Let's talk about the upcoming Cabal War's and share our ideas

34

Remember to share your ideas in the comments below the video :) lets have a good chat about this potentially game selling feature! 



Store Page
Share
34 comments
Let's talk about the upcoming Cabal War's and share our ideas
Your Thoughts? Please login to place your opinion. Not a member yet? Register here and now!
1 year 131 days ago
+2

Each to their own and, good luck to those who enjoy such things.  Maybe this game will stand out because it is not a generic clone of existing games, maybe it will fade because it is not. Regardless, which ever way it goes that will enthuse some and, deter others.

1 year 130 days ago
+2

Yeah, not really interested in PVP myself. I'd be much more interested in a PVE RPG where my "faction" can gain or lose favour/control in an area, which has an effect on the story and gameplay. Where these "faction advancing" missions would be optional as well, so that those who wish to participate can, while others still could opt out entirely.

1 year 131 days ago
+1

Each to their own and, good luck to those who enjoy such things. But ' ...  this potentially game selling feature!' is something that could put me off the game rather than draw me to it. If I was interested in such things I would play a MMO. Sorry.

1 year 131 days ago
+1

Further to my post below.


PvP for the sake of PvP is something that I grew away from sometime ago but, if it was built into the Puritan vs Radical ethos (PvR) included in the game's road map, it is something that personally I could live with.


What I am envisaging is that the PvR  of an Inquisitor is given a value, for the purpose of discussion say a range of between 1 to 12. An extreme puritan view would be at one end of the range and, the extreme radical a the other. PvP would be allowed between Inquisitors who have a value difference of say greater than 6; thus those who held moderate views would be 'immune' from PvP.


Taking it a step further, before going too far from the topic of this thread, what I was envisaging was that the actions/decisions of the Inquisitor would determine where on the PvR scale it was, for example, 'psykers' would be towards the radical extreme along with say releasing heretics to track them in an investigation. But this could become too difficult for the 'Devs' to implement in the game and, raises other considerations such as whether the PvR scale would be account wide such as with inventory, etc.


If the PvR was a factor, then I could imagine cabals/clans being formed by like minded Inquisitors, vaguely similar to that which exists in WH 40K lore such as with the Thorianists and, Xanthists.


Just some thoughts, Cheers. :)

1 year 131 days ago
+1
Airsick Hydra

'In terms of creation once it's made it requires little maintenance and can really make a game thrive. I'm not accusing you of this but i'm not entirely sure why players are so insistent that the devs don't impliment a purely optional PVP feature because of their own personal tastes, it would be like me telling the creators of call of duty to not bother making a campaign because I only want to play the multiplayer. - Doesn't make sense to me at least.'


Also, that would be like someone telling the creators of a game that it has to have PvP  included because it's what that individual wants. Some people like playing PvP FPS and others do not, some people like playing 'Eternal Crusade' whilst others prefer 'Death Wing'.

Maybe the concern is because of the experience that people have with the balance of PvP and PvE in other games where these dual play styles exist. There are countless examples of where skills, classes and weapons, etc are repeatedly 'tweeked' in order to keep a balance in the PvP aspect. Also because all too often advancement or say 'perks' could only be available through PvP; I do not feel I need to go into too much detail as the examples are countless in MMOs. 




1 year 131 days ago
+1

On the point of making all game content "inclusive" i agree 100%.


On the point of making the game "work" first and then making the "lore" work i agree 100%.


On the point of making PvP indirect vs direct. Well for me this is something that i think needs to be addressed completely separate at a later date from the main game. The reason being, make the game work first, then make the lore work then look at features which may include PvP either direct or indirect.

I absolutely believe that you can incorporate  PvP that is fun and does not ruin the metrics for loot and or player dispersal in any meaningful sense regarding the rest of the game.


Personally i believe the best system ever devised for this incorporates "both" of these systems into one and it is the absolute most fun i have ever had in a game. The game was called DAOC (Dark age of Camelot) and in it there was a realm called "darkness falls" which because of how it was designed had PvE and PvP. It was quite brilliant.

This comment was edited 1 year 131 days ago by Contavius
1 year 131 days ago
+1

First let me excuse that my english is not that well. It is not my native language and i am really seldom speaking/writing, so maybe i am not understood well :)


I, personally, dont like PvP at all. For me, not even Coop has to be included. And i dont know much people that play PC Games in my "RL Friendslist". I dont play well with strangers, because i am a slow paced player. The majority of players i met, are running around in games, like there is no tomorrow (even it is not possible in this game at the moment, the calls are quite loud to make it faster). 

I dont like to be stressed out in games. And PvP is pure Stress for me.


I am not saying PvP is pure evil and i understand that some/many people love to pvp.

But when it will be added to the game, i would like it to be totally optional. Be it direct or indirect pvp, single or Cabal (which should be a Clan/Guild mechanic if i understoof right). I will not be in a Cabal with just only Strangers, maybe with the need of Teamspeak or such things :)


There should be a chance to keep totally off pvp per Switch/command. I would hate it, if i build up something and while not online or even being attacked while online and because its indirect pvp, i cant do anything about it, my Stronghold will be destroyed, my Stack being robbed and so on....

That would be a great turn off on i game i seem to like.

1 year 130 days ago
+1

For me personaly I love the idea of Cabal war's, however the Inquisitor factions / ordos, puritan or radical, would almost never fight each other directly. 


For me the PvP element for the game would be indirect. The different Ordos, either being Puritans / Radicals all have a meta quest line leading to there ultimate view of serving the empire of man.

Let's say a puritan cabal controls a system, guarding an unholy relic or having bound a daemonhost or having taken control of a planet with a thin vale to the warp or a chaos shrine etc.. A radical cabal might need one of these to progress there meta game. So they would use there influence from other systems to enlist one of the factions, Royal houses, Mechanicus etc.. that have a bad standing / history due to previous choices, maybe even the Eldar. Convincing these to invade or harrase the Puritan's cabal system or strongholds. Weakening the system owners influence and reputation and being able to step in under Imperial dictate.

This would work visa versa ofcourse.

Ofcourse it would be fantastic if there would even be scenarios were a puritan or radical cabals would be put in a situation were the might even have to change there alignment (cool feature would be to have all Inquisitors of the cabal to vote on the matter.. can you imagine the politics within the cabal itself!) Actually that might be a real cool feature anyway on meta quest choices for a cabal, due to the nature of all inquisitors being there agents.

My point being there should be PvP but in a way that would take alot effort to before an actual full on PvP confrontation would be possible without being declared Excommunicate Traitoris by Terra.

1 year 130 days ago
+1

In my opinion PvP in ARPGs is risky business. One of the things that sets good ARPGs apart, I believe to be how diverse each class feels to play as. From the little known it seems that this will be the case here as well, with the Assassin and Psyker Inquisitors playing in different ways from the currently available Crusader. Ironically this same virtue doubles as a vice. Balancing the classes while still allowing them to feel powerful and maintaining the fantasy has proven a tricky task, one that even when handled well (Dark Souls) could sometimes feel intrusive and suspend the immersion. On the other hand if handled properly and with focus on the fun factor of it, I believe it could contribute to what already feels as an immersive game world. 

Tl;dr version: PvP could be fun, if done properly :)

1 year 130 days ago
+1
Posted by Airsick Hydra 1 year 130 days ago

That's already in the road map Vularin :) - Daemonic weapons for radicals - we don't know what's due to puritans however!

Puritans could be, to name a few: Adepta Sororitas, Ecclesiarchy, Schola Progenium, Holy relics etc

1 year 130 days ago
+1

This just makes me deeply depressed that I've not been able to play for a Month due to moving Country.....and My PC is still 5000 Miles away :-(

1 year 130 days ago
+1

I said it earlier and now I'll say it again: I would much rather see the Devs spend their time and effort on making the persistent open world into something amazing and never done before, then waste time on PvP. Remember the old saying: "He who tries to please everyone, ends up pleasing no one". 


The Devs already have some very ambitious plans for this game. PvP is just a distraction from the main focus & goal: an awesome 40k open persistent world.

1 year 129 days ago
+1
InfectedAI

That would be interessting. Cabal Wars dont need to be PvP. A Race for most faction in a System, and like you said, Infectedai, get some Mission target, like an artefact, as fast as you can...

There should be some great ideas to make it happen that way.


This is more interessting to me, then the PvP System, but there is no hint from the Devs, that Cabal Wars have to be PvP.


Just something that we, the players brought up. ;)



1 year 131 days ago

Totally with Grey Knight on this. I have zero interest in PvP modes for this game. I would rather see all of the Devs time & resources going towards making the persistent open world awesome.

1 year 131 days ago

I would love to see a good functioning pvp for an arpg, but definitely not at the cost of other features. The unfortunate thing is... when I think pvp in an arpg I always see duels in D3 or PoE; both of which are absolutely garbage. I would love to see what they come up with, but I would most definitely prefer if it didn't take away from the sandbox/open world concept development.

1 year 131 days ago

I'd love to see PvE mixed into at least some of the PvP features. (The original Alterac Valley in WoW was my favorite BG in no small part because of this.) Just for the sake of  a hypothetical example, let's take the common "Collect 5 Items" mission in the game right now. Now have two teams competing to finish the mission first, dealing with both the PvE mobs *and* whatever interference the opposing team decides to throw their way. One of the issues I think attempts at ARPG PvP have unsuccessfully dealt with (besides the mechanics of how PvE abilities affect players in PvP) is keeping PvP matches action based. Going from slaughtering countless hordes of mobs to a 1v1 or 4v4 match just feels underwhelming by comparison. By keeping the PvE mission goals and mobs intact, you've kept the base game but included the PvP as an added dimension to the existing construct and arguably increased the tactical depth of gameplay.

1 year 131 days ago

Anybody remembers the Tower Wars Mods in WC3? I would like to see something like this. Two or more teams fight on a lane seperated from the others. The more mobs you kill the more you can spawn on the other lanes. The last team which stands on the lane wins the fight.


ggwp ;)

1 year 131 days ago
Posted by Grey Knight 1 year 131 days ago

Each to their own and, good luck to those who enjoy such things. But ' ...  this potentially game selling feature!' is something that could put me off the game rather than draw me to it. If I was interested in such things I would play a MMO. Sorry.

it's worth pointing out that we have no idea if it's pvp or not, at least for the cabal war. PvP will be trialed during the alpha in it's own element. 



I think it's worth remembering that while some people dislike pvp and won't play it, that other players will like it and will play it. Should it work and attract some players toward the game no one will ever hold your nose and force you to play pvp. 



In terms of creation once it's made it requires little maintenance and can really make a game thrive. I'm not accusing you of this but i'm not entirely sure why players are so insistent that the devs don't impliment a purely optional PVP feature because of their own personal tastes, it would be like me telling the creators of call of duty to not bother making a campaign because I only want to play the multiplayer. - Doesn't make sense to me at least. 


But that being said the argument of pvp or not pvp is not the same as cabal war concepts - because we don't even know what it includes. This is precisely why within the video I pitched a pve element social feature. 

1 year 131 days ago
Grey Knight

Hmmm Puritans & Radicals are on the road map but as far as i'm aware there is no mention of puritan VS radicals, I think they are aiming for the SWTOR/Fable Morality system and not a faction system, where it's just another form of character customization and not something that implicates what content or side you fight on. I could be wrong tho. 


Again, for the reasons mentioned in the video I personally can't side with the concept of having players of different RPG choices forced to not play with others who have had / made different choices. It would make the formation of friends / groups a case of enforcing their players to be certain factions and not others. 


This is just my view though - i'm fairly strongly against limiting player choice in order to create factions, given that I love the social aspect of these games I feel it really interferes with this. My best eg is SWTOR where light and dark is implimented as character chocie but it has no implications as to who can play with tho, there are other mechanisms for conflict instead. Personally in the fluff of 40k I think there are plenty of reasons for inquisitors to be killing eachother aside from being P/R and therefore these options should be looked at first :D


tldr - Pur/Rad (to me at least) should = character development and not divide players. 


God talks :D hope the audio quality was up to your high standards. :D

1 year 131 days ago
Grey Knight

Re your other point that I missed I think the argument to include is far more relevant than the argument to exclude.


Eg 1 - You shouldn't sell Jam sandwiches - because I hate jam

Eg 2 - You should sell Jam sandwiches - because I love jam


Only 2 is justifiable imho as 2 guarantees business for jam, 1 means someone will choose another sandwich, but this does not mean that jam will not sell to others.


Maybe not a perfect analogy but I think it makes my point :D - Completely agree with balance, it's doing to be pretty hard in game like this to make things an even playing field. 


brb making sandwich

1 year 131 days ago
Contavius

I had friends at school that played that every day but I never had a good enough pc.. sniffles. 


Big fan ov mixed pve/pvp personally though. Think it's the future for many games. There are just too many arena games out there now and people get bored of it quickly. 


Re making the game work then pvp  - I think that's their aim but they need to test pvp with us first rather than test it on a wider audience and find out it fails, it's much safer PR if we hate it, rather than every player who buys the game at full release :D

1 year 130 days ago

In my opinion you have to divide the players to have some battle between them and Puritan vs Radical would be a lore friendly way to do that. Your actions in game and gear would dereminate in which faction you would belong and it shouln't be static, so you could change the sides if you wish. The factions could also team up if necessary to destroy a greater evil (in seasonal events maybe?).

For teaming up it would be a nice way if they would do some kind of PvE horde mode like DoW II's - Last Stand :)

For the war part between the factions is harder, both parties have the same goal but their methodes of achieving them is different. Maybe some kind of point/precantage system how much influence the faction has in the Inquisitorial Conclave? Points gain by completing mission and the faction with more influence gets some rewards like acces to faction specific gear or buffs. (Puritan could have a Grey Knight companion and the radical could summon a demon?)

1 year 130 days ago

@Kastagrar - I'd be 100% certain that any + every pvp and co op element in the game will be 100% optional... that isn't to say though that there may be some co op features and game play ideas that require multiple players.. But I wouldn't worry, the "core" of the game will likely always be single player. You are also more than welcome in Ordo Hydra if you want to meet new people :) 


@Palmer07 - I respect your desicion but for my previously stated reasons, just can't see how dividing players is ever a good thing in a game. ever. I could probably name you a good 100 game titles that have managed pvp without a faction system where players are separated. - Again this is just my view, and it looks like plenty of people may disagree xD - But just you wait till your best friend is a puritan and you are a radical, and neither of you want to change and loose your special gear, but you want to play together and can't :D

1 year 130 days ago
Vularin

Some cool ideas Valarin


Just a thought though, I think you are overestimating the capacity of internet strangers to be democratic :D if you have a cabal / group of people and want to force them all into making once choice (or even vote) on being puritan or radical - Then in reality it'll just result in people leaving who doesn't like the choice. 


Personally I think a war between ordo's or conflict of interests would be enough justification for inquisitors to go to war. Hell, even just "deciding" the other inquisitors ordo are heretics is fine within the lore (think back to ordo hydra). No need to force players into difficult situations, neotiations and limiting their character customisation this way (which is what rad/puritan is a function of)


I do like the idea of cabal wars being somewhat story, investigation based though... No idea how that could work but would be fun. 

1 year 130 days ago
Vularin

I like that one, maybe we can see some items tied to your alignment :)

This comment was edited 1 year 130 days ago by swinweflue
1 year 130 days ago
swinweflue

That's already in the road map Vularin :) - Daemonic weapons for radicals - we don't know what's due to puritans however!

1 year 130 days ago
Posted by Airsick Hydra 1 year 130 days ago

Some cool ideas Valarin


Just a thought though, I think you are overestimating the capacity of internet strangers to be democratic :D if you have a cabal / group of people and want to force them all into making once choice (or even vote) on being puritan or radical - Then in reality it'll just result in people leaving who doesn't like the choice. 


Personally I think a war between ordo's or conflict of interests would be enough justification for inquisitors to go to war. Hell, even just "deciding" the other inquisitors ordo are heretics is fine within the lore (think back to ordo hydra). No need to force players into difficult situations, neotiations and limiting their character customisation this way (which is what rad/puritan is a function of)


I do like the idea of cabal wars being somewhat story, investigation based though... No idea how that could work but would be fun. 

True, but Cabal means: A grouping of one or more Inquisitors formed to investigate a particular matter. So there not like a Org or Clan in the classical gaming sense, more of a temporary alliance of mutual personal goals.

1 year 129 days ago
ctiger

May I further add these observations and, request. Most of which is in agreement with Ctiger's post, which I support.


There have been countless games that have claimed to be WH40K but in reality are just some generic gaming system with 40K skins on its models.
It is I would suggest, the  setting of 40K that has attracted most of the players to this game and, if adhered to will save this game from being yet another disappoint to those players.
A faithful representation of inquisitors in the Imperium of Man would include an element of some inquisitors fighting each other, but only in specific circumstances and not as generally as some would have this game go.

1 year 129 days ago
Grey Knight

Foreword - Enjoying the debate - This is precisely why I wanted to make these videos - Get people talking openly. Bravo.


@Greyknight As I detect that last sentence of "as some would have this game go" was aimed at me, i'd like to respond by saying that making something lore specific that is a bad game feature is not justifiable, no matter how lore specific it is. Indeed something being lore specific does not correlate in any way to it being a good choice for a game feature. Just look at the disparity between the lore books and the table top. Having a rigid set of confines towards making a game seems senseless when you can find literally dozens of excuses to implement any type of in game feature. There is room for creativity around every corner. Making smart decisions that make sense in the lore is all i've argued for, not making lore decisions that haven't been considered in terms of their in game consequences.

I would argue that the reason games of 40k have failed is and never has been anything to do with their specificity to lore, rather it's their failure as game developers to create an actually enjoyable or even remotely well thought out game. Deathwing for eg. Brilliant potential that was let down by the mere fact it lacked gaming features, it lacked incentive to come back and play it more as well as customization. Read through the negative reviews on steam, maybe 1% of those will reference lore, the rest will reference the fact it is a bad game. Likewise with Eternal crusade, a let down because it failed to implement features that were promised. Same story with the feedback to the game, no one is complaining that the lore is patchy. It's a failed game. I can't actually think of a W40k game for that matter that failed because it wasn't lore specific, they failed because they were just bad games.


Lastly and as an open sentiment I would repeat (seeing as it's in fashion) that I don't accept that making one feature is ever to the detriment of another, while there may be a portion of the population who don't like a concept of pvp. Presuming that the quality of the rest of the game is going to suffer is nonsensical and based on the assumption that a games quality is a limited rescouce and you can only have a finite amount of "quality" therefore for every feature added something else must be removed. That aside I feel players should respect that while they may not enjoy or even want to play a feature, for others it may be the sole purpose the play the game. I can assure you now, without social features. Be it competitive or cooperative this game will be a dull husk of what it could have been. The only thing inquisitor will succeed in if it limits itself is a bland a familiar game that will be labelled as "another diablo ripoff". 


Fin


5/7 good story bro - TLDR: Trump looks like an orange


Once again good talks :) 

1 year 129 days ago
Airsick Hydra

Not everything is about you; ' ... some ... ' is plural.

Personally I have faith that our Devs can produce a good game that is faithful to WH40K.

In conclusion, I believe the suggestion is that the amount of time that can be spent in developing the game before release is finite, 'time is money as it were'. Thus people are indicating that they would prefer that to be spent or primarily spent, on the PvE or open world aspects of the game.


1 year 129 days ago
Airsick Hydra

Yes, I think GK is 100% correct when he says that the Devs have only so much time and with so much on their plate, that spending too much time on PVP could potentially be a detriment to the development of the main game.


As for the issue of the social aspect of the game, the game can and will be very social even without any PvP content. Coop will see to that.

1 year 129 days ago
Grey Knight

Sorry - not trying to make it "about me" but i'm the only person arguing the case of not having rad/puritan as a faction system in here :D or at least i'm the only person critiquing the idea.


As for the game development I think everyone is overlooking that these features are already on the roadmap, they are already being discussed by devs, they are likely to a greater extent already in production. So if anything it would be an even bigger waste of resources now not to finish them.... and waste all the hours already put into the systems, which "some" players will enjoy - food for thought.

Man this thread went a loooooong way off topic, it's supposed to be discussion for cabal war features - ended up being mostly a protest space for an "anti pvp" movement :D

1 year 129 days ago

Back on topic then, how about having cabals fight over objectives on a leaderboard system? Have some variety every day. One day you have to queue up with your cabal to retrieve an artifact from a much more densely defended area than usual, the next day you have to defend an important outpost from waves of enemies. You could have a few missions a day, maybe you get limited attempts at them. Points are added up at the end of a certain time period and some sort of rewards are granted to the winners.


As others have mentioned you could even have rival cabals show up to sabotage you so you don't get ahead of them on the leaderboard. This is all just random ideas.

1 year 129 days ago
Kastagrar

Yes, this I really like. Keep it coop. Cabals can complete missions/objectives on the open world map and get special rewards for it.