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.

nomotog wrote:
You know, we don't have to be so pessimistic.

Being pessimistic means that I am never disappointed. I can only confirm my pessimism or be pleasantly surprised at being wrong.

So, Melissa, now you are referring to the developer as a douche bag. Your extremism really destroys your credibility in this thread. Why are you so wound up about this guy?

Go re read the interview. He says that he doesn't care about game balance *at launch*. It will have to be balanced in time or the whole game would be unplayable.

 BryllCream wrote:
Go re read the interview. He says that he doesn't care about game balance.

That's not what he said.

 BryllCream wrote:
It will have to be balanced in time or the whole game would be unplayable.

Since when has that ever stopped devs?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JWhex wrote:
So, Melissa, now you are referring to the developer as a douche bag. Your extremism really destroys your credibility in this thread.

I don't care.

As for why I dislike the way he's presented himself? Because of practically everything the guy said in the first two interviews about the game. "I hate free players they're all donkey-caves and gak-fethers and I want to punish them for playing my game!" "Durr Sisters are just there to be slaughtered by their allies." "We want you to backstab your friends and create characters specifically to spy on the other factions!" Etc etc etc. Aside from it being a third person shooter, there wasn't really a single good thing about the game said in those interviews, and to top it off he made himself sound like a total tool repeating "there is only war!" as if it was some kind of an answer to the questions he was asked.

I don't really care about my "credibility" regarding this thread. I'm not representing a multimillion dollar investment in a game that will take years of man-hours to produce and is wanting to change the industry forever. I'm just me, and that means I'm going to be as honest as I possibly can.

Melissia, you can remain skeptical of the game, I certainly am, but personally insulting the developer is too far.

Why can't you be more mildly amused at the things he says like I am?

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Why can't you be more mildly amused at the things he says like I am?

I'm being outspoken and passionate about my opinions because I want more from the game, even if I don't expect it.

I probably should have phrased myself as "he made himself sound like a total d-bag" but meh, too late for htat.

 Melissia wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Go re read the interview. He says that he doesn't care about game balance at launch.

That's not what he said.

Yes it is:

"I don't care about game balance at launch" he said.

I'd like to hear you explain how those last two words away

Since when has that ever stopped devs?

That's childish. Devs aren't going to sit back and watch one faction dominate the game world when they could balance them by simply tweaking some numbers, they're not idiots.

Because Melissia is well... being herself. People might be forgetting that the game is planing one of the worst F2P models I have seen in recent years. That is something to be very cynical about.

 BryllCream wrote:
they're not idiots.

In many cases, that's debatable. But we're getting off topic here.

 BryllCream wrote:
Go re read the interview. He says that he doesn't care about game balance *at launch*. It will have to be balanced in time or the whole game would be unplayable.

I am with Melissia on this one. Imbalance at launch is exactly what a greedy F2P developer loves. It's perfect for your business model! If at launch, there are heavy advantages for paying players. Have a look at qualitative F2P studies. The primary motivation for people to spend money isn't "fun". It's frustration and power. Most people spend money either out of frustration in order to be stronger than the person who won vs them before or because they simply want to be superior. Easy cash for you. It starts a very expensive circle as the enemy now starts to spend money too...etc. The only winner in this race? The developer.

The sad thing is: it can work the other way around as well. League of Legends is the most successful F2P game out there but has a very fair F2P system with no advantages for anyone. Why does it work? Because it hopped on the DotA bandwagon, of course, but still has top-notch design. It's an extremely good game.

Now...what is easier? Design a very good game that draws a lot of people in? Or have a system that also makes a lot of money because it is Pay-to-Win?

Bazinga.

nomotog wrote:
Because Melissia is well... being herself. People might be forgetting that the game is planing one of the worst F2P models I have seen in recent years. That is something to be very cynical about.

Why is it? Why do you have a right to play a game for free? It's hardly on the same level as sunlight or water

Personally, the notion of paying a subscription fee has always been fething stupid from my point of view, and is why I've never played World of Warcraft. I already bought the game, I am not going to continue paying someone to pay it. I would not get this game based on that alone, unless it were truly spectacular.

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Personally, the notion of paying a subscription fee has always been fething stupid from my point of view, and is why I've never played World of Warcraft. I already bought the game, I am not going to continue paying someone to pay it. I would not get this game based on that alone, unless it were truly spectacular.

To be fair, though, a MMORPG has significantly higher upkeep costs than a regular title. 13€, however, are too high imo. 5€ is a fair compromise imo...but alas, GW2 managed to get away with no fees and it's an outstanding game!

That's true.

Which is a shame, since MMORPGs are in general worse games than normal games, so despite the cost to upkeep them, I have no incentive to actually play them.

nomotog wrote:one of the worst F2P models I have seen in recent years

I don't know - I actually like the idea, it just really, really depends on how many people play which faction. If "Orks = Free" is enough to get more people to play Orks than Space Marines, I would personally welcome the challenge of basically zerg-rushing the individually stronger factions, just like I think it'd be fun from the other side to try and "stem the tide".

The only problem is that this concept is very vulnerably to tipping too far towards either extreme - on one side Orks being so numerous that it gets impossible to establish a defense against them, and on the other Orks not being numerous enough to actually give them a chance at winning. Needless to say, Space Marines are the more popular faction. But is their popularity stronger than the attraction of Orks being free? That is impossible to say at this point, and I don't see why the debate needs to get hung up on this bit when the developers have not gone into further detail yet, and when we keep in mind that, in theory, they may well implement mechanics such as different player caps per map instance.

Which is kinda how it worked in Dawn of War (if you replace "player" with "unit") and worked well to balance the races in that game.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Go re read the interview. He says that he doesn't care about game balance *at launch*. It will have to be balanced in time or the whole game would be unplayable.

I am with Melissia on this one. Imbalance at launch is exactly what a greedy F2P developer loves. It's perfect for your business model! If at launch, there are heavy advantages for paying players. Have a look at qualitative F2P studies. The primary motivation for people to spend money isn't "fun". It's frustration and power. Most people spend money either out of frustration in order to be stronger than the person who won vs them before or because they simply want to be superior. Easy cash for you. It starts a very expensive circle as the enemy now starts to spend money too...etc. The only winner in this race? The developer.

It's cute you think that developers would deliberately inbalance the game...because we all know game balance just falls into developers hands and it's up to them to screw it up? Lol. Game developers *wish* they could imbalance a game to make money

 BryllCream wrote:

It's cute you think that developers would deliberately inbalance the game...b

Bryll, they do. Most F2P games do so...deal more damage, have more hp, unlock considerably stronger weapons etc. That's what "Pay to win" refers to. It's standard practice...check it out.

 Lynata wrote:

nomotog wrote:one of the worst F2P models I have seen in recent years

I don't know - I actually like the idea, it just really, really depends on how many people play which faction. If "Orks = Free" is enough to get more people to play Orks than Space Marines, I would personally welcome the challenge of basically zerg-rushing the individually stronger factions, just like I think it'd be fun from the other side to try and "stem the tide".

The only problem is that this concept is very vulnerably to tipping too far towards either extreme - on one side Orks being so numerous that it gets impossible to establish a defense against them, and on the other Orks not being numerous enough to actually give them a chance at winning. Needless to say, Space Marines are the more popular faction. But is their popularity stronger than the attraction of Orks being free? That is impossible to say at this point, and I don't see why the debate needs to get hung up on this bit when the developers have not gone into further detail yet, and when we keep in mind that, in theory, they may well implement mechanics such as different player caps per map instance.

Which is kinda how it worked in Dawn of War (if you replace "player" with "unit") and worked well to balance the races in that game.

I actually agree with this, the only thing I'm worried about is that paying Ork players may end up getting shafted by this. One would assume paying ork players would end up as the nobs, mekboys and all the specialized classes. However, since they are allied with the free players they may end up being completely unreliable due to needing boys with them.

 BryllCream wrote:

It's cute you think that developers would deliberately inbalance the game...because we all know game balance just falls into developers hands and it's up to them to screw it up? Lol. Game developers *wish* they could imbalance a game to make money

Only the developers have said "War is not balanced, why should a game about war be balanced?" and confirmed that Ork players are starting out a fifth as strong as a starting Marine player, so there is basis for it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

It's cute you think that developers would deliberately inbalance the game...b

Bryll, they do. Most F2P games do so...deal more damage, have more hp, unlock considerably stronger weapons etc. That's what "Pay to win" refers to. It's standard practice...check it out.

You can't equate "pay to win" with "pay to not pay the demo race". Orks are nerfed because they're free. If you don't want to be nerfed, pay for the damn game.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

It's cute you think that developers would deliberately inbalance the game...because we all know game balance just falls into developers hands and it's up to them to screw it up? Lol. Game developers *wish* they could imbalance a game to make money

Only the developers have said "War is not balanced, why should a game about war be balanced?" and confirmed that Ork players are starting out a fifth as strong as a starting Marine player, so there is basis for it.

Right, because orks are free You're kidding yourself if you think the actual game will simply involve space marines stomping around killing everyone else. such a game would be boring to play as any of the races, and flop.

 BryllCream wrote:

Orks are nerfed because they're free. If you don't want to be nerfed, pay for the damn game.

Pay-to-win, textbook definition.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Orks are nerfed because they're free. If you don't want to be nerfed, pay for the damn game.

Pay-to-win, textbook definition.

You're just being childish now. You're honestly that complaining that the full game is better than the demo? If you want something, pay for it.

 BryllCream wrote:
Right, because orks are free You're kidding yourself if you think the actual game will simply involve space marines stomping around killing everyone else. such a game would be boring to play as any of the races, and flop.

Beware who you condescend to my son. It doesn't work on people smarter than you.

Paying Ork players start off weaker than Marines, by they dev's wording. They can advance further, but that doesn't change the fact that Marines are starting off with a notable advantage against Ork players.

Lynata, thanks for emailing the staff! I find myself more interested thanks to their responses.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Orks are nerfed because they're free. If you don't want to be nerfed, pay for the damn game.

Pay-to-win, textbook definition.

You're just being childish now. You're honestly that complaining that the full game is better than the demo? If you want something, pay for it.

It is not the demo. It's the entire game. It's marketed as such. It considerably favors paying players. It gives them a huge advantage over other players. What about players who want to play Orks for fluff reasons? Screwed over.

It's a very poor Pay-to-Win concept and it's a shame to use 40k for such purposes.

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Paying Ork players start off weaker than Marines, by they dev's wording. They can advance further, but that doesn't change the fact that Marines are starting off with a notable advantage against Ork players.

And you know how long it will take, do you? You know that orks can't get to an equal footing with marine players by simply killing tyranids? You know that they won't be able to craft their way up?

You seem to be imagining the worst possible game they could make, then deciding that's what they *are* making. Individual orks are inferior to a single space marine in the fluff, only at higher levels does it balance out (and indeed, swing the other way - though back into balance once you account for wargear). So the devs could either impliment this, while cleverly introducing them as a free-to-play race at lower levels, or they could piss over the fluff and have ork boys tearing through power armour with ease.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

It's cute you think that developers would deliberately inbalance the game...because we all know game balance just falls into developers hands and it's up to them to screw it up? Lol. Game developers *wish* they could imbalance a game to make money

Only the developers have said "War is not balanced, why should a game about war be balanced?" and confirmed that Ork players are starting out a fifth as strong as a starting Marine player, so there is basis for it.

Right, because orks are free You're kidding yourself if you think the actual game will simply involve space marines stomping around killing everyone else. such a game would be boring to play as any of the races, and flop.

He does raise a good point. As the developer tells it, the Ork faction is going to be heavily shaped by those FTP players. Could be that the masses of FTPs, on top of the regular paying Ork players, gives the Orks an unfair advantage at first. Conversely, the FTPs could hold the Orks back somehow, maybe by taking away spaces from the normal, paying Orks. Though if it becomes a major issue, one would expect the devs to address it.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Orks are nerfed because they're free. If you don't want to be nerfed, pay for the damn game.

Pay-to-win, textbook definition.

You're just being childish now. You're honestly that complaining that the full game is better than the demo? If you want something, pay for it.

It is not the demo. It's the entire game. It's marketed as such. It considerably favors paying players. It gives them a huge advantage over other players. What about players who want to play Orks for fluff reasons? Screwed over.

...for the first few levels. When was the last time you heard someone complaining about WOW's balance at level 5? It does not make up the majority of the game for ork players.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:

Orks are nerfed because they're free. If you don't want to be nerfed, pay for the damn game.

Pay-to-win, textbook definition.

You're just being childish now. You're honestly that complaining that the full game is better than the demo? If you want something, pay for it.

It is not the demo. It's the entire game. It's marketed as such. It considerably favors paying players. It gives them a huge advantage over other players. What about players who want to play Orks for fluff reasons? Screwed over.

...for the first few levels. When was the last time you heard someone complaining about WOW's balance at level 5? It does not make up the majority of the game for ork players.

Mainly because WoW is extremely well-balanced, has hardly different classes and PvP doesn't begin before level...~30.

Soladrin wrote:I actually agree with this, the only thing I'm worried about is that paying Ork players may end up getting shafted by this. One would assume paying ork players would end up as the nobs, mekboys and all the specialized classes. However, since they are allied with the free players they may end up being completely unreliable due to needing boys with them.

True, I suppose that adds a bit of extra difficulty to the balancing act. They need not only to keep in mind the hordes of free players, but also the paying Orks - and vice versa. Ideally, should they actually end up implementing mechanics to somehow "steer" player participation towards specific battle zones in the hopes of allowing roughly equal forces to clash, they should probably have at least a good guess of how many Ork players are dropping in as Boyz and how many are dropping as something more dangerous, and calculate the limits accordingly.

That being said ... let's not forget that, from all the descriptions provided so far, the game sounds a bit "open world" with large maps allowing for lots of player initiative. In this, the forces need not be balanced because you'll rarely have equal numbers clash with each other anyways. It could well be like in Planetside where you're better off finding a bunch of other players to hang around with, and march to battle alongside them. It doesn't matter whether you run around solo as a Space Marine or an Ork Boy, you're bound to get killed quickly either way. If they are really designing the game this way, I'd expect a lot of back and forth, with many ad-hoc armies forming up, pushing into enemy territory, and retreating again or getting ripped apart once the enemy gets their act together. This can work with Orks just as it can work with Marines. Ideally, those Orks who pay to play will have a better ability to direct their forces, and perhaps not only get a stronger character for their cash but also the feeling of playing an important role on the battlefield, as a lot of Boyz may stick to your flag. Which kinda sounds fun, and is more than the Space Marine players can say.

If I were the devs, I'd actually consider expanding this idea and make the Imperial Guard the same. And add free Cultists to the CSMs.