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.

 Lynata wrote:

AWesker1976 wrote:Dawn of War was a RTS set in the 40K universe not a 40K game with RTS traits. You didn't need to have a 40k Loremaster Phd to jump in and start building an army.
Space Marine was a generic 3rd person run and gun adventure game set in the 40K universe, you literally could have cut the Ultramarines completely out of the game and replaced them with any generic army and nothing would be different.

Yet that doesn't really address the question - what corners were cut, meaning which elements of 40k were sacrificed for gameplay there?

(and for the Space Marine game, I'd actually say that the Ultramarines easily qualify as the most fitting Chapter for much of the dialogue, considering how often Brother Whatshisname ranted on about the Codex Astartes saying this and that ... I think it would have been somewhat odd if you'd have played this as, say, a Space Wolf)

Leandros was the most fluffy Ultramarine in the game. This is how the rank and file Ultrasmurfs regard their Holy Codex. Captain Titus was the exception using the Codex as a guidebook instead of holy dogma. He was not a "fluffy" Ultramarine and really could have easily been replaced with anyone and made little difference.

I do not know of specific examples of how they cut corners to make Space Marine more geared towards casual gamers than it was for 40K gamers.

Lynata wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:This game isn't for Warhammer fans specifically. It's for gamers. If they were gearing this to 40k fans alone, the game wouldn't last long. Even the Dawn of War series and Space Marine had to cut corners to sell it to the public gamer audience.

You sure? I tend to perceive the gaming industry as being largely dominated by some very few AAA-titles that ultimately render 99% of all attempts to topple them futile, resulting in a huge waste of investment by catering not to loyal fans but to the faceless "average gamer" - who then just ends up ignoring your product.

Call me naive, but I'd rather see more high-quality niche games like EVE or Mount & Blade that don't even try to compete with the #1 and instead focus on delivering to a smaller, yet more reliable crowd of long-term fans. What's the point of tapping the 40k IP if you do not intend to market it to 40k fans? If you're relying almost exclusively on gameplay, you don't need an established brand to release a successful title.

My apologies, I wasn't too clear, Melissia's post here is a clearer version of what I was trying to say:

Melissia wrote:I wouldn't suggest trying to cater to the "average gamer", but catering to only the 40k fans is a losing prospect, considering that 40k is a niche market and doesn't always attract the sorts of people who would be in to a competitive shooter. If it was an MMOTBS instead of an MMO3PS, that'd be different.

(and what corners are you referring to in the two examples you mentioned?)

Space Marine, as already mentioned, could be any other generic 3rd person action shooter and it'd be pretty much the same. When I played through it, I literally felt as though it could've been Gears of War with more close combat and I wouldn't have known the difference. And let's be honest, the story wasn't that imaginative either. Also, no one Space Marine should be able to wade through such a huge tide of Orks and then Space Marines (Legion Marines, no less) with such contemptuous ease.

Dawn of War. Let's see, as much as I love both the first and second game, you could tell that the game design was very similar to that of Company of Heroes. This held particularly true in Dawn of War 1. Mechanics like Suppression carried over, which doesn't exist in the table top game. My unit of Khorne Berzerkers shouldn't be pinned down so much to the point where I can't actually charge you. Dawn of War 2 - a lot of weapons were not represented well. Multilasers were basically ineffective at damaging anything that was power-armored and above. Missile launchers don't get the option of frag and krak grenades either. And a Baneblade should seriously have no problems just raping face of an Avatar, Terminators, or just about any unit that was in the game. Tyranids shouldn't be able to function properly well outside of Synapse either (AKA their Stupidity Test in TT).

My point is that there will be units portrayed in games that are completely misrepresentative of what they actually can do in the tabletop because of balance and gameplay.

(All that said, I'm still utterly in love with Dawn of War 2 and still play it regularly.)

Enigwolf wrote:Space Marine, as already mentioned, could be any other generic 3rd person action shooter and it'd be pretty much the same. When I played through it, I literally felt as though it could've been Gears of War with more close combat and I wouldn't have known the difference. And let's be honest, the story wasn't that imaginative either. Also, no one Space Marine should be able to wade through such a huge tide of Orks and then Space Marines (Legion Marines, no less) with such contemptuous ease.

Hm, we may have different interpretations of what "cutting corners" means. Yes, you could have played "any other generic 3rd person action shooter" without a notable difference in gameplay, yet what does that even mean? You can do the same thing with the tabletop and replace its miniatures with something from a different franchise - and it'd still be "pretty much the same", too.
Aside from 40k's unique atmosphere and style, which is why I think it is so important to adhere to the established background.

For me, "cutting corners" means removing or twisting key elements of the background in order to cater to what the "average gamer" would prefer. And there I'm just not noticing much in either Dawn of War or Space Marine.

Though yes, of course I agree that no one Space Marine should be able to kill that many Orks etc, but I see this as a nod to the legend of the Astartes rather than a neutral/more objective analysis of their capabilities. Similar to how we could complain about the plot armour in a whole lot of novels, movies or other games of many other franchises.
I suppose you could say that they have "cut corners" by implementing a mechanic that allows the player Space Marine to heal himself by "executing" enemies, for without this mechanic (that indeed does not have any basis in the fluff) there would be an increased level of realism that would have seen Titus die before even finishing the first level. Yet this obviously makes for a poor story, and as mentioned just now I wouldn't necessarily agree that this makes the game feel less like 40k.

This also ties into the "balance" thing I mentioned earlier. Some things you just have to accept, but at the same time there are others that just don't need to be. Such as, for example, Space Marine Apothecaries casting heals as a ranged action, which I hope won't become a thing in the MMO. This would be a good example of what *I* mean when I talk of "cutting corners".

On that note, I did remember that I've criticised some of the game's weapons, though that was just nitpicking about minor "errors" (or what I would perceive as such) in a number of visual designs.

Enigwolf wrote:Mechanics like Suppression carried over, which doesn't exist in the table top game.

I'd argue that Suppression = Pinning.

As for Dawn of War 2 - granted, I did not play that one, so I cannot comment on this.

 Lynata wrote:

Enigwolf wrote:Space Marine, as already mentioned, could be any other generic 3rd person action shooter and it'd be pretty much the same. When I played through it, I literally felt as though it could've been Gears of War with more close combat and I wouldn't have known the difference. And let's be honest, the story wasn't that imaginative either. Also, no one Space Marine should be able to wade through such a huge tide of Orks and then Space Marines (Legion Marines, no less) with such contemptuous ease.

Hm, we may have different interpretations of what "cutting corners" means. Yes, you could have played "any other generic 3rd person action shooter" without a notable difference in gameplay, yet what does that even mean? You can do the same thing with the tabletop and replace its miniatures with something from a different franchise - and it'd still be "pretty much the same", too.
Aside from 40k's unique atmosphere and style, which is why I think it is so important to adhere to the established background.

For me, "cutting corners" means removing or twisting key elements of the background in order to cater to what the "average gamer" would prefer. And there I'm just not noticing much in either Dawn of War or Space Marine.

Though yes, of course I agree that no one Space Marine should be able to kill that many Orks etc, but I see this as a nod to the legend of the Astartes rather than a neutral/more objective analysis of their capabilities. Similar to how we could complain about the plot armour in a whole lot of novels, movies or other games of many other franchises.
I suppose you could say that they have "cut corners" by implementing a mechanic that allows the player Space Marine to heal himself by "executing" enemies, for without this mechanic that indeed does not have any basis in the fluff there would be an increased realism that would have seen Titus die before even finishing the first level. Yet this makes for a poor story, and as mentioned just now I wouldn't necessarily agree that this makes the game feel less like 40k.

This ties into the "balance" thing I mentioned earlier. Some things you just have to accept, but there are things that just don't need to be. Such as, for example, Space Marine Apothecaries casting heals as a ranged action, which I hope won't become a thing in the MMO. This would be a good example of what I mean when I think of "cutting corners".

On that note, I did remember that I've criticised some of the game's weapons, though that was just nitpicking about minor "errors" (or what I would perceive as such) in a number of visual designs.

Enigwolf wrote:Mechanics like Suppression carried over, which doesn't exist in the table top game.

I'd argue that Suppression = Pinning.

As for Dawn of War 2 - granted, I did not play that one, so I cannot comment on this.

Yeah, my thoughts are basically the same as yours. I don't like the implementation from a fluff perspective, but I do understand why they had to do it. I was referring more to inaccuracies with the portrayal of things, but I too agree mechanics-wise other stuff like ranged Apoth heals don't make sense. I also do think that Suppression = Pinning, but in DoW2, weapons like Heavy Bolters, Shuricannon Plats, Loota Dakkaguns, and Barbed Stranglers caused Suppression, and these weapons don't have pinning in the TT.

./facepalm

What are you talking about... the DoW series is a fantastic RTS adaptation of the TT, and SM is a fantastic adaptation of a 40k FPS/TPS. Even the average gamer completely unfamiliar to the lore would get the general idea of a SM if they didn't have so many fan-spanks around belting out how amazingly OP / not OP the SM's are.

Again, 40k's lore is a matter of perspective, there is no single truth that carries through any of it. Therefore, Relic did a fantastic job of portraying what they believed was the fair capabilities of the SM's. On one hand (in DOW) they are formidable warriors, but far from invincible and the SoB (and every other race) can stand toe to toe against them on any day. On the other (Killteam and SM), they are walking gods of battle, crushing foes by the thousands and only matched by their foul brethern. Neither is false, neither is true, for the reality lies somewhere in between on any given day.

Suppression is no different from TT Pinning, and the weapons that caused them mattered only to the game because it'd be difficult to explain why a SM is carrying a friggin Earthshaker on his shoulder. (Please for the love of god somebody model an Angry Marine doing this just to illustrate the point of giving infantry suppression...)

More importantly, imagine how short SM would have been if it was "realistic" to the TT game. Congratulations, 10 orks killed you. And always will. Titus is dead, looks like you lose.

I would definitely like to know something about character progression and advancement. No quests apparently, but experience points have been mentioned. Is there an experience point penalty for getting killed? I would expect one.

The developers have emphasized that there needs to be an end to a conflict with winners. Likewise there needs to be some achievable progression goals for the characters.

Where a lot of games fall apart is at the end game. With no quests or story line driven missions, "end game" defined as reaching a point were you are just repeating everything is going to arrive very soon.

I would also like to know more about the economy. Aside from mining and other gathering of raw resources, will the game have the equivalent of crafting. Will there be foods, potions, medicines and consumables that players make. Will there be durable goods that players can make?

The requisition point system does not sound like the best way to run an economy because there are different factions. If you can ally with other factions you should be able to trade with them, but requisition points as a basis for trade between different factions is silly.

I am glad that there will be 4 chapters of marines at launch because 10k Dark Angels just does not make any sense. I certainly do not want to see pink rainbow little pony color schemes so I hope the developers do NOT give players an unlimitted palette.

Unlike some others I think the developers have made good choices in the factions. In her blog Melissa complains about the scarcity of games that allow a female character, yet one comes along and she wont shut up about the fact that her own special snowflake group that is as rare as a snowstorm in south Texas isnt represented at launch. Seriously, Mel you should have said something nice about the fact there are playable female characters in the game instead of making snide little remarks in so many of your posts.

In the big scheme of things, Tau, IG, Necrons and Dark Eldar probably should make the cut and be prioritized ahead of the Sisters of Battle. The Sisters are an unknown quantity and it is not clear when if ever they will be revitalized with a relaunch. It makes sense for a faction in this game to be concurrently supported by a decent model range and codex. About the only faction I would put lower on the priority scale than the sisters is the pure chaos demon faction and even with their terribad codex for two versions they are way more popular than the sisters ever were.

JWhex wrote:
Where a lot of games fall apart is at the end game. With no quests or story line driven missions, "end game" defined as reaching a point were you are just repeating everything is going to arrive very soon.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying here. It's a (mostly) purely PvP game, it's all endgame content. In terms of progression it seems more CoD than WoW.

Why would you expect an XP penatly for getting killed?

This is a third-person shooter game, not some crappy grind-tastic MMORPG.

Agreed MandolrynOranj.

JWhex, most of your questions have already been answered. There is a plot line the players follow that progress the game. However, it is through our PVP interactions driven by the objectives the War Council we elect that sets the stage. We are authors of our endgame content, which is a relief because it means we don't have to farm a Tryannid "Arthus" 700 times to feel as though we're done. Instead, it's War Eternal; meaning the player's get to do whatever they like. We get to defend positions, secure resources, siege enemies, and lay waste to the world we're fighting on. Being deterred by a lack of quest driven objectives is only a reason to despair for an unimaginative person. It's like asking for a dollhouse while sitting in a sandbox, the only reason why anyone would is because they want somebody else to do the creative thinking for them rather than making it part of the experience.

I share some of your questions however, and agree that it was a good decision to not make DA's exclusive.

As for incurring the wrath of Mel, I do not at all share your view of disenfranchising the SoB from the 40k IP even further by not including them at launch. There is room for every race within this game and plenty of awesome things each could do without breaking the game. However, it takes a lot of effort to include everyone in this festival of souls, and if it means waiting a bit longer for some DLC's to come out and crash it (as the dev's have already promised) I feel as though this is ok. I mean we're 2 years out still and it's clear that they want to include everyone as soon as possible. I don't make video games, but including all 12 races: Tyranids, Tau, Necrons, SM, CSM, IG, Traitor Guard, SoB, Ork, Eldar, DE, Demons, (and innumerable Subfactions/Chapters/Warbands - Ad. Mech, Dark Mech, Inquisition, ect.) at launch is difficult, not even Relic was able to do it in any of their games.

Enigwolf wrote:I also do think that Suppression = Pinning, but in DoW2, weapons like Heavy Bolters, Shuricannon Plats, Loota Dakkaguns, and Barbed Stranglers caused Suppression, and these weapons don't have pinning in the TT.

They can in the Inquisitor RPG.
Although I'll never cease to argue that the TT and the fluff are connected, the tabletop is an abstraction, and a lot of stuff happens in a single turn - more than, for example, in a round of Inquisitor. So in theory, all those weapons you listed could suppress, but they are not Pinning for the TT rules because they do not "suppress as much" as the guns that actually do have the Pinning quality.

... yeah, yeah, I know. I like making up justifications for that sort of stuff.

DemetriDominov has a point, though - the fluff is a matter of perspective. The only thing that seems to matter to GW, and what should matter to us, is that the unique style and grimdark, yet epic atmosphere of the setting are kept intact. It's quite possible that one cannot quantify this or put this into proper rules, as it really is just a matter of feeling.
And we all have our own thresholds on when that line is crossed, but the developers' intention to keep to TT stats fills me with hope as I see this as the best compromise, and what the hardcore fans are most familiar with.

JWhex wrote:Aside from mining and other gathering of raw resources, will the game have the equivalent of crafting. Will there be foods, potions, medicines and consumables that players make. Will there be durable goods that players can make?
The requisition point system does not sound like the best way to run an economy because there are different factions. If you can ally with other factions you should be able to trade with them, but requisition points as a basis for trade between different factions is silly.

I really hope there will not be consumables. Sure, there are combat drugs and stuff, but I'd really be sceptical about this becoming a "default" thing in the game - which it'd undoubtedly will, if the option is there. The whole topic of "pots" is a bit too WoW'ish for my taste.
As for trading requisition points ... why would this be silly? I'm not actually thinking it would be possibly, but in theory, these points represent nothing but someone's ability to have his requests for stuff confirmed by the people in charge. In a hypothetical trade scenario, these points would represent an undefined type of supplies that would change hands - fuel or raw material, most likely. In terms of background, I really don't think it would be like a Space Marine having some sort of official "requisition point account" in Astartes Bank, where he can write cheques for friends. That's just the interface for you as a player - which brings me back to the topic of abstraction.

 Lynata wrote:
......In theory, these points represent nothing but someone's ability to have his requests for stuff confirmed by the people in charge. In a hypothetical trade scenario, these points would represent an undefined type of supplies that would change hands - fuel or raw material, most likely. In terms of background, I really don't think it would be like a Space Marine having some sort of official "requisition point account" in Astartes Bank, where he can write cheques for friends. That's just the interface for you as a player - which brings me back to the topic of abstraction.

Or you know... he could just get you that chainsword and be like... "Hey, you're really going to question me about this? You know who I am right?"

And then get disciplined by his superiors for being criminally insane and not disciplined enough to be a real Astartes.

Not that well see any discipline in this game.

That gave me a bit of an idea actually.. why not just have requisition be synonymous with Authority? The more you earn through killing, and taking objectives, ect, the more say you have over voting and other things? I mean you can't farm Authority like you can in WoW. You well and truly have to earn it by actually playing the game. Clearly there has to be a cap someplace, but still, it does sound like the beginning of a brainstorm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
And then get disciplined by his superiors for being criminally insane and not disciplined enough to be a real Astartes.

Not that well see any discipline in this game.

But you know.. somehow it would work incredibly well for a SoB, and IG, and just about everyone else. I mean that rep gain basically gives one de facto power of rank. You may not have the said title of "sergeant", but you have enough rep gain that you can distribute wargear that you have access to, to those under your "Authority". It works. Just saying.

Would anyone else be a plague marine if you could do something similar to this?

I guess the experience system will just work like it does in similar games - reach new level, spend point in a talent tree, get bonusses on certain abilities. Character progression is a must-have in games nowadays.

It will be interesting to find out if many women end up playing this game. My guess is NO. There have been enough studies based on quantitative data, not armchair speculating about stereotypes to suggest that if you were to design a game specifically so it would NOT appeal to women broadly, this game would be what you are aiming for.

Women comprise about 40% of the video game market and among late teens and early twenties they are a higher percentage.

In one study based on 250 women from Austraila the conclusions matched what earlier industry studies had suggested. Women enjoy games with puzzles and lots of social interaction.

What women preferred in this study was

mental stimulation
creativity
good graphics but "cuteness was not a factor"

Racing games were preferred as well as puzzle games.

What women in the study did not like was the exact type of game being discussed here. GAME DEVELOPERS TAKE NOTE, ABOUT 40% OF VIDEO GAME BUYERS WILL BE TURNED OFF OF THIS GAME.

Quote from article

"When the data was analyzed the ‘Action Games’ (both ‘Action Shooters’ and ‘Action Fighting’) were clearly found to be least preferred by female gamers. Both ‘Action Shooters’ and ‘Action Fighting’ are games that involve a high degree of conflict, violence and destruction. Therefore the fact that female gamers rated them as the least preferred type of video games indicated that these aspects were not wanted in their video games. Furthermore, ‘Military Simulators’ were rated as the lesser preferred type of video game which further indicates women’s dislike for games that involve conflict and excessive competition (the main characteristics of ‘Military Games’). "

When women were asked to rate factors that were important to them for a wide variety of games, violence was at the bottom of the list.

Why this game will NOT have many female users.

1. The fact that this game is going to be mostly a shooter with very little non-violent content means that it will have a very low appeal to most female gamers.

2. The high level of violence and emphasis on gore and blood will repel many women. Not only is it a genre not preferred by women it is the least preferred subgenera of all, "Military Simulators"

3. The various "snuff" emotes where one person is degrading another, ie tea bagging will be a huge turn off to women (and annoying to anyone over age 12)

4. Compared to a MMORPG the social interaction of this game is going to be very weak. This is a major put off for women based on preferences among for various console games compared

5. Based on what the developer said about the look of the Eldar females I think we can expect character models that are over sexualized in body proportions and probably attire. This is a well documented turn off for women players.

Now obviously you cannot make a 40k game without a lot of violence. The thing is, all I see to this game is just violence, war, there is only war, tea bagging, gore, more gore, gore bagging, gut ripping etc etc etc. There really is more to the 40k universe than just war. The problem isnt the game setting, the problem is the EXTREMELY NARROW VISION of this game.

If you see a SoB in this game and she isnt named Melissa you can bet she will be packing a bolter and a Y chromosome.

If you see a SoB in this game and she isnt named Melissa you can bet she will be packing a bolter and a Y chromosome.

Sisters of battle usually screw up in one way or another anyway..
Would it be cool to have them in game? Yeah it would, i would love to shoot a bolt into a SoB's face then flay the skin and put it on my ceramite

However on a serious note Necrons, IG, and Tau should take precedence over the sisters of battle because they have a larger fan base.

But ifepy! the IG are no match for an Astartes or Necron in terms of one on one combat. Wouldn't players get angry?

That is a good point... The solution? IG NPC's make up the bulk of the imperial guard whilst players can take over other guardsmen nearby when they die... ORRRRR IG regulars are NPC's while the storm troopers are the players


also i hate the black legion... Id sooner have the flawless host as the main chapter in the game or renegade Ultramarines then the black legion who are the most cartoony stupid traitors in the whole universe.

"I GOT spIKES on MEH iim soo angry ahhhhh we have no depth to us just angry guys with spikes!"

JWhex wrote:
*things that are completely irrelevant*

None of these points have anything to do with the matter at hand. They're making a third person shooter, and you're saying they should make an RPG instead. It's one thing to complain about elements of the game, but to say that they should make it an entirely different genre is pretty ridiculous.

Instead of pounding a square peg into a round hole, making a guardsman competent in hth against a meq, why not just have IG players do what they do in the game, shoot the crap out of people and drive tanks around?

Every faction does not need to be good at hth. Why wouldnt you be able to have guardsman hanging back from the battle line shooting heavy weapons? I suppose putting a guardsman in a sentinel would be a way to increase their survivability in the game and still put them in the scrum line.

Seeing guardsman tearing up marines or eldar in hth is just not going to sustain the immersion of the game for me. I dont have a problem with marines or chaos marines being the equivalent of multiple orks. On the table top IG are my main 40k army but I dont want to see them made into something that they are not for the game.

I do wonder how many guardsman are equal to one ork at this stage of development and how many SoB are the equivalent of a single marine. Certainly these numbers will probably change during development and should be open to change as the game matures and is played.

I am also very curious as to how the developers plan to entice players to use the factions other than the marines and chaos marines. I expect tabletop Ork players to largely embrace their faction because that is just the way many Ork players are, they are about the race more than winning.

If you dont think the MEQs are going to be 10x more popular than the other races your just not being realistic in my opinion. Gamers are smart and they will figure out the absolute best configurations for marines at an early stage and that will become widely known through the forums. The developers have stated they are not worried about balance so much, but they should be concerned about diversity because 90% marine players is not terribly interesting, this circles back to why there does need to be some balance, so people will play all the factions with a decent representation.

Its all well and good to have the goal of many factions but if 90% of your players are only using 2 out of 12 factions, whats the point? Indeed for any faction, if there is not a prospect for a lot of players it is a waste of time developing that faction rather than some other interesting new aspect of the game.

Now say for example you are a new player and know a little bit about 40k. Why would you pick a guardsman in this game, compared to a marine, you have crap armor, crap weapons (if regular trooper), suck at hth combat and have low leadership with no special rules? If you just happen to be fascinated with IG and own 10K worth of models, it isnt a MMORPG type game so your fascination with the IG is not going to carry the day either.

You really have to look at this game from the viewpoint of a competitive, slightly obsessive male gamer because that is going to be 95% or more of the player base. The majority of these players are going to gravitate to the most efficient and strongest faction and you can bet your bottom dollar that is going to be regular and spikey marines. Factions and jobs or w/e that are deemed gimp will be shunned.

The developers have said in no uncertain terms that they are not presently planning to balance the factions and how this can result in anything but a skewed, wildly asymmetrical distribution of players among factions is quite difficult to imagine.

In the future there is only war, but mostly its just marines!

Not necessarily. At least for Eldar, some things they can do to make them strong are translating their high initiative to a higher movement speed to give players an advantage in getting in position and avoiding fire. Making their technology and weapons superior to those of Space Marines (as they are on the table) is another thing, which is balanced by their lower strength and toughness (hit points, presumably) and typically weaker armor. Plus their vehicles are faster and can hover, and hopefully they let them fly to represent that Apoc formation and the fluff that says they can. It's the choice between fast and strong, and in most games I prefer being able to move fast than take a lot of fire.

As for Orks, their aesthetic I think will be enough to carry them for the most part, but also once you advance past Boy they'll be better in cc than marines, as well as probably having lots of advantages for working in large groups to represent Mob Rule so may appeal to more social players. Plus the crazy stuff like Shokk Attack Guns.

I don't see IG working at all unless they are almost exclusively vehicles/artillery. Any special or heavy weapon an IG can have, a SM can too, and if it's just the weapon, why wouldn't you want it on a better platform? But on the other hand, an all-artillery faction would probably be boring to play since there's so much staying in one place, and all-vehicle wouldn't represent the fluff well without lots of NPC foot soldiers.

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

JWhex wrote:
*things that are completely irrelevant*

None of these points have anything to do with the matter at hand. They're making a third person shooter, and you're saying they should make an RPG instead. It's one thing to complain about elements of the game, but to say that they should make it an entirely different genre is pretty ridiculous.

There is no barrier to including elements of an rpg in a shooter centric game.

There is also no reason to have offensive things like tea bagging in a shooter game. That one of the developers actually used the word tea bagging in a live interview, and then defined explicitly to the Russian interviewing him, shows just such an astonishing lack of maturity it was hard to believe. I mean what kind of person in this day and age describes tea bagging while being recorded live on videotape.

There is no requirement for female toons to be over sexualized in a shooter type game

There is NO good reason to make a game that a huge segment of the video game buying public finds to be distasteful and practically loathsome. A segment that is growing in the important 18-25 year old age group as well.

The situation is not that female gamers will not play third person shooters, it is that this game is so narrow in its scope that it really cannot accommodate a large female player base. It emphasizes the things most female players find distasteful but does zero for developing the kinds of activities that female gamers prefer. Clearly, female gamers will tolerate violence in a video game but there is just nothing being offered here except for violence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:
Not necessarily. At least for Eldar, some things they can do to make them strong are translating their high initiative to a higher movement speed to give players an advantage in getting in position and avoiding fire. Making their technology and weapons superior to those of Space Marines (as they are on the table) is another thing, which is balanced by their lower strength and toughness (hit points, presumably) and typically weaker armor. Plus their vehicles are faster and can hover, and hopefully they let them fly to represent that Apoc formation and the fluff that says they can. It's the choice between fast and strong, and in most games I prefer being able to move fast than take a lot of fire.

As for Orks, their aesthetic I think will be enough to carry them for the most part, but also once you advance past Boy they'll be better in cc than marines, as well as probably having lots of advantages for working in large groups to represent Mob Rule so may appeal to more social players. Plus the crazy stuff like Shokk Attack Guns.

Based on the recorded interview where the developer acted out how they envisioned combat going down I dont see how a little speed would help much. If you didnt see his enthusiastic performance the way combat goes down is that you fire until running out of ammo then run up and hack at each other. Not much chance of avoiding fire with a slight speed advantage.

Given the low average level of immaturity I expect for this game the Eldar faction will suffer from the androgynous appearance of the males. Ironically it will be mostly males playing the female Eldar but I expect a lot of gaybashing and other offensive taunts to be directed to male Eldar players. This will of course have a negative effect on the amount of 13 year old boys that will pick male Eldar.

I agree that the Ork aesthetic will draw in Ork players but that is still a very small percentage of players and many more prefer the marine aesthetic, that is just the reality.

JWhex wrote:

 MandalorynOranj wrote:

JWhex wrote:
*things that are completely irrelevant*

None of these points have anything to do with the matter at hand. They're making a third person shooter, and you're saying they should make an RPG instead. It's one thing to complain about elements of the game, but to say that they should make it an entirely different genre is pretty ridiculous.

There is no barrier to including elements of an rpg in a shooter centric game.

There is also no reason to have offensive things like tea bagging in a shooter game. That one of the developers actually used the word tea bagging in a live interview, and then defined explicitly to the Russian interviewing him, shows just such an astonishing lack of maturity it was hard to believe. I mean what kind of person in this day and age describes tea bagging while being recorded live on videotape.

There is no requirement for female toons to be over sexualized in a shooter type game

There is NO good reason to make a game that a huge segment of the video game buying public finds to be distasteful and practically loathsome. A segment that is growing in the important 18-25 year old age group as well.

The situation is not that female gamers will not play third person shooters, it is that this game is so narrow in its scope that it really cannot accommodate a large female player base. It emphasizes the things most female players find distasteful but does zero for developing the kinds of activities that female gamers prefer. Clearly, female gamers will tolerate violence in a video game but there is just nothing being offered here except for violence.

Since you are so much concerned about a Female presence in a game, I hear "FarmVille" has a large female audience!

I mean lots of people in this thread, and i must say in many threads that talk about todays MMO-s, bring out one important fact! "Don't Copy WOW" meaning just because it worked in WOW, it doesn't mean it's gonna work in any other MMO.
And i really don't understand why should the game cater to every gamer out there, and why do you think they should build game around some data from a random research?

This is 40k for Emperor's sake, there is no place for housewives that want to grow vegetables, or little kids that wanna ride around on pony-s!
Developers said they are going for Mature rating, and if they manage to end like EVE, with 500K subscribers, and 50-70K players online, with as much as possible grim dark universe, I wouldn't complain!


P.S.
I hear you can find Female in RL in almost every bar, you just need to take that door in your apartment that has "Outside" sign!

JWhex wrote:
TL: DR version:

In the future there is only war, but mostly its just marines! Because game is "skewed" in their favor by being popular.

Doubtful. The Orks not only have thousands of F2P players, they'll also have many MEQ's paying fans of their own, especially as the game evolves. Also, the devs have said there is no barrier between the factions. If these Pay2Win players are so concerned to win all the time, they won't stay on any one faction, they'll flow to whatever faction is winning at the time and use the MEQ's there.

JWhex wrote:
-What of the new addition factions, why play them?

Because there are fans for every faction. The simplest solution of adding the Tau would have them be ranged equivalent to the Eldar, and the Necrons be slower, more resilient versions of the SM's - (about the same speed and firepower as a Devestator in SM) IG and SoB would to have the IG F2P and the SoB a P2P promotion from them. With thousands of IG, a percentage among them aspiring to become SoB, they'd be exactly like the Orks. Just add the DE as the equivalent to the Eldar and we have every faction in the game, doubled its size, and did it very simply.

JWhex wrote:
*snip*

Very good post.

And: inb4 Melissia: BUT...BUT...YOU ARE WRONG BECAUZ I SAYZ SO!!111

The 40k MMO is based on a tabletop game that's extremely unpopular among women and it's set in a genre that's extremely unattractive for women. On average of course, YMMV. The actual amount of female players will be tiny compared to male players. What we see here is the usual effect you see on internet forums: there's a very vocal minority and people tend to assume it's a large group represented while in reality, it's not. That does not meant that SoB should not be introduced, in the contrary, they are a part of 40k, but they are one of the least interesting parts number-wise. Nobody plays them, their fluff is terrible (as in getting slaughtered by most other factions in their respective fluff, cue in e.g. Necrons and GK) and they aren't attractive. Their angel-thingies look cool though. My point is: from a rational, economic point of view, introducing popular factions would be a LOT smarter. Cue in Necrons and Imperial Guard.

Necrons would be better suited for NPCs in my opinion. and let's be honest with each other, Necrons are popular now because the new Codex was written by Mat "overpowered and broken" Ward and can only be beaten if the Necron player is mentally ill.

Sigvatr wrote:The actual amount of female players will be tiny compared to male players.

Even if this turns out to be true - why the hell would it matter?
Here's a groundbreaking theory: most SoB fans/players are probably male.

Sigvatr wrote:Nobody plays them, their fluff is terrible (as in getting slaughtered by most other factions in their respective fluff, cue in e.g. Necrons and GK) and they aren't attractive.

Biased nonsense and obviously untrue. But thanks for adding your opinion to the discussion, I guess.

Also, that post now lets me see JWhex's contributions in a different light. At least you're making it easy to sort out the "less objective" points of view. And the irony: you're lashing out at Melissia, not realising that you're behaving exactly the same.

AWesker1976 wrote:
Necrons would be better suited for NPCs in my opinion. and let's be honest with each other, Necrons are popular now because the new Codex was written by Mat "overpowered and broken" Ward and can only be beaten if the Necron player is mentally ill.

<- Been playing Necrons since 4th

 Lynata wrote:
Biased nonsense and obviously untrue.

The only biased part is their looks - I think their regular goons are butt-ugly. The other part: "nobody" doesn't mean "nobody", I referred to them being vastly underplayed. There are multiple reasons for it, but the result is the same: SoB are more of a myth than a regular faction in regards to how many people play them.

AWesker1976 wrote:
Necrons would be better suited for NPCs in my opinion. and let's be honest with each other, Necrons are popular now because the new Codex was written by Mat "overpowered and broken" Ward and can only be beaten if the Necron player is mentally ill.

<--- Been playing Necrons since 2004.

Your butt hurt sustains me.

Sigvatr wrote:The only biased part is their looks

And their supposedly "terrible" fluff or the frequency of these "massacres". Though I suppose this may be explained by you just not being as familiar with their background.

Sigvatr wrote:The other part: "nobody" doesn't mean "nobody", I referred to them being vastly underplayed.

Perhaps then you should have said so instead of making your arguments so easy to discard. Also, what is "vastly" for you? Do you actually have any reliable numbers, or are you just making stuff up?

Also, I don't see how the unavailability of their current Codex and the high price of their metal miniatures should affect how many people play them in a videogame where these factors do not apply.
Do you think Sisters were rarely played in Dawn of War? Because I did not get that impression whenever I was in multiplayer.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

AWesker1976 wrote:
Necrons would be better suited for NPCs in my opinion. and let's be honest with each other, Necrons are popular now because the new Codex was written by Mat "overpowered and broken" Ward and can only be beaten if the Necron player is mentally ill.

<--- Been playing Necrons since 2004.

Your butt hurt sustains me.

Isn't that around the time when rank and file Warriors could destroy even the most powerful armor with their basic kit? How many IG lasgun blasts does it take to wreck a Land Raider?