Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Crying a little inside (Warhammer 40k).

2

Comments

  • CrosiusCrosius Member Posts: 129

    Originally posted by Echelons

    Seems like a lot of the posters understand a lot about the tabletop game Warhammer 40k and not much about how an MMO and it's players function.

    That's the kind of thinking that pigeon-holes us into boring, derivative, repetative gaming. The point is that someone has to take a fucknig leap of faith to make a truely captivating game. AND the point of my previous post was a testament to how out-of-the-box thinking works in reality. Not to mention that the IP is the tabletop game! If it's not based off of the tabletop and lore why would the fans play it? (the fans being the ones to please here)

  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk Member Posts: 1,532

    Originally posted by Echelons

    Seems like a lot of the posters understand a lot about the tabletop game Warhammer 40k and not much about how an MMO and it's players function.

    Get off your high horse man. No one knows yet how "mmos and their players function" and especially not the devs, as is evident from the series of flops and just plain bad design we've been subjected to for the past years and years. There is no theoretical framework yet for a serious game design study because its such a new field.

    Lol. Devs. Haha. Sometimes i think this field is populated mostly by slavering idiots, occasional exceptions and all. It is not only the lack of theory that is to blame but the very common sense and purely empirical awareness of past games that is sadly missing. Just an example - DFO and bloodwalling that was rampant there. I mean you really have to be a congential idiot in order not to be able to predict such behavior in a game with this feature set... I mean it happened in EVERY SINGLE OPEN PVP game TO DATE... and yet Tasos and the gang got caught with their pants down, had to nerf PvP rewards to oblivion and thus make their "hardcore PvP" game into a PvE grind one. Meh.

    And now I see the very same happening with WH40K. It is sickening. I feel like I'm watching a mentally "challenged" person playing with matches and unable to stop him... I know he will burn himself because that is exactly what happened to hem before, many times and yet he cannot comprehend it because he lacks the memory to remember or mental capacity to deduce the consequences of his actions.

    What is most sickening is that WH40K has a predecessor... and which failed abysmally because they built their game on false premises. And now WH40K is building their game on this very same set of mistakes that doomed their predecessor. This cognitive trainwreck is simply amazing. They want to repeat WoW's success but are completely unable to understand why is WoW so succesful. Instead of taking WoW's strong points and improving/dispensing with the faults, they got all their marbles mixed and are building the game on WoW's faults while pretty much ignoring the positives.

    Again the same happened to Mythic. Lack of hindight if I ever saw one. Their DAoC RvR endgame is fresh no matter how long you play it because there are three factions and the strategic situation /world state is thus always protean, constantly changing. Mythic failed a ridiculously easy IQ check when they went for two factions, completely unable to perceive that it is exactly this 3-way conflict which sustained their RvR. Amazing. Simply amazing. WAR's greatest single failing is repetive "back and forth back and forth" endgame RvR in T4 which is ENTIRELY due to there being just two factions. You cannot theoretically have anything else with a 2-sided game system - it is like 2 plus 2 equals 4 ffs! Sadly they can't ever change this, no matter how much they would want to now that they've come to their senses, because the whole zone and world design is carefully and painfully built around 2 factions. In essence it would mean rebuilding the whole game almost from scratch for which they have far too little resources now. It makes me want to cry for their sheer stupidity, and I'm sure there were some tears of frustration over there when they realized what they've done.

    As for "WoW playerbase". Mythic wanted to appeal to WoW playerbase too. Maybe thats the reason for only two factions. Utter fail of intelligence again . No one plays WoW over the other games because there are two factions in that game, lol. Pure idiocy. Aditionally WoW is WoW. If players like WoW they will play WoW and they will not change games. If they are tired of WoW and are looking for something new, they will NOT play WoW re-skinned! I mean they left WoW because something didn't agree with them there and now they want CHANGE and not a clone of the game they just left!. That's basic logic man! And that is why ANY game trying to compete with WoW by mimicking it is doomed to failure, without exception.

    And now THQ is doing the SAME mistakes again... EXACTLY the same. Vehicles are not going to save them just as VA is not going to save SWToR or how PQs failed to save WAR. Sorry but I think I'm going to be sick now, goodbye.

  • dakota123dakota123 Member Posts: 93
    ok, i just have an idea on what i believe "Should" happen.

    I think there should be at least 4 factions, however, i also think they must be very opportunistic for each other, and maybe there is like a monthly type thing where the aliances between factions switch, say chaos and orks work together to achieve a goal one month, and then next month the orks turn on chaos, and thus, war. This way, no one faction would be the punching bag of the rest, and it would make a very nice system of changing alliances.
  • thexratedthexrated Member UncommonPosts: 1,368

    Have to say that I am also dissapointed with this news, if it is in fact the truth.

    Only way to make about two sides would mean that only two factions would be playable. Say Chaos and Mankind. Anything else is just a travesty of the lore and IP itself.

    "The person who experiences greatness must have a feeling for the myth he is in."

  • ericbelserericbelser Member Posts: 783

    Simple rule here...as much as I love THQ, they *will* screw up something with this...I'm just accepting that from the start. There is just no way they will release the kind of open ended, true sandbox RPG that the Dark Millenium universe is in PnP/Tabletop and which it deserves. They *are* going to simplify things, cut corners and limit options; it is just a question of how badly and if the game is still fun anyways.

    WAR isn't a pathetic flop because they butchered the lore/sides or restricted options; it's a flop because the game play is boring as all get out and PvP was terribly implemented.

    If THQ manages to make a fun game with meaningful PvP I will be very happy.

     

  • risenbonesrisenbones Member Posts: 194

    Personnally I think what most people (devs and gamers) who talk about getting WOW subs miss is that it isn't neccarily the systems WOW has that keep people in WOW it's more that WOW for the most part works.  The combat works, the animations work, the timers work in other words the core bits of the game work.  People didn't leave WAR or AoC or most other games because of 2 faction systems or any of the fluff.  They left because the systems these games had in place didn't work properly the animations were off, timers were off, the combat was full of niggles and that all created frustration with the game and people left in droves.  The naysayers then point to the people leaving in droves and say see told you 2 factions wouldn't work and everyone jumps on that particular bandwagon (at least in WAR's case).

     

    If Vigil can release a game where all the basic systems function and work well then it will probably do well no matter the number of factions or how much or how different the systems are to WOW.  If the systems are niggly/don't fit well together then 3 or more factions won't help it survive any better than just having 2.

     

    All thats not to say that I personnaly would prefer it if they would impliment certain things completly different from WOW like having each race as a stand alone faction with certain soft alliance limitations like chaos would never be allied with the Empire of Mankind or if they do then the units in that alliance are branded traitor by the Empire and thus become Chaos units.  Having the whole thing play out on one big server ala EVE with multiple planets and zones to control.  Maybe a progression system not based on levels or character skills or gear but maybe acheivement as in you have to actually do something heroic to get a promotion rather than fill up a bar over time.  Of couse I doubt I'll see any of that simply because it would take to long to impliment to the level of polish most would deem acceptable  (ie bare minimum WOW before BC smoothness).

    The lesser of two evils is still evil.

    There is nothing more dangerous than a true believer.

  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk Member Posts: 1,532

    Originally posted by risenbones

    Personnally I think what most people (devs and gamers) who talk about getting WOW subs miss is that it isn't neccarily the systems WOW has that keep people in WOW it's more that WOW for the most part works.  The combat works, the animations work, the timers work in other words the core bits of the game work.  People didn't leave WAR or AoC or most other games because of 2 faction systems or any of the fluff.  They left because the systems these games had in place didn't work properly the animations were off, timers were off, the combat was full of niggles and that all created frustration with the game and people left in droves.  The naysayers then point to the people leaving in droves and say see told you 2 factions wouldn't work and everyone jumps on that particular bandwagon (at least in WAR's case).

    Well, the argument for three factions is not exclusive. Meaning that the lack of multiple factions is not the ONLY reason WAR fared so badly. Of course the prime concern and the reason for teh fail was buggy and generally screwy launch. Of course, no one is arguing that. It is the fact.

    However, the SECOND major concern, which has come out in the past 6 months to a year, is precisely the faction problem. Now the game is relatively bug-free and performance is very very acceptable and yet it still has major problems in the endgame. Now that the most glaring technical problems have been solved we, as players, are able to pay attention to the gameplay problems WAR has... and THE major problem is repetetive T4 RvR. Even if WAR launched 100% bug-free with all the features originally announced in place it would STILL have  this endgame problem. The majority of players would STILL leave after 3 to 6 months. And why? Because there are just two factions and in a open persistent PvP game (persistent as opposed to WoW style wham-bam-thank-you-mam) two factions = death due to massive boredom caused by "back and forth back and forth" game structure.

    It's very simple really, come to think of it. Calling the number of factions "fluff" is seriously shortsighted. It is like saying chess winning conditions or the fact it has an 8x8 board is "fluff" while it is the polish and finish of the particular game board which is important. The basic, underlying "abstract" game on the level of algorithms is the basis of all the programming and gfx and sound and writing you pile on top of it. If the basic game design sucks, if it cannot be played properly as a tabletop board game with bits of paper scribbled with unit names, then all the millions of dollars spent on gfx, "story" and whatevers count for exactly nothing. As a tabletop wargame WAR's T4 campaign sucks donkey's ass and that is precisely why it sucks at the level of individual player. I said this before WAR released and I'll say it again - if it cannot be enjoyable with paper and dice it cannot be fun on the PC. Yes, you could make a fun board game out of Pacman but you cannot do it with WAR's T4 endgame.  WH40K is going down the same path - the devs are obviously blinded by the dazzle of the IP and new tech and do not understand that their game is first and foremost a GAME, all the rest, including bugs and gfx and flashy engines and "heroic" stories etc etc etc is actually just fluff.

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335

    Originally posted by Enerzeal

    I gota agree, way to make mockery of the 40k universe. Only Imperial guard, Space Marines, Sisters of battle would work together, and even then it can come to blows. Having Chaos align with anyone just doesn't make any sense at all. Also a single Space Marine doesn't run about selling things, upgrading his weapons or skilling up on monsters.

     

    It might be a good MMO, but it is surely not Warhammer 40,000.

    Chaos does not even align with itself.

    The chaos marine chapters spend more time fighting each other than they do the empire. Only Horus managed to unite the full power of Chaos against the empire.

    if anything the Black Legion, the World Eaters, the Thousand Suns, the Emperor's Children, and the Death Guard should all be available as separate factions that have the option to align with each other, or not.

     

    The World Bearers, the Iron Warriors, the Alpha Legion, and the Night Lords have traditionally played a smaller role in the lore. No great loss if they are not initially represented.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • Robdc84Robdc84 Member Posts: 156

    group the side together by the LORE, imp guard, space marines, sister of battle. Orks are orks, choas is choas, you guys get the point.  end of story they ruin this IP the THQ and vigil will enter the book of shame and utter failure

    image
    IN THE FACE!

  • PilnkplonkPilnkplonk Member Posts: 1,532

    Originally posted by Robdc84

    group the side together by the LORE, imp guard, space marines, sister of battle. Orks are orks, choas is choas, you guys get the point.  end of story they ruin this IP the THQ and vigil will enter the book of shame and utter failure

    Agree, ideally the WH (both OW and 40K) should be as many factions as there are races. However, the racial groupings can be roughly categorized into 3 factions: Order - Destruction - Chaos.  I mean... this only makes Mythics failure that much more terrible... the very IP they managed to acquire lent itself into 3 faction play, which is proven as the best currently known open world PvP setup.. BY THEIR OWN GAME... and yet they went for "good guys vs bad guys" crap they got from Blizz the Almighty. Miserable, pathetic, sad.

  • IkonicIkonic Member UncommonPosts: 310

    It doesn't matter what anyone feels the factions should or shouldn't be, if THQ/Vigil decide to do it a certain way and GW signs off on it, then thats the way it is. If the owner of the IP says it fies, then it flies. 

  • blackthornnblackthornn Member UncommonPosts: 575

    Originally posted by Ikonic

    It doesn't matter what anyone feels the factions should or shouldn't be, if THQ/Vigil decide to do it a certain way and GW signs off on it, then thats the way it is. If the owner of the IP says it fies, then it flies. 

    not to mention, alot of ppl constantly complain there's no good rp for those that want to bother with it in most games nowadays.  Form a Space Marine guild that won't group/raid/whatever with Eldar, form a gang of Orks that won't group with other "lesser" Orks, etc.  Just because the game's set with 2 basic factions doesn't mean you can't, either as individuals, as guilds  or as a server community enforce factions within factions (omg, a server community, what a passe, old school concept huh? :P ).

     Grouping in Old school mmo's: meeting someone at the bar and chatting, getting to know them before jumping into bed.  Current mmo's grouping: tinder.  swipe, hookup, hope you don't get herpes, never see them again.
  • KyelthisKyelthis Member UncommonPosts: 287

    Originally posted by Pilnkplonk

    Well, the argument for three factions is not exclusive. Meaning that the lack of multiple factions is not the ONLY reason WAR fared so badly. Of course the prime concern and the reason for teh fail was buggy and generally screwy launch. Of course, no one is arguing that. It is the fact.

    However, the SECOND major concern, which has come out in the past 6 months to a year, is precisely the faction problem. Now the game is relatively bug-free and performance is very very acceptable and yet it still has major problems in the endgame. Now that the most glaring technical problems have been solved we, as players, are able to pay attention to the gameplay problems WAR has... and THE major problem is repetetive T4 RvR. Even if WAR launched 100% bug-free with all the features originally announced in place it would STILL have  this endgame problem. The majority of players would STILL leave after 3 to 6 months. And why? Because there are just two factions and in a open persistent PvP game (persistent as opposed to WoW style wham-bam-thank-you-mam) two factions = death due to massive boredom caused by "back and forth back and forth" game structure.

    It's very simple really, come to think of it. Calling the number of factions "fluff" is seriously shortsighted. It is like saying chess winning conditions or the fact it has an 8x8 board is "fluff" while it is the polish and finish of the particular game board which is important. The basic, underlying "abstract" game on the level of algorithms is the basis of all the programming and gfx and sound and writing you pile on top of it. If the basic game design sucks, if it cannot be played properly as a tabletop board game with bits of paper scribbled with unit names, then all the millions of dollars spent on gfx, "story" and whatevers count for exactly nothing. As a tabletop wargame WAR's T4 campaign sucks donkey's ass and that is precisely why it sucks at the level of individual player. I said this before WAR released and I'll say it again - if it cannot be enjoyable with paper and dice it cannot be fun on the PC. Yes, you could make a fun board game out of Pacman but you cannot do it with WAR's T4 endgame.  WH40K is going down the same path - the devs are obviously blinded by the dazzle of the IP and new tech and do not understand that their game is first and foremost a GAME, all the rest, including bugs and gfx and flashy engines and "heroic" stories etc etc etc is actually just fluff.

    WAR would still have been boring end-game with 3 factions. It's not that the game having only 2 factions made it boring, it was the fact that the end-game at it's very core was boring. I wish the game had 3 factions to help with Realm imbalances, but ultimately, it wouldn't have helped. Like you said, even if the game was launched with everything they promised (racial cities, ect.), it still would've been boring...even with 3 factions.

     

    WAR should've taken what WoW did end-game and put in a crap load of PvE content (more dungeons/add raids) on top of competetive PvP (arena-style). The ORvR at it's base was good in WAR, but you can't ONLY play the game for ORvR, you'll get burned out. WAR40k, from what we've read about it having 2 factions, can still do very well. They need to have a lot of content up front, with more coming in soon after launch. Players often speed through MMOs looking to hit end-game ASAP, and if Vigil has only a few small dungeons to do a lot of players will leave. Don't get me confused with a PvE whore, because I'm not, but as fun as WAR's PvP was I still needed a PvE fix every now and again. Sad thing is, Mythic couldn't create good PvE if they wanted to.

  • madeuxmadeux Member Posts: 1,786

    Ok, for the relatively small number of people out there really familiar with 40k, it may be a dissapointment and may not make sense.

    But for the devs, it probably made a lot of sense, and probably won't matter for the rest of us.

  • ericbelserericbelser Member Posts: 783

    Originally posted by Kyelthis

    WAR would still have been boring end-game with 3 factions. It's not that the game having only 2 factions made it boring, it was the fact that the end-game at it's very core was boring. I wish the game had 3 factions to help with Realm imbalances, but ultimately, it wouldn't have helped. Like you said, even if the game was launched with everything they promised (racial cities, ect.), it still would've been boring...even with 3 factions.

     

    WAR should've taken what WoW did end-game and put in a crap load of PvE content (more dungeons/add raids) on top of competetive PvP (arena-style). The ORvR at it's base was good in WAR, but you can't ONLY play the game for ORvR, you'll get burned out. WAR40k, from what we've read about it having 2 factions, can still do very well. They need to have a lot of content up front, with more coming in soon after launch. Players often speed through MMOs looking to hit end-game ASAP, and if Vigil has only a few small dungeons to do a lot of players will leave. Don't get me confused with a PvE whore, because I'm not, but as fun as WAR's PvP was I still needed a PvE fix every now and again. Sad thing is, Mythic couldn't create good PvE if they wanted to.

    I agree with the idea if not all the details; I think arena-style pvp is totally pointless for example.  However,  I agree completely with the basic premise that the list of things Mythic did wrong with WAR is far too long to single out one element as the "key".

    WH40K online needs above all to be "polished", that is to say working at launch. After that, it needs to be *fun* and engaging for more than a few weeks. Honestly, given recent MMO launches it will be a miracle if they manage that much...so anything after like say meaningful PvP or a true persistant world where choices matter would be total gravy. 

  • Nightbringe1Nightbringe1 Member UncommonPosts: 1,335

    Originally posted by Ikonic

    It doesn't matter what anyone feels the factions should or shouldn't be, if THQ/Vigil decide to do it a certain way and GW signs off on it, then thats the way it is. If the owner of the IP says it fies, then it flies. 

    Yes, it does.

    If factions do not meet my expectations, they will not get my money.

    Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
    Benjamin Franklin

  • whiteraven02whiteraven02 Member Posts: 10

    why Why WHY are all of you arguing over something that is clearly vague?  yes the website says "side with forces of Order or Destruction," but that doesn't mean the game will be limited to ONLY 2 factions.  If you look at WH40k lore, many of the factions tend to fit into either one of these two categories, but are not necessarily aligned.  Tau, SM, IG, and Eldar would argue that they are forces of Order, yet they all have their own seperate agendas.  On more than one occasion have Space Marine forces clashed with IG regiments.  As have the forces of Tau and IG, SM and Tau, Eldar and SM, Eldar and IG, etc.  just because they mentioned that there are two "umbrella" groups to join, does not mean they will be lumped into the same alliance.  the same can be said for Destruction, where you have Dark Eldar, Orks, and Chaos Space Marines.

     

    now, as far as the game mechanics are concerned, neither THQ nor Vigil have released any concrete information as to how things will work.  so why the hell are the lot of you getting so worked up over vague statements about the game's release?  it's like a bunch of kids arguing that my dad will beat your dad up -there's no real way to know until it happens!

     

    however, since we are talking hypotheticals here, i'll throw in my 2 cents.  personally, i would love to see multiple factions play against each other: eldar vs SM vs orks vs chaos.  i think one very dynamic way to produce such conflict would be to have overlapping objectives so that certain factions could choose to aid each other to achieve victory.  

    for example: an SM chapter is called in to secure a weapons factory that some orks have overrun and are using as their base of ops.  this pits 2 factions against each other in open combat.  now, say there is a group of eldar exodites also located near the objective that need to be escorted/extracted by some craftworld Eldar since the nearby fighting is threatening their existance.  the eldar could "ally" with the the SM chapter to ensure the orks are held at bay and the exodites remain safe, or they could choose to crush both sides of the engagement and secure the area so that the exodites may remain in their home.  now say some CSM troops also land on the field, and would also care to control the factory for their own vile purposes.  you see what i'm getting at?

     

    i believe another way around this whole unbalanced thing, would be to take a chapter from Fantasy Earth Zero.  in FEZ (mind you there are 5 factions in total) 2 factions generally fight over one battlefield.  during the fight, members of any of the other 3 factions are allowed to join the fight and Merc for one side or the other.  to prevent CSM players from mercing for SM/IG players, you could limit which factions are able to join a particular side of the battle, that way you maintain some semblance of lore. 

  • Robdc84Robdc84 Member Posts: 156

    Originally posted by whiteraven02

     

     

    for example: an SM chapter is called in to secure a weapons factory that some orks have overrun and are using as their base of ops.  this pits 2 factions against each other in open combat.  now, say there is a group of eldar exodites also located near the objective that need to be escorted/extracted by some craftworld Eldar since the nearby fighting is threatening their existance.  the eldar could "ally" with the the SM chapter to ensure the orks are held at bay and the exodites remain safe, or they could choose to crush both sides of the engagement and secure the area so that the exodites may remain in their home.  now say some CSM troops also land on the field, and would also care to control the factory for their own vile purposes.  you see what i'm getting at?

     

     

    make it ffa with this type of stuff and game will be awesome! i want the choice to murder them or not. i personal more then likely murder them cuz i hate eldar.

    image
    IN THE FACE!

  • ZyllosZyllos Member UncommonPosts: 537

    I do not think its a matter of what is viable or possible within the lore of 40k, but more on the lines of 40k fans WANT multiple factions, that is more than enough of a reason to NOT have a 2 faction system.

    If you are making a game with your target audience saying to not build it that way, but you go ahead and do that, then you have no reason to complain when the game flops...which I think many of us here already sees this.

    Now it may be true that we do not know enough to make a determination one way or the other but their website sure does stir up things with how it words it.

    This one can only hope...

    MMOs Played: I can no longer list them all in the 500 character limit.

  • insanexinsanex Member Posts: 145

    Originally posted by dakota123

    ok, i just have an idea on what i believe "Should" happen. I think there should be at least 4 factions, however, i also think they must be very opportunistic for each other, and maybe there is like a monthly type thing where the aliances between factions switch, say chaos and orks work together to achieve a goal one month, and then next month the orks turn on chaos, and thus, war. This way, no one faction would be the punching bag of the rest, and it would make a very nice system of changing alliances.

    Eeesh, I don't get that thinking at all. Orks are a war-crazed legion of destruction. There's even worlds of perpetual war they go back to again and again because they know they'll always get a good fight. I don't see Orks allying with anyone. Chaos, come on. These guys are the minions of the Warp-gods. They don't have allies, only enemies.

    If they want to do a MMO correctly, they need to tap into the brilliant DAoC multi-faction idea. Sure, there's multiple unique areas, with all sorts of unique flora and fauna. But DAoC did it, albeit with some obvious reuse of graphical objects, but it worked. 

    I agree with the sentiment that W40k is the most epic sci-fi ever. A good MMO will make the IP better. A bad MMO waters IP down.

    I hope they get it right. 

    insanex

    image
  • SnarlingWolfSnarlingWolf Member Posts: 2,697

    Originally posted by Joliust

     




    Originally posted by jjjk29

     ...

      Another thing.  The tabletop of 40K is built around squad's, and grouped unit's.  There are the few solo piece's that move around as they please; but is Vigil putting the player in control of one of these Elite's or Commander's?  Or will the player be a normal Space Marine out on the field?  If the player is an Elite, like in the tabletop, I can see it.  But if you're character is just a normal Space Marine, then I can't see it.  SM's work in group's, like Ork's do but in large number's.  Yeah, Vigil could put in combat companion's or groupd based missioning, it's all to early to tell.  Just pointing it out.

    ...




     

    This is the real shame right here. I thought they had a huge opportunity to create something really new and different by having players control a squad of troops instead of just one guy.

     As soon as you control a squad it is labeled as an MMO RTS, and those exist so it wouldn't be anything new really.

  • Berserker202Berserker202 Member Posts: 44

    Originally posted by whiteraven02

    why Why WHY are all of you arguing over something that is clearly vague?  yes the website says "side with forces of Order or Destruction," but that doesn't mean the game will be limited to ONLY 2 factions.  If you look at WH40k lore, many of the factions tend to fit into either one of these two categories, but are not necessarily aligned.  Tau, SM, IG, and Eldar would argue that they are forces of Order, yet they all have their own seperate agendas.  On more than one occasion have Space Marine forces clashed with IG regiments.  As have the forces of Tau and IG, SM and Tau, Eldar and SM, Eldar and IG, etc.  just because they mentioned that there are two "umbrella" groups to join, does not mean they will be lumped into the same alliance.  the same can be said for Destruction, where you have Dark Eldar, Orks, and Chaos Space Marines.

     

    now, as far as the game mechanics are concerned, neither THQ nor Vigil have released any concrete information as to how things will work.  so why the hell are the lot of you getting so worked up over vague statements about the game's release?  it's like a bunch of kids arguing that my dad will beat your dad up -there's no real way to know until it happens!

     

    however, since we are talking hypotheticals here, i'll throw in my 2 cents.  personally, i would love to see multiple factions play against each other: eldar vs SM vs orks vs chaos.  i think one very dynamic way to produce such conflict would be to have overlapping objectives so that certain factions could choose to aid each other to achieve victory.  

    for example: an SM chapter is called in to secure a weapons factory that some orks have overrun and are using as their base of ops.  this pits 2 factions against each other in open combat.  now, say there is a group of eldar exodites also located near the objective that need to be escorted/extracted by some craftworld Eldar since the nearby fighting is threatening their existance.  the eldar could "ally" with the the SM chapter to ensure the orks are held at bay and the exodites remain safe, or they could choose to crush both sides of the engagement and secure the area so that the exodites may remain in their home.  now say some CSM troops also land on the field, and would also care to control the factory for their own vile purposes.  you see what i'm getting at?

     

    i believe another way around this whole unbalanced thing, would be to take a chapter from Fantasy Earth Zero.  in FEZ (mind you there are 5 factions in total) 2 factions generally fight over one battlefield.  during the fight, members of any of the other 3 factions are allowed to join the fight and Merc for one side or the other.  to prevent CSM players from mercing for SM/IG players, you could limit which factions are able to join a particular side of the battle, that way you maintain some semblance of lore. 

    I would say you prettymuch aniled it on the head. Most of these factions arent' dumb. Ir ecall a book where the tau and the Imp had to band together to fight of a greater tyranid threat, this kinds of things happen. We will see waht vigil does but your little scenario is roughly how i would want to see this handled. We will still have to wait to see waht vigil does.

     

     



    Originally posted by Joliust

     




    Originally posted by jjjk29

     ...

      Another thing.  The tabletop of 40K is built around squad's, and grouped unit's.  There are the few solo piece's that move around as they please; but is Vigil putting the player in control of one of these Elite's or Commander's?  Or will the player be a normal Space Marine out on the field?  If the player is an Elite, like in the tabletop, I can see it.  But if you're character is just a normal Space Marine, then I can't see it.  SM's work in group's, like Ork's do but in large number's.  Yeah, Vigil could put in combat companion's or groupd based missioning, it's all to early to tell.  Just pointing it out.

    ...





     

    This is the real shame right here. I thought they had a huge opportunity to create something really new and different by having players control a squad of troops instead of just one guy

    MMORTS games kinda tend to suck, trust me, you shouldn't be that disapoitned. Also note that regardless of what type of marines they offer you wills till be travelling in groups for PvP i assure you. You will probably retain that squad feel. I think some people need to loosen up a tad on how the game is played and concentrate more on how various units would actually work on the field. We may have control of various types of units and i wouldn't put it behind the devloeprs to allow a few high level players to be the "commanders" on any given battle. I imagine we may have to levelling systems as I have seen in many past games where you level your hcaracter and then you level some sort of command rank.

  • XiroXiro Member UncommonPosts: 118

    WoW i just read pretty much every post. Lol.

     

    Okay i'm a huge 40k fan. I havnt played the tabletop in years (sadly =( not a lot of people in the army are into this kind of stuff i guess lol), but i've been reading the books, and playing the RTS. 

    Earlier people were talking about, how they don't want to be just "one" SM. But its kinda like.. why? why would you want to run a squad? i understand the whole "war" feeling, when doing pvp, when even though your only fighting 15 other players, you see 45 bodies on the map, gotcha, that'd be pretty cool. But i don't want to run a squad, i want to equip a bolter, maybe a power sword, and blow things to pieces, and cut some orks in half. And be able to go "i did that!" not "oh.. my squad did that, i was to busy trying to heal them..." (cause you know thats how it'd work) 

    Don't get me wrong, i love DoWII

    Factions, though i don't quite understand why Ork would be on the side of chaos, actually, i don't know why anyone would be on the side of chaos. If you are into 40k lore, you know the eldar, the orkes, the sm, and the IG (which, btw, are on the same side as SP.. they both server the god emperor, am i wrong?), what they should do is, and this is just my opinion, is perhaps, have two factions (hell put orks in their own factionf or all i care, i dont even think they know what they want in life) (i'm totally going to be late for work to post this) "Order" and "Destruction". "Order" being eldar, SM, IG, even.. orks (man i really just.. dont like the orks.. they are fun to slay, but thats it.. i like killing them) why put them together? they may NOT work together, but they all fight the warp, and chaos.. right? they fight the Xenos, and Chaos, and both suffer loses, because of these. Now have the destruction side. "Chaos" and "xenos" "dark eldar", ... maybe orks here to.. actually really im just going to stop talking about orks >.< crazy little guys, with your stupid weapons.. (they made laugh on DoWII though, they were halirious when you killed the ork bosses lol) 

    They could do certain things with the story, having it this way. Like maybe all of them band together to go kill chaos! (yah corney, i know, we'll see a bunch of 13 yr olds playing like 'yay im a super hero!' and they'd make millions lol) 

    Or they could make it so you could still fight eachother within your faction, and make the factions only as like a "player" guide line. You have to understand, most people who are gonna jump into this game are not gonna be 40k lore masters, hell they could only vaugely know it exists. the Devs are gonna have to do things, so that people that don't know anything about the game, can log on and get a rough idea of whats going on. Since, technically, the Eldar, and the Orks are technically.. arnt "bad guys" its just the imperium of man decided that anything that doesnt worship the God emperor is a bad guy, and should be shot. 

    And.. now that im late for work, i gotta go change~ or else i'd say more lol. 

    Btw i'm playing Chaos! WHOS WITH ME!!?

  • TripswiresTripswires Member Posts: 2

    does anyone remember the games workshop game Inquisitor? take that tabletop game, insert code = mmo.

    okay perhaps more explanation is required,

    who says there needs to be 2 factions? why can't there just be the one faction? as far as i can see the 2 faction system is in 99% of mmo's so there is a clearly defined sense of who you are fighting allongside and who you are tying to crush into the ground but if 40K has taught us anything it's that anyone who you view as not being of your point of view is a target.

    basically all players will be able to communicate with everyone else but "order" or "destruction" is simply a reflection of your actions and the kinds of players and factions that you associate with. this means you will have a whole range of factions that have been determined by the players themselves. and since there are no set sides you are free to hit as many or as few people as you like.

    also a note on the balancing of classes and races. once again the tabletop games have given us the answer, POINTS VALUES.

    zones, dungeons, battlegrounds, raids all have a set points value. the points value equals the difficulty of the zone so a 5 man dungeon is a 100 point area while a 25 man raid is a 1000 point encounter. classes have a baseline points value so a marine in power armour with a bolter = 15pts a guardsman in flak armour with a lasgun = 5pts then all gear has a points value for your class, power sword = 5 pts plasma pistol 6pts lascannon 20pts.

    so instead of zones having a level requirement like in wow give them a points value this way say a zone requires a points value of 60 this means 4 marines are suited to tackle the content but 12 guardsmen can get the job done too.

    insane ramblings or enlightened inspiration?

    my wife can smell nerd at 100 paces

  • cheshyrecatcheshyrecat Member Posts: 137

    Originally posted by Tripswires

    also a note on the balancing of classes and races. once again the tabletop games have given us the answer, POINTS VALUES.

    zones, dungeons, battlegrounds, raids all have a set points value. the points value equals the difficulty of the zone so a 5 man dungeon is a 100 point area while a 25 man raid is a 1000 point encounter. classes have a baseline points value so a marine in power armour with a bolter = 15pts a guardsman in flak armour with a lasgun = 5pts then all gear has a points value for your class, power sword = 5 pts plasma pistol 6pts lascannon 20pts.

    so instead of zones having a level requirement like in wow give them a points value this way say a zone requires a points value of 60 this means 4 marines are suited to tackle the content but 12 guardsmen can get the job done too.

     

    The point value is a good idea but there is a flaw in the logic.  This is assuming that 3 guardsman in flak armour with  lasguns are equal to a marine in power armor. 

     

      In most mmos, characters that are too low of a level cannot even HURT a character that is too high of a level.  In WoW for example, 3 characters of level 10 would be incapable of defeating 1 level 30 character.  actually 30 level 10 characters would be incapable of defeating one level 30 character. 

    I've always felt this was a serious flaw in game logic.  No matter how high of a level, or what gear you posses, you should still be vulnerable to sufficent numbers. 

    We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.

Sign In or Register to comment.