Two Factions: Your Thoughts

halafradrimx · **Joined:** Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:29 am **Posts:** 16

Jester238 wrote:

I feel like I keep playing devil's advocate. In a perfect world, I totally agree, a faction for each race would be best, here's the thing though:

I think we (and I'm not being condescending, I'm including myself in this) forget that as much as this is the fan's game, it's also Vigil's. They are the force behind this game, they deserve some right to make the game they want. Additionally, anyone whose played WoW is going to compare it to that game when describing it. Why? Because WoW is the "benchmark" MMO. I don't like WoW, I think it is waaaaay over rated, but it IS the most popular MMO on the planet. When I explain a new MMO to people (I work games retail so this happens a lot) I have to say it as "it's like WoW, but different because of X. It sucks, but because WoW follows such a simple formula, every other MMO will bear some similarity to it.

Personally, I think they should launch with two factions. They should come up with some reason why the Imperium, Eldar and Tau have joined forces (it has happened in the fiction) and why Orks, Chaos and the Dark Eldar have joined forces (also in the fiction). This gets the game off the ground, is simple, will allow for easily definable PvP. Then, six or eight months down the road, once everyone who has bought the game is invested in it, break the alliances. This risks pissing off players who were friends and on different sides in the conflict, but whatever. It'd be good if they came up with a way to counteract that, I'm not sure what that would be though.

Just my two cents, I agree that a two faction system is lame, I just see it as something of a necessity, at least for a little while.

I have just one question, and I will make simple and easy :

This franchise is GW's bread of every day, therefore they can't just fuck it up like they did with Warhammer Fantasy.

So, my question is : "When was Warhammer 40k tabletop friendly, easy and simple?"

halafradrimx · **Joined:** Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:29 am **Posts:** 16

DocVandar wrote:

Curze wrote:

please bear in mind that arguably the best ever fixed faction pvp mmo was dark age of camelot with its three faction model.

any real 40k mmo has to be about territory control, which means it has to be built around open world pvp. before you jump to compare it with wow on any level realise that wow's pvp is wholly based on instanced pvp, that just wont fly here in my opinion.

Agreed as to DAoC. Also agree that a controlled territory 3+ faction system is the way to go.

This is the PvP model being used by Secret World, which is a game that seems to be doing everything right from what I am seeing. It is including individual story, voice acting, 3 faction world PvP/RvR, advanced customization, etc. Everything that everyone really wants from a "next gen" MMO. The only problem is that it will be a niche game because it doesn't have an established IP, and the IP that they have created doesn't look that interesting. If this formula was used, however, for an IP with millions of fans worldwide -- something like, I don't know... 40K! -- it would result in a very successful MMO. Especially given the more action-oriented combat already displayed by Vigil.

I really hope that one of the reasons we haven't heard anything on this game for almost a year is because they took into account the massive negative outcry of disgruntled fans into account and decided to switch to a multi-faction system. Only time will tell I guess.

WAAAGH!!!

Orkz is made fer rokin'!

halafradrimx · **Joined:** Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:29 am **Posts:** 16

Lelorelyn wrote:

Secondat2 wrote:

Here you go:
"Err I mean, PvP is a big aspect of the game because it's 40k, that it a big aspect of the IP but we want there to be a pretty good balance of both, we don't want one to necessarily dominate the other and that's... one of our objectives is that we want people to feel like they're a person in the 40k universe and sometimes you'll be in a battlefield, and there tones of those and that's a big aspect of the game, but not always, you might be in a city, you might be exploring a chaos temple. We wanted to give them a broad range of what it's like to actually live in the universe, and not just be solider on the battle field all the time." ~ David Adams, creative director.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

Secondat2 wrote:

Refreshing could be good but it a risk.

You don't gamble 50 million on something that might work. There's a reason for the generic nature of the MMORPG industry.

There you are wrong. Perhaps you wouldn't do it. Perhaps most people/companies wouldn't do it. Does that necessarily ( as in absolutely, 100%) mean Vigil won't? No, it fucking does not.

From what we have seen so far it's obvious that they're already at least considering risking this or that. Just look at the combat system so far shown. Aiming with your mouse in a MMORPG? That's something else compared to things we have right now. I know I'm repeating myself.

Thus there is already evidence that supports that they might risk a whole lot. Which I fully support.

And regarding your thoughts on the justification of "gambling" on new stuff in the industry... no, hell, I don't agree. Eternal stagnation is not a good thing in anyone's dictionary. Ultra-conservatism perhaps?

Secondat2 wrote:

Sister, not every critque of a alternative mmo comes from a WOW head. I have never payed to play WOW. The game aethetic annoys me; I avoid talking about it.

WAR, FFXI, LOTRO, DDO, Everquest2 and Cabal are all MMORPG did better. DAoC is not a game you'd want to base your project on, it's market success is average-mediocre: Meh.

So you never played it? You never tried the concept in question yet decided to shoot it down for something along the lines of shit and giggles?

Which leads me to...

Secondat2 wrote:

3-factions is not radical? What 25 million + more MMO project which has a locked faction system has more than 3 factions? DAoC is an anomaly.

I am, however, not discussing DAoC. I am discussing a certain element of it. The success of the game itself doesn't have anything to do with the merit of the element in question.

Certain games ( and doesn't even apply to games... it can apply to movies, books, food, cars, guns, anything...) are almost completely average ( or even complete bullshit) yet have that one single ( or more) shining quality. An idea or concept that is just completely brilliant.

Can that one thing make an average or crappy game super-successful? Apparently not.

Which, however, doesn't make the thing in question any less brilliant.

Secondat2 wrote:

The status quo is there for a reason.

The status quo might be there for a reason. Like when you're on a ledge. Falling down would be bad. Saying that every single status quo in the history of the world is there for a reason is just completely silly though.

Status quo isn't always good, don't talk such rubbish.

Secondat2 wrote:

Your not the one spending $50 on a flimy idea that might work.

Indeed you are not. You're not buying a game because of one single idea, concept or thing. Mostly. Any individual's decision about buying a game is affected by many different factors.

You'd not buy a game simply because it would have 3 factions instead of 2? Without even knowing it would be total rubbish? Without even considering anything else about the game at all as playing a role?

Secondat2 wrote:

You go with what you know will work and then add things that the market research team feels can be done. Nothing radical.

Innovation comes at price. Everything, is a gamble.

I'd like to remind you that the concept of taking risks for the chance of improvement is not a disapproved concept, from the standpoint of the sane part of humanity.

If that was so we wouldn't have electricity. Nobody would ever try to improve anything and we'd still be stuck in the stone age.

I agree that taking risks is a gamble. Everyone knows that, I suppose. The thing that we don't seem to agree on is that certain risks simply need to be taken. Not even talking just about MMOs here.

Anyway, stop making it look like taking risks is something only a madman would do. Just... please.

It's their choice after all, not yours or that of some general view on things you're making up here.

Secondat2 wrote:

---
Aiming with your mouse in common in MMOFPS/MMOTPS. It's fairly common in Eastern(Korean) MMORPGs.

Hm? I don't really see what you're aiming at.

MMOFPS/MMOTPS =/= MMORPG. Also, eastern MMOs like Free to Play stuff almost nobody has ever heard of? Give me an example or a couple... else you're making as much of a point as if you made a video of you farting, putting it on youtube and suppling me a link to it.

And the fact that Guild Wars 2 is moving into the murky and risky waters of progress... actually would prove my point more than yours. :lol:

Secondat2 wrote:

No.

No what?

Secondat2 wrote:

Witty. Ask it to yourself before you form your dead-beat critque of the developer's actions, then.

No, I still don't feel like I need to ask myself such questions. Why? Do you think I should? Hell, why?

Secondat wrote:

It never happens.

Which means that it absolutely might not?

Remember, I didn't say that it happens in the fluff. I said that the background justifies people fighting on multiple fronts. Which is absolutely true.

Let's say you have a situation with Orks, the Imperium, Tau and the Eldar.

Let's say that the Orks, Tau and the Imperium are fighting it out on the Planet of Grim Hats. First of all, does the Ork presence warrant for the Tau and the Imperium to join forces?

See, it might. It doesn't have to. What if the Ork presence isn't perceived as a threat great enough for the two of them going trough the rather awkward process of negotiating an alliance with their hated enemies... who they hate real bad.

That's a completely sensible three-front battle right there.

Did it ever happen?

Are you joking? Who's to say it didn't? 99.9999% of all battles and wars in 40k aren't written down on paper ( or in digital form). Are you really going to say "Nope, never happened." because nobody ever wrote it down.

To answer my question... Who cares if it happened or not? I wasn't discussing what happened... I was discussing what might have happened or might still happen.

Basically, if you're not daft you'd admit that it's completely plausible. Then again, you didn't figure that out in the first place... so what am I talking about?

Oh, and I threw the Eldar in there just for good measure.[/quote]

I fapped. Awesome posts Sister.

Just stop wanting to make my DMO WoW-like, the developers clearly said this ain't going to be another "WoW clone".

There can be space for both MMOs.

halafradrimx · **Joined:** Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:29 am **Posts:** 16

Malefactour wrote:

Hard to say if Vigil would consider changing the 2 faction model or at least allowing for some sort of 'soft' alliances between disparate factions/races/etc. If the rumors are true and the Order vs. Destruction model was handed down from on high by Games Workshop then Vigil may not have much say in the matter. As to whether or not they watch these or other fansites, I can't believe that they WOULDN'T, that would just seem like madness in this day and age. The internet is a valuable tool if used properly.

No, not exactly. The game is too young and they could easily change that. The gameplay mechanics are easy to fix, the problem is the skeleton of the game. Flesh and skin is easy to change. So, in short words... They can use two factions, sure they can. But they can change the plans for now, hell they do... Since they didn't real make the game yet, just made animations, initial mechanics etc. (Wich doesn't involves RvR yet)

And regarding their information and vigilance on the internet, well... That depends on how serious they think our opinions are to their sucess. It's something they either accept or not, the playerbase opinion isn't necessarily relevant for them. Surely they could learn a lot and improve with like... 10000x times the game and thus making gamers happier, but if that was true than most gamers wouldn't be disappointed with the current tide the game industry is taking. My hope (Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment) is that they will get interested in what we have to say if we also show interest in making a better game. We can't do much, nothing but give some tips, enlight them about what the players want these days, etc. All we can do is to send them messages or, if someone from this forum knows someone from Vigil/THQ wich knows or is someone with voice there, perhaps we can change their mind about possible mistakes they are about or will commit in DMO's development.

That's why I said before we should send them messages, to improve the game and let them know the better way to make an awesome 40k MMO. The world needs this. Every heart of every true 40k fan needs that.

WAAAGH!!!

Gosh · **Joined:** Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:07 am **Posts:** 231

halafradrimx wrote:

Gosh wrote:

The benefit of having only two factions is fairly clear in that there are a lot more choices for guilds, friends, family, etc to play on the same side.

Sorry to ask that, but... How two can have more choices than 3 or 4?

Also, this game isn't about socializing, it's about making your faction proud to have you in it.

This is Warhammer 40.000, in a universe where there is only war.

In a two faction game, you have 50% of the population (assuming equal sides) as potential group/guild mates, and the choice a bunch of friends have to make is either one or the other. In a three faction game, you only have 33.33% of the population as potential group/guild mates, and the choice friends have to make is between three different factions.

The way I worded it was confusing. "choices to play on the side side" doesn't make much sense.

halafradrimx · **Joined:** Wed Dec 21, 2011 9:29 am **Posts:** 16

Gosh wrote:

halafradrimx wrote:

Gosh wrote:

The benefit of having only two factions is fairly clear in that there are a lot more choices for guilds, friends, family, etc to play on the same side.

Sorry to ask that, but... How two can have more choices than 3 or 4?

Also, this game isn't about socializing, it's about making your faction proud to have you in it.

This is Warhammer 40.000, in a universe where there is only war.

In a two faction game, you have 50% of the population (assuming equal sides) as potential group/guild mates, and the choice a bunch of friends have to make is either one or the other. In a three faction game, you only have 33.33% of the population as potential group/guild mates, and the choice friends have to make is between three different factions.

The way I worded it was confusing. "choices to play on the side side" doesn't make much sense.

Now I see it and you are right. That's why when people want friends, they go to Facebook, not a MMO.

Seriously, this "Let's make friends and shit" from MMOs is really annoying and frustrating to gameplay, and is ruinning alot of games too. Why? Because it says "If you want to play, you WILL NEED people to COOPERATE with you. Let's take the WAR example, for instance. If you wanted to make a quality war, you would need to have both teams with educated, intelligente, willing to team work, regular player, be interested in playing and be respectful to the game, rules and lore as well. Do you have any idea of how hard is to find one person like that IN REAL LIFE? Now multiply the dificulty by like... One hundred. People wanting or not, the internet is a mean, stupid, ignorant and unfair place. Much like the warp. Nah... Even worse.

I'm not saying to turn a MMO into an "offline MMO", just saying people should gather and play IF they want, in order to make an enjoying game rather than "You need to be in a group because you need to be forced to socialize and thus allowing you to proceed in the game." What the hell? What if someone plays MMOs because they don't want to talk with other people? What if he just wants to PvP rather than being a carebear? What if he don't want to play with dumb, casual, lazy and unwilling people in the game?

These details must be considered very carefuly. If people wanted to just put family and friends and play with them, hell... We have facebook and their stupid addicting games just for that.

Malefactour · **Joined:** Fri Jan 14, 2011 4:13 am **Posts:** 503

halafradrimx wrote:

Now I see it and you are right. That's why when people want friends, they go to Facebook, not a MMO.
MMORPG: Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game. Does that clear it up for you? The game systems are, by their very nature, supposed to be cooperative. You want to run dungeons? You'll need a group worth of friends or at least fellow players that WANT to be there and know what buttons to mash. You want to PvP? You'll need friends to watch your back, or at least fellow players that WANT to be there and know what buttons to mash.

Seriously, this "Let's make friends and shit" from Massively MultiplayerOs is really annoying and frustrating to gameplay, and is ruinning alot of games too. Why? Because it says "If you want to play, you WILL NEED people to COOPERATE with you. Let's take the WAR example, for instance. If you wanted to make a quality war, you would need to have both teams with educated, intelligente, willing to team work, regular player, be interested in playing and be respectful to the game, rules and lore as well. Do you have any idea of how hard is to find one person like that IN REAL LIFE? Now multiply the dificulty by like... One hundred. People wanting or not, the internet is a mean, stupid, ignorant and unfair place. Much like the warp. Nah... Even worse.

Really seems from your above statements that you need to just leave the MMORPG genre behind and go elsewhere. Anyone this jaded that thinks that all the people in a given game are just your run-of-the-mill internet wastrels and not FANS of the I.P. and the genre out to have some fun experiencing all the game has to offer should just stick to Skyrim, you'll be much happier in the end.

I'm not saying to turn a Massively MultiplayerO into an "offline Massively MultiplayerO", just saying people should gather and play IF they want, in order to make an enjoying game rather than "You need to be in a group because you need to be forced to socialize and thus allowing you to proceed in the game." What the hell? What if someone plays MMOs because they don't want to talk with other people?

Skyrim, play it.

What if he just wants to PvP rather than being a carebear?

CoD, MW, Halo, GoW, really any FPS or TPS on any console would suit you fine, The Xbox live kids fucking despise one another worse than Nazis you should fit right in, there is ABSOLUTELY no community on xboxlive.

What if he don't want to play with dumb, casual, lazy and unwilling people in the game?

Skyrim, because the folks that enjoy playing online games with others don't need your shitty, elitist attitudes.

These details must be considered very carefuly. If people wanted to just put family and friends and play with them, hell... We have facebook and their stupid addicting games just for that.

Gosh · **Joined:** Sun Feb 13, 2011 2:07 am **Posts:** 231

halafradrimx wrote:

Now I see it and you are right. That's why when people want friends, they go to Facebook, not a MMO.

Seriously, this "Let's make friends and shit" from MMOs is really annoying and frustrating to gameplay, and is ruinning alot of games too. Why? Because it says "If you want to play, you WILL NEED people to COOPERATE with you. Let's take the WAR example, for instance. If you wanted to make a quality war, you would need to have both teams with educated, intelligente, willing to team work, regular player, be interested in playing and be respectful to the game, rules and lore as well. Do you have any idea of how hard is to find one person like that IN REAL LIFE? Now multiply the dificulty by like... One hundred. People wanting or not, the internet is a mean, stupid, ignorant and unfair place. Much like the warp. Nah... Even worse.

I'm not saying to turn a MMO into an "offline MMO", just saying people should gather and play IF they want, in order to make an enjoying game rather than "You need to be in a group because you need to be forced to socialize and thus allowing you to proceed in the game." What the hell? What if someone plays MMOs because they don't want to talk with other people? What if he just wants to PvP rather than being a carebear? What if he don't want to play with dumb, casual, lazy and unwilling people in the game?

These details must be considered very carefuly. If people wanted to just put family and friends and play with them, hell... We have facebook and their stupid addicting games just for that.

Why so much animosity? Calm down mang. :/

MMOs are great for making friends, and while I do agree that they should provide some solo content for when people just want a break from socializing, single-player content should be no more than a minor focus compared to the "MM"O aspects.

halafradrimx wrote:

What if he don't want to play with dumb, casual, lazy and unwilling people in the game?

Then he should find better people. Almost invariably, good players will find each other, so either "he" has an extremely abrasive personality, or is just "dumb, casual, lazy and unwilling" himself.

Secondat2 · **Joined:** Tue Jun 07, 2011 11:14 am **Posts:** 159

First I'd like to define a concept by the philosopher of logic Bertrand Russell, the argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy that occurs when one claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. The fallacy here is of the former case.

Quote:

Which means that it absolutely might not?

argument from ignorance

Quote:

Remember, I didn't say that it happens in the fluff. I said that the background justifies people fighting on multiple fronts. Which is absolutely true.

Let's say you have a situation with Orks, the Imperium, Tau and the Eldar.

Let's say that the Orks, Tau and the Imperium are fighting it out on the Planet of Grim Hats. First of all, does the Ork presence warrant for the Tau and the Imperium to join forces?

See, it might. It doesn't have to. What if the Ork presence isn't perceived as a threat great enough for the two of them going trough the rather awkward process of negotiating an alliance with their hated enemies... who they hate real bad.

That's a completely sensible three-front battle right there.

Did it ever happen?

3 is the limit, I did point this out before. Orks or Tyranids v Imperium v [InsertRaceHere] seems to be the general set up.

Quote:

Are you joking? Who's to say it didn't? 99.9999% of all battles and wars in 40k aren't written down on paper ( or in digital form). Are you really going to say "Nope, never happened." because nobody ever wrote it down.

argument from ignorance

Quote:

To answer my question... Who cares if it happened or not? I wasn't discussing what happened... I was discussing what might have happened or might still happen.

Anything that GW have not ruled out "could happen", when writing a plot official or fanfic the things you invent have to be insync with the established motto.

Quote:

Basically, if you're not daft you'd admit that it's completely plausible. Then again, you didn't figure that out in the first place... so what am I talking about?

It's also plausible that there's a faction of irishque black space fairies but we wouldn't assume that would be.

Quote:

Oh, and I threw the Eldar in there just for good measure.

And that's were I draw the line.

You don't just "throw" people into things, Eldar for instance are a reserved people, they only fight when needs must. There is incomprehensible that Eldar would launch anything greater than pathfinder squad into a battle of the Orks, Imperium or Chaos; all three sided wars that involve the Eldar are defensive. If GW or the BL (the writers of Warhammer 40,000 canon) did such a thing there would be a boycott, fullstop. Back in 2003 when C.S Goto a writer wrote a story were two Eldar tribes from a Craftworld isolated from the rest galaxy virtually annihilated each other (Eldar Prophecy), Eldar fans everywhere went bat****.

I'm not going to go into the philosophy of war but there are no historic battles/wars with more than four longstanding factions that have common objective at any one time. The reason for this is the fact that if the objective is to win people do not intervene in a carnage if another can die instead, the forgone, to intervene, means that the your lives cost lest than those who otherwise would have died.

War40k is not a children game were pirates, cowboys and robot-aliens (and some elves for good measure) can be arbitrarily made to fight without good reason.

DocVandar · **Joined:** Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:34 am **Posts:** 34

If any of you are currently playing TOR, you are experiencing first hand why DMO NEEDS to have at least three factions if it wants to have any sort of meaningful PvP (which is what this game should be about).

On virtually every single server in TOR the Empire outnumbers the Republic by 2-3:1. Needless to say that this has created an incredibly unbalanced game in terms of PvP. While some players like to play as the underdog faction as it presents more of a challenge, the populations are so unbalanced that it is simply pointless to participate on the Republic side. Look at the following YouTube video of Ilum (an open-world PvP planet) as an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TL0kDP_Cexo

With respect to DMO, I foresee a similarly unbalanced population. I would be willing to bet that, just like the table-top game, 60+% of players will roll Imperium of Man/Space Marines. They are by far the most iconic and recognizable race in the 40k universe, are the most marketed, and the product of the most lore. I don't think there is one note-worth book in the entire Black Library that revolves around the Orks or Dark Eldar. 90% of them are about the Space Marines.

I am extremely happy to hear that DMO wasn't cancelled. (See link if you haven't heard - http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/arch ... -plan.aspx). But please, Vigil, for your own sake and for the sake of the this game, don't make this game two factions just because WoW has made that the status quo. Unless there is some system that you have planned for the races in each faction to fight each other in Open-World PvP (see OP), then there is a 90% chance that the factions in DMO will be just as bad as in TOR, in turn killing PvP in this game.

Two Factions: Your Thoughts

Who is online