Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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!).

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

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)