http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20100610005449&newsLang=en

"THQ’s growing online game pipeline includes free-to-play, micro-transaction based online PC games such as Company of Heroes® Online™ and WWE® SmackDown® vs. Raw® Online, as well as the Warhammer® 40,000™ Dark Millennium™ Online MMO. The company’s online portfolio also includes digital games for Facebook, iPhone/iPad, Xbox LIVE® Arcade and PlayStation® Network."

Name = Awesomesauce.

At least they got the name right. Let's see if they can get anything else right.

If this isn't a shooter im going to hang myself

You and me both, man.

Yeah.

I REALLY want it to be a squad-based MMO, each model individually equipped, the number of squad members dependent on the race: Space Marines are around 3 members, Guardsmen around 9, Orks around 6-7, Chaos Marines either 2 or 3, Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen probably around 7-8, Eldar around 4-5

Karon wrote:Yeah.

I REALLY want it to be a squad-based MMO, each model individually equipped, the number of squad members dependent on the race: Space Marines are around 3 members, Guardsmen around 9, Orks around 6-7, Chaos Marines either 2 or 3, Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen probably around 7-8, Eldar around 4-5

That's more of an RTS. MMOs are generally based around one person (or one ship in the case of EVE).

Moopy wrote:

That's more of an RTS. MMOs are generally based around one person (or one ship in the case of EVE).

STO Bridge Crew FTW. If it's a system like that, it would work fine.

Huh. Grimdarkbaldandscreaminghammer must've already been copyrighted by squatters.

This is a great opportunity for GW to capitalize on their amazingly well-developed fluff. Really, really hoping they do it well.

[Although another part of me wants it to stink so that I don't have to work out how to feed myself via IV.]

Like the supplement of 2nd ed ^^ nice!

Side note E3 is this week right.......so by friday (or sat/sunday?) we'll be getting Game Play Videos.

Is there any word on whether it will advance the fluff any or be like WAR where it's in an alternate universe.

tallshortguy wrote:Is there any word on whether it will advance the fluff any or be like WAR where it's in an alternate universe.

I haven't read anything about it, but I don't think GW will allow to a licenser to advance their fluff.

Anarchyman99 wrote:Side note E3 is this week right.......so by friday (or sat/sunday?) we'll be getting Game Play Videos.

Starts today, lasts until Thursday.

tallshortguy wrote:Is there any word on whether it will advance the fluff any or be like WAR where it's in an alternate universe.

WAR is different, because the boundaries of the Warhammer Fantasy world are much more confined. So if it happens, that world should likely know about it.
In 40k, we're dealing with an entire galaxy wherein even the most massive conflicts are insignificant against such an enormous backdrop. I say sure, let it advance the fluff... in whatever tiny little nook of whatever pinprick of a solar system the game takes place in. I doubt we'll be hearing reference to the game in any codices though. But it may occupy a spot in the 6th edition rulebook timeline. Who knows.

I like to think that, where 40k is concerned, anything GW has sanctioned (e.g. video games) can be considered canon. It's a huge galaxy. Plenty of room for whatever.

I believe in one of the interviews they mentioned that the planet(s) used in this 40k MMO will be added to the general 40k fluff, just like they did with the Dawn of War series.

Moopy wrote:

Karon wrote:Yeah.

I REALLY want it to be a squad-based MMO, each model individually equipped, the number of squad members dependent on the race: Space Marines are around 3 members, Guardsmen around 9, Orks around 6-7, Chaos Marines either 2 or 3, Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen probably around 7-8, Eldar around 4-5

That's more of an RTS. MMOs are generally based around one person (or one ship in the case of EVE).

Its nothing like an RTS. It would be in 3rd person, but you would watch your squad members, and control them individually or in separate squads and such. I realize I just described an RTS, but it would just be you controlling multiple characters so to speak.

It would be complicated, but would make a great game, and more importantly, a DIFFERENT game, a DIFFERENT MMO.

Karon wrote:

Moopy wrote:

Karon wrote:Yeah.

I REALLY want it to be a squad-based MMO, each model individually equipped, the number of squad members dependent on the race: Space Marines are around 3 members, Guardsmen around 9, Orks around 6-7, Chaos Marines either 2 or 3, Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen probably around 7-8, Eldar around 4-5

That's more of an RTS. MMOs are generally based around one person (or one ship in the case of EVE).

Its nothing like an RTS. It would be in 3rd person, but you would watch your squad members, and control them individually or in separate squads and such. I realize I just described an RTS, but it would just be you controlling multiple characters so to speak.

It would be complicated, but would make a great game, and more importantly, a DIFFERENT game, a DIFFERENT MMO.

that could actually be pretty awesome, kinda like how Mass Effect worked, except all 3 or 5 or whatever characters would be yours to customize, but you're still playing an RPG. could be neat, but tough.

Karon wrote:

Moopy wrote:

Karon wrote:Yeah.

I REALLY want it to be a squad-based MMO, each model individually equipped, the number of squad members dependent on the race: Space Marines are around 3 members, Guardsmen around 9, Orks around 6-7, Chaos Marines either 2 or 3, Cultists or Traitor Guardsmen probably around 7-8, Eldar around 4-5

That's more of an RTS. MMOs are generally based around one person (or one ship in the case of EVE).

Its nothing like an RTS. It would be in 3rd person, but you would watch your squad members, and control them individually or in separate squads and such. I realize I just described an RTS, but it would just be you controlling multiple characters so to speak.

It would be complicated, but would make a great game, and more importantly, a DIFFERENT game, a DIFFERENT MMO.

This in a FPS enviroment ala Left 4 Dead would be AWESOME.

Disarray wrote:

that could actually be pretty awesome, kinda like how Mass Effect worked, except all 3 or 5 or whatever characters would be yours to customize, but you're still playing an RPG. could be neat, but tough.

I'm guessing you only played ME2.
ME1 you customised the whole teams equipment. And was an RPG.

Erasoketa wrote:This in a FPS enviroment ala Left 4 Dead would be AWESOME.

Seeing as this will be an RPG which will most likely feature lots of close combat, I really hope it's not an FPS game. Close combat in FPS games generaly leaves me wanting, especially in massed combat, which any selfrespecting 40k game should have.

There's actually already a squad-based MMO: Granado Espada. Now, it's not an especially phenomenal one (primarily content quality/quantity issues), but it's a fairly decent proof of concept. I think that would be a crazy-awesome direction to take the gameplay, rather than the archetypal single character third person style popularized by Everquest.

Redemption wrote:

Erasoketa wrote:This in a FPS enviroment ala Left 4 Dead would be AWESOME.

Seeing as this will be an RPG which will most likely feature lots of close combat, I really hope it's not an FPS game. Close combat in FPS games generaly leaves me wanting, especially in massed combat, which any selfrespecting 40k game should have.

Well, I've never played a MMO to be honest. FPS game use to have heavier graphic settings and the gameplay experience in server many times is slowed by the number of players. I guess a more "static" style like RPG fits better with massive enviroments.

But still, a squad online game in the style of L4D would be badass.

I hate MMO's with a passion, especially how much they cost.

However, if any MMO was going to draw me in, it'd be a 40K one (just like Dark Heresy is the first P&P RPG I've ever played).

And Dark Millennium. That's a fantastic name for it. I approve.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I hate MMO's with a passion, especially how much they cost.

When you compare it to other costs it just isn't that much.
Buy 5 snap fit imperial guardsmen every month? You're looking at close to $15 right there.
Subscribe to cable? $25 a month.
I have cable and I hardly even watch TV any more.
If you play an mmo a lot, it is worth it. If you are playing World of Warcraft, you will probably want to play it a lot, making it worth the cost. The only question at that point is whether it is worth the time. When I played WoW, cost was never a factor on my mind.

Nah it's the "pay $100 for this game and then pay more to actually play the game you just bought". What exactly am I paying for when I buy the box in store? If you want me to pay monthly for an MMO, then fine, but don't charge me for the damn game. That's double-dipping on costs.

Cool freaking Beans

sounds good to me¬!

H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah it's the "pay $100 for this game and then pay more to actually play the game you just bought". What exactly am I paying for when I buy the box in store? If you want me to pay monthly for an MMO, then fine, but don't charge me for the damn game. That's double-dipping on costs.

Well, you are getting 3 games stacked on top of each other, plus a monthly fee for servers, and weekly patches, and frequent content patches that add dungeons, quests, etc.
You don't have to pay for the expansions if you don't want. You will still get 6 years of patches, and the content of the entire first game, as well as everything the additional games have added, except for the ability to go from level 60 to 80, for the huge "double dip" of $5 to start plus $15 per month, plus a free 10 days (or $5 of game time essentially).

Basically, it's zero dollars plus $15 a month to play a game that originally cost $50, and has been improved for 6 years straight, and you get your $15 worth per month of improvements and additions to the game constantly happening.
Does that really sound unreasonable?

Name sounds good, lets hope they make one amazing MMO, I've been waiting for a long time for a good one to come out.

i better be able to play mechanicus.... hopefully it'll be like elder scrolls or fallout like

Ennkay wrote:If this isn't a shooter im going to hang myself

And that from someone with Lincoln as his avatar

Anyway, whatever its name, I will certainly test and play it!

ph34r wrote:Well, you are getting 3 games stacked on top of each other

Eh? Three games? What three games?

ph34r wrote:...plus a monthly fee for servers, and weekly patches, and frequent content patches that add dungeons, quests, etc.

Yep. All happy to pay monthly for those. Why am I also forking out a stupid amount of money for a game I can't play unless I pay even more?

ph34r wrote:You don't have to pay for the expansions if you don't want.

K... not really talking about expansions here, but anyway...

ph34r wrote:You will still get 6 years of patches

Yeah... see, every other game I own - and I do mean that, every other game I own - has patches, and I've never had to pay for one.

ph34r wrote:and the content of the entire first game, as well as everything the additional games have added, except for the ability to go from level 60 to 80

Ah! We're talking about WoW. Gotcha.

ph34r wrote:for the huge "double dip" of $5 to start plus $15 per month, plus a free 10 days (or $5 of game time essentially).

Basically, it's zero dollars plus $15 a month to play a game that originally cost $50, and has been improved for 6 years straight, and you get your $15 worth per month of improvements and additions to the game constantly happening.
Does that really sound unreasonable?

Yeah, I'm talking about MMO's in general. I bought Guild Wars and played that for a while. I was fine paying a decent amount for that because there was no monthly fee. Aion when it came out here was in the high $70 mark... for what? You've still got to pay more before you can play it. Seems like a rip off to me.

Micro-transaction, eh?

"Well, Mr. Skully McSkullson, your n00b bolter isn't really doing the job anymore, is it? However, for a one-time payment of $15.00 *insert CC number here* we'll upgrade it to a master-crafted bolter!"

I hate the new wave of micro-transactions to pay for things in game. "Hey guy! want a new skin for your game!, it wont actually change anything, but you can look cool for only $4.99!"
"but I already paid full price for the game"
"And now you can have the game, WITH ADDONS!"
"Feth you."

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:hopefully it'll be like elder scrolls or fallout like

That would be nifty actually. A 40k MMO version of that would be an interesting game if done properly ofcourse.

Nice name, but I will hold my opinion until I see some actual gameplay.

Ah, Dark Millennium!

Invoking 2nd Edition = A good thing!

This surely heralds the return of armor save modifiers to 40K and that holiest of holy grails...

Terminator Armor saving on a 3+ on 2d6!

I wanna call my character Jervis.

Wolf wrote:

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:hopefully it'll be like elder scrolls or fallout like

That would be nifty actually. A 40k MMO version of that would be an interesting game if done properly ofcourse.

indeed, hopefully it will be like this and done correctly... with all factions present upto and including inquisitors and the crons

The Night Stalker wrote:Nice name, but I will hold my opinion until I see some actual gameplay.

Don't worry. I'm sure we'll get some really fancy CGI movie made by Blur studios that will have nothing to do with the game whatsoever, but will look really shiny and will make everyone go 'Ooooh! AHhhhh!'

I mean, they did it with Warhammer Online, they're doing it with Not-Knights of the Old Republic. Why not Dark Millennium?

Gitkikka wrote:Micro-transaction, eh? - "Well, Mr. Skully McSkullson, your n00b bolter isn't really doing the job anymore, is it? However, for a one-time payment of $15.00 *insert CC number here* we'll upgrade it to a master-crafted bolter!"

From what we can see over on warhammer40konline, they have an interview with massively at 12midday PST today.

We would assume any announce would be at that time or just before, so hopefully info will be out within 6-7hrs.

On a side note we also spotted an interview with one of the THQ fellas that let slip actual gameplay footage is due to be shown today, oh and he mentioned titans will be in the game.

Hee hee, I love Penny Arcade.

And I'm afraid the name "Jervis" has been taken. "Jervass" is available though.

Karon wrote:
It would be complicated, but would make a great game, and more importantly, a DIFFERENT game, a DIFFERENT MMO.

In the MMO Industry, different is BAD.

Sure it seems like if the 40k MMO is a wow-remake or a planetside-remake(please god, please god, LET THIS HAPPEN) would just be rehasing someone else's work, but in the case of MMOS, this is typically a GOOD thing.

MMOs that tried to be original

Star Trek Online

Matrix Online

Rising Force Online

Warhammer Age of Reckoning (They specifically said, it's just like WoW but 'Different' and every point that was 'different' was what killed the game)

The list goes on and on...

now if you want your 40k mmo to last around 3 years and not have a playerbase exceed 30-40k by all means, hope for a 'different' type of game.

But if you're like me, and want to see this MMO last, and bring countless new and exciting (and non-beardy) people into the 40K franchise, then you'd probably best be picking up Planetside or doing a 10day trial of WoW and hope that your time in these games translates to 'potential experience' in the upcoming title.



AS far as will it be an RPG a FPS or any other genre, I personally have noticed that most official sources cite the game as a "Warhammer Online MMO" and seeing as how its done by Vigil (anyone who has played Darksiders has tasted their work, and if you havent played Darksiders yet, rent it, its a good one) a strict click to punch/spell/shoot (aka current MMORPG mechanics at their most basic level) seems EXTREMELY unlikey, however, so does the concept of a traditional FPS. I see it working like a 3rd person Action game (much like Legend of Zelda) that may have a "First person mode" (which may or may not function like a traditional FPS) but be more focused on the Third person action experience.

That being said, with Vigil's history and THQ taking rendering to new heights, and the projected release dates (that I have seen) this game is going to be FAAAAAAR off, and when it DOES come out, you will need a beast of a computer (2gig video memory(Sli/Crossfired or single card) 4-8 gigs RAM, quad 3.0gzh processor etc) to keep up with what will probably end up being the end-game specs, the game will probably have a hard time scaling, so if you are running off a hand-me-down XP desktop or a Netbook, start saving up now if you are interested in this game.

Yeah, I'm talking about MMO's in general. I bought Guild Wars and played that for a while. I was fine paying a decent amount for that because there was no monthly fee. Aion when it came out here was in the high $70 mark... for what? You've still got to pay more before you can play it. Seems like a rip off to me.

i wouldnt really consider Guild Wars an MMO, to me it was just a 3d version of Diablo 2. it had some MMO-like features but it falls short of being a true MMO. As for being free that's its gimmick to get you playing, just like the Free 2 Play games that cost you nothing to download and play but run an in game Cash Shop to buy all sorts of items and junk with real money. In those kinds of games if you want to be good you have to pay for it so you basically create your own subscription fee be how badly you want stuff.

Onto the real isssue. Why pay for a game and then pay a monthly fee. Well they were nice enough to give you a free month with your purhase so knock $15 off the cost of the initial purchase. Your initial purchase goes to paying everybody who made the game in the first place, game development does not come for free or out of thin air. Secondly your reoccuring monthly fee goes to maintain all of the servers (hosting aint cheap), pay the tech support (WoW has a 24hr server maintenance team), pay people to develop new content for patches, bug fixing and events (dressing up for holidays seems like a Space Marine would want to do.)

Then there are expansions some companies have them for free (Lineage 2) others make you pay for them and put them out at such a frequent rate just so they can keep the game "fresh" and keep people playing and attracting new players with "new content" (WoW, Everquest)

The monthly fee does decrease the more months you subscribe for, a 6 or 12 month subscription is cheaper per month than paying by the month.

I really don't get the issue with subscription fees. its part of how they do buisiness, if you dont like it play one of the free ones and see how different things are run.

MMOs are like 40k and WHFB, you have expansions and codex updates and you dont have to buy them; but unless you have a good gaming group you wont be getting many games with the general public.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Warhammer Age of Reckoning (They specifically said, it's just like WoW but 'Different' and every point that was 'different' was what killed the game)

I have to disagree on this one. It didn't try to be original at all, it tried to be DAoC 2(unsurprisingly, since it's the same creators), and didn't fail too much at that(hence why I loved WAR). Had it actually BEEN DAoC 2, it probably would have done better.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

Karon wrote:
It would be complicated, but would make a great game, and more importantly, a DIFFERENT game, a DIFFERENT MMO.

In the MMO Industry, different is BAD.

Sure it seems like if the 40k MMO is a wow-remake or a planetside-remake(please god, please god, LET THIS HAPPEN) would just be rehasing someone else's work, but in the case of MMOS, this is typically a GOOD thing.

MMOs that tried to be original

Star Trek Online

Matrix Online

Rising Force Online

Warhammer Age of Reckoning (They specifically said, it's just like WoW but 'Different' and every point that was 'different' was what killed the game)

The list goes on and on...

now if you want your 40k mmo to last around 3 years and not have a playerbase exceed 30-40k by all means, hope for a 'different' type of game.

But if you're like me, and want to see this MMO last, and bring countless new and exciting (and non-beardy) people into the 40K franchise, then you'd probably best be picking up Planetside or doing a 10day trial of WoW and hope that your time in these games translates to 'potential experience' in the upcoming title.

it is easy to point out the games that are different and failed but you completely ignored the ones that are different and stuck around.

sure there were some that were different that didnt make it.

Horizons
Auto Assault
Shadowbane

and those that are different and still around today.

Planetside
Eve Online
Lineage 2
Project Entropia

The problem is that everyone compares everything to WoW and realistically WoW is not different at all either.

WoW took everything that worked from other MMOs and watered them down so that the game would be easy and fun to play so that it would appeal to the masses. There is nothing ground breaking about WoW, everything that WoW does has been done before.

People do want different but MMOs tend to have their flavor of the month like 40k and WHFB do too. Diehard fans will stick with what they like and buck the trends.

Keys to success for a 40k MMO

1. Big shoulder pads
2. Plenty of darkness of the grim variety
3. a whole lot of violence
4. Interesting and fun one-liners
5. Jervis NOT helping balancing things
6. Good graphics and atmosphere.. none of the cheesy stuff cryptic puts out (STO people)

Kirasu wrote:Keys to success for a 40k MMO

1. Big shoulder pads Have Dark Eldar as a playable race
2. Plenty of darkness of the grim variety
3. a whole lot of violence
4. Interesting and fun one-liners
5. Jervis NOT helping balancing things
6. Good graphics and atmosphere.. none of the cheesy stuff cryptic puts out (STO people)

Fixt

Maybe next year!

I want to play as a Broadside.

and i want to play as an arch magos... but will it happen? most likely not. more then likely it'll be marine and guard based

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:and i want to play as an arch magos... but will it happen? most likely not. more then likely it'll be marine and guard based

Acardia wrote:I want to play as a Broadside.

Oh ye of little faith!

Tzeentch has granted this man his wish!

Such is the power of chaos! (And MSpaint)

Acardia wrote:I want to play as a Broadside.

I want to play as a Shokk Attack Gun.

I still think a huge majority of traditional 40k players will be very dissatisfied with anything produced along this genre. Because most of what I'm hearing is that people basically want an MMO of 40k to play like a massively scaled Table-top game, which we know will not happen.

Factions suck in MMO's, I've tried them and it get's very boring. Especially when you're partied or clanned with a moron that deserves to be PK'd. Fully open PvP would never work for this IP as an MMO unless it followed the path of Rogue Trader or Inquisitor. The problem then would be justifying large battles of 100-500 people at one time.

Fortunately there is a lot of time before we will ever see this on the shelf so...no reason to worry for now.

Good and I mean really good MMO's run off of 'DRAMA'! If there's no drama, there will be no longevity.

http://www.fz.se/artiklar/nyheter/20100615/forst-hos-fz-wh-40000-dark-millenium-online

Heres the first trailer and the first pictures from the game Enjoy!

Harpa wrote:http://www.fz.se/artiklar/nyheter/20100615/forst-hos-fz-wh-40000-dark-millenium-online

Heres the first trailer and the first pictures from the game Enjoy!

I bet alot of people just wet themselves at the hope of piloting a WarHound. It's really hard to get an idea of the game mechanics from that trailer though It looks like there are definately elements of a 3rd person Shooter as well as either Squad based or something akin to it for a 'party' system.

Feth me. Warhound!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That... I mean... it's a little cartoony-super-deformed... and the 'daemon' looked a little dopey... but still... yeah... I'll give it a chance.

Looks like it's Black Templar vs orks.

I'm pretty comfortable with that.

'Cept i want Ravenguard :(

Vehicle support would be AWESOME.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I take that back. I like the variance they shwoed. Chaos, Guard, Marines, Orks. reminds me of DoW. Looks like lost of vehilce support, though I bet the titan will be more like Liberty prime was in Fallout 3.

It heavily reminds me of WoW in the 41st milennium. which is to say AWESOME. I'll play the demo when it comes out. if i'm impressed, I'll probably switch to it from WoW.

I want to be a bloodthirster!

Yeah, I'm talking about MMO's in general. I bought Guild Wars and played that for a while. I was fine paying a decent amount for that because there was no monthly fee. Aion when it came out here was in the high $70 mark... for what? You've still got to pay more before you can play it. Seems like a rip off to me.

I can't speak for other MMOs. There's a reason WoW is so popular.

Also, trailer on an English language site and screenshots:
http://www.gameslave.co.uk/game.cfm?group=1442&game=Warhammer-40000-Dark-Millenium-Online
http://www.gameslave.co.uk/newscomments.cfm?news=9212&title=Warhammer-40000-Dark-Millenium-Online-Screenshots--Trailer

I'm not saying it's not popular, or that I don't understand the reasons why people like it, but for me, I don't like the concept of an MMO to start with, regardless of genre. If WoW (or any MMO) was like a free (yet unplayable) download that you could then play by paying for a monthly subscription, I'd be totally down with that. I just can't see the up-side to paying monthly for a game that you still have to buy in a store.

It'd be like having to maintain a constant internet connection in order to play a single-player only game with no online content... oh wait... never mind...

I hate MMO's but more people like them than don't. I do think this trailer was better than the SM movie by a thousand times

Well that trailer has me very, very interested.

MMO's are good value, don't look at initial cost or cost per month to play.

Look at cost/hour of entertainment and suddenly you'll see exactly how cheap it is to play.

Going to Movie Theatre = $10 for 2hrs of entertainment ($5/hr)
Cable w/Premium Channels = $70/month (Assuming 2hrs a day watching TV, $1/hr or so...decreases if multiple people are watching)
40k Model Purchase = ~$40 for 10 Marines (Assuming 5hrs assembly, 20hrs painting, and 10 games each at 1.5hrs...total enjoyment = 40hrs or $1/hr...plus have residual value)
MMO = $70 initial purchase + $15/month after first (Assuming you play 30hrs a month for 6 months, you've got a value of <$1/hr. And the longer you play, since your initial cost is amortized over more months, or more hours you put in that cost/hr decreases. Can have some residual value depending on the success of the game and your ability to sell ingame currency, items and accounts)
Regular RPG (i.e. Oblivion, Dragon Age, Fall Out) = $70 purchase (~40hrs of play time for $1.75/hr)

We pay for any entertainment just a matter of figuring out what you want to pay versus the time you put into it.

I wonder if the micro transaction model will be applied to Dark Millenium. It would allow for people to come and go more readily as improvements are made to the game. Lots of possibilities, one big hurdle the 40K cannon has is that almost all the factions are isolationists, and MMO experiences need to be successfully social as much as they need to be successfully game play. So how to get social interaction between players while not straying too far from fluff will be a big challenge.

later,
WR

You're missing the point.

I don't care about the monthly fee. It's the $70 to buy a game I can't play without paying more that gets me.

Once I've spent my $70, what do I get from it? Nothing apparently, as I still need to pay some more money to get the damned thing to work.

Harpa wrote:http://www.fz.se/artiklar/nyheter/20100615/forst-hos-fz-wh-40000-dark-millenium-online

Heres the first trailer and the first pictures from the game Enjoy!

Feth'd in my pants

I have yet to see an MMO sold without a month of play time included initial price.

And LOTS of stuff is buy before you try...like every other video game out there. Few companies release demo's any more.

I've wasted lots of hours of my life and dollars of my money on movies that are horrible.

If you are worried about like/dislike...find reviewers who share your opinions and likes/dislikes and use their inside information to base purchases on. Don't simply write off a price model for all cases.

Oh yeah... that trailer has got me very interested as well. When we find out what the gameplay is going to be like then I'll make a full decision of whether I'll be playing it or not.

Trailer sold me, nuff said.


GG

The trailer was EPIC!!!!

ph34r wrote:Does that really sound unreasonable?

It really does. Guild Wars managed to be a pretty good MMO with regular updates, but without a monthly fee. Whereas WoW pretty much sucks and after 6 years they still can't get the classes balanced.

Anyway, I'm excited to see a 40k MMO. I've been wanting a good sci-fi MMO for a long time. The fantasy genre was tired and overdone before MMOs even existed, imo. Here's to hoping SMs are put in their rightful place as just another army...

WhiteRaven wrote:
MMO = $70 initial purchase + $15/month after first (Assuming you play 30hrs a month for 6 months, you've got a value of <$1/hr. And the longer you play, since your initial cost is amortized over more months, or more hours you put in that cost/hr decreases. Can have some residual value depending on the success of the game and your ability to sell ingame currency, items and accounts)

I payed 20 bucks for team fortress 2, It gets regularly updated almost monthly with new maps, new weapons, new achievements, new game modes. No cost associated with these updates. I have around 1400 hours into TF2. $0.0142857142857143 dollars an hour using your logic.

Companies don't need to charge monthly fee's for these games, Valve (Developer of TF2) has said, with every update, they sell more copies of TF2, enough to make a good amount of money. I wish MMO companies would stop trying to overcharge their customers and worry about how many more customers they could get with just charging whats written on the box.

WoW Classes are pretty well balanced if you take the whole game into consideration.

sure withing PvP and PvE spheres there's unbalance issues, but if you are trying to play a rogue as pure PvE you're doing it wrong.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stubby wrote:

WhiteRaven wrote:
MMO = $70 initial purchase + $15/month after first (Assuming you play 30hrs a month for 6 months, you've got a value of <$1/hr. And the longer you play, since your initial cost is amortized over more months, or more hours you put in that cost/hr decreases. Can have some residual value depending on the success of the game and your ability to sell ingame currency, items and accounts)

I payed 20 bucks for team fortress 2, It gets regularly updated almost monthly with new maps, new weapons, new achievements, new game modes. No cost associated with these updates. I have around 1400 hours into TF2. $0.0142857142857143 dollars an hour using your logic.

Companies don't need to charge monthly fee's for these games, Valve (Developer of TF2) has said, with every update, they sell more copies of TF2, enough to make a good amount of money. I wish MMO companies would stop trying to overcharge their customers and worry about how many more customers they could get with just charging whats written on the box.

in WoW's case they have absolutely no reason to do that. with the new "pay for useless pets n stuff" content it's obvious that a large portion of their playerbase want to pay MORE than the 15$ a month, because anything you can pay for to get in the game is no advantage whatsoever. I once say a guy multiboxing 5 CHARACTERS. Let me reiterate that. 5 liscence, both expansions, plus the monthly fee. Blizzard has absolutely no reason to charge less in any capacity. They're a business, not a charity. And at the end of they day, something is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it.

Stubby wrote:

WhiteRaven wrote:
MMO = $70 initial purchase + $15/month after first (Assuming you play 30hrs a month for 6 months, you've got a value of <$1/hr. And the longer you play, since your initial cost is amortized over more months, or more hours you put in that cost/hr decreases. Can have some residual value depending on the success of the game and your ability to sell ingame currency, items and accounts)

I payed 20 bucks for team fortress 2, It gets regularly updated almost monthly with new maps, new weapons, new achievements, new game modes. No cost associated with these updates. I have around 1400 hours into TF2. $0.0142857142857143 dollars an hour using your logic.

Companies don't need to charge monthly fee's for these games, Valve (Developer of TF2) has said, with every update, they sell more copies of TF2, enough to make a good amount of money. I wish MMO companies would stop trying to overcharge their customers and worry about how many more customers they could get with just charging whats written on the box.

Correct me if I'm wrong by TF2 is run on servers that Valve does not own? Valve opperates lobby services and game finding services. The lionshare of bandwidth and server horsepower is owned by players not Valve. Starcraft/Battle.net is the same way. As are Battlefield, Battlefield 2 and Bad Company...

In MMO the most costly aspects are: 1) Customer Service Support, 2) Bandwidth, 3) Infrastructure. While WoW has economies of scale to really turn amazing profit, you are probably not seeing the same ability by smaller companies to dot he same thing on a 30-40k player base. A typical software engineering metric, 50% of your software cost is development, 50% is maintenance. So if you have a 4-5Million dollar Development Project (really not hard for a MMO to hit that plateau these days)...you are sinking in 4-5 again after release for your developers and artists, add another few million in for redundant server architecture (cause people cancel when servers go down)....and I would doubt they are turning more than a 10% profit on the service fees. The fact that the company doesn't get 100% of that $70 initial price, means that the finiances come out in the long run not initial sales.

Software is a very competitive market...

H.B.M.C. wrote:You're missing the point.

I don't care about the monthly fee. It's the $70 to buy a game I can't play without paying more that gets me.

Once I've spent my $70, what do I get from it? Nothing apparently, as I still need to pay some more money to get the damned thing to work.

Ok, here is the problem, You've said "I don't think its kul to charge people for a game, and then charge them more to play said game" and people decided to just randomly start "defending" the reason for said costs by comparing the cost of other activities/items to the "fun" of the game...

this is just dumb. It doesn't matter if you prefer such a massively overcast hobby such as warhammer (owait, dakka's a warhammer board) if you feel the principle behind the charge is wrong (which I think is waht you are saying, its not that you CAN'T afford it but you feel you SHOULDN'T have to pay for it, which is understandable....*)

*... However, hopefully I can reveal to you how your concerns are not completely justified.

The difference bewteen an MMORPG and a standalone RPG is quite simple. (( Glossary by example. MMO = FF11/Everquest/WoW etc... Traditional Game = FF12, Super Mario World, Mortal Kombat etc...))

If you go out to the store and buy a copy of Final Fantasy 12, that copy is going to have the same content on it (unless you purchase/they add free DLC) untill the end of time (assuming good maintence). You have to pay 70$ for this game to pay off the time spent into the game(Designers/testers/etc), the marketing for the game (ads/events/retail space) and the profits to the publishers and somtimes any other charges (say it wasnt final fantasy 12, but Lego Star wars, some of the money from your game goes to Lucas' pockets). Barring DLC charges, this is all you will ever pay for this game because this is the extent that the PUBLISHERS are taking cost/profit to allow you to play this game.

Lets say you wanted to buy final fantasy 11, unlike 12, it is an MMORPG, which requires an additional 10$ monthly charge (first month included) for you to play your game online. The game itself, has no Offline mode (and as such, is dependant almost on the online community for many of the different mechanics of the game to function) so you are required to pay this fee to play this game. The 70$ you paid for the game goes towards the exact same pools as it for final fantasy 12, only a few more outlets...

#1 Hardware to support the online users, as the game requires you to play it online, the publishers/developers are responsible for maintaining a server environment for players to use. The costs of such hardware/software/licensing/telecom are FAR greater then that of a standalone game such as Final Fantasy 12 so that leaves the developers to make one of two choices... either incorperate the cost of said expenses into a realistic price increase for the title as a whole, charging more to those who first buy it and less as time goes by (if a standalone would be 70$ an mmo such as this would retail for around.... 560$ a copy ((And you'd still need to break over 100k to make the server-hardware/software budgeting, and keep in mind, the more people who buy the game, the more hardware you will need to purchase, thus increasing the cost)) and probably still require a monthly fee of around ~1$ to handle telecom fees.) or allow the game to compete in the standard market and charge their 10$ monthly fee (and still hope to recoop costs).

#2 Staff to support the game itself, unlike FF12, when FF11 launches, the game developers can't just immediately begin work in another project, instead they have to devote time and resources to thier obligations to their players. Maintaining the servers is one thing, but thats mainly discussed in #1, the other costs are in support staff for things such as Game bugs, glitches, player-caused incidents (hacking, and even to a more recent extent, harassment) and day-to-day troubleshooting. These employees aren't free, and they should not be expected to spend their time increasing your enjoyment of the product for free (or equally so, for the 70$ you dropped on the game). Subscription fees are paying their salaries and justifying their employment, thus when a game is successful and has a massive spike in subscribers, publishers/devs will hire a surge of the Support Reps to handle the potential rush of calls, when the subscriptions fade, so do the Support Reps (sadly) either way, to expect this level of service (something you will not find in a traditional game such as FF12) for no extra cost is a bit selfish.

#3 New Content! Many MMOS incorperate at least some level of new content for free, yes "expansion packs" cost money outside the usual subscription fees, but these are typically game-changing advancements, graphical overhauls, and something that requires promoting, retail space, and many of the other costs normally assoiciated with traditional games. However, free content packs, such as a new zone to play in, new dungeons to explore, and "real time seasonal events" (such as New Years Eve etc) aren't necessarily "Free" but moreso are paid for by that "10$ a month" (Again, expecting a programer/sprite artist/support representive to work for free is as unfair as it is selfish)

Now, all that above for just 10-15$ a month is actually a steal of a deal, and considering what you SHOULD have to pay for a game such as this, well worth it.

Its not totally fair to compare the 70$ upfront and 15$ month charge of an MMO to that of a Traditional game as the costs associated with them are very seperate as well, the best(or at least the most simple) way to know the difference between them is the basic idea that:

A traditional game spends money making the game, and stops incurring (major) costs post game launch, and as such will have a set value required to start reaching a state of "pure profit"

An MMO has all of the same assocaited costs as a traditional game, yet MUCH greater upfront costs (making the "pure profit" stage significantly further away from traditional games) and has continiously occuring costs throughout the lifespan of the game (making the "pure profit" stage almost an impossible goal.)

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:
Warhammer Age of Reckoning (They specifically said, it's just like WoW but 'Different' and every point that was 'different' was what killed the game)

Taking massive amounts of money from their subscribers' and ex-subscribers' credit cards without permission also helped, or so I hear.

H.B.M.C. wrote:I wanna call my character Jervis.

In the grim dark future there is only receding hair lines. Haven't you heard... Jervis gets to play as the emperor spontaneously nerfing all who stand before him.


I don't think this is the worst approach. The micro-transaction approach is much better for casual gamers. You pay for things as you need or use them. If you don't want to use something or play an area of the game you don't have to pay for it. The big advantage being if a person has a busy month where they couldn't play, they didn't flush their months subscription down the drain. This model only really troubles those who go way beyond the value of their monthly subscription.

Yeah you can make arguements of maintaining an internet connection to play, but the internets a bit of a neccessity these days, you'd maintain it with or without the game. While some have voiced disdain of mmo, and that they'd be online solo, making alot of the internet connection and rest a waste, more and more "offline" games require an internet connection just to prove its a legitimate copy and play.

i was really hoping space marines weren't going to be playable.

I really liked the idea of having to struggle to survive against hard NPCs, playing as space marines i really don't feel this will allow it to work.

at least its a lot like planetside so i think that balances out. I am really hoping this will work.

how is it alot like planetside? The only trailer I have seen has shown that it is

A. 3rd person

B: More like a hybrid of WoW and Star Wars Galaxies (3rd edition?)

C: Very graphics intensive

which is why MMOs are developed with solo, party, group and alliance content in mind. Can you solo all of WoW.. yes but its mind numbingly booring.

its an MMO, it means Massive Multiplayer Online which means you are going to interact with lots of other players online. As for monthly fees, thats how its done in the industry. Yes there ARE exceptions Guild Wars the MMO with training wheels, farious free to play games such as Archlord, Rising Force Online and other korean ports (these are free to download AND play), and then there is Project Entropia which is free to download and play but lets you control what you spend directly billing your credit card when you withdraw money from an in-game bank.



I do agree that paying the same initial cost for an MMO as compared to a regular game does not seem right. sure you get a free month to play but the time involved with playing an MMO is a drop in the bucket compared to the time needed to invest in the game. I do feel that subscription fees could be cheaper ( i honestly think $10 would be great but even $12 or $13 is fair), game companies do offer discounts on their monthly fee if you have your billing cycle extended but then you are comitted to playing for that long ( i hope you don't get bored of the game in that time).

Project Entropia is a great example of a MMO that thought outside the box and implemented some features that no game has yet to duplicate.

i understand where H.B.M.C. is coming from with the initial cost and the monthly cost for MMOs. Add on top of that the fact that unlike regular games like ones for the PC or Console; once you buy it, it's yours and unless your game has its activation code intact you CANNOT sell or trade your game without breaking the ELUA and risk having your account banned and unusable.

MMO developers treat playing their game as an investment. you invest time which you buy with your money to progress and advance within the game. What happens when you want to quit the game after a year or more?
Project Entropia not only let you put into the game as much money as you wanted via atm withdraws from in-game banks (you withdrew straight from your CC at the in game ATM) but it also let you take your money back out if you wanted to "cash out" of the game (a currency conversion and small transaction fee later and your in-game cash was now money you could buy real tangable stuff with.

So when is this game due to be released? I couldn't find any release date info.

GG

April 2011, at the earliest.

I thought it was sometime in 2012. There was some THQ picture showing it on their release schedule.

"At the earliest" means it can release then...or at anytime later.

It, however, does not mean "it will release precisely then."

So if I got my math right if you've played WoW since the beginning you are out over $1200 at minimum? I'm glad I saved my money and bought 2 dozen other games.

How do you figure 1200? (15$ a month is the MOST you will be paying ~66 months since launch -3 free 945 + 40 + 40 +50 (IDK why Wrath was 50 or why people paid that much for it tbh...) = 1075 and thats if you are paying the MAX price, 1009 if using 3 month 943 if using 6month... also, this is assuming absolutely 0 non-play time, and not taking into account the various times in which blizzard has refunded days/weeks back from the game, and assuming you had 0 friends sign up for wow (1 free month for each friend you sign up/get to come back) and you did not know someone who worked at bestbuy (the bestbuy employee discount, when I worked there, allowed you to buy 60 day time cards for 11$ )

The actual minimum for someone who could achieve all of these and has been playing since launch is actually 40+40+50 (130) for discs and 66$ in subscription fees, as the refer-a-friend did not take place untill Jan 07 so from Dec 05 to Jan 07 you would have to buy 6 timecards @ 11$each, use refer/scroll for rest of time (up to 20 months free a year, 10 from refer, 10 from scroll) or 193$, far less then your min of 1200 (and you'd still have 1 extra month left over)


Back to the real topic...

I'm betting this game will release 3-6 months after Cataclysm, unless the developers feel it will require longer then that.

H.B.M.C. wrote:If WoW (or any MMO) was like a free (yet unplayable) download that you could then play by paying for a monthly subscription, I'd be totally down with that. I just can't see the up-side to paying monthly for a game that you still have to buy in a store.

It costs $20 for the game, which includes the first 1.33 months, with $20 being the cost of 1.33 months. That is essentially free.
And WoW is a free yet unplayable download. You could go and download it right now if you wanted.
And you don't have to buy the game in a store. You can do everything online.
Not to sound insulting, but it seems like everything you know about the game is wrong. You may have been misinformed.

Daemon-Archon Ren wrote:

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:and i want to play as an arch magos... but will it happen? most likely not. more then likely it'll be marine and guard based

Acardia wrote:I want to play as a Broadside.

Oh ye of little faith!

Tzeentch has granted this man his wish!

Such is the power of chaos! (And MSpaint)

Am I the only one that thought this was fething hilarious?

asmith wrote:So if I got my math right if you've played WoW since the beginning you are out over $1200 at minimum? I'm glad I saved my money and bought 2 dozen other games.

I'd check the math on that one.

If you've enjoyed playing WoW from when you bought it, till now, then you have invested your money well. If you played a lot, then your investment of time/money was a very good one as the cost per hour of entertainment is rather low.

Then again this could be said for any mmo.

If you don't want to play it, cool. I do. Enough said.

Rymafyr wrote:
Factions suck in MMO's, I've tried them and it get's very boring. Especially when you're partied or clanned with a moron that deserves to be PK'd.

This is why i will be playing a commissar if there is the option

I want to play that game. I just hope they do at least one player race that I am interested in. Not seeing one at the moment :(

Ennkay I do too, if you can play as a commissar that will sell the game completely for me.

I'm hoping this beats my best played Sci-Fi MMO of All times which was Star wars Galaxies, until they released that horrendous patch which killed the entire game.

I hope they come out with a Customizable fist gear. Like one that has Mr. T's rings or Mr. T's hair.
Or better yet. You can play as a Commissar with a pie!
All coming to the game in 2013, January 1st.

I thought they had stated that Eldar (though not Dark) would be an option. I imagine they are still in development, resource wise. I'm sure in due time they will pop up.

Lets hope to god they aren't like the Eldar from dawn of war 2. (rigged as hell)

Information from a while back suggests the playable factions to be Imperium (possibly just SM? Just speculating) Chaos, Eldar, Orks.

Lets hope it is different factions.

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:i was really hoping space marines weren't going to be playable.

I really liked the idea of having to struggle to survive against hard NPCs, playing as space marines i really don't feel this will allow it to work.

I thought I was the only one who felt this way. And it's not just because I don't like space marines. It's because in the fluff, space marines are supposed to be insanely rare. And in nearly all ways, they are supposed to out-class most other infantry. If they had to appear, they should have been a rare NPC faction.

I really love that Tyranids will be an NPC faction. It just fits their concept to be collectively manipulated by a single CPU. If Necrons wind up in the game at some point, I think the same treatment would do them justice. And as much as I would love to play DE, they too might be better off as NPCs. It would give them that 'faceless, single-minded killer' vibe.

agreed with statement above

Harpa wrote:http://www.fz.se/artiklar/nyheter/20100615/forst-hos-fz-wh-40000-dark-millenium-online

Heres the first trailer and the first pictures from the game Enjoy!

I'm not even a fan of MMOs and I want to inject this directly into my veins so the awesome can be with me forever and ever

I am thus far impressed with the way it looks. I would like it to be a shooter with the option for a third person or first person view. To be honest, I don't see any other way the game could be done and still be enjoyable.

I couldn't really tell alot from the trailer other than that it looks a little...bright...to be the grim darkness of the future...oh well. It still looks damn impressive, and I can't wait to give it a spin!

I hope it looks as good as Dawn of War II.. I'd like to run around in power armor with a heavy bolter very much.

I'm hoping I'll be able to play as a Necron Lord so I can self-repair and trollface at my would-be killers, but somehow I don't see that happening

I just actually watched the trailer.. nevermind what I said.. I'm with Corvus/Gwonam.

See necrons is a very difficult race to have playable in an MMO because it lacks character and individuality. So your chances are very slim. sorry bro.

But still very awesome indeed shame it's release is so far awaaay !

http://www.gamereplays.org/community/index.php?showtopic=606969

For those who haven't seen it.

Seeing as how you can apparently ride around in a Deffkopta, I'm gonna have a hard time not buying this game

Asherian Command wrote:Lets hope it is different factions.

My guess is that they will save other factions for expansions. Unlike WOW the fact that things are more pre-established means they can't pull things out of no-where so they need to save somethings for later and do them right not rushed or crammed in.

ph34r wrote:

H.B.M.C. wrote:Nah it's the "pay $100 for this game and then pay more to actually play the game you just bought". What exactly am I paying for when I buy the box in store? If you want me to pay monthly for an MMO, then fine, but don't charge me for the damn game. That's double-dipping on costs.

Well, you are getting 3 games stacked on top of each other, plus a monthly fee for servers, and weekly patches, and frequent content patches that add dungeons, quests, etc.
You don't have to pay for the expansions if you don't want. You will still get 6 years of patches, and the content of the entire first game, as well as everything the additional games have added, except for the ability to go from level 60 to 80, for the huge "double dip" of $5 to start plus $15 per month, plus a free 10 days (or $5 of game time essentially).

Basically, it's zero dollars plus $15 a month to play a game that originally cost $50, and has been improved for 6 years straight, and you get your $15 worth per month of improvements and additions to the game constantly happening.
Does that really sound unreasonable?

UO never really had that problem, you can almost always get the game for free. And honestly, it's not three games for the price of three. It's the same game, with more explorable area, and a switch set on the server to let a number get bigger. WoW is boring anyway.

Hopefully there will be open PvP in this game, and lots of it, with rewards for doing bigger and bigger PvP battles (more XP, better item drops, whatever)

One thing I hate about WoW is that there is no penalty for dying, and dungeons are danger free. I much preferred UO's open PvP system.

Wild guess based on the trailer:

If you are a Space Marine, you are an individual (and perhaps leader of a squad at higher levels)

If you are not a Space Marine you are a leader of a squad of guys.

Why do I think this? Groups of IG firing together (and not looking like several different players), groups of Orks bumming around in a tight mob, three khorne beserkers with two standing around and one raging out.

It would seem to balance out the super-soldier bit that space marines get while also differentiating the game from its modern counterparts.

Archonate wrote:

Sgt.Roadkill wrote:i was really hoping space marines weren't going to be playable.

I really liked the idea of having to struggle to survive against hard NPCs, playing as space marines i really don't feel this will allow it to work.

I thought I was the only one who felt this way. And it's not just because I don't like space marines. It's because in the fluff, space marines are supposed to be insanely rare. And in nearly all ways, they are supposed to out-class most other infantry. If they had to appear, they should have been a rare NPC faction.

I really love that Tyranids will be an NPC faction. It just fits their concept to be collectively manipulated by a single CPU. If Necrons wind up in the game at some point, I think the same treatment would do them justice. And as much as I would love to play DE, they too might be better off as NPCs. It would give them that 'faceless, single-minded killer' vibe.

I'd much rather see DE as a playable race. A person behind a computer can be far far crueler than a CPU could ever hope to be!

As long as I get my deffkopta tho, I'll be a happy camper!

Looks interesting, but like all MMO's it's going to be compared to WoW (sad but true) with everyone (being journo's) "It's ok but WoW is better blah blah".

I just had this thought of when your in a group and everyone is IG and someone is a Commissar. Group arguements on what to do would be resolved with a bullet in the head lol

Leader - Lets all go get the Orks
Commissar - Hmm, maybe not
Leader - Ah yes, I'm the group leader!!
Commissar - "BANG" Not now (puts gun away)

I just watched the Dark Millennium trailer from E3 and the only one word I can say that comes to mind to describe what I just watched is........EPIC. I can't wait to see what else Vigil has in store for us in the year to come.

Woo. Want 40k MMO. WANT NOW.

Aramus wrote:

UO never really had that problem, you can almost always get the game for free. And honestly, it's not three games for the price of three. It's the same game, with more explorable area, and a switch set on the server to let a number get bigger. WoW is boring anyway.

Hopefully there will be open PvP in this game, and lots of it, with rewards for doing bigger and bigger PvP battles (more XP, better item drops, whatever)

One thing I hate about WoW is that there is no penalty for dying, and dungeons are danger free. I much preferred UO's open PvP system.

Well actually you can play WoW for free, it's just not as popular as UO was as free. Their are dedicated servers being ran and you can basically do whatever you want really.

The days of death penalty are long gone, no company would ever risk trying to implement that system with today's gamers, could you imagine the outcry? Basically no one want's to lose their "epicz lootz" by some random Pker or to a mob at the bottom of a dungeon.

I miss shadowbane.

The chaos guys should be able to PK each other much like shadowbane.

I hope you get to drop bigbomms with that deffkopta. I'm gonna let go one of em, then purposely crash land into a pack of Ultramarines.

lots of people like this title but am I the only one who thinks it doesnt fit with orks?

EDIT: bah, just realized it wasnt Warhammer: Space marine: dark millenium. oops

yeah okay its an awesome name then

They mind as well call it Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine Online

I get those 2 games confused.

The only thing that scares me about a MMO is the constant grind you have to go through just to play it and level your character up. The other thing I am assuming is that it is going to be PC based which doesn't exactly light me on fire either. Even top end computers can have trouble with large MMO's unless you go and spend $2000 on one of those alienware comps.

MMO's can only be on CPU's....

I have a $600 CPU, and it's never had problem with raiding on WoW, or City-Sacking on WAR, so $2000 is a terrible misconception.

Generalstoner wrote:Even top end computers can have trouble with large MMO's unless you go and spend $2000 on one of those alienware comps.

I'm sorry, what? Do you actually own a computer or are you just making up whatever numbers you want?

Luthon1234 wrote:

Aramus wrote:

UO never really had that problem, you can almost always get the game for free. And honestly, it's not three games for the price of three. It's the same game, with more explorable area, and a switch set on the server to let a number get bigger. WoW is boring anyway.

Hopefully there will be open PvP in this game, and lots of it, with rewards for doing bigger and bigger PvP battles (more XP, better item drops, whatever)

One thing I hate about WoW is that there is no penalty for dying, and dungeons are danger free. I much preferred UO's open PvP system.

Well actually you can play WoW for free, it's just not as popular as UO was as free. Their are dedicated servers being ran and you can basically do whatever you want really.

The days of death penalty are long gone, no company would ever risk trying to implement that system with today's gamers, could you imagine the outcry? Basically no one want's to lose their "epicz lootz" by some random Pker or to a mob at the bottom of a dungeon.

Oops, I wasn't referring to the free servers, I meant the game itself. Almost always Origin had a free download for the game not soon after each expansion.

I miss the days of the death penalty though. Made the game exciting.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ph34r wrote:

Generalstoner wrote:Even top end computers can have trouble with large MMO's unless you go and spend $2000 on one of those alienware comps.

I'm sorry, what? Do you actually own a computer or are you just making up whatever numbers you want?

+1 I have a 5 year old plus computer that can run WoW just fine, and I've got less than $500 in it (and over 2 of that is monitors)

See this is why the graphics are not "uber". In order to have scaling graphics, they tend to go with the more unrealistic/cartoony style so that a wider range of PC users can play.

Also, an alienware computer is not worth $2000, the component parts can be constructed at a much lower price by yourself. If you put little models together you can put a computer together.

Exactly, Bavius. Graphics like those in EQ2 require some decent computers. Even bad computers can run WoW with its cartoony, but WORKABLE graphics.

WoW's graphics are about as good as you get while maintaining a wide range of available computers to play the game. And Dark Millennium graphics look very similar to WoW's graphic's, which is a good thing.

Computers as SO dirt cheap to make...

doesnt take a good pc or much effort to play these games.

Doesn't look very Grimdark... looks more like wow gfx.

So what unique gameplay is going to separate this mmo from the standard mmo formula?

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!!!

Ahem... sorry. Needless to say, I'm quite excited.

Luthon1234 wrote:The days of death penalty are long gone

I'm guessing you didn't play Final Fantasy XI. You lost 10% of your xp for the level. It was possible to de-level.

I'm very excited about World of Warhammer 40Kraft. I'm hoping to play as a Tau Shaman or a Tyranid Paladin.

In all seriousness, though, I have to say I'm a little less excited then I was initially - I hoped for an engine a little more like WAR or Aion or something like that. Still pretty highly excited though, and I could get over the graphics if they make the game difficult.

Is anyone organizing Dakka guilds?

Ouze wrote:Is anyone organizing Dakka guilds?

The game isn't coming out for years. Isn't that a bit premature?

Aww man, micro-transactions? I was really excited for this MMO too, but cash-shops are a death sentence.

If you're not savvy with MMORPG jargon; micro-transactions are a scam to get you to pay more than you currently do on subscriptions. It works on the principle that most players don't mind spending 'only' 2-5 dollars on an ingame item to remain competitive. However, typically they have to buy such items many times a month to continue through the end-game, and end up spending far more than the regular $15 subscription fee.

I could go into more depth, but I'll copy-pasta a recent post I saw on another forum that not-so-succinctly details what is wrong with cash-shop games. Keep in mind that he is describing how CURRENT micro-transaction based games work, games that are on the market today.

As p2p players, why do we "hate" f2p? For me it narrows down to the f2p types of players. Imo there are 3 types of players for f2p's (i'm considering the crowd who plays the game for at least 15h/week):

Type1 - The free rider. The "i'm not gonna pay a dime to play" player type. He has lots of time usually, wants (not necessarily enjoys) and is able to grind for his stuff. His goal is to reach the point where he is able to generate that much of ingame currency that he does not need to use cash shop, and he will be able to buy cash shop items with ingame money.

Type2- The p2p player who wants to f2p (i belong here). He pays somewhere between 1x or 2x the p2p "standard" fee monthly (10-20$/month), buys only neccesities (some must-have-or-you-die buffs, item upgrade enhancers etc.), plans to buy the "extras" like mounts or pets or whatever the game offers from that cathegory with ingame money.

Type3- The Walking God. The hardcore with tons of money, which people suspect to be employed by the company who runs the game to create a "goal" (and i would not be shocked if that is in some cases true). He is logged in almost all day. He seem to have an infinite ammount of cash to spend in the cash shop. He always gets the latest item and the best equipment etc. He and others like him end up dominating the game. They win all pvp competitions, all pve events, everything.

At some moment of playing, the Type2 players realise that they will Never Ever be able to compete with the Walking Gods. The feeling of accomplishment totally dies. While the Type1 will continue to try, the Type2 will say to himself "well, i'm paying here more that i was paying for p2p and still i have less, much less" and will leave for another game where he will be tricked again in the same way.

One day, after usually years, some really skilled and medium equipped Type1's will be able to come close to the Walking Gods (the skill difference will compensate for the kit difference). At that moment, the company, needing to protect their Type3 players who pump tons of money into the game, starts the "nerf droprates of X and Y and Z". The Type1 cannot generate the same ammount of ingame currency to be able to compete with Type 3. Some of them usuall leave in rage, but most of them stay because they feel they have played for a few years and if they leave it would be just wasted. They keep trying. They come close again. Then there comes an "expansion" which for these games just means 2 quests 1 dungeon and *most important* a new tier of equipment and increased level cap. Another era of money pump from Type3. And so on, until it dies.

An example to illustrate:

I love the idea behind Atlantica Online. New, special ideas, turn based combat, there's nothing like it on the market. But at the top, the people fighting in the top 10 spots have some form of "ultimate" upgraded equipment, the upgrading till that level being doable only with cash shop items which would cost thousands up to tens of thousands of dollars (no i am not exaggerating). The top players are now 90% Walking Gods and 10% Type1's, so there's an expansion and increased lvl cap to "kill" the remaining Type1's and let the Gods duel on the model "whoever pumps more money wins". A regular MMO player cannot compete with that, no matter what skills he has what and how long he farms or how much time he spends ingame etc. but only if he invests a Ton of his RL money into the game.

On the other hand, in WoW (game which tricked lots of people into the instance farming since beta till now and lots ended up hating and leaving it for this reason, people are not stupid and they get bored of the same idea) all you need to be competitive is 3 months to farm the pvp equipment, if you got the skills, if you are good enough. Actually that's what WoW managed to do, they keep the high mass of population happy while offering the pvp for those who really need the "i am the best" feeling. Ok, so they're gonna make the hardcore players (and the ones which need to achieve something unique) angry. That's what, 0,01% of the population in the game?

We like to lose if we are not good enough, not if we do not have the will to invest the money for a car or a house into a videogame.

He's not joking either. Atlantica has pixels for sale for thousands of dollars. This is what they mean by 'micro'-transactions.

ph34r wrote:The game isn't coming out for years. Isn't that a bit premature?

I heard April 2011. Could just be hearsay though. I for one am very excited to see this finally come to fruition. From the trailer it does look like typical MMO mixed with a little FPS. I'm just happy to see they included a lot of good content right off the bat: BTs, GKs, Dreadnoughts, bikes & fething Warhounds! I think there were some orks in there too, but who gives a j/k Didn't see any Eldar though. Usually they start off with 4 basic races. As far as the quality of the game itself, that'll have to wait for actual gameplay...

I didn't feel like it implied DMO will have microtransactions, but rather the microtransactions games were listed before the "and Dark Millenium".

Well I think its silly to assume they'd set up a microtransaction system for two games but not the third. You're right its not explicit, but it'd be a poor business plan to have one game that might require a different purchase system.

Slackermagee wrote:
Why do I think this? Groups of IG firing together (and not looking like several different players), groups of Orks bumming around in a tight mob, three khorne beserkers with two standing around and one raging out.

It would seem to balance out the super-soldier bit that space marines get while also differentiating the game from its modern counterparts.

Well a number of the developement team also worked on Dawn of War II. So its no surprise. This will likely be DOWII but where each player has one maybe two units.

Karon wrote:They might as well call it Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine Online

There was alot more than Space Marines going on. There was chaos cultist, enginseers, imperial guard, a freakn' titan, and orks. I gurantee they will balance out space marines; its just bad game design otherwise. Just imagine all the different sentry type weapons an enginseer can deploy. Or that IG may have access to their special weapons at a lower level.

Luthon1234 wrote:

Aramus wrote:

UO never really had that problem, you can almost always get the game for free. And honestly, it's not three games for the price of three. It's the same game, with more explorable area, and a switch set on the server to let a number get bigger. WoW is boring anyway.

Hopefully there will be open PvP in this game, and lots of it, with rewards for doing bigger and bigger PvP battles (more XP, better item drops, whatever)

One thing I hate about WoW is that there is no penalty for dying, and dungeons are danger free. I much preferred UO's open PvP system.

Well actually you can play WoW for free, it's just not as popular as UO was as free. Their are dedicated servers being ran and you can basically do whatever you want really.

The days of death penalty are long gone, no company would ever risk trying to implement that system with today's gamers, could you imagine the outcry? Basically no one want's to lose their "epicz lootz" by some random Pker or to a mob at the bottom of a dungeon.

except private servers are illegal and against the ELUA which is why Lineage 2 issued C&D orders to all of the Lineage 2 free servers.

Karon wrote:MMO's can only be on CPU's....

I have a $600 CPU, and it's never had problem with raiding on WoW, or City-Sacking on WAR, so $2000 is a terrible misconception.

you might want to check your info because both FF XI and Star Wars Galaxies (after the patch of death) both were available for consoles.

Deathklaat wrote:

Luthon1234 wrote:

Aramus wrote:

UO never really had that problem, you can almost always get the game for free. And honestly, it's not three games for the price of three. It's the same game, with more explorable area, and a switch set on the server to let a number get bigger. WoW is boring anyway.

Hopefully there will be open PvP in this game, and lots of it, with rewards for doing bigger and bigger PvP battles (more XP, better item drops, whatever)

One thing I hate about WoW is that there is no penalty for dying, and dungeons are danger free. I much preferred UO's open PvP system.

Well actually you can play WoW for free, it's just not as popular as UO was as free. Their are dedicated servers being ran and you can basically do whatever you want really.

The days of death penalty are long gone, no company would ever risk trying to implement that system with today's gamers, could you imagine the outcry? Basically no one want's to lose their "epicz lootz" by some random Pker or to a mob at the bottom of a dungeon.

except private servers are illegal and against the ELUA which is why Lineage 2 issued C&D orders to all of the Lineage 2 free servers.

Except not. Against some EULA !=illegal, and just because a company sends a C&D doesn't make them right.

SickSick6 wrote:I heard April 2011. Could just be hearsay though.

The only date we have been given is 2012, no actual period within it, (although my money would be winter) and that was from THQ, not Vigil.

Generalstoner wrote:Even top end computers can have trouble with large MMO's unless you go and spend $2000 on one of those alienware comps.

I can sort of see where you are coming from in regards to some MMO. Star Trek Online needs an uber PC to run. That stupid 5.6 rating it requires has killed many of my friends gaming rigs.

Bavius wrote:See this is why the graphics are not "uber". In order to have scaling graphics, they tend to go with the more unrealistic/cartoony style so that a wider range of PC users can play.

Also, an alienware computer is not worth $2000, the component parts can be constructed at a much lower price by yourself. If you put little models together you can put a computer together.

QFT!!!

Alienware PC are a complete waste of money. I have a gaming rig that cost me £1500 (£2000 inc a 32" monitor/TV) and I compared it to a £3000 Alienware PC that an old housemate had. He had half the gear, half the power and it struggled to run STO at max settings.

My advice for anyone buying an Alienware, for christ sake don't. Go to a small private retailer and they will build you a machine that will destroy an Alienware with ease. You'll get a much better machine for half the cost.

Ahtman wrote:

Luthon1234 wrote:The days of death penalty are long gone

I'm guessing you didn't play Final Fantasy XI. You lost 10% of your xp for the level. It was possible to de-level.

Yea I played that game, that was kinda after UO and before WoW. But who plays that game anymore? I still get nightmares of endless nights of LFG and trying to grind with a warrior and getting killed by some random ghost and losing the whole nights exp.

Karon wrote:Exactly, Bavius. Graphics like those in EQ2 require some decent computers. Even bad computers can run WoW with its cartoony, but WORKABLE graphics.

WoW's graphics are about as good as you get while maintaining a wide range of available computers to play the game. And Dark Millennium graphics look very similar to WoW's graphic's, which is a good thing.

This is a very important distinction.
WoW is so successful, in the minds of Blizzard at least, simply because anyone interested can run it. They don't need a high end machine to run it. You just need a decent computer and an internet connection.

Kanluwen wrote:WoW is so successful, in the minds of Blizzard at least, simply because anyone interested can run it. They don't need a high end machine to run it. You just need a decent computer and an internet connection.

This is more important than a lot of game developers realize. They're always boasting about their superior graphics, but all MMO players really care about is stability and smooth function. 'Amazing graphics' is just a fancy way of saying 'clunky gameplay and choppy framerates'. And those are a couple of things that no MMO player will tolerate, regardless of how pretty it looks.

And I agree that if this game is like DoW2, but closer up and more personal, then it will be amazing. Being able to customize a whole squad instead of one character would set the game apart from other MMOs in an interesting way. It would give the combat the appearance of an actual 40k battle.

When it comes to free servers of a game, they can be legal if they meet certain criteria, one of the big ones being obsolecence, where by its an older version of the software.

EULA, are very unpopular within the legal community, it is an inevitability they will be made illegal with in the next 10-15 years. The unpopularity stems from the fact they're made without consideration, you get nothing in exchange for agreeing to unfair terms, and you have no way of reading into them before you've made a purchase which leaves you in a position where you have an inability to disagree.

Even still just because an EULA says something doesn't make it binding. A statement that says they "own your soul" if you use the software is just as absurd as many of the restrictions they place in EULA's on how you use the software. Its just a lot less worry to go along with it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Archonate wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:WoW is so successful, in the minds of Blizzard at least, simply because anyone interested can run it. They don't need a high end machine to run it. You just need a decent computer and an internet connection.

This is more important than a lot of game developers realize. They're always boasting about their superior graphics, but all MMO players really care about is stability and smooth function. 'Amazing graphics' is just a fancy way of saying 'clunky gameplay and choppy framerates'. And those are a couple of things that no MMO player will tolerate, regardless of how pretty it looks.

Agreed. I don't think its too much of the fault of the designer for dreaming big as it is just the reality of where broadband internet services are and where the median gaming machine is.

Archonate wrote:
And I agree that if this game is like DoW2, but closer up and more personal, then it will be amazing. Being able to customize a whole squad instead of one character would set the game apart from other MMOs in an interesting way. It would give the combat the appearance of an actual 40k battle.

Based on DOW, I imagine we'll see squads driven by a character, who is the commander of the squad. At the start a "sgt" who can work towards given paths redefining the nature of his squad as he goes. I imagine in addition to that we'll see some sort of support slot which will allow the squad to take things like bikes, or Rhinos, or dreadnoughts, or predators to directly support the squad. A number of those things are shown, so its a question of how they're controlled or restircted. Example, if someone fields a Warhound titan is that inplace of his squad who are assumed riding it or is it in addition to the squad; will access be goverened by level or class (or similar mechanism). We see lone Enginseers running around, a warhound could well be their maxed level upgrade.

Looking at the trailer, they have Ultramarines and Black Templars running around for loyalist with alot of the detailed integrated into their modeling. I'm curious if we'll be able to customize our chapter colors or if we're limited to chapters as if they were a class or race.

Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ))))))))))))))))))))))

Sorry, no way I'm ever gonna play WAR Online in 40k setting.

http://www.darkmillenniumonline.com/

Dystopia wrote:Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ))))))))))))))))))))))

Sorry, no way I'm ever gonna play WAR Online in 40k setting.

http://www.darkmillenniumonline.com/

Yay! FACTIONS...I'll pass. They should have gone w/ more of a Rouge Trader bent...

If you're going to bitch about factions, at least wait until they announce what the faction make-up will be.

Chaos and Orks work quite well together, and have for quite awhile.

Space Marines and Imperial Guard...well, I don't think I should have to explain that one.

I'd prefer more than 2 factions... but I'll still play it.

Problem with 2 factions is the game is way too susceptible to massive population imbalances.

As would having more than 2 factions.

If Marines and Chaos Marines were their own individual factions, it's quite likely they alone would outnumber Guard, Orks, Eldar, etc.

By having two factions, one each with an Astartes subfaction--it guarantees at least a small bit of population balance.

I suppose that is a good point as well, but looking back at WAR, one of the problems was the terrible population swings back and forth.

Even though this is 40k, I'm sure a lot of people are going to be reminded of the failure that was WAR. :(

I hope they put up some more info soon.

Well, putting it lightly with W:AR--the biggest problem was that people put too much emphasis into the RvR part. People went nuts creating the flavor of the day/week/month "RvR King" classes on servers where the balance was already heavily skewed.

Dystopia wrote:
Sorry, no way I'm ever gonna play WAR Online in 40k setting.

How can you call it WAR online in the 40k setting? It isn't even made by the same company. In fact its made by a company with a record for trying to stand apart from its competition by taking different approaches.

Kanluwen wrote:If you're going to bitch about factions, at least wait until they announce what the faction make-up will be.

Chaos and Orks work quite well together, and have for quite awhile.

Space Marines and Imperial Guard...well, I don't think I should have to explain that one.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the different factions. For Chaos they Bezerker, bezerkers on bikes, bezerker color dreadnought, a nurgle-ish daemon prince, and cultists. For orks, some trucks and deffcopta'. For Marines we've seen Black Templar and Ultramarines. IG, guardsmen and enginseers, and the warhound. Between Chaos and Loyalist and even within the chaos and loyalist how much intermixing will we see. Initially will we see Nurgle/Khorne/Ultramarine/Black Templar dreadnought or just the bezerker one.... same goes for the bike. Different things maybe restricted differently for each. These will be interesting things to see worked out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kanluwen wrote:By having two factions, one each with an Astartes subfaction...

It seems more like each side has two astartes factions. We've already seen Black Templars, Ultramarines, and Bezerkers... but the nurglish daemon prince implies Deathguard as well.

I get the feeling Dreadnoughts, Deffkoptas, Warhounds, etc will be part of open world PvP or large battle sequences.

Bikes and Warbuggies/Wartrakks I can see as mounts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I was meaning "Astartes subfaction" in a broad sense of both Order and Destruction having one.

Its symantics really, but Black templars (1) and Ultramarines (2). Bezerkers (1), Nurgle (2). Thats two each, thats all I meant. I'm thinking you meant "atleast one."

When it comes to dreandnoughts, deffkopta... etc, we'll have to see. If this game does follow DOW2, much as it looks, those things could be controllable. Assumption have to be made if this is a standard one player one character approach or if it is infact a new more DOW2 approach to an MMO.

Kanluwen wrote:Well, putting it lightly with W:AR--the biggest problem was that people put too much emphasis into the RvR part. People went nuts creating the flavor of the day/week/month "RvR King" classes on servers where the balance was already heavily skewed.

I would hope that this game will have even more of an emphasis on pvp. I don't want to go punch a great unclean one for phat loots. I want to get on and go battle with people in huge open warfare.

But yes, the massive balance problems and bugs in WAR didn't help matters at all. If that game had another year or so in development, maybe it wouldn't have turned out to be such a pile of crap. At the beginning there were huge population problems, huge bugs, lag, etc. Like everything that could have possibly gone wrong, did go wrong. And unfortunately that soured a LOT of people on the game.

I hope people don't still think that way since this is coming from a completely different developer, although admittedly with no MMO experience, Darksiders was AMAZING though.

I understand the need to go with 2 factions... But did they really have to call them Order and Destruction? 40k has always been better off defining itself by its own merits, rather than trying to draw parallels to WHFB. And frankly, the less DMO associates with WAR, the better.

aka_mythos wrote:It's semantics really, but Black Templars (1) and Ultramarines (2). Bezerkers (1), Nurgle (2). That's two each, that's all I meant. I'm thinking you meant "at least one."

I get the feeling we're going to see the different Chapters of Marines being used to emphasize different roles.
Berzerkers/Black Templars being the more damage dealing oriented, Ultramarines and Nurgle being more the "balanced" ones, etc.

My intention, however, was just saying that "each faction having playable Astartes" rather than the different subfactions.
I do have to wonder if Scouts will be playable. Which would make me a very happy bunny.

When it comes to dreadnoughts, deffkopta... etc, we'll have to see. If this game does follow DOW2, much as it looks, those things could be controllable. Assumptions have to be made if this is a standard one player one character approach or if it is in fact a new more DOW2 approach to an MMO.

Oh assumptions have to be made for sure, at this point. But we should be getting more and more info.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Archonate wrote:I understand the need to go with 2 factions... But did they really have to call them Order and Destruction? 40k has always been better off defining itself by its own merits, rather than trying to draw parallels to WHFB. And frankly, the less DMO associates with WAR, the better.

...
What else would they call it?

They called them the same thing for The 13th Black Crusade campaign. You're reading way too much into what they call them.

Plus, as said:
What else would they call them?
The Forces of the Empire and Friends? ChaosJerksCo?

aka_mythos wrote:Its symantics really, but Black templars (1) and Ultramarines (2). Bezerkers (1), Nurgle (2). Thats two each, thats all I meant. I'm thinking you meant "atleast one."

When it comes to dreandnoughts, deffkopta... etc, we'll have to see. If this game does follow DOW2, much as it looks, those things could be controllable. Assumption have to be made if this is a standard one player one character approach or if it is infact a new more DOW2 approach to an MMO.

What I would like to see, is controllable vehicles ala BF2. Now, a very interesting approach would be to have certain "battlefields" where if players fought, they would get more exp, and what not, just for fighting in that area (kind of encourages the huge epic battles)

To make the vehicle thing workable (and to fix the balance issue) the side that is outnumbered gets more (and more powerful!) vehicles, that spawn in kind of a "backzone" something behind the actual fighting, maybe near a spawn point or something.

Also, require multiple people to operate the Titans and larger vehicles. Each person could control one gun, one guy could control repairs and whatnot, and one guy could actually drive the thing.

I guess I'm hoping for more of an FPS with level benefits in a persistent world

Me and my buddy are talking about it. If they make Grey Knights available I'll be playing a Inquisitor and he is talking about playing a GK. Should be pretty awesome. I'm not sure what to think about the control set up though; the setup doesn't look as if it is unique in anyway shape or form. WoW, and LotRO had the exact same set up so I'm weary of that. Here's to hoping though.

If they stick with those 2 factions, where will Eldar fit in???

They are only in it for themselves and wouldnt ally with either faction unless they saw it as useful to them.

So lets say the Eldar join the good guys - thats 3 good guy races and only 2 bad guy races.

I'd like to see a 3rd facttion with Eldar and Tau.

Dystopia wrote:
http://www.darkmillenniumonline.com/

Dude that front page pic is EPIC!

Order: Eldar, Imperium, Tau

Destruction: Dark Eldar, Chaos, Orks

Hmm...sounds like something I've heard before...I just can't put my finger what.

/sarcasm


Anyhow, two faction are massive imbalance usually. Three would've suffice. I hope I am wrong about factions.

Aramus wrote:What I would like to see, is controllable vehicles ala BF2.

It has been stated that vehicles would be in an expansion, if the game does well enough.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm not sure what to think about the control set up though

It must be hard to speculate about it, since absolutely nothing about the control setup has been released.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:the setup doesn't look as if it is unique in anyway shape or form. WoW, and LotRO had the exact same set up so I'm weary of that. Here's to hoping though.

That is a bit like complaining that FPS's are in first person or that they have been using the same basic controls for almost a decade now or that platform games have a jump button. Mario and Zelda hardly make radical departures but constantly get get scores. Point being that execution will matter far more than whether the controls are a radical departure from genre norms. WoW and LotRO weren't even close to the first to use that setup, either.

Kanluwen wrote: I get the feeling we're going to see the different Chapters of Marines being used to emphasize different roles.
Berzerkers/Black Templars being the more damage dealing oriented, Ultramarines and Nurgle being more the "balanced" ones, etc.

I think we'll see them in a less symetric way. Chaos will play to extremes, Bezerkers being a faster damage dealers being light on range and defense and Nurgle being a tanking unit not doing as much damage but taking a ton. While the Loyalst might take a bit more balanced approach Black Templars still being damage dealer just not to the same degree as Bezerkers, mayber bringing in more stability or defensive abilities... I imagine Black Templars fight with a bit more finesse... Ultramarine would likely be more similar to the Black Templars, then the two chaos ones are to each other, but with an emphasis on more ranged abilities. Thus you have dichotimies within the factions but also between them.

I hope they'd eventually add more chapters/legions, though not at at the cost of other factions.

Ahtman wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm not sure what to think about the control set up though

It must be hard to speculate about it, since absolutely nothing about the control setup has been released.

They showed the toolbar. It is identical to WoW and LotRO, It's not that big of a deal but I wish there was some sort of inovation

Ahtman wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:the setup doesn't look as if it is unique in anyway shape or form. WoW, and LotRO had the exact same set up so I'm weary of that. Here's to hoping though.

That is a bit like complaining that FPS's are in first person or that they have been using the same basic controls for almost a decade now or that platform games have a jump button. Mario and Zelda hardly make radical departures but constantly get get scores. Point being that execution will matter far more than whether the controls are a radical departure from genre norms. WoW and LotRO weren't even close to the first to use that setup, either.

So apparently it's not okay to ask for some form of innovation with the controls? It looks like there will be but I have had no hands on experience, you haven't either and we don't have any information on the controls. I'm observing that the given toolbar shown in the video is very very similar to WoW.

Okay, it has a toolbar...?

So what?
For all you(or I) know, the toolbar could be a way to swap bolter ammunition types or issue commands.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:So apparently it's not okay to ask for some form of innovation with the controls? It looks like there will be but I have had no hands on experience, you haven't either and we don't have any information on the controls. I'm observing that the given toolbar shown in the video is very very similar to WoW.

Asking for innovation is fine, but you didn't, you complained that it was essentially what it is: an MMO. As such it is like complaining that platform games (Mario, Sonic) use a jump button same as Pitfall did back on the Atari 2600. It is part of the genre convention and always will be. Just because something uses a similar means of interface doesn't mean it is the same, and can often be subverted. Just look at Braid for an example. If you are going to complain about genre conventions, or want to change them radically, at least know where they come from, and it ain't World of Warcraft, which lifted almost every mechanic from other games. You also have to take into consideration that this game isn't being made just for you. It is a massive global release that needs to make a profit, the more the better. To do so you can't stray to far off the path so that it is easy for people to understand the mechanics anywhere. Innovative games tend to sell far less games. Usually those games are marketed knowing that and it is figured in (such as Shadow of the Colossus or Freedom Fighters). They can't really do that here as the time and energy dumped into it isn't going for a niche crowd, same as Star Wars: The Old Republic. It is the same reason Merchant and Ivory Films weren't given 200 million dollar budgets and a big summer release.

I don't know many games that don't have toolbars. I mean even the games that don't have them, do infact have them. They just hide until you click a button first. A toolbar is just an on screen mouse oriented means of having buttons. The alternative is the "old school" way of hot keying different actions to keyboard buttons and memorizing it.

Its not just a matter of convention it that of different options out their it works best. Having things pop-up and then clicking a wheel menu can be more taxing on the your platform.

Tabula Rasa had a toolbar too, and it played completely differently from any other MMO on the market.

Damn I wish that game had of had some decent content, I would have kept playing it! Its problems were certainly not in the UI or controls.

Having a 'bar' in which to map 'hotkeys' is standard in any mmo. If I want to swap from Kraken bolts to Hellfire bolts, I want to have a hotkey to do it!

Ahtman wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:So apparently it's not okay to ask for some form of innovation with the controls? It looks like there will be but I have had no hands on experience, you haven't either and we don't have any information on the controls. I'm observing that the given toolbar shown in the video is very very similar to WoW.

Asking for innovation is fine, but you didn't, you complained that it was essentially what it is: an MMO. As such it is like complaining that platform games (Mario, Sonic) use a jump button same as Pitfall did back on the Atari 2600. It is part of the genre convention and always will be. Just because something uses a similar means of interface doesn't mean it is the same, and can often be subverted. Just look at Braid for an example. If you are going to complain about genre conventions, or want to change them radically, at least know where they come from, and it ain't World of Warcraft, which lifted almost every mechanic from other games. You also have to take into consideration that this game isn't being made just for you. It is a massive global release that needs to make a profit, the more the better. To do so you can't stray to far off the path so that it is easy for people to understand the mechanics anywhere. Innovative games tend to sell far less games. Usually those games are marketed knowing that and it is figured in (such as Shadow of the Colossus or Freedom Fighters). They can't really do that here as the time and energy dumped into it isn't going for a niche crowd, same as Star Wars: The Old Republic. It is the same reason Merchant and Ivory Films weren't given 200 million dollar budgets and a big summer release.

Emphasis Mine.

I don't view it as the same. The controls with Mario and Sonic both have a jump button and so does the majority of games put out to this day. WoW has a jump button, Call of Duty has a jump button, everything has a jump button. Mario could shoot fire balls and go down pipes, that was what made him original. Sonic could go really fething fast, that is what made him original. That is what I want. I want something to make it unique aside from the 40k look. I know the game isn't being made just for me, and it looks like it may be a 3rd person shooter where you line up a crosshair to hit someone with your firearms. That would be different from any MMO I've ever played but may not be unique to an mmo.

Ohh and I'm not arguing that having a toolbar is bad, mmkay? I'm saying that It looks as though it has the same button set up as WoW with the same placement for your character in the upper left, which wasn't also original to WoW. I'm just wanting something different from WoW, I quit playing over 2 years ago because I didn't like the way it was going with mechanics (PvP, Raids, Class set ups and roles).

Ohh and Ahtman, if my previous post seemed to be confrontational it wasn't meant to be. I'm worried that it's just going to get the, "Meh, it was kind of cool but didn't do anything better or worse than WoW."

Karon wrote:They might as well call it Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine Online

There was alot more than Space Marines going on. There was chaos cultist, enginseers, imperial guard, a freakn' titan, and orks. I gurantee they will balance out space marines; its just bad game design otherwise. Just imagine all the different sentry type weapons an enginseer can deploy. Or that IG may have access to their special weapons at a lower level.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
I'm worried that it's just going to get the, "Meh, it was kind of cool but didn't do anything better or worse than WoW."

Guns and titans make it better than WoW already (for me).

Personally, its not going to take much to beat WoW for, for me. Getting pretty tired of it after like 5+ years.

Yes, in WoW you can jump, and yes, you seemed to have completely missed the point because that wasn't it at all. The others seemed to get it though.

oops double post

Ahtman wrote:Yes, in WoW you can jump, and yes, you seemed to have completely missed the point because that wasn't it at all. The others seemed to get it though.

I'm sorry I just didn't catch your point. Can you tell me waht it was? I'm not being snarky, I'm being genuine.

Ahtman wrote:Yes, in WoW you can jump, and yes, you seemed to have completely missed the point because that wasn't it at all. The others seemed to get it though.

your point was you'd like to use arbitrary key bindings or gimicey garbage like mouse movements to do things so you can call it "innovative" and not "horrible" like it is rather than a quickbar at the bottom that you can drag things to and then hide because you know what you bound
You can customize every nuance of your controls in warcraft up to scripting basic strings of commands and decision engines, most players leave the bars on their screen because they are bad, not because they are necessary.

I'm sort of chuckling at those who are whining about the hotbars and trivial things like that. Those are essential for a good MMO.

There are certain things that form a foundation for an MMO, no matter what kind it is. That's the ability to jump, have a hotbar, a healthbar, etc.

The reason its in the top left is because its out of the way, and it looks the best there IMO, and the top left is where your minimap is.

Honestly, if you have a problem with hotbars, and trivial things like that, please don't buy the game so I don't have to play with you.

Dystopia wrote:Anyhow, two faction are massive imbalance usually. Three would've suffice. I hope I am wrong about factions.

Coming from a game like RFO where there are 3 playable races/factions, two is always better. If you have anymore, it's prone to alliance abuse. Players can contact each other outside of the game and form an unwritten alliance making their races/factions the most powerful, leaving the third or more race to usually quit. Two is really the way to go. Red vs. Blue, Good vs. Bad, don't try and fix it if it isn't broken.

I'm really excited for this game. The prospect of a 3rd person shooter MMO that's set on my favourite fantasy universe really makes me drool.

And yet again, I never said I had a problem with it but I hope it isn't just a copy of wow in the 40k universe. you can have two cupcakes that are both the same cake mix with different frosting. They may look a bit dfferent and have a slightly different taste but the core is the same.

I played wow for 4 and a half years, I just don't want to play WoW with tyranids and Tau. I'm not saying that is what it is going to be, we have next to no information. I'm a worrisome son of a bitch. Do I honestly think it is going to be a wow clone? no. Is it possible? yes. Until more is announced I can't pass a proper judgement and I'm holding out until we get more info.

WAR didn't fail because it only had 2 factions.

I imagine if ALL of the other things wrong with it had of been fixed, or nonexistent on launch, I'd probably still be playing it.

c34r34lk1ll3r, I agree in the hope that we aren't slaying bloodthirsters for purps/epics. I hope it is an epic pvp game with some pve stuff to entertain yourself with on the side. At least take solace in the fact that Darksiders was amazing.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yes, in WoW you can jump, and yes, you seemed to have completely missed the point because that wasn't it at all. The others seemed to get it though.

I'm sorry I just didn't catch your point. Can you tell me waht it was? I'm not being snarky, I'm being genuine.

If you bought the last 10 FPS's to come out you'll find they all use generally the same control setup. Does this mean that they are all the same game or of the same quality? No, of course not. They use that setup because it works very well. The same is true of MMO's as well. These are common interfaces and they are common becuase they work well and they are simple to grasp, especially if you've played one before. Innovation just because it is a new game isn't really enough, you usually need new tech. The Power Glove on the NES was terrible, but the Wii is doing fairly well because the technology now allows for it. Until there is something more widespread and ubiquitous than a keyboard and mouse the interfaces will stay fairly similar. With touchscreen tech becoming more common and more functional it will probably be the next change but even than it won't be radical.

Hmmm, maybe this is the problem. You are saying you are worried it is a WoW clone, but WoW is itself a clone. Basically what the problem is is that you are worried that it is going to A) be an MMO, which it is or B) in essence doing what people do when they say Warhammer ripped off Warcraft. WoW is the highest userbase of an MMO but it didn't create almost any of the things it does. It just simplified or streamlined them but they were around long before WoW came out. You might as well say you are worried it is going to be a Dark Age of Camelot clone. Which would be awesome by the way.

If they had fixed the bugs in WAR that had been there since launch as well as a myriad of other things I would still be playing WAR as well. It was a great game that was ruined by rushing it out to beat Liche King. Having two overall sides wasn't really an issue. The PvE needed a bit of work but the RvR was grand fun past level 10.

As long as its not as disappointing as Star Trek Online and plays as good as it looks, i'll play it.

Ahtman wrote:
If you bought the last 10 FPS's to come out you'll find they all use generally the same control setup. Does this mean that they are all the same game or of the same quality? No, of course not. They use that setup because it works very well. The same is true of MMO's as well. These are common interfaces and they are common becuase they work well and they are simple to grasp, especially if you've played one before. Innovation just because it is a new game isn't really enough, you usually need new tech. The Power Glove on the NES was terrible, but the Wii is doing fairly well because the technology now allows for it. Until there is something more widespread and ubiquitous than a keyboard and mouse the interfaces will stay fairly similar. With touchscreen tech becoming more common and more functional it will probably be the next change but even than it won't be radical.

Current generation MMO's with interface addons are fully compatible with touchscreens, and i'm pretty sure you could use the wiimote if you wanted too.

If you want an advanced interface like that prepackaged and spoon fed to you though, that's never going to happen in the MMO market

Grundz wrote:If you want an advanced interface like that prepackaged and spoon fed to you though, that's never going to happen in the MMO market

Who are you replying to? You start like you are responding to one persons point but then finish like it is to another.

radiohazard wrote:If they stick with those 2 factions, where will Eldar fit in???

They are only in it for themselves and wouldnt ally with either faction unless they saw it as useful to them.

So lets say the Eldar join the good guys - thats 3 good guy races and only 2 bad guy races.

I'd like to see a 3rd facttion with Eldar and Tau.

Eldar can join which ever side they want. So its more a matter of what the story is that determines how they fit in. The tau are geographically (or galactic equivalent) limited only living in one sector of on the fringe of the imperium. So unless this sector boarders that, they should force them in. I personally think they should exclude any race that doesn't fit the story. I doubt that will happen.

Karon wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:

Karon wrote:They might as well call it Warhammer 40,000: Space Marine Online

There was alot more than Space Marines going on. There was chaos cultist, enginseers, imperial guard, a freakn' titan, and orks. I gurantee they will balance out space marines; its just bad game design otherwise. Just imagine all the different sentry type weapons an enginseer can deploy. Or that IG may have access to their special weapons at a lower level.

Oh, no, I realize that very well, and I'll most likely be a Chaos Cultist, but I was just saying. The ratio from Space Marines to other races will probably be 3 to 1.

I think these game developers will be a little more reasonable than GW with bringing in chapters of space marines. They'll care more about balancing things out. I think what they'll add will be based on what "theme" or idea they want to emphasize with a given expansion. This is not to say there won't be volumes of space marine just that they'll be more purpose driven, like if psyker powers are the big thing for one expansion, Thousand Sons, Grey Knights, and Sanctioned Psykers would be the big thing.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:
Ohh and I'm not arguing that having a toolbar is bad, mmkay? I'm saying that It looks as though it has the same button set up as WoW with the same placement for your character in the upper left, which wasn't also original to WoW. I'm just wanting something different from WoW, I quit playing over 2 years ago because I didn't like the way it was going with mechanics (PvP, Raids, Class set ups and roles).

There are only so many locations to place a tool bar. Left, right, top bottom. Top left hand corner just makes sense because the western world is used to the prospect of reading top-to-bottom, left-to-right. I'll give you this, at this point there is no reason a toolbar needs to be fixed in place. It could be movable. My point is a bar with boxes that can be filled can only be done in so many ways.

Maybe they could be circular instead? Or arches... arches are 40k? Themed to your faction? At the end of the day its really all set dressing and the look doesn't matter (unless it interferes.)

Ahtman wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Yes, in WoW you can jump, and yes, you seemed to have completely missed the point because that wasn't it at all. The others seemed to get it though.

I'm sorry I just didn't catch your point. Can you tell me waht it was? I'm not being snarky, I'm being genuine.

If you bought the last 10 FPS's to come out you'll find they all use generally the same control setup. Does this mean that they are all the same game or of the same quality? No, of course not. They use that setup because it works very well. The same is true of MMO's as well. These are common interfaces and they are common becuase they work well and they are simple to grasp, especially if you've played one before. Innovation just because it is a new game isn't really enough, you usually need new tech. The Power Glove on the NES was terrible, but the Wii is doing fairly well because the technology now allows for it. Until there is something more widespread and ubiquitous than a keyboard and mouse the interfaces will stay fairly similar. With touchscreen tech becoming more common and more functional it will probably be the next change but even than it won't be radical.

Hmmm, maybe this is the problem. You are saying you are worried it is a WoW clone, but WoW is itself a clone. Basically what the problem is is that you are worried that it is going to A) be an MMO, which it is or B) in essence doing what people do when they say Warhammer ripped off Warcraft. WoW is the highest userbase of an MMO but it didn't create almost any of the things it does. It just simplified or streamlined them but they were around long before WoW came out. You might as well say you are worried it is going to be a Dark Age of Camelot clone. Which would be awesome by the way.

If they had fixed the bugs in WAR that had been there since launch as well as a myriad of other things I would still be playing WAR as well. It was a great game that was ruined by rushing it out to beat Liche King. Having two overall sides wasn't really an issue. The PvE needed a bit of work but the RvR was grand fun past level 10.

I liked DaoC. I just don't want the PvE play, which Is what I'm interested in the most, will be identical to WoW. I also don't want it to be some lvel grinding idiocy. I'm mostly focused on PvE, PvP is cool and all but I got bored with it with WoW when they switched to the arena system.

I'm glad we both know where we both stand and that this has been a healthy debate with a severe lack of asshattery.


On another note, since when did the internet become a place of hope? I thought the world was supposed to end every time a new edition/game/codex/movie/book came out.

You are worried the PvE will be similar to WoW's? Well I can understand that.

I hope that PvP is the main event, while PvE is a side thing to entertain in off hours of pvp events.

I REALLY hope the PvE isn't like WoW.

I really doubt they will make it very PvE centric, considering the IP.

I'm 100% possitive that the PvP will be original in multiple ways, the PvE I'm not so sure of.

Also, I really miss Ultima Online where you could have a character as nothing but a blacksmith or store owner. It was never my main focus but the fact that I could have my own store and generate my in game money with a location in game that was mine without having to go out and do dailies and grind would be awesome. I think that would be something they would add with an expansion or Patch.

Final Fantasy XIV will have something like that. Crafting is a job class in it and not just a skill. You set up your moogle in the city to sell your wares even when you aren't online.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm 100% possitive that the PvP will be original in multiple ways, the PvE I'm not so sure of.

Also, I really miss Ultima Online where you could have a character as nothing but a blacksmith or store owner. It was never my main focus but the fact that I could have my own store and generate my in game money with a location in game that was mine without having to go out and do dailies and grind would be awesome. I think that would be something they would add with an expansion or Patch.

Glad I'm not the only one who misses that. I also miss player housing, something that WoW sorely lacked.

Aramus wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm 100% possitive that the Pal Fantasy XIV will have something like that. Crafting is a job class in it and not just a skill. You set up your moogle in the city to sell your wares even when you aren't online. vP will be original in multiple ways, the PvE I'm not so sure of.

Also, I really miss Ultima Online where you could have a character as nothing but a blacksmith or store owner. It was never my main focus but the fact that I could have my own store and generate my in game money with a location in game that was mine without having to go out and do dailies and grind would be awesome. I think that would be something they would add with an expansion or Patch.

Glad I'm not the only one who misses that. I also miss player housing, something that WoW sorely lacked.

My first character in Ultima was based on Rupert Avery from the Serpent War Saga books by Raymond E. Feist.

Kanluwen wrote:If you're going to bitch about factions, at least wait until they announce what the faction make-up will be.

Chaos and Orks work quite well together, and have for quite awhile.

Space Marines and Imperial Guard...well, I don't think I should have to explain that one.

I don't have to wait, we've already seen how it will turn out. And think about it... How many games of 40k are played SM vs. SM? And Factions won't let you do that.

Actually no, we haven't "already seen how it will turn out".

Because we don't know what the factions of Order/Destruction will actually contain for races.

As an aside:
The "SM v. SM" games that you end up having to play quite a bit are stupid. They only occur because of imbalances in player populations in your area.

This won't be restricted based on your immediate locale's population, nor will it be restricted on who comes to a tournament or not.

Kanluwen wrote:Actually no, we haven't "already seen how it will turn out".

Because we don't know what the factions of Order/Destruction will actually contain for races.

As an aside:
The "SM v. SM" games that you end up having to play quite a bit are stupid. They only occur because of imbalances in player populations in your area.

This won't be restricted based on your immediate locale's population, nor will it be restricted on who comes to a tournament or not.

Every MMO w/ only 2 factions has the same issues, that's been established. Which races are in Order/Destruction is an irrelevant argument (Unless a race can choose it's faction regardless) as it still ends up being only 2 factions.

If imbalances occur in the TT game where SM vs. SM, don't you think that would happen in an MMO as well? Locale is not what restricts that happening, it's because of players choice.

Rymafyr wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Actually no, we haven't "already seen how it will turn out".

Because we don't know what the factions of Order/Destruction will actually contain for races.

As an aside:
The "SM v. SM" games that you end up having to play quite a bit are stupid. They only occur because of imbalances in player populations in your area.

This won't be restricted based on your immediate locale's population, nor will it be restricted on who comes to a tournament or not.

Every MMO w/ only 2 factions has the same issues, that's been established. Which races are in Order/Destruction is an irrelevant argument (Unless a race can choose it's faction regardless) as it still ends up being only 2 factions.

Actually, the problem with MMOs with 2 factions crops up, more often than not, when you have classes exclusive to that faction. Alliance for a long time outnumbered Horde heavily in WoW, simply in Paladin population. Provided there's no class that would appeal too much to players, you won't see a big problem.

If imbalances occur in the TT game where SM vs. SM, don't you think that would happen in an MMO as well? Locale is not what restricts that happening, it's because of players choice.

There's not going to be "counts-as" here. Which, whaddyaknow, is a hefty part of the Marine populations.

Add in the fact that we most likely will not be seeing Chapters as their own subfactions, and it cuts down on a lot of the "SM v. SM" styled matches, now doesn't it?

Somehow you've entirely missed my point, I personally wouldn't want to cut down on the Sm v Sm matches as an MMO should have a fully open ended PvP system. Not that I ever play 'em as they're about as exciting as watching paint dry. And thanks for proving my point as to why factions are worthless in an MMO when classes are exclusive to a faction.

What's up w/ the 'counts-as' point you're trying to make? I sure didn't say anything regarding it.

Rymafyr wrote:Somehow you've entirely missed my point, I personally wouldn't want to cut down on the Sm v Sm matches as an MMO should have a fully open ended PvP system. Not that I ever play 'em as they're about as exciting as watching paint dry. And thanks for proving my point as to why factions are worthless in an MMO when classes are exclusive to a faction.

Not really, not when you're dealing with a universe where there are clearly defined factions such as "The Imperium of Man" and "The Legions of Chaos", mate. Plus, "open-ended PvP" was a dead end.

What's up w/ the 'counts-as' point you're trying to make? I sure didn't say anything regarding it.

Then you've not looked around enough. A large number of people are now using the Loyalist Codexes(Space Marine, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves) to represent non-SM armies. Things like Night Lords represented by a Codex:Blood Angels force painted blackish-blue,etc are what I'm talking about. Hell, there's a guy who uses the DA Codex to represent an Ork "Deffwing" force.

That severely skews the match make-ups of what you dub "SM v. SM", as does again the fact that there's 4 "Loyalist" Marine Codexes that can see the field at any given time.

Karon wrote:There are certain things that form a foundation for an MMO, no matter what kind it is. That's the ability to jump, have a hotbar, a healthbar, etc.

Don't forget the /dance emote

BTW I really enjoyed playing WAR. Just walking through the Warhammer World was tremendous. The art developed for the game is fantastic.

Kanluwen wrote:

Rymafyr wrote:Somehow you've entirely missed my point, I personally wouldn't want to cut down on the Sm v Sm matches as an MMO should have a fully open ended PvP system. Not that I ever play 'em as they're about as exciting as watching paint dry. And thanks for proving my point as to why factions are worthless in an MMO when classes are exclusive to a faction.

Not really, not when you're dealing with a universe where there are clearly defined factions such as "The Imperium of Man" and "The Legions of Chaos", mate. Plus, "open-ended PvP" was a dead end.

What's up w/ the 'counts-as' point you're trying to make? I sure didn't say anything regarding it.

Then you've not looked around enough. A large number of people are now using the Loyalist Codexes(Space Marine, Dark Angels, Blood Angels, Space Wolves) to represent non-SM armies. Things like Night Lords represented by a Codex:Blood Angels force painted blackish-blue,etc are what I'm talking about. Hell, there's a guy who uses the DA Codex to represent an Ork "Deffwing" force.

That severely skews the match make-ups of what you dub "SM v. SM", as does again the fact that there's 4 "Loyalist" Marine Codexes that can see the field at any given time.

Ya, that's just it...the races in 40k generally would not make up a faction together; you could piece together something but the fluff has never supported it. Also, it sorta flies against the whole, 'there is only war' motif of 40k. So again, factions for a 40k MMO means failure, because with factions you can not pvp races of the same faction. Oh, and I'm not your 'mate', and you're not Australian.

I am loving the look of the game so far. It's between WoW and Darksiders, Vigil's other fantastically designed game. The characters in the preview trailer and the artwork on the site have a vague "Joe Maduriera" feel that will visually set this game apart from the 40k tabletop game and other 40k video games out there. I knew Joe wouldn't let me down in his role in art direction.

I don't understand the flap about factions. What are Vigil supposed to do? Have each 'race' be a faction in and of itself? All you'd get is PvP chaos, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria! A couple of the factions would get too large to fight against, and force out any other faction. Then you'd just have a two faction game anyway.

The website seems to be setting up a story about the part of the universe that the game takes place in. Within that story, the orks and chaos beakies have a loose alliance. It will likely be something similar with the Eldar and the Imperium, an alliance of necessity or convenience. BAM your fluff justification is there and that's the way this game works.

The fluff for DMO is going to be somewhat different from what we know - it's a MMO game, not a tabletop army wargame. It has to be. They play differently. Vigil is making their own little section of the 40k universe to play in, so they can make things work the best for both their story, their game, and the overall feel of the 40k universe in general.

I'm jazzed to see more of this game. If it plays like WoW, that's fine with me. If it's 'your-character-as-squad' then so much the better.

On the very edge of the galaxy lies the Sargos Sector. For centuries it was rendered uninhabitable and isolated by volatile Warp Storms. Even now, deep within the sector the very fabric of reality is unraveling. Only the ancient Sentinel Devices hold the Warp at bay.

But the ravages of time and meddling of humanity have weakened the Sentinel Devices-and now, the battle for these lost worlds is at hand. Drawn to the conflict, the great races of the galaxy descend upon the Sargos Sector, seeking to preserve reality-or to tear it asunder.

Side with the forces of Order, or the vile hosts of Destruction, in a war that will unlock ancient secrets, reveal dark purposes, and determine the fate of the Sargos Sector. For in this dark millennium, there is no peace amongst the stars, only an eternity of carnage and slaughter.

---------------

Haha! They're doing the thing that Warhammer Online did, Order and Destruction. So it looks like Imperium and Eldar VS Chaos and Orks.

That's pretty dumb, IMO.

What would you prefer that they do, Karon?

Yeah, Karon? When a games constrained to only having two sides, there are only so many ways to split the factions and the alliances.

Rymafyr wrote:Ya, that's just it...the races in 40k generally would not make up a faction together; you could piece together something but the fluff has never supported it. Also, it sorta flies against the whole, 'there is only war' motif of 40k. So again, factions for a 40k MMO means failure, because with factions you can not pvp races of the same faction.

Well you have to think of it not as a "faction" in a permanent way but as the temporary cooperation between groups. I understand what you're saying, and I generally agree. It just becomes a bit too lopsided in these sorts of games and overly complicated otherwise. In a game that could get away with being more complicated, marines could kill guard on suspicion of being traitors, marines and guard could go traitor on a whim, eldar would do whatever they feel like. That would be interesting but more than a bit complicated.

Exactly. I'd happily bet that anyone complaining about the "faction" set up now would also be complaining about the lack of the same in the alternate circumstance.

We're getting a 40K MMO. Be happy about it or else don't buy it. It's not like THQ is grabbing you by your hair and jamming the game down your throat while picking your pockets for cash. The factions are just there to add a balance. If that balance wasn't present, people would be crying about how the lack of factions made the game too hard unless you were normal (or horny) marines.

Oh, no no. You take me all wrong. I wasn't saying because it was only two factions, I was saying because they called it "Order and Destruction" LOL, which is the same thing WAR call's their two factions.

Pretty lazy of them to coin it so simple. Eldar are hardly orderly, you could say the same for the Imperium.

Karon wrote:Oh, no no. You take me all wrong. I wasn't saying because it was only two factions, I was saying because they called it "Order and Destruction" LOL, which is the same thing WAR call's their two factions.

Pretty lazy of them to coin it so simple. Eldar are hardly orderly, you could say the same for the Imperium.

Blame GW. That's what they called them in the Storm of Chaos Online Campaign years before.

So where do squats fit in

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:So where do squats fit in

Tyranid stomachs.

Platuan4th wrote:

Karon wrote:Oh, no no. You take me all wrong. I wasn't saying because it was only two factions, I was saying because they called it "Order and Destruction" LOL, which is the same thing WAR call's their two factions.

Pretty lazy of them to coin it so simple. Eldar are hardly orderly, you could say the same for the Imperium.

Blame GW. That's what they called them in the Storm of Chaos Online Campaign years before.

To be fair:
They also called the combined forces of the Orks, Chaos, and Dark Eldar acting in concert for the 13th Black Crusade that also.

As they also called the combined forces of the Imperium(Guard, Marines, Inquisition) and the Eldar the Forces of Order.

Blood Angels teamed up with Necrons to defeat the bugs. Thats in the lastest BA codex. So we already have president of enemies forming uneasy truces to defeat a common foe.

More than 2 factions dilutes the player population. Harder to get groups, the economy is smaller, etc etc... It might sound nice to be an "every race for it's own" (looks good on paper) but you really don't want that.

And again, the Blood Angels/Necron "team-up" was just two forces fighting a common enemy and ignoring each other. They did not broker any form of truce--they just ignored each other.

I wonder how gear/armor would work. Thats my only concern, how they do it.

I call that the same thing since they both agreed to not kill each other. Spoken or not.

Just like I ignore that bit of fluff.

"both forces now too battleworn to guarantee victory over the other, and, at least for the Blood Angels, the idea of turning on those they had so recently fought alongside, a rather distasteful one."

Battleworn Necrons? Marines disliking the idea of killing Necrons? Clearly Commander Dante and the 3rd Company were heretics, and should be purged.

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:So where do squats fit in

*BLAM*

Kanluwen wrote:...
What else would they call it?

They called them the same thing for The 13th Black Crusade campaign. You're reading way too much into what they call them.

Plus, as said:
What else would they call them?
The Forces of the Empire and Friends? ChaosJerksCo?

You really don't think there's a better designation? Empire and Friends vs. ChaosJerksCo is the 2nd best thing to call them besides Order and Destruction?

How about the forces of Method vs. the armies of Madness? Defiance vs. Malice? Dictate vs. Tyranny? Law vs. Enmity? I could go on and on. I guess to some people, Empire and Friends vs. ChaosJerksCo is the pinnacle of awesomeness, second only to Order and Destruction. I personally think the developers could have shown a little more creativity...

Moopy wrote:More than 2 factions dilutes the player population. Harder to get groups, the economy is smaller, etc etc... It might sound nice to be an "every race for it's own" (looks good on paper) but you really don't want that.

Dark Age of Camelot had three factions (Briton, Celtic, and Norse) and didn't have any trouble.

IMO, The Forces of Order VS. Forces of Madness would have been better.

I really don't like The Forces of Order, as it makes zero sense, but I can't think of a better alternative.

Karon wrote:IMO, The Forces of Order VS. Forces of Madness would have been better.

MADNESS????
''This is....''
Madness is a terrible idea.

I have no problem with the Order vs Destruction factions and am sort of mystified by the whole flap over it. They actually already did this before, in Dawn of War - Winter Assault... remember? It was order and disorder, but close enough.

I don't think you can have every side be their own faction because that just leads to some weird situations, like Space Marines teaming up with Tyranids to beat up the Imperial Guard. I guess you can find the fluff to support it happening maybe once (unlikely) but if it's happening in game every week it just seems weird.

To the guy who said the Eldar are "just in it for themselves" - well, which faction isn't? I don't see the Imperium too worried about how the Tau make out. Despite the individual nuances of their culture, it's pretty clear that the Eldar, Imperium, and Tau represent order - otherwise, why would the Eldar even try to stop the Necrons unless they were attacking craftworlds?

Conversely, it's clear that Chaos, Orks, Tyranids, DE and Necrons fairly represent Destruction. It just seems the most logical way to do it.

Clearly, space marines razing entire planets with the slightest hint of the influence of chaos is quite orderly.

Makes no sense, guy.

Karon wrote:Clearly, space marines razing entire planets with the slightest hint of the influence of chaos is quite orderly.

Makes no sense, guy.

How is using excessive force chaotic? Foolish perhaps, but I don't see that as defaulting to being chaotic and/or disordered.

I think it looks great. Good texture work and a very nice art direction. Looks like they grabbed one of the pastel environmental artists from WoW.

". "You're going to have quests, you're going to go out and kill stuff, you're going to group up, you're going to join larger scale battles. It's structured very much like a traditional MMO. I think the Dawn of War series does an amazing job with tactical, squad-based stuff, [Relic's console-based action game] Space Marine is an awesome, visceral action adventure like one dude kicking ass. For us it's really more of an RPG. You're living the life of this dude not for the life of a console adventure but for hopefully months and maybe even years. What do these guys do off the battlefield? What are their interactions like with other races and in various worlds? It really gives you a unique perspective because it's a hero in that universe, not just a unit." "


http://pc.ign.com/articles/109/1099584p1.html

Neconilis wrote:

Karon wrote:Clearly, space marines razing entire planets with the slightest hint of the influence of chaos is quite orderly.

Makes no sense, guy.

How is using excessive force chaotic? Foolish perhaps, but I don't see that as defaulting to being chaotic and/or disordered.

I actually was referring to how it wasn't ORDERLY, as Space Marines are part of the Forces of Order, along with Eldar.

Eldars and Space Marines in the same faction? Damn, that's rather stupid

QQ

Really, though- are the anti-factioners arguing in favor of a 40k free for all?

MMOs live and die on creation of communities. If you can't get the average user to feel connected to other players in your world, you won't be around long enough to worry about PvP balance, etc.

Factions help create an artificial 'team' for a player to belong to. If you make the pool of potential team mates too small, the average player won't be able to find a group, won't be able to 'connect' with the community.

For the former WoWers, imagine if you could only team with other Orcs, or only other humans. It'd be difficult to find a team, and that's on the largest MMO in the world.

The alternative, for 40k, is to allow anyone to team with anyone... which leads to even more preposterous fluff offenses than having a single sector-wide alliance amongst Imperials and Eldar.

Ahtman wrote:
Dark Age of Camelot had three factions (Briton, Celtic, and Norse) and didn't have any trouble.

It's still one of the greatest mysteries to me, why Mythic who cornered such gameplay with a nothing backstory, then decieded to abandon it in favour of the two tier system they put in and ultimately led to the fall of WaR.

You could argue had they copied their own game, perhaps WaR would not be pretty much mothballed as it is now.


With it looking like Dark millennium is going the same way, I am starting to wonder if its a call by someone at GW?

Karon wrote:I actually was referring to how it wasn't ORDERLY, as Space Marines are part of the Forces of Order, along with Eldar.

Forces of order can mean those forces who have authority or are acting for good or conforming to law and authority. Doesn't mean they are orderly in organization or how they keep the galaxy.

Platuan4th wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:So where do squats fit in

Tyranid stomachs.

If tyranids ever get introduced that would make for a fun special event. Maybe for Thankgiving, the great squat feast. They're kinda the size and shape of a roast turkey.

Nids are supposed to be a PvE faction aren't they?

The Dreadnote wrote:Nids are supposed to be a PvE faction aren't they?

They mentioned in an interview that 'Nids are going to be the main PvE antagonist, aye.

I imagine at some point Necron could end up as a PVE antagonist as well.

Neat. Glad they decided not to go with WoW lookalike (but then some people accuse EVERY MMO of being a WoW lookalike, so I tend to ignore them).

Should be much more interesting than that pile of mediocrity.

Yeah, there's already been two in this thread.

Karon wrote:

Neconilis wrote:

Karon wrote:Clearly, space marines razing entire planets with the slightest hint of the influence of chaos is quite orderly.

Makes no sense, guy.

How is using excessive force chaotic? Foolish perhaps, but I don't see that as defaulting to being chaotic and/or disordered.

I actually was referring to how it wasn't ORDERLY, as Space Marines are part of the Forces of Order, along with Eldar.

I think you miss the point of what a "force of order" does. Order and Chaos refer to their end objective, not their actions.

The Imperium will destroy whole planets as long as it keeps their control of the galaxy intact. Their goal is to impose their own order in the universe.

If you want a good example of Order versus Chaos, watch Babylon 5 Season 4.

Besides, recent fluff indicates that the Imperium try and do everything in their power to avoid a full planetary take down. They control the majority of the galaxy and have to manage those resources. There are only a finite number of habitable worlds, and you can't afford to loose them.

A new article with a bit more information.

Dunno if that was posted. It's definitely an MMORPG, but stated to be more of an action-rpg than a traditional one.

Hopefully the combat will be sort of akin to Mass Effect 2/Tabula Rasa, would be nice if they'd release a bit more. I'm glad Joe Mad at least hinted that the combat isn't standing next to each other trading blows, like WoW/etc, that would be terrible.

At least it is very clear there is a reticule and guns!

Also: does everyone say everything looks like f'ing WoW when it has stylized graphics? ffs
It actually looks a lot like Darksiders, since its the same engine after all, with the same artists doing graphics for it as for Darksiders.

The video looks awsome. Some nice bits, like being able to fly a Deffcopter! Also great to see the Black Templars represented instead of Ultrasmurfs. Will definately be getting this one!!!!

Hmm. That article link posted mentions the player "taking on the mantle of that hero" of their faction. Considering that Joe Mad was comparing it to Dawn of War and Relic's upcoming Space Marine action-adventure game in regards to what they did well, that leads me to believe that they are NOT going to be doing a squad-based 'character', but more of a traditional MMO single character hero that the player controls.

Which, I suppose in the grand scheme of things, would be fine. A little easier to manage for the developers and the player-base, surely.

I can see Marine characters going up in ranks or levels from a Scout to a Marine to a Vet Sarge, etc and onwards. I wonder if they will have different classes like Assault, Tactical, Devastator, Librarian, Apothecary?

I can see the other races having similar classes. Orks could have Stormboyz, Shoota Boyz or Lootas, Mekboyz, Weirdboyz... With having a ork player character start off at Nob level abilites, then the fluff could support a ork going toe-to-toe with a Marine or an Aspect Warrior and making it an even and interesting fight.

Being in this strange cut-off section of the universe might alter things in the general fluff as well. Individual characters might have to be more self-sufficient than they normally would be where a scheduled resupply can be expected. This could explain why Marines have to be able to repair and create their own equipment, since in this Sector they have to out of necessity. This would open up the whole crafting avenue to players and still fit in generally with the fluff.

it'll certainly be interesting to see more as the months play out.

I think they need to have either character squads or npcs to form up with. Otherwise it loses any sense of it being a 40k warzone and ends up the meaningless mishmosh of characters WOW is. If marines and IG are waging war on a planet they're not going to do so by sending out a bunch of individuals of mixed and match affiliations that are relatively inexperianced. It'd just be less epic than what it should be.

A squad of IG fighting along side marines makes sense. A single guardsmen amongst a squad of marines, doesn't. Within the universe it would only become justifyable at a high level of experiance... going marbo on us or joining an inquisitors team.

If your assumption are true it these sort of disconnects between the reality of the setting and the reality of the game that make MMO's fall flat when it comes to representing an established setting.

darthmatty wrote:The video looks awsome. Some nice bits, like being able to fly a Deffcopter! Also great to see the Black Templars represented instead of Ultrasmurfs. Will definately be getting this one!!!!

Ultramarines were in there too.

They could be doing it like The Old Republic is, to be honest.

Each player gets "companions", NPCs that are figured into balancing out the classes--with each class getting different companions.

daedalus-templarius wrote:Also: does everyone say everything looks like f'ing WoW when it has stylized graphics? ffs

Unfortunately, those people will exist forever, no thanks to WoW. They're ignorant of the fact that there are traits common to all MMOs. That everything WoW is, was taken from various others. They sincerely believe that WoW was the first MMO ever, and thus they betray their pathetic WoW junky ignorance.

If people who say "It looks like a WoW ripoff!" were more informed, they'd instead be saying "It looks like an MMO."

It looking like WoW is a good thing....

Nevermind, I've already said it twice in this thread.

--------------


So It looks like we could be a dreadnought, which is pretty B.A.

Luthon1234 wrote:
The days of death penalty are long gone, no company would ever risk trying to implement that system with today's gamers, could you imagine the outcry? Basically no one want's to lose their "epicz lootz" by some random Pker or to a mob at the bottom of a dungeon.

CCP kindly disagree with you... Go check out EVE Online and then get back to me...

Only MMO out there that is worth playing IMO!

Karon wrote:It looking like WoW is a good thing....

What, you mean it looking like a generic, cartoony piece of mediocre sludge is a good thing?

Huh.

Well either way, this game doesn't look like WoW, it looks potentially good instead.

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:It looking like WoW is a good thing....

What, you mean it looking like a generic, cartoony piece of mediocre sludge is a good thing?

Huh.

Well either way, this game doesn't look like WoW, it looks potentially good instead.

Just be ignorant and ignore my earlier posts, right, it can't fail.

"WoW's graphics are about as good as you get while maintaining a wide range of available computers to play the game. And Dark Millennium graphics look very similar to WoW's graphic's, which is a good thing."

That's what I said

-----------------------

It does look good.

We should really just say the graphics look like Darksiders (since they totally do: same engine, same artists).

WoW has a very negative connotation with a lot of people, if you didn't know.

Karon wrote:WoW's graphics are [...] good

And this is the part that I disagree with. Even from a utility perspective-- IE making it accessible to a wide variety of people-- it's on the low end of the spectrum. I would put City of Heroes/Villains as a much better example of how it can be done both economically for those with worse computers, and yet have the option for better graphics for those that want it.

And on a side note, CoH was released before WoW, yet WoW fans still claim it's a WoW clone. Bunch of idiots...

daedalus-templarius wrote:WoW has a very negative connotation with a lot of people, if you didn't know.

And I'm one of htem. WoW is the biggest reason that the MMO genre is stagnating instead of producing anything new and innovative.

WoW had financial success clearly there is no other possible way to be financially successful in the MMO genre without being WoW!

My objection to the game is thousands of people running around with free will in factions that don't really have much free will.

And even if they try not to be like WoW, the game's fans still call them WoW clones.

Hell, people in WoW tried to claim Warhammer Fantasy ripped off Warcraft at one point. There was a push from the fanbase to get Blizzard to sue the makers of Warhammer Online and Games Workshop.

And this is the part that I disagree with.

Artistic tastes are subjective and eleven million people disagree with you.

Even from a utility perspective-- IE making it accessible to a wide variety of people-- it's on the low end of the spectrum. I would put City of Heroes/Villains as a much better example of how it can be done both economically for those with worse computers, and yet have the option for better graphics for those that want it.

City of villains required roughly four times the graphics horsepower to run at a similar framerate as World of warcraft. I played both. For years. On multiple computers. At the same time. City of villains in particular (over CoH) due to it's incredibly high polycount environments and high density of normal/bump map textures per square game foot (grandeville was unplayable sometimes it was so bad). By comparison city of heroes looked like samy generic grey building same street in three quarters of the game crap.

You're just kind of wrong here. But then it's subjective isn't it? I could attempt to quantify the artistic quality of WoW by stating that it has about fifty times the player base of CoH and CoV combined (11.5 mil vs about 240K) but I get the feeling you don't accept populist opinion and to be honest I think city of villains has a better art direction even if the texture work is inferior.

And on a side note, CoH was released before WoW, yet WoW fans still claim it's a WoW clone. Bunch of idiots...

I'm pretty sure you're the first person I've ever seen make reference to that assertion. Are you sure it's not just you?

And I'm one of htem. WoW is the biggest reason that the MMO genre is stagnating instead of producing anything new and innovative.

If you could be any more pedantic and shallow in your fanboi snowflake game bashing the hiltons would build a statue of you. Care to explain how it's stagnating a genre that it helped to grow six times over alone?

ShumaGorath wrote:fanboi

*bursts into giggles at how hilariously wrong and ironic that is, and loses her train of thought*

But seriously now, throwing personal insults?

I think this game will be good if the release is basically perfect. There pretty much can't have anything go wrong I mean just look at the new mmos that have come out that failed. All had terrible releases ranging from bugs to server crashes etc..

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:fanboi

*bursts into giggles at how hilariously wrong and ironic that is, and loses her train of thought*

But seriously now, throwing personal insults?

I do that when the person I'm arguing with can't be bothered to piece together a sensical argument with valid or even stated points. It's what such things typically deserve.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Luthon1234 wrote:I think this game will be good if the release is basically perfect. There pretty much can't have anything go wrong I mean just look at the new mmos that have come out that failed. All had terrible releases ranging from bugs to server crashes etc..

No MMO releases without server crashes or bugs. None ever has. It's the nature of the product itself. WoW had quite a few when it launched.

Blizzard is the most hilarious company for ripping off everything they can find to avoid coming up with their own ideas. I know this well, I grew up on Blizzard games and played WoW for a good five years. Warhammer and Games Workshop are far from the only company that Blizzard kind of blatantly copies.

WoW has sort of descended into the abyss. I think in the years after release it was a pretty damn good game, but at this point they're just feeding the players the same thing over and over without even trying to disguise it (anyone who has played Wrath of the Lich King knows what I'm talking about, Season Seven Armour Sets whoooo, they apparently cut their art department down to one unfortunate guy who rolls out the barely differentiated copy paste item recolours).

As for the Warhammer 40k MMO, I just don't see how you can make thousands of people running around doing whatever they want in the Grim Darkness of the Nightmare Far Future without totally annihilating the canon.

Nitros14 wrote:As for the Warhammer 40k MMO, I just don't see how you can make thousands of people running around doing whatever they want in the Grim Darkness of the Nightmare Far Future without totally annihilating the canon.

That's kinda why I want to see a mission-based game. Something like a combination between Guild Wars and Champions Online perhaps.

Guild Wars comes to mind more, admittedly, but then I think it needs a larger non-instanced area, much like Champions Online has.

As for the Warhammer 40k MMO, I just don't see how you can make thousands of people running around doing whatever they want in the Grim Darkness of the Nightmare Far Future without totally annihilating the canon.

You can't. MMOs don't work within the confines of any fluff in any setting. The LOTR mmo makes no sense, the WoW mmo makes no sense, the Warhammer mmo makes no sense. None of them make sense. The systems are an abstraction so that people can run around and pretend that they are in a setting that they like while still getting to do things that THEY want to do, not what someone of their rank and stature would be doing.

Keep in mind the majority of people that will play these game will have had little contact with the fluff prior and most likely don't care about the inconsistencies generated by MMO tropes.

Nitros14 wrote:WoW has sort of descended into the abyss. I think in the years after release it was a pretty damn good game, but at this point they're just feeding the players the same thing over and over without even trying to disguise it (anyone who has played Wrath of the Lich King knows what I'm talking about, Season Seven Armour Sets whoooo, they apparently cut their art department down to one unfortunate guy who rolls out the barely differentiated copy paste item recolours).

I think it boils down to all these MMO promising to let you reshape the world and then not living upto it.

With this an ideal set up is where different territory has a number of attributes based on who controls it and how significant the control is. Lets use supplies or resources as an one attribute in this example; they represent what materiel is available to controlling factions' players at the location. As battles occur there it depletes, while the attacker depletes resources from whichever territory they launched their attack from. The winner could get some amount of resources proportionate to what he made his opponent expend plus bonuses for completing objectives. When a territory reaches zero supplies, the next successful battle flips it to the opposing sides control. Different missions and raiding the opposing factions boost your resources. Thus its a back and forth that perpetuates but can see actual gains and possible conclusion.

I used a single territory attribute, but there could be others. Piety/Corruption being another example, representing the mindset of what non-coms feel about the war. If the marines keep winning significantly against chaos attacks the people will "know the emperor protects..." and thus if the territory flips local resistance could diminish the rate at which the new controller can resupply the area and impact how easy it is to take back. Where this value diminishes over time till the controller has absolute control which might give a resource bonus.

That I think would add more of a sense of consequence.

Kanluwen wrote:They could be doing it like The Old Republic is, to be honest.
Each player gets "companions", NPCs that are figured into balancing out the classes--with each class getting different companions.

And that could be good if done right. They need to be able to level even if its only directly related to you're character. Star Wars Galaxies, if I remember, I had creatures and they never got any stronger so it became a matter of replacing them not them improving. I don't want to have taggers on who end up as fodder (thats what the IG are for). Equipping them is also important. I shouldn't need to carry everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:
You can't. MMOs don't work within the confines of any fluff in any setting... None of them make sense.

I think at the end of the day its whether it captures the feel of the setting. D&D Online did that it just suffered from bland-dom at the start. Star Wars Galaxies almost had it, but lacked space craft... it wasn't till between Jump to Light Speed and the failed Combat upgrade that it shined with a real sense of Star Wars.

For 40k. Its about battles. Its about helplessness in being dwarfed by warmachines and buildings. Scaling of capabilities relative to the table top game, to some degree as well. Nothing will make it fail more than seeing walls of lascannons blasting a dreanought and see its "health" barely drop. There is already an established hierarchy of weapons within 40k, when things go outside that logical frame work, the game fails; like if some how a lasgun ended up being the best anti-tank weapon, people would scratch their head. Or how flamer/plasma/meltagun have particular relationship each having a strength and weakness... if these developers mix it up too much they either invalidate the use of one or make it into something it isn't.

With this an ideal set up is where different territory has a number of attributes based on who controls it and how significant the control is. Lets use supplies or resources as an one attribute in this example; they represent what materiel is available to controlling factions' players at the location. As battles occur there it depletes, while the attacker depletes resources from whichever territory they launched their attack from. The winner could get some amount of resources proportionate to what he made his opponent expend plus bonuses for completing objectives. When a territory reaches zero supplies, the next successful battle flips it to the opposing sides control. Different missions and raiding the opposing factions boost your resources. Thus its a back and forth that perpetuates but can see actual gains and possible conclusion.

I would firstly question why a pvp centric resource control battle is the ideal set up, especially in a game with a 40k setting where the vast majority of resources are mined or produced off world and brought in. Seems to isolate the pve crowd with little discernable immediate satisfaction for completing difficult tasks and it doesn't make particular sense given the setting.

I also question the idea it would perpetuate a continuous back and fourth when the losing player loses something and the winning player gains something. That logically results in one side always winning. Forever. As it has done in every game that has ever tried a similar system (perhaps one reason why such systems are rare).

I used a single territory attribute, but there could be others. Piety/Corruption being another example, representing the mindset of what non-coms feel about the war. If the marines keep winning significantly against chaos attacks the people will "know the emperor protects..." and thus if the territory flips local resistance could diminish the rate at which the new controller can resupply the area and impact how easy it is to take back. Where this value diminishes over time till the controller has absolute control which might give a resource bonus.

You just described the system that WAR uses. It didn't turn out very well.

That I think would add more of a sense of consequence.

It certainly does, but people don't play MMOs for a sense of consequence in the world. Thats an advertisement, not the reality. The MMO genre is the furthest possible from giving players a sense of involvement in the overarching conflict. People play MMOs for the overarching sense of advancement within a community and the ability to interact en masse with large numbers of other players in a game setting that is continuous with no defined victory or ending.

aka_mythos wrote:I think they need to have either character squads or npcs to form up with. Otherwise it loses any sense of it being a 40k warzone and ends up the meaningless mishmosh of characters WOW is. If marines and IG are waging war on a planet they're not going to do so by sending out a bunch of individuals of mixed and match affiliations that are relatively inexperianced. It'd just be less epic than what it should be.

A squad of IG fighting along side marines makes sense. A single guardsmen amongst a squad of marines, doesn't. Within the universe it would only become justifyable at a high level of experiance... going marbo on us or joining an inquisitors team.

If your assumption are true it these sort of disconnects between the reality of the setting and the reality of the game that make MMO's fall flat when it comes to representing an established setting.

darthmatty wrote:The video looks awsome. Some nice bits, like being able to fly a Deffcopter! Also great to see the Black Templars represented instead of Ultrasmurfs. Will definately be getting this one!!!!

Ultramarines were in there too.

See thats what Im thinking too. Mixing and matching would be kind of hard for this game. But also pvp wise and when killing npcs and other things that involve fighting. It is most likely since this is an mmo you will only be able to control one player, yourself, the character you made and possibly a henchman or something. But in the warhammer world not only do people fight in groups but matching up fighting groups is different. You would need 2 Ork Boyz to stand up to 1 Space Marine (right? please tell me if I am wrong) and even then the Marine has better chances. So how will you be able to play an ork, since you can only play with one character, your one character, if you ever have to fight a space marine, you would HAVE to find a buddy to take him down with you. And dont try to tell me you are going to make an Ork Boy have magical powers or be a highly intelligent sniper to take down the Space Marine. So how will someone be able to lone wolf it on a rainy day if they are playing this MMO and dont have a friend or willing stranger online unless they play anything but a Space Marine or Chaos Space Marine? I can think up of multiple other match ups where according to warhammer if you played a specific race you would need to players to take down one, and Im not talking about one Eldar going after the Bloodthirster(probably npc) I'm talking about one Eldar (played by a human on a PC) going after one marine (also a human on a PC).

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I'm 100% possitive that the PvP will be original in multiple ways, the PvE I'm not so sure of.

Also, I really miss Ultima Online where you could have a character as nothing but a blacksmith or store owner. It was never my main focus but the fact that I could have my own store and generate my in game money with a location in game that was mine without having to go out and do dailies and grind would be awesome. I think that would be something they would add with an expansion or Patch.

Check out Mortals Online, it just came out and is a spiritual successor to UO. Uses the unreal 3 engine and some really neat player driven concepts. I was in the beta for it. If they fix some of the minor bugs that were in the beta it would be something you might want to look into.

It is most likely since this is an mmo you will only be able to control one player, yourself, the character you made and possibly a henchman or something.

City of Villains had a class that controlled six henchmen. It wouldn't be so hard to think of a Guard Sergeant with four Guardsmen as henchmen in comparison.

ShumaGorath wrote:
I would firstly question why a pvp centric resource control battle is the ideal set up, especially in a game with a 40k setting where the vast majority of resources are mined or produced off world and brought in. Seems to isolate the pve crowd with little discernable immediate satisfaction for completing difficult tasks and it doesn't make particular sense given the setting.

I also question the idea it would perpetuate a continuous back and fourth when the losing player loses something and the winning player gains something. That logically results in one side always winning. Forever. As it has done in every game that has ever tried a similar system (perhaps one reason why such systems are rare).

First. It wouldn't necessarily be pure PVP. PVE battles could have the same impact, maybe to a different degree, but otherwise the same. Its not about mining resources its about the war materiel brought into an area. If a group of marines are expected to defend an area they'd have to bring ammunition, grenades, fuels, etc... thats what it represents. The gain a side makes in winning represents being able to resupply or raiding enemies supplies. The point was not to say the ideal is driven by resources as it was to say that some metric should be used emphasize not just the tactics of the battle but the strategy of the war.

The reason it perpetuates is because once an enemy takes a territory they need to expend time and resources to secure the position and assert control. In that time frame the opposing side can attack that location or others while the previous victor is occupied. Also while they attack to wear down a region they won't always be successful, that weakends their territory and opens it up for attack. So while my poor marines get slaughtered by bezerkers in an attempt to maintain a region, my fellow battle brothers might be attacking one of his territories that is neglected.

ShumaGorath wrote:
You just described the system that WAR uses. It didn't turn out very well.

Then retool it to work well. DOWII came up with a system that worked with a single player and reflected some of the type of things I'm talking about, its about translating it to MMO. It boils down to making missions that actually reflect the predicament the campaign is in. Such that territories in need are the ones where quest style missions lead people.

Reply by: metallifan - click to view full reply 

14573

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:16:03

Post by: metallifan

In fact, I think Vigil stated years earlier that the game would feature squad-based combat. Unless they totally retconned that idea (going by the video I'm guessing they haven't) then you'll probably get an NPC buddy or a small fireteam beside you depending on your choice of race.

Reply by: Strimen - click to view full reply 

5906

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:16:05

Post by: Strimen

PhantomViper wrote:

Luthon1234 wrote:
The days of death penalty are long gone, no company would ever risk trying to implement that system with today's gamers, could you imagine the outcry? Basically no one want's to lose their "epicz lootz" by some random Pker or to a mob at the bottom of a dungeon.

CCP kindly disagree with you... Go check out EVE Online and then get back to me...

Only MMO out there that is worth playing IMO!

Even better, PhantomViper go check out Motrals Online (just released this month). You can kill any player you want any time and take everything off their corpse. Hows that for a death penalty. Its an awsome mechanic and really makes you think and learn to store/build things. As well as not do somthing stupid like attack someone next to a guard (Because the guard can kill you then the player you were picking on can loot your corpse and run!).

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:31:45

Post by: Melissia

Which is also why I would never play that game. I'd rather PvP take place in PvP only zones.

Reply by: twistinthunder - click to view full reply 

15365

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:33:28

Post by: twistinthunder

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I'm one of htem. WoW is the biggest reason that the MMO genre is stagnating instead of producing anything new and innovative.

If you could be any more pedantic and shallow in your fanboi snowflake game bashing the hiltons would build a statue of you. Care to explain how it's stagnating a genre that it helped to grow six times over alone?

stagnate:idle, to exist in a changeless situation =/= growth. e.g. warhammer has 100 fans (it's just an example) this is increased to 1000 fans except the rulebook and game style hasn't changed, the fan basis has grown but the rulebook has become idle/stagnant.

melissa is talking about how the genre is stagnant not the fan basis, the genre has become a blur of WoW clone after WoW clone as such the genre has become stagnant because almost no-one dares make something innovative and those who do are shot down by the consumers because of technical issues (which every MMO has at the beginning) and is ditched for WoW because it's amazing (having started up awhile ago)

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:35:27

Post by: ShumaGorath

Melissia wrote:

It is most likely since this is an mmo you will only be able to control one player, yourself, the character you made and possibly a henchman or something.

City of Villains had a class that controlled six henchmen. It wouldn't be so hard to think of a Guard Sergeant with four Guardsmen as henchmen in comparison.

My initial hope was that all IG classes would be pet classes ala the mastermind (my favorite CoV class). With a cover engine and a more in depth control scheme for commanding individual troops it could be quite a fun class to play (and would scale well and make sense within the universe).

First. It wouldn't necessarily be pure PVP. PVE battles could have the same impact, maybe to a different degree, but otherwise the same. Its not about mining resources its about the war materiel brought into an area. If a group of marines are expected to defend an area they'd have to bring ammunition, grenades, fuels, etc... thats what it represents. The gain a side makes in winning represents being able to resupply or raiding enemies supplies. The point was not to say the ideal is driven by resources as it was to say that some metric should be used emphasize not just the tactics of the battle but the strategy of the war.

I still question the superiority of that methodology over the more standard zone interaction that's proven highly successful in games like WoW or city of heroes. Most games which utilize server-rotating warzones in pvp settings (Chromehounds, WAR, planetside as examples) tend to reduce individual interaction within game zones and battlefields and often times make the user him/herself feel that they are less connected and important within the world even if their interactions have a palpable effect from a macro observer. Most successful games within multiplayer settings just fake it. This isn't an RTS, one person doesn't control hundreds within a time lapse setting. Fighting mobs so that ostenburg can flip sides in a day or two (When i'm not playing) is no more "Involving" than me and a few friends raiding a chaos stronghold and taking down a specific demon, even if that demon just respawns a few hours later.

The reason it perpetuates is because once an enemy takes a territory they need to expend time and resources to secure the position and assert control. In that time frame the opposing side can attack that location or others while the previous victor is occupied. Also while they attack to wear down a region they won't always be successful, that weakends their territory and opens it up for attack. So while my poor marines get slaughtered by bezerkers in an attempt to maintain a region, my fellow battle brothers might be attacking one of his territories that is neglected.

Thats what WAR did. It wasn't particularly fun most of the time. Large open world pvp/pve conflict tends to reduce the capability of that world to really provide a good experience on either end. It oftentimes removes capable storytelling and interesting quest interactions and does quite a bit to damage open world pvp (which in and of itself is actually not a popular feature in any mmo game).

Then retool it to work well. DOWII came up with a system that worked with a single player and reflected some of the type of things I'm talking about, its about translating it to MMO. It boils down to making missions that actually reflect the predicament the campaign is in. Such that territories in need are the ones where quest style missions lead people.

Retooling it and making it work is something you can say about any concept and issue. It's not actually a functional suggestion or discussion form for game mechanics. Dawn of wars implementation of the holdings allowing for more air strikes or drop pods was somewhat ridiculous and non functional, especially when the same abilities just became energy abilities or useless later. It was an add in to create free form missions separate from the maine storyline and at least in my experience the real value of the shrines was the exp and loot you got for taking them in the first place. Something which doesn't require the contiguous component for special abilities they provided after the mission ended. I fail to see how that experience would translate well to an MMO proper.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:40:23

Post by: Melissia

I wouldn't call WoW amazing (quite the opposite), but that's the general logic, yes.

Reply by: Morathi's Darkest Sin - click to view full reply 

6646

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:43:36

Post by: Morathi's Darkest Sin

metallifan wrote:In fact, I think Vigil stated years earlier that the game would feature squad-based combat. Unless they totally retconned that idea (going by the video I'm guessing they haven't) then you'll probably get an NPC buddy or a small fireteam beside you depending on your choice of race.

As I said in another thread a while ago, this was a fan based hope that snowballed. We've been following the game pretty solidly over at warhammer40konline.net for a while now and its not been mentioned.

In fact looking at whats been said over the past couple of days, it'll be a traditional MMO (ie WoW style,) but with better shooting elements,. Hell have you played Darkstalkers, Vigil love to be 'inspired' by other games, WoW being the top dog (love or hate it) means they'll be looking in that direction. In fact one of the guys said today they where doing things Blizz had been talking about for a while, but first, so Blizz should watch out. Or words to that effect. They are obviously looking at WoW as a benchmark. As you can see in my Sig, that means I'll be very happy as I love the game style.

The other two massive things they have done, is using the Darksiders engine to save time, and then designing the core engine from that with a small team first, before adding content. The fact that vid is pre-alpha footage is amazing as far as I'm concerned.

The only question mark for me atm is number of factions, I can live with two, but oh so want it to be more.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:46:10

Post by: ShumaGorath

twistinthunder wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

And I'm one of htem. WoW is the biggest reason that the MMO genre is stagnating instead of producing anything new and innovative.

If you could be any more pedantic and shallow in your fanboi snowflake game bashing the hiltons would build a statue of you. Care to explain how it's stagnating a genre that it helped to grow six times over alone?

stagnate:idle, to exist in a changeless situation =/= growth. e.g. warhammer has 100 fans (it's just an example) this is increased to 1000 fans except the rulebook and game style hasn't changed, the fan basis has grown but the rulebook has become idle/stagnant.

melissa is talking about how the genre is stagnant not the fan basis, the genre has become a blur of WoW clone after WoW clone as such the genre has become stagnant because almost no-one dares make something innovative and those who do are shot down by the consumers because of technical issues (which every MMO has at the beginning) and is ditched for WoW because it's amazing (having started up awhile ago)

WoW was quite similar to everquest when it launched. It revolutionized a few forms of interface and heavily refined the raiding and item loot system it uses. The MMO genre has never been a genre of particularly credible progression and the myth of progression in games is something that I find annoying in general. How revolutionary are todays first person shooters as opposed to those from five years ago? Did the last command and conquer feel particularly "innovative"? World of warcraft is a success, but most other MMO developers have thanked world of warcraft for growing the genre to the point where they believe their games can sell. When WoW launched having 400 thousand players was considered a massive success, and many games that have come afterwards exist within that framework hapilly. WoW has not stagnated the genre, the genre is just not one thats going to have a particularly fast innovation curve. Second life was and still is huge and is nothing like WoW. Eve Online is quite significantly different. City of heroes/villains/champions online function quite differently and have done well for themselves. Recent startup MMOs that have failed haven't failed because WoW killed them. They've failed because they were unable to provide an experience that could compete particularly well with a six year old game.

WAR failed because it was a bad WoW clone with high system settings (despite poor visuals) and bugs that persisted for months after launch.
Tabula Rasa failed because it sucked.
Conan failed because no one could play it with the systems of the day.
Auto Assault failed because it was plain awful as will star trek online.

This doesn't mean the genre isn't changing though. APB looks quite "revolutionarily different" and games like guild wars and Aion have done quite well for themselves with reworked fantasy models for gameplay.

Reply by: skrulnik - click to view full reply 

6902

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:47:51

Post by: skrulnik

Nitros14 wrote:Blizzard is the most hilarious company for ripping off everything they can find to avoid coming up with their own ideas. I know this well, I grew up on Blizzard games and played WoW for a good five years. Warhammer and Games Workshop are far from the only company that Blizzard kind of blatantly copies.

Warcraft 2 quote from a Dwarf

"This Warhammmer cost me 40k, hehe"

Reply by: Nitros14 - click to view full reply 

28528

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:49:23

Post by: Nitros14

Strimen wrote:
Even better, PhantomViper go check out Motrals Online (just released this month). You can kill any player you want any time and take everything off their corpse. Hows that for a death penalty. Its an awsome mechanic and really makes you think and learn to store/build things. As well as not do somthing stupid like attack someone next to a guard (Because the guard can kill you then the player you were picking on can loot your corpse and run!).

Why stop there, why not have your character erased when it dies? That's very realistic! And realism is always the goal right.

MMORPGs are kind of a genre where you put so much time and effort into the game that a model where you pay a tremendous penalty on death is probably not the most fun.

I will say WoW did one thing very very well. WoW Raiding is just so far in advance of any other large scale PvE out there.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:49:32

Post by: Melissia

the myth of progression

Apparently you haven't actually played many games then... I've played quite a few MMOs that had some good innovations. Some of them are still running even-- I liked Combat Arms, and I'd still be playing it if I could withstand its player base (whiny even for an RTS player base). It's certainly an MMO, even if it uses RTS for the actual game portion.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:51:03

Post by: ShumaGorath

Melissia wrote:"the myth of progression"
Apparently you haven't actually played many games then...

Or I just know significantly more about them and the industry then you. You want to actually debate the point then try it. But I don't think you actually can.

http://combatarms.nexon.net/

Combat arms says its a first person shooter, not an RTS.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:52:07

Post by: Melissia

ShumaGorath wrote:Or I just know significantly more about them and the industry then you.

Prove it.

My bad, I was distracted and put RTS instead of FPS.

Reply by: Karon - click to view full reply 

21678

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:54:01

Post by: Karon

Melissia wrote:I wouldn't call WoW amazing (quite the opposite), but that's the general logic, yes.

WoW is amazing. Its accomplished so much, and is a huge world. It's a major PVE game, and that's apparently what most people want (11 million people says so)

Saying its not a extremely successful game is false. Just because one person, who's opinion doesn't matter AT ALL and won't change anything, doesn't agree, doesn't make it so.

Shuma is completely correct in his argument, and really, why are we talking about WoW? All I said was its graphics were similar to WoW's graphic style (which is pretty common across all games) but its people who think that they are somehow superior because they think differently, is ludicrous.

We can call it similar to whatever game, but one thing will always set it apart: It has the largest following lore wise, it has the best background, it has the most open possibilities for content and expansion, and its the most unique.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:54:04

Post by: ShumaGorath

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Or I just know significantly more about them and the industry then you.

Prove it.

And here I figure I have been with names and numbers in all of my posts while you just say "WARCRAFT SUCKS" over and over again. We can keep playing the game but you're going to actually have to make a post thats more than two or three sentences if you want to try and pretend you have some experience with the subject matter.

If you want a commentary on combat arms I can't really make one considering I haven't played it, but it looks like a first person shooter. I assume you shoot guns at other people but its big difference is microtransaction purchases of equipment. I wouldn't consider the profit engine of the game to be a really revolutionary feature, microtransactions have been a part of the discussion for years and tribes was hitting the ludicrously high player count fps servers long before planetside or combat arms.

Reply by: twistinthunder - click to view full reply 

15365

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:54:12

Post by: twistinthunder

ooooh, you brought out APB, guild wars and aion some of my favourite (looks wise except guild wars) mmo's. i like you.

Reply by: daedalus-templarius - click to view full reply 

16879

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:55:10

Post by: daedalus-templarius

ShumaGorath wrote:
WAR failed because it was a bad WoW clone with high system settings (despite poor visuals) and bugs that persisted for months after launch.
Tabula Rasa failed because it sucked.
Conan failed because no one could play it with the systems of the day.
Auto Assault failed because it was plain awful as will star trek online.

Hey now, Tabula Rasa was fun... there just wasn't anything to do!
WAR was totally brought down by horrendous bugs, balance problems, population problems, and more bugs.

Haven't played the others.

Reply by: Karon - click to view full reply 

21678

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 21:58:25

Post by: Karon

You guys forgot one of the major ones of why WAR failed: Its game engine was the worst possible. It literally was the opposite of what they needed. They had the content for HUGE battles, but such a weak engine for the servers that when people tried to do that content, the server crashed! They couldn't even handle their own content.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:00:45

Post by: ShumaGorath

Karon wrote:You guys forgot one of the major ones of why WAR failed: Its game engine was the worst possible. It literally was the opposite of what they needed. They had the content for HUGE battles, but such a weak engine for the servers that when people tried to do that content, the server crashed! They couldn't even handle their own content.

WAR was a mess all over, it had great ideas but the team was titanic even for MMO standards and it didn't come together at all. There was no quality control at any level of the game and it ended up showing through quickly. There's no reason a game with those visuals should have performed the way it did. It barely looked better than WoW (mostly due to higher polycount models) but it chugged along like I was trying to play crysis. The issues only exacerbated by the fact that it came out years after WoW with those visuals and those problems.

Reply by: Nitros14 - click to view full reply 

28528

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:01:44

Post by: Nitros14

Karon wrote:

Melissia wrote:I wouldn't call WoW amazing (quite the opposite), but that's the general logic, yes.

WoW is amazing. Its accomplished so much, and is a huge world. It's a major PVE game, and that's apparently what most people want (11 million people says so)

WoW is sort of losing its older players I find. But I suppose they may well make up all of them with their new model of making the game much more casual friendly. I think it would be more correct to say WoW was amazing. It's sort of running on past glories at this point. It has so much content now that people new to the game will find a huge world to be drawn into. But after five years I'm finding they're just going through the motions of appealing to the veteran crowd with no real spark of genius.

Reply by: Luthon1234 - click to view full reply 

24645

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:16:34

Post by: Luthon1234

ShumaGorath wrote:

No MMO releases without server crashes or bugs. None ever has. It's the nature of the product itself. WoW had quite a few when it launched.

Yea of course I was there playing it and laughed at how bad it was. The problem is, is that everyone else seems to have forgotten this or didnt experience this at all so when they see a new mmo come out and release day is less than perfect they call foul and immediately hop back onto wow.

Reply by: Ouze - click to view full reply 

12313

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:25:23

Post by: Ouze

Karon wrote: WoW is amazing. Its accomplished so much, and is a huge world. It's a major PVE game, and that's apparently what most people want (11 million people says so)

You know what the most popular show in the world is? Baywatch. By definition, it is the best show on TV, yes? The best restaurant? McDonalds. The best store? Walmart.

Taking a formula, and crudely digesting it into bland pablum that anyone can digest doesn't make something good.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:38:10

Post by: ShumaGorath

Ouze wrote:

Karon wrote: WoW is amazing. Its accomplished so much, and is a huge world. It's a major PVE game, and that's apparently what most people want (11 million people says so)

You know what the most popular show in the world is? Baywatch. By definition, it is the best show on TV, yes? The best restaurant? McDonalds. The best store? Walmart.

Taking a formula, and crudely digesting it into bland pablum that anyone can digest doesn't make something good.

World of warcraft also isn't a show about a porn star in a bikini, nor is it a low cost monopsony. Tastes are subjective and quantitatively by virtually every form of press on this planet world of warcraft is still the best playing, best performing, and deepest MMO on the market.

Not liking it is purely subjective and is quite acceptable, but saying it's bad because walmart is a popular store franchise is stupid.

Reply by: Karon - click to view full reply 

21678

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:40:21

Post by: Karon

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Karon wrote: WoW is amazing. Its accomplished so much, and is a huge world. It's a major PVE game, and that's apparently what most people want (11 million people says so)

You know what the most popular show in the world is? Baywatch. By definition, it is the best show on TV, yes? The best restaurant? McDonalds. The best store? Walmart.

Taking a formula, and crudely digesting it into bland pablum that anyone can digest doesn't make something good.

World of warcraft also isn't a show about a porn star in a bikini, nor is it a low cost monopsony. Tastes are subjective and quantitatively by virtually every form of press on this planet world of warcraft is still the best playing, best performing, and deepest MMO on the market.

Not liking it is purely subjective and is quite acceptable, but saying it's bad because walmart is a popular store franchise is stupid.

Exactly.

And, for the fellow who said WoW is losing its players and such and was better at the start, is completely correct. I remember awesome Molten Core raids...that was so fun. As well as BLW, heh.

I thought it sort of started moving downhill after outland, and even more so when they re-did Naxx instead of making a new instance.

But, it's still the most successful, and the best MMO on the market at the moment

Reply by: metallifan - click to view full reply 

14573

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:41:49

Post by: metallifan

WoW's two biggest problems (And the reasons I left) were because

A) The increasing level of young players (8-14 bracket) has caused Blizzard to start bowing to whining and snivelling of the "Waaaah, this is too haaaard! I don't want to have to work for results! Waaaaaaaah!". It made doing -anything- group related that wasn't incredibly dumbed-down by patches impossible. A lot of the common dungeons became so simplified that it was a joke. finding a group with members that knew what they were doing was a nightmare. I gave up on most dungeons because I'd get healers and DPS that thought they were tanks, tanks that tried to be DPS, Casters that did nothing but loot or toss out random buffs that helped no one but themselves, etc...

Stupidity/dumbing down of the game for kids under the T/16+ rating (As well as for any mildly slowed people IN the 16+ range) is the biggest hit against this game. At the time I left, you were just paying monthly for "In my anus", "Chuck Norris" and "Ur mum" jokes in city trade channels, and long, dull grinding sessions. Not much more.


B) Most players that -are- worth time (and practically all the ones that aren't) are completely disconnected with reality. Want to join a raiding guild that actually completes dungeons without wiping every ten minutes? You better not have anything else to do for 20 out of 24 hours, 7 days a week, because most expect you to be present for about that long. Most PvP guilds will require that you have a certain Tier of armour to join, but grinding (suprise) to get it is awful when your teams in Battlegrounds won't listen to bloody orders and you end up wasting two hours running around just trying to kill as many enemies as you can before you lose.


No. Let's hope that this is NOTHING like WoW beyond some visual aspects. Let's hope that this is -better- than WoW. Though if you've experienced the last few terrible years of WoW, that's not a hard goal to achieve.

Reply by: Moopy - click to view full reply 

36

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:49:22

Post by: Moopy

Yea, I'd like an mmo that forces you to learn how to play your class, and know your roll in the group.

Reply by: Karon - click to view full reply 

21678

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:51:31

Post by: Karon

IMO, I doubt W40KDM can avoid that, Metallifan. You and I both know the majority of what the crowd of 40k is: Children.

Even worse, adults who act like children.

Reply by: Melissia - click to view full reply 

29408

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:53:51

Post by: Melissia

Saying its not a extremely successful game is false

And I do not equate success with good. American pop singers are successful, but lip syncing (Which is all too common in that industry) is not musical talent. One can have a good game but be unsuccessful, similarly, a successful game doesn't even have to actually be a good game in comparison to others in the genre. Some companies are simply more fortunate than others-- I think of the difference between Blizzard and Cavedog. Who remembers Cavedog anymore? And yet Total Annihilation was truly innovative, and widely rated as the best RTS game of its era-- yes, even over Starcraft on many sites. Cavedog as a company floundered and died due to financial problems. TA:Kingdoms receiving a lukewarm reception (the engine was not suited for a fantasy setting) was another handfull of nails in the coffin. There are other reasons a company fails than just the quality fo their games-- we do not live in a perfect (nor perfectly) capitalist society.

ShumaGorath wrote:And here I figure I have been with names and numbers in all of my posts while you just say "WARCRAFT SUCKS" over and over again. We can keep playing the game but you're going to actually have to make a post thats more than two or three sentences if you want to try and pretend you have some experience with the subject matter.

Numbers? Heh.

But you actually did more to prove my point than your own with the last sentence of your little rant. Claiming progression is a "myth" and then giving examples counter to your claim is not a good way to prove your point.

As for the rest:

FPS games: Today's first person shooters are not very revolutionary, I agree. I blame it on "let's try and be like HALO" syndrome, myself. But some smaller developers are really doing a good job-- Penumbra comes to mind, using an FPS engine (Though technically I wouldn't call it a shooter) to provide quite possibly the best horror experience in recent years bar none. . Generally the more innovative ones tend to be indy developers, as the big companies tend towards "safe" games. Still, some of the bigger games have had nice ideas. Admittedly I have not kept up with this genre quite so much as I would have liked, however. Most of the newer shooter games seem to be leaning towards 3PS rather than FPS-- the businesses believe this is what the customers want apparently, though I certainly prefer FPS myself. Space Marine is going to be a 3PS for example, and quite a few recent big name ones have been as well. Several MMO3PS games have been started as well, including the hilariously bad Crimecraft, and the much more promising APB. Compare this to the shooter genre in the past-- there has, generally, been a progression from FPS single player games, to multiplayer fragfests, to "realism" style modern or WWII games, and then the most recent progression appears to be towards third person shooters, which haven't been explored quite as much as first person shooters have.


RTS games: CnC4 I haven't played yet. But really, do you think I'd expect innovation out of Electronic Arts? They do provide good games every now and then, but in their games tend to be SAFE rather than risking with something new. But the rest of the RTS genre? SupCom2 changed quite a bit from SupCom:FA, many of the changes were for the better even if it aliented some of the hardcore fans (SupCom, despite being a very high quality game, was basically the Crysis of its genre, and for some people its core concepts were hard to grasp)-- that they also have it on the 360 has increased their profits a bit as well. Dawn of War 2 caused a big fan-made fuss with the changes it made from DoW1, yet financially it was a pretty big success for Relic. The RTS genre has typically been rather slow to progress, yet it has, gradually moving away from the older -Craft style of gameplay towards more RTT style, which is easier for the average consumer to pick up, understand, and enjoy than the intense base building of the RTS. The fact that there is now a distinction between RTT and RTS doesn't really separate them in the minds of most of the population I would think, they're still "strategy" games, even if, say, Warcraft 3 and World in Conflict have dramatically different playing styles. Just like they combine 3PS and FPS into "action" or "shooter", often also including "adventure" too for kicks. The progression in this genre seems to be going away from traditional style RTS games, and more towards RTT style, even if there are still a few traditionalist games being made every year (though very few of them can be called notable aside from Starcraft II). If I'm not mistaken, even CnC4 reflects this.

Reply by: ShumaGorath - click to view full reply 

4869

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 22:55:22

Post by: ShumaGorath

Karon wrote:IMO, I doubt W40KDM can avoid that, Metallifan. You and I both know the majority of what the crowd of 40k is: Children.

Even worse, adults who act like children.

I played WoW when it launched and then just after BC came out. I saw no real difference in the community. It's always been an incredibly mixed bag while raiding guilds have always been obsessive and douchy. Peoples perceptions of the game always change once they are ground out of it which is why they call it market churn. People join and get churned out. It's rare indeed for a player to like a game as much when they leave as when they start even if it's changed not at all since launch. It's the nature of experiential learning and the human mind. The more you know something the more you know its flaws and little things you never noticed at first can plague you at the end.

WoW has a market churn of roughly 18 months (as in the average box purchase pays for a year and a half of time before quitting).

Reply by: Kroothawk - click to view full reply 

24567

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 23:00:58

Post by: Kroothawk

Before WoW, MMORPGs were a small and unknown niche. WoW made it a popular mass phenomenon (outside East Asia), making every other MMORPG with old customer numbers look like a failure. WoW now is the standard, popular among and targeted especially at teens, that's why the graphics are "family friendly". This is the basis for their economic success and also creates new niches for more exotic games like EVE and AION, who now can hunt a 10fold or 100fold larger customer base.

Dark Millenium will have a chance because it is a SciFi shooter MMORPG with cool bad guys and later vehicles, easy, appealing fun not too close to WoW. If it gets a low age rating (12+ or 15+), it can even be an economic success, but certainly not as big as WoW.

Reply by: c34r34lk1ll3r - click to view full reply 

24898

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 23:03:48

Post by: c34r34lk1ll3r

Karon wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Karon wrote: WoW is amazing. Its accomplished so much, and is a huge world. It's a major PVE game, and that's apparently what most people want (11 million people says so)

You know what the most popular show in the world is? Baywatch. By definition, it is the best show on TV, yes? The best restaurant? McDonalds. The best store? Walmart.

Taking a formula, and crudely digesting it into bland pablum that anyone can digest doesn't make something good.

World of warcraft also isn't a show about a porn star in a bikini, nor is it a low cost monopsony. Tastes are subjective and quantitatively by virtually every form of press on this planet world of warcraft is still the best playing, best performing, and deepest MMO on the market.

Not liking it is purely subjective and is quite acceptable, but saying it's bad because walmart is a popular store franchise is stupid.

Exactly.

And, for the fellow who said WoW is losing its players and such and was better at the start, is completely correct. I remember awesome Molten Core raids...that was so fun. As well as BLW, heh.

I thought it sort of started moving downhill after outland, and even more so when they re-did Naxx instead of making a new instance.

But, it's still the most successful, and the best MMO on the market at the moment

Pretty much every thing Karon said is what happened with me. I played when it started and then quit when they started rereleasing old material because they couldn't think of anything else.

Reply by: aka_mythos - click to view full reply 

686

Warhammer 40k MMO name announced: Dark Millennium @ 2010/06/17 23:10:00

Post by: aka_mythos

ShumaGorath wrote:
I still question the superiority of that methodology over the more standard zone interaction that's proven highly successful in games like WoW or city of heroes. Most games which utilize server-rotating warzones in pvp settings (Chromehounds, WAR, planetside as examples) tend to reduce individual interaction within game zones and battlefields and often times make the user him/herself feel that they are less connected and important within the world even if their interactions have a palpable effect from a macro observer. Most successful games within multiplayer settings just fake it. This isn't an RTS, one person doesn't control hundreds within a time lapse setting. Fighting mobs so that ostenburg can flip sides in a day or two (When i'm not playing) is no more "Involving" than me and a few friends raiding a chaos stronghold and taking down a specific demon, even if that demon just respawns a few hours later.

But its a more realistic interaction. Look I was speaking in generalities, that if you could get a set up like that to work, feel balanced, and be able to pat players on the back it would make for a more dynamic setting.

I was trying to point out that the flaw of most things that have come before this either have no real manipulation of the world, the player gets a cookie, a pat on the head, a "good job," loot, and then another mission. Or its too easy taking only a few days to flip hands.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Thats what WAR did. It wasn't particularly fun most of the time. Large open world pvp/pve conflict tends to reduce the capability of that world to really provide a good experience on either end. It oftentimes removes capable storytelling and interesting quest interactions and does quite a bit to damage open world pvp (which in and of itself is actually not a popular feature in any mmo game).

Just because something hasn't been done well doesn't mean it can't be.

The idea of MMO is more than RPG. There are differences between those two things and people shouldn't confuse the two. The MMORPG is a highly formalized genre that trades names, equipment, and models but are otherwise all basically the same with some bells and whistle features added on. I realize this game is not an RTS, but why couldn't a game be a MMO-RTS; it flies in the face of what you describe but stands to create a unique game if done right. You can play RTS games online with other people, you can play FPS online with many people, adding MMO makes it a perpetual world where there is more going on then the individual killing the boss and grabbing LEET loot.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Retooling it and making it work is something you can say about any concept and issue. It's not actually a functional suggestion or discussion form for game mechanics. Dawn of wars implementation of the holdings allowing for more air strikes or drop pods was somewhat ridiculous and non functional, especially when the same abilities just became energy abilities or useless later. It was an add in to create free form missions separate from the maine storyline and at least in my experience the real value of the shrines was the exp and loot you got for taking them in the first place. Something which doesn't require the contiguous component for special abilities they provided after the mission ended. I fail to see how that experience would translate well to an MMO proper.

Well no durrr, I'm no programmer I can only speak in generalities. I'm just also used to dealing with big problems people tend to say are not doable. and yet find solutions to them. The first step is breaking the mindset that something shouldn't be done just because previous attempts were not successful. You're not making "functional suggestions" either, just hating on the fact someone finds something different from you fun.

I really enjoyed DOW2. What you describe, is such a bland description of something that did more. The choice of what abilities to take is suppose to be a strategic one. You decide what skills you need now and prioritize, yes you can get them later but only at the expense of not having them sooner and getting full use of it. The game combined the elements of RTS games that focus on tactics and those that focus on strategy. I found some parts of it lacking, but it was a new approach to what is a rather stagnating genre.

An MMO is just any game that supports a perpetual world and massive number of players. Anything else you might envision are a product of what ever letters follow MMO... RPG, FPS, or RTS. Your view of what an MMO could be is stagnate, it wants nothing more than a refinement of MMORPGs that have come before.