#1 who said there is no PvP? Show me the article that said that. I dare you.
#2 regardless of how many factions there are, why do you care? Is it ideal? Probably not. We can all agree that nothing would make us happier than a badass battle with 3 or 4 or more factions beating the snot out of each other. yes, that would in fact = epic.
Is it lore breaking? Absolutely not. If you can't understand WHY it's not lore breaking then someone isn't reading the previous posts, or much of the 40k fiction/codexes for that matter. Green skins will work with anyone if there is enough killing. They've worked with Tau and even be manipulated into working with the eldar. There have been numerous instances of Eldar allying with space marines. Also, while the dark eldar think of themselves as superior to all others, can you honestly not see them working with/manipulating agents of chaos to achieve their goals? Seriously?
The point is lore/canon allow for alliances. only necrons or nids seem completely incapable of allying with anyone or thing. As for this game failing? Umm...this game isn't coming out for another year if not 2 years. Lets not completely write it off because we don't agree with every little aesthetic detail.
I responded to this type of mindset on page three I believe. Having certain races work together for a common goal happens all the time, but does an IoM medic heal an Eldar Warp Spider? Never. He probably wouldn't even know their physiology, nor should he care. Do Eldar take joyrides in Baneblades? Never. Do random Orks have conversations with the Chaos leaders? Never.
They definitely have temporary alliances occasionally, but they definitely aren't fighting side by side, using the same equipment, taking missions from other races, or doing anything that they would be required to do if a two faction system were to mean anything at all. The two faction system would work, but to say it isn't lorebreaking is to be very shortsighted.
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.
That's completely irrelevant.
A war is an EVENT. A mmorpg is a continual SETTING. This is what differentiates mmorpgs from one-off playthrough games.
Look at it this way. You have numerous countries and nations in the world history and they keep forming alliances and fighting wars which are largely two-sided at the MOMENT OF EVENT. However, in the past 200 years pretty much every nation that's been in multiple wars allied with its former enemies at a later date.
If you want to make a persistent, continuous and dynamic world you can't design it on the principles of a one off event thing... Unless you live in Orwell's 1984 and have Oceania and Eurasia slugging it out indefinitely. And even there it's a phony, consensual war where neither side wants to actually win.
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?
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.
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.
Oh please, give me a break. People need to quit with their "the sky is falling we're all doomed!" posts. It isn't impossible, you have not even the slightest clue that it would lead to failure, and you are yet again conveniently ignoring all the previous arguments in both this thread and others.
I can't help but think you're just a troll. I doubt you're unwilling to see reason, but you seem to willingly ignore it in favor of furthering an agenda almost everyone disagrees with. I couldn't help but read your posts on another website as well, and it appears you've been labeled as nothing but a troll there as well.
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.
This is a one time event over the span of an undetermined time.
Yes they can capture the feel of 40k, you are selling them short if you think they cannot deliver. That's very defeatist and it's already brandishing the game the less and unable to fullfill it's IP.
You are still trying to justify something that is;
1. By and large just not the case, multiple can be. It's already been done, and there are still games to arrive that are doing it.
2. Capture just one perspective on the IP. 40k is not just about a few races, it's about a universe in turmoil and war.
3. Defending Vigil and THQ, which you don't have to do. If they need defending it's not he fans job to do that, it's the PR departments job.
Because the ONLY reason mmorpgs think it's ok to "lazy out" with their products is because they are hoping that most of their player base is a bunch of smot poking college drop outs. They don't want you to know that 3 factions are possible. That would require more work for them.
However, that being said, somewhere out there I guarantee there is a guy with the cash and imagination to consider just how fekking valuable Dark Age of Camelot's concepts are to a next gen mmorpg.
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.
This is a one time event over the span of an undetermined time.
Yes they can capture the feel of 40k, you are selling them short if you think they cannot deliver. That's very defeatist and it's already brandishing the game the less and unable to fullfill it's IP.
You are still trying to justify something that is;
1. By and large just not the case, multiple can be. It's already been done, and there are still games to arrive that are doing it.
2. Capture just one perspective on the IP. 40k is not just about a few races, it's about a universe in turmoil and war.
3. Defending Vigil and THQ, which you don't have to do. If they need defending it's not he fans job to do that, it's the PR departments job.
To accurately represent the IP, you'd have to fight a galactic scale war for ten thousand years. Since any reasonable person would agree that's not possible, what's the next best thing? A single encounter, which coincidentially is both how relic has done 40k since the original Dawn of War and how Vigil plans to do DMO. And until the sargos conflict is over, it's better to let your enemies die fighting each other than try and take them all on at the same time.
It's also neither vigil nor THQ that are calling the shots on the two faction decision, it's games workshop directly. They believe Order vs Destruction best represents both WHFB and 40k, which is why they've been using it in all their large-scale encounters since 2nd edition.
I know this issue has been beat to death, but in my opinion Vigil is missing a key element if they follow the WoW 2 faction PvP route. The two games I mentioned on my post realized that 3 factions are necessary to maintain balance.
I hope they reconsider
Discuss
They won't.
Doesn't matter what you want. Pick a game that gives you what you want.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I know this issue has been beat to death, but in my opinion Vigil is missing a key element if they follow the WoW 2 faction PvP route. The two games I mentioned on my post realized that 3 factions are necessary to maintain balance.
I hope they reconsider
Discuss
They won't.
Doesn't matter what you want. Pick a game that gives you what you want.
And yeah - Wayne is correct. Companies will only do as much as they NEED to to get something produced. It's about the fastest to the digital download and return on investment possible that matters. This is why the genre is 2 faction or guild vs guild - whether it be GW2 or SW:ToR - it's all most developers want to deal with.
And do you blame them? Most players don't know the difference - and do NOT have a clue as to why 3 factions, let alone advanced pvp concepts even matter. As long as folks are happy to instant BG into Arathi Basin type games, it just...won't...change.
And that, my friends, is why I don't feed the developers any more of my money. I'm fed up with lackluster imaginations on the computer screen. If I want epic - I just read a book...George R.R. Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire = awesome read. Real epic realm vs realm type stuff - and civil war "clan" wars to boot.
To accurately represent the IP, you'd have to fight a galactic scale war for ten thousand years. Since any reasonable person would agree that's not possible, what's the next best thing? A single encounter, which coincidentially is both how relic has done 40k since the original Dawn of War and how Vigil plans to do DMO. And until the sargos conflict is over, it's better to let your enemies die fighting each other than try and take them all on at the same time.
It's also neither vigil nor THQ that are calling the shots on the two faction decision, it's games workshop directly. They believe Order vs Destruction best represents both WHFB and 40k, which is why they've been using it in all their large-scale encounters since 2nd edition.
I'm sorry Mike, but once again you are just tailoring things to the way you want them to be. Your opinion is fine, but the facts speak differently. Just like the last time you thought that GW was all about a certain point of view you had, remember you thought the game was 2 sided. So I called you on it and even contacted 3 seperate GW stores, 2 of your choosing?
Your point of view is just that a point of view. This is not based on facts. GW is in FACT not calling the shots on this like you are saying.
What happens goes something like this, THQ gets the rights to the IP. Relic makes it's games based on a design and scenario they thought up. GW gives a stamp of approval and the game moves forward. The same exact thing is happening here, THQ has gained license to create 40k in the mmo game styling. Vigil gets THQ to let them create mmo, Vigil comes up with a scenario and present it to GW. GW gives it a stamp of approval, THQ funds the project, Vigil makes the game GW consents to the scenario ie use of the IP in the game.
I did some searching a while back, and found nothing that suggests Games Workshop had anything to do with the two faction system WAR had, aside from approving it. I've also followed almost all the articles, interviews and news for DMO, and again found nothing on the matter save for a couple comments.
I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'm going to need some proof before blindly believing it.
You want proof? How about Games Workshop making their own 2 sided divide called (you guessed it) order and destruction around summer 2003. Those names were not Mythic's creations, they've been around since Games Workshop created them for their 2 sided global campaigns.
And Spal, you're hopeless. Calling a games workshop store and asking if 40k is 2 sided takes the question completely out of context. Any manager, employee, or random passer-by will say "no" only because they're speaking as to 40k in general. This isn't 40k in general. This is the war for the Sargos sector, and if you asked those same people "Would the Imperium fight along side Eldar against an overwhelming common enemy?" they'd tell you yes, and probably point out more than a few occasions where it's happened before.
You're trying to simplify the idea to the point where it fits your own tastes, but that's not how it works. I know full well you're going to respond with some sort of tripe to the effect of "ZOMG GRIMDARK!!!", but I have no interest in it. They've made a decision blessed by the most notoriously over-protective IP owners in history, and no amount of nerd rage will make them scrap what they've invested millions (maybe even tens of millions) of dollars making. So take your 3 faction circle-jerk possie and go infest the planetside forum.
Originally posted by StMichael You want proof? How about Games Workshop making their own 2 sided divide called (you guessed it) order and destruction around summer 2003. Those names were not Mythic's creations, they've been around since Games Workshop created them for their 2 sided global campaigns.
Here is what you said:
"It's also neither vigil nor THQ that are calling the shots on the two faction decision, it's games workshop directly."
You claimed that Games Workshop is calling the shots for the faction system in an MMO, not a tabletop game. Insert coin to try again.
Originally posted by StMichael You're trying to simplify the idea to the point where it fits your own tastes, but that's not how it works. I know full well you're going to respond with some sort of tripe to the effect of "ZOMG GRIMDARK!!!", but I have no interest in it. They've made a decision blessed by the most notoriously over-protective IP owners in history, and no amount of nerd rage will make them scrap what they've invested millions (maybe even tens of millions) of dollars making. So take your 3 faction circle-jerk possie and go infest the planetside forum.
You're the one trying to simplify it, not him. In the grand scheme of things, two factions is great and makes perfect sense [and this is where you generally stop reading]. But once you throw in the social aspects of an MMO, quests, gear, cities, vehicles, healing, or anything else specific to a given race, you'll run into what the IP absolutely does not allow: Buddy-buddy relationships between sworn enemies.
So if a race can't take advantage of an alliance, what is the point of said alliance?
I'd love to hear your answer to that, but I know you're too busy to reply to all posts and must choose very carefully.
You're the one trying to simplify it, not him. In the grand scheme of things, two factions is great and makes perfect sense [and this is where you generally stop reading]. But once you throw in the social aspects of an MMO, quests, gear, cities, vehicles, healing, or anything else specific to a given race, you'll run into what the IP absolutely does not allow: Buddy-buddy relationships between sworn enemies.
So if a race can't take advantage of an alliance, what is the point of said alliance?
I'd love to hear your answer to that, but I know you're too busy to reply to all posts and must choose very carefully.
Because all those things you just mentioned are the small nit-picky details that can be designed around. You take for granted the idea that all of those MMO elements (quests, gear, cities etc) MUST mean they stopped hating each other (or rather, hating for imperium and being condescending douchebags for eldar). You've railroaded 2 factions into 2 sides that are BFFs and can't consider Vigil maintaining the sense of tension through good quest writing, game mechanics, use of neutral locales etc. Seriously, have you played ANY games besides world of warcraft? Go out there and try something new, you might find out that there's plenty of room for creativity left in the gaming industry.
And before you bring up what players will do given the fact that the Imperium and Eldar will be on the same side, they're going to buttfuck the lore with or without alliances. Simply by having 1 other person on the server with you, your immersion and IP enjoyment will die in a blazing fire.
I still think the best way to handle two factions is to give modifiers when dealing with other races within your faction.
Space Marine Apothecary healing a Space Marine +10%
Space Marine Apothecary Healing Imperial Guard +5%
Space Marine Apothecary healing Eldar -15%
This is just an example, but it could expand to other things as well like exp and what not. It will allow other races to group together, but its not ideal. The same could be said for guilds, where people will be looking to make all 1 race guilds to get the most advantages.
Why do people keep saying the Eldar and Space Marines are on the same side? Or that they're the second faction?
As for the game being two or three factions, they can both work for PvE reasons.
If there ends up being open world PvP or some form of area control (Keeps in WHO or DAoC), which there usually ends up being some, then you need a three faction system to even the playing field. With two factions one side dominates the other and then one side leaves the server for greener pastures. The losing side heads to a server where their faction is winning or a server that has equal numbers, which then makes the factions lopsided and the cycle continues. Or people quit, which drives the numbers down.
With the third faction if one side gets too big then the other two can both attack the dominant faction and attack each other at other points.
If each race were designed on a per-race basis, that would work. But they've said they're not making each race have a functional equal, IE eldar won't have a class that functions like a Space Marine, and Orks won't have a class that functions like Khorne Berzerkers. So design decisions like that only reward those playing the flavor of the month (as everyone wants to roll characters to benefit from their advantage) and punishes those playing something else.
With the third faction if one side gets too big then the other two can both attack the dominant faction and attack each other at other points.
If your only goal in the game is to deny either of your two enemies victory, then yes, it's in your best interest to do just that. But that's not the only goal, or even the biggest one by quite a large stretch. To the average player, when faced with a choice between trying to take on the alpha faction or picking on the underdog, they'll go for the sure win more than enough times to piss the underdog off. With 2 sides, there's a constant enemy and strength in the simplicity of us vs them. If one tactic didn't work last fight and you lost, you can try again with different tactics to gain the upper hand. There's also the possibility of leveling the playing field with things like increased access to vehicles for the underpopulated realm.
On the other hand, if one faction out of 3 is weaker to start off with and they get teamed up against because of that, there's nothing they can do to stop it. That's when the REAL rage-quitting starts.
Originally posted by StMichael Because all those things you just mentioned are the small nit-picky details that can be designed around. You take for granted the idea that all of those MMO elements (quests, gear, cities etc) MUST mean they stopped hating each other (or rather, hating for imperium and being condescending douchebags for eldar). You've railroaded 2 factions into 2 sides that are BFFs and can't consider Vigil maintaining the sense of tension through good quest writing, game mechanics, use of neutral locales etc. Seriously, have you played ANY games besides world of warcraft? Go out there and try something new, you might find out that there's plenty of room for creativity left in the gaming industry.
Actually, World of Warcraft tends to keep their races fairly separate until such time that they run into a neutral faction. They definitely have cross over, but generally the factions are kept apart from one another. And you're right; my apologies for not playing enough MMOs that have multiple factions with a deep seated hatred for one another but must band together in an uneasy fashion in certain situations in order to defeat an enemy that would doom them all had they not had the power of another race to add to their numbers. Perhaps you should point me in the right direction for such an MMO, because all I see is World of Warcraft. And oh look, Warcraft was based on Warhammer.
I've already explained far too much why it wouldn't work as far as cats and dogs living together and such, but something that doesn't get brought up often is not what wouldn't happen between races, but what would: The races would fight each other regardless of their temporary alliance, and removing the ability to fight with another race just wouldn't be kosher. An Eldar passing a Space Marine on the street doesn't result in a head nod, it results in a bullet to the head.
I'm thinking "two factions" is a cover up for a more advanced system that isn't as cut and dry as the generic faction systems out there. The more I argue with trolls and their complete lack of arguments, the more it becomes clear that there really isn't any other way to do it.
Originally posted by StMichael And before you bring up what players will do given the fact that the Imperium and Eldar will be on the same side, they're going to buttfuck the lore with or without alliances. Simply by having 1 other person on the server with you, your immersion and IP enjoyment will die in a blazing fire.
Perhaps you should read some of the earlier posts in the thread. You know, before you start throwing out things that have been made extremely clear.
On the other hand, if one faction out of 3 is weaker to start off with and they get teamed up against because of that, there's nothing they can do to stop it. That's when the REAL rage-quitting starts.
As opposed to the two faction system, where there is no choice but to pick on the weaker faction.
Or were you implying that the problems and solutions you've used to argue against a three faction system aren't also inherent in a two faction system?
With the third faction if one side gets too big then the other two can both attack the dominant faction and attack each other at other points.
If your only goal in the game is to deny either of your two enemies victory, then yes, it's in your best interest to do just that. But that's not the only goal, or even the biggest one by quite a large stretch. To the average player, when faced with a choice between trying to take on the alpha faction or picking on the underdog, they'll go for the sure win more than enough times to piss the underdog off. With 2 sides, there's a constant enemy and strength in the simplicity of us vs them. If one tactic didn't work last fight and you lost, you can try again with different tactics to gain the upper hand. There's also the possibility of leveling the playing field with things like increased access to vehicles for the underpopulated realm.
On the other hand, if one faction out of 3 is weaker to start off with and they get teamed up against because of that, there's nothing they can do to stop it. That's when the REAL rage-quitting starts.
Not really mate, you're not taking into account that the factions are supposed to be fighting over RESOURCES rather than a chance to "piss someone off". The underdog faction will have the least resources and therefore be the least interesting to attack. Yeah, as a middle faction you can go and kick the underdog "just because" but you'll be digging your own grave by doing so because you could be spending that time and effort attacking someone who actually has something to steal. It would be much more profitable for you to team up with the underdog and together try take away some the big pile of loot the top dog has hoarded.
As I mentioned before, a mmo persistent world operates on different rules than a one-off battle. That's why I'm a bit sceptical of 3-way one-off insta battles in the new WH MOBA game... Can't these guys do anything right? 2-faction persistent world and 3-faction quick match lobby game? Don't they know ANYTHING? They've got their asses completely the wrong way around! Sheesh...
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.
I'm not arguing lore here AT ALL. Im arguing basic game mechanics here. It's dead simple - if you want your fights to inherently tend towards a wining condition (a BG, scenario, battle, war) then you want 2 factions. If you want a persistent conflict that ultimately has no winner (a world) then you need 3+ factions.
Ideally, a WH40K game that is actually driven by player conflict should have 3+ factions in the persistent world PvP and 2 factions in particular fights (such as instanced BGs).
WH40K online might take place in a sector that is divided into two factions, but all wars do tend towards froming 2 factions and therefore ending.. and WE DONT WANT THAT IN A GAME THAT IS NEVER SUPPOSED TO END AT ALL. That's the real basis for all the 3-faction arguments in mmos.
Maybe it is the WG's fault? Their own game structure is based on one-off fights between clashing armies rather than a persistent world with no ultimate "end to war." (Yes, it says differently in the lore but notice I'm talking game mechanics here. They can write whatever they want in lore. They could say they're all pink bunnies but it wouldn't influence how the game plays one bit) In tabletop battles someone has to clearly win, right? Well in a WORLD that is a mmo you DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO PERMANENTLY WIN. I've been doing some boardgame design myself and I can tell you that 2-player games inherently tend towards a win. The big problem in 3+ player games is that you usually need to add arbitrary winning mechanics in order to push the players towards someone winning and actually finishing the game. Otherwise they would just take stabs at each other indefinitely... which is actually something YOU WANT in a mmorpg persistent world.
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.
I'm not arguing lore here AT ALL. Im arguing basic game mechanics here. It's dead simple - if you want your fights to inherently tend towards a wining condition (a BG, scenario, battle, war) then you want 2 factions. If you want a persistent conflict that ultimately has no winner (a world) then you need 3+ factions.
Ideally, a WH40K game that is actually driven by player conflict should have 3+ factions in the persistent world PvP and 2 factions in particular fights (such as instanced BGs).
WH40K online might take place in a sector that is divided into two factions, but all wars do tend towards froming 2 factions and therefore ending.. and WE DONT WANT THAT IN A GAME THAT IS NEVER SUPPOSED TO END AT ALL. That's the real basis for all the 3-faction arguments in mmos.
Maybe it is the WG's fault? Their own game structure is based on one-off fights between clashing armies rather than a persistent world with no ultimate "end to war." (Yes, it says differently in the lore but notice I'm talking game mechanics here. They can write whatever they want in lore. They could say they're all pink bunnies but it wouldn't influence how the game plays one bit) In tabletop battles someone has to clearly win, right? Well in a WORLD that is a mmo you DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO PERMANENTLY WIN. I've been doing some boardgame design myself and I can tell you that 2-player games inherently tend towards a win. The big problem in 3+ player games is that you usually need to add arbitrary winning mechanics in order to push the players towards someone winning and actually finishing the game. Otherwise they would just take stabs at each other indefinitely... which is actually something YOU WANT in a mmorpg persistent world.
I agree 100%, two factions kill a game unless all the PvP is in arenas or battlefronts or scenerios. If there is any open world conflict and some form of resource or base capture that third faction goes a long way to making the game enjoyable. In a two faction system one side always ends up dominating the other side. Sure the smallest faction could get piled up on, but then the middle faction is gonna end up getting stomped down by the large faction after everything is said and done.
In Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC) the smaller factions some days would lose everything, but after everyone got out of work/school when people actually logged in, they'd grab their keeps back from the enemies and then go into their areas fighting. Sure some people left, but not as quickly as I've seen people leave a two faction server.
In WAR (or WHO depending on who you talk to) the two faction system brought the game down (plus bad character balance and a few other things) because one side would dominate the other in open field RVR/PVP. The only way for one side to get anything in the way of keeps or battle objectives was for them to "back cap", which was just going through areas your enemy had already been and taking it back while the enmy concentrated their efforts in other zones. If you wanted some fights one side would zerg the other. Thats no fun for anyone... well maybe the PvEers who just wanted to grind gear, but whats the point if you're looking for a fight? All it turned into was a giant game of ring around the rosie, if I wanted that I could become a hippie.
At that point you have the losing side leaving for servers where the faction they want to be on is stronger, which just creates even more of a problem. With a three plus faction system you would still have people doing that but not as much because there is options. Go hit another faction, while the dominant faction is fighting another faction hit them from behind, or go for third faction. It also adds a bit of suspense. "We're in Ork territory, but look there's some Eldar coming at us!" You never know who you'll run into.
Again this post was based on the idea that there will be some world PvP.
EDIT: Wanted to post a bit more about the three faction system.
I've seen the two weaker factions go after the dominant faction for a while just to knock them down a few pegs. Once that was said and done then the other two factions would proceeed to go after each other again. No one from the two weaker factions said lets go after the zerg, it just sort of happens if one side gets too big.
Comments
I responded to this type of mindset on page three I believe. Having certain races work together for a common goal happens all the time, but does an IoM medic heal an Eldar Warp Spider? Never. He probably wouldn't even know their physiology, nor should he care. Do Eldar take joyrides in Baneblades? Never. Do random Orks have conversations with the Chaos leaders? Never.
They definitely have temporary alliances occasionally, but they definitely aren't fighting side by side, using the same equipment, taking missions from other races, or doing anything that they would be required to do if a two faction system were to mean anything at all. The two faction system would work, but to say it isn't lorebreaking is to be very shortsighted.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
That's completely irrelevant.
A war is an EVENT. A mmorpg is a continual SETTING. This is what differentiates mmorpgs from one-off playthrough games.
Look at it this way. You have numerous countries and nations in the world history and they keep forming alliances and fighting wars which are largely two-sided at the MOMENT OF EVENT. However, in the past 200 years pretty much every nation that's been in multiple wars allied with its former enemies at a later date.
If you want to make a persistent, continuous and dynamic world you can't design it on the principles of a one off event thing... Unless you live in Orwell's 1984 and have Oceania and Eurasia slugging it out indefinitely. And even there it's a phony, consensual war where neither side wants to actually win.
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.
Oh please, give me a break. People need to quit with their "the sky is falling we're all doomed!" posts. It isn't impossible, you have not even the slightest clue that it would lead to failure, and you are yet again conveniently ignoring all the previous arguments in both this thread and others.
I can't help but think you're just a troll. I doubt you're unwilling to see reason, but you seem to willingly ignore it in favor of furthering an agenda almost everyone disagrees with. I couldn't help but read your posts on another website as well, and it appears you've been labeled as nothing but a troll there as well.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
This is a one time event over the span of an undetermined time.
Yes they can capture the feel of 40k, you are selling them short if you think they cannot deliver. That's very defeatist and it's already brandishing the game the less and unable to fullfill it's IP.
You are still trying to justify something that is;
1. By and large just not the case, multiple can be. It's already been done, and there are still games to arrive that are doing it.
2. Capture just one perspective on the IP. 40k is not just about a few races, it's about a universe in turmoil and war.
3. Defending Vigil and THQ, which you don't have to do. If they need defending it's not he fans job to do that, it's the PR departments job.
Sic Luceat Lux
Because the ONLY reason mmorpgs think it's ok to "lazy out" with their products is because they are hoping that most of their player base is a bunch of smot poking college drop outs. They don't want you to know that 3 factions are possible. That would require more work for them.
However, that being said, somewhere out there I guarantee there is a guy with the cash and imagination to consider just how fekking valuable Dark Age of Camelot's concepts are to a next gen mmorpg.
To accurately represent the IP, you'd have to fight a galactic scale war for ten thousand years. Since any reasonable person would agree that's not possible, what's the next best thing? A single encounter, which coincidentially is both how relic has done 40k since the original Dawn of War and how Vigil plans to do DMO. And until the sargos conflict is over, it's better to let your enemies die fighting each other than try and take them all on at the same time.
It's also neither vigil nor THQ that are calling the shots on the two faction decision, it's games workshop directly. They believe Order vs Destruction best represents both WHFB and 40k, which is why they've been using it in all their large-scale encounters since 2nd edition.
They won't.
Doesn't matter what you want. Pick a game that gives you what you want.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
And yeah - Wayne is correct. Companies will only do as much as they NEED to to get something produced. It's about the fastest to the digital download and return on investment possible that matters. This is why the genre is 2 faction or guild vs guild - whether it be GW2 or SW:ToR - it's all most developers want to deal with.
And do you blame them? Most players don't know the difference - and do NOT have a clue as to why 3 factions, let alone advanced pvp concepts even matter. As long as folks are happy to instant BG into Arathi Basin type games, it just...won't...change.
And that, my friends, is why I don't feed the developers any more of my money. I'm fed up with lackluster imaginations on the computer screen. If I want epic - I just read a book...George R.R. Martin's a Song of Ice and Fire = awesome read. Real epic realm vs realm type stuff - and civil war "clan" wars to boot.
I'm sorry Mike, but once again you are just tailoring things to the way you want them to be. Your opinion is fine, but the facts speak differently. Just like the last time you thought that GW was all about a certain point of view you had, remember you thought the game was 2 sided. So I called you on it and even contacted 3 seperate GW stores, 2 of your choosing?
Your point of view is just that a point of view. This is not based on facts. GW is in FACT not calling the shots on this like you are saying.
What happens goes something like this, THQ gets the rights to the IP. Relic makes it's games based on a design and scenario they thought up. GW gives a stamp of approval and the game moves forward. The same exact thing is happening here, THQ has gained license to create 40k in the mmo game styling. Vigil gets THQ to let them create mmo, Vigil comes up with a scenario and present it to GW. GW gives it a stamp of approval, THQ funds the project, Vigil makes the game GW consents to the scenario ie use of the IP in the game.
Sic Luceat Lux
I did some searching a while back, and found nothing that suggests Games Workshop had anything to do with the two faction system WAR had, aside from approving it. I've also followed almost all the articles, interviews and news for DMO, and again found nothing on the matter save for a couple comments.
I'm not saying it isn't true, but I'm going to need some proof before blindly believing it.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
You want proof? How about Games Workshop making their own 2 sided divide called (you guessed it) order and destruction around summer 2003. Those names were not Mythic's creations, they've been around since Games Workshop created them for their 2 sided global campaigns.
And Spal, you're hopeless. Calling a games workshop store and asking if 40k is 2 sided takes the question completely out of context. Any manager, employee, or random passer-by will say "no" only because they're speaking as to 40k in general. This isn't 40k in general. This is the war for the Sargos sector, and if you asked those same people "Would the Imperium fight along side Eldar against an overwhelming common enemy?" they'd tell you yes, and probably point out more than a few occasions where it's happened before.
You're trying to simplify the idea to the point where it fits your own tastes, but that's not how it works. I know full well you're going to respond with some sort of tripe to the effect of "ZOMG GRIMDARK!!!", but I have no interest in it. They've made a decision blessed by the most notoriously over-protective IP owners in history, and no amount of nerd rage will make them scrap what they've invested millions (maybe even tens of millions) of dollars making. So take your 3 faction circle-jerk possie and go infest the planetside forum.
Here is what you said:
"It's also neither vigil nor THQ that are calling the shots on the two faction decision, it's games workshop directly."
You claimed that Games Workshop is calling the shots for the faction system in an MMO, not a tabletop game. Insert coin to try again.
You're the one trying to simplify it, not him. In the grand scheme of things, two factions is great and makes perfect sense [and this is where you generally stop reading]. But once you throw in the social aspects of an MMO, quests, gear, cities, vehicles, healing, or anything else specific to a given race, you'll run into what the IP absolutely does not allow: Buddy-buddy relationships between sworn enemies.So if a race can't take advantage of an alliance, what is the point of said alliance?
I'd love to hear your answer to that, but I know you're too busy to reply to all posts and must choose very carefully.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
Having more than 2 factions doesn't mean there are more than 2 sides in each battle.
And having GW establish Order vs. Destruction for a long time? Pffft. See how well that worked in WAR for them?
Because all those things you just mentioned are the small nit-picky details that can be designed around. You take for granted the idea that all of those MMO elements (quests, gear, cities etc) MUST mean they stopped hating each other (or rather, hating for imperium and being condescending douchebags for eldar). You've railroaded 2 factions into 2 sides that are BFFs and can't consider Vigil maintaining the sense of tension through good quest writing, game mechanics, use of neutral locales etc. Seriously, have you played ANY games besides world of warcraft? Go out there and try something new, you might find out that there's plenty of room for creativity left in the gaming industry.
And before you bring up what players will do given the fact that the Imperium and Eldar will be on the same side, they're going to buttfuck the lore with or without alliances. Simply by having 1 other person on the server with you, your immersion and IP enjoyment will die in a blazing fire.
And with 3 factions Dark Age of Camelot never rose above 250k subs and now dwindles around 4k. It must REALLY suck then!
See what happens when you jump to conclusions? You miss all that important thinking and reasoning in between.
I still think the best way to handle two factions is to give modifiers when dealing with other races within your faction.
Space Marine Apothecary healing a Space Marine +10%
Space Marine Apothecary Healing Imperial Guard +5%
Space Marine Apothecary healing Eldar -15%
This is just an example, but it could expand to other things as well like exp and what not. It will allow other races to group together, but its not ideal. The same could be said for guilds, where people will be looking to make all 1 race guilds to get the most advantages.
Why do people keep saying the Eldar and Space Marines are on the same side? Or that they're the second faction?
As for the game being two or three factions, they can both work for PvE reasons.
If there ends up being open world PvP or some form of area control (Keeps in WHO or DAoC), which there usually ends up being some, then you need a three faction system to even the playing field. With two factions one side dominates the other and then one side leaves the server for greener pastures. The losing side heads to a server where their faction is winning or a server that has equal numbers, which then makes the factions lopsided and the cycle continues. Or people quit, which drives the numbers down.
With the third faction if one side gets too big then the other two can both attack the dominant faction and attack each other at other points.
If each race were designed on a per-race basis, that would work. But they've said they're not making each race have a functional equal, IE eldar won't have a class that functions like a Space Marine, and Orks won't have a class that functions like Khorne Berzerkers. So design decisions like that only reward those playing the flavor of the month (as everyone wants to roll characters to benefit from their advantage) and punishes those playing something else.
If your only goal in the game is to deny either of your two enemies victory, then yes, it's in your best interest to do just that. But that's not the only goal, or even the biggest one by quite a large stretch. To the average player, when faced with a choice between trying to take on the alpha faction or picking on the underdog, they'll go for the sure win more than enough times to piss the underdog off. With 2 sides, there's a constant enemy and strength in the simplicity of us vs them. If one tactic didn't work last fight and you lost, you can try again with different tactics to gain the upper hand. There's also the possibility of leveling the playing field with things like increased access to vehicles for the underpopulated realm.
On the other hand, if one faction out of 3 is weaker to start off with and they get teamed up against because of that, there's nothing they can do to stop it. That's when the REAL rage-quitting starts.
Actually, World of Warcraft tends to keep their races fairly separate until such time that they run into a neutral faction. They definitely have cross over, but generally the factions are kept apart from one another. And you're right; my apologies for not playing enough MMOs that have multiple factions with a deep seated hatred for one another but must band together in an uneasy fashion in certain situations in order to defeat an enemy that would doom them all had they not had the power of another race to add to their numbers. Perhaps you should point me in the right direction for such an MMO, because all I see is World of Warcraft. And oh look, Warcraft was based on Warhammer.
I've already explained far too much why it wouldn't work as far as cats and dogs living together and such, but something that doesn't get brought up often is not what wouldn't happen between races, but what would: The races would fight each other regardless of their temporary alliance, and removing the ability to fight with another race just wouldn't be kosher. An Eldar passing a Space Marine on the street doesn't result in a head nod, it results in a bullet to the head.
I'm thinking "two factions" is a cover up for a more advanced system that isn't as cut and dry as the generic faction systems out there. The more I argue with trolls and their complete lack of arguments, the more it becomes clear that there really isn't any other way to do it.
Perhaps you should read some of the earlier posts in the thread. You know, before you start throwing out things that have been made extremely clear.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
As opposed to the two faction system, where there is no choice but to pick on the weaker faction.
Or were you implying that the problems and solutions you've used to argue against a three faction system aren't also inherent in a two faction system?
Sarcasm is not a crime!
Not really mate, you're not taking into account that the factions are supposed to be fighting over RESOURCES rather than a chance to "piss someone off". The underdog faction will have the least resources and therefore be the least interesting to attack. Yeah, as a middle faction you can go and kick the underdog "just because" but you'll be digging your own grave by doing so because you could be spending that time and effort attacking someone who actually has something to steal. It would be much more profitable for you to team up with the underdog and together try take away some the big pile of loot the top dog has hoarded.
As I mentioned before, a mmo persistent world operates on different rules than a one-off battle. That's why I'm a bit sceptical of 3-way one-off insta battles in the new WH MOBA game... Can't these guys do anything right? 2-faction persistent world and 3-faction quick match lobby game? Don't they know ANYTHING? They've got their asses completely the wrong way around! Sheesh...
I'm not arguing lore here AT ALL. Im arguing basic game mechanics here. It's dead simple - if you want your fights to inherently tend towards a wining condition (a BG, scenario, battle, war) then you want 2 factions. If you want a persistent conflict that ultimately has no winner (a world) then you need 3+ factions.
Ideally, a WH40K game that is actually driven by player conflict should have 3+ factions in the persistent world PvP and 2 factions in particular fights (such as instanced BGs).
WH40K online might take place in a sector that is divided into two factions, but all wars do tend towards froming 2 factions and therefore ending.. and WE DONT WANT THAT IN A GAME THAT IS NEVER SUPPOSED TO END AT ALL. That's the real basis for all the 3-faction arguments in mmos.
Maybe it is the WG's fault? Their own game structure is based on one-off fights between clashing armies rather than a persistent world with no ultimate "end to war." (Yes, it says differently in the lore but notice I'm talking game mechanics here. They can write whatever they want in lore. They could say they're all pink bunnies but it wouldn't influence how the game plays one bit) In tabletop battles someone has to clearly win, right? Well in a WORLD that is a mmo you DO NOT WANT ANYONE TO PERMANENTLY WIN. I've been doing some boardgame design myself and I can tell you that 2-player games inherently tend towards a win. The big problem in 3+ player games is that you usually need to add arbitrary winning mechanics in order to push the players towards someone winning and actually finishing the game. Otherwise they would just take stabs at each other indefinitely... which is actually something YOU WANT in a mmorpg persistent world.
I agree 100%, two factions kill a game unless all the PvP is in arenas or battlefronts or scenerios. If there is any open world conflict and some form of resource or base capture that third faction goes a long way to making the game enjoyable. In a two faction system one side always ends up dominating the other side. Sure the smallest faction could get piled up on, but then the middle faction is gonna end up getting stomped down by the large faction after everything is said and done.
In Dark Age of Camelot (DAoC) the smaller factions some days would lose everything, but after everyone got out of work/school when people actually logged in, they'd grab their keeps back from the enemies and then go into their areas fighting. Sure some people left, but not as quickly as I've seen people leave a two faction server.
In WAR (or WHO depending on who you talk to) the two faction system brought the game down (plus bad character balance and a few other things) because one side would dominate the other in open field RVR/PVP. The only way for one side to get anything in the way of keeps or battle objectives was for them to "back cap", which was just going through areas your enemy had already been and taking it back while the enmy concentrated their efforts in other zones. If you wanted some fights one side would zerg the other. Thats no fun for anyone... well maybe the PvEers who just wanted to grind gear, but whats the point if you're looking for a fight? All it turned into was a giant game of ring around the rosie, if I wanted that I could become a hippie.
At that point you have the losing side leaving for servers where the faction they want to be on is stronger, which just creates even more of a problem. With a three plus faction system you would still have people doing that but not as much because there is options. Go hit another faction, while the dominant faction is fighting another faction hit them from behind, or go for third faction. It also adds a bit of suspense. "We're in Ork territory, but look there's some Eldar coming at us!" You never know who you'll run into.
Again this post was based on the idea that there will be some world PvP.
EDIT: Wanted to post a bit more about the three faction system.
I've seen the two weaker factions go after the dominant faction for a while just to knock them down a few pegs. Once that was said and done then the other two factions would proceeed to go after each other again. No one from the two weaker factions said lets go after the zerg, it just sort of happens if one side gets too big.