I don't think they are shooting for the hardcore Warhammer fans at all. This thread is a good example of why. Those fan are going to nitpick the ever loving sh!t out of the game. That is a customer base that is impossible to please. It wouldn't matter what the developer did...it would never live up to the expectations of someone who's been playing Warhammer or reading the Warhammer books for the past 20 years. So they did the only thing they could do and skipped it...they're shooting for everyone else.
'Everyone else' is not going to spend a whole bunch of time listening to people who will give them, in minute detail, all the ways that the game isn't a true representation of the Warhammer 40k universe. People in this thread are literally calling game store employees to ask them for an 'authoritative' opinion. It's ridiculous.
The people that the developer is targeting are not going to have a good idea of what the Warhammer 40k universe is, much less what it isn't. They're going to buy the game, and if it's fun, compared to the other games they play, they'll keep playing it. One detail like the number of factions isn't going to make it or break it for those people.
People who do reviews/previews are going to know about the lore screwups. Those who post on the forums are going to know. Pretty much everyone who has anything to say about the MMO until it is released is going to know. It doesn't matter what demographic/market they're aiming for; they have the W40k name attached to their MMO, so the fans are going to be the loudest voice until release and probably after. If Vigil's next announcements are met with extreme negativity, it's going to drown out most of the good news and cause any developer interviews/commentaries to have far less impact.
I also think you're exaggerating just a tad with your assessment of the fans. Some may be hardcore enough to spend all that time describing where they went wrong, but I think 99% of them will just throw down the basics and give them a quick "what could have been." I know next to nothing about the lore compared to the hardcore fans, and from both a gameplay perspective as well as a lore perspective I feel a generic two-faction system would be a huge mistake.
The game will probably succeed to an extent or even wonderfully, but giving the middle finger to the loudest voices will have a large impact on the potential success. What they want are reviews with "I like what they've done to the place," not "what could have been."
You missed the point Grawss. He's absolutely right; you can't make a completely accurate representation of everything 40k stands for. The table top can't do it, the codexes can't do it, the books can't do it, Dawn of War can't do it, the IP is too expansive. If you try it, you'll end up with a game that's about as fun and engaging as the 40k wiki, cause that's what it will ammount to. So people like you who will crucify the developers for everything they do can go on being unhappy while those less familiar with the IP or those who are reasonable, rational people can enjoy a well made game that does a great job at covering not the entirety of 40k, but the battle for the Sargos Sector.
It's also kinda cute that you think having a consistent point of view is considered trolling. I've never heard that one before, I'll add it to the list. It might even surpass "zerg" for definitions at this rate.
Originally posted by xKingdomx Originally posted by lizardbones
Anyway, the developer is more than 50% of the way through development on the game. They are not going to add another faction at this point. When the game releases, it will have two factions and that's it.
I honestly doubt it is 50% developed, unless you discount the testing and polishing process.
The game is expected to release in early 2013 and has (in Vigil's own words) seven years worth of development behind it. They are at least 50% of the way through the game's development.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Originally posted by grawss Originally posted by lizardbones
I don't think they are shooting for the hardcore Warhammer fans at all. This thread is a good example of why. Those fan are going to nitpick the ever loving sh!t out of the game. That is a customer base that is impossible to please. It wouldn't matter what the developer did...it would never live up to the expectations of someone who's been playing Warhammer or reading the Warhammer books for the past 20 years. So they did the only thing they could do and skipped it...they're shooting for everyone else.
'Everyone else' is not going to spend a whole bunch of time listening to people who will give them, in minute detail, all the ways that the game isn't a true representation of the Warhammer 40k universe. People in this thread are literally calling game store employees to ask them for an 'authoritative' opinion. It's ridiculous.
The people that the developer is targeting are not going to have a good idea of what the Warhammer 40k universe is, much less what it isn't. They're going to buy the game, and if it's fun, compared to the other games they play, they'll keep playing it. One detail like the number of factions isn't going to make it or break it for those people.
People who do reviews/previews are going to know about the lore screwups. Those who post on the forums are going to know. Pretty much everyone who has anything to say about the MMO until it is released is going to know. It doesn't matter what demographic/market they're aiming for; they have the W40k name attached to their MMO, so the fans are going to be the loudest voice until release and probably after. If Vigil's next announcements are met with extreme negativity, it's going to drown out most of the good news and cause any developer interviews/commentaries to have far less impact.
I also think you're exaggerating just a tad with your assessment of the fans. Some may be hardcore enough to spend all that time describing where they went wrong, but I think 99% of them will just throw down the basics and give them a quick "what could have been." I know next to nothing about the lore compared to the hardcore fans, and from both a gameplay perspective as well as a lore perspective I feel a generic two-faction system would be a huge mistake.
The game will probably succeed to an extent or even wonderfully, but giving the middle finger to the loudest voices will have a large impact on the potential success. What they want are reviews with "I like what they've done to the place," not "what could have been."
Vigil isn't giving the middle finger to anyone. Neither is Games Workshop. They just want to develop a successful game. Since they are starting something new, they are using a framework that they believe will make a successful game. Games Workshop is fleshing it out with their IP, within the bounds of the framework provided by Vigil.
It is smarter to make a good game first, sacrificing lore where necessary, than to try and live up to an impossible ideal. If that means 0 Warhammer fans like and play the game, but a million people who've never heard of Warhammer (but bought and played Space Marine) enjoy the game, then the Warhammer fans only have themselves to blame for not letting go of "what might have been".
All that said, my original vision of the game when I heard about it was much closer to a many factioned, open world, pvp centric sandbox with Mechs stomping around and bombs going off all over the place. I think what they are going to release is going to be very different. That doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, it's just not going to be what I originally envisioned.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Vigil isn't giving the middle finger to anyone. Neither is Games Workshop. They just want to develop a successful game. Since they are starting something new, they are using a framework that they believe will make a successful game. Games Workshop is fleshing it out with their IP, within the bounds of the framework provided by Vigil.
It is smarter to make a good game first, sacrificing lore where necessary, than to try and live up to an impossible ideal. If that means 0 Warhammer fans like and play the game, but a million people who've never heard of Warhammer (but bought and played Space Marine) enjoy the game, then the Warhammer fans only have themselves to blame for not letting go of "what might have been".
All that said, my original vision of the game when I heard about it was much closer to a many factioned, open world, pvp centric sandbox with Mechs stomping around and bombs going off all over the place. I think what they are going to release is going to be very different. That doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, it's just not going to be what I originally envisioned.
The red text is the key here. What they are doing (assuming it's a generic two faction system) isn't necessary to make a good game. They took an IP that calls for either hybrid dual factions or more than two factions, and are making it like other, more popular games in an attempt to cater to people who have invested no interest in the IP. That's giving the middle finger.
How about crafting? Should a Space Marine walk up to a manufactorum, put some bars of metal he mined into a mold and start making himself a bolter? That kind of thing would never happen in the IP, and isn't necessary to make the game successful. The true way to make the game successful isn't to sacrifice huge amounts of the lore for no reasons, it is to sacrifice the concepts from other MMOs to make a game nobody has played before.
And please, stop acting as though I'm implying they should stick with the lore 100%. If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread, you'd see clearly that I only care about the big stuff, and even then only when the addition of the big stuff would change gameplay for the better or do nothing negative. I don't know that much about the lore, so my goals are gameplay oriented and I'm using the IP as a catalyst for that argument. They're definitely going to make a boatload of sacrifices in order to make the game better, but those sacrifices should be only to make the game work better or be more fun, never to be more like another game.
Vigil isn't giving the middle finger to anyone. Neither is Games Workshop. They just want to develop a successful game. Since they are starting something new, they are using a framework that they believe will make a successful game. Games Workshop is fleshing it out with their IP, within the bounds of the framework provided by Vigil.
It is smarter to make a good game first, sacrificing lore where necessary, than to try and live up to an impossible ideal. If that means 0 Warhammer fans like and play the game, but a million people who've never heard of Warhammer (but bought and played Space Marine) enjoy the game, then the Warhammer fans only have themselves to blame for not letting go of "what might have been".
All that said, my original vision of the game when I heard about it was much closer to a many factioned, open world, pvp centric sandbox with Mechs stomping around and bombs going off all over the place. I think what they are going to release is going to be very different. That doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, it's just not going to be what I originally envisioned.
The red text is the key here. What they are doing (assuming it's a generic two faction system) isn't necessary to make a good game. They took an IP that calls for either hybrid dual factions or more than two factions, and are making it like other, more popular games in an attempt to cater to people who have invested no interest in the IP. That's giving the middle finger.
How about crafting? Should a Space Marine walk up to a manufactorum, put some bars of metal he mined into a mold and start making himself a bolter? That kind of thing would never happen in the IP, and isn't necessary to make the game successful. The true way to make the game successful isn't to sacrifice huge amounts of the lore for no reasons, it is to sacrifice the concepts from other MMOs to make a game nobody has played before.
And please, stop acting as though I'm implying they should stick with the lore 100%. If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread, you'd see clearly that I only care about the big stuff, and even then only when the addition of the big stuff would change gameplay for the better or do nothing negative. I don't know that much about the lore, so my goals are gameplay oriented and I'm using the IP as a catalyst for that argument. They're definitely going to make a boatload of sacrifices in order to make the game better, but those sacrifices should be only to make the game work better or be more fun, never to be more like another game.
We have absolutely no idea how many of their supposed "sacrifices" there are going to be, or how severe they are. There could very well be no crafting system as we know it from other games. They haven't said anything about it, why assume the worst? The same goes for how allies interact with each other, how common ground is handled, what quests will be like, what features the game will have, etc. You've heard that there will be 2 factions and are plugging in everything you know about other 2 faction games and assuming DMO will mimic them.
I'm also getting really tired of having to point out the games workshop campaigns as evidence to support that warhammer splits along order and destruction when particularly large campaigns are involved. Spllitting into order and destruction in DMO is perfectly within the bounds of the lore, so stop trying to claim it's not as a supporting point for a 3rd faction.
Anyway, the developer is more than 50% of the way through development on the game. They are not going to add another faction at this point. When the game releases, it will have two factions and that's it.
I honestly doubt it is 50% developed, unless you discount the testing and polishing process.
The game is expected to release in early 2013 and has (in Vigil's own words) seven years worth of development behind it. They are at least 50% of the way through the game's development.
Considering they aren't releasing any info right now, the early 2013 will probably be more like 2014, GW2 and SWTOR both surfaced with tibits of info for two years before closing in on a actual release date. Even DCUO with almost no content and still delayed for over a year.
And frankly, I have never heard of a MMO released early, but rather late all the time.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Vigil isn't giving the middle finger to anyone. Neither is Games Workshop. They just want to develop a successful game. Since they are starting something new, they are using a framework that they believe will make a successful game. Games Workshop is fleshing it out with their IP, within the bounds of the framework provided by Vigil.
It is smarter to make a good game first, sacrificing lore where necessary, than to try and live up to an impossible ideal. If that means 0 Warhammer fans like and play the game, but a million people who've never heard of Warhammer (but bought and played Space Marine) enjoy the game, then the Warhammer fans only have themselves to blame for not letting go of "what might have been".
All that said, my original vision of the game when I heard about it was much closer to a many factioned, open world, pvp centric sandbox with Mechs stomping around and bombs going off all over the place. I think what they are going to release is going to be very different. That doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, it's just not going to be what I originally envisioned.
The red text is the key here. What they are doing (assuming it's a generic two faction system) isn't necessary to make a good game. They took an IP that calls for either hybrid dual factions or more than two factions, and are making it like other, more popular games in an attempt to cater to people who have invested no interest in the IP. That's giving the middle finger.
How about crafting? Should a Space Marine walk up to a manufactorum, put some bars of metal he mined into a mold and start making himself a bolter? That kind of thing would never happen in the IP, and isn't necessary to make the game successful. The true way to make the game successful isn't to sacrifice huge amounts of the lore for no reasons, it is to sacrifice the concepts from other MMOs to make a game nobody has played before.
And please, stop acting as though I'm implying they should stick with the lore 100%. If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread, you'd see clearly that I only care about the big stuff, and even then only when the addition of the big stuff would change gameplay for the better or do nothing negative. I don't know that much about the lore, so my goals are gameplay oriented and I'm using the IP as a catalyst for that argument. They're definitely going to make a boatload of sacrifices in order to make the game better, but those sacrifices should be only to make the game work better or be more fun, never to be more like another game.
We have absolutely no idea how many of their supposed "sacrifices" there are going to be, or how severe they are. There could very well be no crafting system as we know it from other games. They haven't said anything about it, why assume the worst? The same goes for how allies interact with each other, how common ground is handled, what quests will be like, what features the game will have, etc. You've heard that there will be 2 factions and are plugging in everything you know about other 2 faction games and assuming DMO will mimic them.
I'm also getting really tired of having to point out the games workshop campaigns as evidence to support that warhammer splits along order and destruction when particularly large campaigns are involved. Spllitting into order and destruction in DMO is perfectly within the bounds of the lore, so stop trying to claim it's not as a supporting point for a 3rd faction.
Chicken Little, the sky is falling....
The game will be 2 factions as far as we can tell, deal with it. There will be Space Marines working with Eldar...deal with it. Chaos and Orks will be working together, again, deal with it. The game will undergo many changes and iterations before it's release, most likely not till 2014, unless they have really kept a tight lid on how far they have gotten. Unless you are working on the game, or doing the liason for GW to Vigil, Relic, THQ, whoever has the reigns at the moment, you don't know what exactly is happening, or how well or piss poor it's going to work.
I have said it before, I will say it again, let them make the damn game, or least get further along than they are now, before we start in on the bashing, because untill then it all sounds like;
The game will be 2 factions as far as we can tell, deal with it. There will be Space Marines working with Eldar...deal with it. Chaos and Orks will be working together, again, deal with it. The game will undergo many changes and iterations before it's release, most likely not till 2014, unless they have really kept a tight lid on how far they have gotten. Unless you are working on the game, or doing the liason for GW to Vigil, Relic, THQ, whoever has the reigns at the moment, you don't know what exactly is happening, or how well or piss poor it's going to work.
I have said it before, I will say it again, let them make the damn game, or least get further along than they are now, before we start in on the bashing, because untill then it all sounds like;
The sky is falling....
I'll agree with the spirit of your statement if not the form of it's delivery. Far too much complaining and definatetive statements based off of assumption. Idle speculation is fine, discussion of "what if...", sure. But considering so little is known about the game, it's tough to declare anything about the game as definative.
I say go with the 'wait and see' approach. will it suck? Maybe/maybe not. Could they have handled the limited release of details they've thus far given us? Absolutely! Telling everyone there were only 2 factions (with no supporting detail) was a bad idea start to finish. They should have either said nothing at all or waited until they could include some more detail so fewer people with inclined to say the sky is falling...<-------This is what I imagine when I see someone saying the game with absolutely fail or succeed.
Vigil is indeed unusually tight-lipped in regards to DMO considering the trending pattern of open communication from developers to players, but there may be method to their madness. It could be that there are critical bridging details that have yet to be figured out. They might have learned lessons from games like Rift and WAR in regards to over-hype and the crash involved when the game finally releases. They may be saving all their juicy details until after their biggest competition launches and starts losing steam.
It's difficult to tell considering THQ's losses. According to their stock investor summary, DMO is set to be a stable base of income they can rely on to keep the company in the black while experimenting with other games. That tells me that they're going to do everything they can to ensure it's initial and continued success.
2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south. It's always 2 factions in a war. Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.
It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be. Let it alone, seriously.
Are we basing game mechanics on world history now? Wtf?
just playing devil's advocate here, but it seems that real history and the books released by GW support the 2v2 setting.
Are there conflicting sub factions in the overall 2 main factions...sure. But, they're sub-factions and they still support the overall goal of the main faction.
The game will be 2 factions as far as we can tell, deal with it. There will be Space Marines working with Eldar...deal with it. Chaos and Orks will be working together, again, deal with it. The game will undergo many changes and iterations before it's release, most likely not till 2014, unless they have really kept a tight lid on how far they have gotten. Unless you are working on the game, or doing the liason for GW to Vigil, Relic, THQ, whoever has the reigns at the moment, you don't know what exactly is happening, or how well or piss poor it's going to work.
I have said it before, I will say it again, let them make the damn game, or least get further along than they are now, before we start in on the bashing, because untill then it all sounds like;
The sky is falling....
Oh shush, this is a discussion forum. People will discuss things ... deal with it. A few words here and there aren't going to stop them from making the game, or even from getting further along than they already are. Why not make your own thread for something you consider to be worth discussing?
Colored in red is the part of your post that amuses me the most, because all other assumptions stem from the "two factions" statement. All those "deal with it" bits become "well, maybe you'll have to deal with it... so just listen to me okay?! :'("
Colored in blue is what solidifies how worthless everything you said previous to it was.
Coloredin yellow is the statement Captain Obvious has sponsored for today. Why do you think we're even discussing this? If we knew exactly what was happening, or how well it was going to work, we wouldn't be talking about it. herrrrrr
You might want to look up the definition of 'forum' before dumping your whinefest on a discussion. And if you don't like it, I suggest you deal with it.
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
Oh ... I also remember a game with 3 faction PvP ... was called AutoAssault ! Look where it is now...
It not a key to success, sure I loved it in daoc and would be nice to have it here, but if they spend their resurces better in balancing 2 factions and a good pve part, I can live with it.
Why do people keep thinking 3 sided PvP is the only way to balance something? In fact the two bigger faction and simply gang on the smaller one first than move onto 1v1?
There are many ways to balance a mechanic, 3 factions is one way, but there are so many other possiblities. The devs aren't stupid, just if they are inspired enough to design something sensational.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I would think you would need more sides than three to balance it .As the combinations of alliances can vary then the balance need not be bothered with. I think if a game had more than 4 sides you would be looking at an interesting game which you would not need to balance really as the alliances would shift and this balances things out. As long as there are no shaman chain stunning on any side you would be set as far as balance goes. Even if one side is slightly better the fact that the others could gang up on that side makes it balanced. You could even repeat some skills on the sides. As long as there are many sides the game will always be fluid.
Hot damn why don't people create multifaction games then with customization of colors and almost similar skills that would require very little balancing. The players would police and organize themselves and since your skills are more or less equal you would have no imbalancing skills.
The game will be 2 factions as far as we can tell, deal with it. There will be Space Marines working with Eldar...deal with it. Chaos and Orks will be working together, again, deal with it. The game will undergo many changes and iterations before it's release, most likely not till 2014, unless they have really kept a tight lid on how far they have gotten. Unless you are working on the game, or doing the liason for GW to Vigil, Relic, THQ, whoever has the reigns at the moment, you don't know what exactly is happening, or how well or piss poor it's going to work.
I have said it before, I will say it again, let them make the damn game, or least get further along than they are now, before we start in on the bashing, because untill then it all sounds like;
The sky is falling....
Oh shush, this is a discussion forum. People will discuss things ... deal with it. A few words here and there aren't going to stop them from making the game, or even from getting further along than they already are. Why not make your own thread for something you consider to be worth discussing?
Colored in red is the part of your post that amuses me the most, because all other assumptions stem from the "two factions" statement. All those "deal with it" bits become "well, maybe you'll have to deal with it... so just listen to me okay?! :'("
Colored in blue is what solidifies how worthless everything you said previous to it was.
Coloredin yellow is the statement Captain Obvious has sponsored for today. Why do you think we're even discussing this? If we knew exactly what was happening, or how well it was going to work, we wouldn't be talking about it. herrrrrr
You might want to look up the definition of 'forum' before dumping your whinefest on a discussion. And if you don't like it, I suggest you deal with it.
Oh ya got me, you really got me. Didn't realize that adding my opinion to a discussion was counter to the definition of a forum.
Yes as far as we can tell it will be a two faction game, I say as far as we can tell because, well that's the information we have currently, and who knows, it may change. Based however upon that knowledge and information we have now, it will be a two faction game, whining about it does no good, as has been stated previously in quite a few posts here, the two faction system is not counter to "lore" for the 40k universe
The previous statements have now been made false cause I am now making the oft forgotten point that the game will undergo many builds and tweeks before release. Heavens forbid that we as fans of the 40k universe slow down to take a breath before all jumping on the "it's going to fail, it's not being done right, they should do it like this" bandwagon and continuosly whine and bitch about a game and it's mechanics that we have very little info on.
Captian Obvious seems to pop his head up a lot in forums, and most times he is completely unrecognizable. Even when there is solid and definite information on a game and its system, build, story, etc and it's looking to be a stellar success, the forums will do it's best to tear it down. Sometimes it takes a sledgehammer to remind the forums that early in the game development cycle we still don't know jack about the damn game, even when they release info, it's likeley to be changed in the next build.
I realize that the post made came across as a bit harsh, but seriously, how many times are people going to bitch about a two faction system that has been shown time and time again to not be counter to the games lore, and while not the "optimum" system for many, isn't so far fetched to deserve the continous bashing and bitching it has so far recieved.
I know quite well the definition of forum, and if you viewed my post as dumping of a whinefest on a discussion, you must be awfully busy in all threads here. I state my opinions, views, praises and complaints just as everyone else. Sometimes I come across a bit harsh, sometimes that's the intention, sometimes it's not. If it offends you, apologies, for the most part that is not the intent. if you can't accept the apology....uhhh...deal with it? :P
I would think you would need more sides than three to balance it .As the combinations of alliances can vary then the balance need not be bothered with. I think if a game had more than 4 sides you would be looking at an interesting game which you would not need to balance really as the alliances would shift and this balances things out. As long as there are no shaman chain stunning on any side you would be set as far as balance goes. Even if one side is slightly better the fact that the others could gang up on that side makes it balanced. You could even repeat some skills on the sides. As long as there are many sides the game will always be fluid.
Hot damn why don't people create multifaction games then with customization of colors and almost similar skills that would require very little balancing. The players would police and organize themselves and since your skills are more or less equal you would have no imbalancing skills.
Let's consider your example for a little bit. If we were to make a dark crusade style MMO (each codex army is their own side fighting against everyone else) you'd have some tough decisions to make. You said more than four, so let's go with a 5 sided fight: space marines, guardsmen, eldar, chaos, and orks. Now, do each of those codex races have functional equals in each of the other races? If not (as adhearing to the lore that each unit is unique), assuming you have only 4 playable classes per race the same way WAR did, that's 20 classes to design and balance right there. That's no small feat, and will certainly take a pretty large chunk from your schedule. Now you have the maps to design. Let's go with the Dark Crusade style map. You've got 5 strongholds (some would say 2 cities were more than the WAR team could handle, as a means of comparison) plus neutral ground that must all be designed to provide equal tactical value lest you be branded a rabid fan of whichever army happens to come out on top of the slight map advantage.
Artwork I'm not terribly concerned about, it's the same no matter how the sides are split. But then there's gameplay mechanics. If there are 5 sides fighting over a keep, how do you make it fun for all 5 sides? Throwing them into the mix to fight over it is a quick ticket to boring gameplay and a mass exodus of subscriptions. The defenders have 4 potential enemies, and so are outnumbered on average 4:1. Giving them a fair shot at actually defending something on their own however is pitting one united side with potential common leadership against 4 other unorganized armies that don't want to see any of their other rivals gain control of the keep. How does it end up working?
And then there's the real kicker: Expansion. Once you have this game set up (assuming you managed to pull all that other stuff off well enough that you CAN make an expansion) there's the little issue of trying to add yet another factor into the mix. Each race in 40k has huge fan followings, so you'd be expected to add them in some form or fasion. But how? You just went through hell balancing 5 factions in terms of character classes, map design, and gameplay mechanics, and now you have another 5 (or more!) armies to add! That means taking the currently existing class balance and add in as many as 20 more classes to balance against each other, splitting the map open and creating tactical balance with 10 races instead of 5, and then figuring out gameplay mechanics for a 10 way split.
If you're wondering why big budget MMOs don't try it your way, it's because they'd fail spectacularly. It's best left to smaller games that have no aspirations of large scale expansions, IP adherance, or any of that other mess getting in the way.
I agree with the logic of your wall o' statement though. It's far more financially feasible to start small with only a few races/factions. This allows for a greater level of detail and development than if they had 5 separate factions with all that is involved with creating content for those factions.
But we can all hope this game will be a smash hit, thus enticing THQ to add future expansions with new factions/races.
Also considering that THQ isn't exactly a huge company with massive financial reserves, they're going to be limited on how much money they can pour into this project.
This is their first foray into the mmo market. If this game is even mildly successful (200k subs for example), then they'll have much more resource wise to put toward future expansions. Here is for hoping that they knock it out of the park and hit the 1million sub mark.
That's the three factioned PvP games coming out that I know of next year, more than likely. That's not even counting all the free PvP games like Firefall and even the other Warhammer PvP game that's free to play from Mythic/EA. Or even counting the couple sandbox PvP games like ArcheAge as well.
I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes...
If it is charging, I don't see them breaking 200K at all given what's going to be out there already, especially with a tarnished name from Warhammer Online.
Why do people keep thinking 3 sided PvP is the only way to balance something? In fact the two bigger faction and simply gang on the smaller one first than move onto 1v1?
There are many ways to balance a mechanic, 3 factions is one way, but there are so many other possiblities. The devs aren't stupid, just if they are inspired enough to design something sensational.
I've never really focused on the balance aspect in my arguments for a three faction or hybrid two faction system, but the idea is that it gives the option for balance. Two factions will pretty much always result in one faction dominating the other, and large scale PvP will be terrible unless it is all instanced. I've seen balanced triple faction systems (at least some of the time), but I have never seen a balanced two faction system.
It only takes a single well-spoken person to turn two smaller factions against a larger one, while the possibility of this happening in a two faction system is zero. The only negative aspect to a triple faction system is how easy it is to group up and find guild members, but that isn't exclusive to a three faction system. I've seen Destruction outnumber Order by 4:1, or Alliance outnumbering horde by 6:1 (my server when I played).
Unless they put strict limits on which faction you can join, neither system will be balanced. But at least with a three faction or hybrid two faction system, the option for the players to actively make a difference is always there.
Originally posted by Blasphim
Oh ya got me, you really got me. Didn't realize that adding my opinion to a discussion was counter to the definition of a forum.
Adding your opinion is one thing. Another is when your opinion is that everyone else should stop their current discussion because you say so.
Originally posted by Blasphim
Yes as far as we can tell it will be a two faction game, I say as far as we can tell because, well that's the information we have currently, and who knows, it may change. Based however upon that knowledge and information we have now, it will be a two faction game, whining about it does no good, as has been stated previously in quite a few posts here, the two faction system is not counter to "lore" for the 40k universe
I don't think anyone is or ever has argued this, so I'm not sure how it's relevant. People are arguing about which system would be better in this specific case, not whether or not they've said they'll have two factions in the game.
Whining about it has worked in the past, by the way. Developers add something horrid to a game, there is an uproar, and the developers change it. Saying "it does no good" is an assumption at best, unless of course you know the developers and their plans better than the other people here.
As for the lore, it has been stated just as much, if not more that a two faction system is in fact counter to the lore. For the factions to actually be "factions" in the same sense that every other game has, the races would have to work far more closely than they ever would in the fluff.
Originally posted by Blasphim
The previous statements have now been made false cause I am now making the oft forgotten point that the game will undergo many builds and tweeks before release. Heavens forbid that we as fans of the 40k universe slow down to take a breath before all jumping on the "it's going to fail, it's not being done right, they should do it like this" bandwagon and continuosly whine and bitch about a game and it's mechanics that we have very little info on.
Those "builds and tweaks" are going to be based on two parts play testing, one part fan outcry, twenty parts producer "marketability." Now, assuming THQ isn't riding them too hard, that means the fan outcry makes up a pretty large potion of their criticism, and any developer who completely ignores their most critical potential customers is planning to fail.
Do you really expect people to wait until the last second to whine about something they don't like? You know, the last second where it is nigh impossible to change anything? People see a bit of news, and they comment on that bit of news; that's exactly what the developers/publisher wants.
Yes, we have very little information on it, but were I a developer, I'd want to see peoples' reactions to that very little information. If all these complaints about a generic two faction system are unfounded because "two factions" actually means "hybrid two factions," then I as the developer would be happy to know I'm not treading on peoples' toes.
Originally posted by Blasphim
Captian Obvious seems to pop his head up a lot in forums, and most times he is completely unrecognizable. Even when there is solid and definite information on a game and its system, build, story, etc and it's looking to be a stellar success, the forums will do it's best to tear it down. Sometimes it takes a sledgehammer to remind the forums that early in the game development cycle we still don't know jack about the damn game, even when they release info, it's likeley to be changed in the next build.
If the developers/marketers are smart, they'll easily be able to see through the whining to understand what the poster is actually saying. Anything past "game gunna fail" has useful information whether it's full of 12 year old AOL trash talking or not. While yes, posts like mine and yours are more useful than random trash talking, marketers and developers should be able to reduce "game gunna fail cuz one side bigger lol" into "This game may have PvP balance issues in anything but instances."
This is the natural course of things, so there is really no need for someone to come in and attempt to moderate a thread because they think there is too much whining going on. People complain about things they don't like; the bigger the outcry, the more people don't like it. Saying, "don't complain until we know for sure" is like saying, "don't write your congressman until the bill has already passed."
That's the three factioned PvP games coming out that I know of next year, more than likely. That's not even counting all the free PvP games like Firefall and even the other Warhammer PvP game that's free to play from Mythic/EA. Or even counting the couple sandbox PvP games like ArcheAge as well.
I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes...
If it is charging, I don't see them breaking 200K at all given what's going to be out there already, especially with a tarnished name from Warhammer Online.
I believe the failure of Warhammer Online will help more than hurt them if they do it right. Many people have ridden into Stardom piggybacking on bad publicity (e.g. Paris Hilton). Most of that publicity was aimed toward them, but in this case, DMO will be riding the bad publicity of someone else. "This is what they did wrong, and this is how we're going to fix it" is a pretty powerful statement, even if it's said indirectly.
The Warhammer name is out there and everyone will know about it, so all Vigil has to do is not screw it up.
I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes...
It all boils down to quality. I played a little bit of the Wrath of Heroes beta, and it is in no risk of becoming a massive success story. People will whine a bit about monthly subscriptions, but if the game delivers what they want, it's a tiny obsticle.
Just as a personal example, a few years back when I got a hankering for a good PvE game, I was about a year or so off world of warcraft and decided to try DDO considering that it was free and I play a game of pen and paper D&D from time to time. The game however was just trash. Combat felt as fluid as molasses in winter, the quests were no more engaging than any other MMO, and became just downright annoying by the 5th or 6th time you had to complete them to get to the next level, soloing ranged from mildly challenging if you played a strong solo character in a relatively mild dungeon to literally impossible if you played someone without massive AC or the ability to keep healing yourself, and to top it all off groups consisted of running into an area with swords swinging randomly and clearing everything out as quickly as possible over and over and over again.
After about a month of that, I just decided to fork over the cash to try out wrath of the lich king and had a great time for a while. And had I known ahead of time how my F2P experiment would have ended, I'd have cut out the middle man and just gone straight for the quality game.
Moral of the story: You get what you pay for, and it's not hard to convince people of that fact.
Originally posted by grawss Originally posted by popinjay 1. Planetside 2 2. The Secret World 3. Prime: Battle for Dominus 4. The Repopulation (newest one I heard of)
That's the three factioned PvP games coming out that I know of next year, more than likely. That's not even counting all the free PvP games like Firefall and even the other Warhammer PvP game that's free to play from Mythic/EA. Or even counting the couple sandbox PvP games like ArcheAge as well.
I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes... If it is charging, I don't see them breaking 200K at all given what's going to be out there already, especially with a tarnished name from Warhammer Online.
I believe the failure of Warhammer Online will help more than hurt them if they do it right. Many people have ridden into Stardom piggybacking on bad publicity (e.g. Paris Hilton). Most of that publicity was aimed toward them, but in this case, DMO will be riding the bad publicity of someone else. "This is what they did wrong, and this is how we're going to fix it" is a pretty powerful statement, even if it's said indirectly. The Warhammer name is out there and everyone will know about it, so all Vigil has to do is not screw it up. Fame for people and fame for games don't work the same way. Paris Hilton got famous because she's an heiress (Hilton hotel chain), then later for the sex vid.
A videogame is different because people pay for them because they are popular, not because the name failed.
It's not like "Oh, I think I want to try Warhammer 40k because WAR Online failed." Usually with gamers and people, failed product names work in reverse.
The Warhammer fanbase will buy the game for sure like any other game, but that's about it by and large unless it turns out to be something really, really good.. which they'll wait to read about or see in a trial.
Comments
People who do reviews/previews are going to know about the lore screwups. Those who post on the forums are going to know. Pretty much everyone who has anything to say about the MMO until it is released is going to know. It doesn't matter what demographic/market they're aiming for; they have the W40k name attached to their MMO, so the fans are going to be the loudest voice until release and probably after. If Vigil's next announcements are met with extreme negativity, it's going to drown out most of the good news and cause any developer interviews/commentaries to have far less impact.
I also think you're exaggerating just a tad with your assessment of the fans. Some may be hardcore enough to spend all that time describing where they went wrong, but I think 99% of them will just throw down the basics and give them a quick "what could have been." I know next to nothing about the lore compared to the hardcore fans, and from both a gameplay perspective as well as a lore perspective I feel a generic two-faction system would be a huge mistake.
The game will probably succeed to an extent or even wonderfully, but giving the middle finger to the loudest voices will have a large impact on the potential success. What they want are reviews with "I like what they've done to the place," not "what could have been."
Sarcasm is not a crime!
You missed the point Grawss. He's absolutely right; you can't make a completely accurate representation of everything 40k stands for. The table top can't do it, the codexes can't do it, the books can't do it, Dawn of War can't do it, the IP is too expansive. If you try it, you'll end up with a game that's about as fun and engaging as the 40k wiki, cause that's what it will ammount to. So people like you who will crucify the developers for everything they do can go on being unhappy while those less familiar with the IP or those who are reasonable, rational people can enjoy a well made game that does a great job at covering not the entirety of 40k, but the battle for the Sargos Sector.
It's also kinda cute that you think having a consistent point of view is considered trolling. I've never heard that one before, I'll add it to the list. It might even surpass "zerg" for definitions at this rate.
The game is expected to release in early 2013 and has (in Vigil's own words) seven years worth of development behind it. They are at least 50% of the way through the game's development.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I also think you're exaggerating just a tad with your assessment of the fans. Some may be hardcore enough to spend all that time describing where they went wrong, but I think 99% of them will just throw down the basics and give them a quick "what could have been." I know next to nothing about the lore compared to the hardcore fans, and from both a gameplay perspective as well as a lore perspective I feel a generic two-faction system would be a huge mistake.
The game will probably succeed to an extent or even wonderfully, but giving the middle finger to the loudest voices will have a large impact on the potential success. What they want are reviews with "I like what they've done to the place," not "what could have been."
Vigil isn't giving the middle finger to anyone. Neither is Games Workshop. They just want to develop a successful game. Since they are starting something new, they are using a framework that they believe will make a successful game. Games Workshop is fleshing it out with their IP, within the bounds of the framework provided by Vigil.
It is smarter to make a good game first, sacrificing lore where necessary, than to try and live up to an impossible ideal. If that means 0 Warhammer fans like and play the game, but a million people who've never heard of Warhammer (but bought and played Space Marine) enjoy the game, then the Warhammer fans only have themselves to blame for not letting go of "what might have been".
All that said, my original vision of the game when I heard about it was much closer to a many factioned, open world, pvp centric sandbox with Mechs stomping around and bombs going off all over the place. I think what they are going to release is going to be very different. That doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, it's just not going to be what I originally envisioned.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
The red text is the key here. What they are doing (assuming it's a generic two faction system) isn't necessary to make a good game. They took an IP that calls for either hybrid dual factions or more than two factions, and are making it like other, more popular games in an attempt to cater to people who have invested no interest in the IP. That's giving the middle finger.
How about crafting? Should a Space Marine walk up to a manufactorum, put some bars of metal he mined into a mold and start making himself a bolter? That kind of thing would never happen in the IP, and isn't necessary to make the game successful. The true way to make the game successful isn't to sacrifice huge amounts of the lore for no reasons, it is to sacrifice the concepts from other MMOs to make a game nobody has played before.
And please, stop acting as though I'm implying they should stick with the lore 100%. If you'd read my earlier posts in the thread, you'd see clearly that I only care about the big stuff, and even then only when the addition of the big stuff would change gameplay for the better or do nothing negative. I don't know that much about the lore, so my goals are gameplay oriented and I'm using the IP as a catalyst for that argument. They're definitely going to make a boatload of sacrifices in order to make the game better, but those sacrifices should be only to make the game work better or be more fun, never to be more like another game.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
We have absolutely no idea how many of their supposed "sacrifices" there are going to be, or how severe they are. There could very well be no crafting system as we know it from other games. They haven't said anything about it, why assume the worst? The same goes for how allies interact with each other, how common ground is handled, what quests will be like, what features the game will have, etc. You've heard that there will be 2 factions and are plugging in everything you know about other 2 faction games and assuming DMO will mimic them.
I'm also getting really tired of having to point out the games workshop campaigns as evidence to support that warhammer splits along order and destruction when particularly large campaigns are involved. Spllitting into order and destruction in DMO is perfectly within the bounds of the lore, so stop trying to claim it's not as a supporting point for a 3rd faction.
Considering they aren't releasing any info right now, the early 2013 will probably be more like 2014, GW2 and SWTOR both surfaced with tibits of info for two years before closing in on a actual release date. Even DCUO with almost no content and still delayed for over a year.
And frankly, I have never heard of a MMO released early, but rather late all the time.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
Chicken Little, the sky is falling....
The game will be 2 factions as far as we can tell, deal with it. There will be Space Marines working with Eldar...deal with it. Chaos and Orks will be working together, again, deal with it. The game will undergo many changes and iterations before it's release, most likely not till 2014, unless they have really kept a tight lid on how far they have gotten. Unless you are working on the game, or doing the liason for GW to Vigil, Relic, THQ, whoever has the reigns at the moment, you don't know what exactly is happening, or how well or piss poor it's going to work.
I have said it before, I will say it again, let them make the damn game, or least get further along than they are now, before we start in on the bashing, because untill then it all sounds like;
The sky is falling....
I'll agree with the spirit of your statement if not the form of it's delivery. Far too much complaining and definatetive statements based off of assumption. Idle speculation is fine, discussion of "what if...", sure. But considering so little is known about the game, it's tough to declare anything about the game as definative.
I say go with the 'wait and see' approach. will it suck? Maybe/maybe not. Could they have handled the limited release of details they've thus far given us? Absolutely! Telling everyone there were only 2 factions (with no supporting detail) was a bad idea start to finish. They should have either said nothing at all or waited until they could include some more detail so fewer people with inclined to say the sky is falling...
<-------This is what I imagine when I see someone saying the game with absolutely fail or succeed.
We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Vigil is indeed unusually tight-lipped in regards to DMO considering the trending pattern of open communication from developers to players, but there may be method to their madness. It could be that there are critical bridging details that have yet to be figured out. They might have learned lessons from games like Rift and WAR in regards to over-hype and the crash involved when the game finally releases. They may be saving all their juicy details until after their biggest competition launches and starts losing steam.
It's difficult to tell considering THQ's losses. According to their stock investor summary, DMO is set to be a stable base of income they can rely on to keep the company in the black while experimenting with other games. That tells me that they're going to do everything they can to ensure it's initial and continued success.
Are we basing game mechanics on world history now? Wtf?
just playing devil's advocate here, but it seems that real history and the books released by GW support the 2v2 setting.
Are there conflicting sub factions in the overall 2 main factions...sure. But, they're sub-factions and they still support the overall goal of the main faction.
We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Oh shush, this is a discussion forum. People will discuss things ... deal with it. A few words here and there aren't going to stop them from making the game, or even from getting further along than they already are. Why not make your own thread for something you consider to be worth discussing?
Colored in red is the part of your post that amuses me the most, because all other assumptions stem from the "two factions" statement. All those "deal with it" bits become "well, maybe you'll have to deal with it... so just listen to me okay?! :'("
Colored in blue is what solidifies how worthless everything you said previous to it was.
Coloredin yellow is the statement Captain Obvious has sponsored for today. Why do you think we're even discussing this? If we knew exactly what was happening, or how well it was going to work, we wouldn't be talking about it. herrrrrr
You might want to look up the definition of 'forum' before dumping your whinefest on a discussion. And if you don't like it, I suggest you deal with it.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
Oh ... I also remember a game with 3 faction PvP ... was called AutoAssault ! Look where it is now...
It not a key to success, sure I loved it in daoc and would be nice to have it here, but if they spend their resurces better in balancing 2 factions and a good pve part, I can live with it.
Why do people keep thinking 3 sided PvP is the only way to balance something? In fact the two bigger faction and simply gang on the smaller one first than move onto 1v1?
There are many ways to balance a mechanic, 3 factions is one way, but there are so many other possiblities. The devs aren't stupid, just if they are inspired enough to design something sensational.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I would think you would need more sides than three to balance it .As the combinations of alliances can vary then the balance need not be bothered with. I think if a game had more than 4 sides you would be looking at an interesting game which you would not need to balance really as the alliances would shift and this balances things out. As long as there are no shaman chain stunning on any side you would be set as far as balance goes. Even if one side is slightly better the fact that the others could gang up on that side makes it balanced. You could even repeat some skills on the sides. As long as there are many sides the game will always be fluid.
Hot damn why don't people create multifaction games then with customization of colors and almost similar skills that would require very little balancing. The players would police and organize themselves and since your skills are more or less equal you would have no imbalancing skills.
Oh ya got me, you really got me. Didn't realize that adding my opinion to a discussion was counter to the definition of a forum.
Yes as far as we can tell it will be a two faction game, I say as far as we can tell because, well that's the information we have currently, and who knows, it may change. Based however upon that knowledge and information we have now, it will be a two faction game, whining about it does no good, as has been stated previously in quite a few posts here, the two faction system is not counter to "lore" for the 40k universe
The previous statements have now been made false cause I am now making the oft forgotten point that the game will undergo many builds and tweeks before release. Heavens forbid that we as fans of the 40k universe slow down to take a breath before all jumping on the "it's going to fail, it's not being done right, they should do it like this" bandwagon and continuosly whine and bitch about a game and it's mechanics that we have very little info on.
Captian Obvious seems to pop his head up a lot in forums, and most times he is completely unrecognizable. Even when there is solid and definite information on a game and its system, build, story, etc and it's looking to be a stellar success, the forums will do it's best to tear it down. Sometimes it takes a sledgehammer to remind the forums that early in the game development cycle we still don't know jack about the damn game, even when they release info, it's likeley to be changed in the next build.
I realize that the post made came across as a bit harsh, but seriously, how many times are people going to bitch about a two faction system that has been shown time and time again to not be counter to the games lore, and while not the "optimum" system for many, isn't so far fetched to deserve the continous bashing and bitching it has so far recieved.
I know quite well the definition of forum, and if you viewed my post as dumping of a whinefest on a discussion, you must be awfully busy in all threads here. I state my opinions, views, praises and complaints just as everyone else. Sometimes I come across a bit harsh, sometimes that's the intention, sometimes it's not. If it offends you, apologies, for the most part that is not the intent. if you can't accept the apology....uhhh...deal with it? :P
Let's consider your example for a little bit. If we were to make a dark crusade style MMO (each codex army is their own side fighting against everyone else) you'd have some tough decisions to make. You said more than four, so let's go with a 5 sided fight: space marines, guardsmen, eldar, chaos, and orks. Now, do each of those codex races have functional equals in each of the other races? If not (as adhearing to the lore that each unit is unique), assuming you have only 4 playable classes per race the same way WAR did, that's 20 classes to design and balance right there. That's no small feat, and will certainly take a pretty large chunk from your schedule. Now you have the maps to design. Let's go with the Dark Crusade style map. You've got 5 strongholds (some would say 2 cities were more than the WAR team could handle, as a means of comparison) plus neutral ground that must all be designed to provide equal tactical value lest you be branded a rabid fan of whichever army happens to come out on top of the slight map advantage.
Artwork I'm not terribly concerned about, it's the same no matter how the sides are split. But then there's gameplay mechanics. If there are 5 sides fighting over a keep, how do you make it fun for all 5 sides? Throwing them into the mix to fight over it is a quick ticket to boring gameplay and a mass exodus of subscriptions. The defenders have 4 potential enemies, and so are outnumbered on average 4:1. Giving them a fair shot at actually defending something on their own however is pitting one united side with potential common leadership against 4 other unorganized armies that don't want to see any of their other rivals gain control of the keep. How does it end up working?
And then there's the real kicker: Expansion. Once you have this game set up (assuming you managed to pull all that other stuff off well enough that you CAN make an expansion) there's the little issue of trying to add yet another factor into the mix. Each race in 40k has huge fan followings, so you'd be expected to add them in some form or fasion. But how? You just went through hell balancing 5 factions in terms of character classes, map design, and gameplay mechanics, and now you have another 5 (or more!) armies to add! That means taking the currently existing class balance and add in as many as 20 more classes to balance against each other, splitting the map open and creating tactical balance with 10 races instead of 5, and then figuring out gameplay mechanics for a 10 way split.
If you're wondering why big budget MMOs don't try it your way, it's because they'd fail spectacularly. It's best left to smaller games that have no aspirations of large scale expansions, IP adherance, or any of that other mess getting in the way.
Holy wall of text batman!
I agree with the logic of your wall o' statement though. It's far more financially feasible to start small with only a few races/factions. This allows for a greater level of detail and development than if they had 5 separate factions with all that is involved with creating content for those factions.
But we can all hope this game will be a smash hit, thus enticing THQ to add future expansions with new factions/races.
We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
Also considering that THQ isn't exactly a huge company with massive financial reserves, they're going to be limited on how much money they can pour into this project.
This is their first foray into the mmo market. If this game is even mildly successful (200k subs for example), then they'll have much more resource wise to put toward future expansions. Here is for hoping that they knock it out of the park and hit the 1million sub mark.
We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
1. Planetside 2
2. The Secret World
3. Prime: Battle for Dominus
4. The Repopulation (newest one I heard of)
That's the three factioned PvP games coming out that I know of next year, more than likely. That's not even counting all the free PvP games like Firefall and even the other Warhammer PvP game that's free to play from Mythic/EA. Or even counting the couple sandbox PvP games like ArcheAge as well.
I hope this game isn't charging for a sub because it's going up against some steep competition and FTP schemes...
If it is charging, I don't see them breaking 200K at all given what's going to be out there already, especially with a tarnished name from Warhammer Online.
"TO MICHAEL!"
I've never really focused on the balance aspect in my arguments for a three faction or hybrid two faction system, but the idea is that it gives the option for balance. Two factions will pretty much always result in one faction dominating the other, and large scale PvP will be terrible unless it is all instanced. I've seen balanced triple faction systems (at least some of the time), but I have never seen a balanced two faction system.
It only takes a single well-spoken person to turn two smaller factions against a larger one, while the possibility of this happening in a two faction system is zero. The only negative aspect to a triple faction system is how easy it is to group up and find guild members, but that isn't exclusive to a three faction system. I've seen Destruction outnumber Order by 4:1, or Alliance outnumbering horde by 6:1 (my server when I played).
Unless they put strict limits on which faction you can join, neither system will be balanced. But at least with a three faction or hybrid two faction system, the option for the players to actively make a difference is always there.
Adding your opinion is one thing. Another is when your opinion is that everyone else should stop their current discussion because you say so.
I don't think anyone is or ever has argued this, so I'm not sure how it's relevant. People are arguing about which system would be better in this specific case, not whether or not they've said they'll have two factions in the game.
Whining about it has worked in the past, by the way. Developers add something horrid to a game, there is an uproar, and the developers change it. Saying "it does no good" is an assumption at best, unless of course you know the developers and their plans better than the other people here.
As for the lore, it has been stated just as much, if not more that a two faction system is in fact counter to the lore. For the factions to actually be "factions" in the same sense that every other game has, the races would have to work far more closely than they ever would in the fluff.
Those "builds and tweaks" are going to be based on two parts play testing, one part fan outcry, twenty parts producer "marketability." Now, assuming THQ isn't riding them too hard, that means the fan outcry makes up a pretty large potion of their criticism, and any developer who completely ignores their most critical potential customers is planning to fail.
Do you really expect people to wait until the last second to whine about something they don't like? You know, the last second where it is nigh impossible to change anything? People see a bit of news, and they comment on that bit of news; that's exactly what the developers/publisher wants.
Yes, we have very little information on it, but were I a developer, I'd want to see peoples' reactions to that very little information. If all these complaints about a generic two faction system are unfounded because "two factions" actually means "hybrid two factions," then I as the developer would be happy to know I'm not treading on peoples' toes.
If the developers/marketers are smart, they'll easily be able to see through the whining to understand what the poster is actually saying. Anything past "game gunna fail" has useful information whether it's full of 12 year old AOL trash talking or not. While yes, posts like mine and yours are more useful than random trash talking, marketers and developers should be able to reduce "game gunna fail cuz one side bigger lol" into "This game may have PvP balance issues in anything but instances."
This is the natural course of things, so there is really no need for someone to come in and attempt to moderate a thread because they think there is too much whining going on. People complain about things they don't like; the bigger the outcry, the more people don't like it. Saying, "don't complain until we know for sure" is like saying, "don't write your congressman until the bill has already passed."
Sarcasm is not a crime!
I believe the failure of Warhammer Online will help more than hurt them if they do it right. Many people have ridden into Stardom piggybacking on bad publicity (e.g. Paris Hilton). Most of that publicity was aimed toward them, but in this case, DMO will be riding the bad publicity of someone else. "This is what they did wrong, and this is how we're going to fix it" is a pretty powerful statement, even if it's said indirectly.
The Warhammer name is out there and everyone will know about it, so all Vigil has to do is not screw it up.
Sarcasm is not a crime!
It all boils down to quality. I played a little bit of the Wrath of Heroes beta, and it is in no risk of becoming a massive success story. People will whine a bit about monthly subscriptions, but if the game delivers what they want, it's a tiny obsticle.
Just as a personal example, a few years back when I got a hankering for a good PvE game, I was about a year or so off world of warcraft and decided to try DDO considering that it was free and I play a game of pen and paper D&D from time to time. The game however was just trash. Combat felt as fluid as molasses in winter, the quests were no more engaging than any other MMO, and became just downright annoying by the 5th or 6th time you had to complete them to get to the next level, soloing ranged from mildly challenging if you played a strong solo character in a relatively mild dungeon to literally impossible if you played someone without massive AC or the ability to keep healing yourself, and to top it all off groups consisted of running into an area with swords swinging randomly and clearing everything out as quickly as possible over and over and over again.
After about a month of that, I just decided to fork over the cash to try out wrath of the lich king and had a great time for a while. And had I known ahead of time how my F2P experiment would have ended, I'd have cut out the middle man and just gone straight for the quality game.
Moral of the story: You get what you pay for, and it's not hard to convince people of that fact.
The Warhammer name is out there and everyone will know about it, so all Vigil has to do is not screw it up.
Fame for people and fame for games don't work the same way. Paris Hilton got famous because she's an heiress (Hilton hotel chain), then later for the sex vid.
A videogame is different because people pay for them because they are popular, not because the name failed.
It's not like "Oh, I think I want to try Warhammer 40k because WAR Online failed." Usually with gamers and people, failed product names work in reverse.
The Warhammer fanbase will buy the game for sure like any other game, but that's about it by and large unless it turns out to be something really, really good.. which they'll wait to read about or see in a trial.
"TO MICHAEL!"