Why are they worrying about reviews when the game is in Alpha? Just work on getting the game finished and polished before you start begging for reviews. I assume this means they are almost out of cash so this game won't amount to much. It's a pity because I like a multitude of the concepts, I just loaded up the free trial but I can't even keep my client running long enough to do anything in game...plus you can't seem to remap keys at all. To me the game is very EARLY Alpha, so I don't know why he'd want it reviewed.
Originally posted by Giffen Why are they worrying about reviews when the game is in Alpha? Just work on getting the game finished and polished before you start begging for reviews. I assume this means they are almost out of cash so this game won't amount to much. It's a pity because I like a multitude of the concepts, I just loaded up the free trial but I can't even keep my client running long enough to do anything in game...plus you can't seem to remap keys at all. To me the game is very EARLY Alpha, so I don't know why he'd want it reviewed.
Giffen,
you need to understand the sequence of the development and the word games that Ryan has been playing, in order to understand what is at issue here.
Almost every term you may be accustomed to has had its definition twisted to meet with Ryan's vision. As it turns out the game has been grossly underfunded, and the vision has not had the appeal Ryan thought it would.
Ryan may have been correct, the gaming community is looking for a fantasy based, sandbox, open world PvP mmo. His mistake was that he pitched the game primarily to the TT RPG community with very little or no MMO experience, and a segment of the MMO community that is very adverse to PVP. In short, the game had over 8000 kick starters, and there is less than 600 (my guess) players in the game.
If you compare PFO's interest level to its primary competitors, Albion Online and Crowfall, it has less than 10% of those games' interest levels. Albion had over 10,000 players when last I checked. Crowfall had over 18,000 backers, when last time I checked. Both of those games are focused on attracting not just MMO players, but PvP focused and even competitively minded PvP players.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Ryan's word games. I remember them being a major source of frustration even when I was fully behind this title. Like his continual insistence the game was classless. Then someone comes on the forums raging about how you can't make a classless Pathfinder game only getting more enraged and confused by those parroting Ryan's narrative until I PMed him the straight up truth. "There are classes and there will even be benefits for following them. You just can mix abilities from multiple classes if you want."
All the drivel they had been being fed made sense to them and they were more hopeful about the title because they were given the truth rather than manipulate word games about how there are no classes.
You keep comparing PFO to Albion Online. I jsut checked out the game, a bunch of player's gameplay footage, and I don't think the two are comparable.
1. The graphics look very nice in Albion, but it's one of those projection games, like top-down dimetric projection. I'm pretty sure that's very different than the kind of 3d fully rendered world in a traditional MMO like PFO. I'm not an expert in graphics technology, so perhaps I'm off-base here.
2. The game design seems radically different. This looks very much like UO or Darkfall--unstructured PvP. PFO is meant to structured, and to move conflict up from the level of the individual to the settlement: it's a Kingmaker game. Lot's of people like the former kind of game, so tit's legit, but it is definitely not comparable. I've played those kind of games, and don't like them, because the mechanics promote toxic, anti-social behavior.
The only thing I care about here is that PFO is scratching my gaming itch, and since January, there's only been steady improvement. I am sick of themeparks and toxic-boxes, and want exactly the kind of cooperative/competitive kind of game PFO offers. Since they have a good design, have demonstrated 10 times in 7 months they have the capability to implement that design over time, and because the game is fun right now, I'm pretty happy. As for reviews, I'd like for any review of the game to be contextualized--you can't review a settlement vs. settlement game if you don't join a real settlement (PFU isn't a a real settlement). Join Aragon, OV, Brighthaven, KB, etc. Actually play the game, and then review it in the context of having actually played.
So he wants a slanted view, instead of an honest review?
If your game blows, does it matter who reviews it?
It is sort of like making a horror movie, but only allowing horror fanatics to review it. Or being an artist but only allowing your mom to see your work.
crowdforging isn't the issue...its the rest of the unpolished mess that "isnt in an alpha/beta", where there wont be a wipe, and that they are charging a monthly subscription fee for.
the game isn't going to get brownie points for crowdforging when its released in an unreleased state.
It seems that you can't judge the game, if you didn't try it for six months in an active settlement. Oh, and by the way, you're not in a sufficiently active settlement, if it's not TEO, Xelias or PFU.
Simply put, you can make a review of the game if you played a few months in PFU, and then join EoX or TEO, for six months. At least 4 hours a day, because otherwise it's not enough. And anyway, if you didn't like it, you must try again in the other settlement, because obviously you chose wrong. And if you still don't like to the game, you are obviously very much biased, and you should find someone else to do the review. Someone less biased.
PFO's trial should not be 15 days, it should be like 6 months.
It seems that you can't judge the game, if you didn't try it for six months in an active settlement. Oh, and by the way, you're not in a sufficiently active settlement, if it's not TEO, Xelias or PFU.
Simply put, you can make a review of the game if you played a few months in PFU, and then join EoX or TEO, for six months. At least 4 hours a day, because otherwise it's not enough. And anyway, if you didn't like it, you must try again in the other settlement, because obviously you chose wrong. And if you still don't like to the game, you are obviously very much biased, and you should find someone else to do the review. Someone less biased.
That's all nonsense.
You could join a settlement and do some stuff--do some escalations, do some pvp--actually play the game, in a week. There's nothing unreasonable in asking a reviewer to go beyond the tutorial if they are going to review a game.
It seems that you can't judge the game, if you didn't try it for six months in an active settlement. Oh, and by the way, you're not in a sufficiently active settlement, if it's not TEO, Xelias or PFU.
Simply put, you can make a review of the game if you played a few months in PFU, and then join EoX or TEO, for six months. At least 4 hours a day, because otherwise it's not enough. And anyway, if you didn't like it, you must try again in the other settlement, because obviously you chose wrong. And if you still don't like to the game, you are obviously very much biased, and you should find someone else to do the review. Someone less biased.
That's all nonsense.
You could join a settlement and do some stuff--do some escalations, do some pvp--actually play the game, in a week. There's nothing unreasonable in asking a reviewer to go beyond the tutorial if they are going to review a game.
Mbando,
What makes you think Bill and now Steve are not or did not go beyond the tutorial? Bill said he played it for a few weeks. Steve said he would play it for two weeks. You have actually just said now that they can do some actual playing in a week.
I have played this game for months, and I have played every aspect of the game, beginning my experience with Alpha 6. I have had my character at -7500 Rep and now for weeks at +7500 Rep. In most cases, I have lost rep from accidentally targeting party members, particularly during large group escalation runs (a targeting problem that has not been fixed in over a year). I have run escalations, at all difficulty levels. I have PVP'd, both in organized groups and solo. I fought in the War of Towers, and I have ignored the WoT. I have gathered, crafted, and helped build up a settlement with holding, outposts and helped stock it with vast resources. I have leveled my character to Rogue 11 and Fighter 9. I have crowd forged and I believe I have even had an impact on the game's direction. I believe I understand Ryan's vision, and I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts of it.
I would rate this game, without messing with tenths of a point, with a 6 out of 10. I have deducted points for the following:
1. I do not believe the game is being developed in a sequence of system implementation that is clear, and at times implementation is counter productive. Examples: Factions should have been implemented before feuds. Company tools should have been fully implemented before settlements.
-1 point for this.
2. The business model of charging Box Fee + Subscription + MT Store Items that grant in-game advantages, during a time period that most would consider the game to be unworthy of such costs.
-1 point for this.
3. Building the game using a game engine (Unity 4) that is nearly obsolete, producing a product that looks 10 years old and plays much worse (broken feats, early on stability issues, terrible animations, graphics and character customization, etc).
-1 point for this.
4. Terrible Public Relations, Little of No Advertising, Playing Word Games and Marketing the Game in a self defeating manner.
-1 Point for this, and I really should consider even more taken off in this area.
That leaves the rest of the 6 points as some what positives, because the game (although very generic and mediocre) can be fun, especially when grouped up with a group of friends.
I personally don't see PFO entering what Ryan would call Open Enrollment as a subscription based game. It can not compete with the much fuller experiences MMO players can find in already released and longer developed F2P MMOs.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Originally posted by Giffen Why are they worrying about reviews when the game is in Alpha? Just work on getting the game finished and polished before you start begging for reviews. I assume this means they are almost out of cash so this game won't amount to much. It's a pity because I like a multitude of the concepts, I just loaded up the free trial but I can't even keep my client running long enough to do anything in game...plus you can't seem to remap keys at all. To me the game is very EARLY Alpha, so I don't know why he'd want it reviewed.
Because he insists it is not in alpha, this is to justify charging a subscription for it.
No matter what this guy says, he can not get away from the fact that he personally himself said the game is "complete and not in an alpha/beta" and yet is missing half the projected features or so (or what is there does not work or work well), and they are charging $15/mo, the same as WoW, EvE, or a premium sub at other AAA games.
That is the albatross around the neck of this game.
That is also totally different from the fact that the classic Pathinder game, the IP upon which this game is supposedly based, is basically PvE in nature, and they are building what amounts to an RvR PvP game.
But surprisingly, that is one of the lesser problems this thing has at this point.
It seems that you can't judge the game, if you didn't try it for six months in an active settlement. Oh, and by the way, you're not in a sufficiently active settlement, if it's not TEO, Xelias or PFU.
Simply put, you can make a review of the game if you played a few months in PFU, and then join EoX or TEO, for six months. At least 4 hours a day, because otherwise it's not enough. And anyway, if you didn't like it, you must try again in the other settlement, because obviously you chose wrong. And if you still don't like to the game, you are obviously very much biased, and you should find someone else to do the review. Someone less biased.
That's all nonsense.
You could join a settlement and do some stuff--do some escalations, do some pvp--actually play the game, in a week. There's nothing unreasonable in asking a reviewer to go beyond the tutorial if they are going to review a game.
Do you seriously want me to bring up the topic in which Ryan openly accused a bunch of disappointed players of being biased because they didn't play in TEO or EoX ???
What makes you think Bill and now Steve are not or did not go beyond the tutorial? Bill said he played it for a few weeks. Steve said he would play it for two weeks. You have actually just said now that they can do some actual playing in a week.
Bludd,
1. Because I read their reviews.
2. Clearly, you've played the game, have context, and are well-positioned to offer an informed review, and I take seriously what you have to say. You're like, super-over qualified to offer a useful review, but you are most definitely qualified.
What makes you think Bill and now Steve are not or did not go beyond the tutorial? Bill said he played it for a few weeks. Steve said he would play it for two weeks. You have actually just said now that they can do some actual playing in a week.
Bludd,
1. Because I read their reviews.
You have repeatedly complained about the "review" by Steve. There has been no such review written. Instead he has posted a FIRST IMPRESSIONS which was clearly titled as such and explained that this represented his experience of SEVERAL HOURS (note, not 2). He said he would play the game as well as join PFU for a few weeks and THEN write his review.
All this complaining by the fan base about the "reviews" is pretty funny.
Here is a tip though (Ryan should take note): Reviews are NOT WRITTEN for the fan base of a game. They are written for the community of the site (be it MMORPG or any other site). That community builds up confidence in the site and/or specific reviewers as time goes by. So a review from MMORPG.COM should be reflective of what the average community member would experience in the game. Fans can and DO post their own reviews. Some go as far as to post lengthy attempts to convince the general population on why a specific game "matters". That's great, and that can speak to the diehard fan base (I usually refer to that as the echo chamber). Nobody stops folks from doing that. Sites like MMORPG.COM should be reviewing games based on what their actual community would experience which is very different from the diehards.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
He has said that the basic features are there, but he's never once said the game is complete.
WOW. That was SOOOO easy to disprove. Search is a good tool:
Ryan Dancy: This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
But we have already had this discussion. There is a whole thread dedicated to it. We don't need to debate the meaning of the word complete again. Let's just focus on the subject of THIS thread.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I'll disagree on factions before feuds. Inter settlement conflict was always supposed to be the major conflict driver of the game. The persistent issue is that victory is unrewarding and death doesn't sting. Until they fix that you could remove reputation entirely and still not see very compelling PvP.
I'll disagree on factions before feuds. Inter settlement conflict was always supposed to be the major conflict driver of the game. The persistent issue is that victory is unrewarding and death doesn't sting. Until they fix that you could remove reputation entirely and still not see very compelling PvP.
I believe Factions would breathe some "spirit", "life" or "flavor" into the game. There is no soul in this game, it is just a grind, and the only really interesting thing going on is the Forever War.
Factions are the pre cursor for alignment and role playing. Companies and even settlements might start competing or waging conflicts over factional differences.
Also, according the Lee Hammock, Factions are the easiest PVP enablers to implement.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Comments
Giffen,
you need to understand the sequence of the development and the word games that Ryan has been playing, in order to understand what is at issue here.
Almost every term you may be accustomed to has had its definition twisted to meet with Ryan's vision. As it turns out the game has been grossly underfunded, and the vision has not had the appeal Ryan thought it would.
Ryan may have been correct, the gaming community is looking for a fantasy based, sandbox, open world PvP mmo. His mistake was that he pitched the game primarily to the TT RPG community with very little or no MMO experience, and a segment of the MMO community that is very adverse to PVP. In short, the game had over 8000 kick starters, and there is less than 600 (my guess) players in the game.
If you compare PFO's interest level to its primary competitors, Albion Online and Crowfall, it has less than 10% of those games' interest levels. Albion had over 10,000 players when last I checked. Crowfall had over 18,000 backers, when last time I checked. Both of those games are focused on attracting not just MMO players, but PvP focused and even competitively minded PvP players.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
All the drivel they had been being fed made sense to them and they were more hopeful about the title because they were given the truth rather than manipulate word games about how there are no classes.
You keep comparing PFO to Albion Online. I jsut checked out the game, a bunch of player's gameplay footage, and I don't think the two are comparable.
1. The graphics look very nice in Albion, but it's one of those projection games, like top-down dimetric projection. I'm pretty sure that's very different than the kind of 3d fully rendered world in a traditional MMO like PFO. I'm not an expert in graphics technology, so perhaps I'm off-base here.
2. The game design seems radically different. This looks very much like UO or Darkfall--unstructured PvP. PFO is meant to structured, and to move conflict up from the level of the individual to the settlement: it's a Kingmaker game. Lot's of people like the former kind of game, so tit's legit, but it is definitely not comparable. I've played those kind of games, and don't like them, because the mechanics promote toxic, anti-social behavior.
The only thing I care about here is that PFO is scratching my gaming itch, and since January, there's only been steady improvement. I am sick of themeparks and toxic-boxes, and want exactly the kind of cooperative/competitive kind of game PFO offers. Since they have a good design, have demonstrated 10 times in 7 months they have the capability to implement that design over time, and because the game is fun right now, I'm pretty happy. As for reviews, I'd like for any review of the game to be contextualized--you can't review a settlement vs. settlement game if you don't join a real settlement (PFU isn't a a real settlement). Join Aragon, OV, Brighthaven, KB, etc. Actually play the game, and then review it in the context of having actually played.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
So he wants a slanted view, instead of an honest review?
If your game blows, does it matter who reviews it?
It is sort of like making a horror movie, but only allowing horror fanatics to review it. Or being an artist but only allowing your mom to see your work.
Help support an artist and gamer who has lost his tools to create and play: http://www.gofundme.com/u63nzcgk
crowdforging isn't the issue...its the rest of the unpolished mess that "isnt in an alpha/beta", where there wont be a wipe, and that they are charging a monthly subscription fee for.
the game isn't going to get brownie points for crowdforging when its released in an unreleased state.
It seems that you can't judge the game, if you didn't try it for six months in an active settlement. Oh, and by the way, you're not in a sufficiently active settlement, if it's not TEO, Xelias or PFU.
Simply put, you can make a review of the game if you played a few months in PFU, and then join EoX or TEO, for six months. At least 4 hours a day, because otherwise it's not enough. And anyway, if you didn't like it, you must try again in the other settlement, because obviously you chose wrong. And if you still don't like to the game, you are obviously very much biased, and you should find someone else to do the review. Someone less biased.
PFO's trial should not be 15 days, it should be like 6 months.
That's all nonsense.
You could join a settlement and do some stuff--do some escalations, do some pvp--actually play the game, in a week. There's nothing unreasonable in asking a reviewer to go beyond the tutorial if they are going to review a game.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
Mbando,
What makes you think Bill and now Steve are not or did not go beyond the tutorial? Bill said he played it for a few weeks. Steve said he would play it for two weeks. You have actually just said now that they can do some actual playing in a week.
I have played this game for months, and I have played every aspect of the game, beginning my experience with Alpha 6. I have had my character at -7500 Rep and now for weeks at +7500 Rep. In most cases, I have lost rep from accidentally targeting party members, particularly during large group escalation runs (a targeting problem that has not been fixed in over a year). I have run escalations, at all difficulty levels. I have PVP'd, both in organized groups and solo. I fought in the War of Towers, and I have ignored the WoT. I have gathered, crafted, and helped build up a settlement with holding, outposts and helped stock it with vast resources. I have leveled my character to Rogue 11 and Fighter 9. I have crowd forged and I believe I have even had an impact on the game's direction. I believe I understand Ryan's vision, and I agree with some of it, disagree with other parts of it.
I would rate this game, without messing with tenths of a point, with a 6 out of 10. I have deducted points for the following:
1. I do not believe the game is being developed in a sequence of system implementation that is clear, and at times implementation is counter productive. Examples: Factions should have been implemented before feuds. Company tools should have been fully implemented before settlements.
-1 point for this.
2. The business model of charging Box Fee + Subscription + MT Store Items that grant in-game advantages, during a time period that most would consider the game to be unworthy of such costs.
-1 point for this.
3. Building the game using a game engine (Unity 4) that is nearly obsolete, producing a product that looks 10 years old and plays much worse (broken feats, early on stability issues, terrible animations, graphics and character customization, etc).
-1 point for this.
4. Terrible Public Relations, Little of No Advertising, Playing Word Games and Marketing the Game in a self defeating manner.
-1 Point for this, and I really should consider even more taken off in this area.
That leaves the rest of the 6 points as some what positives, because the game (although very generic and mediocre) can be fun, especially when grouped up with a group of friends.
I personally don't see PFO entering what Ryan would call Open Enrollment as a subscription based game. It can not compete with the much fuller experiences MMO players can find in already released and longer developed F2P MMOs.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....
Because he insists it is not in alpha, this is to justify charging a subscription for it.
No matter what this guy says, he can not get away from the fact that he personally himself said the game is "complete and not in an alpha/beta" and yet is missing half the projected features or so (or what is there does not work or work well), and they are charging $15/mo, the same as WoW, EvE, or a premium sub at other AAA games.
That is the albatross around the neck of this game.
That is also totally different from the fact that the classic Pathinder game, the IP upon which this game is supposedly based, is basically PvE in nature, and they are building what amounts to an RvR PvP game.
But surprisingly, that is one of the lesser problems this thing has at this point.
Do you seriously want me to bring up the topic in which Ryan openly accused a bunch of disappointed players of being biased because they didn't play in TEO or EoX ???
Bludd,
1. Because I read their reviews.
2. Clearly, you've played the game, have context, and are well-positioned to offer an informed review, and I take seriously what you have to say. You're like, super-over qualified to offer a useful review, but you are most definitely qualified.
Do the RIGHT THING: come be a Paladin with us! http://ozemsvigil.guildlaunch.com/
So you're just making assumptions, as usual.
Show us exactly where either writer has specified that they never left the tutorial.
I can review it perfectly objectively..
P. O. S.
You have repeatedly complained about the "review" by Steve. There has been no such review written. Instead he has posted a FIRST IMPRESSIONS which was clearly titled as such and explained that this represented his experience of SEVERAL HOURS (note, not 2). He said he would play the game as well as join PFU for a few weeks and THEN write his review.
All this complaining by the fan base about the "reviews" is pretty funny.
Here is a tip though (Ryan should take note): Reviews are NOT WRITTEN for the fan base of a game. They are written for the community of the site (be it MMORPG or any other site). That community builds up confidence in the site and/or specific reviewers as time goes by. So a review from MMORPG.COM should be reflective of what the average community member would experience in the game. Fans can and DO post their own reviews. Some go as far as to post lengthy attempts to convince the general population on why a specific game "matters". That's great, and that can speak to the diehard fan base (I usually refer to that as the echo chamber). Nobody stops folks from doing that. Sites like MMORPG.COM should be reviewing games based on what their actual community would experience which is very different from the diehards.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
exactly.
It bothers me how he says that the target market for his game doesnt have the connection to write the review.
Thats falls on his head. Nobody is stopping them from allowing "their target market" to write a review.
LOL at "connections". Thats why many companies arent transparent and fail at what they do. Relying on connections to spread lies for profit.
WOW. That was SOOOO easy to disprove. Search is a good tool:
Ryan Dancy: This is not a game in any sort of "test" mode. We are not "alpha" or "beta" testing. We're in Early Enrollment - a complete game with limited features that are being iterated and expanded based on Crowdforging with our players.
But we have already had this discussion. There is a whole thread dedicated to it. We don't need to debate the meaning of the word complete again. Let's just focus on the subject of THIS thread.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I'll disagree on factions before feuds. Inter settlement conflict was always supposed to be the major conflict driver of the game. The persistent issue is that victory is unrewarding and death doesn't sting. Until they fix that you could remove reputation entirely and still not see very compelling PvP.
I believe Factions would breathe some "spirit", "life" or "flavor" into the game. There is no soul in this game, it is just a grind, and the only really interesting thing going on is the Forever War.
Factions are the pre cursor for alignment and role playing. Companies and even settlements might start competing or waging conflicts over factional differences.
Also, according the Lee Hammock, Factions are the easiest PVP enablers to implement.
Played: E&B, SWG, Eve, WoW, COH, WAR, POTBS, AOC, LOTRO, AUTO.A, AO, FE, TR, WWII, MWO, TSW, SWTOR, GW2, NWO, WoP, RUST, LIF, SOA, MORTAL, DFUW, AA, TF, PFO, ALBO, and many many others....