good organzied guilds on Order side.
I personally want a three faction system, for numerous reasons, but am not going to harp about the game failing if it doesn't. 2 factions can work, if done right,
What is right? well I don't think the flip flopping thing will work, if I play a race that could flip flop, and I had been fighting for 45 minutes to overtake a keep with comrades, and all of a sudden i got some report that we switched sides, and all of a sudden its like a trojan horse scenario, where all of us are inside, well that would suck, or lets say were slaughtering the forces of order, and we have to switch, so we get teleported out, I'm not going to be happy about getting taken out of the fray in the heat of battle. To go to the side I was just killing. I'd log, which would help perpetuate me being back on the side that I want.
but we can speculate all we want, it looks like it will be a two faction game, which ultimatly is ok, its not what i want but if I had that, I'd have enough money someone would be typing this for me as I eat peeled grapes.
Exactly, the switching of races wouldnt sit well with alot of people.Even if switching happened once in a blue moon people would have a "WTF" mentality about it.
The real problem I see with the OP suggestion is with Guilds. How would one race switching to the other side affect members of a guild in the former alliance? You can't really have Guild mates at war with each other, nor would many players want to be put in such a position. Yes, cross-alliance guilds exist in other 2 faction games...but so do Alliance only...and people enjoy that option.
I personally want a three faction system, for numerous reasons, but am not going to harp about the game failing if it doesn't. 2 factions can work, if done right,
What is right? well I don't think the flip flopping thing will work, if I play a race that could flip flop, and I had been fighting for 45 minutes to overtake a keep with comrades, and all of a sudden i got some report that we switched sides, and all of a sudden its like a trojan horse scenario, where all of us are inside, well that would suck, or lets say were slaughtering the forces of order, and we have to switch, so we get teleported out, I'm not going to be happy about getting taken out of the fray in the heat of battle. To go to the side I was just killing. I'd log, which would help perpetuate me being back on the side that I want.
but we can speculate all we want, it looks like it will be a two faction game, which ultimatly is ok, its not what i want but if I had that, I'd have enough money someone would be typing this for me as I eat peeled grapes.
People keep going back to this flip-flopping thing.
Thats not what I am getting at. A side change would be a major event and used to balance populations over all .. server wide not for a given battle or encounter.
Say you have 6 races (3 per side) so two factions. One faction has 65% of the population and one has 35%. Thats obvioulsy an issue. So breaking down the larger faction we find that the races have 23% 18% and 24% respectivly. Taking race B (18%) and moving them to the opposing side now means we have two factions of 47% and 53% - Looking alot more balanced there. Of course these are figures pulled outta my arse .. but the point is that the Devs would have a tool to balance populations.
Its not always gonna be ideal, sometimes the underpopulated realm suddenly becomes the more populated by a few % or maby slightly under the 50% mark, and of course there will be cases of extremes where swapping any of the races would make things worse (Population wise) ... but its a tool to improve population balance over all (not per conflict / battle)
ATM the ways to fix population balance is offer the underdogs bonus XP or coin or something ... its very weak. Giving the devs a population tool like this would IMO make a far better balanced game if its used right.
Once factions are balanced you can initiate race swaps from side to side to spice things up ... but it would be an in game event no flip-flopping. Its not lore-breaking, armys change sides all the time in 40K and it would mean factions would become server specific (each servers opposing sides would be tweaked to make the balance right)
Of course making each race desirable to play and balanced would be the best way to control population, but as we've seen in previous games it seldom works that way. I'm just trying to offer up a way to keep a 2-faction system interesting and balanced and want opinions on THAT, not weather you think any game without 3+ factions will fail.
This discussion would have been better as a 2 faction vs. 3 faction debate on possible resolutions in certain games...
...once again, neither 2 nor 3 factions fits WH40K.
If they were to force a certain backstory to it, they might be able to get certain factions opposing other certain factions - but enemy of my enemy does not quite fit the universe.
If a chapter of the Space Marines were fighting an Ork waaargh, and the Eldar showed up - they would help whichever side furthered their goals...and then pick off the weakened remaining side.
The Imperial Guard could be fighting along side the Ordo Malleus to stave off a Chaos Marine attack, only to have the Ordo Malleus kill off the Imperial Guard because they may have been tainted...
That is the nature of the WH40K universe.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The real problem I see with the OP suggestion is with Guilds. How would one race switching to the other side affect members of a guild in the former alliance? You can't really have Guild mates at war with each other, nor would many players want to be put in such a position. Yes, cross-alliance guilds exist in other 2 faction games...but so do Alliance only...and people enjoy that option.
As I said your alliance would be to your RACE first and formost. Each race would have to be self sufficient and guilds would be limited to race. You would have alliance channels based on your current alliances.
It would take a different mind-set yes .. but lets look at this from a realistic perspective.
If your family is threatened by your friend whats your natural reaction?
Take that a step further .. your nation is treatened by another nation?
A step further your nations alliance is threatened by another alliance?
Each time you make take a stand, but at the core of it all is your personal family, each sphere radiates outward, if your country threatens your family you fight against them even though you would fight for your nation against forign aggressors.
They may be your friends today .. but tomorrow they may threaten you. It would make for a much more dynamic game esp when you knew the population was out of wack and your now allies may become your enemies soon.
I do see your point about guilds though. Guilds would have to be race restricted, which may well be a turn-off for some but for the over all structure of the game its FAR more lore-breaking to have guilds that contain different races in the 40K system. The 40K system is all about your race / army ... the willingness to fight ANYONE different and in some cases even against your own is part and parcel of 40K. Alliances are temporary at best and the game would do well to reflect that.
Lore? It's an MMORPG with up to 10,000 people on a server, not a few guys sitting around a table covered with miniatures.
If you want to stick with "lore" then buy some lead miniatures and sit around a table top.
Plus, the table to games END with a WINNER!
If you want a fun game that is massive, dont' make an even number.
3 is much, much, much more fun than 2 factions. One side starts to win, the losers delete their character on the losing side, roll up a toon on the winning side, so they can Pwn! That's what I would do.
In a 3 way, the two under dogs can team up on the top dog, at least it's more interesting that way.
2 factions will be booooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg!
The real problem I see with the OP suggestion is with Guilds. How would one race switching to the other side affect members of a guild in the former alliance? You can't really have Guild mates at war with each other, nor would many players want to be put in such a position. Yes, cross-alliance guilds exist in other 2 faction games...but so do Alliance only...and people enjoy that option.
As I said your alliance would be to your RACE first and formost. Each race would have to be self sufficient and guilds would be limited to race. You would have alliance channels based on your current alliances.
It would take a different mind-set yes .. but lets look at this from a realistic perspective.
If your family is threatened by your friend whats your natural reaction?
Take that a step further .. your nation is treatened by another nation?
A step further your nations alliance is threatened by another alliance?
Each time you make take a stand, but at the core of it all is your personal family, each sphere radiates outward, if your country threatens your family you fight against them even though you would fight for your nation against forign aggressors.
They may be your friends today .. but tomorrow they may threaten you. It would make for a much more dynamic game esp when you knew the population was out of wack and your now allies may become your enemies soon.
I do see your point about guilds though. Guilds would have to be race restricted, which may well be a turn-off for some but for the over all structure of the game its FAR more lore-breaking to have guilds that contain different races in the 40K system. The 40K system is all about your race / army ... the willingness to fight ANYONE different and in some cases even against your own is part and parcel of 40K. Alliances are temporary at best and the game would do well to reflect that.
Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos Marines, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Hereticus... are all Human. Yet they fight each other all the time.
It is not about "Race" in WH40K.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Lore? It's an MMORPG with up to 10,000 people on a server, not a few guys sitting around a table covered with miniatures.
If you want to stick with "lore" then buy some lead miniatures and sit around a table top.
Plus, the table to games END with a WINNER!
If you want a fun game that is massive, dont' make an even number.
3 is much, much, much more fun than 2 factions. One side starts to win, the losers delete their character on the losing side, roll up a toon on the winning side, so they can Pwn! That's what I would do.
In a 3 way, the two under dogs can team up on the top dog, at least it's more interesting that way.
2 factions will be booooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg!
Again .. go READ the OP, your comments are about the title and not the post. If I was trying to defend two static factions I'd agree with you .. if you read the OP you'd realize thats not what I am saying and maby would be able to add something constructive.
Lore? It's an MMORPG with up to 10,000 people on a server, not a few guys sitting around a table covered with miniatures.
If you want to stick with "lore" then buy some lead miniatures and sit around a table top.
Plus, the table to games END with a WINNER!
If you want a fun game that is massive, dont' make an even number.
3 is much, much, much more fun than 2 factions. One side starts to win, the losers delete their character on the losing side, roll up a toon on the winning side, so they can Pwn! That's what I would do.
In a 3 way, the two under dogs can team up on the top dog, at least it's more interesting that way.
2 factions will be booooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg!
If you do not want Lore, then do not touch the IP - why touch the IP then? How freaking retarded...
...let's make a game called World of Darkness and have it be a game of mecha chess. Yeah!
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
The side change could work on some other IP but in my opinion due to the background of the 40K universe this just goes against it. Now if this was a not so well known IP that has table top players like world wide I would say it could work but with such a wide spread existing fan base you dont want to alienate them by releasing a game that seems to shred the history of said game. I think this is why most people are saying this is a fail system mechanic for this game. and according to the web site http://www.darkmillenniumonline.com/ this is under game info:
On the very edge of the galaxy lies the Sargos Sector. For centuries it was rendered uninhabitable and isolated by volatile Warp Storms. Even now, deep within the sector the very fabric of reality is unraveling. Only the ancient Sentinel Devices hold the Warp at bay.
But the ravages of time and meddling of humanity have weakened the Sentinel Devices-and now, the battle for these lost worlds is at hand. Drawn to the conflict, the great races of the galaxy descend upon the Sargos Sector, seeking to preserve reality-or to tear it asunder.
Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter.
This blurb implies that it will be only 2 factions but with so little information it is purely speculation on almost all of our parts. So as I has said in several of my other posts on this topic I am taking a wait and hope attitude toward this game.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Lore? It's an MMORPG with up to 10,000 people on a server, not a few guys sitting around a table covered with miniatures.
I think that's one of the key points people don't seem to understand. Staying within some preset lore works out very easy when you're dealing with a single playe rgame, or even a small group of people who are ACTUALLY ROLEPLAYING. But in MMORPGs, there are just too many people with too many playstyles and reasons for playing the game or certain races, classes and factions.
In an ideal world, they could design the MMO to work exactly as VirusDancer (corrected, sorry, too many threads :-) was describing and they could make the game fit perfectly itno the lore in every aspect because every player would actually be roleplaying their characters and acting as those characters would and holding to the beliefs set in the lore. But that's not the reality of MMOs. People simply will not think and act as if they were truly that character and react based on the beliefs of their people making it impossible to stick 100% to any lore from a type of game designed so differently than an MMO. There will be changes and crossover sthat people don't like in order to make the game work and be fun. This is WH40K the MMO, not the P&P RPG, so dont expect things to be the same.
As I said your alliance would be to your RACE first and formost. Each race would have to be self sufficient and guilds would be limited to race. You would have alliance channels based on your current alliances.
It would take a different mind-set yes .. but lets look at this from a realistic perspective.
If your family is threatened by your friend whats your natural reaction?
Take that a step further .. your nation is treatened by another nation?
A step further your nations alliance is threatened by another alliance?
That sounds really great, and i'm all for breaking the bounds of tradition, especially when it leads to a more immersive and dynamic world like this does. But like you said, some people will be turned off by the idea...especially these longstanding, multi-game Guilds. They would probably pass this title right by because of the Guild restrictions, and the game would become somewhat niche. Not a great starting platform for the company. The best option, and the way to avoid all these issues, is just to make it 3 factions.
The real problem I see with the OP suggestion is with Guilds. How would one race switching to the other side affect members of a guild in the former alliance? You can't really have Guild mates at war with each other, nor would many players want to be put in such a position. Yes, cross-alliance guilds exist in other 2 faction games...but so do Alliance only...and people enjoy that option.
As I said your alliance would be to your RACE first and formost. Each race would have to be self sufficient and guilds would be limited to race. You would have alliance channels based on your current alliances.
It would take a different mind-set yes .. but lets look at this from a realistic perspective.
If your family is threatened by your friend whats your natural reaction?
Take that a step further .. your nation is treatened by another nation?
A step further your nations alliance is threatened by another alliance?
Each time you make take a stand, but at the core of it all is your personal family, each sphere radiates outward, if your country threatens your family you fight against them even though you would fight for your nation against forign aggressors.
They may be your friends today .. but tomorrow they may threaten you. It would make for a much more dynamic game esp when you knew the population was out of wack and your now allies may become your enemies soon.
I do see your point about guilds though. Guilds would have to be race restricted, which may well be a turn-off for some but for the over all structure of the game its FAR more lore-breaking to have guilds that contain different races in the 40K system. The 40K system is all about your race / army ... the willingness to fight ANYONE different and in some cases even against your own is part and parcel of 40K. Alliances are temporary at best and the game would do well to reflect that.
Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos Marines, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Hereticus... are all Human. Yet they fight each other all the time.
It is not about "Race" in WH40K.
Which is why i said race/army at the sum-up of my post. I'm aware of 40K thanks. Trying to put in into a format that people who are not aware of the IP can understand (Ie relating it to current games they may have experiance with)
Lets not nit-pick huh? SM are clones (not natural humans) CM are mutated clones (even further from humans) etc etc.
The side change could work on some other IP but in my opinion due to the background of the 40K universe this just goes against it. Now if this was a not so well known IP that has table top players like world wide I would say it could work but with such a wide spread existing fan base you dont want to alienate them by releasing a game that seems to shred the history of said game. I think this is why most people are saying this is a fail system mechanic for this game. and according to the web site http://www.darkmillenniumonline.com/ this is under game info:
On the very edge of the galaxy lies the Sargos Sector. For centuries it was rendered uninhabitable and isolated by volatile Warp Storms. Even now, deep within the sector the very fabric of reality is unraveling. Only the ancient Sentinel Devices hold the Warp at bay.
But the ravages of time and meddling of humanity have weakened the Sentinel Devices-and now, the battle for these lost worlds is at hand. Drawn to the conflict, the great races of the galaxy descend upon the Sargos Sector, seeking to preserve reality-or to tear it asunder.
Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter.
This blurb implies that it will be only 2 factions but with so little information it is purely speculation on almost all of our parts. So as I has said in several of my other posts on this topic I am taking a wait and hope attitude toward this game.
Exactly.
They have implied that it will be a two faction game, people are upset claiming 2 faction games cant work.
I am trying to suggest a dynamic way that a 2-faction game COULD work within this IP. Thats what the thread is about
Which is why i said race/army at the sum-up of my post. I'm aware of 40K thanks. Trying to put in into a format that people who are not aware of the IP can understand (Ie relating it to current games they may have experiance with)
Lets not nit-pick huh? SM are clones (not natural humans) CM are mutated clones (even further from humans) etc etc.
By trying to dilute it so they can understand only leads for further misunderstanding. It might be better to link them to the GW site, etc. Link them to any of the DoW games, etc.
Personally, I'm tired of companies picking up IPs that have a vast amount of lore - and - going willy nilly with them as they please...
If they want to make a MMORPG WH40K, then actually make one. If they want to make a MMOTPS WH40K, then actually make one. Otherwise, just do what Blizzard did with Warhammer - steal the basics and make your own game...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Lore? It's an MMORPG with up to 10,000 people on a server, not a few guys sitting around a table covered with miniatures.
If you want to stick with "lore" then buy some lead miniatures and sit around a table top.
Plus, the table to games END with a WINNER!
If you want a fun game that is massive, dont' make an even number.
3 is much, much, much more fun than 2 factions. One side starts to win, the losers delete their character on the losing side, roll up a toon on the winning side, so they can Pwn! That's what I would do.
In a 3 way, the two under dogs can team up on the top dog, at least it's more interesting that way.
2 factions will be booooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg!
Again .. go READ the OP, your comments are about the title and not the post. If I was trying to defend two static factions I'd agree with you .. if you read the OP you'd realize thats not what I am saying and maby would be able to add something constructive.
I read your post. Flipping back and forth between two sides, is still two factions, not three.
The issue regarding "guilds" would be simple - there are no guilds in WH40K. Will they allow people to create their own chapters, armies, etc? Cause short of that...
As for the rotational thing, it would require a great deal of work on the side of the devs - because it would be a case of putting out some sort of content backstory with the changes - why the Eldar are fighting the Space Marines this month when two months ago they were "friendly"...
It would also mean that the "gameworld" would also not only have to be persistent, but progressive.
Meaning that you would not have the repetition that you do in current games.
If your buddy joined three months ago and you joined today, you would not have the same content he did...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
As much as these guys want to distance themselves from WAR, I think they have some valuable lessons to learn from it, as well as DAOC...if they are aiming to go down the RVR road.
I actually enjoyed WAR (yes, I know I'm one of the few), but it's pretty clear from the feedback of a lot of people that quit that they needed something more from the RVR, and 3 factions seems to be the most popular suggestion. The fact that people still play DAOC just shows how good that system is.
I think 2 factions is the easiest way to go from the developers perspective, but it seems pretty clear that that may not be good enough for their target market.
The OP suggests some good points, and some cool ideas, but I worry about the complexity of implementing a solution where you could logon and not know which side you're on. Sure, you could suggest to new players that they roll a "core" race, and make it pretty clear that if you roll anything else you may end up changing allegiances every second Sunday, but the biggest road-block I see on that route is the whole process of the race changing faction alignment....how exactly do all the Eldar on one server decide they're going to be baddies this week?
The 40k IP has some great background for multi-faction politics and battles. I hope they come up with a clever way to introduce that into the game. I'd probably be happy with 2 factions, but if they can introduce a good system to add a bit more depth and add another faction or two, they may win over the DAOC market and all those who felt WAR wasn't up to the job.
As much as these guys want to distance themselves from WAR, I think they have some valuable lessons to learn from it, as well as DAOC...if they are aiming to go down the RVR road.
I actually enjoyed WAR (yes, I know I'm one of the few), but it's pretty clear from the feedback of a lot of people that quit that they needed something more from the RVR, and 3 factions seems to be the most popular suggestion. The fact that people still play DAOC just shows how good that system is.
I think 2 factions is the easiest way to go from the developers perspective, but it seems pretty clear that that may not be good enough for their target market.
The OP suggests some good points, and some cool ideas, but I worry about the complexity of implementing a solution where you could logon and not know which side you're on. Sure, you could suggest to new players that they roll a "core" race, and make it pretty clear that if you roll anything else you may end up changing allegiances every second Sunday, but the biggest road-block I see on that route is the whole process of the race changing faction alignment....how exactly do all the Eldar on one server decide they're going to be baddies this week?
The 40k IP has some great background for multi-faction politics and battles. I hope they come up with a clever way to introduce that into the game. I'd probably be happy with 2 factions, but if they can introduce a good system to add a bit more depth and add another faction or two, they may win over the DAOC market and all those who felt WAR wasn't up to the job.
Exactly. RvR rocks with three factions. The other ingredient to a fun RvR set up, is for God's Sake! NO freakin' instanced battle grounds like in WAR.
You're putting all these resources into an RvR design, and nobody's there to RvR, because everyone is doing a PvP instance over and over.
As I said your alliance would be to your RACE first and formost. Each race would have to be self sufficient and guilds would be limited to race. You would have alliance channels based on your current alliances.
It would take a different mind-set yes .. but lets look at this from a realistic perspective.
If your family is threatened by your friend whats your natural reaction?
Take that a step further .. your nation is treatened by another nation?
A step further your nations alliance is threatened by another alliance?
That sounds really great, and i'm all for breaking the bounds of tradition, especially when it leads to a more immersive and dynamic world like this does. But like you said, some people will be turned off by the idea...especially these longstanding, multi-game Guilds. They would probably pass this title right by because of the Guild restrictions, and the game would become somewhat niche. Not a great starting platform for the company. The best option, and the way to avoid all these issues, is just to make it 3 factions.
Appreciate your input
While its true that the guild limitation may put some people off, its only slightly more risky than a 3 faction system.
3 faction system requires your pre-set guild to pick a faction and play it alone if you want to stick together. Limiting guilds to a given race means that your guild instead of picking one of three factions would have to pick one of sixs races to play together.
Each race becomes its own specific faction with its players loyal to that race first and foremost and to thier alliance as a seconday concideration.
It could be expanded upon with specific racial crafting, your race can craft your races weapons / armor etc, and supply them to your alliance. A change in the alliances would open up a whole new market to you for buying and selling.
Theres alot of niche aspects of the game that could be enhanced by a dynamic system.
In my ideal game there would be many factions with a direct player impact (with GM regulation to ensure that population remain balanced) as to what side they fight on at a particular time.
The reason open PvP games fail is that generally they boil down to two massive alliances fighting each other and smaller guilds / factions are forced to join up or die. So even in open games population issues arise. Having some Dev input on managing sides would lead to a more balanced game play. There has to be some type of regulation on population in any PvP style game in order for it to work. WoW limits the amount of players per battleground, thats thier control. If you want a more open system there has to be some form of control option available to the Dev or they will take the route of restricted battlegrounds. After all the Devs know that a population imbalance without any type of control will destroy thier game.
That control can come in many ways ... 3 factions, restricted BGs, or in my example the ability to manipulate sides.
Since they have hinted at a 2 faction system and I personally abhore gated BG populations I am trying to suggest other ways that a 2-faction system can be regulated
Why are so many just assuming it will be a two party system? I think it is just douchebaggery to hammer on something like this before we even know. Ya I mean if they want to be true to the IP well then we need more than two factions... hell there are also cases of SM chapter versus SM chapter also of other factions occasionally joining forces, so how do you handle that?
PS: Who cares about lame ass Eldar?... I want my Squats!!!
Comments
I personally want a three faction system, for numerous reasons, but am not going to harp about the game failing if it doesn't. 2 factions can work, if done right,
What is right? well I don't think the flip flopping thing will work, if I play a race that could flip flop, and I had been fighting for 45 minutes to overtake a keep with comrades, and all of a sudden i got some report that we switched sides, and all of a sudden its like a trojan horse scenario, where all of us are inside, well that would suck, or lets say were slaughtering the forces of order, and we have to switch, so we get teleported out, I'm not going to be happy about getting taken out of the fray in the heat of battle. To go to the side I was just killing. I'd log, which would help perpetuate me being back on the side that I want.
but we can speculate all we want, it looks like it will be a two faction game, which ultimatly is ok, its not what i want but if I had that, I'd have enough money someone would be typing this for me as I eat peeled grapes.
My Thoughts on Content Locust
Honestly, three factions is as retarded as two factions.
Space Marines, Chaos/Chaos Space Marines, Ordo Malleus, Dark Eldar, Eldar, Imperial Guard, Necrons, Orks, Tau Empire, Tyrannids, Ordo Hereticus... and guess what, groups within those groups fight each other as well as each other... or sometimes they work togther for a period of time, only to fight against each other again.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Yer unfortunatly that seems to be the case.
Most are reading the title of the thread and commenting on that directly insead of reading the actual post which outlines How a 2-faction system can be adapted to work in a game and be used as population controls etc.
I expected a fair amount of posts like that ... unfortunatly I was most dissapointed to see a Blue (Garrett) respond in such a way. Guess I expected more from a blue ... points to why other posters can troll and post usless crap without fear since they are following the example of a blue /sigh.
I had hoped for some interesting discussion and back and forth about how it could be made to work or peoples opinions as to why it could never work .. instead most posters read the title and reply with "3 factions or elz lulz" which is not constructive at all.
People wonder why MMO gaming is going down the gutter ... all they need is pointing to MMO forums to figure out the reason. All hail WoW and the lowest common denominator I suppose /shrug.
Well with WAR, agreed Destro looke dmuch better, but once the initial wave of people got over the looks and realized that nearly every mirror class on the order side, except for Squig Herders vs Shadow Warriors, was better in several ways than Destruction in T4 people started quickly switching to order to roll easy mode. That was the shittiest thing the devs pulled, making "mirror" classes so unbalanced. Eventually it became the same on nearly every server... Destro owned T1 and T2, Order owned T3 and T4 the majority of the time. Think was probably only 1 server that actually wound up fairly well balanced because of a lack of good organzied guilds on Order side.
Exactly, the switching of races wouldnt sit well with alot of people.Even if switching happened once in a blue moon people would have a "WTF" mentality about it.
The real problem I see with the OP suggestion is with Guilds. How would one race switching to the other side affect members of a guild in the former alliance? You can't really have Guild mates at war with each other, nor would many players want to be put in such a position. Yes, cross-alliance guilds exist in other 2 faction games...but so do Alliance only...and people enjoy that option.
People keep going back to this flip-flopping thing.
Thats not what I am getting at. A side change would be a major event and used to balance populations over all .. server wide not for a given battle or encounter.
Say you have 6 races (3 per side) so two factions. One faction has 65% of the population and one has 35%. Thats obvioulsy an issue. So breaking down the larger faction we find that the races have 23% 18% and 24% respectivly. Taking race B (18%) and moving them to the opposing side now means we have two factions of 47% and 53% - Looking alot more balanced there. Of course these are figures pulled outta my arse .. but the point is that the Devs would have a tool to balance populations.
Its not always gonna be ideal, sometimes the underpopulated realm suddenly becomes the more populated by a few % or maby slightly under the 50% mark, and of course there will be cases of extremes where swapping any of the races would make things worse (Population wise) ... but its a tool to improve population balance over all (not per conflict / battle)
ATM the ways to fix population balance is offer the underdogs bonus XP or coin or something ... its very weak. Giving the devs a population tool like this would IMO make a far better balanced game if its used right.
Once factions are balanced you can initiate race swaps from side to side to spice things up ... but it would be an in game event no flip-flopping. Its not lore-breaking, armys change sides all the time in 40K and it would mean factions would become server specific (each servers opposing sides would be tweaked to make the balance right)
Of course making each race desirable to play and balanced would be the best way to control population, but as we've seen in previous games it seldom works that way. I'm just trying to offer up a way to keep a 2-faction system interesting and balanced and want opinions on THAT, not weather you think any game without 3+ factions will fail.
This discussion would have been better as a 2 faction vs. 3 faction debate on possible resolutions in certain games...
...once again, neither 2 nor 3 factions fits WH40K.
If they were to force a certain backstory to it, they might be able to get certain factions opposing other certain factions - but enemy of my enemy does not quite fit the universe.
If a chapter of the Space Marines were fighting an Ork waaargh, and the Eldar showed up - they would help whichever side furthered their goals...and then pick off the weakened remaining side.
The Imperial Guard could be fighting along side the Ordo Malleus to stave off a Chaos Marine attack, only to have the Ordo Malleus kill off the Imperial Guard because they may have been tainted...
That is the nature of the WH40K universe.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
As I said your alliance would be to your RACE first and formost. Each race would have to be self sufficient and guilds would be limited to race. You would have alliance channels based on your current alliances.
It would take a different mind-set yes .. but lets look at this from a realistic perspective.
If your family is threatened by your friend whats your natural reaction?
Take that a step further .. your nation is treatened by another nation?
A step further your nations alliance is threatened by another alliance?
Each time you make take a stand, but at the core of it all is your personal family, each sphere radiates outward, if your country threatens your family you fight against them even though you would fight for your nation against forign aggressors.
They may be your friends today .. but tomorrow they may threaten you. It would make for a much more dynamic game esp when you knew the population was out of wack and your now allies may become your enemies soon.
I do see your point about guilds though. Guilds would have to be race restricted, which may well be a turn-off for some but for the over all structure of the game its FAR more lore-breaking to have guilds that contain different races in the 40K system. The 40K system is all about your race / army ... the willingness to fight ANYONE different and in some cases even against your own is part and parcel of 40K. Alliances are temporary at best and the game would do well to reflect that.
Lore? It's an MMORPG with up to 10,000 people on a server, not a few guys sitting around a table covered with miniatures.
If you want to stick with "lore" then buy some lead miniatures and sit around a table top.
Plus, the table to games END with a WINNER!
If you want a fun game that is massive, dont' make an even number.
3 is much, much, much more fun than 2 factions. One side starts to win, the losers delete their character on the losing side, roll up a toon on the winning side, so they can Pwn! That's what I would do.
In a 3 way, the two under dogs can team up on the top dog, at least it's more interesting that way.
2 factions will be booooooooooooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggg!
Space Marines, Imperial Guard, Chaos Marines, Ordo Malleus, Ordo Hereticus... are all Human. Yet they fight each other all the time.
It is not about "Race" in WH40K.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Again .. go READ the OP, your comments are about the title and not the post. If I was trying to defend two static factions I'd agree with you .. if you read the OP you'd realize thats not what I am saying and maby would be able to add something constructive.
If you do not want Lore, then do not touch the IP - why touch the IP then? How freaking retarded...
...let's make a game called World of Darkness and have it be a game of mecha chess. Yeah!
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
The side change could work on some other IP but in my opinion due to the background of the 40K universe this just goes against it. Now if this was a not so well known IP that has table top players like world wide I would say it could work but with such a wide spread existing fan base you dont want to alienate them by releasing a game that seems to shred the history of said game. I think this is why most people are saying this is a fail system mechanic for this game. and according to the web site http://www.darkmillenniumonline.com/ this is under game info:
On the very edge of the galaxy lies the Sargos Sector. For centuries it was rendered uninhabitable and isolated by volatile Warp Storms. Even now, deep within the sector the very fabric of reality is unraveling. Only the ancient Sentinel Devices hold the Warp at bay.
But the ravages of time and meddling of humanity have weakened the Sentinel Devices-and now, the battle for these lost worlds is at hand. Drawn to the conflict, the great races of the galaxy descend upon the Sargos Sector, seeking to preserve reality-or to tear it asunder.
Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter.
This blurb implies that it will be only 2 factions but with so little information it is purely speculation on almost all of our parts. So as I has said in several of my other posts on this topic I am taking a wait and hope attitude toward this game.
Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Groucho Marx
I think that's one of the key points people don't seem to understand. Staying within some preset lore works out very easy when you're dealing with a single playe rgame, or even a small group of people who are ACTUALLY ROLEPLAYING. But in MMORPGs, there are just too many people with too many playstyles and reasons for playing the game or certain races, classes and factions.
In an ideal world, they could design the MMO to work exactly as VirusDancer (corrected, sorry, too many threads :-) was describing and they could make the game fit perfectly itno the lore in every aspect because every player would actually be roleplaying their characters and acting as those characters would and holding to the beliefs set in the lore. But that's not the reality of MMOs. People simply will not think and act as if they were truly that character and react based on the beliefs of their people making it impossible to stick 100% to any lore from a type of game designed so differently than an MMO. There will be changes and crossover sthat people don't like in order to make the game work and be fun. This is WH40K the MMO, not the P&P RPG, so dont expect things to be the same.
Which is why i said race/army at the sum-up of my post. I'm aware of 40K thanks. Trying to put in into a format that people who are not aware of the IP can understand (Ie relating it to current games they may have experiance with)
Lets not nit-pick huh? SM are clones (not natural humans) CM are mutated clones (even further from humans) etc etc.
Exactly.
They have implied that it will be a two faction game, people are upset claiming 2 faction games cant work.
I am trying to suggest a dynamic way that a 2-faction game COULD work within this IP. Thats what the thread is about
By trying to dilute it so they can understand only leads for further misunderstanding. It might be better to link them to the GW site, etc. Link them to any of the DoW games, etc.
Personally, I'm tired of companies picking up IPs that have a vast amount of lore - and - going willy nilly with them as they please...
If they want to make a MMORPG WH40K, then actually make one. If they want to make a MMOTPS WH40K, then actually make one. Otherwise, just do what Blizzard did with Warhammer - steal the basics and make your own game...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I read your post. Flipping back and forth between two sides, is still two factions, not three.
Again. Boooooooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggggggggggggggggggg!
Let each race battle over territory, to hold strategic points, like in DAoC? Very cool!
The issue regarding "guilds" would be simple - there are no guilds in WH40K. Will they allow people to create their own chapters, armies, etc? Cause short of that...
As for the rotational thing, it would require a great deal of work on the side of the devs - because it would be a case of putting out some sort of content backstory with the changes - why the Eldar are fighting the Space Marines this month when two months ago they were "friendly"...
It would also mean that the "gameworld" would also not only have to be persistent, but progressive.
Meaning that you would not have the repetition that you do in current games.
If your buddy joined three months ago and you joined today, you would not have the same content he did...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
As much as these guys want to distance themselves from WAR, I think they have some valuable lessons to learn from it, as well as DAOC...if they are aiming to go down the RVR road.
I actually enjoyed WAR (yes, I know I'm one of the few), but it's pretty clear from the feedback of a lot of people that quit that they needed something more from the RVR, and 3 factions seems to be the most popular suggestion. The fact that people still play DAOC just shows how good that system is.
I think 2 factions is the easiest way to go from the developers perspective, but it seems pretty clear that that may not be good enough for their target market.
The OP suggests some good points, and some cool ideas, but I worry about the complexity of implementing a solution where you could logon and not know which side you're on. Sure, you could suggest to new players that they roll a "core" race, and make it pretty clear that if you roll anything else you may end up changing allegiances every second Sunday, but the biggest road-block I see on that route is the whole process of the race changing faction alignment....how exactly do all the Eldar on one server decide they're going to be baddies this week?
The 40k IP has some great background for multi-faction politics and battles. I hope they come up with a clever way to introduce that into the game. I'd probably be happy with 2 factions, but if they can introduce a good system to add a bit more depth and add another faction or two, they may win over the DAOC market and all those who felt WAR wasn't up to the job.
Exactly. RvR rocks with three factions. The other ingredient to a fun RvR set up, is for God's Sake! NO freakin' instanced battle grounds like in WAR.
You're putting all these resources into an RvR design, and nobody's there to RvR, because everyone is doing a PvP instance over and over.
That' is lame.
Appreciate your input
While its true that the guild limitation may put some people off, its only slightly more risky than a 3 faction system.
3 faction system requires your pre-set guild to pick a faction and play it alone if you want to stick together. Limiting guilds to a given race means that your guild instead of picking one of three factions would have to pick one of sixs races to play together.
Each race becomes its own specific faction with its players loyal to that race first and foremost and to thier alliance as a seconday concideration.
It could be expanded upon with specific racial crafting, your race can craft your races weapons / armor etc, and supply them to your alliance. A change in the alliances would open up a whole new market to you for buying and selling.
Theres alot of niche aspects of the game that could be enhanced by a dynamic system.
In my ideal game there would be many factions with a direct player impact (with GM regulation to ensure that population remain balanced) as to what side they fight on at a particular time.
The reason open PvP games fail is that generally they boil down to two massive alliances fighting each other and smaller guilds / factions are forced to join up or die. So even in open games population issues arise. Having some Dev input on managing sides would lead to a more balanced game play. There has to be some type of regulation on population in any PvP style game in order for it to work. WoW limits the amount of players per battleground, thats thier control. If you want a more open system there has to be some form of control option available to the Dev or they will take the route of restricted battlegrounds. After all the Devs know that a population imbalance without any type of control will destroy thier game.
That control can come in many ways ... 3 factions, restricted BGs, or in my example the ability to manipulate sides.
Since they have hinted at a 2 faction system and I personally abhore gated BG populations I am trying to suggest other ways that a 2-faction system can be regulated
Why are so many just assuming it will be a two party system? I think it is just douchebaggery to hammer on something like this before we even know. Ya I mean if they want to be true to the IP well then we need more than two factions... hell there are also cases of SM chapter versus SM chapter also of other factions occasionally joining forces, so how do you handle that?
PS: Who cares about lame ass Eldar?... I want my Squats!!!
Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk