Originally posted by StMichael

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Imo if you want to create a dynamic, persistent conflict-driven setting you must have an absolute minimum of 3 independent factions. A game with 2 factions is inherently unstable and therefore better suited for one-off events, that is when you want someone to eventually win. And in a mmorpg you don't want any faction to actually do win-win the whole MMORPG, now do you?

But this IS a one time event setting. The MMO is set in the conflict over the Sargos Sector, not the entire 40k galaxy. You're expecting an all-inclusive conflict that delivers all of warhammer 40k in a box, but nothing can do that. It's not just space marines, orks, guardsmen, chaos, eldar, and so on. It's beyond the scope and scale of being fully represented probably within our lifetimes, and certainly within this decade.

 

So instead of trying to achieve the impossible and failing at it, Vigil is giving us one small slice of the galaxy that happens to be split into Order and Destruction.

Well as I was sayin, if they base their game on an event that's all fine and dandy... if they don't care about retention. Because event is something that ENDS. That's my whole point. If you want to make a game that can be played indefinitely then you create a timeless stable world and not an "event". Of course  the world itself can be filled with events but the basis of the game is that it is a "world" rather than an "event".

Imo it's Vigils inexperience with mmo's that's showing. Like Bioware their design philosophy is based on creating a super-cool game based on an exciting series of events that is played online with other people.. But that is not a world. It is still temporarily limited "event" rather than a timeless space in which events happen. It is world being a vehicle for story rather than the other way around. The very bottom line design philosophy is at stake here.

EVE online is perfect example of "world" game that lasts indefinitely and yet supports various events. WAR is an anti-example. By making ther game so time based - you travel the road... and what to do when you reach the end? WAR and many similar games failed with retention because they have an in-built self-destruct mechanism - being based on an "event" rather than "world" structure.

And that's where 3 vs 2 factions come in. 2 factions is event (in RL that would be a war or something, in mmos an instanced BG or a particular fight in open world). 3+ factions is a world (say RL Earth with various nations having wars between each other throughout history).

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

And that's where 3 vs 2 factions come in. 2 factions is event (in RL that would be a war or something, in mmos an instanced BG or a particular fight in open world). 3+ factions is a world (say RL Earth with various nations having wars between each other throughout history).

So wait, having a 3rd faction would magically change their current game from an event with a definite end into a setting that goes on forever? Unless you mean that they should scrap the whole Sargos idea and go for total galactic scale in which case I'd tell you to slap yourself and get a grip on reality. Such a game would easily be three times as large as the Old Republic with infinitely more complex game mechanics. No producer from THQ to EA is willing or able to risk that kind of money on ANY project, much less one that doesn't have a millions-strong cult following it.

The fight over the Sentinel devices can go on as long as there are people to die in the fighting. Orkz will never stop as long as there's a fight, Chaos will devote all resources to opening up a second eye of terror, the Imperium will do whatever is necessary to prevent that from happening, and the Eldar...probably don't want to see a second eye of terror either, but who knows what's going on in their heads. If there is even a shred of competence at Vigil (and I played Darksiders, that's very much a yes) they'll find a way to make sector-wide dominance a prerequisite to destroying the Sentinel devices or banishing Chaos. In other words: they'll have the mechanical equivalent of a "world" instead of an "event."

I must congratulate you though, you've actually found yet ANOTHER thing to add to the list of reasons why WAR failed. I honest to God can't keep track of them anymore, but they must number in the thousands by now.

Originally posted by StMichael

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

And that's where 3 vs 2 factions come in. 2 factions is event (in RL that would be a war or something, in mmos an instanced BG or a particular fight in open world). 3+ factions is a world (say RL Earth with various nations having wars between each other throughout history).

So wait, having a 3rd faction would magically change their current game from an event with a definite end into a setting that goes on forever? Unless you mean that they should scrap the whole Sargos idea and go for total galactic scale in which case I'd tell you to slap yourself and get a grip on reality. Such a game would easily be three times as large as the Old Republic with infinitely more complex game mechanics. No producer from THQ to EA is willing or able to risk that kind of money on ANY project, much less one that doesn't have a millions-strong cult following it.

You're twisting my words again. 3 factions won't "magically" change anyhing. However having more than two factions inherently promotes stability of the game state (it's a negative feedback system) which is something any board game designer could tell you. Number of factions is just one feature that influences whether a game is an "event" or a "world". As I said, there's nothing wrong with a game being an event-based one... if you don't care about retention.

 And please don't strawman me. Imo Sargoss sector as a region is fine in size and variety the but real problem as I can see it is that it is all about the "event" happenng there rather than the "region" itself (or "world" if you will).

I must congratulate you though, you've actually found yet ANOTHER thing to add to the list of reasons why WAR failed. I honest to God can't keep track of them anymore, but they must number in the thousands by now.

Did I? 2 factions and linearity of the PvE are frequently cited as some of the main reasons for WAR failure. If you ever played WAR's endgame world PvP you'd realize how mind-numbingly boring it is to fight the same one oponent time and time again, especially if there is any imbalance and there often is... And the story thing with its linearity is also a major turnoff there. Follow the road lol...

On the Australian version of THQ's DMO Page:

"Developed by Vigil Games in Austin, Texas Warhammer 40,000 Dark Millennium Online, takes the hit sci-fi brand into the MMO genre to offer fans of the franchise the most intimate and visceral experience possible of the 41st Millennium. Players will be able to select their race and enter a beautifully crafted world of intrigue, adventure and all-out war."

In the same spot on the US version of the website is this:

"On the very edge of the galaxy lies the Sargos Sector. For centuries it was rendered uninhabitable and isolated by volatile Warp Storms. Even now, deep within the sector the very fabric of reality is unraveling. Only the ancient Sentinel Devices hold the Warp at bay.

But the ravages of time and meddling of humanity have weakened the Sentinel Devices—and now, the battle for these lost worlds is at hand. Drawn to the conflict, the great races of the galaxy descend upon the Sargos Sector, seeking to preserve reality—or to tear it asunder.

Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter."

And that was taken from the main website, which had been changed a few weeks ago.

It's not much, but the first is an implication that each race will be its own faction. The only reason I bring it up at all is because the main website changed immediately after the enormous outcry about the two-faction system. Knowing a bit about web design, marketing and the way corporations work gives me the impression that they mistakenly posted the second description of the game.

Or maybe I'm just looking too hard into it.

---

Originally posted by grawss

And that was taken from the main website, which had been changed a few weeks ago.
It's not much, but the first is an implication that each race will be its own faction. The only reason I bring it up at all is because the main website changed immediately after the enormous outcry about the two-faction system. Knowing a bit about web design, marketing and the way corporations work gives me the impression that they mistakenly posted the second description of the game.
Or maybe I'm just looking too hard into it.

---

Even in WAR you could choose your own race and faction... of which there were only two factions: Chaos or Order.

The race you chose determined which one of the two factions you'd be stuck with. It will probably be the same setup, you chose "Order" then you get all the races available from order side. Not multiple factions.

The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

Originally posted by popinjay

---

 

The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

Originally posted by Avathos

Planetside 2 and The Secret World are 3 factions

And so is Dominus.  3 games, though Dominus is more Sandparky than the other 2, that might do quite well.  http://www.dominusthegame.com/

Originally posted by grawss

It's not much, but the first is an implication that each race will be its own faction. The only reason I bring it up at all is because the main website changed immediately after the enormous outcry about the two-faction system. Knowing a bit about web design, marketing and the way corporations work gives me the impression that they mistakenly posted the second description of the game.

Or maybe I'm just looking too hard into it.

I would say that this is more an indication that the developers feel that the whole 2 faction thing is being unfairly judged by some more vocal members of the community and that this is resulting in too much negative opinion.

My guess is that the PVP side of the game (which factions influence) is still very much under review at present and so they want to wait till they have fleshed this out and have more to show people so that the potential player base can at least see how things are likely to stand with regards to factions both in PVE and PVP (remember they may well operate seperately so PVP could very well be multifaction while PVE is 2 faction) with some perspective rather than being put off by the shoutier 3 faction fundamentalists.

Without a fully finalised vision for how factions will operate in PVP any comment they would be likely to make may be subject to change which would result in yet more negative feeling from people believing that they had been lied to.. better to wait until they have worked the main kinks out before showing it off. 

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by popinjay

---

 

The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

 

Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

I love the irony that YOU claim to know unequivocally exactly how this game world should be adapted according to the lore, and then childishly slag off other people for doing exactly the same thing, only holding a contrary opinion to your own. I'd like to point out that in doing this you only weaken your own stance by sounding arrogant an immature.

Warhammer and Warhammer 40k were bulit for a table top battle game where the universe is meant to be a world of continuous and endless conflict. There is no clear good or bad guy and it is quite usuall to see armies from even the same factions battle one another. And this is just as true in the years of fiction novels written for the IP. This works out perfectly for what the game worlds were designed for.

Sadly it would not work at all in the realm of MMORPGs, as the game would end up in a ridiculous and continuous free for all.

That said, this is due to the weaknesses of the MMO platform and not the source material. Trying to cram such a complex and gray morality world into the boring straight jacket of typical themepark MMO gaming, is pretty much a lesson in futility, as said MMO will resemble its source material in nothing but art design. This might be acceptable to other gamers but it isn't acceptable to me, so I'm going to voice my displeasure on such a decision.

So to posters Warmaster670 who don't take issue with changes needed to make this IP into an MMO, feel free to think what you want, but understand some of us long time fans of the Warhammer universe see this game as less of an adapation of a cheerished IP, and more a a perversion of it, for nothing more than venal greed. Just because such an outlook annoys YOU, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it. You of course have the right to disagree.

Originally posted by Tardcore

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by popinjay

---

 

The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

 

Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

I love the irony that YOU claim to know unequivocally exactly how this game world should be adapted according to the lore, and then childishly slag off other people for doing exactly the same thing, only holding a contrary opinion to your own. I'd like to point out that in doing this you only weaken your own stance by sounding arrogant an immature.

 

Warhammer and Warhammer 40k were bulit for a table top battle game where the universe is meant to be a world of continuous and endless conflict. There is no clear good or bad guy and it is quite usuall to see armies from even the same factions battle one another. And this is just as true in the years of fiction novels written for the IP. This works out perfectly for what the game worlds were designed for.

 

Sadly it would not work at all in the realm of MMORPGs, as the game would end up in a ridiculous and continuous free for all.

 

That said, this is due to the weaknesses of the MMO platform and not the source material. Trying to cram such a complex and gray morality world into the boring straight jacket of typical themepark MMO gaming, is pretty much a lesson in futility, as said MMO will resemble its source material in nothing but art design. This might be acceptable to other gamers but it isn't acceptable to me, so I'm going to voice my displeasure on such a decision.

 

So to posters Warmaster670 who don't take issue with changes needed to make this IP into an MMO, feel free to think what you want, but understand some of us long time fans of the Warhammer universe see this game as less of an adapation of a cheerished IP, and more a a perversion of it, for nothing more than venal greed. Just because such an outlook annoys YOU, doesn't mean we don't have a right to it. You of course have the right to disagree.

See, all of that could make sense, if, you know, in 40k when theres  huge conflicts the sides didnt split into order and chaos for the most part, but they do, its a fact, just like with teh thirnteen black crusade.

40k races are NOT stupid and WOULD team up together, and its a fact that anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

"

-Dark Eldar allied with Chaos Space Marines, conducting a joint raid against a prey-race, combing the speed of the Dark Eldar with the hardiness of the Toughness 4, power armoured Chaos Space Marines.

-Tau accompanied by allied Terminators, representing a alliance of circumstance against a common foe, forming a devastating counterattack unit."

Just 2 of the hundreds of possibilities, also for someone who claims to be a long time fan, its also funny you forget that pretty much every single tabletop game that gets played, is side A vs Side B, not 4-6 way free for alls.

Originally posted by warmaster670

See, all of that could make sense, if, you know, in 40k when theres  huge conflicts the sides didnt split into order and chaos for the most part, but they do, its a fact, just like with teh thirnteen black crusade.

 

40k races are NOT stupid and WOULD team up together, and its a fact that anyone saying otherwise is wrong.

 

"

-Dark Eldar allied with Chaos Space Marines, conducting a joint raid against a prey-race, combing the speed of the Dark Eldar with the hardiness of the Toughness 4, power armoured Chaos Space Marines.

-Tau accompanied by allied Terminators, representing a alliance of circumstance against a common foe, forming a devastating counterattack unit."

Just 2 of the hundreds of possibilities, also for someone who claims to be a long time fan, its also funny you forget that pretty much every single tabletop game that gets played, is side A vs Side B, not 4-6 way free for alls.

Nop, you are wrong here in my option...yes they do "join force" some times because of the need, but they never trust to mix in warband or trust enought make them true ally.

I don't think i have to tell you why...i hope you read enought w40k books to know this

Especially the imperium, when they talk or make "friendly" contact other xenophobe creature(like eldar or tau) they concidered Heretic almost all the time and executed on sight or taken away to purge there souls...

Or we can see the Eldar view poin about ally: they almost see humans  equalent as orks and just use them before they are take any action about the common foe (so let the humans fight with orks than we can wipe them out both later)

I can tell lot more other options but i dont want to....

When they make this game only "2 side" than this is just ruin the game it self.

RF online have 3 faction war and lot other...

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by popinjay

---

 

The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

 

Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

Than meaningles to name it Warhammer 40k.

When they dont stick with the world, than better dont make this game., becase the fans want to play it firstly not the wow or the Eve players, but this is just my option.

Originally posted by Nonderyon

Originally posted by warmaster670

Originally posted by popinjay

---

 

The best you can hope for is each race gets it's own starting zone, but almost guaranteed it's just going to be two faction game period.

which is good, since based on the lore, thats how it WOULD be.

 

Not how the 40k fan posers pretend like it would be.

Than meaningles to name it Warhammer 40k.

When they dont stick with the world, than better dont make this game., becase the fans want to play it firstly not the wow or the Eve players, but this is just my option.

Are you trying to imply that grouping the races of 40k into 2 loose factions as part of an overarching struggle is not 40k enough?

I agree that the faction set up needs to be carefully handled, but it can and does happen in the lore and campaigns so as long as it isn't made lazily as a happy clappy eldar dancing on leman russ tanks in space marine chapter houses mess.

It may hold water, it may not.... We just don't know enough as of yet and if (Gork forbid) it is cancelled we may never know.

Agree...

Anyway, what i know THQ is searching for sponsors and they dont want to cancel itt because w40k is a good name for selling a game, what they did warhammer fantasy is sad(in my option),but they got the "makeing" money back.

THQ and Vigil had nothing to do with WAR. That was EA and Mythic.

Originally posted by freakishbean

THQ and Vigil had nothing to do with WAR. That was EA and Mythic.

Yes, sorry,i forgot to write that part down, and i dont want to edit now :/

Originally posted by Blasphim

2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south.  It's always 2 factions in a war.  Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.

 

It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be.  Let it alone, seriously.

world war 2 was 3 factions.

Originally posted by nerovipus32

Originally posted by Blasphim

2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south.  It's always 2 factions in a war.  Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.

 

It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be.  Let it alone, seriously.

world war 2 was 3 factions.

My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions?  As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein.  But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....

Originally posted by Blasphim

Originally posted by nerovipus32

Originally posted by Blasphim

2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south.  It's always 2 factions in a war.  Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.

 

It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be.  Let it alone, seriously.

world war 2 was 3 factions.

My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions?  As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein.  But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....

Partisans?

xD

Originally posted by Blasphim

Originally posted by nerovipus32

world war 2 was 3 factions.

My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions?  As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein.  But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....

I am not sure I would actually calling the Russians for allies, they played their own games but yeah, normally do people consider WW2 as a 2 sided war since the Russians actually didn´t fight the allied.

WW1 was more confusing but is still considered a 2 sided war. Not all countries on "the same" side were really allies but no country fought people from both sides.

There were however 3 sided war as well in history. England 1066 is a good example with English Vs Danish Vs Normans.

And while basic history books say that the 30 years war were bwteen protestants and catholics that war had more sides than I want to count.

English Vs Dutch Vs Spanish were common in the 17th century, usually on colonies or at sea. Of course the Dutch often allied themselves with one or the other side but it wasn´t always like that. Heck once they had ships on both sides of a battle due to slow communications. :)

But while war with 3 sides is not that uncommon battles with 3 sides is. There are a few but they are very rare.