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.

I'm gonna teabag SPEEEEZ MAHRINEEEZ all the time. All. The. Time.

So to make sure this stays focused.

Any idea how long it would take to add new factions to the game?

I saw earlier that they were interested in one day after release adding more factions like the Sisters of Battle. Sense I personally am not a fan of the Dark Angels but I do like SoBs I would personally prefer to stay away from the game until SoBs are released but if that is like 4-5 years after original release date that would be annoying.


Its probably too early to have an idea though

Hopefully they take their time and don't just throw those new races out just to satisfy people while breaking balance - balance is a lot more important than variety.

Personally, I won't spend a single $ on the game until I get mah Necrons, but I'll enjoy trolling others until then

I just hope for them to focus on the important factions first, mainly IG and, of course, Necrons or other popular factions before introducing minor ones like SoB.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Hopefully they take their time and don't just throw those new races out just to satisfy people while breaking balance - balance is a lot more important than variety.

Personally, I won't spend a single $ on the game until I get mah Necrons, but I'll enjoy trolling others until then

I just hope for them to focus on the important factions first, mainly IG and, of course, Necrons or other popular factions before introducing minor ones like SoB.

Oh I agree with all your points dont get me wrong lol. Im an IG fan first but I saw in an earlier interview that mentioned they wanted to add SoB one day and I thought that could be a fun group to try out.

Here's something that expands upon Melissia's idea: the planet being fought over is a Death World.

Possible global hazards:

Earthquakes
Meteor showers
Swamps full of toxic spores from flora
Intense solar radiation
Acid rain
Savage/carnivorous fauna

Death Worlds would be amazing like acid rain which peppered the land at a certain time each day, becoming a good plan or disaster for anyone.

Also, severe lightning storms could make an area dangerous. You'd risk straight up dying without some extra form of protection. Could be interesting to see

I want heavy snow storms and flurries. My wolves would love to fight in their native environments.

 Sigvatr wrote:
balance is a lot more important than variety.

Hell the feth no it's not.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
balance is a lot more important than variety.

Hell the feth no it's not.

The millions who play WoW, CoD, Halo, BF, and a bunch of other games would likely disagree with you.

Luckily, this isn't one of them.

I actually sort of agree with the devs opinion on balance (even if I did mock them for how they phrased it), in that balance is something you do AFTER you add in variety. You shouldn't create factions that will inevitably be weaker or stronger by design, but in the end, in an on-going, long-term game like this game wants to be, you have to rebalance after release, and rebalance often. Each new bit of content requires even more rebalancing. Actually, constant balance patches is a good thing-- it shows the devs care, at least to some extent, about their game.

There's lots of complaints to be had about Starcraft, and it's really a bit of a mediocre game, but that's oftentimes the game people think of when they think of balance in a competitive game. Starcraft wasn't balanced at release, or even anywhere close to it. It was constantly rebalanced until it got to the point that it currently is in (and there's still constant complaints about balance).

Putting it politely:

If they are going to do "Rock, Paper, Scissors" balancing--then Rock and Paper cannot be only available to people who have bought the game/pay a subscription fee.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Putting it politely:

If they are going to do "Rock, Paper, Scissors" balancing--then Rock and Paper cannot be only available to people who have bought the game/pay a subscription fee.

That doesn't sound like how they are going to be doing balancing. It's a skill based 3rd person shooter and you kit your character out as you want them. You take the right tools for the job, you'll be alright.

You take a knife to a gunfight...

Also, there is no subscription.

I didnt scan through all the comments, so Im not sure if this question has been asked yet, but what about heavy armor? Not Mechanized armor, but Terminator Armour, and Mega-Armor? I feel that they would be difficult to balance in the Game, but Emperor knows it would be awesome to be a Space Marine Captain striding around in Terminator armor spraying storm bolter rounds all over the place.

After that, Id like to ask a question to all the doubters out there. Why the Hell would you doubt the possibility of a 40k game, especially an MMO, in this current technology and gaming boom? I mean....its gotta be better than "Call of Duty: Whatever the Hell Cheap Moniker Has Been Ignorantly Strapped on Here 2". With the team they are currently putting together, and with Miguel Caron heading them, I think that anything is honestly possible. Troll me, label me a fanboy, but please dont be so close minded to pass up the chance to see a truly successful 40k Game. The community deserves a great game.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
balance is a lot more important than variety.

Hell the feth no it's not.

You like more shinies, I like more balance. Casual vs. competitive.

 Sigvatr wrote:
You like more shinies, I like more balance. Casual vs. competitive.

"More shinies"? How mature of you. I have no desire for contentless "balance".

A so-called "competitive" game with no unique features is dull and boring, with nothing to stick out among the crowd of other, nigh-identical games (see: Call of Duty vs. Medal of Honor vs. Battlefield, three nearly-identical series... and then add in a thousand other games like them, such as Homefront or Combat Arms or Counterstrike and so on and so on and so on and so forth...). Adding unique features and new content is well worth a temporary reduction in balance, as it lets the game stand out rather than blend in.

 Melissia wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
You like more shinies, I like more balance. Casual vs. competitive.

"More shinies"? How mature of you. I have no desire for contentless "balance"

Neither do I. I am mostly interested in competition in games and thus, balance is my top priority - without proper balance, there's no proper competitive experience. You want to put variety over balance which is good for casual players but bad for competitive players.

Imagine a DotA game with 100 heroes but incredibly poor balance. And another DotA game with 20 well-balanced heroes. Which one would you rather play? I'd choose the latter.

Let them start with 4 factions, let them balance those out, then add 1 more faction. Balance it out. Then add 1 more faction. Balance it out. etc. It's the much better solution.

 Melissia wrote:
What kind of dangerous weather would stop Space Marines or Orks? A meteorite storm?

I think that wouldnt stop either still. Orks call that a rokk bombardment and SpaceMarines "good, more Orks to kill"

Balance is needed no doubt, but I do not want to see a slugga have the same strength as a bolter.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Balance is needed no doubt, but I do not want to see a slugga have the same strength as a bolter.

Not implying that this is your way of thinking, but a lot of people think that balance means that everyone is the same - which clearly is a very naive train of thought. Balance can also be achieved by being superior in one area while at the same time being inferior in another.

Good, thought you meant it my way.

What about the way factions are in Planetside so perhaps space marines have strong weapons but of course less ammo whilst the eldar may have slightly weaker weapons but shoot much faster.

Yes, that'd be a good example. Orks have the number advantage, Eldar might be more mobile.

Does anyone here remember the Shadowrun multiplayer FPS game? There were trolls which were heavily armored and got lots of HP but moved slowly, elves which were fragile but extremely fast etc.

Chaos could also have there boons and chaos things

Ha, I loved playing shadowrun, only had the demo mind.

I sure hope I can offer skulls to Khorne. That could the currency for items on the chaos side, skulls for the skull throne.

Man was just playing some planetside, makes me so hyped for this if the numbers can really be the same or more.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
Balance is needed no doubt, but I do not want to see a slugga have the same strength as a bolter.

Not implying that this is your way of thinking, but a lot of people think that balance means that everyone is the same - which clearly is a very naive train of thought. Balance can also be achieved by being superior in one area while at the same time being inferior in another.

I think that you and Melissa are on the same train of thought but can't see it.

Rather, the difference is our respect for the term "competitive" in regards to video games-- namely, I have none, having seen the worst excesses and endless complaints of so-called "competitive" players in numerous games, to the point where they always inevitably want the game to devolve in to mirror matches and crap (see: "Fox Only / No Items / Final Destination" meme).

I mainly play games (not just video games) to compete with others, but in order to really be satisfied on a competitive level, you have to be able to solely (or mostly) relate the success (or lack thereof) to your own performance. In a game where one side is clearly favored, that's not possible.

That's why I think that the only right way is to start with only a handful of factions (4 as of now), then balance them out and then start adding a new one, one-by-one, always waiting until the previous one merged well with the others.

Starcraft, e.g. is a good example. It only has three different races, but it's almost perfectly balanced - and that's why it's such a competitive game.

 Sigvatr wrote:
I mainly play games (not just video games) to compete with others

I compete against others in first person shooters all the time, trying to get to the top of that scoreboard, trying to do better than I did last time, trying to outsnipe that sniper that just got me, or teach those campers what pineapples taste like. Doesn't make me "competitive" in terms of gaming culture, because I don't have the crappy attitude that "competitive" video game players have-- which is to say, they think that they're the best, and anyone/anything that can beat them is obviously hacking/cheating/broken and should be banned, and anyone that doesn't beat them deserves the worst verbal abuse they can throw at them, preferably with as much racist, homophobic, and/or misogynistic slang as they can come up with.

Even if you'd call me "competitive", I'd STILL prefer more content over boring samey crap. And using starcraft as an example of your ideal game isn't going to endear me to it, since I think starcraft is boring.

 Melissia wrote:
Rather, the difference is our respect for the term "competitive" in regards to video games-- namely, I have none, having seen the worst excesses and endless complaints of so-called "competitive" players in numerous games, to the point where they always inevitably want the game to devolve in to mirror matches and crap (see: "Fox Only / No Items / Final Destination" meme).

I agree that competetion in most video games bring out the most repetitive, predictable, and unintelligent aspects of humanity. That said, 40k is based on competition, and one reason why I've stuck with it for such a long time is because its competitive nature is quite literally based on the IPs diversity.

I believe that this reason is pivital to the succcess of DOTA, LoL, SC, and Planetside. All of these games owe something to Warhammer at some point down the line, and should give us a good indication of what we might expect in the game in terms of balencing competition and diversity.

That I certainly agree with, DD.

I believe that Eternal Crusade can deliver that kind of diversity, then be balanced later on. I mean hell, Wargame: AirLand Battle managed to put in more than ten nations as its factions and still managed to have only one nation be unbalanced (East Germany) as a result (though that said, most people are boring and go for international lists). No reason Eternal Crusade can't add more factions and fix any balance problems that might arise relatively quickly.