You know in thinking some more about this, it's going to depend a lot on exactly how they setup the game and the server situation.. but lets say hypothetically the game does end up being 1 massive server like EVE. Why not combine both a bit of the OPs idea with peoples request for sticking to lore somewhat. After all the devs are supposed to be working closely with Games Workshop on this. So how about rathe rthan simply changing sides seemingly at random to balance out the population, why not have some sort of cycle of like 3 - 6 months or so where there is an actual shift in story involved. They could branch out a bit from the original lore/story and put in some original storylines with the help of GW, and ove rthe period of those couple months have somewhat of an objective/goal/reason for the current alliances/factions. They could have it all lead up to some major event at the end of the cycle which results in some armies changing sides to go with the story, as well as allowing them to balance the populations out a bit. It would kind of resemble a seasonal setup, with changes every few months
This way we would get both a little bit of extra & new lore added to the existing, but we could also keep a mor ebalanced game. It would not keep the game perfectly balanced at all times as one sid emay become stronge rove rthose months, but it would at least result in a change at a decent rate in order to stop 1 side from becoming the permanent dominant side.
Some people have brought up the point about how complex it would be to have a race / army "swap sides"
I dont see it as that complexed.
As far as PvE goes each race would have its own starting area. That area would link to the PvE grounds associated with thier current alignment. (Through a portal / drop ship / etc) The devs would have to code these portals to be in one of two states .. either state A - take the player to the order PvE grounds or B - takes them to the destruction grounds.
Quest hubs would be either active or inactive. IE a zone would have 5 quest hubs (one for each race- core races dont swap sides so would only be present in one instance) which could be flagged active or inactive depending of the race was aligned or not. This is not hard core coding since many MMOs offer holiday events and such that appear only when flagged to do so.
The quest lines would have to be transferable .. that would be the hardest part (or easiest if questlines mimicked the quests offered when the race/army was of the opposing alignment) After all a races/armys quest structure would not change based on thier side .. orcs would always use brute force to resolve quests wether they were currently fighting for order or destruction)
Basically quests would have to be race specific would I admit would add a fair amount of leg work Possibly the biggest drawback.
PvP would be about flagging. Games use flagging systems for PvP in guild conflicts etc .. so a flagging system should be easy enough.
AGAIN about the swapping sides ... dont take this to mean that it would be a frequent event. Side swaps would be for population balance and very rarly (when bother sides are balanced) to swap two races and re-invigorate the game play. I never suggested that side swapping would be frequent !!
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!!!
"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."
Taken from thier website, seems to imply two factions no?
You know in thinking some more about this, it's going to depend a lot on exactly how they setup the game and the server situation.. but lets say hypothetically the game does end up being 1 massive server like EVE. Why not combine both a bit of the OPs idea with peoples request for sticking to lore somewhat. After all the devs are supposed to be working closely with Games Workshop on this. So how about rathe rthan simply changing sides seemingly at random to balance out the population, why not have some sort of cycle of like 3 - 6 months or so where there is an actual shift in story involved. They could branch out a bit from the original lore/story and put in some original storylines with the help of GW, and ove rthe period of those couple months have somewhat of an objective/goal/reason for the current alliances/factions. They could have it all lead up to some major event at the end of the cycle which results in some armies changing sides to go with the story, as well as allowing them to balance the populations out a bit. It would kind of resemble a seasonal setup, with changes every few months
This way we would get both a little bit of extra & new lore added to the existing, but we could also keep a mor ebalanced game. It would not keep the game perfectly balanced at all times as one sid emay become stronge rove rthose months, but it would at least result in a change at a decent rate in order to stop 1 side from becoming the permanent dominant side.
Thanks for the input !
This would be great too .. swapping the sides to conform to an ongoing story would be great. If they could tailor the story for each server to try and maintain some sort of population balance as well it'd be a double win. Each server's story would progress differently (Seen this done in prior games) and it would be a WIN WIN.
I am just looking at this from a population control method, which is one of the main arguments for a 3-faction system. Its implied from thier website that it will be a 2-faction system and I am spitballing idears on how to try and balance a 2-faction system and keep it fun for the players and managable for the Devs.
It makes no sense to swap sides in this game based on the info they have provided.
The premise is holding the Warp at bay.
Space Marines are not going to change their minds and want the Warp to come. Chaos Marines are not going to change their minds and want it not to come. The Eldar will oppose it. The Dark Eldar will want it.
You can go through and see how it is definitely going to be a two faction affair.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
It makes no sense to swap sides in this game based on the info they have provided.
The premise is holding the Warp at bay.
Space Marines are not going to change their minds and want the Warp to come. Chaos Marines are not going to change their minds and want it not to come. The Eldar will oppose it. The Dark Eldar will want it.
You can go through and see how it is definitely going to be a two faction affair.
Not all races in 40K are as clear cut as that. I did point out that the core armys would never change sides .. SM would never fight to open the warp and CSM would never fight to close it. Depending on what other factions are involved thier motivations could be different. Orcs may decide to fight to open the warp as it allows them to wargg against the space marines, on the other hand they may view the chaos space marines as a better fight and attack them (not directly to close the warp but because they love to fight and the CSM look like a better foe)
You cant just label 40K factions as "order" and "destruction" because they are far more complex than that and each have thier own motivations as to why they do things. As long as the Devs can give a reasonable excuse as to why they are doing what they are doing .. its all good.
Not all races in 40K are as clear cut as that. I did point out that the core armys would never change sides .. SM would never fight to open the warp and CSM would never fight to close it. Depending on what other factions are involved thier motivations could be different. Orcs may decide to fight to open the warp as it allows them to wargg against the space marines, on the other hand they may view the chaos space marines as a better fight and attack them (not directly to close the warp but because they love to fight and the CSM look like a better foe)
You cant just label 40K factions as "order" and "destruction" because they are far more complex than that and each have thier own motivations as to why they do things. As long as the Devs can give a reasonable excuse as to why they are doing what they are doing .. its all good.
In the overall WH40K universe, they are more complex. That is where folks were getting their hopes up. This is not an open WH40K game.
It might as well be DoW3... listen to the interview - a focus on combat mechanics and a lush environment to fight in.
It is going to be a MMOTPS...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Now correct me if I'm wrong here but both the Eldar and Tau Empire have allied with the Imperium of Man at some point, and the Imperium of Man feels any win chaos has is a loss for the Imperium.
Chaos Marines serve Chaos Gods, Dark Eldar worship Chaos Gods ,Chaos Daemons are servants of Chaos Gods, and the Orks will do anything for the promise of a good fight and better gear? So if Chaos Gods were to say you all work together they wouldn't really have a choice.
What do you do when all of your enemies are friends?
Now correct me if I'm wrong here but both the Eldar and Tau Empire have allied with the Imperium of Man at some point, and the Imperium of Man feels any win chaos has is a loss for the Imperium.
Chaos Marines serve Chaos Gods, Dark Eldar worship Chaos Gods ,Chaos Daemons are servants of Chaos Gods, and the Orks will do anything for the promise of a good fight and better gear? So if Chaos Gods were to say you all work together they wouldn't really have a choice.
What do you do when all of your enemies are friends?
Its not quite as clear cut as that. They form alliances based on current needs. As for them all worshipping the Chaos Gods .. that does not mean alot. The Chaos Gods are as happy to see thier own worshippers slaughter each other as they are to see them fighting the "opposition". Thats the nature of Chaos.
The Lore basically allows for most races to allie with most others to further thier goals (there are of course exceptions - SM will never allie directly with CSM, although at times they may work towards the same goal - wiping out an ork Waarg for example)
Pretty much the Devs could allie many of the races together under any number of pretenses.
Thats not what my OP was directed at though. My post was an idear on how to make a 2-faction system work as far as game population balance goes. (They have all but said it will be a two faction system) I'm not trying to argue a 2-faction system is better or worse than 3-faction, as a long time DAoC player I have nothing but good things to say about 3-faction systems. The aim of my OP was to promote discussion as to how a 2-faction system could be used that would allow for population balance and a more dynamic play.
Unfortunatly people seem to read the title alone and comment on that .. far from constructive.
Unfortunatly people seem to read the title alone and comment on that .. far from constructive.
So, you title the thread... and then blame people for responding to the thread based on your OP in regard to the title?
Reported...
The thread title is posing the start of a question with the OP explaining it in full.
If you dont read the OP you dont know the context of the question, its the same as reading the first line of a post and assuming you know what is being said. Responding to the thread title alone is redundant .... you need to read the actual post to understand the question as its asked.
They are not responding to the OP at all .. they are responding to the "2 factions can it work" without reading another word. Redundant IMO. It seems likely from the 40K website that it will be a 2-faction game, therefore discussion about an apparent 2 faction game is in order. Responces like *3 factions or else* hold no bareing on the discussion at all. A responce detailing WHY you think 3 factions is a minimum would be constructive even though its not what the OP actually deals with (which is a suggestion on how to make a 2-faction system work better)
So to answer your question, no I am blaming people for reading one line of a post title and making a half-arsed responce to THAT and NOT reading the OP. Which seems pointless to me.
If the game is mostly PvE with a side order of PvP then probably.
If the game is heavily instanced PvP focused with rather rare open world PvP again probably.
If the playerbase is divided up into the traditional server structure then maybe it works.
If the game ends up as basicly WoW with a 40k skin and fpsish combat rather than the traditional TAB target cycle abilities then it will probably end up being about the same as the rest. However 2 factions would work in such a set up though I doubt alot of us would be happy with the result the number of factions would get relegated to the bottom of the list as to why we don't like it.
On the other hand if they come up with a way to impliment a different single server system with a focus on open world PvP with a dash of PvE thrown in. An advancement system not based on experiance bars but on acheievments. Allies and enemies dependant on different battlefronts/battle situations. Limited use of instancing for maybe certain PvE encounters. Ways in which the lowest of lowly newb Imperial Guard can fight alongside the elitest of the elite terminator armoured Space Marine and be relativly useful in such a situation. Then the game would probably be alot more fun for alot more people at the very least it would make it harder for those who cry "WoW clone" to be taken seriously.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
Just because you may disagree with them, does not mean that they did not read it. Perhaps they did not write out paragraphs on their reasoning for it. Somebody could reply to the thread with a simple no. They need not explain themselves. Similarly, they could post as they have 3 or nothing (which I personally find stupid, since 3 makes no more sense than 2 - but given the limited scope of this particular game, 3 definitely makes less sense than 2...egads, ramble in there - where was I?)...
You have an idea you like. Probably put effort into it. Some gave it enough credit to discuss it further. Some did not think it feasible.
Just because they disagreed, does not mean they did not read...
Originally posted by demarc01
I posted this in responce to one of the 40K vid links.
"They could make a 2 faction system work if they had multiple races with-in each faction and the ability for races to individually change sides.
From the video, you are basically looking at four sides split between two factions. Space Marine and Imperial Guard vs. Orkz and Chaos Space Marines. They would never change sides to fight along side the other. So this would not work.
For Example, Have 2 factions with 3 "races" each. Each race would have its own starting area and low level PvE zone. Higher level PvE zones would be interlinked based on the races current alleigance (Destruction or Order)
So say you add the Eldar to the "Order" side and you add...Dark Eldar to the "Destruction" side. Again, with these six "races" - none of them are going to switch to the other side. So again, this would not work.
PvP would be an RvR type affair (See DAoC - Frontiers) with races fighting out there for control of resources.
Considering they have already told us that the forces of Destruction and Order are fighting over planets where Sentinels exist to keep the Warp at bay, we already know that PvP is going to be something along these lines between the two factions.
If one side was out numbering the others the Devs could (by using a races ruling NPC (King Warlord etc) Swap a races alignment to balance the sides. Ie you'd now have a 4 races Vs 2 races situation. This would be explained in game via announcements to each side ("The Eldar have shown thier true colours and fled to Destructions side" .... "The Loyal Eldar have returned to the fold" etc)
If one of the sides out numbered the other side... not going to happen. If they are sticking as closely to WH40K and GW as they say they are, these are going to be instanced battlegrounds between even numbers. Yes, this is pretty much going to be a MMOTPS. They would not have to balance how many players there are - because "equal" numbers would always be fighting.
Races could switch sides even on balanced servers with two races switching sides at the same time. This would provide a unique dynamic within the game as former friends now became enemies etc.
Given the nature of the overall scenario of "two" sides fighting over whether to try to stop the Warp or try to help it, even given the somewhat open warfare nature of the WH40K Universe - that would be beyond the scope of this game. With the likely races to be included in the game, it would not happen.
Of course your "core" races would never switch (SM on order and CSM on destruction) but the other races could switch as required to maintain balance or just to switch up the sides.
Which group would switch? Eldar would not in this case. Dark Eldar would not in this case. Tau would not. Tyrranids would not be fighting on either side. Imperial Guard would not (if they were to, they would no longer be Imperial Guard - having gone over to the side of Chaos, there would be no coming back). Neither the Ordo Malleus nor Ordo Hereticus would. So what? The Orkz? Honestly, given the nature of the Orkz - they might as well be an NPC race - or that elusive 3rd faction that people want, eh? Cause Orkz are as likely to fight both sides at the same time for the fun and glory of it. So really, given the scenario - this just does not work. Yes, it works in certain scenarios... you can get enemies fighting along side each other and old friends become enemies. But here, we know what the scenario is.
Some players may get upset when thier side "switches" but its a historical fact that armys switch sides in War and you sux it up."
Generally speaking, game companies are not in a position to tell their paying customers to suck it up. The customers end up telling the game companies what they can do with themselves.
Do you think a system like this could work to balance a 2 faction PvP game?
I think a system like this could work...but not for WH40K.
Personally I think its a decent dynamic that would allow Devs to balance to games by swapping racial alliances and keep the game interesting as the could swap races on balanced servers also just to "shake things up".
Again, if the discussion were just about this - it would be a different discussion.
Of course you'd need safeguards in play for example logging out in an "Order" PvE zone and having your race switch sides would mean that there would have to be a system in play to remove that character to your races home city or new faction city / base etc. Since they have these systems in place in older games (ie DAoC - logging out in a keep that flips) it would'ent be so hard.
This actually brings to light the simple fact that logging out wherever you want really does not make sense. Players should only be able to log out in specific areas or if they log out somewhere else, they are transported to that area...period.
Opinions?
There have been several opinions, but because they did not agree with you - you did not like them...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Just because you may disagree with them, does not mean that they did not read it. Perhaps they did not write out paragraphs on their reasoning for it. Somebody could reply to the thread with a simple no. They need not explain themselves. Similarly, they could post as they have 3 or nothing (which I personally find stupid, since 3 makes no more sense than 2 - but given the limited scope of this particular game, 3 definitely makes less sense than 2...egads, ramble in there - where was I?)...
You have an idea you like. Probably put effort into it. Some gave it enough credit to discuss it further. Some did not think it feasible.
Just because they disagreed, does not mean they did not read...
Originally posted by demarc01
I posted this in responce to one of the 40K vid links.
"They could make a 2 faction system work if they had multiple races with-in each faction and the ability for races to individually change sides.
From the video, you are basically looking at four sides split between two factions. Space Marine and Imperial Guard vs. Orkz and Chaos Space Marines. They would never change sides to fight along side the other. So this would not work.
The Vid does indeed show these "sides" however we have no confirmation they will all be playable. Its assumed (rightly so IMO) that at least SM and CSM will be playable factions ... after that who's to say the rest may be MoB or NPC footage.
For Example, Have 2 factions with 3 "races" each. Each race would have its own starting area and low level PvE zone. Higher level PvE zones would be interlinked based on the races current alleigance (Destruction or Order)
So say you add the Eldar to the "Order" side and you add...Dark Eldar to the "Destruction" side. Again, with these six "races" - none of them are going to switch to the other side. So again, this would not work.
Your guessing about included races. 40K has alot of races with different motivations, neither I nor you have any clue which will be playable or what faction they will be tied to.
PvP would be an RvR type affair (See DAoC - Frontiers) with races fighting out there for control of resources.
Considering they have already told us that the forces of Destruction and Order are fighting over planets where Sentinels exist to keep the Warp at bay, we already know that PvP is going to be something along these lines between the two factions.
I agree that there will be factional warfare and it does indeed seem it will be between 2 factions. My OP just offered suggestions to make this 2-faction situation more dynamic and add a measure of population control for the Devs.
If one side was out numbering the others the Devs could (by using a races ruling NPC (King Warlord etc) Swap a races alignment to balance the sides. Ie you'd now have a 4 races Vs 2 races situation. This would be explained in game via announcements to each side ("The Eldar have shown thier true colours and fled to Destructions side" .... "The Loyal Eldar have returned to the fold" etc)
If one of the sides out numbered the other side... not going to happen. If they are sticking as closely to WH40K and GW as they say they are, these are going to be instanced battlegrounds between even numbers. Yes, this is pretty much going to be a MMOTPS. They would not have to balance how many players there are - because "equal" numbers would always be fighting.
Yes this is one of the population control systems I mentioned in a previous post. Its exactly how WoW controls the PvP dynamic. I am aware of this method and my OP just suggested an alternative. WAR has the same in its scenerio system but open RvR (The true love of us Ex-DAoC players) is where the population differences are seen. Your Assuming that the game will have a gated PvP model, I'm offering an alternative population control method to that which would mean fun open RvR (or faction-V-faction if you like) Neither of us knows the direction they will take, Gated or open or indeed a mix of the two so we are both guessing. My OP is just a discussion about how an open (or semi-open) PvP game can control faction population. Maby its moot in that PvP is gated ... maby its not ... its just a discussion and can be applied to any game in general, I posted it under 40K since it was just announced and is on everyones mind.
Races could switch sides even on balanced servers with two races switching sides at the same time. This would provide a unique dynamic within the game as former friends now became enemies etc.
Given the nature of the overall scenario of "two" sides fighting over whether to try to stop the Warp or try to help it, even given the somewhat open warfare nature of the WH40K Universe - that would be beyond the scope of this game. With the likely races to be included in the game, it would not happen.
Again you talk about likely races, its unknown at this time what races will be playable so thats a guess on your part. Beyond the scope of this game .. I disagree here. 40K lore is full of sides changing, depending on what armys they include and what motivations they give its well within the scope of the game.
Of course your "core" races would never switch (SM on order and CSM on destruction) but the other races could switch as required to maintain balance or just to switch up the sides.
Which group would switch? Eldar would not in this case. Dark Eldar would not in this case. Tau would not. Tyrranids would not be fighting on either side. Imperial Guard would not (if they were to, they would no longer be Imperial Guard - having gone over to the side of Chaos, there would be no coming back). Neither the Ordo Malleus nor Ordo Hereticus would. So what? The Orkz? Honestly, given the nature of the Orkz - they might as well be an NPC race - or that elusive 3rd faction that people want, eh? Cause Orkz are as likely to fight both sides at the same time for the fun and glory of it. So really, given the scenario - this just does not work. Yes, it works in certain scenarios... you can get enemies fighting along side each other and old friends become enemies. But here, we know what the scenario is.
Again it depends on the motivations the Dev's give the armys and what armys they include. Your making assumptions on the armys that will be included, best guesses and for the most part I agree. However neither I or you know the specifics at this time. Even you agree that in some scenerio's the armys are likely to swap sides, from my point of view it would depend on how creative the devs are with the story line. The over arching story seems to be the opening or closing of the warp gate (even that is subject to change at this time) but more immediate storylines could be brought into play that would facilitate an unlikly alliance if even for a time.
Some players may get upset when thier side "switches" but its a historical fact that armys switch sides in War and you sux it up."
Generally speaking, game companies are not in a position to tell their paying customers to suck it up. The customers end up telling the game companies what they can do with themselves.
Agreed. Most customers would I assume rather play a balanced fun game than a total whitewash though, Hell I've seen entire guilds re-roll to the underdog side to try and bring balance back to a game ... so I dont think a system like this that is disclosed up front would be abhorant to the player base.
Do you think a system like this could work to balance a 2 faction PvP game?
I think a system like this could work...but not for WH40K.
Ahh now we are comming to common ground !! I used the 40K game as a base for discussion because its fresh in peoples minds. You cant see it working for 40K and have outlined your reasons above. That I can respect even if I dont wholey agree with it. This is the kind of discussion I was trying to start with my OP. Ways to make a 2-faction system work in respects to either and open or semi-open PvP game (Ie a Daoc / WAR model as opposed to a WoW gated model)
Personally I think its a decent dynamic that would allow Devs to balance to games by swapping racial alliances and keep the game interesting as the could swap races on balanced servers also just to "shake things up".
Again, if the discussion were just about this - it would be a different discussion.
You see I have no problems with people focusing on part of the idear and suggesting it in another game setting, thats what discussion is about. I'd like to see people thinking outside the boxs when it comes to a 2-faction system though and bonucing idears on how to make it work in 40K or other games, although I did focus specifically on 40K for initiating the discussion.
Of course you'd need safeguards in play for example logging out in an "Order" PvE zone and having your race switch sides would mean that there would have to be a system in play to remove that character to your races home city or new faction city / base etc. Since they have these systems in place in older games (ie DAoC - logging out in a keep that flips) it would'ent be so hard.
This actually brings to light the simple fact that logging out wherever you want really does not make sense. Players should only be able to log out in specific areas or if they log out somewhere else, they are transported to that area...period.
Well DAoC used a flagging system in thier keep, logging out in a friendly keep was fine, had it flipped while you were offline you logged back in at a safe area. So the coding is possible and has been used before. Logging out where you want is pure conveniance, not having to run back to a town / base.
Opinions?
There have been several opinions, but because they did not agree with you - you did not like them.
Your wrong here.
There were opinions stated as to why people thought this would not works (someone brought up guilds) and I responded to that as I was encouraging discusssion. Its got nothing to do with me "not liking" thier opinions, "3 or fail" gives no baseline for any discussion. I am happy to discuss a three faction system's merits and drawbacks opposed to a 2-faction system, I'm happy to discuss the merits or failings of my suggestion or how it can be adapted (see the poster who suggested adapting the changing sides feature to storyline progression)
What I wont entertain is a non-discussion, ie "3 or fail" since it may be a point of view, but without adding reasoning or discussing why 3 is a winner but a modified 2-faction system will fail there is no discussion. Its akin to plugging your fingers in your ears and yelling "waaa waaa waaa" .. no point making a responce.
As for the amount of time I put in ... none? I'm watching a moive on my other PC and responded spur-of-the-momnet to a 40K vid responce. Figured it was at least interesting to discuss so I brought it to the forums. I've no real investment in it either way, as I've said before I played DAoC and have good memorys of a 3-faction system. This game from all currently released material appears to be a 2-faction game. Its supposition on our part though since nothing is written is stone yet (as far as we know)
I find it hard to classify any of the races as "Order" and "Destruction". None of the factions, not even the Imperium and all its myriad military orginizations fall into this.
Orkz fight anyone and everyone. There has been instances when they have been duped into fighting for Chaos, but to actually align with Chaos would be considered highly "un-orky". They worship Gork and Mork, which has nothing to do with Chaos. Heck, your average Boyz is probably unable to comprehend the Chaos gods.
Eldar care about one thing, Eldar. They will not align with Chaos since Slaneesh (Chaos god of hedonistic excess) would quickly devour their souls (too long to really explain, but it is in the lore). Eldar have fought with the Imperium, most recently in the 13th Black Crusade against Abaddon, but, it was for their own reasons. If sacrificing the Imperium could have served the Craftworld better than fighting with it, then they would have done it in a heart beat, additionally, I don't believe it was ever an official "alliance", since the Imperium is highly xenophobic.
Tyranids are incapable of forming alliances. They live for a single purpose. To devour all life in our Galaxy, assimilate the genetic material, and move on. It has been theorized in the lore that the Tyranids, if truly unleashed, could destroy even the Eye of Terror and thus spell the end of the Chaos Gods.
Necrons fall into a similar catagory, they serve the Necrontyr. They exist to harvest the life of the galaxy for their undying star gods. Chaos is anthema to them, having been unleashed by the Old Ones when they genetically altered the races of the galaxy to be psykers, causing the beings known as the Chaos gods to stir in the Immaterium. The Necron's see no reason to align with either "Order" or "Destruction", they exist merely to harvest.
Dark Eldar much like their more austere brethren of the craftworlds live to serve their own purpose. Rather than binding their souls into wraithbone to avoid Slaneesh they instead attempt to sacrifice other souls in their places, feeding the devourer (Slaneesh). It is possible they could form an alliance with a particularly charismatic Chaos Lord, but largely unlikely since they know all to well what lies down that road.
The Tau are a relatively new race. They have little exposure to Chaos, and being a highly science driven race appear skeptical of it. They are very interested in expanding their empire, and have come into conflict with the Imperium numerous times, to the point that the Imperium nearly annihilated their empire, driving them all the way back to their homeworld. They only survived because at the same time a Tyranid Hive Fleet assaulted the Imperium, and it was forced to withdraw to deal with the larger threat. While it is not impossible to imagine them striking a temporary alliance with the Imperium, it is unlikely given the hostility of the past and the Imperiums xenophobic nature.
The Imperium has a saying "Purge the Xeno, the Psyker, the Heretic". It is considered a sin to consort with Xeno's, and many, including the Astartes hold an almost puritanical hatred towards all alien races. The Imperium is as likely to virus bomb an alien planet as align with it, even in the face of a Chaos assault. Even during the 13th Crusade any alliances between the Imperium and the Eldar were spur of the moment, and never lead to any lasting alliances.
I am not saying they won't due it, but it will take a very large suspension of lore in my opinion.
I find it hard to classify any of the races as "Order" and "Destruction". None of the factions, not even the Imperium and all its myriad military orginizations fall into this.
Orkz fight anyone and everyone. There has been instances when they have been duped into fighting for Chaos, but to actually align with Chaos would be considered highly "un-orky". They worship Gork and Mork, which has nothing to do with Chaos. Heck, your average Boyz is probably unable to comprehend the Chaos gods.
Eldar care about one thing, Eldar. They will not align with Chaos since Slaneesh (Chaos god of hedonistic excess) would quickly devour their souls (too long to really explain, but it is in the lore). Eldar have fought with the Imperium, most recently in the 13th Black Crusade against Abaddon, but, it was for their own reasons. If sacrificing the Imperium could have served the Craftworld better than fighting with it, then they would have done it in a heart beat, additionally, I don't believe it was ever an official "alliance", since the Imperium is highly xenophobic.
Tyranids are incapable of forming alliances. They live for a single purpose. To devour all life in our Galaxy, assimilate the genetic material, and move on. It has been theorized in the lore that the Tyranids, if truly unleashed, could destroy even the Eye of Terror and thus spell the end of the Chaos Gods.
Necrons fall into a similar catagory, they serve the Necrontyr. They exist to harvest the life of the galaxy for their undying star gods. Chaos is anthema to them, having been unleashed by the Old Ones when they genetically altered the races of the galaxy to be psykers, causing the beings known as the Chaos gods to stir in the Immaterium. The Necron's see no reason to align with either "Order" or "Destruction", they exist merely to harvest.
Dark Eldar much like their more austere brethren of the craftworlds live to serve their own purpose. Rather than binding their souls into wraithbone to avoid Slaneesh they instead attempt to sacrifice other souls in their places, feeding the devourer (Slaneesh). It is possible they could form an alliance with a particularly charismatic Chaos Lord, but largely unlikely since they know all to well what lies down that road.
The Tau are a relatively new race. They have little exposure to Chaos, and being a highly science driven race appear skeptical of it. They are very interested in expanding their empire, and have come into conflict with the Imperium numerous times, to the point that the Imperium nearly annihilated their empire, driving them all the way back to their homeworld. They only survived because at the same time a Tyranid Hive Fleet assaulted the Imperium, and it was forced to withdraw to deal with the larger threat. While it is not impossible to imagine them striking a temporary alliance with the Imperium, it is unlikely given the hostility of the past and the Imperiums xenophobic nature.
The Imperium has a saying "Purge the Xeno, the Psyker, the Heretic". It is considered a sin to consort with Xeno's, and many, including the Astartes hold an almost puritanical hatred towards all alien races. The Imperium is as likely to virus bomb an alien planet as align with it, even in the face of a Chaos assault. Even during the 13th Crusade any alliances between the Imperium and the Eldar were spur of the moment, and never lead to any lasting alliances.
I am not saying they won't due it, but it will take a very large suspension of lore in my opinion.
Exactly the point I've been making. There are alot of "armys" in the 40K system and they will form alliances based on current needs. There are some armys that under no circumstances would allie, although even they may work towards a common goal abet from different angles.
Its all dependant on what armys are included as playable races and what motivations the Devs see fit to give them. For the "side changing" system I proposed in the OP to work the armys would have to be chosen carefully to give the Devs the oppertunity to create scenerio's (in game events) that would cause these alliances to form and break appart.
Necron's and Tyrannids are terrible armys to choose either way. They would never (according to lore) allie with any other faction because of thier base desires. Eldar value the Craftworld above all else so motivation for alliances can be worked into thier backstory. The Core races I mentioned (SM and CSM) would never change thier base goal - to open or close the rift respectivly, but the other races can be abit more pragmatic if thier current agender favors it.
Now IG cant swap sides, since they become heratics and could never change back ... so again it comes down to smart army selection by the devs initially to make a flexible alliance system work.
In all honesty I'd prefure a 3 faction system, Imperium + associated armys, Chaos + associated armys and Neturals (eldar, Tau etc banding together out of necessity in that sector) as a third faction. It seems (from the 40K website) this is not the direction they are going in though so my OP was just a suggestion on how to make a 2-faction system work a little better.
forgetting about the lore for a second (2 or 3 factions, it will never be loyal to the lore), there are plenty of reasons for this to go bad.
consider an unbalanced situation where side A is doing better than B, and you swap an army from side A to side B to turn the tide
Side A guys will complain that developers are actively hindering them, they will get the idea that winning "penalizes them", not many people will want to put up with this, I can guarantee you this.
consider an unbalanced situation where side A is doing MUCH better than B, and you swap an army from side A to side B to turn the tide...but it doesnt
Side A guys will complain that developers are not doing enough.
Whats even worse, the army that was swapped has gone from winning to losing, people will rage at this and quit the game if them wnning or losing can be decided by developers like that
now finally, consider how normal unbalances happen in a PvP game
One side grows stronger, and starts winning most if not all battles.
In the losing side it creates a losing momentum, and people stop bothering to play, or just focus on PvE.
The unbalance might look a lot worse than it actually is, losers will complain that they are "outnumbered by 200 people" when actually the other side only has 100 more players, the problem is that in their side another 100 people are in "why bother figthing" mode
and then you swap an army to help the losing side, and suddenly all the people that were out of the RvR lakes starts figthing again because they regained some of the lost confidence after getting backup
your move to "balance things up" ended up disbalancing things the other way.
and players in A would complain that the swapping wasnt necessary becouse side B wasnt even trying, if they had tried the balance wouldnt have been bad enough to warrant an army swap.
again, all this shifts will always angry those on the handicapped end, and angry players stop playing (read: paying) your game...
forgetting about the lore for a second (2 or 3 factions, it will never be loyal to the lore), there are plenty of reasons for this to go bad.
consider an unbalanced situation where side A is doing better than B, and you swap an army from side A to side B to turn the tide
Side A guys will complain that developers are actively hindering them, they will get the idea that winning "penalizes them", not many people will want to put up with this, I can guarantee you this.
Fair comment, I agree alot of people would assume they were being penalized for winning. The Devs would have to be very above board about a swap and the reasons why it was taking place. As I've mentioned swaps should not be common, ideally the first swap would happen pretty early in the games life before any "winning" or "losing" streaks became apparent. It should be based on active population, WAR as an example knew the server populations and breakdowns early in the games life and tried to enforce caps on each side (restricting what servers you could roll specific factions on) ... it did'ent work too well tho.
consider an unbalanced situation where side A is doing MUCH better than B, and you swap an army from side A to side B to turn the tide...but it doesnt
Side A guys will complain that developers are not doing enough.
Whats even worse, the army that was swapped has gone from winning to losing, people will rage at this and quit the game if them wnning or losing can be decided by developers like that
Again valid point. However there will always be a winning side, one side will win. Population control will help the situtaion but it cant promise a totally balanced game. However losing against an equal (or equal'ish) number of foes is not as demoralizing as being steam rolled by a vastly greater force.
I do agree that the army moved to the "losing" side probably would feel "punished" ... incentives would have to be given to them. Hopefully though they would be moved before an apparent winning / losing streak was exposed and would just view it as a game balancing mechanic. Later moves after they game has become established and in responce to a large change in populations would be problematic though yes.
now finally, consider how normal unbalances happen in a PvP game
One side grows stronger, and starts winning most if not all battles.
In the losing side it creates a losing momentum, and people stop bothering to play, or just focus on PvE.
The unbalance might look a lot worse than it actually is, losers will complain that they are "outnumbered by 200 people" when actually the other side only has 100 more players, the problem is that in their side another 100 people are in "why bother figthing" mode
and then you swap an army to help the losing side, and suddenly all the people that were out of the RvR lakes starts figthing again because they regained some of the lost confidence after getting backup
your move to "balance things up" ended up disbalancing things the other way.
and players in A would complain that the swapping wasnt necessary becouse side B wasnt even trying, if they had tried the balance wouldnt have been bad enough to warrant an army swap.
This should not be the case. Devs have access to information about active players etc, so moves would be in responce to actual population problems not "perceived" issues caused by a sub-section of players refusing to fight because "theres no point"
again, all this shifts will always angry those on the handicapped end, and angry players stop playing (read: paying) your game.
I agree that there would indeed be issues with any swapping, but if the possibility of a swap was known and it was made early in a games life I dont see it as a huge problem.
For example, You could basically announce the 6 factions and let people roll whatever they want. From an initial population census you could determine the "sides" Maby PvP does not start until level X so the dev's have until then to look at populations and set the sides on a server specific basis. Of course this all assumes that you have a game worth playing that will have good retention numbers that dont invalidate your initial census when 2/3rds of your playerbase quit after 1 or 2 months ....
Good points though all around.
It would be ideal if guilds could vote to change factions and be transfered to the other side. This is a possibility with the SM - CSM armys. SM could in theory "betray" to a CSM situation which should'ent be too hard to do since thier tech is based along the same lines. The reverse is not true however .. once tainted always tainted.
Balancing populations in a faction based game will always be a matter of contention, so I'm just poking the beast and trying to spark discussion. 40K lore is established though and although it makes sense for Imperium troops to betray to Chaos (its happened ALOT in 40K lore) its just not fesable for the reverse to happen so I am pot-shotting other solutions.
I'm sure the Dev's have some type of balancing mechanic in mind ... I just hope it works better than Mythics attempt with WAR.
I hope to god this is a hint from you Garrett, I really do. You talked to the guys and I hope you really made it clear to them how important this information is to the fans. It is a make-or-break issue and imo they should come clean on it as soon as possible. The number of factions is such a basic game design decision that I do not believe that a game can be in development for 2 years without this decision being made. In fact if I were proposing a mmo game design to a studio I'd probably put the number of factions on top of the first page because so many other design decisions revolve around it.
Personally, I'm not even looking at the game unless it a) has decent PvP (or even beter RvR) comprising at least 50% of gameplay and b) has more than 2 factions.
If those two requirements are fulfilled then my hype level is 10. If one of those is not, then it's 1. It's very simple really. Being a WH40K fan with this IP holding quite a warm place in my heart I'd rather not even know if there is a game out there raping it to that degree.
IMO if they don't make it PvP-oriented and multi-faction then they can forget the whole existing WH40K fanbase as their potential customers. In that case they can pick any other IP and they'd have more chance of attracting at least some of the fan crowd because after WAR folks are not going to stand another affront to what they consider dear to them and won't play "just because". I'm dead serious on this.
On the other hand, if the WH40K fans are not their target audience then I, for the love of all that is dear, don't know why even pick up the IP. WAR tried wowifying the IP and in the end failed abyssmally, not to mention the mechanics incompatibilities there - again 2 factions do not work in an open, persistent PvP environment where it's about endless conflict rather than a particular battle or a fight that needs to be resolved quickly. Sorry but this has been proven again and again and again...
The only way they could maybe make it work gameplaywise is if they make the PvP wholly instanced with completely separate PvE and PvP game parts. If they do that then imo it is an opportunity sadly missed and it won't be enough to compete in mmo market in 2 years time, with all the advances in that area coming up with the new games.
As to what OP is proposing, this is not a 2-faction system. It is a multi-faction system with shifting alliances and it is what the multi-faction crowd's been proposing all along as one of the solutions. Alliances will always form because it is in the nature of conflict that things will eventually crystalize into 2 opposing sides. The only question is whether we should allow the players to make these decisions themselves or is it better for the game itself to create these alliances. Frankly I don't have an opinion on this and imo it's a completely different discussion from what's the burning question right now and that is the fixed racial alliances (aka factions in the "classical" sense) and their number.
I would just like to point out that two factions doesn't even work that well in politics...
The system works in that you will always have the two dominant factions, and the third will work as more of a supporting factor unless you give each faction very distinct advantages and disadvantages. In US politics this third faction is often the independents. In UK politics it the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats. Interestingly, the Conservatives are now in power, having allied with the Liberal Democrats to unseat Labour. This applies directly to the three faction system for games, and it is in effect a self balancing system as raw human psychology will lead to most people teaming up to take down the big guy, and then fighting between themselves once it's all over.
Look at what happened in the second world war.
Now, there <i>are</i> potential ways that you could make a third faction purely NPC driven and use this to help balance the system, forcing the two player factions to team up on occasion to help fight of this common threat. It has been suggested that such a third faction could be the Tyranids, and I have to admit to liking this concept. Yet it still won't work as well as a third playable faction.
A tripod is the most simple and stable structure known to man; why games continue to ignore this most fundamental principle is a mystery to me.
It actually requires LESS work to create and balance a three faction system, as opposed to endlessly attempting to get a two faction system to support itself.
Have to say, having actually taken the time to read that little blurb they have... 2 factions makes sense and is fine.
The game is going to be about one piddly little sector of space concerned with a single event.
Hrmm, to be honest - I liked the game more before having actually read that... shame, really.
I agree here. That's a huge disappointment for me as well. Shunting the whole WH40K ip into this one little corner of the galaxy with one event is... shortsighted, to say the least. It would be much more appropriate for a single-player game to run through than a MMO that is supposed to be about expansiveness, variety and persistence... However this ties into another theme current on these boards and that is "story vs world".
Why don't they simply make it open-ended with player interactions creating events and situations? Why not an open world filled with battlefields to conquer and resources to control? A game like this wouldn't have a built-in self destruct mechanism called "what are we going to do when the story runs out".
Meh. The game looks less and less appealing to me the more I learn about it. Meh. A shame.
Comments
I miss my Squat minis the most. They had the most character.
Rogue Trader was so much more fun than what the game became.
Rogue Trader would probably make a better MMORPG than WH40K in its current incarnation, eh?
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
You know in thinking some more about this, it's going to depend a lot on exactly how they setup the game and the server situation.. but lets say hypothetically the game does end up being 1 massive server like EVE. Why not combine both a bit of the OPs idea with peoples request for sticking to lore somewhat. After all the devs are supposed to be working closely with Games Workshop on this. So how about rathe rthan simply changing sides seemingly at random to balance out the population, why not have some sort of cycle of like 3 - 6 months or so where there is an actual shift in story involved. They could branch out a bit from the original lore/story and put in some original storylines with the help of GW, and ove rthe period of those couple months have somewhat of an objective/goal/reason for the current alliances/factions. They could have it all lead up to some major event at the end of the cycle which results in some armies changing sides to go with the story, as well as allowing them to balance the populations out a bit. It would kind of resemble a seasonal setup, with changes every few months
This way we would get both a little bit of extra & new lore added to the existing, but we could also keep a mor ebalanced game. It would not keep the game perfectly balanced at all times as one sid emay become stronge rove rthose months, but it would at least result in a change at a decent rate in order to stop 1 side from becoming the permanent dominant side.
Have to say, having actually taken the time to read that little blurb they have... 2 factions makes sense and is fine.
The game is going to be about one piddly little sector of space concerned with a single event.
Hrmm, to be honest - I liked the game more before having actually read that... shame, really.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Some people have brought up the point about how complex it would be to have a race / army "swap sides"
I dont see it as that complexed.
As far as PvE goes each race would have its own starting area. That area would link to the PvE grounds associated with thier current alignment. (Through a portal / drop ship / etc) The devs would have to code these portals to be in one of two states .. either state A - take the player to the order PvE grounds or B - takes them to the destruction grounds.
Quest hubs would be either active or inactive. IE a zone would have 5 quest hubs (one for each race- core races dont swap sides so would only be present in one instance) which could be flagged active or inactive depending of the race was aligned or not. This is not hard core coding since many MMOs offer holiday events and such that appear only when flagged to do so.
The quest lines would have to be transferable .. that would be the hardest part (or easiest if questlines mimicked the quests offered when the race/army was of the opposing alignment) After all a races/armys quest structure would not change based on thier side .. orcs would always use brute force to resolve quests wether they were currently fighting for order or destruction)
Basically quests would have to be race specific would I admit would add a fair amount of leg work
Possibly the biggest drawback.
PvP would be about flagging. Games use flagging systems for PvP in guild conflicts etc .. so a flagging system should be easy enough.
AGAIN about the swapping sides ... dont take this to mean that it would be a frequent event. Side swaps would be for population balance and very rarly (when bother sides are balanced) to swap two races and re-invigorate the game play. I never suggested that side swapping would be frequent !!
"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."
Taken from thier website, seems to imply two factions no?
Thanks for the input !
This would be great too .. swapping the sides to conform to an ongoing story would be great. If they could tailor the story for each server to try and maintain some sort of population balance as well it'd be a double win. Each server's story would progress differently (Seen this done in prior games) and it would be a WIN WIN.
I am just looking at this from a population control method, which is one of the main arguments for a 3-faction system. Its implied from thier website that it will be a 2-faction system and I am spitballing idears on how to try and balance a 2-faction system and keep it fun for the players and managable for the Devs.
It makes no sense to swap sides in this game based on the info they have provided.
The premise is holding the Warp at bay.
Space Marines are not going to change their minds and want the Warp to come. Chaos Marines are not going to change their minds and want it not to come. The Eldar will oppose it. The Dark Eldar will want it.
You can go through and see how it is definitely going to be a two faction affair.
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Not all races in 40K are as clear cut as that. I did point out that the core armys would never change sides .. SM would never fight to open the warp and CSM would never fight to close it. Depending on what other factions are involved thier motivations could be different. Orcs may decide to fight to open the warp as it allows them to wargg against the space marines, on the other hand they may view the chaos space marines as a better fight and attack them (not directly to close the warp but because they love to fight and the CSM look like a better foe)
You cant just label 40K factions as "order" and "destruction" because they are far more complex than that and each have thier own motivations as to why they do things. As long as the Devs can give a reasonable excuse as to why they are doing what they are doing .. its all good.
In the overall WH40K universe, they are more complex. That is where folks were getting their hopes up. This is not an open WH40K game.
It might as well be DoW3... listen to the interview - a focus on combat mechanics and a lush environment to fight in.
It is going to be a MMOTPS...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
Now correct me if I'm wrong here but both the Eldar and Tau Empire have allied with the Imperium of Man at some point, and the Imperium of Man feels any win chaos has is a loss for the Imperium.
Chaos Marines serve Chaos Gods, Dark Eldar worship Chaos Gods ,Chaos Daemons are servants of Chaos Gods, and the Orks will do anything for the promise of a good fight and better gear? So if Chaos Gods were to say you all work together they wouldn't really have a choice.
What do you do when all of your enemies are friends?
Its not quite as clear cut as that. They form alliances based on current needs. As for them all worshipping the Chaos Gods .. that does not mean alot. The Chaos Gods are as happy to see thier own worshippers slaughter each other as they are to see them fighting the "opposition". Thats the nature of Chaos.
The Lore basically allows for most races to allie with most others to further thier goals (there are of course exceptions - SM will never allie directly with CSM, although at times they may work towards the same goal - wiping out an ork Waarg for example)
Pretty much the Devs could allie many of the races together under any number of pretenses.
Thats not what my OP was directed at though. My post was an idear on how to make a 2-faction system work as far as game population balance goes. (They have all but said it will be a two faction system) I'm not trying to argue a 2-faction system is better or worse than 3-faction, as a long time DAoC player I have nothing but good things to say about 3-faction systems. The aim of my OP was to promote discussion as to how a 2-faction system could be used that would allow for population balance and a more dynamic play.
Unfortunatly people seem to read the title alone and comment on that .. far from constructive.
So, you title the thread... and then blame people for responding to the thread based on your OP in regard to the title?
Reported...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
The thread title is posing the start of a question with the OP explaining it in full.
If you dont read the OP you dont know the context of the question, its the same as reading the first line of a post and assuming you know what is being said. Responding to the thread title alone is redundant .... you need to read the actual post to understand the question as its asked.
They are not responding to the OP at all .. they are responding to the "2 factions can it work" without reading another word. Redundant IMO. It seems likely from the 40K website that it will be a 2-faction game, therefore discussion about an apparent 2 faction game is in order. Responces like *3 factions or else* hold no bareing on the discussion at all. A responce detailing WHY you think 3 factions is a minimum would be constructive even though its not what the OP actually deals with (which is a suggestion on how to make a 2-faction system work better)
So to answer your question, no I am blaming people for reading one line of a post title and making a half-arsed responce to THAT and NOT reading the OP. Which seems pointless to me.
It depends on alot of things.
If the game is mostly PvE with a side order of PvP then probably.
If the game is heavily instanced PvP focused with rather rare open world PvP again probably.
If the playerbase is divided up into the traditional server structure then maybe it works.
If the game ends up as basicly WoW with a 40k skin and fpsish combat rather than the traditional TAB target cycle abilities then it will probably end up being about the same as the rest. However 2 factions would work in such a set up though I doubt alot of us would be happy with the result the number of factions would get relegated to the bottom of the list as to why we don't like it.
On the other hand if they come up with a way to impliment a different single server system with a focus on open world PvP with a dash of PvE thrown in. An advancement system not based on experiance bars but on acheievments. Allies and enemies dependant on different battlefronts/battle situations. Limited use of instancing for maybe certain PvE encounters. Ways in which the lowest of lowly newb Imperial Guard can fight alongside the elitest of the elite terminator armoured Space Marine and be relativly useful in such a situation. Then the game would probably be alot more fun for alot more people at the very least it would make it harder for those who cry "WoW clone" to be taken seriously.
The lesser of two evils is still evil.
There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.
Just because you may disagree with them, does not mean that they did not read it. Perhaps they did not write out paragraphs on their reasoning for it. Somebody could reply to the thread with a simple no. They need not explain themselves. Similarly, they could post as they have 3 or nothing (which I personally find stupid, since 3 makes no more sense than 2 - but given the limited scope of this particular game, 3 definitely makes less sense than 2...egads, ramble in there - where was I?)...
You have an idea you like. Probably put effort into it. Some gave it enough credit to discuss it further. Some did not think it feasible.
Just because they disagreed, does not mean they did not read...
I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?
Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%
I find it hard to classify any of the races as "Order" and "Destruction". None of the factions, not even the Imperium and all its myriad military orginizations fall into this.
Orkz fight anyone and everyone. There has been instances when they have been duped into fighting for Chaos, but to actually align with Chaos would be considered highly "un-orky". They worship Gork and Mork, which has nothing to do with Chaos. Heck, your average Boyz is probably unable to comprehend the Chaos gods.
Eldar care about one thing, Eldar. They will not align with Chaos since Slaneesh (Chaos god of hedonistic excess) would quickly devour their souls (too long to really explain, but it is in the lore). Eldar have fought with the Imperium, most recently in the 13th Black Crusade against Abaddon, but, it was for their own reasons. If sacrificing the Imperium could have served the Craftworld better than fighting with it, then they would have done it in a heart beat, additionally, I don't believe it was ever an official "alliance", since the Imperium is highly xenophobic.
Tyranids are incapable of forming alliances. They live for a single purpose. To devour all life in our Galaxy, assimilate the genetic material, and move on. It has been theorized in the lore that the Tyranids, if truly unleashed, could destroy even the Eye of Terror and thus spell the end of the Chaos Gods.
Necrons fall into a similar catagory, they serve the Necrontyr. They exist to harvest the life of the galaxy for their undying star gods. Chaos is anthema to them, having been unleashed by the Old Ones when they genetically altered the races of the galaxy to be psykers, causing the beings known as the Chaos gods to stir in the Immaterium. The Necron's see no reason to align with either "Order" or "Destruction", they exist merely to harvest.
Dark Eldar much like their more austere brethren of the craftworlds live to serve their own purpose. Rather than binding their souls into wraithbone to avoid Slaneesh they instead attempt to sacrifice other souls in their places, feeding the devourer (Slaneesh). It is possible they could form an alliance with a particularly charismatic Chaos Lord, but largely unlikely since they know all to well what lies down that road.
The Tau are a relatively new race. They have little exposure to Chaos, and being a highly science driven race appear skeptical of it. They are very interested in expanding their empire, and have come into conflict with the Imperium numerous times, to the point that the Imperium nearly annihilated their empire, driving them all the way back to their homeworld. They only survived because at the same time a Tyranid Hive Fleet assaulted the Imperium, and it was forced to withdraw to deal with the larger threat. While it is not impossible to imagine them striking a temporary alliance with the Imperium, it is unlikely given the hostility of the past and the Imperiums xenophobic nature.
The Imperium has a saying "Purge the Xeno, the Psyker, the Heretic". It is considered a sin to consort with Xeno's, and many, including the Astartes hold an almost puritanical hatred towards all alien races. The Imperium is as likely to virus bomb an alien planet as align with it, even in the face of a Chaos assault. Even during the 13th Crusade any alliances between the Imperium and the Eldar were spur of the moment, and never lead to any lasting alliances.
I am not saying they won't due it, but it will take a very large suspension of lore in my opinion.
Exactly the point I've been making. There are alot of "armys" in the 40K system and they will form alliances based on current needs. There are some armys that under no circumstances would allie, although even they may work towards a common goal abet from different angles.
Its all dependant on what armys are included as playable races and what motivations the Devs see fit to give them. For the "side changing" system I proposed in the OP to work the armys would have to be chosen carefully to give the Devs the oppertunity to create scenerio's (in game events) that would cause these alliances to form and break appart.
Necron's and Tyrannids are terrible armys to choose either way. They would never (according to lore) allie with any other faction because of thier base desires. Eldar value the Craftworld above all else so motivation for alliances can be worked into thier backstory. The Core races I mentioned (SM and CSM) would never change thier base goal - to open or close the rift respectivly, but the other races can be abit more pragmatic if thier current agender favors it.
Now IG cant swap sides, since they become heratics and could never change back ... so again it comes down to smart army selection by the devs initially to make a flexible alliance system work.
In all honesty I'd prefure a 3 faction system, Imperium + associated armys, Chaos + associated armys and Neturals (eldar, Tau etc banding together out of necessity in that sector) as a third faction. It seems (from the 40K website) this is not the direction they are going in though so my OP was just a suggestion on how to make a 2-faction system work a little better.
while OP's idea has merit would never work.
forgetting about the lore for a second (2 or 3 factions, it will never be loyal to the lore), there are plenty of reasons for this to go bad.
consider an unbalanced situation where side A is doing better than B, and you swap an army from side A to side B to turn the tide
Side A guys will complain that developers are actively hindering them, they will get the idea that winning "penalizes them", not many people will want to put up with this, I can guarantee you this.
consider an unbalanced situation where side A is doing MUCH better than B, and you swap an army from side A to side B to turn the tide...but it doesnt
Side A guys will complain that developers are not doing enough.
Whats even worse, the army that was swapped has gone from winning to losing, people will rage at this and quit the game if them wnning or losing can be decided by developers like that
now finally, consider how normal unbalances happen in a PvP game
One side grows stronger, and starts winning most if not all battles.
In the losing side it creates a losing momentum, and people stop bothering to play, or just focus on PvE.
The unbalance might look a lot worse than it actually is, losers will complain that they are "outnumbered by 200 people" when actually the other side only has 100 more players, the problem is that in their side another 100 people are in "why bother figthing" mode
and then you swap an army to help the losing side, and suddenly all the people that were out of the RvR lakes starts figthing again because they regained some of the lost confidence after getting backup
your move to "balance things up" ended up disbalancing things the other way.
and players in A would complain that the swapping wasnt necessary becouse side B wasnt even trying, if they had tried the balance wouldnt have been bad enough to warrant an army swap.
again, all this shifts will always angry those on the handicapped end, and angry players stop playing (read: paying) your game...
JUST GIVE ME MORE THAN 2 FACTIONS AND ILL BE YOUR ADDICT FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS BABY!
http://www.petitiononline.com/WH40kDM/petition.html
all the critics look at DAoC !
I hope to god this is a hint from you Garrett, I really do. You talked to the guys and I hope you really made it clear to them how important this information is to the fans. It is a make-or-break issue and imo they should come clean on it as soon as possible. The number of factions is such a basic game design decision that I do not believe that a game can be in development for 2 years without this decision being made. In fact if I were proposing a mmo game design to a studio I'd probably put the number of factions on top of the first page because so many other design decisions revolve around it.
Personally, I'm not even looking at the game unless it a) has decent PvP (or even beter RvR) comprising at least 50% of gameplay and b) has more than 2 factions.
If those two requirements are fulfilled then my hype level is 10. If one of those is not, then it's 1. It's very simple really. Being a WH40K fan with this IP holding quite a warm place in my heart I'd rather not even know if there is a game out there raping it to that degree.
IMO if they don't make it PvP-oriented and multi-faction then they can forget the whole existing WH40K fanbase as their potential customers. In that case they can pick any other IP and they'd have more chance of attracting at least some of the fan crowd because after WAR folks are not going to stand another affront to what they consider dear to them and won't play "just because". I'm dead serious on this.
On the other hand, if the WH40K fans are not their target audience then I, for the love of all that is dear, don't know why even pick up the IP. WAR tried wowifying the IP and in the end failed abyssmally, not to mention the mechanics incompatibilities there - again 2 factions do not work in an open, persistent PvP environment where it's about endless conflict rather than a particular battle or a fight that needs to be resolved quickly. Sorry but this has been proven again and again and again...
The only way they could maybe make it work gameplaywise is if they make the PvP wholly instanced with completely separate PvE and PvP game parts. If they do that then imo it is an opportunity sadly missed and it won't be enough to compete in mmo market in 2 years time, with all the advances in that area coming up with the new games.
As to what OP is proposing, this is not a 2-faction system. It is a multi-faction system with shifting alliances and it is what the multi-faction crowd's been proposing all along as one of the solutions. Alliances will always form because it is in the nature of conflict that things will eventually crystalize into 2 opposing sides. The only question is whether we should allow the players to make these decisions themselves or is it better for the game itself to create these alliances. Frankly I don't have an opinion on this and imo it's a completely different discussion from what's the burning question right now and that is the fixed racial alliances (aka factions in the "classical" sense) and their number.
I would just like to point out that two factions doesn't even work that well in politics...
The system works in that you will always have the two dominant factions, and the third will work as more of a supporting factor unless you give each faction very distinct advantages and disadvantages. In US politics this third faction is often the independents. In UK politics it the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
Interestingly, the Conservatives are now in power, having allied with the Liberal Democrats to unseat Labour. This applies directly to the three faction system for games, and it is in effect a self balancing system as raw human psychology will lead to most people teaming up to take down the big guy, and then fighting between themselves once it's all over.
Look at what happened in the second world war.
Now, there <i>are</i> potential ways that you could make a third faction purely NPC driven and use this to help balance the system, forcing the two player factions to team up on occasion to help fight of this common threat. It has been suggested that such a third faction could be the Tyranids, and I have to admit to liking this concept. Yet it still won't work as well as a third playable faction.
A tripod is the most simple and stable structure known to man; why games continue to ignore this most fundamental principle is a mystery to me.
It actually requires LESS work to create and balance a three faction system, as opposed to endlessly attempting to get a two faction system to support itself.
DarkSpace Developer - Play DarkSpace - Play For Free!
Medusa Engine SDK - Free MMO Game Engine
Hampton Roads/East Coast Video Gamers Association
I agree here. That's a huge disappointment for me as well. Shunting the whole WH40K ip into this one little corner of the galaxy with one event is... shortsighted, to say the least. It would be much more appropriate for a single-player game to run through than a MMO that is supposed to be about expansiveness, variety and persistence... However this ties into another theme current on these boards and that is "story vs world".
Why don't they simply make it open-ended with player interactions creating events and situations? Why not an open world filled with battlefields to conquer and resources to control? A game like this wouldn't have a built-in self destruct mechanism called "what are we going to do when the story runs out".
Meh. The game looks less and less appealing to me the more I learn about it. Meh. A shame.
So you (OP) are saying that the races would be for example: Space marines, Imperial guard and Eldar versus: Chaos marines, Orks and Dark eldar.
Then for some reason the IG says "Screw you guys we are joining the other team"
Dont see how that would fit with the lore...
If WoW = The Beatles
and WAR = Led Zeppelin
Then LotrO = Pink Floyd