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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

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

And you know that the "proper" game for this 40k MMO won't start at level x because?

For all we know everything under level 10 will take place in our race's homeland, and orks are free until level 10. See how many things you're presuming?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:

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.

Not sure about Imperial Guard, since ideally they'd get their own race. But it's a good idea otherwise, free cultists for CSMs, free scouts for Marines, free ??? for eldar.

I dont think balance matters that much, if its enjoyable people will play, massive scale fps games are better balanced for groups of players too I think, rather than 1 v 1.
It seems that only recently in the past years since wow, that people have started banging on about balance all the time.
Anyway, although it all sounds awsome, It also sounds far too ambitious, especially when I look at the people making it, maybe it will be their break out game, I hope so but I also doubt it will happen.

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, but this d-bag says, specifically, that his company doesn't care about balance and they will not balance the game.

All we really know about the game so far is that one of the people involved is prone to saying stupid, flippant nonsense - doubtless considering it all very witty and edgy.

So ok, we know we have a game developer with no social skills. This is not a terrible shock. As to the actual game, we'll probably have something to talk about in about a year.

-D

 BryllCream wrote:

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

People can no longer take that outlook of oh it's free. Because we have so many free games that just being free isn't as enticeing as it use to be. Now you have to be free fair and fun in order to compete.

 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 like the intent. I just don't think it should be mixed in with the pricing. If I wanted to be a SM, but I had to play an ork boy. That wouldn't be fun or fair. Myself, I want to be an ork boy so it doesn't hurt me, but the unfairness reaks..

The lack of solo play is what's killing this for me so far, I like PVP as much as the next guy, especially cutting tanks throats and merrily dancing away or raining magic artillery down from the next post code over, but the bulk of my time in an MMO is spent doing my own thing, caving in PVE skulls and looting stuff for funsies.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The lack of solo play is what's killing this for me so far, I like PVP as much as the next guy, especially cutting tanks throats and merrily dancing away or raining magic artillery down from the next post code over, but the bulk of my time in an MMO is spent doing my own thing, caving in PVE skulls and looting stuff for funsies.

For that, there's the 'Nids. Sounds like they're pretty much just lots of NPCs that the devs can manipulate.

Sure thing, but the article intoned that solo play would be a far more difficult slog then joining hands with everyone for some hippy drum circle or whatever it is you do in groups while the rest of us are being awesome and tearing demons faces in half on our own.

 Rayvon wrote:
I dont think balance matters that much, if its enjoyable people will play, massive scale fps games are better balanced for groups of players too I think, rather than 1 v 1.
It seems that only recently in the past years since wow, that people have started banging on about balance all the time.
Anyway, although it all sounds awsome, It also sounds far too ambitious, especially when I look at the people making it, maybe it will be their break out game, I hope so but I also doubt it will happen.

I thinks it's because many people (myself included) like the idea of being able to choose any character and be able to stand a chance against others, also their is a mentality that video games should be about testing skill and not about exploiting some class because it's easier to use.

 BryllCream wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

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

And you know that the "proper" game for this 40k MMO won't start at level x because?

For all we know everything under level 10 will take place in our race's homeland, and orks are free until level 10. See how many things you're presuming?

I am presuming that they are not interested in balancing the game...based on an interview they gave.

You are presuming that they will balance it out...based on...hmmm.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Sure thing, but the article intoned that solo play would be a far more difficult slog then joining hands with everyone for some hippy drum circle or whatever it is you do in groups while the rest of us are being awesome and tearing demons faces in half on our own.

Personally, I take that as a challenge.

And we are on a pretty big forum, the members of which will probably form guilds when the game comes about. So at least you'll probably have access to teammates if you absolutely need them at some point.

Give the PTP Orks the things that are awesome regardless of how many boyz you've got with you- Cybork bodies, Powerklaws, warbikes, Shokk Attakk Guns, and plenty of auras. FTP players, especially those playing Orks, will group to anything flashy. Half of my MWO matches I just follow the guy with the Founder's mech because I know he's paying more than I am, and thus undoubtedly more hardcore. If he was actually giving me benefits, like a damage boost from an Iron gob, I'd run with him.

Make sure every paying mek can pack a KFF, and reduce dmg for those around them. Give them access to mighty Waaaghs, which are huge buffs only for those near them, and watch the Nobs assume their rightful place as leaders.

No, even better. Give the paying players the right to hit friendly Orks to maintain order. Establish the harsh bully society of the Orks, and drive them to be angry enough to assume positions of authority themselves!

I think we all need to realize that "balance" means so much more than just making sure each char is balanced with the others, it refers to many many more aspects of a game that just that.
He was very vague, he could have meant anything.

BryllCream wrote:Not sure about Imperial Guard, since ideally they'd get their own race. But it's a good idea otherwise, free cultists for CSMs, free scouts for Marines, free ??? for eldar.

Oh, I agree - I'm not sure how the Imperial Guard could be implemented better myself.
They could be a free "sub-faction" of the Marines whilst still maintaining the look and feel of an independent race, or they could be a full faction with their own pay-to-play elite troops. The problem I'm seeing is that the IG doesn't have much in terms of infantry on the level of Marines, which is why I was thinking about just combining the two.
Or perhaps it could be done like a "hybrid" of sorts? Here's your lasgun conscript for free. Want to play stronger infantry? Pay for Marines. Want to play stronger Guard? Pay for IG vehicles and carapace Storm Troopers. If they include an NPC mechanic they could even make you a squad leader and give you 5 AI guys to order around.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:Sure thing, but the article intoned that solo play would be a far more difficult slog then joining hands with everyone for some hippy drum circle or whatever it is you do in groups while the rest of us are being awesome and tearing demons faces in half on our own.

Mhmyeah, I'm sure there is a strong focus on PvP, it's pretty much the core aspect of the game. However, they did mention support roles such as mining and crafting - and, well, see Troike's post!

On a sidenote, on the Creative Developer's request I just sent him a huge list of GW SoB sources such as the various codices, rulebooks and WD/CJ issue numbers as well as links to archived official websites that had cool fluff on the Sisters. So at least now they have some more stuff to look through if they get around doing the Adepta Sororitas, and we have an even greater chance of seeing them being done properly.
I also asked if they may want to join the thread and talk about their game a bit, but let's see - I imagine they're rather busy, but perhaps they'll find a few minutes.

Imperial Guard don't have to go toe-to-toe with Space Marines. individually they may be weaker but with the right support/vehicles they could still match up as a whole. That does leave the problem of playing as an infantry guardsman and being pwned by just about everything all the time. Maybe they could have a super-fast respawn rate to compensate? That'd be pretty neat

Tanks! I'm sure people will be more then willing to be splated over and over if they get to drive a baneblade.

I want them to add Mechanicus. Give me my Warhound. :3

I have a solution for people who don't like what the free to play option offers......PAY FOR THE GAME just like every other game that you own and enjoy. Their plan is to ,are orks free so that there are more of hem and it will therefore balance with the more powerful space marines...if this doesn't work, they will change it! if the orks start o inherently weaker even when they're paying for the game, then we can consider this a hard mode of sorts...

it's shocking to me how entitled gamers are.

BryllCream wrote:Imperial Guard don't have to go toe-to-toe with Space Marines. individually they may be weaker but with the right support/vehicles they could still match up as a whole. That does leave the problem of playing as an infantry guardsman and being pwned by just about everything all the time. Maybe they could have a super-fast respawn rate to compensate? That'd be pretty neat

That's why I thought about PayGuard just being all about vehicles! But still it'd be amazing to have dozens or hundreds of (free) lasgun infantry rush into battle at their side.

Can't have Guard without infantry rushes. There is Only War!

BrotherVord wrote:it's shocking to me how entitled gamers are.

Welcome to the internets. :/

Aren't entitled gamers the norm now?

And while all the Ork and Marine players complain about how unfair everything is, the Eldar will sit back, take advantage of the chao-...disorder... and control everything. Just how it's meant to be!

BrotherVord wrote:
I have a solution for people who don't like what the free to play option offers......PAY FOR THE GAME just like every other game that you own and enjoy. Their plan is to ,are orks free so that there are more of hem and it will therefore balance with the more powerful space marines...if this doesn't work, they will change it! if the orks start o inherently weaker even when they're paying for the game, then we can consider this a hard mode of sorts...

it's shocking to me how entitled gamers are.

I think people would just play the other free games that don't unfairly punish free players rather then throwing money at a game that they aren't having fun in.

nomotog wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:
I have a solution for people who don't like what the free to play option offers......PAY FOR THE GAME just like every other game that you own and enjoy. Their plan is to ,are orks free so that there are more of hem and it will therefore balance with the more powerful space marines...if this doesn't work, they will change it! if the orks start o inherently weaker even when they're paying for the game, then we can consider this a hard mode of sorts...

it's shocking to me how entitled gamers are.

I think people would just play the other free games that don't unfairly punish free players rather then throwing money at a game that they aren't having fun in.

If you're not having fun in it, don't buy it. Or have you moved on from demanding that all games be free, to also demanding that all games be built to your own personal specifications? It's certainly a popular viewpoint in this thread

 BryllCream wrote:

nomotog wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:
I have a solution for people who don't like what the free to play option offers......PAY FOR THE GAME just like every other game that you own and enjoy. Their plan is to ,are orks free so that there are more of hem and it will therefore balance with the more powerful space marines...if this doesn't work, they will change it! if the orks start o inherently weaker even when they're paying for the game, then we can consider this a hard mode of sorts...

it's shocking to me how entitled gamers are.

I think people would just play the other free games that don't unfairly punish free players rather then throwing money at a game that they aren't having fun in.

If you're not having fun in it, don't buy it. Or have you moved on from demanding that all games be free, to also demanding that all games be built to your own personal specifications? It's certainly a popular viewpoint in this thread

You sure your not tilting windmills? Though no dua I'm not going to play for a game I don't have fun in. No one will. I said that in the very post you quoted. People don't play games that treat them poorly and this is a big problem in F2P games where more often then not people play before they pay for it. In an environment like that, you don't want to drive away your players before they get a chance to pay you.

That is why their payment plan is so bad because it will keep money out of their pockets. It's not me hating on the idea. It's an objectively bad idea that will have a very hard time competing among the better designed plans.

Edit: Normally this gets posted in every debate about F2P and microtransactions. I think we just forgot. http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/microtransactions

@ Lynata, in regard to your concerns about orks being too few or too many, supposedly the tyranids can be used to even things out, weather effects also were stated as a "balancing" tool.

There are a huge number of things I dont like about the details so far but I really dont think the guy deserves personal attacks.

Players basically in charge of other characters = fail

Microtransactions to buy crap = fail. In the interview, one of his examples was a player with a marine character that they had spent $200 on. WTF kind of nonsense is that? 200 dollars for bling and emotes?

Very little content for solo play = fail

Slow leveling for solo players = fail

Suppose you are an Eldar player and the "leader players" of your faction want to ally with chaos marines, you basically have to go along with them even if you think it is a stupid violation of the back ground.

If the battles are these large conflicts, where as he described the actions of individuals dont even amount to much, what is the challenge or fun in that.

A good MMORPG has a constant development of new content: items, new areas, quests, missions, alternative campaign scenarios, new jobs and it is reasonable to expect a monthly subscription fee to support ongoing development. This game doesnt really appear to emphasize any of those things. I dont mind a subscription fee if there is meaningful development going on.

Compared to MMORPG where you have races and jobs, this game appears to have races but one basic job type, warrior. That has fail written all over it.

I've read about the 'nids (and think this is a clever idea), I'm just not sure if that will be enough. I mean, the Tyranids will fight everyone, so in an area where they will actually be a nuisance to the Marines they will also be dangerous to the Orks, and vice versa. The only thing they can potentially do is draw away reinforcements and thus render certain flanks vulnerable to attack.

In a direct engagement between two factions, the 'nids won't be present (unless someone messed up or likes to live dangerously), so the numbers issue will be somewhat alleviated, but will it be enough? Time will tell.

Many of the "fails" you listed work out nicely in Planetside, by the way. And you'd be surprised how much cash some few people shell out for silly things. >_>

 Hollowman wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, but this d-bag says, specifically, that his company doesn't care about balance and they will not balance the game.

All we really know about the game so far is that one of the people involved is prone to saying stupid, flippant nonsense - doubtless considering it all very witty and edgy.

So ok, we know we have a game developer with no social skills. This is not a terrible shock. As to the actual game, we'll probably have something to talk about in about a year.

-D

Well, we also have their track record of games. Which is a very good indicator for future games. For example, we all know that Bioware will do a good job at producing RPGs and story-based games, Relic Entertainment excels at strategy games, Dice does FPS, etc. Even if the devs do a game outside of the "usual" for them, you trust them because they have the pedigree of their past games. Look at the past games of this developer, for the most part, they have majority failed to even hit 50% for their ratings. It's not a good track record, and I'm wondering why GW potentially bungled up such a huge potential income source by giving/selling the IP to them.

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Hollowman wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
Yeah, but this d-bag says, specifically, that his company doesn't care about balance and they will not balance the game.

All we really know about the game so far is that one of the people involved is prone to saying stupid, flippant nonsense - doubtless considering it all very witty and edgy.

So ok, we know we have a game developer with no social skills. This is not a terrible shock. As to the actual game, we'll probably have something to talk about in about a year.

-D

Well, we also have their track record of games. Which is a very good indicator for future games. For example, we all know that Bioware will do a good job at producing RPGs and story-based games, Relic Entertainment excels at strategy games, Dice does FPS, etc. Even if the devs do a game outside of the "usual" for them, you trust them because they have the pedigree of their past games. Look at the past games of this developer, for the most part, they have majority failed to even hit 50% for their ratings. It's not a good track record, and I'm wondering why GW potentially bungled up such a huge potential income source by giving/selling the IP to them.

Well maybe they won the IP through a competitive bid or other developers were already busy with other projects or just not interested.

 BryllCream wrote:

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?

No to all, nor did I claim to know, cease the straw man arguments immediately.

You seem to be imagining the worst possible game they could make, then deciding that's what they *are* making.

You seem to be imagining that I am far more emotionally invested in this game than I really am, lol.

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.

There actually are ways to do this effectively, best way I see to make Ork advancement faster than a Marine's for a few ranks, then slowing Ork progression to be more on a Marine's level when both characters would be of approximately equal strength.

If they don't do this though, there will be an issue of players being bored to fething tears playing an underpowered character for a while, and the hope of something stronger later will not be much of a comfort, especially all the Marine players who have been playing as long are still mightier one on one due to being ranked higher.

I have said multiple times that I could change my mind if promising information is released, but right now, based on current evidence, I don't really look forward to it. Why does that ail you so?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrotherVord wrote:
I have a solution for people who don't like what the free to play option offers......PAY FOR THE GAME just like every other game that you own and enjoy. Their plan is to ,are orks free so that there are more of hem and it will therefore balance with the more powerful space marines...if this doesn't work, they will change it! if the orks start o inherently weaker even when they're paying for the game, then we can consider this a hard mode of sorts...

it's shocking to me how entitled gamers are.

Nah I'm probably just not going to buy it.

The notion of paying a monthly fee on any game is inherently offensive to me. It would have to be quite the game for me to break that rule.

Also: I am going to wager a guess that most gamer's games don't consist of titles that you have to pay a monthly fee to play. That would be quite astonishing.

Also, what you fail to realize is that the statements about the Orkz? Applies to the p2p version as well, you don't magically start off stronger than the f2p people if you pay based on what has been said, you just can advance further. So, as I've said, you still start off weaker and without a balancing mechanic in the form of substantially quicker experience gain, the game will still be unbalanced.

That is of course based on what I have read so far, new context could mitigate my criticisms or even something could change after playtesting, but as it is now, that is how I see it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Rayvon wrote:
I dont think balance matters that much, if its enjoyable people will play, massive scale fps games are better balanced for groups of players too I think, rather than 1 v 1.
It seems that only recently in the past years since wow, that people have started banging on about balance all the time.

What makes you say that?

It might just be because I'm a longtime and avid fighting game player, but balance has always been a popular subject of debate among gaming in my experience.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Soladrin wrote:
I want them to add Mechanicus. Give me my Warhound. :3

I am admittedly very interested to see how they will balance Titans, if they are implemented.

All but the mightiest characters pale before even a Warhound.

Melissia wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
Melissa can you provide a list of mmorpgs that were balanced on release?

Irrelevant. Most developers actually TRY to balance their games. Maybe not "perfect balance" since that's impossible while keeping complexity, but they certainly try to keep it so that, if they have multiple factions in pvp, each faction is capable of winning relatively equally with the others.

Guild Wars 2 is relatively balanced now, but it wasn't balanced when it was released-- they still tried to balance it though. They don't actively say "feth balance".

 Lynata wrote:
[snip]
If the Sisters really are amongst the first factions they'd like to add, this is certainly more than I had actually dared to hope for. I'll remain cautious, but let's see what the future holds!

I might even try it if they do. I doubt they will though.

It sounds like a cheap CYA cop-out though, compared to the statements they made earlier.

Balancing always has, and always will be an on going balancing act, as content is added/changed/removed and gaming styles/strategies constantly change and evolve so much the balancing to make sure the field of play is a level as possible, but lets face it there will always be cheeky strategies and douche moves, that's just the nature of gaming.

Truly a game will never be perfectly balanced, there's really no such thing as perfect, at least in the mortal realm, just the possibility to strive to get as close as we can, which is what good game developers do, these guys on the other hand, really seem like (from what I've heard thus far) to be the kind of guys all about the money, unhappy players a non existing thought to them so long as they aren't shoveling them money.

Enigwolf wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JakeCWolf wrote:
So this ones going the "Freemium" route eh?

Well expect rampant power abuse and entire servers being owned by clans of deep pocked douche bags who throw hundreds of dollars to win every conflict...

I know paying to play sounds like a drag, but honestly if everyone is paying to play the game, that means everyone is starting on a level playing field, no amount of real life currency can help them win any one fight, only keep playing the game as whole.

Yeah, but this d-bag says, specifically, that his company doesn't care about balance and they will not balance the game.

Because imbalance makes people want to throw more money at the system to win. So, yeah, it's a pay-to-win game. At least he's being honest with it lol.

Well in that case I think the Chaos spawned whelps need to get banished back to the Immaterium that spawned them, and my powered armored boot heel will be happy to kick them back there via the nearest warp hole... Wow really let my inner Space Wolf out there didn't I? Just shows how much of a hair trigger I have to "Freemium" games, mark my words battle brothers and sisters, they will be the death of gaming one of these days, the last thing we need is another Gaming Dark Age like the one in the early 80s...

 Void__Dragon wrote:
I have said multiple times that I could change my mind if promising information is released, but right now, based on current evidence, I don't really look forward to it. Why does that ail you so?

Don't look at me, I'm wondering the same thing. Apparently criticizing a developer's stated goals and methods is eeeeevil and we should feel bad for doing it.

I don't, of course.