THQ has promised to "fully unveil" the new Warhammer 40K MMO at this summer's E3 2010.

Boss Brian Farrell told investors this IP could run for several years, and therefore represents the "highest ranking revenue opportunity" the publisher has.

Farrell added that in Warhammer 40K, THQ has a "very competitive MMO".

So far we know little about the game. Darksiders' Vigil Games will develop under the creative lead of Joe Madureira - presumably alongside the Darksiders sequel due out before April next year.

Madureira's said combat will take place on a larger scale than Mythic's Warhammer Online and that there will be "tons" of customisation and the "coolest looking characters of any MMO, ever".

E3 takes place on 15th-17th June 2010. We'll be there.

Original article

Really don't see how this will work, even backtracking to Rogue Trader ideals. A single person can make a difference, but most 40K fun stuff is about battles between lots of troops, which can hardly happen in an MMO.

However I shall remain open minded.

Maybe its squad based... each player controls a 5 man squad? That'd be cool.

it couls be an RTSMMO as opposed to an RPGMMO, although i find that unlikely.

Not going to happen (and if it does then I claim first knowledge).

But how cool would it be that you choose your race when you sign up (after paying trough the nose and then again at the end of every month) and all players of the same race become one army and then simply have a single planet with massive battles where players group together into groups of any size they want and go and beat the @:~?+ out of other players (online obviously, not in reall life that would be mean).

Marine Player Wombat345: "Who are those 5 players always hiding in a dark corner?"
Eldar Player SlurpyMan: "Those are the only Squat players, they made a skin themselves."

BishopGore wrote:Really don't see how this will work, even backtracking to Rogue Trader ideals. A single person can make a difference, but most 40K fun stuff is about battles between lots of troops, which can hardly happen in an MMO.

I'm getting flashbacks to 40 man raids in WoW. FFXI had even larger raid groups. Yeah, the leveling process will most likely contain solo content, but I can definitely see large groups of people working together. I mean, a battleground in WoW is just a digitized version of 40k where everyone has the without number special rule.

HoverBoy wrote:it couls be an RTSMMO as opposed to an RPGMMO, although i find that unlikely.

This is being worked on by alot of the same people who were involved in Dawn of War 2 atleast on the distributor side. If you look at how squads were done in that, you have all these weapon and gear options. You effectively would have your squad as a single character, with the Sgt acting as the focal point.

I'd imagine that, if this is to work, it'd be based more around the Inquisitor/DarkHeresy/RogueTrader RPG area of the 40k background, rather than just big organised military battles...

Star Trek Online basically has a squad based system for ground missions. Even if you aren't in a party of other real people you will have your bridge officers with you. You have to equip them individually and each does something special. For example, Science Officers can heal, Engineering can put up turrets and shields, and Tactical have offensive abilities. Maybe something like that?

ArbitorIan wrote:I'd imagine that, if this is to work, it'd be based more around the Inquisitor/DarkHeresy/RogueTrader RPG area of the 40k background, rather than just big organised military battles...

I kinda hope not, because the whole Inquisitor idea has been done a lot. Rooting out heresy is all well and good, but what if I wanted to be an Ork and just add to the chaos of the world around me? That wouldn't really work in the setting, which means restricting the races available.

Honestly i see this being more of a W.A.R type were PVP is the dominate thing. You form into alliances or clans or guilds what not and go to battlegrounds and fight. The only thing is Player vs. Player games are fun but don't bring in the long term mega buck and die out very fast. End game content is what gets the most out of any game and warhammer online failed heavily in this dept.

ArbitorIan wrote:I'd imagine that, if this is to work, it'd be based more around the Inquisitor/DarkHeresy/RogueTrader RPG area of the 40k background, rather than just big organised military battles...

I think between Inquisitor and Dark Heresy they'd have enough source material for a big RPG, but thats just it, its already been done to some degree.

The other big problem is that 40k's poster boys of all that is 40k: Space Marines, don't work too well come out over powered in the relativistic scale of an RPG. Hypothetically it takes a level 10 guardsmen to equal a level 2 Space Marine. They make it impossible to balance at the scale of an RPG. With Inquisitor if any one brought a Space Marine the other player's likelyhood of losing were many times more significant. In Dark Heresy and Rogue trader they largely left them out because they'd be too powerful.

I think the advantage of a squad based MMORTS-RPG system is you could more easily balance the players where your stats and abilities would otherwise be misbalanced. It would take something as drastic as a level 1 guardsmen taking a lascannon while the level 1 space marine takes bolt pistol to balance the two in a pure RPG system. So no one would play anything but the genetically engineered cyber-enhanced armor clad super soldiers. In the RTS format, you can justify Marine scouts and different squad sizes. So at level 1 a marine player controls a 5 man scout squad and a guard player takes a basic 10 man squad. Beyond that is becomes a matter of zoning and controling the number of players are in a given area, like 8 per "vs" instance and 4 in "team" instances.

Unless they decide to go the route of Guild Wars and Global Agenda, and have it not be open world and PvE content is all instanced in which you queue up for a group before heading out. I think that would be gakky cause half of the fun of an MMO is the open world. As for PvP I hope it is huge scale just like 40k should be or maybe something like planetside.

But the big question is, how is the combat gonna work? Will it be like a third person shooter like Global Agenda or like WoW where as long as you have a guy selected and your facing him you attack?

just my $.02

I will buy a lifetime subscription to this game.

BishopGore wrote:I kinda hope not, because the whole Inquisitor idea has been done a lot. Rooting out heresy is all well and good, but what if I wanted to be an Ork and just add to the chaos of the world around me? That wouldn't really work in the setting, which means restricting the races available.

I agree. Rogue Trader/Dark Heresy settings should be left for Bioware style single player RPG (Mass Effect in Imperial Space = nerdgasm). For the MMO, I'd prefer something slightly different than a reskinned WoW. As WAR already shown, you just can't compete with WoW head on, at least not now.

Then again, I'd really dig a GoW/UT style game in WH40K and all the obvious multiplayer modes, so I might be biased.

Fizyx wrote:

BishopGore wrote:Really don't see how this will work, even backtracking to Rogue Trader ideals. A single person can make a difference, but most 40K fun stuff is about battles between lots of troops, which can hardly happen in an MMO.

I'm getting flashbacks to 40 man raids in WoW. FFXI had even larger raid groups. Yeah, the leveling process will most likely contain solo content, but I can definitely see large groups of people working together. I mean, a battleground in WoW is just a digitized version of 40k where everyone has the without number special rule.

40 man wow raids, cute. I remember 72 man EQ raids before it was cut down to 54 for PoP =P.

Why can't it just be like that new game with 200+ PLayers in one battle.... EPIC!!!!

There were several WWII real time games running a few years back that worked very well. I think if they do the same format it should be fine. You logged in and ran around with groups already there, could fly planes, ride in tanks, etc, but you also interacted with NPC's to give you something to fight. Basically it worked like a real war in that groups would get together and try to push front lines back, destroy reinforcements, and take out supply chains.

Ahtman wrote:Star Trek Online basically has a squad based system for ground missions. Even if you aren't in a party of other real people you will have your bridge officers with you. You have to equip them individually and each does something special. For example, Science Officers can heal, Engineering can put up turrets and shields, and Tactical have offensive abilities. Maybe something like that?

The red shirts explode on contact like a Chinese copy of a Korean knock-off of a Ford Pinto?

40kenthusiast wrote:I will buy a lifetime subscription to this game.

Even if it completely sucks like most MMO's that sell lifetime subscriptions? I think the Lord of the Rings is the only one not to, but anyone who bought that at release finished the game in 12hrs and had to wait two months for them to add anything. They are suckers bets and you could do something better with your money.

Yes.

40k MMO is the only MMO on the horizon where I can see my old group of friends on the same server and LAN again.

We grew up playing tabletop 40k, Everquest, etc - this game is going to be right up our alley even if it bombs worse than Star Wars Galaxies.

Fallenbourne wrote:Unless they decide to go the route of Guild Wars and Global Agenda, and have it not be open world and PvE content is all instanced in which you queue up for a group before heading out. I think that would be gakky cause half of the fun of an MMO is the open world. As for PvP I hope it is huge scale just like 40k should be or maybe something like planetside.

But the big question is, how is the combat gonna work? Will it be like a third person shooter like Global Agenda or like WoW where as long as you have a guy selected and your facing him you attack?

just my $.02

Here's hoping it's like Global Agenda- I'm currently playing that and I love the way combat works. However, while PvP in a 40k game is almost a given, I'd like to see some effort made for PvE too. It's kind of amusing actually, I've seen a ton of players with 40k-inspired names in Global Agenda so far (I'm sure I saw an Agency/Alliance called Dakka Dakka actually).

Anyway, hopefully it won't bomb too badly, I'd love a decent MMO in the 40k Universe. Provided the combat is fluid, and the emphasis isn't TOTALLY on PvP, I'll be all over it.

I can see this working in a Guild Wars fasion. You the player start as a squad leader, then hire guys (meltaguy, plasmaguy) to join your squad. Then start battle companies with your friends who sign on and bring their own squad. Suddenly you have two squads of Marines charging out into the feild to blow sh*t up.

If anyone remembers Planetside maybe this could run combat based on that idea?

aka_mythos wrote:Even if it completely sucks like most MMO's that sell lifetime subscriptions?

I bought a lifetime sub for STO, and it doesn't suck.

I heard STO, has little or no PVP, no fully supported factions beyond the federation, poorly implemented away missions, and minimal effort put in to on ship activities. 90% of Star Trek took place with the interactions of the crew on the ship as the focus and thats really missing. Its not Star Trek it is a space battle simulator dressed up as Star Trek. In a Federation that has no economy, it has two. Exploration, the mission statement of the Federation is secondary. I was eagerly following this since its original announcement under the original company working on it. When Cryptic took over they said it would be all these things Perpetual wasn't going to do, but the game looks exactly like what the other company made. At best the game is an incomplete game, MMO's are suppose to be open ended, not incomplete.

Planetside by Sony is a MMO FPS, battles take place in an open world mostly over control of bases.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 40k MMO was alot like Planetside.

BishopGore wrote:Really don't see how this will work, even backtracking to Rogue Trader ideals. A single person can make a difference, but most 40K fun stuff is about battles between lots of troops, which can hardly happen in an MMO.

However I shall remain open minded.

You've obviously not played Lineage2, though going over 5 years now...the castle siges still see as many as 100 to 200+ per clan, Epic Raids can go over 400 counting both opposing sides. That's roughly equivalent to the number of models fielded by a 1500 pt army...though probably not a horde army

40kenthusiast wrote:I will buy a lifetime subscription to this game.

you'll pay an awful lot for something that won't last very long.

This might actually get me to play a MMO again. I hate those things because they suck your life away, but this sounds like it could be pretty bad ass.

I am very curious to see how the structure it.

I would want to be an Ork, fo sho! Just run around causing anarchy and shooting stuff.

this IP could run for several years

This little tidbit fills me with such confidence.

Several... as in more than two or three, but not much more.... as the dictionary defines it... sure doesn't equal a "life time"... unless your Paris Hiltons dog.

Reecius wrote:This might actually get me to play a MMO again. I hate those things because they suck your life away, but this sounds like it could be pretty bad ass.

I am very curious to see how the structure it.

I would want to be an Ork, fo sho! Just run around causing anarchy and shooting stuff.

well, they could structure it as a pve grindfest like WoW which means I would... wait for it... stay with WoW because I have 7 lvl 80 toons and 3 lvl 70+ toons on the server i play on.

or they could structure it as Battlefield 40K which means that I would... stay with WoW because my current options for internet do not allow for twitch based FPS shoot-em-ups.

Bottom line: I'll be in Azeroth if I'm not at work or at my local store working on models.

Honestly I was thinking this will be more along the lines that if lets say you started out as a Space Marine you would start out as a Trainee, then make Scout, Then make Assault Marine, then if you chose to continue on you could be a Tactical Marine, then a Devestator Marine and later a Terminator IF you wanted to but also take into account you might get to cross class somewhat from Assault marine to lets say if you waited a Vanguard Marine or an Assault terminator.

See where I am going with this??? Not many MMOs give you thins FFXI did to a degree but not quite like this.

Lets us take Tyranids now, you would start out as oh maybe a Ripper, you can be a shooting ripper that later progresses to a Termagant or a CC ripper that turns into a Hormagaunt. Next depending if you went shooting or CC will detirmine the type of Warrior you are. After that you could progress to greater heights! Maybe even an MC later on who knows!!!

There are TONS of Possibilities

I might stick to WoW. When the new expansion is released I'll be too busy leveling a Goblin to have time for another MMO.

That and FF13 is out this Spring and GT5 probably later summer, early fall I'll barely have time for WoW, let alone a 2nd MMO.

Excellent news, will be very interested in what they show.

Although at the moment I can't see anything making me leave WoW, but 2012 (if it doesn't slip) I should be in a position to afford two MMO's.

I am way too eager for this though, and unlike WaR. My other half doesn't mind if this one is heavy PvP, as she is quite convinced the shooty element and the 40K universe means it won't be an issue for her.

I've never played or seen a MMORPG that didn't bore me to tears. They all seem to combine the worst aspects of old-school tabletop RPGs with the lowest-common-denominator population of the internet.

Creator of MMORPG: "You have to kill 247 Mystic Warp Crab-Gibbon Beasts of Doom to get the ingredients for one potion. It'll take you 17 hours of 'You hit the Mystic Warp Crab-Gibbon Beast of Doom for 7 points of damage' to do that. Then you'll be ready to take on the 562 Death Stoat-Goblins. BTW STFU NOOB."

GM of RPG: "Well, let's just skip ahead to the bit where you've killed all the Warp Crab-Gibbon Beasts, and have the potion ingredients, because it'd be really dull to roll dice for 17 hours, and we know you could kill them easily. In fact, let's not play this really bad D&D spinoff any more -- there are some decent RPGs out there that don't even have Warp Crab-Gibbon Beasts in."

Instead of an MMORPG I think they should've made a game similar to MAG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAG_%28video_game%29) only with 40k units. 256 40k players shooting each other up sounds funner than another grind and raid MMO.

kadun wrote:Instead of an MMORPG I think they should've made a game similar to MAG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAG_%28video_game%29) only with 40k units. 256 40k players shooting each other up sounds funner than another grind and raid MMO.

I have a very strong feeling that this will happen. Talent trees are basically out of the question, I have tried to come up with situations for "WoW" style talent trees and I couldn't nail any down.

I think that if the game runs similar to MAG with maybe a bit more MMO style to it, it would be something I would play 100%.

Sounds good idea and i like WAR and WOW but the cost was annoy but i hope this will be ok.
personly i like the ideas of a player controls a squad then can team up with friends to make a combat patrol
and so on and so forth to you make an apoc army (40 players) this would be cool in my eyes
one thing its needs is a good friends/buddy system as most MMO's fail IMO on this points

so heres what the 2 fractions could be, they have 3/ armys

imperium - space marines(would be smurfs) IG (armaggeton(sorry on spelling)) grey knights (yeah i put them in) Witch hunters (cos they cool)
xeno - dark eldar (not sure about t) Tau(not sure if they have different teams but Farsights will do) orks (goffs ) eldar (iyanden)
so theres my 2 cent ......forget it if you want(sorry for spellings )

Howlingmoon wrote:
well, they could structure it as a pve grindfest like WoW which means I would... wait for it... stay with WoW because I have 7 lvl 80 toons and 3 lvl 70+ toons on the server i play on.

or they could structure it as Battlefield 40K which means that I would... stay with WoW because my current options for internet do not allow for twitch based FPS shoot-em-ups.

Bottom line: I'll be in Azeroth if I'm not at work or at my local store working on models.

I'll probably try it out, but +1 to this quote. It will have to be pretty special to make me give up WoW and all the time I have put into it.

Wait... made by the guys who made Darksiders?

Well that explains a lot...

H.B.M.C. wrote:Wait... made by the guys who made Darksiders?

Well that explains a lot...

Indeed.

I just hope they don't include anything like the fething spider boss from Darksiders in the 40k MMO.

Feth that fething spider boss.

Definately gonna try this out. The last mmorpg I played was D&Donline. I liked it a lot. I think a 40K mmorpg should be based on inquisitor/dark heresy. They could have xenos/demons etc. as NPC's. Imagine infiltrating an ork city, dark eldar pirate ship, eldar craft world, tyranid hive ship, necron dead world. Lots of possibilities and they are practically endless.

GG

aka_mythos wrote:I heard STO, has little or no PVP

Well it has been out for a whole 3 days, might give it some time. Not a lot of PvP in WoW 2 days after release either.

aka_mythos wrote:no fully supported factions beyond the federation

Hmm, what was the focus of the franchise?

ToS: Federation
Next Generation: Federation
DS9: Federation
Voyager: Federation
Enterprise: Federation

aka_mythos wrote:poorly implemented away missions

They aren't that bad, in fact they can be a hoot.

aka_mythos wrote: and minimal effort put in to on ship activities.

Because people will $15 a month for "Guard Duty, the simulation"

aka_mythos wrote:90% of Star Trek took place with the interactions of the crew on the ship as the focus and thats really missing.

You realize this is a game and not a TV show right? Who wants to pay a subscription just to talk to bots? That sounds incredibly unfun.

aka_mythos wrote:Its not Star Trek

Actually it is. Officially licensed and everything. Unless you own the rights to it, you don't get to make that determination. It may not be to your tastes, but that isn't the same thing now is it?

aka_mythos wrote:it is a space battle simulator

What is wrong with that? They do actually have space combat in Star Trek you know. Never saw Wrath of Khan? Or DS9? We all get to talk to people everyday in real life, we don't get to command starships.

aka_mythos wrote:In a Federation that has no economy, it has two.

Of course it has an economy of some sort. Why would other planets trade with them? It may not always be cash but there is something.

aka_mythos wrote:Exploration, the mission statement of the Federation is secondary.

For someone so concerned with narrative you don't seem to be paying attention to it. The Federation is at war, you don't get the same amount of free time when you are under attack as you do when you aren't. When the Borg were invading did Picard let them just fly to Earth because he didn't have time to defend the Federation because he had to go explore? The Klingons (Gorn, Orions, and Naussicans) are attacking, the Romulans are still pissed at both the Federation and the Klingons since their main system got wiped in a super nova. Mostly at the Klingons becuase they took advantage and grabbed some planets back.

aka_mythos wrote:At best the game is an incomplete game

No MMO has ever launched complete. If they did they would never be released.

How about when you can give an informed opinion, and not hearsay, you come back and say it sucked. You admitted to have never having played it so perhaps you shouldn't be so sure as to make blanket statements regarding something you have no experience with and just go by what "you heard".

It would be wonderfully ironic if they made it like EVE.

Warhammer online was a pretty good game imo, despite the fact that a good number of people were saying it's dying, i still liked it because of the background and basically just being warhammer, so i may get into this.

If anyone remembers Planetside maybe this could run combat based on that idea?

I remember Planetside, and every once in a while I think about a Planetside type game with 40K fluff. Then I cry a little bit, because it will never happen.

Game design is in a really depressing, derivative state right now. Look at a game like COD MW2. It's basically the same exact game as the previous five odd games in that series, just a minor addition of bells and whistles, and more toys for the trash talking prebusescents who make the interwebs so intolerable.

So, basically what we're going to get is WoW, but with a 40K skin on it.

For a 40k MMO, it needs to be asked what balance between conflict and non-conflict elements should exist. 40k is all about war. As a pure combat game what would it be able to bring that other games have not? On a first person setup, can it bring an active close combat control like Conan, or for shooting the FPS elements of the large team FPS games?

While it is a very rich background and it be great experiencing it as an agent of an Inquisitor, I think that approach would fail to take advantage of the scale and scope of the setting. For example the suspension of disbelief fails if you attempt to abstractly represent a war of millions of men with players as just inquisitorial allies.

Ahtman wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:At best the game is an incomplete game

No MMO has ever launched complete. If they did they would never be released.

How about when you can give an informed opinion, and not hearsay, you come back and say it sucked. You admitted to have never having played it so perhaps you shouldn't be so sure as to make blanket statements regarding something you have no experience with and just go by what "you heard".

You are missing the point of what I said and you are distorting it. I said MMO's are meant to be open ended, that they are designed to have more content added. I said this game is incomplete, because it claims to be a star trek game yet leaves out so many of the aspects of what star trek is about that it is not the essence of star trek, but a more extreme distillation.

I never said it sucked. I tried to avoid making a claim like that. I said it was missing a number of things, critical to me. That I feel they took a flawed approach to the games design that disappointed a lot of people who wanted the same things I had wanted.

I never said I never played it. I beta tested it, didn't like it. And has to ask a friend to find out how it turned out. How is it not an informed opinion? I played the beta. I watched my friend play the final release for a while. He told me what other aspects were like and I experienced a number of them. When you speak you sometime have to generalize instead of giving a life story. So when I say I heard... I mean I tried it, I wanted to experience in a video game certain aspects of Star Trek and when I couldn't, I had to ask is "all PVP like this?"... or "what about more for exploration?"...

Star Trek, was about exploring and utilizing diplomacy to resolve conflict and avoid combat. Did combat happen yes. Often yes. But not always, it was about finding the alternative to it. An all out war is just a poor excuse to ignore the first 2/3rds. Now I'm not saying the balance of these elements needed to be the same as the tv shows, just that they had to be present in a meaningful way.

Empchild wrote:Honestly i see this being more of a W.A.R type were PVP is the dominate thing. You form into alliances or clans or guilds what not and go to battlegrounds and fight. The only thing is Player vs. Player games are fun but don't bring in the long term mega buck and die out very fast. End game content is what gets the most out of any game and warhammer online failed heavily in this dept.

A PvP focus would be quite stupid. No casual player (and most people over 30) care much for it.

aka_mythos wrote:LOL, I don't know the difference between a game and a TV show, hur

I think that summaries your main problem, again. Games need gameplay. I know that sounds simple but apparently it is not a concept you are grasping. An MMO that is almost entirely talk is called Yahoo Instant Messenger, and it is free. This also forgets that there is a narrative about the conflict, but depending on when you played the beta (a lot was added near the end and after launch) you wouldn't have gotten almost any of it. Games have a different set of parameters to function than a pure narrative. You can do some really neat stuff with single player games that come close, like the upcoming Heavy Rain, but this isn't a single player, or even limited mutiplayer game, it is an MMO, and as such needs something for players to do consistently and with large groups. Going to run a 40 man raid on an embassy and everyone just try to talk the npc's to a better tomorrow? As for exploration, who is going pay to scan nebulae and asteroids for month? This isn't a fan fiction game, this is a game that needs to appeal to many people, not just delusional trekkies with myopic vision.

Not only that but you played an incomplete version then want me to take hearsay as evidence of an informed opinion? No, I don't think that will fly.

olympia wrote:A PvP focus would be quite stupid. No casual player (and most people over 30) care much for it.

I disagree. I typically don't care much for PvP but it was a lot of fun in WAR. Though to be fair it wasn't PvP, it was RvR. If you haven't ridden a boar down a hill with 30 other orcs all yelling WAAAGH you just haven't lived. Well, that isn't true, but it was a lot of fun.

Personaly. If they made dawn of war 2 into a MMO version of it, i think it would sell better than most mmo's i've seen/played, and believe me.. i've played alot.

Think about it.. control a few sqauds of your favorate unit types to smash the crap out of any foolish other player in your way ;p

Lysenis wrote:Honestly I was thinking this will be more along the lines that if lets say you started out as a Space Marine you would start out as a Trainee, then make Scout, Then make Assault Marine, then if you chose to continue on you could be a Tactical Marine, then a Devestator Marine and later a Terminator IF you wanted to but also take into account you might get to cross class somewhat from Assault marine to lets say if you waited a Vanguard Marine or an Assault terminator.

I think the current progression is Trainee -> Scout -> Devastator -> Assault -> Tactical -> Veteran -> Terminator, but yeah.

I think that what posters here have been saying about making most of the factions in the game squad-based instead of single character-based has a lot of merit, and would make the 40K MMO different enough from Warhammer Online and WoW. You're closer to your grand scale epic battles that 40k is known for, and you can balance the fluff of the factions easier as well.

By keeping Marine characters as strictly single character-based avatars, you limit their numbers (visually on the battlefield if not by actual number of players) and make them powerful enough. A player that is playing an ork avatar would have 5 to 6 orks under his control, a player playing as guard would have 6 or 7 guardsmen. I'd be far more interested in commanding a squad than a single character.

One question though is if you are playing as a more squad-based faction, is what happens when your character goes up in power and ability and level? Do you start off playing as 6 orks, then as you grow in ability that becomes 3 ork nobs, then eventually you get to play as a warboss or painboss or big mek? Or at the outset of character/squad creation do you get to decide if you want to play as an ork mob, a couple of Nobs, or as a warboss or painboss, and then that choice gets more powerful as you go along? Doing this would let there be different types of 'classes' like WoW's paladins and death knights and each unit type is good at different things, like the WoW classes are.

Your minions would gain access to stronger abilities and equipment. They level up just like you do. They might all start as just lowly Guardsmen but as you level up you can assign them different roles. You can make one a Medic, another a special weapons guy, ect ect.

Ahtman wrote:Your minions would gain access to stronger abilities and equipment. They level up just like you do. They might all start as just lowly Guardsmen but as you level up you can assign them different roles. You can make one a Medic, another a special weapons guy, ect ect.

As for that, that would probably create some serious balance issues. I wouldn't be surprised if it was mroe like DoWII ("hero" [squad leader] levels and he gets new equipment while the other squaddys get a slight boost to stats).

If done correctly and made balanced it would be awesome, I just don't want to see a "single ubber-gun". I mean can you imagine a squade of marines charging forward armed with nothing but [insert OP weapon here] and annihilating? And of course you can only be competitive if you use that weapon. That's my fear about that.

Superscope wrote:Personaly. If they made dawn of war 2 into a MMO version of it, i think it would sell better than most mmo's i've seen/played, and believe me.. i've played alot.

Think about it.. control a few sqauds of your favorate unit types to smash the crap out of any foolish other player in your way ;p

I agree a different approach then most MMO's is important for the longevity of the game. I would hypothesize that you might only control one squad and a vehicle, where the squad members can be given a little more variety of equipment, within the squad, relative to DOWII. The MMO would come in where you and your friends form an army and engage against enemies. It makes balancing between different factions easier.

As a combat oriented game, it needs to offer more. This would do that.

Ahtman wrote:I think that summaries your main problem, again. Games need gameplay.

No duh. Thats why if you look at what I say I never disqualify the combat element, just that in addition to it there should be more.

Ahtman wrote:
An MMO that is almost entirely talk is called Yahoo Instant Messenger, and it is free. This also forgets that there is a narrative about the conflict, but depending on when you played the beta (a lot was added near the end and after launch) you wouldn't have gotten almost any of it. Games have a different set of parameters to function than a pure narrative.

I'm not saying a game should be pure talk. I'm just saying it can include other elements beyond "killing your enemy" with other game play mechanics. Some designer would have to be creative to make it work. I was a fan of Star Wars Galaxy, even though it actually was incomplete and had gaping holes in it, it had a developed non-combat aspect to the game. I played day 1 beta to the post CU collapse.

Ahtman wrote:
Going to run a 40 man raid on an embassy and everyone just try to talk the npc's to a better tomorrow?

I enjoy those sorts of games. I enjoy big game versus team shooters. I enjoy other MMO's. I just believe when you say something is Star Trek it needs to have those other elements, even if only in a minor way, but they need to be there.

If there were a mission where by you could "negotiate" with a newly discovered planet to establish trade relations and as a result gained access to new technologies, you telling me no one would play it? If when a giant space entity creature pops out and decides he wants to use you as a toy, blasting him with phasers is not the best way to resolve it. Look at Star Trek IV, space creature comes destroying Star Fleet, and rather than figure out a way to kill it, they travel back in time and rescue a whale from extinction. That is Star Trek as much as Wrath of Khan. Both are at extremes, something like Star Trek IV probably strikes a better balance.

Ahtman wrote:
As for exploration, who is going pay to scan nebulae and asteroids for month? This isn't a fan fiction game, this is a game that needs to appeal to many people, not just delusional trekkies with myopic vision.

Have you played EVE? It balances many aspect of gameplay. If its guilty of anything, its being realistic to the point of needing you to be an accountant to play.

Wanting the STo game that exists, but with more of what I'm talking about is not short sighted by any measure. I don't really know where you're going with "fan fiction game"... I just want to see a certain spirit in the game that has been left out. Its 70% the game I wanted to see. As it stands STO is a pretty generic game that has the added veneer of Star Trek. A gold plated turd is still crap. And while STO isn't crap, its not "gold" either and thus open to criticism by the sort of people who are the target demographic. The only friends of mine who are enjoying it are non-trekies, at which point you have to ask did they have to call it Star Trek, to make this game?

Ahtman wrote:
Not only that but you played an incomplete version then want me to take hearsay as evidence of an informed opinion? No, I don't think that will fly.

I've played enough MMO's, 10, to be able to judge how its going to go, from my experience. I've played enough beta's to know how much of a difference it will make. I have experience with Cryptic and know that won't really do too much more anytime soon.

CrazyThang wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Your minions would gain access to stronger abilities and equipment. They level up just like you do. They might all start as just lowly Guardsmen but as you level up you can assign them different roles. You can make one a Medic, another a special weapons guy, ect ect.

As for that, that would probably create some serious balance issues. I wouldn't be surprised if it was mroe like DoWII ("hero" [squad leader] levels and he gets new equipment while the other squaddys get a slight boost to stats).

They do it in STO ok. Your Minions aren't on the same level as you, more of an extension of your will.

@aka_mythos: Your still on that? It is so yesterday. Move forward with a new day ahead of you.

Ah, I've never played that but the "extension of will" thing somehow sums it up perfectly

The amount of people that still think this will be WoW: 40K astounds me.

Google-fu will unleash a tidal wave of interviews with Vigil and THQ that show this will be -nothing- like WoW, other than it's also an MMORPG.

You control one character that has command of a whole squad and their abilities/equipment.

Level (or equiv) won't make you unstoppable, even if you're at the maximum level/rank/whatever and a beginner takes you on. If that beginner puts a lasbolt/shuriken/etc... through your face, you're quite dead, as would be expected.

You don't need groups to complete missions. Your squad will act like a group in itself, meaning that there won't be a whole lot of dependancy on crappy LFG requirements, which is a major flaw in WoW's design.

That's only a couple things. Again, Google will answer 99% of questions with a little effort.

If I have enough health sure I can take a shot to the face. My health (at max lvl) > That (low lvl) gun's damage.

It's not a health based system it would seem, considering that Vigil has said level won't entirely save your arse on the battlefield, even against a new player.

I'm guessing it's going to be a GoW/CoD style health system, where you die after a certain number of shots rather than just have a health bar, regardless of level. If you take too much damage, hide in cover and your damage meter will go down.

Better gear will obviously let you take more hits, while better weapons will kill faster. It's pretty balanced, and removes the need for potion-spam and stat building.

Well work is sending me out to E3 this year, I will let you guys know what I find out.

Nice job you have then mate ;P

keep us informed ;P

Clay Williams wrote:Well work is sending me out to E3 this year, I will let you guys know what I find out.

Nice!

And really, if you can, get your picture taken with as many booth babes as possible.

I mean, I'm sure no one else will be doing it, so you shouldn't run into too many lines...

Bah. Booth Babes. They insult the spirit of any convention, be it Auto, Video Games, Guns, or other.


/End old man ramble

I really look forward to hearing more about this. I could really go for a new MMO.

Ahtman wrote:@aka_mythos: Your still on that? It is so yesterday. Move forward with a new day ahead of you.

To say something like that you still are.

I do love the irony that in the sort of game you want, you'd never have the sort of stories that Mudd appeared in, but you use him for your avatar.

Didn't E3 ban booth babes a few years back?

It is a really fun time. i got to go as a guest of Nintendo (brother-in-law of an employee) the year before it was scaled back. Lots to see and do.

metallifan wrote:It's not a health based system it would seem, considering that Vigil has said level won't entirely save your arse on the battlefield, even against a new player.

I'm guessing it's going to be a GoW/CoD style health system, where you die after a certain number of shots rather than just have a health bar, regardless of level. If you take too much damage, hide in cover and your damage meter will go down.

Better gear will obviously let you take more hits, while better weapons will kill faster. It's pretty balanced, and removes the need for potion-spam and stat building.

Oh I see what you mean then. But don't forget! CoD the original (still better than all the others) had a health bar

CrazyThang wrote:

metallifan wrote:It's not a health based system it would seem, considering that Vigil has said level won't entirely save your arse on the battlefield, even against a new player.

I'm guessing it's going to be a GoW/CoD style health system, where you die after a certain number of shots rather than just have a health bar, regardless of level. If you take too much damage, hide in cover and your damage meter will go down.

Better gear will obviously let you take more hits, while better weapons will kill faster. It's pretty balanced, and removes the need for potion-spam and stat building.

Oh I see what you mean then. But don't forget! CoD the original (still better than all the others) had a health bar

I never played the stone-age CoD

But yea, so no matter what your level, if some noob owns your face with a shot from a laspistol, and you're not in PA, you're worm-chow

metallifan wrote:

CrazyThang wrote:

metallifan wrote:It's not a health based system it would seem, considering that Vigil has said level won't entirely save your arse on the battlefield, even against a new player.

I'm guessing it's going to be a GoW/CoD style health system, where you die after a certain number of shots rather than just have a health bar, regardless of level. If you take too much damage, hide in cover and your damage meter will go down.

Better gear will obviously let you take more hits, while better weapons will kill faster. It's pretty balanced, and removes the need for potion-spam and stat building.

Oh I see what you mean then. But don't forget! CoD the original (still better than all the others) had a health bar

I never played the stone-age CoD

But yea, so no matter what your level, if some noob owns your face with a shot from a laspistol, and you're not in PA, you're worm-chow

Woah now, stone-age?! I believe it was 2001. Trying to make me sound all old and such

I remember when DOOM II was the best new thing. And SNES. And Vanilla Nintendo, with 2 games per cartrige.

Now THAT is old man talk.

At least until Frazz shows up and goes off about how great bar Pong was

We don't want none of that new-fangled Pong rubbish. Give me that old school CRT based Missile Simulator any day of the wing. Pongs just one step towards Pac-Man and that's when gaming jumped the shark



Okay, I can't do cranky Frazz impressions...

I can't wait to tell my kids "Back in my day we had Playstation ONE!" bust the old thing out and show 'em some Metal Gear Solid.

Speaking of systems and getting back on topic and such, is this just going to be a computer thing or will it also be xbox live, playstation etc? (Trust me I prefer computer but I'm just wondering)

It would be awesome if it were like Team Fortress.....but that is because that is one of the only video games I still play!

Was Darksiders a crappy game? It sounds like people didn't like it.

Any thoughts on what kind of cross faction battles could occur? Such as could a tau player work with a marines player to stop an ork horde? Those kind of battles would be a blast. Also would the marines all be stuck with ultramarines? It would be nice to allow people to choose different chapters/clans/whatever for each race.

Alpharius wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Well work is sending me out to E3 this year, I will let you guys know what I find out.

Nice!

And really, if you can, get your picture taken with as many booth babes as possible.

I mean, I'm sure no one else will be doing it, so you shouldn't run into too many lines...

Alpharius is looking for more pics for a special mod dcm board thread.

CrazyThang wrote:I can't wait to tell my kids "Back in my day we had Playstation ONE!" bust the old thing out and show 'em some Metal Gear Solid.

Speaking of systems and getting back on topic and such, is this just going to be a computer thing or will it also be xbox live, playstation etc? (Trust me I prefer computer but I'm just wondering)

both THQ and Vigil are PC games companies. So it's probably going to be PC only

metallifan wrote:The amount of people that still think this will be WoW: 40K astounds me.

Google-fu will unleash a tidal wave of interviews with Vigil and THQ that show this will be -nothing- like WoW, other than it's also an MMORPG.

You control one character that has command of a whole squad and their abilities/equipment.

Level (or equiv) won't make you unstoppable, even if you're at the maximum level/rank/whatever and a beginner takes you on. If that beginner puts a lasbolt/shuriken/etc... through your face, you're quite dead, as would be expected.

You don't need groups to complete missions. Your squad will act like a group in itself, meaning that there won't be a whole lot of dependancy on crappy LFG requirements, which is a major flaw in WoW's design.

That's only a couple things. Again, Google will answer 99% of questions with a little effort.

Can you link to that interview? Because the only interviews I find with Vigil are talking about characters in the singular form, no mention of squad based gameplay anywhere, besides saying that 'squad' is just their terminology for 'group'.

metallifan wrote:both THQ and Vigil are PC games companies. So it's probably going to be PC only

THQ is a publisher, and they have plenty of console titles out. Vigil only has 1 title out (Darksiders), which is a console game. That said, the 40K MMO is indeed probably going to be PC based.

So what do people think the playable races would be?

Ima hoping to be a tyranid apart from it would totally screw up everything.....

GO GO ripper class ^^

mor reilistically i can imagine space marines, eldar and Orks being in it deffinately.

I'd like the Guard in there but I can see issues with the sheer amount of different looks the guard posess. So if they are involved, most likely they'll be limited to Cadian, 'Chans and Steel Legion. Maybe some DKoK

sonofruss wrote:

Alpharius wrote:

Clay Williams wrote:Well work is sending me out to E3 this year, I will let you guys know what I find out.

Nice!

And really, if you can, get your picture taken with as many booth babes as possible.

I mean, I'm sure no one else will be doing it, so you shouldn't run into too many lines...

Alpharius is looking for more pics for a special mod dcm board thread.

Wha...?!?

OK, maybe...

Still, have fun, and be sure to file a report here, if you can!

Reecius wrote:Was Darksiders a crappy game? It sounds like people didn't like it.

From what I've heard, it got very mixed reviews. Some places I checked said it was an amazing game, others said it was awful. I haven't played it so I can't give my own opinion though.

I also hope it'll be like Planetside.

I'll even play Ultramarines, just so I can run around in New Conglomerate colors.

Redemption wrote:

metallifan wrote:The amount of people that still think this will be WoW: 40K astounds me.

Google-fu will unleash a tidal wave of interviews with Vigil and THQ that show this will be -nothing- like WoW, other than it's also an MMORPG.

You control one character that has command of a whole squad and their abilities/equipment.

Level (or equiv) won't make you unstoppable, even if you're at the maximum level/rank/whatever and a beginner takes you on. If that beginner puts a lasbolt/shuriken/etc... through your face, you're quite dead, as would be expected.

You don't need groups to complete missions. Your squad will act like a group in itself, meaning that there won't be a whole lot of dependancy on crappy LFG requirements, which is a major flaw in WoW's design.

That's only a couple things. Again, Google will answer 99% of questions with a little effort.

Can you link to that interview? Because the only interviews I find with Vigil are talking about characters in the singular form, no mention of squad based gameplay anywhere, besides saying that 'squad' is just their terminology for 'group'.

metallifan wrote:both THQ and Vigil are PC games companies. So it's probably going to be PC only

THQ is a publisher, and they have plenty of console titles out. Vigil only has 1 title out (Darksiders), which is a console game. That said, the 40K MMO is indeed probably going to be PC based.

Gamespot did an interview with them early last year in (I think) March, and Vigil was quoted with saying that players will have a "Squad Tree" similar to the talent tree in WoW, which will allow them to customize and pick their squad's abilities. The squad itself will consist of a proportionate number of NPCs. I'm looking for the link right now, but it might take some deep rooting considering how old it is.

Most of the interviews discussing Character, however, will only be in singular form because... well... you do only play one single character. You just have a squad of NPCs at your disposal, similar to Rainbow Six, ME2, that jazz.

Ahtman wrote:

under the creative lead of Joe Madureira

I am still waiting for him to continue the Battle Chasers comics which he put on "indefinite hold" an age ago

Howlingmoon wrote:

40kenthusiast wrote:I will buy a lifetime subscription to this game.

you'll pay an awful lot for something that won't last very long.

I would never buy that kind of subscription because we will have cheap Virtual Reality in near future(about 20 years from now).

metallifan wrote:
Gamespot did an interview with them early last year in (I think) March, and Vigil was quoted with saying that players will have a "Squad Tree" similar to the talent tree in WoW, which will allow them to customize and pick their squad's abilities. The squad itself will consist of a proportionate number of NPCs. I'm looking for the link right now, but it might take some deep rooting considering how old it is.

Most of the interviews discussing Character, however, will only be in singular form because... well... you do only play one single character. You just have a squad of NPCs at your disposal, similar to Rainbow Six, ME2, that jazz.

Well just been over Gamespot for about 20mins searching everything I could think of relating to 40K/MMO and I can't find anything about it. I'm also involved in a 40K MMO forum that has been relentlessly tracking info down, and although a lot (and I mean a lot) of folks on various forums are crying out for this idea of squad play, we haven't seen anything official from Vigil.

So if you can link the news, I'd love to be able to share it over at the site I'm on, as we somehow managed to miss it.

Guys,

Dont any of you play Dawn of War 2?

I would have thought its obvious that the basic mechanism of the new game will be game play comparable to The Last Stand portion of DOWII tied in with the launch loadout screens of the campaign.

This also gives you the playable factions: Space Marine, , Eldar and Chaos (incorporating the development for Chaos Rising to be released in March). Maybe Ork, but maybe not, as ork make sense as a neutral faction harassing everyone.

While they have developed the Tyrannid force tree and all the game build resources, they will probably keep playable factions limited so that they can control some kind of coherent meta-game.

They may develop Tau and Imperial Guard, or other viable alliable factions (Dark Eldar). More likely though, the business plan would have the juiciest possibilities reserved for annual expansions (the brightest future) case the initial offering succeeds in gathering enough subscribers.

The more humanlike races (Tau) make more sense in terms of allowing a basis for mutual identification and politics. The nids are monsterous and would be too ethically challenging (Nids have no morals so players could jettison theirs).

Nids make sense more as a universal threat,that everyone gets to fight when they are not going PVP.

My theory is that most of the game mechanics (and playable units)are already established in DOWII and Chaos Rising. This is the best use of the existing investment, and the least investment in risk if the game aultimately underperforms.

You can expect they have set up a scenario of a sector in space, a number of planetary systems, and secure home bases for each faction.

The best places will be contested zones, where of course faction versus faction is the whole point.

Initial focus will be on players doing some training and tutorials near home base against neutral (tyrannid) threats.

At a point of qualification or training, player takes on their squad and runs a few set missions.

Then out beyond base to the game proper.

While it will undoubtably look and play well enough, I'm dubious if they have the basis to make a really successful game.

The whole heart of WOW success is the levelling up process.....Tyhe way you take a green character from level 1 to level 120, fine tuning lovingly each set of skills and each area of specialisation... and the way you learn to use and improve your own gameplay, in evolution with the changing character.

Since present talk is a DOWII set up, where there are playstyles for different wargear builds, there is so much LESS to do with character development. The game will get boring quite fast.

Also with less power earned over time the game will favour the talented few, which will encourage the less gifted to give up in humiliation.

Co-operation in games is fun for everyone, but competition isn't when you are the idiot with the 1-33 kill to death ratio.

If there isn't an intriguing, elaborate, and worthwhile reason to continue the game (and reach higher levels, unlock new powers and combos) the game will die soon enough.

We all have too much to do in our lives, and truth be told too many other games to also enjoy, to tread water in perpetual parity.

If there is no illusion of becoming "kings" (for anyone who perseveres, even clutzes) there will be no reason to persevere.

OTG


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS: Building a squad isn't the same as building a character. If (please No!) you have to control and give orders to multiple units it will be less rather than more fun, since only commited keyboard masters will ever be able to co-ordinate multiple units, in comples combat.

Even monitoring multiple units in DOW II is a total pain in the arse, the reason TLS is the outstanding dimension of the game.

ghosty wrote:So what do people think the playable races would be?

Ima hoping to be a tyranid apart from it would totally screw up everything.....

GO GO ripper class ^^

mor reilistically i can imagine space marines, eldar and Orks being in it deffinately.

My guess is for simplicity it will start of Space Marines and Guard vs. Chaos and Orks. That the other races will initially present as NPCs for PVE, but eventually be added as playable later on. On the assumption that the mechanics follow DOWII, I think the races that would be hardest to incorporate would be Eldar and Necron, since they don't quite have the scalable hierarchy that lends its self to a leveling system that is tied to a squad based system. Eldar would start as guardians, work up to dire avengers, and then be forced down one of a number of aspects and kinda dead end; as opposed to marines with scout to tactical to Assault or Dev to Terminator or Stern or Vanguard to Command Squad to Honorguard. This is not to say they wouldn't be done, just that the Eldar would need a different structure than the first four I named. Tyranid and Tau I think would be the next easiest to incorporate as distinctive additions. Things like Grey Knights, SoB, and the Inquisition would be pretty easy buy wouldn't bring too much new flavor; probably done as mini-releases with Nid and Tau as major ones.

I think rippers would represent a power of a more powerful Tyranid. Like a high level warrior who can summon a ripper swarm once every minute or so.


I just hope they come up with a good way to deal with actual territorial conquest. Where retaking or taking a planet acutally means something, that isn't just reset the moment an instance closes.

...so this is a speculation thread on how people would want a 40k MMO to play? The truth is nobody will be satisfied as everyone has shown the myriad of possible preferences that are either wanted/needed. At best, if the MMO is just in the starting phases it'll be a few years before we see a beta let alone a released game.

This means absolutely nothing, but I was watching the Darksiders (the makers of which are developing thte 40K MMO) intro today and noticed that silhouette on the middle-right that looks suspiciously like a genestealer. Just for your amusement.

I don't think forcing players to pick a path and stick with it would be the best approach to this. Aren't Space Marines trained to act in any role, so that in one battle they may be a tactical marine, but if the situation calls for it they may be needed to man a heavy weapon in a Devastator squad and then take up a jump pack and chainsword in a later campaign? Similarly, for Eldar, Autarchs are Exarchs who studied many paths, and members of an Aspect Shrine will often leave it to pursue something else unless they become trapped on the path and become an Exarch.

Seems to me that the best approach would be to have a persistent character whose statistics remain independant of what "class" they are acting as. Classes themselves would simply be whatever role they intend to play and influence what their statistical improvements with each level are. This way, people won't have to reroll characters to try new roles; they simply may not necessarily have access to certain things until they reach a certain level, like needing to be a Veteran Sergeant (lvl whatever) to be allowed Assault Terminator status or something. Further still, it allows for personalized builds of characters that won't be possible in a strict "one character, one class" game. For example, If you know you want to be a Terminator later on, but you like acting as fire support and really like that sleek looking assault cannon, you spend a good portion of your early levels as a Devastator marine, getting bonuses to accuracy and heavy weapon proficiency so that when it comes to finally getting those Terminator Honors, you have your role clearly defined by your character's actual experience, rather than the experience simply acting as a pile of "power points" that you mound up over so many hours. If you are an Eldar, and want to be a Warlock later, you probably spend a few levels as a Fire Dragon or Dark Reaper to get your ranged abilities up, then spend some time as a close combat aspect, then maybe take up whatever path the game provides to improve your support/leadership skills. Fire Dragon experience helps increase your proficiency in using explosive area attacks like Destructor(the heavy flamer power), close combat experience will help you use the witchblades and singing spears that are the iconic weaponry of the class, and leadership experience make the Warlock good at what he does (buff other units). Since Eldar are obsessed with specialization until perfection before they move on, give them a bonus to experience gained or make their abilities more powerful the longer they play in one path to set the race apart. Space Marines, who are the epitome of battlefield flexibility, would start each path with more of the beginner skills and powers than other races would when they switch.

@ Railguns - That idea is probably the best I have heard so far, allowing players to adapt thier character to fit whatever role is needed, or whatever specific job they would like to fulfill. I can see it working for guard as well, putting in some Special Weapon time as well as some rapid assault to get good at Stormtrooping with a Melta.

I imagine it would probably work out something like, given a large set-piece battle against an army of NPC Tyranids, the player side may consist of any number of "Order" side players. An Eldar player who has spent a great deal of time as a Fire Dragon obliterating heavily armored targets would have to use his mobility to pick and choose the best targets for his talents because he loses a great deal of effectiveness when he changes classes and thus would be wasting his time trying to switch classes for whatever happens to show up in front of him. A Space Marine player, however, can start the battle as a Devastator with high RoF weaponry gunning down the chaff so that the previously mentioned Eldar player can go about his business without being bogged down. Should his position be overrun, he can go run to a supply station or something, switch his gear/class to Assault Marine, and use the good number of utilitarian starting abilities to clear away his position with relative efficiency rather than being insta-screwed by circumstance. Should he and his buds manage to clear a good firing position again, they can go back to their intended role. They won't be as awesome scything down gaunts like Striking Scorpions would, but then again a Striking Scorpion is basically stuck in that role for that battle while the Space Marine benefits from his flexibility. The min/max efficiency players get their nasty, nasty glass cannons while players who like to be prepared get their forgiving, heavy armored ubermensch.

as long as they don't screw up the lore like they did for wow. I'm happy with anything .

Rymafyr wrote:...so this is a speculation thread on how people would want a 40k MMO to play?

There really isn't enough information to do anything else, and it is fun to do.

Rymafyr wrote:The truth is nobody will be satisfied as everyone has shown the myriad of possible preferences that are either wanted/needed.

I doubt nobody will be satisfied. Sure, some people will be disappointed because it isn't the game they want, but that is always going to be true.

Rymafyr wrote:At best, if the MMO is just in the starting phases it'll be a few years before we see a beta let alone a released game.

Uhm, this isn't in the starting phase. THQ announced development on it some time ago. This is the announcement that we will finally see the work that has been done.

Here is a few scraps of info on gameplay + races

http://kotaku.com/389784/first-proper-details-on-warhammer-40k-mmo

Voodoo_Chile wrote:Here is a few scraps of info on gameplay + races

http://kotaku.com/389784/first-proper-details-on-warhammer-40k-mmo

scraps is right really they didn't say anything new just "WE WILL BE THE AWSOMIST OF THE AWSOME" thanks though for sharing as I do look forward to seeing what they do with this. Kinda wish they would even release some concept art or lore.

Railguns wrote:I don't think forcing players to pick a path and stick with it would be the best approach to this. Aren't Space Marines trained to act in any role, so that in one battle they may be a tactical marine, but if the situation calls for it they may be needed to man a heavy weapon in a Devastator squad and then take up a jump pack and chainsword in a later campaign?

I think the way they'd go about it is not a class base system. If it does take an approach similar to how DOWII did, I imagine the unit type you'd control and its function would be the by product of your equipment and not of any sort of class. That as you progress in level you are simply qualifying for new equipment. So that when you complete the tactical squad "tree" (we don't know if there are, but lack of a better word) or enough of it, you unlock the "Assault tree" and "Devastator tree" where you can select what additional skills and training your squad should recieve. That decision is yours and is the "character" building aspect of it. The reward for completing a certain number of "skills" might be access to terminator armor or artificer armor. Additional training as sergeant or commander may allow you to take on more marines into the squad or vehicles, or allow you to become a techmarine, apothecary, chaplain or just a better commander.

Empchild wrote:

Voodoo_Chile wrote:Here is a few scraps of info on gameplay + races

http://kotaku.com/389784/first-proper-details-on-warhammer-40k-mmo

scraps is right really they didn't say anything new just "WE WILL BE THE AWSOMIST OF THE AWSOME" thanks though for sharing as I do look forward to seeing what they do with this. Kinda wish they would even release some concept art or lore.

Sorry man upon further inspection I got the link to the original PC Gamer article and interview. The kotaku article really sums up the info
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/warhammer-40000-online/a-20080502174245201051

And here for more concept / screenshot

http://kotaku.com/5415951//gallery/gallery/1

Rymafyr wrote:The truth is nobody will be satisfied as everyone has shown the myriad of possible preferences that are either wanted/needed. At best, if the MMO is just in the starting phases it'll be a few years before we see a beta let alone a released game.

Its developments been in progress for 2 years. There is a strong implication that aspects of DOWII were incorporated into this, not just the publisher, but that key indivduals were moved from the DOWII team to the development team working on the MMO. The fact that its being announced at E3 says the developers believe its no more than 2 years off. That is not to say they'll stay on schedule, just that its far enough along to show something they think will impress.

Will "nobody... be satisfied"? I don't think so. I think there are people who no matter what will enjoy almost any game that is atleast put together well, even if it doesn't fullfill all their wants and needs. I think the only real way for this game to "fail," is if it tries to be or comes off too strongly as or is flat out a WOW clone. That ship has sailed, people who want THAT type of MMO can find a good number of clones to choose from in addition to the original. 40k is its own thing and as long as the game tries to be 40k, in more than just name, it should be successful.

I think this games biggest competitor will be "Old Republic", now that the MMO market is moving more and more into Sci-fi, mmo games in that category will not help but be compared to each other. So to be successful it needs to do something different and do it better than one of the other biggest Sci-fi franchises of all time. What can 40k be to compete with Star Wars?

I just hope that

1. battles are power epic, either give each player a squad to command, or huge numbers of npc's in action, or something, but I want my fights to look like the cover of my codex.

2. ability/player customization is strong enough I can do fun/unique things.

if it's a single character kind of game, I'd like to see em do something more along the lines of a MMO version of Borderlands where it's like a MMOFPSRPG, instead of like WOW where you just target a monster and press 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 over and over again, and every once in a while move out of the fire, poison clouds and big black circles. What I do love about WOW is the whole quest system, and it worked great for Borderlands too.

Hopefully, space marines will be NPCs, and everyone will at least start out as the toughness of an imperial guardsman, eldar guardan, etc. That or make everyone marines, chaos marines, aspect warriors, etc.

You know, I hadn't thought of this much before I read the articles about the 40K MMO, but I think one distinct issue that the game will have purely from a subscriber perspective is that I doubt that the game will be able to attract a similar female playerbase that WoW or Everquest have been able to garner. I mean, I don't know what the numbers are for those games, I know that the fantasy genre has a greater appeal to women than sci-fi, in general, and military sci-fi (which is what 40K is really), in particular.

Grundz wrote:I just hope that

1. battles are power epic, either give each player a squad to command, or huge numbers of npc's in action, or something, but I want my fights to look like the cover of my codex.

2. ability/player customization is strong enough I can do fun/unique things.

1. Apparently we'll be taking to the field "alongside massive AI armies". Supposedly it's going to feel like controlling a single squad in the middle of a huge RTS battle, which has me totally giddy in the manbits. So you're covered there.

2.According to THQ, we'll have "The coolest looking characters ever", and they went on to say "You can call us on that once we really start showing off the game". Apparently we'll have everything from weapon mod kits, to improvements on armour, to different camo schemes, and we'll even get to add purity seals/litanies, books, chains and, of course, LOTZOFSKULLZORZ!!1!

"If you think about it, “Group” is a just another way of saying “Squad”."

This seems to imply that you control one character and groups of people together are squads but I could easily be wrong. But in support of this:

"Relic has the RTS angle covered with the awesome Dawn of War series - we are making an RPG."

CrazyThang wrote:"If you think about it, “Group” is a just another way of saying “Squad”."

This seems to imply that you control one character and groups of people together are squads but I could easily be wrong. But in support of this:

"Relic has the RTS angle covered with the awesome Dawn of War series - we are making an RPG."

See, but having a squad to control hardly even comes close to classifying it as an RTS. ME2 wasn't an RTS - it was an RPG. SWBG wasn't an RTS, it was an FPS. One brick won't build you a house, right? That THQ has the RTS angle with DoW means nothing as far as the likelihood of player squads goes.

It might even be that you only command a squad on the battlefield, and then you're on your own when out of combat, which would be a much more likely explaination of any singular referances. That, or because the squad would be made up of NPCs, they probably only refer to the player character as that's the main focus. Having squads likely won't make any difference in parties either. To me, squads seem like Vigil's version of a talent tree, with each squad member representing a branch of the tree. So your Guardsman's heavy weapons spec might be two guys with a heavy bolter instead of you carting one around yourself like some kind of roid-monkey. Then you might build up a healing spec as your second choice, which would put a medic into your squad. Makes perfect sense. Just gives others a visual battlefield representation of what your character build is.

I guess we will just have to wait for E3 :( . ... is it E3 yet?

A cross between an MMo and RTS would be interesting, but I think 40k would be best as a 1st person shooter MMO.

Aye, 100% now in my mind this whole 'Squad' thing is wishlisting. It's obviously clear when he's talking about the Squad, he's just referencing that in the 40K MMO you'll be making a Squad with other players not a Group.

Nothing in that that says you'll be controlling more than one character.

Oh and the extra art work was stuff from a concept artist who then got fired when it hit the net. No one actually knows if its any indication of the game's look although he did say it was just him practising and it wasn't supposed to be in game stuff.

They probably fired him as he was no longer seen as safe to keep leaks under wraps. Real shame if it wasn't him as he suggests who posted the info on the net.

metallifan wrote:See, but having a squad to control hardly even comes close to classifying it as an RTS. ME2 wasn't an RTS - it was an RPG. SWBG wasn't an RTS, it was an FPS. One brick won't build you a house, right? That THQ has the RTS angle with DoW means nothing as far as the likelihood of player squads goes.

It might even be that you only command a squad on the battlefield, and then you're on your own when out of combat, which would be a much more likely explaination of any singular referances. That, or because the squad would be made up of NPCs, they probably only refer to the player character as that's the main focus. Having squads likely won't make any difference in parties either. To me, squads seem like Vigil's version of a talent tree, with each squad member representing a branch of the tree. So your Guardsman's heavy weapons spec might be two guys with a heavy bolter instead of you carting one around yourself like some kind of roid-monkey. Then you might build up a healing spec as your second choice, which would put a medic into your squad. Makes perfect sense. Just gives others a visual battlefield representation of what your character build is.

I would love it to be a squad based MMO, as then it would really have something to differentiate from other MMOs and it would be easier to balance classes and races while staying true to fluff. You could start with something like a '20 point squad', which is 1 Space Marine, or a handfull of Guardsmen or Orks Boys, and as you level go up to something like a '200 point squad', like a 10 man Tactical Marine Squad, or 5 Terminators.

But sadly, I have yet to see any real evidence that the game will be squad based. Any luck in finding the article you mentioned earlier in the thread, metallifan? Because every interview/preview I've seen doesn't mention squad based combat at all. You'd think they would promote such a feature if it was actually in.

I haven't had any luck, no. Which is a downer because it mentioned a whole schwack of good stuff they were planning on putting in. The squad combat was just the one that stuck out most for me. There was a bunch of stuff though, about choosing homeworlds, what sort of armour and weapon kits you'll be able to find, all sorts of good stuff. Spent the better part of two days looking. My guess is that someone from Vigil or THQ got a little too loose-lipped and they asked to have a sheet tossed on the topic until release. Makes me sad