Why ake it negative the comment's of the developer's saying that they dont want to be the "next wow" or be the kings or rule the market with the game and they only say they are trying to be a part of it and they want only to take some of the player and they will happy if they have 1 mill of them.
We all know that the new mmos that all companys relese are not worthy enough and some of them are not worthy to take a name of a game with history and f.....t.
So what if the game will look like WoW? So what if they want to take people from WoW? Isn't that all company's trying to do that at the end?? To make a game feel good whean they relese it and grab as many customer's they cant.
They think that the strength of the IP is going to push them through while raping that very same IP with 2 faction idiocy?
raping the ip eh? is that why pretty much every warhammer battle consists of 2 sides? is that why pretty much every campaign consists of 2 sides? is that why sides ally together ALL THE TIME?
Its like none of the haters have ever had any intereaction with 40k aside from maybe one game.
lol hahah! yep My thinking too. EVERY 40k Session consists of TWO SIDES. And I also belive thq/vigil stated or said that there is going to be a story behind the alliances of the TWO Sides,that way it would explain why MAYBE the Space marines and eldar are having a truce etc etc..like a few have stated Im excited a 40k mmo is coming out,but im going to keep my hype to a minimum til it gets close to launch 3-4 years MAybe 2 if were lucky. And you really cant listen to the wigg heads they dont MAKE the game.
In a good article I read they completely destroyed the OP's assertion that it will be a WoW clone.
I am hoping that the two "factions" are generalized and that alliances can be brokered between those that are inside of the two respectively. Order (for example) would be Imperium, Tau, Eldar. While they are fighting against Destruction, the Imperium can make a resource grab on the Eldar; making in fighting possible but, only in a more micro fashion then the macro Destro vs Order.
I've been an avid MMO gamer since Meridian 59 (well since NWN was multipler on AOL if you count that) and my two cents on the subject of multiple factions, purely from that perspective, is the more the merrier. From MMOs with multiple static factions (EQ1 PvP servers, Planetside, DAoC, etc) to player made factions (AC's Darktide server [ftw], EvE, Shadowbane, etc) variety has always been a strength and not a weakness. I think that the fewer static factions that a game has the more it will be prone to "fair weather johnsons", faction apathy (no one wants to lose for 6 months straight), and faction overpopulation as a whole.
As a vastly popular IP DMO has the fan base to create something wonderful with its faction system. Since it is not due for release for another 2 years now, we'll have to see what we get. I think what most people are worried about is a very vanilla FPSRPG with MMO aspects and a WH40k face. As a long time fan of the genre myself I too am worried about that and hope that they learn from the terrible mistakes that Mythic made.
In a good article I read they completely destroyed the OP's assertion that it will be a WoW clone.
I am hoping that the two "factions" are generalized and that alliances can be brokered between those that are inside of the two respectively. Order (for example) would be Imperium, Tau, Eldar. While they are fighting against Destruction, the Imperium can make a resource grab on the Eldar; making in fighting possible but, only in a more micro fashion then the macro Destro vs Order.
I've been an avid MMO gamer since Meridian 59 (well since NWN was multipler on AOL if you count that) and my two cents on the subject of multiple factions, purely from that perspective, is the more the merrier. From MMOs with multiple static factions (EQ1 PvP servers, Planetside, DAoC, etc) to player made factions (AC's Darktide server [ftw], EvE, Shadowbane, etc) variety has always been a strength and not a weakness. I think that the fewer static factions that a game has the more it will be prone to "fair weather johnsons", faction apathy (no one wants to lose for 6 months straight), and faction overpopulation as a whole.
As a vastly popular IP DMO has the fan base to create something wonderful with its faction system. Since it is not due for release for another 2 years now, we'll have to see what we get. I think what most people are worried about is a very vanilla FPSRPG with MMO aspects and a WH40k face. As a long time fan of the genre myself I too am worried about that and hope that they learn from the terrible mistakes that Mythic made.
If you want to get into theory, stagnantion is the root cause of fairweather players. Why do you think games like team fortress 2 have team scramble options? Eventually it becomes clear that the talent amongst the players is uneven, and if they can't go to the winning team then they can at least give the teams a good shake up in hopes of a better match.
Can't do that too effectively in an MMO. Some server rulesets prevent having a character on both sides of the fight, and even if it is possible, your characters progress is not reflected to your new team. Thus if things are going continuously bad, the only way out onto a winning side is a different server or rerolling a new character.
2 factions, 3 factions, 10 factions, doesn't make any difference. People want to win, and if they don't have options to play for the winning side, they'll just stop playing until they do.
In a good article I read they completely destroyed the OP's assertion that it will be a WoW clone.
I am hoping that the two "factions" are generalized and that alliances can be brokered between those that are inside of the two respectively. Order (for example) would be Imperium, Tau, Eldar. While they are fighting against Destruction, the Imperium can make a resource grab on the Eldar; making in fighting possible but, only in a more micro fashion then the macro Destro vs Order.
I've been an avid MMO gamer since Meridian 59 (well since NWN was multipler on AOL if you count that) and my two cents on the subject of multiple factions, purely from that perspective, is the more the merrier. From MMOs with multiple static factions (EQ1 PvP servers, Planetside, DAoC, etc) to player made factions (AC's Darktide server [ftw], EvE, Shadowbane, etc) variety has always been a strength and not a weakness. I think that the fewer static factions that a game has the more it will be prone to "fair weather johnsons", faction apathy (no one wants to lose for 6 months straight), and faction overpopulation as a whole.
As a vastly popular IP DMO has the fan base to create something wonderful with its faction system. Since it is not due for release for another 2 years now, we'll have to see what we get. I think what most people are worried about is a very vanilla FPSRPG with MMO aspects and a WH40k face. As a long time fan of the genre myself I too am worried about that and hope that they learn from the terrible mistakes that Mythic made.
If you want to get into theory, stagnantion is the root cause of fairweather players. Why do you think games like team fortress 2 have team scramble options? Eventually it becomes clear that the talent amongst the players is uneven, and if they can't go to the winning team then they can at least give the teams a good shake up in hopes of a better match.
Can't do that too effectively in an MMO. Some server rulesets prevent having a character on both sides of the fight, and even if it is possible, your characters progress is not reflected to your new team. Thus if things are going continuously bad, the only way out onto a winning side is a different server or rerolling a new character.
2 factions, 3 factions, 10 factions, doesn't make any difference. People want to win, and if they don't have options to play for the winning side, they'll just stop playing until they do.
There's a large difference between a team death match FPS and a MMO.
Of course you can't have a "scramble" option but, most games now will let you switch sides with a small cooldown period this allows for a larger variety of play options but, not being able to cross realm effectively.
Having multiple factions dilutes the populations, true people want to win but, the chances for being able to win increase with the number of those who you can fight; not with less.
There's a large difference between a team death match FPS and a MMO.
Of course you can't have a "scramble" option but, most games now will let you switch sides with a small cooldown period this allows for a larger variety of play options but, not being able to cross realm effectively.
Having multiple factions dilutes the populations, true people want to win but, the chances for being able to win increase with the number of those who you can fight; not with less.
In thier 2 faction system, I am hoping they add thematic and fun mechanisms to balance sides in the cases of OBVIOUS descrepancies over longer periods. I mean you dont want perfect balance all the time to stalemate pvp battles. But you also dont want one side to get steamrolled every time whether its due to skill or population difference.
There is a list earlier in this thread about what mechanisms could be used in this situation in order to keep the game generally balanced. I prefer systems that are intergrated into the game play and make thematic sense. Here are a few of the idea mentioned.
1. The losing side will eventually get reinforcements in the form of more and/or stronger vehicles.
2. The losing side will egt AI reenforcements in the form of AI units that fight along side the players.
3. The losing side will get access to some special pve missions. These missions allow you to sbotage the brittle alliances between the opposing allied forces. This will acomplish 2 things.
It will open up a pvp state between allied forces for a short time (IOM and eldar for example) allowing those forces to engage in pvp with eachother. Everyone would want this.
It gives the lower pop side a chance to effect change in a thematic way rather than an arbitrary system of balance.
4. Balance the power level of the dominant side to level the playing field. In PVP
5. make multiple pvp objectives in battlefields/open pvp that are achievable with smaller groups that effect the power of the opposing side. Thusly, smart play and quick action by smaller groups can turn the tide of a battle.
6. Offer incentives to players for creating characers on low pop sides of a server.
There are more, but these are the ones that I remember right now. I think a combination of a few of these mechanics would be the best solution But whatever they do, it NEEDS to be implemented from launch forward and tested to the floor and back to ensure a working and fun balance system from the very beginning.
There's a large difference between a team death match FPS and a MMO.
Of course you can't have a "scramble" option but, most games now will let you switch sides with a small cooldown period this allows for a larger variety of play options but, not being able to cross realm effectively.
Having multiple factions dilutes the populations, true people want to win but, the chances for being able to win increase with the number of those who you can fight; not with less.
In thier 2 faction system, I am hoping they add thematic and fun mechanisms to balance sides in the cases of OBVIOUS descrepancies over longer periods. I mean you dont want perfect balance all the time to stalemate pvp battles. But you also dont want one side to get steamrolled every time whether its due to skill or pupulation difference.
There is a list earlier in this thread about what mechanisms could be used in this situation in order to keep the game generally balanced. I prefer systems that are intergrated into the game play and make thematic sense. Here are a few of the idea mentioned.
1. The losing side will eventually get reinforcements in the form of more and/or stronger vehicles.
2. The losing side will egt AI reenforcements in the form of AI units that fight along side the players.
3. The losing side will get access to some special pve missions. These missions allow you to sbotage the brittle alliances between the opposing allied forces. This will acomplish 2 things.
It will open up a pvp state between allied forces for a short time (IOM and eldar for example) allowing those forces to engage in pvp with eachother. Everyone would want this.
It gives the lower pop side a chance to effect change in a thematic way rather than an arbitrary system of balance.
4. Balance the power level of the dominant side to level the playing field. In PVP
5. make multiple pvp objectives in battlefields/open pvp that are achievable with smaller groups that effect the power of the opposing side. Thusly, smart play and quick action by smaller groups can turn the tide of a battle.
6. Offer incentives to players for creating characers on low pop sides of a server.
There are more, but these are the ones that I remember right now. I think a combination of a few of these mechanics would be the best solution But whatever they do, it NEEDS to be implemented from launch forward and tested to the floor in back to ensure a working and fun balance system from the very beginning.
The problem with relying on NPCs and buffs is that there is still a growing horde from the winning side and these will not be enough of a deterrent. This is evidenced by the continue changes that WAR is making to its RvR model. There's a fine line between "a helping hand" and exploitable advantage.
Number 3 on your list is the most exciting to me. Since this is a PvP centric game anything that lends itself to getting people to PvP is great. Why not go a step more and make the quests usuable by the same faction! Slow PvP day? Your side ruling the school? Bored? Time for some old fashion King of the Hill shoot 'em up fun. Just give it a long cooldown, seperate for each side, so it can't be exploited.
I think lowbies should be involved in the over arching PvP since day one, if they choose. WAR made the mistake of creating a tiered system that segregated those that weren't near the max level. It made PvP rare or non-existant as they lost accounts and people leveled. Eventually it became a chore to make a new toon, grind them up just so you can enjoy the game. If they can't think of an innovative way to do this, then they should make a mentoring system like the one in CoH or EQ2. It had very little in the way of maintaining a community of players.
I understand that there should be things that you can do and lower level players cannot. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: in Warhammer the green fight alongside the grizzled. From SMs to the IG, all have experienced men (or women) that instruct and tutor those that are newly arisen to their ranks. That is one of my major hopes anyway.
There were incentives in WAR. A 15% bonus in xp to the "losing side" on the server. Eventually they added other bonuses but, it wasn't enough. Like I said before and reinforced by StMichael: no one likes losing for 6 months straight. Especially in a personally competitive enviroment like a PvP-centric game.
I totally agree with your final statement: there NEEDS to be measures taken and especially tested before launch to curb the downfalls of a two faction system in a PvP-centric MMO.
There's a large difference between a team death match FPS and a MMO.
Of course you can't have a "scramble" option but, most games now will let you switch sides with a small cooldown period this allows for a larger variety of play options but, not being able to cross realm effectively.
Having multiple factions dilutes the populations, true people want to win but, the chances for being able to win increase with the number of those who you can fight; not with less.
In thier 2 faction system, I am hoping they add thematic and fun mechanisms to balance sides in the cases of OBVIOUS descrepancies over longer periods. I mean you dont want perfect balance all the time to stalemate pvp battles. But you also dont want one side to get steamrolled every time whether its due to skill or pupulation difference.
There is a list earlier in this thread about what mechanisms could be used in this situation in order to keep the game generally balanced. I prefer systems that are intergrated into the game play and make thematic sense. Here are a few of the idea mentioned.
1. The losing side will eventually get reinforcements in the form of more and/or stronger vehicles.
2. The losing side will egt AI reenforcements in the form of AI units that fight along side the players.
3. The losing side will get access to some special pve missions. These missions allow you to sbotage the brittle alliances between the opposing allied forces. This will acomplish 2 things.
It will open up a pvp state between allied forces for a short time (IOM and eldar for example) allowing those forces to engage in pvp with eachother. Everyone would want this.
It gives the lower pop side a chance to effect change in a thematic way rather than an arbitrary system of balance.
4. Balance the power level of the dominant side to level the playing field. In PVP
5. make multiple pvp objectives in battlefields/open pvp that are achievable with smaller groups that effect the power of the opposing side. Thusly, smart play and quick action by smaller groups can turn the tide of a battle.
6. Offer incentives to players for creating characers on low pop sides of a server.
There are more, but these are the ones that I remember right now. I think a combination of a few of these mechanics would be the best solution But whatever they do, it NEEDS to be implemented from launch forward and tested to the floor in back to ensure a working and fun balance system from the very beginning.
The problem with relying on NPCs and buffs is that there is still a growing horde from the winning side and these will not be enough of a deterrent. This is evidenced by the continue changes that WAR is making to its RvR model. There's a fine line between "a helping hand" and exploitable advantage.
Number 3 on your list is the most exciting to me. Since this is a PvP centric game anything that lends itself to getting people to PvP is great. Why not go a step more and make the quests usuable by the same faction! Slow PvP day? Your side ruling the school? Bored? Time for some old fashion King of the Hill shoot 'em up fun. Just give it a long cooldown, seperate for each side, so it can't be exploited.
I think lowbies should be involved in the over arching PvP since day one, if they choose. WAR made the mistake of creating a tiered system that segregated those that weren't near the max level. It made PvP rare or non-existant as they lost accounts and people leveled. Eventually it became a chore to make a new toon, grind them up just so you can enjoy the game. If they can't think of an innovative way to do this, then they should make a mentoring system like the one in CoH or EQ2. It had very little in the way of maintaining a community of players.
I understand that there should be things that you can do and lower level players cannot. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: in Warhammer the green fight alongside the grizzled. From SMs to the IG, all have experienced men (or women) that instruct and tutor those that are newly arisen to their ranks. That is one of my major hopes anyway.
There were incentives in WAR. A 15% bonus in xp to the "losing side" on the server. Eventually they added other bonuses but, it wasn't enough. Like I said before and reinforced by StMichael: no one likes losing for 6 months straight. Especially in a personally competitive enviroment like a PvP-centric game.
I totally agree with your final statement: there NEEDS to be measures taken and especially tested before launch to curb the downfalls of a two faction system in a PvP-centric MMO.
I think these ideas are very cool! Maybe, to integrate the lowbies with the highbies in the war, the PvP zones could do without levels and standardize damage/damage resistances as if it was a regular FPS. Each faction would then rely on their special abilities/class combinations and their own solid strategies to win. To appease the hardcore levelers who want to be different just because they've spent more time playing there could be various vehicle sets limited to certain levels. Of course, these vehicles wouldn't be better the higher the level but just... different, with the first low level vehicles playing key roles and being just as useful as the higher ones. For example, levels 1-10 can only ride bikes. They're the fastest vehicle and the most mobile because they can cross any terrain in a very short time. They'd be useful to capture undefended zones or set up surprise attacks, and so on. Levels 11-20 can also ride tanks. Tanks are slow, but pack a punch and are good for defense, at least while their guns are unscathed and they can aim straight at stuff. Bikes could just drive around them and set some mines on their butts, unless the tanks have some ground troops for support and cover. Also, tanks can tear down buildings swarming with snipers (which can take out both bikes and ground troops fast) with ease, or defend bridges, and so and so on. Levels 21-30 get to ride airships as well as all the other vehicles; they're great for attacking defended positions but are pretty fragile and susceptible of being torn down by ground troop-manned turrets... and so on.
I'm just thinking out loud here with all of this, but I think they could make a good 2 faction RvR game if they make everything and everyone useful in a battle at the same time they give the players a choice of what kind of role they want to play, knowing that anything they choose will be important to the development of a battle. Integration of the whole range of levels is also key, like you guys said, and it would be a change of the boredom of having to level except to acquire different gear (even if it is gear that changes the outcome of a 1v1 battle, it won't do much in a battle of 70) and experience told stories. I don't know... I guess all we can do now is hope and see what they say in their next big announcement.
Right.. first off, I'm not well versed in WH40k lore exactly, so I'm not going have any input on why the factions shoudn't team up, or why those guys shouldn't be in the same team as these guys... and I'm just trying to think of stuff that would make the game fun. Because from what I've read in these threads a lot of people are upset about the 2 factions-thing, which is understandable.. as I know the lore of this IP is something you do not mess around with. And I'm sure Vigil knows this all too well themselves and I'm sure there will be satisfactory "explaination" , lore wise, why the factions have teamed up.
So, enough of that and I'm just going to leave you with my input on why I think they're making the game this way. Also, I've read through most of this thread and few others, but not all the post so I'm sorry if this has been said before..
When you argue about the two factions-thing, you seem to to forget about "The Real Life". The companies that make these games have deadlines and limited amounts of money to spend. For them to design three or four or even six facions as some have stated they need in the game, would take... well a lot longer than 3 years. Thats time they don't have. Please just take that into consideration aswell.. and I think that is why they released the info on the two factions right away.. so people can let that sink in early and get to terms with it.. becasue it's just another way of telling us, "this is the best chioce to make the game great (hopefully :P) with the time and money at our disposal". Because, let's face it... the companies that fund the developers don't really care about the lore of WH40k, at least not when they see to the companys bank accounts.. they want profit.
So what can be done about this whole thing... to make the game really good and at the same time stay true to the lore. Maybe they have something really great in the making, we'll just have to wait and see about that.. or maybe not. TBH, I too can feel that, seeing an Eldar running around in a SM basecamp trading, collection quests etc is.. not likley form what I've read. So I think they will have to come up with something more than just a convincing backstory as to why this is (if that indeed is the case).
Well, like I said I'm not really good with the lore so I'm not sure my thoughts count when it comes to this. But maybe.. well, maybe they don't have to use the factions in the traditional sense. Maybe the "factions" are just part of the backstory of this particular senario in WH40k history, and ingame the factions don't really work together as such... perhaps the guild system can be a tool for creating alliances between races of the same faction, when in "reality" the races are just neutral to each other. For instance.. two races in the same faction (as explained in the backstory of the game) aren't really allied, they're only neutral to one another, and (obviously) hostile to races of the opposite faction. But player-created guilds in the game can make alliances with races in the same faction, and that can maybe lead to some sort of benefit for that guild, or maybe for the whole race if these two allied guilds complete objectives or "quests". To me that seems like a good way to deal with this.. once you work out the kinks etc. That way you basicly leave it up to the players if they want their little group of "in-race" team mates to have dealings with other races, you wouldn't need more than four races at launch to make the game work, and at the same time it would still be WH40k.. they all hate and want to kill each other.. well, for the most part at least.
We also have to remember that this is not a movie.. the director (developers) can't tell the actors (players) to play a sertain way in this case, just to not mess up the lore. Not all players will roleplay their character, they will play for their own reasons.
Tell me what you think! And try to include things I haven't thought of that would somehow be game-breaking if you think of any.. and not just the usual trolling
It's a painful truth that people either aren't aware of, or don't want to acknowledge, that games are made by people with lives and finite funds. A game that has not launched is making no money, so you have to balance that against both quality and scope. With X number of dollars and Y amount of time, you can get a game with so much quality and so broad a scope. If you want to make the game broader with the same restraints, some quality is going to suffer - be it debugging, voice acting, quality testing, whatever. The oppisite is also true - if you want to have an incredibly well made game, it's not going to span a large scope. There might be only 1 endgame dungeon, 1 PvP zone, fewer playable races/classes involved and so on.
Certain things can either relieve or stress those two finite resources. Using Dark Millennium for example, they owned the rights to, and employed the software engineers who created, the Darksiders engine. Very little in terms of investment is needed on that front. On the other hand, had they decided to go for a dark crusade style free-for-all, that would have caused need for them to complexify their design elements tenfold. Even assuming they had both the manpower and funding to do so, the game itself quite possibly could have just not been as fun as the same game boiled down to two factions.
Just for comparison, try and imagine a 4 team split in team fortress 2. In addition to server loads, scoring algorithms, modes of play etc, what would maps look like? It would create several times the necessary work that in the end probably wouldn't pay off.
Just for comparison, try and imagine a 4 team split in team fortress 2. In addition to server loads, scoring algorithms, modes of play etc, what would maps look like? It would create several times the necessary work that in the end probably wouldn't pay off.
Just imagine 3 team mode in TF2, lods of possibilities for mods, dynamic gameplay etc, and THE same server load as with 2 teams (if number of players are equal). Totally worth it.
all I can say is your wrong. I think it a great compliment that everyone is compairing this game to the most successful MMO game ever. I am sure it will play better than WOW.
WOW has become the new model for ALL MMO's to be successful.
I was thinking being able to target and shoot friendly factions should be in the game. That way, my Space Marine can get a hair up his ass and unload on the treacerous eldar. lets hear it for teamkilling.
That way you can still work with the other races, but not ever trust them because the player can turn on you in a moments notice. UNLESS You are grouped with them. Friendly fire in that aspect made early guild sieges in AOC suck.
Needing is Wanting... Wanting is Coveting... Coveting is Sinning... I am SO going to Hell.
I was thinking being able to target and shoot friendly factions should be in the game. That way, my Space Marine can get a hair up his ass and unload on the treacerous eldar. lets hear it for teamkilling.
That way you can still work with the other races, but not ever trust them because the player can turn on you in a moments notice. UNLESS You are grouped with them. Friendly fire in that aspect made early guild sieges in AOC suck.
I posted an idea earlier in this thread that involved intrafaction pvp. Its a good thing IMO and should go in provided its in a controlled mechanic and environment to avoid the massive griefing hat would happen otherwise.
LOL at the op's link! Wtf was that guy thinking openly admitting that War40k was intentionally designed to be like WoW and saying that he hopes at least 1 million of WoW's 14 million subs migrate to War40k. Terrible marketing. Terrible decision (do these guys read ANY gaming forumns/mmo news!? Their trolling themselves with their own WoW clone statements!)
War40k had Potential but I have to agree with the op on this one, imo THQ should stop production and shoot the people responsible for marketing on this garbage (at least attempt to hide the fact that your blowing Blizzard next time).
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
Imitation is a common thing practiced by a lot of businesses. When something is clearly working, firms copy/imitate it. It's not shameful or anything, it simply common sense.
I am majoring in marketing but I tend to I agree with my operations lecturer - "Despite what the crap marketing is feeding you, customers are stupid and they don't know a damn about how operations should be managed in a business. 80% of the time, their expectations are extremely unrealistic"
Of course, we also have stupid companies who just need to fire most of their employees because they are dumb ^_^
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
I think imitiation is having too much practice nowadays. I've stopped watching modern movies a few years ago. Boring and not worth their price, yet "customers are stupid" and waste money on them, encouraging more cloning. Same is happening with games, business is business. So sticking to indie games now, way more fun than those AAA titles. I wish more countries were lie Japan with their wierd shit, less cloning, greyness and unification.
I think imitiation is having too much practice nowadays. I've stopped watching modern movies a few years ago. Boring and not worth their price, yet "customers are stupid" and waste money on them, encouraging more cloning. Same is happening with games, business is business. So sticking to indie games now, way more fun than those AAA titles. I wish more countries were lie Japan with their wierd shit, less cloning, greyness and unification.
This is a really good post in general terms. I watch world cinema and there is a world of wonder out there...
Back to WH40K, it was a crushing blow when they mentioned 2 factions Order v Destro (WAR?) but we still do not know any more on this game so I still hope a surprise and innovation etc can be achieved. Fingers-crossed.
Wrong, you are a product of your parents. Genes from various generations are passed down by parents, those genes are not solely from your parents (which explains why sometimes a white couple can give birth to a black baby), so therefor, it is wrong to say we are clones, since we do not necessarily share all the same genes.
School... go there, you learn things. (sometimes).
"I've spent lots of time in WoW. As a WoW fanatic, I'm going to go right to 40K as soon as it comes out. It's very friendly to the WoW player," Bilson says.
Taken from the interview. It sounds like a WoW addict trying to make his own WoW.
Yeah! WoW was a complete clone of Everquest... I mean with classes and doing quests to gain experience and dungeons. Then there was all the elves and dwarves and gnomes... wait... Everquest was a complete clone of Dungeons and Dragons! Give it up. WoW was not the first game to do any of this stuff. It is just the first game a lot of very young gamers remember. Saying every MMO out is a WoW clone is like saying every car is a clone of the Honda Civic. Yeah, it was a good design and did a lot of things right but they hardly invented the car.
Comments
lol hahah! yep My thinking too. EVERY 40k Session consists of TWO SIDES. And I also belive thq/vigil stated or said that there is going to be a story behind the alliances of the TWO Sides,that way it would explain why MAYBE the Space marines and eldar are having a truce etc etc..like a few have stated Im excited a 40k mmo is coming out,but im going to keep my hype to a minimum til it gets close to launch 3-4 years MAybe 2 if were lucky. And you really cant listen to the wigg heads they dont MAKE the game.
In a good article I read they completely destroyed the OP's assertion that it will be a WoW clone.
I am hoping that the two "factions" are generalized and that alliances can be brokered between those that are inside of the two respectively. Order (for example) would be Imperium, Tau, Eldar. While they are fighting against Destruction, the Imperium can make a resource grab on the Eldar; making in fighting possible but, only in a more micro fashion then the macro Destro vs Order.
I've been an avid MMO gamer since Meridian 59 (well since NWN was multipler on AOL if you count that) and my two cents on the subject of multiple factions, purely from that perspective, is the more the merrier. From MMOs with multiple static factions (EQ1 PvP servers, Planetside, DAoC, etc) to player made factions (AC's Darktide server [ftw], EvE, Shadowbane, etc) variety has always been a strength and not a weakness. I think that the fewer static factions that a game has the more it will be prone to "fair weather johnsons", faction apathy (no one wants to lose for 6 months straight), and faction overpopulation as a whole.
As a vastly popular IP DMO has the fan base to create something wonderful with its faction system. Since it is not due for release for another 2 years now, we'll have to see what we get. I think what most people are worried about is a very vanilla FPSRPG with MMO aspects and a WH40k face. As a long time fan of the genre myself I too am worried about that and hope that they learn from the terrible mistakes that Mythic made.
If you want to get into theory, stagnantion is the root cause of fairweather players. Why do you think games like team fortress 2 have team scramble options? Eventually it becomes clear that the talent amongst the players is uneven, and if they can't go to the winning team then they can at least give the teams a good shake up in hopes of a better match.
Can't do that too effectively in an MMO. Some server rulesets prevent having a character on both sides of the fight, and even if it is possible, your characters progress is not reflected to your new team. Thus if things are going continuously bad, the only way out onto a winning side is a different server or rerolling a new character.
2 factions, 3 factions, 10 factions, doesn't make any difference. People want to win, and if they don't have options to play for the winning side, they'll just stop playing until they do.
There's a large difference between a team death match FPS and a MMO.
Of course you can't have a "scramble" option but, most games now will let you switch sides with a small cooldown period this allows for a larger variety of play options but, not being able to cross realm effectively.
Having multiple factions dilutes the populations, true people want to win but, the chances for being able to win increase with the number of those who you can fight; not with less.
In thier 2 faction system, I am hoping they add thematic and fun mechanisms to balance sides in the cases of OBVIOUS descrepancies over longer periods. I mean you dont want perfect balance all the time to stalemate pvp battles. But you also dont want one side to get steamrolled every time whether its due to skill or population difference.
There is a list earlier in this thread about what mechanisms could be used in this situation in order to keep the game generally balanced. I prefer systems that are intergrated into the game play and make thematic sense. Here are a few of the idea mentioned.
1. The losing side will eventually get reinforcements in the form of more and/or stronger vehicles.
2. The losing side will egt AI reenforcements in the form of AI units that fight along side the players.
3. The losing side will get access to some special pve missions. These missions allow you to sbotage the brittle alliances between the opposing allied forces. This will acomplish 2 things.
It will open up a pvp state between allied forces for a short time (IOM and eldar for example) allowing those forces to engage in pvp with eachother. Everyone would want this.
It gives the lower pop side a chance to effect change in a thematic way rather than an arbitrary system of balance.
4. Balance the power level of the dominant side to level the playing field. In PVP
5. make multiple pvp objectives in battlefields/open pvp that are achievable with smaller groups that effect the power of the opposing side. Thusly, smart play and quick action by smaller groups can turn the tide of a battle.
6. Offer incentives to players for creating characers on low pop sides of a server.
There are more, but these are the ones that I remember right now. I think a combination of a few of these mechanics would be the best solution But whatever they do, it NEEDS to be implemented from launch forward and tested to the floor and back to ensure a working and fun balance system from the very beginning.
The problem with relying on NPCs and buffs is that there is still a growing horde from the winning side and these will not be enough of a deterrent. This is evidenced by the continue changes that WAR is making to its RvR model. There's a fine line between "a helping hand" and exploitable advantage.
Number 3 on your list is the most exciting to me. Since this is a PvP centric game anything that lends itself to getting people to PvP is great. Why not go a step more and make the quests usuable by the same faction! Slow PvP day? Your side ruling the school? Bored? Time for some old fashion King of the Hill shoot 'em up fun. Just give it a long cooldown, seperate for each side, so it can't be exploited.
I think lowbies should be involved in the over arching PvP since day one, if they choose. WAR made the mistake of creating a tiered system that segregated those that weren't near the max level. It made PvP rare or non-existant as they lost accounts and people leveled. Eventually it became a chore to make a new toon, grind them up just so you can enjoy the game. If they can't think of an innovative way to do this, then they should make a mentoring system like the one in CoH or EQ2. It had very little in the way of maintaining a community of players.
I understand that there should be things that you can do and lower level players cannot. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is: in Warhammer the green fight alongside the grizzled. From SMs to the IG, all have experienced men (or women) that instruct and tutor those that are newly arisen to their ranks. That is one of my major hopes anyway.
There were incentives in WAR. A 15% bonus in xp to the "losing side" on the server. Eventually they added other bonuses but, it wasn't enough. Like I said before and reinforced by StMichael: no one likes losing for 6 months straight. Especially in a personally competitive enviroment like a PvP-centric game.
I totally agree with your final statement: there NEEDS to be measures taken and especially tested before launch to curb the downfalls of a two faction system in a PvP-centric MMO.
I think these ideas are very cool! Maybe, to integrate the lowbies with the highbies in the war, the PvP zones could do without levels and standardize damage/damage resistances as if it was a regular FPS. Each faction would then rely on their special abilities/class combinations and their own solid strategies to win. To appease the hardcore levelers who want to be different just because they've spent more time playing there could be various vehicle sets limited to certain levels. Of course, these vehicles wouldn't be better the higher the level but just... different, with the first low level vehicles playing key roles and being just as useful as the higher ones. For example, levels 1-10 can only ride bikes. They're the fastest vehicle and the most mobile because they can cross any terrain in a very short time. They'd be useful to capture undefended zones or set up surprise attacks, and so on. Levels 11-20 can also ride tanks. Tanks are slow, but pack a punch and are good for defense, at least while their guns are unscathed and they can aim straight at stuff. Bikes could just drive around them and set some mines on their butts, unless the tanks have some ground troops for support and cover. Also, tanks can tear down buildings swarming with snipers (which can take out both bikes and ground troops fast) with ease, or defend bridges, and so and so on. Levels 21-30 get to ride airships as well as all the other vehicles; they're great for attacking defended positions but are pretty fragile and susceptible of being torn down by ground troop-manned turrets... and so on.
I'm just thinking out loud here with all of this, but I think they could make a good 2 faction RvR game if they make everything and everyone useful in a battle at the same time they give the players a choice of what kind of role they want to play, knowing that anything they choose will be important to the development of a battle. Integration of the whole range of levels is also key, like you guys said, and it would be a change of the boredom of having to level except to acquire different gear (even if it is gear that changes the outcome of a 1v1 battle, it won't do much in a battle of 70) and experience told stories. I don't know... I guess all we can do now is hope and see what they say in their next big announcement.
Right.. first off, I'm not well versed in WH40k lore exactly, so I'm not going have any input on why the factions shoudn't team up, or why those guys shouldn't be in the same team as these guys... and I'm just trying to think of stuff that would make the game fun. Because from what I've read in these threads a lot of people are upset about the 2 factions-thing, which is understandable.. as I know the lore of this IP is something you do not mess around with. And I'm sure Vigil knows this all too well themselves and I'm sure there will be satisfactory "explaination" , lore wise, why the factions have teamed up.
So, enough of that and I'm just going to leave you with my input on why I think they're making the game this way. Also, I've read through most of this thread and few others, but not all the post so I'm sorry if this has been said before..
When you argue about the two factions-thing, you seem to to forget about "The Real Life". The companies that make these games have deadlines and limited amounts of money to spend. For them to design three or four or even six facions as some have stated they need in the game, would take... well a lot longer than 3 years. Thats time they don't have. Please just take that into consideration aswell.. and I think that is why they released the info on the two factions right away.. so people can let that sink in early and get to terms with it.. becasue it's just another way of telling us, "this is the best chioce to make the game great (hopefully :P) with the time and money at our disposal". Because, let's face it... the companies that fund the developers don't really care about the lore of WH40k, at least not when they see to the companys bank accounts.. they want profit.
So what can be done about this whole thing... to make the game really good and at the same time stay true to the lore. Maybe they have something really great in the making, we'll just have to wait and see about that.. or maybe not. TBH, I too can feel that, seeing an Eldar running around in a SM basecamp trading, collection quests etc is.. not likley form what I've read. So I think they will have to come up with something more than just a convincing backstory as to why this is (if that indeed is the case).
Well, like I said I'm not really good with the lore so I'm not sure my thoughts count when it comes to this. But maybe.. well, maybe they don't have to use the factions in the traditional sense. Maybe the "factions" are just part of the backstory of this particular senario in WH40k history, and ingame the factions don't really work together as such... perhaps the guild system can be a tool for creating alliances between races of the same faction, when in "reality" the races are just neutral to each other. For instance.. two races in the same faction (as explained in the backstory of the game) aren't really allied, they're only neutral to one another, and (obviously) hostile to races of the opposite faction. But player-created guilds in the game can make alliances with races in the same faction, and that can maybe lead to some sort of benefit for that guild, or maybe for the whole race if these two allied guilds complete objectives or "quests". To me that seems like a good way to deal with this.. once you work out the kinks etc. That way you basicly leave it up to the players if they want their little group of "in-race" team mates to have dealings with other races, you wouldn't need more than four races at launch to make the game work, and at the same time it would still be WH40k.. they all hate and want to kill each other.. well, for the most part at least.
We also have to remember that this is not a movie.. the director (developers) can't tell the actors (players) to play a sertain way in this case, just to not mess up the lore. Not all players will roleplay their character, they will play for their own reasons.
Tell me what you think! And try to include things I haven't thought of that would somehow be game-breaking if you think of any.. and not just the usual trolling
Wall o text there Rax.
It's a painful truth that people either aren't aware of, or don't want to acknowledge, that games are made by people with lives and finite funds. A game that has not launched is making no money, so you have to balance that against both quality and scope. With X number of dollars and Y amount of time, you can get a game with so much quality and so broad a scope. If you want to make the game broader with the same restraints, some quality is going to suffer - be it debugging, voice acting, quality testing, whatever. The oppisite is also true - if you want to have an incredibly well made game, it's not going to span a large scope. There might be only 1 endgame dungeon, 1 PvP zone, fewer playable races/classes involved and so on.
Certain things can either relieve or stress those two finite resources. Using Dark Millennium for example, they owned the rights to, and employed the software engineers who created, the Darksiders engine. Very little in terms of investment is needed on that front. On the other hand, had they decided to go for a dark crusade style free-for-all, that would have caused need for them to complexify their design elements tenfold. Even assuming they had both the manpower and funding to do so, the game itself quite possibly could have just not been as fun as the same game boiled down to two factions.
Just for comparison, try and imagine a 4 team split in team fortress 2. In addition to server loads, scoring algorithms, modes of play etc, what would maps look like? It would create several times the necessary work that in the end probably wouldn't pay off.
Yeah, I'm sorry about that.. didn't realize how how much I'd written.. 3 AM and all heh.
Good post though. I am starting to think the better posts in this thread belong in new and better threads. Perhaps I'll start one soon.
Please do.. although there doesn't seen to be much life in this forum. Not yet anyway...
No, it's really not. Everyone's a mutant.
p.s. play DAoC
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
all I can say is your wrong. I think it a great compliment that everyone is compairing this game to the most successful MMO game ever. I am sure it will play better than WOW.
WOW has become the new model for ALL MMO's to be successful.
I was thinking being able to target and shoot friendly factions should be in the game. That way, my Space Marine can get a hair up his ass and unload on the treacerous eldar.
lets hear it for teamkilling.
That way you can still work with the other races, but not ever trust them because the player can turn on you in a moments notice. UNLESS You are grouped with them. Friendly fire in that aspect made early guild sieges in AOC suck.
Needing is Wanting...
Wanting is Coveting...
Coveting is Sinning...
I am SO going to Hell.
I posted an idea earlier in this thread that involved intrafaction pvp. Its a good thing IMO and should go in provided its in a controlled mechanic and environment to avoid the massive griefing hat would happen otherwise.
LOL at the op's link! Wtf was that guy thinking openly admitting that War40k was intentionally designed to be like WoW and saying that he hopes at least 1 million of WoW's 14 million subs migrate to War40k. Terrible marketing. Terrible decision (do these guys read ANY gaming forumns/mmo news!? Their trolling themselves with their own WoW clone statements!)
War40k had Potential but I have to agree with the op on this one, imo THQ should stop production and shoot the people responsible for marketing on this garbage (at least attempt to hide the fact that your blowing Blizzard next time).
Most people go through life pretending to be a boss. I go through life pretending I'm not.
There's always been an issue with wow clone game
everytime there's a game it has always been compared to wow.... well i'll check this game if it's really a wow clone, all i know is the Allods...
Imitation is a common thing practiced by a lot of businesses. When something is clearly working, firms copy/imitate it. It's not shameful or anything, it simply common sense.
I am majoring in marketing but I tend to I agree with my operations lecturer - "Despite what the crap marketing is feeding you, customers are stupid and they don't know a damn about how operations should be managed in a business. 80% of the time, their expectations are extremely unrealistic"
Of course, we also have stupid companies who just need to fire most of their employees because they are dumb ^_^
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
I think imitiation is having too much practice nowadays. I've stopped watching modern movies a few years ago. Boring and not worth their price, yet "customers are stupid" and waste money on them, encouraging more cloning. Same is happening with games, business is business. So sticking to indie games now, way more fun than those AAA titles. I wish more countries were lie Japan with their wierd shit, less cloning, greyness and unification.
IZI MODO?! Ha-ha-ha!
This is a really good post in general terms. I watch world cinema and there is a world of wonder out there...
Back to WH40K, it was a crushing blow when they mentioned 2 factions Order v Destro (WAR?) but we still do not know any more on this game so I still hope a surprise and innovation etc can be achieved. Fingers-crossed.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
Wrong, you are a product of your parents. Genes from various generations are passed down by parents, those genes are not solely from your parents (which explains why sometimes a white couple can give birth to a black baby), so therefor, it is wrong to say we are clones, since we do not necessarily share all the same genes.
School... go there, you learn things. (sometimes).
"I've spent lots of time in WoW. As a WoW fanatic, I'm going to go right to 40K as soon as it comes out. It's very friendly to the WoW player," Bilson says.
Taken from the interview. It sounds like a WoW addict trying to make his own WoW.
Yeah! WoW was a complete clone of Everquest... I mean with classes and doing quests to gain experience and dungeons. Then there was all the elves and dwarves and gnomes... wait... Everquest was a complete clone of Dungeons and Dragons! Give it up. WoW was not the first game to do any of this stuff. It is just the first game a lot of very young gamers remember. Saying every MMO out is a WoW clone is like saying every car is a clone of the Honda Civic. Yeah, it was a good design and did a lot of things right but they hardly invented the car.