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.

miguelcaron wrote:
Yep. Sorry Crusaders, I clic the wrong ''quote'' button!

The Much Different Behaviour Announcement (hehe!! yes, pun intended) is way bigger than some of you understood. Its NOT about servers (we will have single server tech as well) but about THE SAME BATTLE.

Like I said, Imagine you and 499 other facing 500 Orks (players) that start screaming and running, shooting towards you and your friends..... add tons of vehicles shooting and artillery from your fortress.

And that is only one battle in one of many continent on the planet.

Like I said many times before. I dont want to be jack of all trade. Eternal Crusade will be the BEST Massive Warfare game.

Glory to the Emperor

Miguel
Studio Head Behaviour Online


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Damn cant wait to see the in game numbers

Also I saw a person get on my bus who was a spit of miguel and was kind of wierded out that I thought miguel was in liverpool on the bus from town, really made my brain frazzle.

I am EVER present, EVER watching!!

Reason begets doubt; Doubt begets heresy.

Miguel

Studio Head Behaviour Online

So 500 good guys....vs 500 Orks.....you do realize that Orks work on numbers right? Having the same number as your opponent doesnt really work out for Orks. Ever.

 KingCracker wrote:
[So 500 good guys....vs 500 Orks.....you do realize that Orks work on numbers right? Having the same number as your opponent doesnt really work out for Orks. Ever.

He's kinda addressed this in the past. Basically, the plan is to have Orks being very powerful in close combat. So their tactic when fighting an army that can pick them apart at range (which will probably be most armies) will be to use Trukks to get in close fast and advancing Gargants to hide behind. Once Orks are in close, they'll have the advantage.

There are people on this board that think sisters of battle will be added to this?

Seriously?

Like not pretending or trolling, or wishing upon a star?

But actually have real hope that maybe someday after they add necron, tau, and imperial guard, and dark elder, they will get bored and add sisters too?

Being a popular choice by fans on a modeling and hobby site is one thing, but actually getting enough popular support to get this kind of backing from poles that will surely go up on their website about "what army should we add next" are two completely different things, barring someone trolling with proxied computers churning out fake votes at a huge volume.

Orock wrote:
There are people on this board that think sisters of battle will be added to this?

One of them happens to be Miguel himself.

And while I am known to be a very skeptical person, I believe him when he says he wants to add them in as DLC. After all, DLC factions would be profitable.

And why not? In computer games, more variety, including the ability to play powerful female human characters, is generally appreciated. This isn't the tabletop environment where miniature pricing, codex (un)availability, low exposure and stigma would keep potential players away.

And besides, it's not like this would be the first time that playable SoB show up in a computer game.
It wouldn't even be the second.

By the way ... Miguel! Looks like you are doing a splendid job at communicating with people and rallying fans to your banner. Kudos!
Say hello to your team for us!

PS: If you are the Eternal Crusade's Chapter Master, I think you could also call your team's programmers Tech-Marines, your creative designers Librarians, etc. Very nerdy, but it could become a fun tradition.

I would be careful in adding too many auxiliary factions, all warring with one another. The good thing about the current 4 (really 5) factions is that they are all opposed to one another. If you add in SoB and IG, I wouldn't want to go the DC/SS route where they're also fighting against the SM (it really doesn't make that much sense, never did even with the DoW Series IMO), they'll have to be allied factions. It might skew the player base.
On top of that, you'll probably add one of the main opposing factions (Necrons and Tau) before SoB, so you're diluting the player base already, assuming some constancy in the numbers - realistically, MMOs can expect to see some sort of slow decline over the lifetime of the game.
SoB would be sort of cool to see, but again, they're an auxiliary faction in most measurable facets of 40k IRL.

There's plenty of reason and ways to add additional human factions. One such way is to make them share a faction resource pool, so they'd be forced to A: Be self disciplined enough to share, or B: fight each other to gain the necessary resources. Works in the game balance, the lore, and lets everyone play their favorite faction to its potential.

Orock wrote:
There are people on this board that think sisters of battle will be added to this?

Seriously?

Like not pretending or trolling, or wishing upon a star?

But actually have real hope that maybe someday after they add necron, tau, and imperial guard, and dark elder, they will get bored and add sisters too?

Being a popular choice by fans on a modeling and hobby site is one thing, but actually getting enough popular support to get this kind of backing from poles that will surely go up on their website about "what army should we add next" are two completely different things, barring someone trolling with proxied computers churning out fake votes at a huge volume.

Why not implement them? They shouldn't be a soon implementation, as they are very niche, but I don't think why they shouldn't be implemented at all.

Necrons are the obvious first DLC choice, but afterwards...why not Sisters?

Adding to the points about Sisters, they certainly do seem to getting mentioned by the developers fairly often. Not that I'm claiming this is concrete evidence that they'll be an early expansion race, but they certainly seem to be on the table.

TheSGC wrote:
I would be careful in adding too many auxiliary factions, all warring with one another. The good thing about the current 4 (really 5) factions is that they are all opposed to one another. If you add in SoB and IG, I wouldn't want to go the DC/SS route where they're also fighting against the SM (it really doesn't make that much sense, never did even with the DoW Series IMO), they'll have to be allied factions. It might skew the player base.
On top of that, you'll probably add one of the main opposing factions (Necrons and Tau) before SoB, so you're diluting the player base already, assuming some constancy in the numbers - realistically, MMOs can expect to see some sort of slow decline over the lifetime of the game.
SoB would be sort of cool to see, but again, they're an auxiliary faction in most measurable facets of 40k IRL.

What's so bad about adding new content? In discussions about this game, I always see lots of people saying "damn, I hope they add X, they're my favourite faction". It's not diluting a game to add more content, on the contrary, it adds to the game's lifespan and depth.

As for adding in too many Imperial factions, well, that's just a consquence of the tabletop having so many Imperial factions really. They'll come into conflict a lot. It doesn't really go against the fluff, Marines, Sisters and Guard are all seperate organisations that can very easily have conflicting goals. Conversely, the game could quite easily give Imperial factions opposing goals to play them against each other, so the risk of them all buddying up should be easy enough to deal with.

 Troike wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
[So 500 good guys....vs 500 Orks.....you do realize that Orks work on numbers right? Having the same number as your opponent doesnt really work out for Orks. Ever.

He's kinda addressed this in the past. Basically, the plan is to have Orks being very powerful in close combat. So their tactic when fighting an army that can pick them apart at range (which will probably be most armies) will be to use Trukks to get in close fast and advancing Gargants to hide behind. Once Orks are in close, they'll have the advantage.

Ah I must of missed that part. I can continue bring excited then. Can't wait to be a bad ass Nob ripping some 'umies apart

Unless you bring opposed factions as the two sides in a DLC?

EG, Necrons and Tau in the same (obviously not very cheap) DLC

 Troike wrote:

What's so bad about adding new content? In discussions about this game, I always see lots of people saying "damn, I hope they add X, they're my favourite faction". It's not diluting a game to add more content, on the contrary, it adds to the game's lifespan and depth.

As for adding in too many Imperial factions, well, that's just a consquence of the tabletop having so many Imperial factions really. They'll come into conflict a lot. It doesn't really go against the fluff, Marines, Sisters and Guard are all seperate organisations that can very easily have conflicting goals. Conversely, the game could quite easily give Imperial factions opposing goals to play them against each other, so the risk of them all buddying up should be easy enough to deal with.

You seem to be approaching this with a singleplayer-game mentality. With an MMO, you not only have to maintain a playerbase so that factions don't become understaffed (hence diluting the player base), you have to continually be balancing numbers and strengths. If they turn into SM-lite, or even SM clones (except female) then it's entirely possible that hardly anyone plays as them, because they don't see the need to lose their SM character with a zillion different upgrades and weapons. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have chosen just four races at launch, they would've thrown all of them in if adding as much content as possible to an MMPTPS 'adds to the game's lifespan and depth'. Am I arguing that it doesn't? Not really. Just saying that at launch, and especially in the months to come after that moment, I'm not sure if that's the best plan. Especially financially.

Instances where IG, SM, and SoB all fight against one another are not really commonplace. DC, SS, the GK codex, and DoWII are the three instances that I can think of where that's happened. Compared, of course, to the heap of fluff that doesn't have that happen. In a universe where everyone is fighting to simply survive, I don't know if that should become the status quo for video games; 'Need more factions? Well, let's just pit all of them against each other! Again! And Again! And Again!'

TheSGC wrote:
You seem to be approaching this with a singleplayer-game mentality. With an MMO, you not only have to maintain a playerbase so that factions don't become understaffed (hence diluting the player base), you have to continually be balancing numbers and strengths. If they turn into SM-lite, or even SM clones (except female) then it's entirely possible that hardly anyone plays as them, because they don't see the need to lose their SM character with a zillion different upgrades and weapons. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have chosen just four races at launch, they would've thrown all of them in if adding as much content as possible to an MMPTPS 'adds to the game's lifespan and depth'. Am I arguing that it doesn't? Not really. Just saying that at launch, and especially in the months to come after that moment, I'm not sure if that's the best plan. Especially financially.

I never said it was a good idea to add them all at launch. Far from it, better to go with the safest, most iconic armies first, get a feel for the game and gameplay, and then add in more armies. It's just that, earlier, you seemed to be implying that adding in plentry of extra races would be an inherently bad thing, which is what I was disagreeing with.

TheSGC wrote:
Instances where IG, SM, and SoB all fight against one another are not really commonplace. DC, SS, the GK codex, and DoWII are the three instances that I can think of where that's happened. Compared, of course, to the heap of fluff that doesn't have that happen. In a universe where everyone is fighting to simply survive, I don't know if that should become the status quo for video games; 'Need more factions? Well, let's just pit all of them against each other! Again! And Again! And Again!'

In regards to Imperial factions fighting, I again point you towards the tabletop armies and the abundance of Imperial armies. See, it's not something that happens constantly and so outright in the fluff, because the Imperium is meant to have at least some token unity as the setting's protagonists and status quo. But while the fluff isn't an exact reflection of how the tabletop armies interact in the hands of players, games are. It's pretty much the same as having a local meta full of Imperial armies. Maybe it's annoying to some to have lots of Imperial armies fighting a lot, but it's just a nautral consequence of having lots of Imperial armies in the hobby.

 Troike wrote:

TheSGC wrote:
You seem to be approaching this with a singleplayer-game mentality. With an MMO, you not only have to maintain a playerbase so that factions don't become understaffed (hence diluting the player base), you have to continually be balancing numbers and strengths. If they turn into SM-lite, or even SM clones (except female) then it's entirely possible that hardly anyone plays as them, because they don't see the need to lose their SM character with a zillion different upgrades and weapons. If this wasn't the case, then they wouldn't have chosen just four races at launch, they would've thrown all of them in if adding as much content as possible to an MMPTPS 'adds to the game's lifespan and depth'. Am I arguing that it doesn't? Not really. Just saying that at launch, and especially in the months to come after that moment, I'm not sure if that's the best plan. Especially financially.

I never said it was a good idea to add them all at launch. Far from it, better to go with the safest, most iconic armies first, get a feel for the game and gameplay, and then add in more armies. It's just that, earlier, you seemed to be implying that adding in plentry of extra races would be an inherently bad thing, which is what I was disagreeing with.

If the player base isn't big enough, then you should never add them or any other race, period. If it drops down like TOR after launch, don't add anything, because you will dilute the player base by doing so. This type of game is so heavily dependent on faction-based warfare, that there would have to be a lot of things going right for SoB to make it. I'm optimistic and hopeful, but also skeptical due to what genre this game is being made for.

TheSGC wrote:
Instances where IG, SM, and SoB all fight against one another are not really commonplace. DC, SS, the GK codex, and DoWII are the three instances that I can think of where that's happened. Compared, of course, to the heap of fluff that doesn't have that happen. In a universe where everyone is fighting to simply survive, I don't know if that should become the status quo for video games; 'Need more factions? Well, let's just pit all of them against each other! Again! And Again! And Again!'

In regards to Imperial factions fighting, I again point you towards the tabletop armies and the abundance of Imperial armies. See, it's not something that happens constantly and so outright in the fluff, because the Imperium is meant to have at least some token unity as the setting's protagonists and status quo. But while the fluff isn't an exact reflection of how the tabletop armies interact in the hands of players, games are. It's pretty much the same as having a local meta full of Imperial armies. Maybe it's annoying to some to have lots of Imperial armies fighting a lot, but it's just a nautral consequence of having lots of Imperial armies in the hobby.

TT armies are not indicative of the universe's plot. The fluff is.

TheSGC wrote:
If the player base isn't big enough, then you should never add them or any other race, period. If it drops down like TOR after launch, don't add anything, because you will dilute the player base by doing so. This type of game is so heavily dependent on faction-based warfare, that there would have to be a lot of things going right for SoB to make it. I'm optimistic and hopeful, but also skeptical due to what genre this game is being made for.

Well now, that's a little cynical! But given the risk of the genere, I suppose I can understand where you're coming from. Obviously the game being a success would be the optimal enviroment for extra armies. But I'd say it's got quite a good amount of geniune hype built up for where it is so far, so I'm optimistic it'll do okay.

Also, I'm not specifically talking about the Sisters here, no need to keep citing them specifically. I'm just talking about other armies in general.

TheSGC wrote:
ITT armies are not indicative of the universe's plot. The fluff is.

But just in having lots of armies avaliable for player use (tabletop and video game), it's inevitable that said races come into conflict. And like I said, it's not particularely conflicting with the fluff either. Imperial factions engaging in armed squabbles isn't at all outlandish.

 KingCracker wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 KingCracker wrote:
[So 500 good guys....vs 500 Orks.....you do realize that Orks work on numbers right? Having the same number as your opponent doesnt really work out for Orks. Ever.

He's kinda addressed this in the past. Basically, the plan is to have Orks being very powerful in close combat. So their tactic when fighting an army that can pick them apart at range (which will probably be most armies) will be to use Trukks to get in close fast and advancing Gargants to hide behind. Once Orks are in close, they'll have the advantage.

Ah I must of missed that part. I can continue bring excited then. Can't wait to be a bad ass Nob ripping some 'umies apart

lol i've been looking at it like this, 500(orks) vs (500 divided by 3) or maybe more accurately 500 vs 200 vs 200 vs 100(eldar) i hope this isnt the case for poor eldar but i dont see nearly as many people playing eldar as i think will be playing marines and chaos


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus you have to throw Nids in there somewhere but their whole aim is to make sure orks are NEVER outnumbered lol

 Troike wrote:

TheSGC wrote:
If the player base isn't big enough, then you should never add them or any other race, period. If it drops down like TOR after launch, don't add anything, because you will dilute the player base by doing so. This type of game is so heavily dependent on faction-based warfare, that there would have to be a lot of things going right for SoB to make it. I'm optimistic and hopeful, but also skeptical due to what genre this game is being made for.

Well now, that's a little cynical! But given the risk of the genere, I suppose I can understand where you're coming from. Obviously the game being a success would be the optimal enviroment for extra armies. But I'd say it's got quite a good amount of geniune hype built up for where it is so far, so I'm optimistic it'll do okay.

Hype's got to extend far beyond the 40k fan group, though. I, for one, have been doing my part to all my friends. I know you probably have, and others here, but like, everyone needs to do the word of mouth stuff, because there likely won't be a moment like SWBFIII or TOR had at previous E3s with awesome cinematics which have nothing to do with gameplay (a move that I really like by bhvr).

TheSGC wrote:
ITT armies are not indicative of the universe's plot. The fluff is.

But just in having lots of armies avaliable for player use (tabletop and video game), it's inevitable that said races come into conflict. And like I said, it's not particularely conflicting with the fluff either. Imperial factions engaging in armed squabbles isn't at all outlandish.

No, not outlandish, just tiresome and odd. I just want to see the IoM take on its enemies, because the IoM has a hard time surviving against all these aliens in the setting, not just IG, or just SoB, or just SM.

TheSGC wrote:
Hype's got to extend far beyond the 40k fan group, though. I, for one, have been doing my part to all my friends. I know you probably have, and others here, but like, everyone needs to do the word of mouth stuff, because there likely won't be a moment like SWBFIII or TOR had at previous E3s with awesome cinematics which have nothing to do with gameplay (a move that I really like by bhvr).

Space Marine actually had quite good mainstream appeal, sold quite well from what I heard. And this is trying to go for a similar thing but in an MMO envrioment, so it's not like the appeal is limited to 40K fans. Plus I've seen mainstream sites like the Escpaist cover it in the past (IIRC), so that helps.

TheSGC wrote:
No, not outlandish, just tiresome and odd. I just want to see the IoM take on its enemies, because the IoM has a hard time surviving against all these aliens in the setting, not just IG, or just SoB, or just SM.

I understand your concern, but personally I'd pick all armies (or as many as possible) being fully included over packing all the Imperial factions in together. Just a difference of taste, I suppose.

the appeal order of introduction in war 40k vgame is:
space marine
non playable imperial guard/inquisitor/ad mech
chaos space marine
orks
eldar
imperial guard
tyranids
inquisitor (and grey knight)
tau
necron
dark eldar
sister of battle
ad mech
ecclersiarchy

TheSGC wrote:If the player base isn't big enough, then you should never add them or any other race, period. If it drops down like TOR after launch, don't add anything, because you will dilute the player base by doing so. This type of game is so heavily dependent on faction-based warfare, that there would have to be a lot of things going right for SoB to make it. I'm optimistic and hopeful, but also skeptical due to what genre this game is being made for. [...] Hype's got to extend far beyond the 40k fan group

If Dawn of War is any indication, SoB are way more popular in video games than in the TT - see my previous post for the possible reasons. So they should be added specifically because the hype should extend beyond the core TT fanbase.

Character customization alone is a huge factor, and gender selection is part of that (for both female as well as male gamers). And that's before you even delve into the SoB's stylistic attraction, meaning the design of their armour and overall "look and feel".
This is also why I recommended the option of simply implementing Sisters of Battle as "female Space Marines". It's an oversimplification of the faction, but GW has often enough pushed this perspective themselves, and it would be an option to get them into the game without spending the same amount of manhours they'd need as an independent faction.

On the other hand ->

TheSGC wrote:If they turn into SM-lite, or even SM clones (except female) [...]

If they ever get implemented as their own faction, there's no need to do that either. The Sisters have access to fairly unique mechanics, allowing them to operate as "SM-lite" most of the time, yet pushing them past Marine efficiency when the player pushes the right button at the right time. Dawn of War managed to do it, GW's Inquisitor RPG managed to do it, I don't see why Eternal Crusade should be any different if the designers have a long good think about it.

TheSGC wrote:The good thing about the current 4 (really 5) factions is that they are all opposed to one another. If you add in SoB and IG, I wouldn't want to go the DC/SS route where they're also fighting against the SM [...] TT armies are not indicative of the universe's plot. The fluff is. [...] No, not outlandish, just tiresome and odd.

Computer games aren't an indicative of that, either. Else this game should, by all rights, have Imperial Guard before (if ever) it adds Space Marines.
This is also a good example for a latent faction bias, though - to me, it's the Space Marines' prominence in just about every game that is "tiresome and odd", given that it totally does not reflect the fluff of who actually fights the most battles. So for once we have a game that would add more variety in terms of who you can play - and you actually argue against including even just the Imperial Guard? Wow.

For the record, though, I would also argue that SM, SoB and IG should all be part of one "Imperium" faction. It's not that I would have much of a problem with the chance of them fighting against one another - people who have actually read the background of the Kaurava campaign in Soulstorm should be aware that the conflict made sense - but rather that I would dislike seeing the relationship switch from ally to enemy and back again and again. In short, I just feel their relationship should be more consistent, hence I argue that they should just be part of the same team right away.

It bear's repeating:

The dilution of players from both the potential (future new players) and the current (at time of the DLC) is mitigated considerably when the SM's become part of the umbrella corporation of races that is the IoM. The other races will be at a considerable advantage considering that each sub-faction within the IoM is competing for it's own resources and though asymmetric balance can still be achieved with both each sub-faction and the faction as a whole, total harmony within the IoM will not due to the fact that not everyone will be getting the lion's share of the available requisition.

Arming the SM's with enough terminator armor, drop pods, and land raiders to field a Deathwing army will suck up the SM's resources and (if available) drain what their allies are collecting, costing the IG's ability to field Leman Russ BT's / Storm Troopers/ ect., or give the SoB's a massive horde of Multimelta's / summoning a Living Saint. Therefore, it is possible for any of the armies to bloat themselves into an incredibly selfish and powerful force - at great cost to their allies - who in turn could viably make political power plays in the War Council to switch the flow of resources to themselves, restore the balance, or even put grossly misused power on a requisition hold. Such is the cut-throat nature of the IoM in the lore, but more importantly, the IoM is an incredibly potent force when it is well organized, therefore, a keen War Council (or one your peers should be actively trying to elect) would be one that:

1. By default should consist of even numbers of each sub-faction.

2. *Ideally: Elected to put the faction as a whole first - directing the SoB and SM's to smash armored unit's and destroying high value targets while the IG stay at range and pummel enemy infantry.. and other really big things. If Ad Mech were somehow implemented in the future, they'd be good at driving and hitting other really big things.

3. Know when the balance needs to shift depending on the role developing on the battlefield - SM's as the Heavy Assault / Blitz, the SoB Flanking, Anti-Armor, and Objective Defense, the IG - Overwhelming firepower at range, tank columns, staples of holding a static border / front.

I agree that factions might be a better route than individual races in some cases. We are already having SW and UM as part of the same faction/race rather than be separate armies.

Could do an Eldar faction with classes picked from Dark, Craftworld, Exodite or Harlequin.

Liking the sound of the Orks kicking in Beakie heads.

DemetriDominov wrote:[stuff]

That actually sounds more awesome the more often I read it.

Provided the studio is fine with allocating the necessary development resources, the whole system could incorporate a very basic (and thus hopefully easy to implement) sort of "Political PvP", where armies belonging to the Imperial faction do not fight each other on the battlefield, but internally vie for for resources. Perhaps an army's "Influence" could be measured by success on the battlefield, with the various players trying to accomplish special missions and objectives which would allow their army to tap a larger share of the faction's requisition pool. Needless to say, these missions would have to take into consideration how active/popular an army is - but it could be as easy as a sort of Daily Objective a la "Kill X Orks", where X is calculated against the amount of currently active players from that army, so that each group has an equal chance of accomplishing this goal. This objective should be suitably difficult to achieve, however, so that it all comes down to how enthusiastic an army's players are.
And the best thing: The very same system could be applied to any of the other races, regardless of whether they form a larger faction or not. With them, it just won't have such a noticeable effect as with the Imperial forces, as the various CSM Legions, Eldar Craftworlds, Ork Warbands, etc have largely uniform equipment and thus the race as a whole won't display a difference in tactics regardless of who currently has the most influence. It will, however, provide an incentive for the players - a meta-game within the faction is always a nice thing to have, as it will only result in increased immersion and identification with one's own group, and thus hopefully yield more fun.

On the other hand, I also like the idea of a faction council / high command simply designating who gets what share of the resources, not in the least because this reminds me of the Armageddon War Council with Yarrick, Dante, Kurov, etc.
The differences in resource allocation should not be overly punishing to the "loser" (as in: no possibility of someone being pushed down to 0% or 1%), but with at least 3 council members (the Chapter Master, Guard General, and Canoness Superior voted into office by all the other players of their "race") it could be as simple as a daily vote on how a certain switch should be set - and the switch could be as simple as a choice between "everyone gets access to 33% of the resources" (modified by player count) and "one race gets 60%, the others get 20%".

A third option, of course, would be the developers themselves stepping in, possibly playing an NPC leader of the council, and setting up a schedule where the individual armies get a larger share of the resource pool, and it's up to the players on how they use it. This is less fun than either of the previous options, though, and I believe it also goes a bit against the devs' plans of letting (almost) everything rest in player hands.

Whew. /brainstorm

Eh. I'm not really sold on having one monolithic Imperial faction. I see two main issues.

- Numbers: Would probably get a disproportionate amount of players. Marines aside, I see lots of people hoping for IG or SoB to be added. In one big Imperial faction, all of these people are going to pile in, dwarfing the other armies, Even if you limit how many players can deploy in one place and constantly sic the 'Nids on the Imperials, they're still going to have far more bodies to use than any other army.
- Faction focus: IG and SoB probably wouldn't get as much individual attention as parts of a greater faction than as their own forces. A personal complaint, but still.

The numbers bit is a fair concern, but don't you think that the mechanics you mentioned would suffice to deal with the problem? It could even be an advantage to the other factions, who may then find it easier to attack "weak spots" just because the Imperium is constantly busy fighting another enemy.

... which is actually a fairly accurate representation of the setting, come to think of it.

There could also be resource modifiers or bonuses and penalties, of course - I think this is how Planetside tries to balance faction populations on a server.

Other than that, the presence of Space Marines alone already poses the very same issue. I could easily see them being two times more popular than both the IG and SoB combined - at least in the first few months.

 Lynata wrote:
but don't you think that the mechanics you mentioned would suffice to deal with the problem?

Quite possibly, but overall the Imperials would still probably have lots of bodies to throw around. Like, they could go and fight for and defend many strategic loctions at once, whereas the other armies couldn't go for as many because they don't have as many bodies to throw around.

And yeah, Marines will probably exhibit this all on their own anyway, to a lesser extent. But hopefully it won't be noticeable.

Remember that Orks are the only F2P race - or at least, Ork Boyz are, with a fair amount of lateral upgrade options. Behaviour is correct in assuming that you will generally have more F2P players than players that've bought the game. That should help to even out the numbers, and in theory, you will typically be seeing battles with more orks than SM - it won't be even, like 500 v 500, it'll be more like 250 v 500 v 250 (SM, Ork, Eldar), or break down the numbers if it's a 4-way battle (which in my experiences with PS2, rarely ever happen. It's almost always battles with two races vying for control for some location)

tbh, with Marines having their popularity, and Orks being F2P, the faction I'm most concerned about is the Eldar.

Then again, I suppose this could fit to the fluff, too, in that there just aren't a lot of them. Perhaps the studio will give them some sort of special mechanic to compensate lower numbers with greater mobility ... Eldar Webway, using the few troops they have to do hit & run strikes on the enemies' weak flanks? Could fit.

Making specific races "pay to play" is absolute nonsense.

Anything that's not an Ork Boy will apparently be pay to play, unless they've changed that.