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.

 n0t_u wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Plus: in ARAM, you can play all heroes without even having them bought.

Unless they've changed it recently this is incorrect.

It's correct. It's fully AR, you can get any hero in the game. If you already have the hero bought you randomed, you get additional "reroll points" after the game.

Oh, that's much much better.

If this thing is going to succeed longterm they are going to have to put in more PVE than hinted at in the interview.

Another major wild card is the idea that players will essentially be getting "quests" from other players rather than NPC's. I can forsee some real problems with that model of business.

I hope they are successful and have no problem with a subscription fee if it means a stable and continuos development of the game. If you dont like the fee idea, then just dont sign up. The "free" aspect is just to get people hooked.

The Ork nerd rage is kind of funny, please continue to contribute more.

I would rather see this be like Planetside 2 then some sort of gimmicky theme-park MMO. I don't care about the payment structure at this point. If the game sucks, then the game sucks.

There is only war.

Hopefully the developers realize that.

Haha all they say in the interviews is 'there is only war' I think we're good.

The studio head also comments on everyones Facebook post and seems like a really nice guy.

I wish them all the best with making our beloved universe into an mmo shooter.

JWhex wrote:
If this thing is going to succeed longterm they are going to have to put in more PVE than hinted at in the interview.

Another major wild card is the idea that players will essentially be getting "quests" from other players rather than NPC's. I can forsee some real problems with that model of business.

I hope they are successful and have no problem with a subscription fee if it means a stable and continuos development of the game. If you dont like the fee idea, then just dont sign up. The "free" aspect is just to get people hooked.

The Ork nerd rage is kind of funny, please continue to contribute more.

At it's core it's going to be a PVP game, "There is only war" should be enough of a hint.

Their current design decisions don't really seem suited to getting people hooked.

The only draw is the franchise (like in most other games of this publisher).

It says its an MMORPG. Good luck with that. I would rather it be an MMOFPS. It already looks like its third-person. That doesn't rule out FPS shooter elements, as there are a few cool TPS out right now. I just hope it isn't a point and click to activate abilities theme-park. Those seem easy to make and commercially "popular."

Should be interesting to watch for the next year and a half.

It seems to be an MMO in the same way Planetside is an MMO and it is an RPG because it has a talent/class building system.

If its going to play how they want it to i.e. like Space Marine, I cant wait.

AWesker1976 wrote:

nomotog wrote:Well if your going to make everything persistent, then start SMs as scouts and that will make things more balanced with orks starting as boys. Though I was hoping for a more dust like system myself because of reasons.
Also Everyone in 40k has the bling of war. Everyone! It's part of why it makes such a good mini game. Every one has a reason to bling out their models and if they didn't then the fans made one up.

According to the Imperial Munitorium Manual, Atricle 5633/64b:
Any soldier (ie - guardsman) who displays about his person or uniform, unauthorized decals, tattoos, trophies taken from the field of battle or other spoils of war without prior permission in writing of his superior officer, will have the offending items stripped from him and then be flogged.

Technically, the developers in this game wouldn't have to care at all for the inventions of some random Black Library product.
The Primer is a fun thing to read and I certainly don't regret the purchase, but the information you quoted doesn't hold up to the Imperial Guard as described in GW's original fluff - where it's a cultural thing that differs between every single planet raising a regiment. Hell, from the looks of it, half of the regiments don't even have a uniform.

Granted, it'd probably look odd on the posterboy regiment Cadians. Then again, even the 3E Guard Codex had a full page devoted to Cadians wearing looted autopistols as trophy weapons and stuff.

Wonder how soon a daemon champion, warboss or captain will turn up. Hopefully the beta-testers will get a start bonus, like becoming a sergeant. Also will the skins allow us to be other chapters, or do we have to stick with iron warriors

I reckon in the beta it will just be the devs and that being the leaders to start off with. They did say other chapters would be in so I assume the other chapters would be available through guilds.

 Minx wrote:

JWhex wrote:
If this thing is going to succeed longterm they are going to have to put in more PVE than hinted at in the interview.

Another major wild card is the idea that players will essentially be getting "quests" from other players rather than NPC's. I can forsee some real problems with that model of business.

I hope they are successful and have no problem with a subscription fee if it means a stable and continuos development of the game. If you dont like the fee idea, then just dont sign up. The "free" aspect is just to get people hooked.

The Ork nerd rage is kind of funny, please continue to contribute more.

At it's core it's going to be a PVP game, "There is only war" should be enough of a hint.

Their current design decisions don't really seem suited to getting people hooked.

The only draw is the franchise (like in most other games of this publisher).

Yeah but, they also said there was going to be crafting and resource gathering activities like mining which are more along mmorpg elements. I am not opposed to it being heavy PVP but I just dont see it holding up long term with a large player base without substantial solo and PVE elements. People burn out on activities and need to change up every once in awhile.

Guilds? So unofficial? Or just joinable? If there unofficial guilds then it'll probably be run by friendsand therefore only the guy who knows the leader will rank up....

Another interview, posted it on the front of my site - Here

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013/06/13/interview-behaviour-on-warhammer-40k-eternal-crusade/

"The game is an MMORPG, but not in the sense that it’s a content- and quest-heavy theme park – ours is more a system-driven virtual world in the vein of Planetside 2 or EvE Online. “There Is Only War” is our mantra..."

That's what I was talking about. Looks like good news.

No, it still looks like gak.

 The Dark Apostle wrote:
Guilds? So unofficial? Or just joinable? If there unofficial guilds then it'll probably be run by friendsand therefore only the guy who knows the leader will rank up....

Unofficial it seems, they want most decisions to be up to players which is a good idea imo but like you said there will be problems with this. Luckily I think when your guild picks leaders, heroes, diplomats etc, the vote is from the whole guild; well it should be because that way the choosing is fair. For example if we wanted to pick our Templar Marshal, we could pull everyones kill records together along with looking at how well they co-operate within the guild and how they take/give orders, rather than the vote being up to a say 5 guys who all know each other. I hope so anyway.

Besides if anyone notices a clear bias choosing, I am sure the GM's would be happy to sort it out.

Planetside 2 and EVE? Just the games I was hoping to hear.

That's just namedropping, not an indication of them actually doing a good job.

Nice read aswell thanks for posting the interview. Haha so psychic powers will have dangers with them? Guess we can expect some hilarious outcomes fighting wierdboys.

More likely than not it'll just be "you take damage from using some abilities" or "you get debuffs from using some abilities".

Oh stop being such a Negative Nancy. Give it a chance Mel.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh stop being such a Negative Nancy. Give it a chance Mel.

Maybe when I hear something about it that's actually good.

 unmercifulconker wrote:

 The Dark Apostle wrote:
Guilds? So unofficial? Or just joinable? If there unofficial guilds then it'll probably be run by friendsand therefore only the guy who knows the leader will rank up....

Unofficial it seems, they want most decisions to be up to players which is a good idea imo but like you said there will be problems with this. Luckily I think when your guild picks leaders, heroes, diplomats etc, the vote is from the whole guild; well it should be because that way the choosing is fair. For example if we wanted to pick our Templar Marshal, we could pull everyones kill records together along with looking at how well they co-operate within the guild and how they take/give orders, rather than the vote being up to a say 5 guys who all know each other. I hope so anyway.

Besides if anyone notices a clear bias choosing, I am sure the GM's would be happy to sort it out.

Planetside 2 and EVE? Just the games I was hoping to hear.

Honestly I cant think of a worse possible way to origanize ranking up or whatever than to put it into the hands of players. Freaking linkshell drama queens and favortism will cause a huge amount of grief and people rage quiting, you can rely on it.

Sounds good, but way, way too ambitious. It'll be a TPS arena shooter by the time it's in beta.

The more I hear about this the better it sounds...I'm really looking forward to a first proper look at gameplay and the like. With any luck the developers have the skill to match their apparent ambition.

 Melissia wrote:
That's just namedropping, not an indication of them actually doing a good job.

I agree. While they mention Planetside 2, most of what they have said about the game seems not Planetside 2. At least they are aware of what they are up against. Planetside 2 is only getting better with each game update. With the lattice system in place, large battles are easy to find, as well as a number of other improvements and new options.

If they want a piece of the Planetside 2 crowd to stick around for any length of time, they have to bring the large scale battles with combined arms in a balanced and competitive way. Still, I think its to vague to tell just what type of gamer they are after. RPG or FPS/TPS.

JWhex wrote:
Honestly I cant think of a worse possible way to origanize ranking up or whatever than to put it into the hands of players. Freaking linkshell drama queens and favortism will cause a huge amount of grief and people rage quiting, you can rely on it.

Seems like a bad idea to make platoons anything more than optional systems in the game. The factions are already defined. The problem is 40k isn't a free and open social order. Is it even possible to translate that into a videogame with massive amounts of people and still make something successful. Planetside handles it by keeping the backstory as backstory, because the real intent of the game is to simulate large scale combined arms battles, not to role-play.

 Melissia wrote:

nomotog wrote:
If it takes you 5 times the money to spawn a SM then a boy

That won't matter if there's ten times as many people playing them.

I don't think everyone will play SMs. They are rather dull and boring so I expect more people to move to the fractions with actual personality.

 Kettu wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:
It sounds fine to me, to be honest. I don't mind players having to put something into a game financially in order to get the full experience.

Like buying the game?

BrotherVord wrote:
We have come to this place where we as gamers feel like we are entitled to a free experience somehow.

I've already bought the game, why should I pay more?

BrotherVord wrote:
The developers and publishers need to make money

Just buying the game isn't enough anymore?

BrotherVord wrote:
they can't do that if every free ork toon is just as good as every space marine...if that were the case then nobody would have incentive to pay to be anything more than one of the boyz. This system gives incentive to try the game, see the systems in place, and choose to buy in if you want. I like that system.

But I've already bought the game!

---

I find a bit of a problem with your argument, I've outlined my issues with it above.
I do have a closing question though;

What's wrong with the only costs involved being the purchase of the Game itself?

I'm not sure why you think you're saying something different from what I am. It feels like you're extrapolating intent from the developers about a pricing model that we know very little about. I am going strictly off of what the developer has already said, and not filling in the gaps for myself like some of the others here.

It's annoying, however, to see so many people demanding that the game be totally free except for cosmetic changes to a toon...do you guys realize how expensive it is to make an mmo? Do you really think it's possible to recoup that cost by having people pay only for little trophies, dyes, and doodads for their toons? I don't.

BrotherVord wrote:

 Kettu wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:
It sounds fine to me, to be honest. I don't mind players having to put something into a game financially in order to get the full experience.

Like buying the game?

BrotherVord wrote:
We have come to this place where we as gamers feel like we are entitled to a free experience somehow.

I've already bought the game, why should I pay more?

BrotherVord wrote:
The developers and publishers need to make money

Just buying the game isn't enough anymore?

BrotherVord wrote:
they can't do that if every free ork toon is just as good as every space marine...if that were the case then nobody would have incentive to pay to be anything more than one of the boyz. This system gives incentive to try the game, see the systems in place, and choose to buy in if you want. I like that system.

But I've already bought the game!

---

I find a bit of a problem with your argument, I've outlined my issues with it above.
I do have a closing question though;

What's wrong with the only costs involved being the purchase of the Game itself?

I'm not sure why you think you're saying something different from what I am. It feels like you're extrapolating intent from the developers about a pricing model that we know very little about. I am going strictly off of what the developer has already said, and not filling in the gaps for myself like some of the others here.

It's annoying, however, to see so many people demanding that the game be totally free except for cosmetic changes to a toon...do you guys realize how expensive it is to make an mmo? Do you really think it's possible to recoup that cost by having people pay only for little trophies, dyes, and doodads for their toons? I don't.

Yeah, it doesnt annoy me but it seems like people are acting childish, petulant and unrealistic.

nomotog wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

nomotog wrote:
If it takes you 5 times the money to spawn a SM then a boy

That won't matter if there's ten times as many people playing them.

I don't think everyone will play SMs. They are rather dull and boring so I expect more people to move to the fractions with actual charter.

People LOVE dull characters. Incredibly bland, muscled "badass" protagonists with a lack of any profound character or, dare I say, complexity, but huge guns? People LOVE that. Cue Call of Doody.