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.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Because people think Wilt is an old english form of Will, from back when spelling was optional. ><

You know, the reason they think so is because it was.

Merriam Webster wrote:
1wilt
\wəlt, ˈwilt\
Definition of WILT
archaic present 2d singular of will

Wiktionary wrote:Etymology 2
Verb

wilt
(archaic) Second-person singular present tense of will

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shall_and_will

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=wilt

wilt (v.)
1690s, probably an alteration of welk "to wilt," probably from Middle Dutch or Middle Low German welken "to wither," cognate with Old High German irwelhen "become soft." Related: Wilted; wilting.
fade (v.)
early 14c., "lose brightness, grow pale," from Old French fader "become weak, wilt, wither," from adj. fade "pale, weak, insipid" (12c.), probably from Vulgar Latin *fatidus, some sort of blending of Latin fatuus "silly, tasteless" + vapidus "flat, flavorless." Related: Faded; fading. As a noun, from c.1300.
hazel (n.)
Old English hæsl, hæsel, from Proto-Germanic *hasalaz (cf. Old Norse hasl, Middle Dutch hasel, German hasel), from PIE *koselo- "hazel" (cf. Latin corulus, Old Irish coll "hazel"). Shakespeare ("Romeo and Juliet," 1592) was first to use it (in print) in the sense of "reddish-brown color of eyes" (in reference to the color of ripe hazel-nuts), when Mercutio accuses Benvolio of being testy with:
Thou wilt quarrell with a man for cracking Nuts, hauing no reason, but because thou hast hasell eyes.


I find 40k bloody stupid when they pick and choose the langauge, imperial gothic or whatever it is they say it is. So they try to make it sound gothic by adding works from the Middle ages, with modern Grammar and nouns and verbs, not to mention Latin.

Plus it's in the future, so why would they talk like they demented LARP 'ers from the early 21st Century. Load of crap.

 Melissia wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
3/4 of the playable races are NOT marines

You have your math wrong. There are only two non-Marine factions out of four. That's 1/2, not 3/4ths. Of that, we know nothing about how Eldar will be implemented, and we know Orks will be gimped, existing only as cannon fodder five times weaker than Space Marines, with free-to-play players restricted to only the lowest rungs of the Ork progression ladder.

Or are you going to try to act like Chaos Space Marines are not actually, you know, Space Marines?

The game is at least 2 and half years out, there is no such thing as confirmed at this point. Mind you I'm not saying anyone should be excited for it, I'm saying that everyone should be neutral because in reality we know nothing about the game.

Be cool if they did end up doing Nids or Guard and added in a "horde" mechanic to the game centered around those races. For instance a Nid player could be a Brood Lord who has a main skill that lets it summon weaker nids kind of like a creature handler class with branching skills that could either increase its cc effectiveness or could support its "pets" via synapse buffs or even just increase its psychic ability for ranged attacks etc.

Personally if you can play as a Rat Ogre in WAR they can figure out how to do Nids and Guard in this

The very idea of picking one race and making them the only one available for F2Ps and intentionally gimping them is going to make them so unpopular that even if they change everything else about the game and keep that aspect, it will stall out in under a year.

It will stall out in a year anyway. That is what MMOs do in the modern era, because there's SO DAMN MANY OF THEM that they've fragmented their market.

The business plan of an MMO releasing in the last 2 or 3 years (with some noted exceptions) is to get an initial glut of people interested, draw them in during beta, get a couple million to buy the discs, subscribe to the game for 6 months to a year, and float on that until, at the 14 to 18 month mark, they move to a Free-To-Play model with a Cash Shop to buy pets, costumes, xp/loot boosters and other stuff.

The Cash Shop often makes the company more money than the subs did. Many companies are now offering multi-tier systems, where people who continue to pay a monthly sub get extra bonuses and items over those who are F2P and use just the cash shop. My EQ2 subscription, for example, gives me 5 free packs a month to their digital CCG, 500 Sony Cash bucks for their cash shop, and unrestricted access to content and gear/skill qualities. My Tera subscription gives me free daily buffs, a mount, and travel perks every month. A few other games I play I don't pay for, but I might spend $10 a week or so (varies by game) in the Cash Shop for various items. I just recently got back into Rift, and the way they do player housing in that game already has me making plans for spending... rather a fair bit of dosh on digital houses and furnishings for them.

Maybe they can do a system like ME3, where you can grind missions to get money for characters and things, and you can build it up over time, or you can just buy the stuff with money?

They could, but I don't see them doing that. It's much easier to just put a price-tag on the things you want people to buy, and make them unavailable any other way (except the occasional give-away event or whatever that gives out, like, 5 of them to a playerbase of hundreds of thousands).

 Orblivion wrote:
I'm saying that everyone should be neutral because in reality we know nothing about the game.

When everything that the developers say about the game says that they're a bunch of bloody idiots, I'd say we know quite a bit for this stage in the game.

 Melissia wrote:

 BryllCream wrote:
I look forward to playing as an ork and running around caverns slaughtering weak tyranids

And then getting curb-stomped by a ten year old playing a Space Marine who happens to be five times stronger than you because he paid to win.

Then... pay?

I mean, the subscription fees for most of these games on a monthly basis are typically fairly low. Most people blow more money on fast food in a week than they do on subscription based games for a month, and while being a sedentary lump of crap playing video games may be just as bad for your health, at least it lasts much longer.


The question will be whether or not the content is worthwhile.

 Melissia wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Are you concerned because it seems to be almost entirely PVP orientated?

I'm concerned that it's going to be a badly implemented pvp oriented game.

I feel like, based on your other posts, you wouldn't feel this way if you could play as a sister of battle...which, t be fair, I think would be a good inclusion into the game...I just think a lot of your hatred for this game stems from that root cause.

I'd also be happy with Imperial Guard being in, but no, I dislike the "Orks are gimped so that Space Marines have something to slaughter" mechanic well enough by itself, especially combined with the "feth balance we dont' care about that" attitude that they have displayed (and indeed outright stated).

 Melissia wrote:
I'd also be happy with Imperial Guard being in, but no, I dislike the "Orks are gimped so that Space Marines have something to slaughter" mechanic well enough by itself, especially combined with the "feth balance we dont' care about that" attitude that they have displayed (and indeed outright stated).

Give it time. Things change, balance and design decisions change. This is why devs, especially mmo devs, rarely talk details until very late into the development cycle. Because stuff that is bound to change, does, and people are still left with their old information and are turned off by the game.. I think the developer's comment stems from inexperience with big name releases, more than anything else.

And honestly, what he's saying stays true to the 40k lore...I respect that they want to do that first and foremost. It remains to be seen how they can balance around the fluff of a single space marine being worth dozens of guardsmen in terms of fighting ability...and literally thousands in terms of resource investment.

BrotherVord wrote:
Give it time.

I am. That's no reason to refuse to accept and state that the current design decisions are utter garbage.

 BryllCream wrote:

Or just avoid PvP areas? I'm going to assume that poeple don't just aimlesslessly wander around shooting each other, there will be some sort of "front line".

The game is explicitly focused towards PVP, lol.

If you're going to avoid the PvP areas, might as well just not play it.

Hmm, so there's less marines that will be paying, and more ork boys.

If we could squad up, we could outnumber the marinez, get da nobz in place..

I kinda wonder if they'll make the theme even more apparent if ork mobs get stronger the more boys are in them.

Oh another one, huh? Once it gets further into development, I'm going to keep confusing this one with the canceled one.

 Melissia wrote:
I'd also be happy with Imperial Guard being in, but no, I dislike the "Orks are gimped so that Space Marines have something to slaughter" mechanic well enough by itself, especially combined with the "feth balance we dont' care about that" attitude that they have displayed (and indeed outright stated).

Can you post a quote of the outright stated "we don't care about balance" bit? Not doubting your word, I just want to see it for myself.

Once they add SoB, Mel will sign up in two heartbeats, I would bet money on it.

I'm just going to wait until they notice all the bones outside of World of Warcraft's cave and drop the MMO aspect.

 Wilytank wrote:
I'm just going to wait until they notice all the bones outside of World of Warcraft's cave and drop the MMO aspect.

THERE IS ONLY WAR!!!!! Pretty lameass war when your fighting squad vs squad or just fighting a bunch of bots all the time!

 Melissia wrote:

 Orblivion wrote:
I'm saying that everyone should be neutral because in reality we know nothing about the game.

When everything that the developers say about the game says that they're a bunch of bloody idiots, I'd say we know quite a bit for this stage in the game.

Everything they have said about the game indicates they need to hire some PR people to do their talking, and very little else.

As to making the Orks the free to play race, that makes sense primarily to help the Orks - the one thing every MMO has taught is us that the "ugly" races have a small core of hardcore fans that get kicked around nonstop by everyone else because so few folks want to play them. Allowing the core players to have access to powerful builds (Nobs, etc.), while also giving them access to at least SOME numbers through weaker free players backing them up is one of the only ways to balance an Ork faction. The other options being either A. Make hordes of NPC Orks to back up the small handful of players who will almost never have anyone to RP with or B. make Orks physically attractive, creating fluff rage that deafens the entire internet.

-D

I just hope they manage to keep the ranking system semi-intelligent. The one thing I didn't like about Star Trek Online was that you had a few thousands Vice Admirals running around but only a small handful of captains or lieutenants. Not everyone can be a Warboss ya know hahaha. Maybe they make those rankings a guild/clan system, I don't know.

I am interested in seeing how they make the weaker races attractive to players. Of course, most 40k players will likely play the race they play on the table top, but the few that found the game and don't play 40k will have to make a choice. Space Marine's are the only "race" that really is strong enough to have lone wolf characters. I can't see a single Guardsman going out and doing MMO things, but I can see a single Space Marine being able to manage it. So I wonder how they are going to attract people to play the obviously weaker looking Guardsman (short of making everyone Marbo. Which...might end up the case)

They have stated that they are making Space Marines five times stronger than Orks and "balancing" that out by telling F2P players that they can only play Orks unless they pay money to be able to play the other factions (and even within Orks, they can never advance past Ork Boy) and making the F2P players grunts to be slaughtered by everyone else.

Or something to that effecet.

After reading a bit, I think I'll pass. The whole "you have to pay to be anything else other than an ork" really bugs me, especially since it appears that SM will be drastically more powerful. The fact that it's an MMO doesn't help matters.

Also, it doesn't take 5 orks to beat an SM. It takes 2. It takes 5 to make sure those 2 get to him

 Melissia wrote:
They have stated that they are making Space Marines five times stronger than Orks and "balancing" that out by telling F2P players that they can only play Orks unless they pay money to be able to play the other factions (and even within Orks, they can never advance past Ork Boy) and making the F2P players grunts to be slaughtered by everyone else.

Or something to that effecet.

Basically pay2win then? Guess I'll pass.

Baronyu wrote:
Basically pay2win then?

That's pretty much the way they've explained it.

Oh, and once you get to a certain point, you can only advance in rank if your guild leaders promote you.

Have fun playing guild politics in order to make your character stronger and level up.

 washout77 wrote:
I can't see a single Guardsman going out and doing MMO things, but I can see a single Space Marine being able to manage it. So I wonder how they are going to attract people to play the obviously weaker looking Guardsman (short of making everyone Marbo. Which...might end up the case)

You could be a sargeant of a squad of X be it normal guardsmen, rough riders, an Ogryns as the bonehead, ratling, Stormtroopers or hell, an overseer from a psyker battle squad would work.

 Melissia wrote:

Baronyu wrote:
Basically pay2win then?

Oh, and once you get to a certain point, you can only advance in rank if your guild leaders promote you.

Have fun playing guild politics in order to make your character stronger and level up.

This is so stupid it just boggles the mind. If this system makes it to release I would avoid the game for this reason alone.

Even though it would be fun to go around and ROFLSTOMP all the whiny F2P kids for a few days.

IM just gonna post this here,

I think a lot of people are missing something even bigger then a 40k mmo

Creative assembly owns the rights to make 40k games. you know what that means right?

Total war: warhammer 40k edition...guys, just thing about it.....you can control LEGIONS of SM or guards, Ork, ect ect.

but the MMO is cool as well