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

ShumaGorath wrote:No one cares about total annihilation

TA:Spring is still running. TA Total Conversions have been released as late as five years ago, and that's just when I last checked. Quite a damn few people cared and still care about TA-- indeed, far more has been done for and to TA than ever was done for Starcraft. Try doing a bit of research. No, the main reason that TA is dying is because it has no company to support it. Meanwhile Starcraft has had Blizzard's constant support since the nineties, and because Starcraft is inexplicably popular in Korea.

As for the rest:

-- You accuse me of disliking popular franchises without actually knowing jack diddly squat about what I like or don't like. Right, this comment is stupid, let's move right along.

-- Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, Army of Two, Dead Space, Saint's Row, Resistance: Retribution (which is strange, I'd have thought FPS would have worked better on a portable than 3PS), Postal (the third game changed to third person), Global Agenda, APB, and so many more show otherwise. As I said (Which you appeared to skip over...) I haven't kept up with the shooter genre as well as I'd have liked, but I see a damned lot of these being produced where I didn't before.

-- Lol, ugly? As opposed to the hilarious replay of a starcraft match where the announcer was absolutely drooling over how well the player handled their tiny, ugly little drones? I don't think so. Actually, Supreme Commander was quite beautiful. You just needed a machine made by the Dwarves of the First Age, blessed by the Omnissiah and powered by Spice in order to see its full beauty at the time. And yet it was still successful enough that they produced a sequel that itself is quite successful as well-- refining and changing the game while keeping the game's identity. You know, progression! Oh wait, that's right, progression is a myth, I'm sorry I appear to have lost my head for a moment.

-- LE GASP! You mean... COMPANIES ARE ADAPTING TO SUPERIOR HARDWARE?!? OH NOES, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! But seriously, you're admitting there is progression then denying it. Make up your mind. Also, nobody gives a damn about "professional" RTS tournaments anyway. But fan-run tournaments (most notably Game Replays) are quite common.

Also, nobody gives a damn about "professional" RTS tournaments anyway. But fan-run tournaments (most notably Game Replays) are quite common.

Right, so whatever you say, is completely true.

I mean honestly man, YOU'RE deciding what I care about?

TA:Spring is still running. TA Total Conversions have been released as late as five years ago, and that's just when I last checked. Quite a damn few people cared and still care about TA-- indeed, far more has been done for and to TA than ever was done for Starcraft. Try doing a bit of research.

The communities are so vastly disparate that this isn't even worse discussing.

[*]You accuse me of disliking popular franchises without actually knowing jack diddly squat about what I like or don't like. Right, this comment is stupid, let's move right along.

Yes, please.

[*]Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, Army of Two, Dead Space, Saint's Row, Resistance: Retribution (which is strange, I'd have thought FPS would have worked better on a portable than 3PS), Postal (the third game changed to third person), Global Agenda, APB, and so many more show otherwise. As I said (Which you appeared to skip over...) I haven't kept up with the shooter genre as well as I'd have liked, but I see a damned lot of these being produced where I didn't before.

Lets look at e3!

Rage
Halo: reach
Killzone 3
Portal 2
Goldene...

Wait a second. You listed several games that were old... No. No I'm not fething arguing the absolute number of first person shooter games to third person perspective games historically, nor am I going to assemble a vector curve so that you can have a graph.

[*]Lol, ugly? As opposed to the hilarious replay of a starcraft match where the announcer was absolutely drooling over how well the player handled their tiny, ugly little drones? I don't think so. Actually, Supreme Commander was quite beautiful. You just needed a machine made by the Dwarves of the First Age, blessed by the Omnissiah and powered by Spice in order to see its full beauty at the time. And yet it was still successful enough that they produced a sequel that itself is quite successful as well-- refining and changing the game while keeping the game's identity. You know, progression! Oh wait, that's right, progression is a myth, I'm sorry I appear to have lost my head for a moment.

My mac played it just fine (though it wasn't new then). The myth of progression was that it's not always better. Not always. NOT ALWAYS.

You're not very good at reading the english language, nor communicating your points. But then your points are terrible, so it doesn't really matter much.

[*]LE GASP! You mean... COMPANIES ARE ADAPTING TO SUPERIOR HARDWARE?!? OH NOES, WE CAN'T HAVE THAT! But seriously, you're admitting there is progression then denying it. Make up your mind. Also, nobody gives a damn about "professional" RTS tournaments anyway. But fan-run tournaments (most notably Game Replays) are quite common.

It appears that you don't have the capability of understand a nuanced concept like "Different and new does not mean better". I'm going to stop arguing it with you. You're just pretty miserable in general at debating whatever your point is (I'm confidant you don't actually have one) and you've managed to equivocate so many times I'm confidant you may actually be a shapeshifter.

I think we're done here.

Hey lets turn a 40k MMO thread, into a wow and other (wtf?!) rts/random games love/hate thread.



Good job fellas

Karon wrote:Also, nobody gives a damn about "professional" RTS tournaments anyway. But fan-run tournaments (most notably Game Replays) are quite common.

Right, so whatever you say, is completely true.

I mean honestly man, YOU'RE deciding what I care about?

I was speaking in hyperbole, but statistically speaking the numbers back me up. The majority of people who buy games are not competitive players, nor do they watch professional gaming tournaments.

When I say majority, I'm speaking of ~80% or more, based off of numbers from various companies in the gaming industry (most notably in my memory, statements by Valve, GasPoweredGames, and Relic).

ShumaGorath wrote:It appears that you don't have the capability of understand a nuanced concept like "Different and new does not mean better"

Actually the main problem appears to be that you refuse to admit that new != worse.

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

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

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

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

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

Actually, no they didn't.

Team Evil was labeled as DISorder, not Destruction.

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:Also, nobody gives a damn about "professional" RTS tournaments anyway. But fan-run tournaments (most notably Game Replays) are quite common.

Right, so whatever you say, is completely true.

I mean honestly man, YOU'RE deciding what I care about?

I was speaking in hyperbole, but statistically speaking the numbers back me up. The majority of people who buy games are not competitive players, nor do they watch professional gaming tournaments.

When I say majority, I'm speaking of ~80% or more, based off of numbers from various companies in the gaming industry (most notably in my memory, statements by Valve, GasPoweredGames, and Relic).

ShumaGorath wrote:It appears that you don't have the capability of understand a nuanced concept like "Different and new does not mean better"

Actually the main problem appears to be that you refuse to admit that new != worse.

I want links to these statistics, or you're argument is worthless.

Actually the main problem appears to be that you refuse to admit that new != worse.

Lol wut.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Actually the main problem appears to be that you refuse to admit that new != worse.

Lol wut.

Flaming off topic spam wars in the news & rumour forum? Guess who is back from a temporary ban

Karon wrote:I want links to these statistics, or you're argument is worthless.

Finding the information is like finding a needle in a haystack (RelicNews Archives is very painful to search through).

However, I did find this from a google search:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6188668.html
72% of the US population between 6 and 44 say that they play games. ~59% of the population above two years plays games. The US has a population of ~309,519,000. I'm too lazy to sift through google that much longer to determine the actual percentage of players who play competitively, but I DID find that 48% of the US population identifies themselves as casual gamers. If you assume the remaining 11% are competitive (which is not a safe assumption, but let's roll with it), then that means only ~18% of the gaming population plays competitively-- larger than I expected, but not really by much. That's still quite a niche market.

Statistics aren't my strong point, however. If you can find better information, go ahead and show it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Lol wut.

*shrug* That's the vibe I'm getting from your posts. Don't look shocked, you make a similar assumption about my likes and dislikes. Honestly, did you expect that comment of yours to promote the conversation at all in a positive manner?

Platuan4th wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Platuan4th wrote:

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

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

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

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

Actually, no they didn't.

Team Evil was labeled as DISorder, not Destruction.

Odd. The WD I've got with the campaign rules reprinted(June 2005) had them labeled as "Forces of Destruction".

However--Destruction still sounds far better than "Forces of Disorder" or "Forces of Order", in my opinion.

Melissia wrote:

Karon wrote:I want links to these statistics, or you're argument is worthless.

Finding the information is like finding a needle in a haystack (RelicNews Archives is very painful to search through).

However, I did find this from a google search:
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6188668.html
72% of the US population between 6 and 44 say that they play games. ~59% of the population above two years plays games. The US has a population of ~309,519,000. I'm too lazy to sift through google that much longer to determine the actual percentage of players who play competitively, but I DID find that 48% of the US population identifies themselves as casual gamers. If you assume the remaining 11% are competitive (which is not a safe assumption, but let's roll with it), then that means only ~18% of the gaming population plays competitively-- larger than I expected, but not really by much. That's still quite a niche market.

Statistics aren't my strong point, however. If you can find better information, go ahead and show it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:Lol wut.

*shrug* That's the vibe I'm getting from your posts. Don't look shocked, you make a similar assumption about my likes and dislikes.

I'm satisfied with the statistics, Melissa, appreciate that.

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

He was saying he had no idea what you meant by that sentence.

I apologize for participating in this off-topic talk, I'll bow out and start talking about the game.

Somebody close this thread to shut these idiots up. Open a new one to discuss Dark Millennium

Right.


So, my predictions on how the factions will come out:

Imperium:
-- Space Marine (individually powerful, durable)
-- Guardsman (individually weak, with henchmen and support weapons)
-- POSSIBLY Sisters as a "healer" or "buffer" unit with offensive power, ala the warrior priest in WAR

Orks:
-- Slugga Boy
-- Shoota Boy
-- Possibly a Weirdboy or Mekboy with strange technology for powers?

Eldar:
-- I'm honestly not sure. The obvious path would be warlock or aspect warrior, to me anyway. Farseers as the third option?

Chaos:
-- Chaos Marine (Not as good equipment, but with mutation?)
-- Chaos Cultist (similar to Guardsman, but with more close combat / sorcery / mutations?)
-- (possibly sorcerer? I know I saw a player character in a white robe using warp powers in the video).

*shrug* That's the vibe I'm getting from your posts. Don't look shocked, you make a similar assumption about my likes and dislikes. Honestly, did you expect that comment of yours to promote the conversation at all in a positive manner?

With you? I didn't expect it too for the reason I gave. Others picked up on a few of the things I stated though.

Somebody close this thread to shut these idiots up. Open a new one to discuss Dark Millennium

Thats what this thread is. You had to pass one page of semi related discussion pertaining to game theory (and trolling) out of eleven. Do you want me to call a waaaaahmbulance?

Odd. The WD I've got with the campaign rules reprinted(June 2005) had them labeled as "Forces of Destruction".

However--Destruction still sounds far better than "Forces of Disorder" or "Forces of Order", in my opinion.

They're just going to copy what they had in WAR anyway and the discussion isn't of paramount importance, whatever alternative they use for good and evil has truly little bearing on the game proper.

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats what this thread is. You had to pass one page of semi related discussion pertaining to game theory (and trolling)

Don't be so hard on yourself, I don't think you were trolling (intentionally)

Here's to hoping some people here DO have something resembling a sense of humor and see this for the jesting it is : P

Do you want me to call a waaaaahmbulance?

Yes...yes i do

Melissia wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Thats what this thread is. You had to pass one page of semi related discussion pertaining to game theory (and trolling)

Don't be so hard on yourself, I don't think you were trolling (intentionally)

Here's to hoping some people here DO have something resembling a sense of humor and see this for the jesting it is : P

*Badumpsh*

Yes...yes i do

Melissia and Shuma... I would strongly recommend that you both just learn to accept that people sometimes have a different opinion to your own, and move on. You don't need to have the last word, and you don't need to prove the other wrong.

Let's let the thread get back on track, for those interested in actual discussion, no?

insaniak wrote:Let's let the thread get back on track, for those interested in actual discussion, no?

That's what I was trying to do, along with saying a few bad jokes to lighten the conversation a bit. Mind you, my bad jokes aren't always successful.

So... from earlier on this page, speculation based off of what we've seen:

Melissia wrote:Right.


So, my predictions on how the factions will come out:

Imperium:
-- Space Marine (individually powerful, durable)
-- Guardsman (individually weak, with henchmen and support weapons)
-- POSSIBLY Sisters as a "healer" or "buffer" unit with offensive power, ala the warrior priest in WAR

Orks:
-- Slugga Boy
-- Shoota Boy
-- Possibly a Weirdboy or Mekboy with strange technology for powers?

Eldar:
-- I'm honestly not sure. The obvious path would be warlock or aspect warrior, to me anyway. Farseers as the third option?

Chaos:
-- Chaos Marine (Not as good equipment, but with mutation?)
-- Chaos Cultist (similar to Guardsman, but with more close combat / sorcery / mutations?)
-- (possibly sorcerer? I know I saw a player character in a white robe using warp powers in the video).

Melissia wrote:

insaniak wrote:Let's let the thread get back on track, for those interested in actual discussion, no?

That's what I was trying to do, along with saying a few bad jokes to lighten the conversation a bit. Mind you, my bad jokes aren't always successful.

So... from earlier on this page, speculation based off of what we've seen:

Melissia wrote:Right.


So, my predictions on how the factions will come out:

Imperium:
-- Space Marine (individually powerful, durable)
-- Guardsman (individually weak, with henchmen and support weapons)
-- POSSIBLY Sisters as a "healer" or "buffer" unit with offensive power, ala the warrior priest in WAR

Orks:
-- Slugga Boy
-- Shoota Boy
-- Possibly a Weirdboy or Mekboy with strange technology for powers?

Eldar:
-- I'm honestly not sure. The obvious path would be warlock or aspect warrior, to me anyway. Farseers as the third option?

Chaos:
-- Chaos Marine (Not as good equipment, but with mutation?)
-- Chaos Cultist (similar to Guardsman, but with more close combat / sorcery / mutations?)
-- (possibly sorcerer? I know I saw a player character in a white robe using warp powers in the video).

I saw an Inquisitor in the video that looked like a PC so hopefully they are playable. Also, I really like Sister of Battle and I really don't want to be forced into a healer position if I chose to play one.

Well thats alot of speculation "based off what we've seen"...

In the trailer we have:
Imperium:
Enginseer
Guardsmen
Black Templar
Warhound Titan
Marine Biker

Ork:
Slugga Boy
Megga Nob
Deffkopta
Truk

Chaos:
Daemon Prince of Nurgle
Khorne Bezerkers
Bezerkers on Bikes
Chaos Cultist
Dreadnought
Sorcerer

Keep in mind taht that guy in the white robe could have also been an Imperial Psyker instead.

Now this is a WIN .

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I saw an Inquisitor in the video that looked like a PC so hopefully they are playable. Also, I really like Sister of Battle and I really don't want to be forced into a healer position if I chose to play one.

Have you played WAR, most notably the Warrior Priest in WAR?

They're a melee combatant who wears heavy armor, and gains the mana for spellcasting through dealing damage, if my memory serves me. It's a grea concept.

I really want to be a Princeps of a Warhound...

Something tells me the warhound will be one of those "micro-transaction" items... pay $50 for a warhound!

Melissia wrote:

c34r34lk1ll3r wrote:I saw an Inquisitor in the video that looked like a PC so hopefully they are playable. Also, I really like Sister of Battle and I really don't want to be forced into a healer position if I chose to play one.

Have you played WAR, most notably the Warrior Priest in WAR?

They're a melee combatant who wears heavy armor, and gains the mana for spellcasting through dealing damage, if my memory serves me. It's a grea concept.

No I haven't. But from what I know Sisters of Battle are heavily aligned with the Ordo Hereticus and I don't see them using magic like that, however, they do have the prayer aspect which may be what you are talking about.

That and Acts of Faith.