I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

Originally posted by DarkPony

I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

Better yet, Regard it as, "Eye of terror online", since Eye of Terror is even where Order v Destruction (Disorder) came from.

All I am bothered about with this game is that it has real shooting and manual targeting in it.

If not then it will fail so hard words can not describe. Traditional MMO combat (a la WOW) just would not work.

Originally posted by Unicornicus

 

 

 

As an asside, do any of you remember DAoC? it is my most beloved MMO to date. did you spend much time on the VN boards when that game was in it's prime? If you did, you'd know that it was the worst game in the world and they did everything wrong. That game was even the reason president Kennedy got assassinated, or at least 90% of the people who posted there would have you believe that the game was that terrible and that "Mythic ruined it." I bring this up to say that the rage, whining, bitching moaning etc isnt becuase the game is bad, Its just the sound an MMO makes on the internet. There was more bitching about thier terrible broken pvp system than I had ever seen until WoW came out and ACTUALLY HAD a terrible broken pvp system. WARS pvp was probably the most fun pvp I have played in any MMO and it was still sub par. The bottom line is that no one has nailed it yet.

 

 

       Meridian 59, Face of mankind.

                           Naild.

Originally posted by DarkPony

I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

  Yeah, Warhammer comes from the rts game of the same name back in the 90's,  but it was totally inspired by Warcraft,

 another rts game that most have forgotten by now, and i see your point! Warcraft has two sides and it works great!

  Warhammer 40k should do like its Father, Warcraft and use two sides!

   Right?

Originally posted by shantideva

Originally posted by DarkPony

I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

 

  Yeah, Warhammer comes from the rts game of the same name back in the 90's,  but it was totally inspired by Warcraft,

 another rts game that most have forgotten by now, and i see your point! Warcraft has two sides and it works great!

  Warhammer 40k should do like its Father, Warcraft and use two sides!

   Right?

Shanti you are 100% incorrect as to where Warhammer comes from. It comes from the table top game which came out well before Warcraft ever saw the light of day. Warcraft ripped off Warhammer in almost every way. GW has been around since the 70s and Warhammer came out in 83. D&D inspired it, however Warhammer took table gaming to a whole new level.

Alas, the old "Ripoff-Debate". Seriously though, in the case of Warhammer and Warcraft it shouldn't even be considered a debate, for it is all to clear who came first if you got your information straight.

Actually, Warcraft was even originally developed as a game in the Warhammer Fantasy universe, after Blizzard had been approached about the idea by Games Workshop in the early 1990's. Only when the deal fell through, already nearing the completion of the game, Blizzard changed the whole thing into "Warcraft - Orcs & Humans" and thus started the IP that today is known all too well. Games Workshop, in a way, created their biggest ripoff themselves and under just slightly different circumstances back in the day, eleven million people would be playing "World of Warhammer" today. Games Workshop might just be hitting themselves on the heads, ever so slightly...

Originally posted by shantideva

Originally posted by DarkPony

I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

 

  Yeah, Warhammer comes from the rts game of the same name back in the 90's,  but it was totally inspired by Warcraft,

 another rts game that most have forgotten by now, and i see your point! Warcraft has two sides and it works great!

  Warhammer 40k should do like its Father, Warcraft and use two sides!

   Right?

Not quite!

I think you got that the wrong way round mate, understandable as the names are very similar.

World of Warcraft came from the rts Warcraft, which was a Warhammer rip off... a pretty blatant one at that.

Basically Blizzard were deep in negotiations with GW to make a computer game using the Warhammer IP while simultaneously working on the game. Unfortunately the deal fell through. So they changed the name (well a bit), wrote a new background and the rest is computer gaming history.

Edit - Now Starcraft was a wee bit more original, but the power suited marines and swarming hive mind controlled tyranids... err sorry Zerg... was probably Blizz thumbing their nose at GW... just cos they could.

This pretty much summs it up :) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/4/10/

Originally posted by Unicornicus

Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

Originally posted by FreedomBlade

 

---

Originally posted by Nephaerius
A recent interview confirmed that there will only be two factions present in the new 40K MMO.  Perhaps there will be a third non-playable faction, but I don't think that's what most people were looking for.
"Strategy Informer: I assume you're going to divide up the playable races by factions? They only thing is, apart from ones like Imperial guard and Space Marines who can stick together, not all of the other races fit neatly into 'factions'. The Eldar, the Tau, the Necrons, Tyranids Chaos... had to generalise them. Are you going to try sticking with the traditional two factions or branch out to more?

Tim Campbell: We're going to have two overall factions in the game, and all of the playable races are going to fit into one or the other.

There are compelling reasons why that works in this situation and our game, and Games Workshops are completely on board with it so we're not doing anything that violates the IP or the fiction – the details though will be revealed in the near future."
http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/warhammer40000darkmilleniumonline/interviews.html

---

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!

This is such a shame - what a waste of good IP. Games Workshop should be shot for allowing this travesty! 2 factions my ass.

My hunch is that it is actually Games Workshop that is behind this idiocy...

What is in common to Vigil and Mythic? Nothing except that they both work on Games Workshop IP... and they both insist on 2-faction system. Hmm...  If we look at all that happened with WAR reasonably and with a hindsight I see no reason why Mythic would discard a proven, widely celebrated concept that they themselves pioneered (3-faction RvR) except if they were strong-armed into it by someone holding raw power over them... and now that EA is not in the picture I can see only Games Workshop as the possible culprit.

Remember, the people holding GW now are NOT the same who initially created the Warhammer concept. Some folks may still be there but imo the company's been hijacked by money-grubbing suits a long time ago... and in their mis-informed arrogance and naivete they probably believe "good vs evil" sells better than shades of grey, regardless of the fact that by doing this they would make Warhammer IP just one in the sea of fantasy/sci-fi wargames and therefore loose its competetive edge.

except that... you know... 2nd edition rules allowed for allied factions on the tabletop AND provided lore for them... was that before or after the "suits" took over the company?  

There is a "slight" difference in meaning between temporary alliances of independent factions (or "races" in WH40K) and all-out good guys vs bad guys, light vs darkness kinda thing.

Originally posted by quotheraving

Originally posted by shantideva

Originally posted by DarkPony

I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

 

  Yeah, Warhammer comes from the rts game of the same name back in the 90's,  but it was totally inspired by Warcraft,

 another rts game that most have forgotten by now, and i see your point! Warcraft has two sides and it works great!

  Warhammer 40k should do like its Father, Warcraft and use two sides!

   Right?

Not quite!

I think you got that the wrong way round mate, understandable as the names are very similar.

World of Warcraft came from the rts Warcraft, which was a Warhammer rip off... a pretty blatant one at that.

 

Basically Blizzard were deep in negotiations with GW to make a computer game using the Warhammer IP while simultaneously working on the game. Unfortunately the deal fell through. So they changed the name (well a bit), wrote a new background and the rest is computer gaming history.

 

Edit - Now Starcraft was a wee bit more original, but the power suited marines and swarming hive mind controlled tyranids... err sorry Zerg... was probably Blizz thumbing their nose at GW... just cos they could.

 

This pretty much summs it up :) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/4/10/

     Heh..i really thought i was being too obvious but, thanks for taking the bait=)

Originally posted by shantideva

Originally posted by quotheraving

Originally posted by shantideva

Originally posted by DarkPony

I can understand it though; if you want factions to be very competitive you need infrastructure ; zones, hubs, capitals, npc services, questgivers, etc, for all of them and all catering for just a sliver of the total playerbase; each faction stands for a huge development investment.

Also there are important population balance issues to consider in regard to pvp. Having to deal with only two factions is a whole lot easier to manage for battlegrounds, etc. Maybe three factions would have been viable though, Im not sure.

If you look at World of Warcraft, which was also derived from an rts based IP you see a pretty similar translation; two factions consisting of a lot of original sub factions and it has worked pretty well for them.

Just regard it as "World of Warhammer40k", hehe. That doesn't mean that it has to be a WOW clone though, let's hope that they will do things very different in other regards.

 

  Yeah, Warhammer comes from the rts game of the same name back in the 90's,  but it was totally inspired by Warcraft,

 another rts game that most have forgotten by now, and i see your point! Warcraft has two sides and it works great!

  Warhammer 40k should do like its Father, Warcraft and use two sides!

   Right?

Not quite!

I think you got that the wrong way round mate, understandable as the names are very similar.

World of Warcraft came from the rts Warcraft, which was a Warhammer rip off... a pretty blatant one at that.

 

Basically Blizzard were deep in negotiations with GW to make a computer game using the Warhammer IP while simultaneously working on the game. Unfortunately the deal fell through. So they changed the name (well a bit), wrote a new background and the rest is computer gaming history.

 

Edit - Now Starcraft was a wee bit more original, but the power suited marines and swarming hive mind controlled tyranids... err sorry Zerg... was probably Blizz thumbing their nose at GW... just cos they could.

 

This pretty much summs it up :) http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/4/10/

     Heh..i really thought i was being too obvious but, thanks for taking the bait=)

Ahh,  Well if posting the opposite of the truth was your 'bait', then the fish you caught was to have someone correct you. Wow good catch!

Now I have to wonder why this should be? Do you maybe like being corrected? is this some kind of kink of yours?

If on the other hand this was a cunning plan to make someone else look stupid (by posting rubbish and having them correct you on it?!), then is the fact that your response looks just like you made a complete c0ck-up and are now trying to salvage some dignity by pretending to have done it deliberately just another 'clever' ploy?

Because if it is I can't see what you could hope to gain other than looking like a vain tool.

Frankly I think you'd have been better off going with my charitable gesture of claiming it as a simple mistake.

Ditto^

That being said I am lookign forward to e3 for 2 reasons. 1. So we get new informaton and 2. whiners have something else to whine about.

Originally posted by quotheraving
~Blah~

 

Sorry that was a bit harsh Shanti but I operate a zero tolerance policy to smart ar$e.

Word to the wise, if you like irony then it's a good idea to use emoticons or /irony, otherwise your carefully constructed jokes are indistinguishable from the background noise of ill informed (and more usually just plain stupid) opinions that seem to be the norm on the internet. Fail to do this and you should expect others to react to your posts with about as much joy as discovering that your cat has once again left you a 'surprise' in your trainers.

Seriously having read through this thread again I despair, it's like playing whack-a-mole, only with r.e.a.l.l.y retarded moles!

The same knee jerk (with the emphasis on the jerk) opinions pop their drooling heads up time after time only to be knocked back down by the same hammer, only to be replaced moments later by yet another slack jawed notion, saliva still wet on it's chin..

It's enough to drive a man to drink, not that it takes much in my case.

Originally posted by quotheraving

Originally posted by quotheraving
~Blah~

 

Sorry that was a bit harsh Shanti but I operate a zero tolerance policy to smart ar$e.

Word to the wise, if you like irony then it's a good idea to use emoticons or /irony, otherwise your carefully constructed jokes are indistinguishable from the background noise of ill informed (and more usually just plain stupid) opinions that seem to be the norm on the internet. Fail to do this and you should expect others to react to your posts with about as much joy as discovering that your cat has once again left you a 'surprise' in your trainers.

 

Seriously having read through this thread again I despair, it's like playing whack-a-mole, only with r.e.a.l.l.y retarded moles!

The same knee jerk (with the emphasis on the jerk) opinions pop their drooling heads up time after time only to be knocked back down by the same hammer, only to be replaced moments later by yet another slack jawed notion, saliva still wet on it's chin..

It's enough to drive a man to drink, not that it takes much in my case.

Again, you manage to capture the truth it. 

But I was drinking before this thread ;-)

As a Warhammer player Im disgusted by dividing the races over just 2 factions.

I'd probably still play it though.

Originally posted by BizkitNL

As a Warhammer player Im disgusted by dividing the races over just 2 factions.

I'd probably still play it though.

Biz I agree with you 100%. I understand that they are doing it for balance-population issues, however why can't a company just once let the players decide how these issues are worked out. Launch the game with each race as its own faction, and let the chips fall where they may. The tabletop version is a great example, some people refuse to play certain races because they dislike them; and I believe that same sentiment will carry over.

I know this may sound rediculous, but on wikipedia, there was a post that the Eldar race is actually the Eldar Exiles, neither normal eldar and certainly not Dark Eldar. They are pretty much the eldar that jumped ship during the fall of the Eldar truthfully, I can see them working with the Imperium rather then just doing an uneasy alliance. The exiles actively seeking help? It could really work. The Imperium may be xenophobic, but they arn't stupid.  An off-shoot Eldar faction seeking to actually be on good terms with the imperium (or at least the Black Templars) would make the most sense. Then again, it is from wikipedia, so take it for what its worth.

"Black Templars place great emphasis on close combat prowess and honour. As such they can often be seen charging into suicidal situations to avenge fallen comrades, but this does not dispel that such tactics indeed prove effective. By their doctrine, they abhor = ( to regard with extreme repugnance = [ strong dislike, distaste, or antagonism] the traitor, the alien and the mutant. The latter trait means that Black Templars stand apart from most other chapters by eliminating Librarians from their organisation. The reason for this is that Librarians are psykers, and psykers are considered a mutant trait that must be kept apart from potential warp influence during battle. However, Black Templars do use non-combat psykers in other tasks that do not directly involve combat. These include Astropaths and Navigators." - Lexicanum (Warhammer 40k wiki) added the definition for abhor.

Not sure how true that is fluff wise, but if it is then Vigil choose the wrong faction.

@Zarynterk Mabe some people don't play other races because GW never releases anything for them. Unlike Space Marines that get new stuff just about every couple of months. The Tau for example... Last thing we seen released for them was in 2006. (besides forge world models)

Originally posted by BishopMiles

"Black Templars ... abhor... the traitor, the alien and the mutant

Not sure how true that is fluff wise, but if it is then Vigil choose the wrong faction.

@Zarynterk Mabe some people don't play other races because GW never releases anything for them. Unlike Space Marines that get new stuff just about every couple of months. The Tau for example... Last thing we seen released for them was in 2006. (besides forge world models)

Yeah my guess is that they were used because they recruit from many different worlds rather than from one or two chapter worlds meaning that they could have a vested interest in preserving the sargos sector (and look cool)... But that said they certainly were not the best choice of chapter.
 For that I'd have opted for Dark angels since they also have many recruiting worlds and on occasion go out of their way to fight Chaos in the hopes of recovering their fallen, and were (loosely) sided with the Eldar in the Apocalypse campaign.

Originally posted by BishopMiles

"Black Templars place great emphasis on close combat prowess and honour. As such they can often be seen charging into suicidal situations to avenge fallen comrades, but this does not dispel that such tactics indeed prove effective. By their doctrine, they abhor = ( to regard with extreme repugnance = [ strong dislike, distaste, or antagonism] the traitor, the alien and the mutant. The latter trait means that Black Templars stand apart from most other chapters by eliminating Librarians from their organisation. The reason for this is that Librarians are psykers, and psykers are considered a mutant trait that must be kept apart from potential warp influence during battle. However, Black Templars do use non-combat psykers in other tasks that do not directly involve combat. These include Astropaths and Navigators." - Lexicanum (Warhammer 40k wiki) added the definition for abhor.

Not sure how true that is fluff wise, but if it is then Vigil choose the wrong faction.

@Zarynterk Mabe some people don't play other races because GW never releases anything for them. Unlike Space Marines that get new stuff just about every couple of months. The Tau for example... Last thing we seen released for them was in 2006. (besides forge world models)

How do you know it's the wrong choice if you dont even know how the faction system will work?