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.

It actually makes me curious to know how they're going to balance orks. Orks being free while Marines are P2P is supposed to be balanced by their being vastly more orks on the field then Marines. With the low TTK, how are Marines supposed to survive getting swarmed by numerically superior teams?

Or did they ditch that idea when they switched from "Planetside 2 in the 40K universe" to "12v12 Gears of War"?

The CSM in Space Marine had poor AI, but their stats were appropriate. Assuming reasonable range, and not targeting a weak spot like the head, it takes ~67 bolt rounds to down one, which means almost nine seconds of continous fire. Of course, if you go for the head, use grenades, melee attacks, shorter range, burst fire, more specialised anti-armour weapons and so on this will change drastically, but bolters were never very dedicated weapons for targeting heavy armor, and so understandably they will mostly ricochet off.

Compare to Eternal Crusade where you go down in like 5 shots, lol. Cringe.

TTK?

Time To Kill.

Basically, the ratio of weapon DPS to player health.

Low TTK heavily encourages camping. In my opinion high TTK is better - it gives you a shot at fighting back someone who 360 noscopes you from behind, meltarunners, campers and so on.

Basically, low TTK feels like the realm of Call of Duty, and should stay there.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Basically, low TTK feels like the realm of Call of Duty, and should stay there.

Callof has shorter TTK than games like Counter Strike? I would have thought the opposite.
But yea, a 40k game should have longer TTK than a “realistic” shooter, I guess. Because space fantasy and stuff. Though Eldar not being able to tank a direct bolt seems fair.

Eldar should have high TTK too, but due to some kind of evasion mechanic rather than lots of armor and HP. It's not all that hard to do.

I used CoD as an example because I am familiar with it. I don't really know anything about CS.

It's still in closed Alpha chaps so everything is subject to change, even TTK

Started to do videos showing each class in Space Marine, you can find the updated playlist here:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFznDVzkakEzzlqu5PxET46ZmVFJrh76L

 Ashiraya wrote:
Eldar should have high TTK too, but due to some kind of evasion mechanic rather than lots of armor and HP.

I thought TKK was strictly the time to kill if the enemy is just standing there doing nothing. If the evasion is based on giving the players actual ways to avoid stuff, like a quick dash, or something, yes it will be nice. But if it is just “Avoid X% of damage”… well, it is actually very similar to having more health/armor.

If you say so, I will believe you. I will remain cautiously hopeful in case it changes.

Started a new series covering some of the new content in the patch:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Eldar should have high TTK too, but due to some kind of evasion mechanic rather than lots of armor and HP.

I thought TKK was strictly the time to kill if the enemy is just standing there doing nothing. If the evasion is based on giving the players actual ways to avoid stuff, like a quick dash, or something, yes it will be nice. But if it is just “Avoid X% of damage”… well, it is actually very similar to having more health/armor.

Well, maybe like an evasion ability that you activate or whatever. Eldar relying more on evading damage than soaking it, whereas Marines do mostly soaking and a bit of evading, and Nobz only really do soaking... That sounds good.

Therefore, playing eldar requires more skill but is more powerful than playing marine. Totally legit!

It's not more powerful. It would just mean it is more skill-dependent.

If it is more skill-dependent but not more powerful even with played with perfect skill, then the game design was clearly wrong here. It just makes Eldar harder to play.
I say skill should be rewarded and someone playing perfectly Eldar should wipe the floor with marines. But noone short of an actual Eldar could play that well.

I meant not more powerful with average skill.

It would end up being fair in the end. A skilled Eldar player would dodge better, but a skilled Marine player would aim better. It would need some numbers tuning to make the scaling roughly fair, but it would work.

The easiest way to design Eldar vs Marines I imagine would be to just make Marines stat-balls while Eldar are ability-based.

Space Marines have higher armor and hitpoints, but are slower.

Eldar have low hitpoints and armor, but get an active skill that increases their Evasion (% chance to dodge damage) for a short amount of time and are, in general, faster along with having several skills that boost their movement speed.

Some Chaos gameplay:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Basically, low TTK feels like the realm of Call of Duty, and should stay there.

Callof has shorter TTK than games like Counter Strike? I would have thought the opposite.
But yea, a 40k game should have longer TTK than a “realistic” shooter, I guess. Because space fantasy and stuff. Though Eldar not being able to tank a direct bolt seems fair.

TTK is a careful balance between skill and catering to players who frankly suck and will never be good. Many companies these days are avoiding very long TTK's or exceptionally short TTK for this very low sweetspot pioneered for COD. It ensures people don't just instantly die like in Counter Strike so you don't have to worry about anything like tactics, but also ensures it isn't so long that a skilled player will always win over a lower skilled player, which while a skilled player should always win, it doesn't sell very well if a highly skilled elite population (Like in Counter Strike, old Halo, Space Marine, Unreal Tournament, etc) is curbstomping the unskilled noob players. For example, if an unskilled player jumps you in Halo 2 or Unreal, if you're good enough you can recover from his initial advantage and turn the battle completely around into your favor (I did that a lot in old Halo) by whatever tricks you have up your sleeve. But in COD, a poor player can completely destroy skilled players by jumping them or using incredibly cheesy weapons like grenade launchers. This is different when there's basically instant TTK like in CSGO or ARMA, but that's because skill is more about positioning in those games, so if you do get jumped everything's already gone FUBAR.

What I fear Eternal Crusade is going for the COD angle, to cater to poorly skilled players who would wiped the hell out if the playing field was actually level and fair with a high TTK where skill mattered.

I'd say just increase TTK for everybody besides F2P Orks, because long TTK ensures either due to very useful evasion skills or simply a lot of health and armor ensures the skilled players will always be rewarded over a poorly skilled one looking for a cheap kill. There's no joy in a kill that wasn't properly earned, firefights should be extended and take quite a bit of time to finish up.

If Orks have a low TTK compared to everyone else then we run into the problem of unskilled Timmy who got his mum to buy him the ability to be a Space Marine dominating a skilled Ork player because a few shots will kill them.
A poorly skilled SM would get the cheap kill he's looking for.

That's already the issue at hand, really. Ork boys are free and all the other factions are (allegedly) pay2play, with Marines explictly far stronger than Orks on a 1 to 1 basis.

So the pay2win scenario you've outlined is apparently what they were already going for. It's a terrible business strategy, but oh well. With the changes in scope of the game from "bigger than Planetside 2" to "12v12 arena shooter" I'm not sure if that's still what they're trying to do, but that's how the dynamic was intended before.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
That's already the issue at hand, really. Ork boys are free and all the other factions are (allegedly) pay2play, with Marines explictly far stronger than Orks on a 1 to 1 basis.

So the pay2win scenario you've outlined is apparently what they were already going for. It's a terrible business strategy, but oh well. With the changes in scope of the game from "bigger than Planetside 2" to "12v12 arena shooter" I'm not sure if that's still what they're trying to do, but that's how the dynamic was intended before.

Oh please don't start griping over "muh pay to win". This isn't a free online shooter, playing an Ork Boy is a demo. They're supposed to suck as their entire job is to buff the Ork faction's low numbers and encourage players to actually buy the game proper instead of playing a limited version of it. You might as well whine how your levels are limited if you decide to play the free version of WOW or other MMO's. Of course your free player sucks, because they haven't actually bought the game and are only getting a small taste of the actual, full product.

Pay to Win is when an in game shop sells hilariously overpowered weapons and buffs in an online shop where emptying your wallet gives you an advantage over the rest of the players. Pay to Win is not getting slaughtered by a person who actually bought and rightly owns the full copy of the game when you're just playing a limited demo of the product. Stop crying wolf, you only dilute the true meaning of "Pay to Win", and thus lessen the phrases' weight with each false utterance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
If Orks have a low TTK compared to everyone else then we run into the problem of unskilled Timmy who got his mum to buy him the ability to be a Space Marine dominating a skilled Ork player because a few shots will kill them.
A poorly skilled SM would get the cheap kill he's looking for.

Free player Orks aren't proper players. They're literal fodder to pad the Ork playerbase numbers and aren't actually a part of any competitive atmosphere of the game. They can't rank up, they can't unlock more gear, they're just a grot sent to the slaughterhouse. The playerbase is the people who buy the game and the competitive culture exists within that group. Free players simply are using a demo to give them a sense if they want to buy that game or not.

Now for an example of what pay to win scummery is, is if the special DLC items in the store (for a game that hasn't reached bloody beta yet) are not "parallel" upgrades that don't provide any advantage and merely a different playstyle, and rather direct upgrades compared to all other weapons that provide 1+ DPS and other such nonsense. That is a true pay to win situation where the DLC store becomes an arm race with people emptying their wallets to get the latest weapon with the highest damage per second.

 Wyzilla wrote:
They're supposed to suck as their entire job is to buff the Ork faction's low numbers and encourage players to actually buy the game proper instead of playing a limited version of it.

"It's not pay2win, it's just a mechanic designed to encourage players to pay money for in-game advantages over other players!"

... am I being trolled here? Do you genuinely not understand what pay2win means, or is this just the biggest ruse in internet history?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
They're supposed to suck as their entire job is to buff the Ork faction's low numbers and encourage players to actually buy the game proper instead of playing a limited version of it.

"It's not pay2win, it's just a mechanic designed to encourage players to pay money for in-game advantages over other players!"

... am I being trolled here? Do you genuinely not understand what pay2win means, or is this just the biggest ruse in internet history?

It's not pay to win because the free players aren't technically real players. They haven't bought the game. They don't level up or get gear. They're playing a limited demo of the full product to encourage them to buy. They also won't be part of any competitive scene that evolves on Eternal Crusade (assuming it doesn't die on release) as they're limited to one faction and can't advance. Them being slaughtered by paid players doesn't matter, as they aren't actual customers, they're testing the water to see if they want to buy the game (which is the point of limited free to play access, you suck and get less access to everything compared to the people who actually own the game, because the Devs are pushing you to buy).

The problem is that you're looking at it wrong. Eternal Crusade isn't free to play with an option paid service. It's an actual title that is going to be sold for a one-time purchase like Guild Wars 2, only it has an optional limited free release that greatly restrains what you can do (because otherwise there would be no point to pay the developer).

Diablo 3 has a free option, which you don't need to buy the game to use. Just like EC when Orks arrive.
Buying the Diablo 3's Deluxe version of the game is a form of Pay2Win, as you get more kit early on, and other benefits.

So, EC is not Pay to play any more than most other games. You buy the game, and can play all you like.
If it ever happens, Free 2 Wargh is a demo, and a lot of games bring the demo out after the game is released, too.

But, you can pay to get access to other options, and some, like the boss choices, can be considered P2W.
The pay-for weapons are more like skins or cosmetics, as they are generally side-grades, not upgrades.

Oh, and want free EC points?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/655562.page#8132932

 Wyzilla wrote:
It's not pay to win because the free players aren't technically real players.

Well, they are. Now, how does it work, do you still need to pay for each faction independently? Or is it just one package with everything?

It's one package with everything.. The devs have stated they consider the Ork F2P to be nothing more than a trial. Using them as a benchmark for 'PaytoWin' is trolling - that's like saying every PC game I ever bought was 'PaytoWin'.

 Wyzilla wrote:
It's not pay to win because the free players aren't technically real players.

They're playing the game which they aquired legally, so they are "real players". The game-maker doesn't get to arbitrate who's a "real player" and who isn't. I'm sure the makers of those crappy P2W korean RPG's don't consider you to be a "real" player unless you spend real money on the Magical Sword of 10 million Damage, while the "fake players" just grind all the inferior weapons for free. What the game maker thinks is irrelevant though. If you're playing the game then you're a player.

They're playing a limited demo of the full product to encourage them to buy.

No they aren't, because A) Playing as an ork boy is not "demonstrative" of how the game works- it is it's own [inferior] class with its own [inferior] mechanics. And B) If it was a real "demo" then they wouldn't pit you against the paid for superior classes so that you can get your ass whipped repeatedly until you give in and pay money for the stronger classes. If it was a real "demo" then all the demo players would be self-contained in their own server or whatever so that they can learn the mechanics of the game. Or they would give you all the same classes that everyone else has access to but with a time-restriction or some such. That's how "demos" actually work.

 eddieazrael wrote:
It's one package with everything.. The devs have stated they consider the Ork F2P to be nothing more than a trial.

Then why are they pitting it against paid-for classes?

Your logic is awful. The exact same argument you and Wyzilla are proposing, I could use to defend any P2W game. Are you upset because that sword of +5 damage you did five quests for is completely useless against your opponent, who bought the sword of +20 damage for 10 bucks? Well don't be mad, because you're not a real player anyway. That +5 damage sword is just the "demo" sword while "real players" paid money and got the better sword! See, it's not pay2win!

Said no one ever.

It's P2W, and this is the first case where I am okay with that.

Im not really liking it so far, apart from the awesome graphics and the fact I can play as a space marine !
I expected more considoring the amount of time they have been working on it.

If they really are going to deliver everything they initially mentioned ( which I doubt ) then its going to be a few years yet.

I just hope that they increase the scale massively, and improve the games too, this alpha or whatever we are playing at the moment is putting more people off than it is attracting, it was made playable far too early in my opinion and it will be detrimental to sales, still at least they remembered to put the cash shop in there eh !!