Warhammer 40,000: Eternal Crusade: Plenty of WAAAGH For Every One

Warhammer 40,000: Eternal Crusade: Plenty of WAAAGH For Every One

"It's Space Marine meets PlanetSide 2 meets Gears of War, in a sandbox setting."

Read Full Article

I think I'll pass, never been bit on deathmatch shooters. I was really hoping to see a good computer RPG (single player or MMO) developed off of 40k but it seems like nobody wants to take the time or effort. Given all the development in the novels, and multiple RPG lines set in the universe, I find it kind of distressing that it seems like all people can think to do is make twitch games, boardgame conversions, and RTS games... of which the RTS games are the only ones I really liked.

That said, I wish them luck with it, if it succeeds maybe we'll see more done with it. That said if this is due for late 2015, chances are we won't see a serious 40k RPG at least until 2017 which is sad, assuming someone sees success and starts developing one.

It seems like a cool idea, but I have to question how good it will be considering it's troubled production.

Though I did get a chuckle at how F2P players were put in the ork faction.

I just scanned this, but I came across a rather silly statement. Namely:

As Caron joked, "no one wants to be an elite merchant in the 41st millennium."

Someone hasn't heard of Rogue Trader it seems.

The way they're implementing ranged combat worries me. The idea of "stun then finish in close combat" is cool... but What if I want to play a devastator who wields an anti tank gun, if you get hit by a lascannon your particles should be floating in the breeze, you shouldn't just be "stunned"

It's the Level 100 Gyarados vs. level 1 Pidgey hyper beam all over again!

erttheking:
It seems like a cool idea, but I have to question how good it will be considering it's troubled production.

Though I did get a chuckle at how F2P players were put in the ork faction.

I haven't heard of any troubled production for this game. Perhaps you're thinking of Dark Millenium Online which was being developed by Vigil under THQ. This game is being made by a completely different company and has nothing to do with Dark Millenium.

Yeah, im keeping my distance from this.

There arent many good things to be learned from Planetside 2 at the moment.

However ill give them credit for the realatively high level of community interaction theyre commiting thsmelves to.

rosac:
The way they're implementing ranged combat worries me. The idea of "stun then finish in close combat" is cool... but What if I want to play a devastator who wields an anti tank gun, if you get hit by a lascannon your particles should be floating in the breeze, you shouldn't just be "stunned"

I imagine thats just how they want most infantry weapons to play out. I also wouldnt be surprised to see that if you kept shooting they would die anyway.

Either way, with just under a year and a half between now and launch, i expect many things will change over time. Just like how things changed with Planetside 2 in its first year. And if anyones wondering, theyre finally launching Hossin this week.

Behaviour Interactive I wonder what games they've done?

'checks wikipedia' oh, okay pass on this.

Naughty Bear: Panic in Paradise (PlayStation Network, Xbox Live Arcade)
Ice Age : Continental Drift - Arctic Games (Wii, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo DS, Xbox 360)
Brave: The Video Game (Microsoft Windows, Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 3, Nintendo DS)
Voltron: Defender of the Universe (PlayStation Network, Xbox Live Arcade)
Transformers: Dark of the Moon (Wii, Nintendo 3DS Nintendo DS)
Rango: The Video Game (Multiplatform) (Xbox 360, Wii, PlayStation 3, Nintendo DS)
Doritos Crash Course (Xbox Live Arcade)
MySims SkyHeroes (Multiplatform)
Naughty Bear (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)
Dante's Inferno (PSP version)
WET (PlayStation 3, Xbox 360)
Indiana Jones and the Staff of Kings (Wii and PlayStation 2 versions)
MySims Racing (Nintendo DS and Wii)
Kung Fu Panda: Legendary Warriors (Nintendo DS and Wii versions)
Iron Man (Wii, PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable, PC and Nintendo DS versions)
High School Musical: Makin' the Cut! (Wii, PlayStation 2, Nintendo DS versions)
Mercenaries 2: World in Flames (PlayStation 2 version)
Lord of the Rings: Conquest (Nintendo DS version)
High School Musical 2: Work This Out! (Nintendo DS version)
Transformers: Animated (Nintendo DS version)
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor (Nintendo DS version)
Power Rangers: Super Legends (PlayStation 2, PC and Nintendo DS versions)
Spider-Man: Friend or Foe (Nintendo DS & PlayStation Portable versions)
WET 2 (Multiplatform)
Happy Feet
The Ant Bully
Disney's Kim Possible: Global Gemini
Disney's Kim Possible: What's the Switch?
Teen Titans
Monster House
Disney's Kim Possible: Kimmunicator
Evergirl
Ed, Edd n Eddy: The Mis-Edventures
Flow: Urban Dance Uprising
Chicken Little
Lizzie McGuire 2
Get On Da Mic
Scooby-Doo! Unmasked
Scaler
Carmen Sandiego: The Secret of the Stolen Drums
Kim Possible 2: Drakken's Demise
Home on the Range
Scooby Doo: Mystery Mayhem
Ice Age
Monsters, Inc. Scream Team
Bugs Bunny & Taz: Time Busters
Smurf Racer
The Grinch
Bugs Bunny: Lost in Time
Jersey Devil
Drake & Josh
Doritos Crash Course 2
Phineas and Ferb: Quest for Cool Stuff
SpongeBob SquarePants: Plankton's Robotic Revenge

Oh dear oh dear, this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Ranged attacks only down players? F2P players only accessing the Ork faction? The dev team visiting 4chan?

A planetside 2 styled 40K game? Now this I can get behind.

I wonder what factions they'll bring in. Space marines are an obvious choice... but how will they then handle classes? Tactrical, fast attack, heavy? Should be fun

They actually used the phrase "grim dark."

Shamanic Rhythm:
Oh dear oh dear, this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Ranged attacks only down players? F2P players only accessing the Ork faction? The dev team visiting 4chan?

Actually, 4Chan isn't a bad place to get 40k advice and feedback from. The TG community on 4chan isn't that bad. They've actually got an impressive number of homebrew rules and fan created content for 40k and are responsible for the creation of the Angry, Reasonable, and Pretty Marines. With full fledged Codecies and fan fiction coming out of it. All available here http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Category:Warhammer_40,000

Shamanic Rhythm:
Oh dear oh dear, this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Ranged attacks only down players? F2P players only accessing the Ork faction? The dev team visiting 4chan?

Besides for the ranged attack thing, these things sound great.

Although the dev hasn't really done anything worth note, they seem to be approaching this with an elegance to their design that I really enjoy. For example, some people are harping that orks are the only faction that's free-to-play, but the purpose behind this a brilliant example of the pay model supporting game immersion, universe development, and balancing. Orks ARE numerous and unruly. They're not called the Green Tide because they have a few elite units that head into battle. Also, I saw in another interview that they are also giving Orks a buff that make them more powerful the more Orks are around them and are allowing Orks more freedom in team-killing. These types of in-game rules reinforce the established fluff of the 40K universe.

We'll have to wait and see if it's any good, but as a fan of 40K, my impression of the dev team is that they "get it". Which, considering some of the best 40K games have had weird fluff breaks (ie - a Chaos sorcerer who praises Khorne...who hates psykers...derp), makes me cautiously excited about this game. Probably will pick up a founder's pack because, let's face it, as a 40K player, I've spent more money on less product.

Hmm. A planetside-2-esque experience for fourty bucks, where every class is also (for the sake of revivals, anyway) a medic but you can stop people from reviving by charging up and putting the boot in? Actual big battles that might not make the server have the most violent of convulsions? Color me intrigued.

If they can figure out a way to do the melee combat without the end result looking like everyone is shadow-boxing with the lag-ghosts, it would be pretty cool. From the article I'd guess there will be Orks and Space Marines, and judging by the art I would assume the other two sides will be Chaos and Eldar. Not a bad lineup. Still wish that a Techpriest of some description was playable, because those guys are damn cool (although you could practically build a whole faction out of just the Mechanicus, I do recognize that introducing allied sides in a four-way battle royale might skew populations or confuse battle lines).

Also, I applaud the free Orks, because every man, woman, and child has the innate right to WAAAUGHH!

It most likely won't happen, but having the Tau as a playable faction would be amazing in this.

Be interested to see what kind of budget they have behind them, because SoE put a sizable amount of capital into Planetside 2, and even then the game ran like ass and got boring pretty quickly on release. Can't imagine they'd have the same amount of money to work with so will probably end up an unfinished mess.

zombiejoe:

Shamanic Rhythm:
Oh dear oh dear, this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Ranged attacks only down players? F2P players only accessing the Ork faction? The dev team visiting 4chan?

Besides for the ranged attack thing, these things sound great.

It will probably round out like Guild Wars 2 "Downed" System, where you can still kill a player by putting consistent/burst damage on them while they are down, but it takes far longer then actually walking up and doing an execution. For GW2, its unfeasible during combat to waste all of your DPS trying to finish someone off, which is probably what they're aiming for.

Its a bit early to tell though, but i trust them to put together a great game. The gameplay i saw reminded me a lot of Space Marine, and its combat was very solid. Shame it never got off its feet.

Cowabungaa:
I just scanned this, but I came across a rather silly statement. Namely:

As Caron joked, "no one wants to be an elite merchant in the 41st millennium."

Someone hasn't heard of Rogue Trader it seems.

I think it was a joke. You even (apparently) buy your weapon unlocks from a rogue trader in the game :P

OT: I really like Steve Lumpkin, but I'm going to hold off on this. I just don't have the money for a founder pack, but I'll be there day 1 orking it up with other putzes.

ticklefist:
They actually used the phrase "grim dark."

It's the series official tagline. It's in the primary rulebook for crying out loud!

I almost put down money on this. Then I reminded myself that the game's not coming out until the end of 2015. I've bought into enough MMOs to know that the pre-order banner won't be all that impressive.

I'm very, very, very cautiously looking forward to this game. I'll have to learn more as more info comes out, but it's on The List.

Shamanic Rhythm:
Oh dear oh dear, this sounds like a train wreck waiting to happen. Ranged attacks only down players? F2P players only accessing the Ork faction? The dev team visiting 4chan?

4chan is not /b/, nor is it /v/. /tg/ may be a mixed bag often, but I've met an extremely large number of very smart, friendly people there, a number of which I have begun playing regular online tabletop games sessions with. This 4chan, worst site on the internet thing is so 2008 at the absolute maximum.

Seems okay to me. They are planning to make it a 3rd person experience like Space Marine. Space Marine meets Planetside? Sounds good to me.

And I like the sound of F2Players being Orks. Ork strategy after all involves having large numbers of bullet soaking boyz.

LordDPS:
Actually, 4Chan isn't a bad place to get 40k advice and feedback from. The TG community on 4chan isn't that bad. They've actually got an impressive number of homebrew rules and fan created content for 40k and are responsible for the creation of the Angry, Reasonable, and Pretty Marines. With full fledged Codecies and fan fiction coming out of it. All available here http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Category:Warhammer_40,000

Ah, okay. If there are actually sub communities of legit 40k fans it makes sense. I think what I'm still iffy about is the mandated half-hour of daily contact time they all have to have with 'the internet'. If they're just going out to ask people what they want in the game, that could lead to feature creep and loss of the bigger picture. By all means engage with the player base, but there's a tipping point where you'll start getting unhelpful noise if you cast the net too far.

kouriichi:
It will probably round out like Guild Wars 2 "Downed" System, where you can still kill a player by putting consistent/burst damage on them while they are down, but it takes far longer then actually walking up and doing an execution. For GW2, its unfeasible during combat to waste all of your DPS trying to finish someone off, which is probably what they're aiming for.

If it's anything like Gears of War where they will just bleed out anyway, it's fine, but if you actually have to melee them to get the kill I can imagine all kinds of frustrations for people who want to play Sniper or Devastator.

el_kabong:
Although the dev hasn't really done anything worth note, they seem to be approaching this with an elegance to their design that I really enjoy. For example, some people are harping that orks are the only faction that's free-to-play, but the purpose behind this a brilliant example of the pay model supporting game immersion, universe development, and balancing. Orks ARE numerous and unruly. They're not called the Green Tide because they have a few elite units that head into battle. Also, I saw in another interview that they are also giving Orks a buff that make them more powerful the more Orks are around them and are allowing Orks more freedom in team-killing. These types of in-game rules reinforce the established fluff of the 40K universe.

See, already they're somewhat countenancing the idea that F2P players will be less organised and less committed by offering a potential balance solution in the form of buffing the faction as a whole, which is a terrible idea if the outcomes of battles has any strategic impact whatsoever on the overall campaign progress. It might be cool from a lore perspective, but balancing factions based on the pool of player talent is a blunt instrument compared to having a level playing field. As the Ork player base fluctuates, they may suddenly become incredibly gimped or horrendously overpowered, and then small tweaks will unbalance the whole system. Just look at World of Warcraft PvP before Burning Crusade as a example: if either Paladins or Shamans became too unbalanced, the flow on effects would have people complaining about the entire system.

Shamanic Rhythm:

el_kabong:
Although the dev hasn't really done anything worth note, they seem to be approaching this with an elegance to their design that I really enjoy. For example, some people are harping that orks are the only faction that's free-to-play, but the purpose behind this a brilliant example of the pay model supporting game immersion, universe development, and balancing. Orks ARE numerous and unruly. They're not called the Green Tide because they have a few elite units that head into battle. Also, I saw in another interview that they are also giving Orks a buff that make them more powerful the more Orks are around them and are allowing Orks more freedom in team-killing. These types of in-game rules reinforce the established fluff of the 40K universe.

See, already they're somewhat countenancing the idea that F2P players will be less organised and less committed by offering a potential balance solution in the form of buffing the faction as a whole, which is a terrible idea if the outcomes of battles has any strategic impact whatsoever on the overall campaign progress. It might be cool from a lore perspective, but balancing factions based on the pool of player talent is a blunt instrument compared to having a level playing field. As the Ork player base fluctuates, they may suddenly become incredibly gimped or horrendously overpowered, and then small tweaks will unbalance the whole system. Just look at World of Warcraft PvP before Burning Crusade as a example: if either Paladins or Shamans became too unbalanced, the flow on effects would have people complaining about the entire system.

The last I heard about this (don't know if it's still true or not), the idea is that the side that's currently winning (which I'm expecting will bounce between Space Marines and Orks, with Eldar and Chaos picking off bits round the edges, if player numbers are anything to go by) is going to be hit the hardest by waves of NPC Tyranids, so there's a built-in balancer that allows the other sides to recapture some ground.

Was very tempted to jump in and buy an Autarch to try this out, but I'm kind of unclear on when this actually becomes playable?

No Ultrasmurfs? Sold!

Not that I plan on using Speece Mahriines, Chaos all the way.

I like the single shard thing. It's nice while playing EVE that you can run into every other person that also plays, not just the people who picked your shard. It's also cool that technology is advancing to where you can get large numbers with a more active control method.

I think I'll buy the game and still play as an Ork.

Shamanic Rhythm:
It might be cool from a lore perspective, but balancing factions based on the pool of player talent is a blunt instrument compared to having a level playing field. As the Ork player base fluctuates, they may suddenly become incredibly gimped or horrendously overpowered, and then small tweaks will unbalance the whole system. Just look at World of Warcraft PvP before Burning Crusade as a example: if either Paladins or Shamans became too unbalanced, the flow on effects would have people complaining about the entire system.

Well, a lot smarter people than me have elaborated on why unbalance in a game is actually a positive thing over time:

As far as I'm concerned, imbalance and the shifting meta gives long-term players a lot more benefits. If someone wants a perfectly balanced game, they're welcome to play Paper, Rocks, Scissors.

Such as shame I don't care about mutliplayer games...

Also, as quick aside: Bad article, Dreadnoughts don't have warp drives, they're mechs housing a Marine and life support systems.

youji itami:
Behaviour Interactive I wonder what games they've done?

'checks wikipedia' oh, okay pass on this.

Yeah, a company that has done nothing of value and a game that is still in pre-production so absolutely nothing to see here.

el_kabong:
Well, a lot smarter people than me have elaborated on why unbalance in a game is actually a positive thing over time:

As far as I'm concerned, imbalance and the shifting meta gives long-term players a lot more benefits. If someone wants a perfectly balanced game, they're welcome to play Paper, Rocks, Scissors.

I love Extra Credits as much as anyone, but that was actually one of the worst videos they ever made about a topic. Their points about what makes an interesting meta game are fine, but their assumption that it happens as a result of implementing subtle imbalances to the system is just plain wrong. A healthy meta game will also emerge in a game which is perfectly balanced, but has too many potential strategies to easily solve it.

Hell, even Chess isn't technically solved, but the reason the meta-game has become stale there is simply because we've had centuries of people playing it and writing about it at an extremely high level, and it's technically a less complex game than something like Starcraft. Now a perfectly balanced game with the sort of different factors Starcraft has to deal with like two different resource types, three races with completely different units, etc. might not even be possible because of the complexity involved being too much for human designers to ever truly balance, but it doesn't mean that the pursuit of a perfectly balanced Starcraft and the fixing of minor imbalances will lead to a worse game. But I think part of the problem with that video is that they may even be acknowledging that, but are using the term balance when they really mean asymmetry. And the two terms mean extremely different things. And if that's the case, then they've failed to convey their point in a way which uses established gaming terminology used by fans of the genre and is still a failure on their part.

Vivi22:
I love Extra Credits as much as anyone, but that was actually one of the worst videos they ever made about a topic. Their points about what makes an interesting meta game are fine, but their assumption that it happens as a result of implementing subtle imbalances to the system is just plain wrong. A healthy meta game will also emerge in a game which is perfectly balanced, but has too many potential strategies to easily solve it.

Hell, even Chess isn't technically solved, but the reason the meta-game has become stale there is simply because we've had centuries of people playing it and writing about it at an extremely high level, and it's technically a less complex game than something like Starcraft. Now a perfectly balanced game with the sort of different factors Starcraft has to deal with like two different resource types, three races with completely different units, etc. might not even be possible because of the complexity involved being too much for human designers to ever truly balance, but it doesn't mean that the pursuit of a perfectly balanced Starcraft and the fixing of minor imbalances will lead to a worse game. But I think part of the problem with that video is that they may even be acknowledging that, but are using the term balance when they really mean asymmetry. And the two terms mean extremely different things. And if that's the case, then they've failed to convey their point in a way which uses established gaming terminology used by fans of the genre and is still a failure on their part.

Very interesting post, thanks. Complex and variegated meta is the reason why I loved so much the glorious Battlefield 2142!

Vivi22:

el_kabong:
Well, a lot smarter people than me have elaborated on why unbalance in a game is actually a positive thing over time:

As far as I'm concerned, imbalance and the shifting meta gives long-term players a lot more benefits. If someone wants a perfectly balanced game, they're welcome to play Paper, Rocks, Scissors.

I love Extra Credits as much as anyone, but that was actually one of the worst videos they ever made about a topic. Their points about what makes an interesting meta game are fine, but their assumption that it happens as a result of implementing subtle imbalances to the system is just plain wrong. A healthy meta game will also emerge in a game which is perfectly balanced, but has too many potential strategies to easily solve it.

Hell, even Chess isn't technically solved, but the reason the meta-game has become stale there is simply because we've had centuries of people playing it and writing about it at an extremely high level, and it's technically a less complex game than something like Starcraft. Now a perfectly balanced game with the sort of different factors Starcraft has to deal with like two different resource types, three races with completely different units, etc. might not even be possible because of the complexity involved being too much for human designers to ever truly balance, but it doesn't mean that the pursuit of a perfectly balanced Starcraft and the fixing of minor imbalances will lead to a worse game. But I think part of the problem with that video is that they may even be acknowledging that, but are using the term balance when they really mean asymmetry. And the two terms mean extremely different things. And if that's the case, then they've failed to convey their point in a way which uses established gaming terminology used by fans of the genre and is still a failure on their part.

Yeah, well said. Asymmetry is very distinct from balance, and that's the key issue here. The different factions in this game can have differing abilities and weapons available to them, but those should be tweaked against one another on the assumption that equally skilled players are using them.

TheMadTypist:
Hmm. A planetside-2-esque experience for fourty bucks, where every class is also (for the sake of revivals, anyway) a medic but you can stop people from reviving by charging up and putting the boot in? Actual big battles that might not make the server have the most violent of convulsions? Color me intrigued.

If they can figure out a way to do the melee combat without the end result looking like everyone is shadow-boxing with the lag-ghosts, it would be pretty cool. From the article I'd guess there will be Orks and Space Marines, and judging by the art I would assume the other two sides will be Chaos and Eldar. Not a bad lineup. Still wish that a Techpriest of some description was playable, because those guys are damn cool (although you could practically build a whole faction out of just the Mechanicus, I do recognize that introducing allied sides in a four-way battle royale might skew populations or confuse battle lines).

Also, I applaud the free Orks, because every man, woman, and child has the innate right to WAAAUGHH!

The Website stated that there will be 4 factions, Space Marines, Chaos Marines, Eldar and Orks with Trynids being (heh) creeps of some kind.

008Zulu:
No Ultrasmurfs? Sold!

Not that I plan on using Speece Mahriines, Chaos all the way.

Bad news then, Ultrasmurfs are a SM sub-faction along with the Space Wolves, Blood Angels and Dark Angels.

On the Chaos side they went with the non-aligned legions, Night Lords, Word Bearers, Iron Warriors and the Black Legion are playable.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here