Interview: Staying Relevant with F2P, All-Out Online War, Next Gen Consoles and More

Savij

new interview:

http://gamingbolt.com/warhammer-40k-eternal-crusade-interview-staying-relevant-with-f2p-all-out-online-war-next-gen-consoles-and-more

the 2nd pic isnt from EC so dont think Templars are confirmed :P

Interessting parts:

The game’s combat is very visceral. It’s not like typical MMO targeting and tabbing combat. It’s comparable to Gears of War and Space Marine from THQ. You can block, you can roll, you can hide under cover, and some of the cover can be destroyed. All of the major 40K vehicles will be there for you to drive as well, so it’s going to be really important to build yourself a strategy in order to win.

"you can hide under cover" sounds like sticky cover for me since GoW was mentioned

I’ll give you an example, and hopefully my creative director will not be upset that I revealed this because we haven’t talked about this yet.

In the 40K universe, you have certain types of characters that are really, really powerful like Librarians. We’ll have these types of heroes in the game, but these heroes cost a lot of resources. It’s like removing your goalie at the end of the Stanley Cup in order to have one more attacker. Yes, you get an advantage, because you have one more man trying to score, but if you don’t do it right, if you don’t choose the right man, you’re actually weaker than you were before, because you don’t have a goalie. So if that hero dies, it’s over. The resources have been spent. So that’s something that being in a group allows. You wouldn’t be able to do it by yourself.

some new stuff! so hero classes will be very rare and strong

That’s a question I can give you a very high level answer on, but that is something my creative director or design director can answer much more totally, so I don’t want to say stupid stuff and have then be upset with me later. Basically, if you take Eve Online’s economy, it’s going to be a very, very, very dumbed-down version of that. So it’s a war economy, and it’s based on Requisition Points. Yes, we will allow trading and all that stuff, but then again, we’re kind of limited by the IP, because we cannot allow Space Marines to publically trade with Chaos Space Marines.

This is something that the devs would have refused to do even if Games Workshop wasn’t there to supervise us, because they’re hardcore fans of the license. We have to find a way, in terms of design, to allow trading and things like that. Maybe have a third party in between, but that economy is going to be very important, not just to the player, but in terms of the campaign. As an example, when I play Eldar, my tactics will not be to go on the front lines, charging against a force of Space Marines. My tactics would be to take my squad of ten people and go behind enemy lines, and look at all the outposts that the enemy has made. Outposts are for mining resources, creating new weapons, things like that.

So I’ll sabotage them, so when the big battle comes, the enemy lacks the resources to defend itself. So that’s why the economy is important. You not only have to create it, you have to maintain it. And that’s one thing you have to think about in terms of strategy, as well. Because you have a few continents on the planet, and each continent is split between all of the different factions at the start of a campaign. However, each of these faction areas are surrounded by Tyranid territory, and the Tyranids will be controlled by the AI.

some interessting stuff about trading and strategie!

I don’t want to reveal too much, but we’re planning a big event at GDC next year, where we’ll showcase our game with new technology with a very strong focus on internet partners that we have. The game can run in the cloud, can be hosted in the cloud, instead of on a server farm inside of a dedicated building. So cloud gaming is something that we’re already working on, and it’s very important to us.

We haven’t revealed exactly how we’re going to do it yet, maybe because we’re still designing it, but to answer your question, yes we know about it, yes it’s important to us, and yes, my goal, after we’ve done a lot of tests, because our game is very twitch sensitive, so we need response that is way below eighty milliseconds to make it fun, but my ultimate goal is to have the game hosted in the cloud at launch.
Read more at http://gamingbolt.com/warhammer-40k-eternal-crusade-interview-staying-relevant-with-f2p-all-out-online-war-next-gen-consoles-and-more#pP63B5CvYjCfT3CD.99

 

grigdusher

Originally posted by Savij

Let’s say you go to a high-level dungeon, and the reward at the end is a very powerful sword. But maybe you don’t have the time or you don’t want to do that dungeon, or you don’t want to grind. You want to go right into the shop and buy a sword. The golden rule that we found that makes everybody happy is the sword that you buy in the cash shop is twenty percent less powerful than the sword that you grind and work your ass off for. And that twenty percent difference in power is what makes the really dedicated player want to work for it because he knows that his sword is better because he worked for it. But the guy who bought his sword is happy because the sword he bought is at least thirty percent more powerful than the sword he had before, and he understands that the other guy has a more powerful sword because he actually worked for it. So that aspect is going to be even more important in Eternal Crusade because it’s a PVP game. So fairness and balance is important there, too. So the pay to win factor is going to be something that’s going to be looked at very seriously to make sure that nothing creeps into the game that allows that.

i don't like the part of the buyable sword.

Savij

Originally posted by grigdusher

Originally posted by Savij

Let’s say you go to a high-level dungeon, and the reward at the end is a very powerful sword. But maybe you don’t have the time or you don’t want to do that dungeon, or you don’t want to grind. You want to go right into the shop and buy a sword. The golden rule that we found that makes everybody happy is the sword that you buy in the cash shop is twenty percent less powerful than the sword that you grind and work your ass off for. And that twenty percent difference in power is what makes the really dedicated player want to work for it because he knows that his sword is better because he worked for it. But the guy who bought his sword is happy because the sword he bought is at least thirty percent more powerful than the sword he had before, and he understands that the other guy has a more powerful sword because he actually worked for it. So that aspect is going to be even more important in Eternal Crusade because it’s a PVP game. So fairness and balance is important there, too. So the pay to win factor is going to be something that’s going to be looked at very seriously to make sure that nothing creeps into the game that allows that.

i don't like the part of the buyable sword.

ya i think its an example

but sounds like minor P2W but you cant pay to be the best but to be better then other beginners

Varthander

Originally posted by Savij

new interview:

http://gamingbolt.com/warhammer-40k-eternal-crusade-interview-staying-relevant-with-f2p-all-out-online-war-next-gen-consoles-and-more

the first pic isnt from EC so dont think Templars are confirmed :P

Dark Angels actually

Edit: You probably mean the in-game pic, then yeah, templars

Savij

ah my mistake ya i mean the dark millenium pic^^

IceAge

Originally posted by Savij

Originally posted by grigdusher

Originally posted by Savij

Let’s say you go to a high-level dungeon, and the reward at the end is a very powerful sword. But maybe you don’t have the time or you don’t want to do that dungeon, or you don’t want to grind. You want to go right into the shop and buy a sword. The golden rule that we found that makes everybody happy is the sword that you buy in the cash shop is twenty percent less powerful than the sword that you grind and work your ass off for. And that twenty percent difference in power is what makes the really dedicated player want to work for it because he knows that his sword is better because he worked for it. But the guy who bought his sword is happy because the sword he bought is at least thirty percent more powerful than the sword he had before, and he understands that the other guy has a more powerful sword because he actually worked for it. So that aspect is going to be even more important in Eternal Crusade because it’s a PVP game. So fairness and balance is important there, too. So the pay to win factor is going to be something that’s going to be looked at very seriously to make sure that nothing creeps into the game that allows that.

i don't like the part of the buyable sword.

ya i think its an example

but sounds like minor P2W but you cant pay to be the best but to be better then other beginners

Minor? 80% from a powerful sword, is minor? I am sure that the "powerful sword" is not a 100% drop at the end of the dungeon.

I am amused as how some people defend a clearly P2W game. 

Savij

Originally posted by IceAge

Minor? 80% from a powerful sword, is minor? I am sure that the "powerful sword" is not a 100% drop at the end of the dungeon.

I am amused as how some people defend a clearly P2W game. 

ähm how can you judge about a item that has no stats yet?

do you exspect a weapon to me 10 times stronger then a standard weapon?  there is almost no vertical progression for a char so i think they may just varrie in stats. 1 weapon will have high damage another high attackspeed but lower damage, another one has high armorpen etc etc

 

oh and ya im a fan boy and have total faith in them cause they are fans of WH40k not just devs who need to develop a wh40k game

Moriearty

I kinda like this idea, although the percentage of the power on the weapon probably needs to be changed, but that's what we got patches for!

Savij

Originally posted by Moriearty
I kinda like this idea, although the percentage of the power on the weapon probably needs to be changed, but that's what we got patches for!

ya as said it may be just an example like the talking about titan factory

grigdusher

yes they need to release some screenshot/press pack, otherwise every article will feature space marine/dark millenium screenshot.

Policenaut

I am pretty firmly against buying any form of weapon through a cash shop. Even if there were to somehow make it to where it wasn't P2W they would have an incredibly difficult time convincing people it wasn't P2W. Let's hope he was just using a weapon as an example.

d0gz1lla

Yeah guess nobody likes the pay for better weapon...Still we will see how that pans out, either way i got no problem if someone will have a "little" advantage over guys who started off whit no cash to invest. A little bit of hard work and its all fine.

But you guys didnt even comment on the 1000 vs 1000 players, that thing is huge, i played Eve online where battles of large scale happened and it was epic, cant imagine how epic this sounds....Total hard on, for a guy like me lol. Just hope the whole system + computers will be able to handle it. Becouse lag, that can kill the whole concept if it wont be stable enough. 

 

 

Savij

Originally posted by d0gz1lla

Yeah guess nobody likes the pay for better weapon...Still we will see how that pans out, either way i got no problem if someone will have a "little" advantage over guys who started off whit no cash to invest. A little bit of hard work and its all fine.

But you guys didnt even comment on the 1000 vs 1000 players, that thing is huge, i played Eve online where battles of large scale happened and it was epic, cant imagine how epic this sounds....Total hard on, for a guy like me lol. Just hope the whole system + computers will be able to handle it. Becouse lag, that can kill the whole concept if it wont be stable enough. 

well its maybe because we all already know about this big scale, so its nothing new for us

and ya this will be amazing if it works i think they can do it

GitzStompa

The interview was an excellent read and I really enjoyed it:)

 

 

 

 

 

Dagda

Originally posted by grigdusher
yes they need to release some screenshot/press pack, otherwise every article will feature space marine/dark millenium screenshot.

I agree. It is time for some artwork, either ingame or concept, hell, make it some enhanced in-game shots. LOL!

Dagda

Originally posted by Policenaut
I am pretty firmly against buying any form of weapon through a cash shop. Even if there were to somehow make it to where it wasn't P2W they would have an incredibly difficult time convincing people it wasn't P2W. Let's hope he was just using a weapon as an example.

Policenaut, I think you hit that one square on the head. I wouldn't mind allowing people to by new skins for weapons and armor through the online store but increased damage weapons and thicker armor should not be able to be bought for cash. Let each and every player earn those by spending in-game tokens on them. 

Those that play longer and/or better will have better equipment as they gain more points.

irpugboss

While it be nice to pretty much see some of the concept art for the game or something I can understand why they havent release anything yet. Reason most likely being they need to stretch their media campaign out for 2 more years at least.

 

That said I would gladly take such an open dev team explaining their reasoning and processes ad nauseam over the secretive developers of yesteryear. 

If any of you havent already look at the meet the crew video it has some intersting screens throughout it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzqRigwDVAI

TiamatRoar

In a 3rd person 3D twitch-gaming (action) based title with presumably decent graphics, how is it possible to have 2,000 players in the same area without... I dunno, the servers and everyones' computers exploding?  This is a game that's supposed to be just as playable and action-packed as your typical FPS game or Space Marine or whatever else, not some game with a bunch of chibis smacking each other in timed hits using RNG to determine hit or miss. Right now FPS games can't even get past like, 4-8 players per team in the same battle now, let alone 50 or 100 or ONE THOUSAND.

Is that even feasible to have 2,000 + players on the same battlefield?  I'm pretty sure I got the context of that "2,000 players" statement right because an example in the interview implied all of them being in the same area and battle at the same time...

zmalamuth

Originally posted by TiamatRoar

In a 3rd person 3D twitch-gaming (action) based title with presumably decent graphics, how is it possible to have 2,000 players in the same area without... I dunno, the servers and everyones' computers exploding?  This is a game that's supposed to be just as playable and action-packed as your typical FPS game or Space Marine or whatever else, not some game with a bunch of chibis smacking each other in timed hits using RNG to determine hit or miss. Right now FPS games can't even get past like, 4-8 players per team in the same battle now, let alone 50 or 100 or ONE THOUSAND.

Is that even feasible to have 2,000 + players on the same battlefield?  I'm pretty sure I got the context of that "2,000 players" statement right because an example in the interview implied all of them being in the same area and battle at the same time...

Never saw 64 player maps in BF2-3-4......

Or fights in Planetside2?

and they also showed the technology behind that, the Pikoservers.

TiamatRoar

Originally posted by zmalamuth

Originally posted by TiamatRoar

In a 3rd person 3D twitch-gaming (action) based title with presumably decent graphics, how is it possible to have 2,000 players in the same area without... I dunno, the servers and everyones' computers exploding?  This is a game that's supposed to be just as playable and action-packed as your typical FPS game or Space Marine or whatever else, not some game with a bunch of chibis smacking each other in timed hits using RNG to determine hit or miss. Right now FPS games can't even get past like, 4-8 players per team in the same battle now, let alone 50 or 100 or ONE THOUSAND.

Is that even feasible to have 2,000 + players on the same battlefield?  I'm pretty sure I got the context of that "2,000 players" statement right because an example in the interview implied all of them being in the same area and battle at the same time...

Never saw 64 player maps in BF2-3-4......

Or fights in Planetside2?

and they also showed the technology behind that, the Pikoservers.

 Nope, I didn't. Are those fights really as involved as the Space Marine game?  I'll go take a look at some youtube vids myself, I suppose.  That said, even if they are 64+ players and as involved as Space Marine, there's still 1,936 players left to go before we hit 2,000 players.  That's more than 30 times the amount of players you mentioned.  And that's a lot!

patrickbalthazar

Originally posted by TiamatRoar

Originally posted by zmalamuth

Originally posted by TiamatRoar

In a 3rd person 3D twitch-gaming (action) based title with presumably decent graphics, how is it possible to have 2,000 players in the same area without... I dunno, the servers and everyones' computers exploding?  This is a game that's supposed to be just as playable and action-packed as your typical FPS game or Space Marine or whatever else, not some game with a bunch of chibis smacking each other in timed hits using RNG to determine hit or miss. Right now FPS games can't even get past like, 4-8 players per team in the same battle now, let alone 50 or 100 or ONE THOUSAND.

Is that even feasible to have 2,000 + players on the same battlefield?  I'm pretty sure I got the context of that "2,000 players" statement right because an example in the interview implied all of them being in the same area and battle at the same time...

Never saw 64 player maps in BF2-3-4......

Or fights in Planetside2?

and they also showed the technology behind that, the Pikoservers.

 Nope, I didn't. Are those fights really as involved as the Space Marine game?  I'll go take a look at some youtube vids myself, I suppose.  That said, even if they are 64+ players and as involved as Space Marine, there's still 1,936 players left to go before we hit 2,000 players.  That's more than 30 times the amount of players you mentioned.  And that's a lot!

Guess I'll take this

ok, first of all, go away from the concept of having ONE server dealing with 2000 players; I'll try to explain the network side:

While ofc there is a limit to bandwidth and latency there is no real limit in parallelism - PikkoTechnology allows us to have multiple servers serve the same 'area', meaning, each server handles the same amount of players and is not restricted to region but instead to the players it handles.

Here is a short video from our great partners in crime: MuchDifferent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gq1vDG-st1k

so basically the limit here is how many servers we put into a region

now to the rendering problem of actually showing 2000 players on one screen:

First, we never stated we are doing that, this is something we have tested and we are working on, but what we said is that there will be 1000+ people in the same battle, this is exactly what MuchDifferent did in their World Record Demo "Man vs. Machine"

http://www.muchdifferent.com/1000PlayerFPS/

BUT: we want to have 1000+ players on screen, and we are working hard to achieve that!!!

For mathematical perspective - current top hardware is definitely capable to do that, there needs to be few tricks done ofc, but in general on paper we can do it and all tests we have done so far will make your minds blow

Then there is the Level Design problem - tbh, an open field where you see 1000 players is pretty boring, it's impossible to make any decision in your Squad like "attack the 5th guy from the left of that bolder" ...hmm I think you'll get the problem. The point is, that the world will be made so that you don't have to see 1000 players on your screen, but do a 360, and you'll see them all!

Hope this clears some questions and doubts, hit me with more if you want, believe me, before I worked on this project I had my doubts too...mine have been swept away

TiamatRoar

Well, I'm certainly intrigued.  It'd be really something if you were able to render 1,000 players.  Then you could like, get one thousand players to all play as ultramarines and scream "WE ARE THE ULTRAMARINES!  $11,500 FOR THE ONE-CLICK BUNDLE!"

d0gz1lla

Then there is the Level Design problem - tbh, an open field where you see 1000 players is pretty boring, it's impossible to make any decision in your Squad like "attack the 5th guy from the left of that bolder" ...hmm I think you'll get the problem. The point is, that the world will be made so that you don't have to see 1000 players on your screen, but do a 360, and you'll see them all!

Hope this clears some questions and doubts, hit me with more if you want, believe me, before I worked on this project I had my doubts too...mine have been swept away

 

Nah that sounds about right, the world will be made so that you dont have to see.... Never did i heard a whole army storm in a vertical or horizontal line into anything, that would be just straight slaughter...Oh wait, it happened before tho...Crappy generals...

 

Well yeah, complex terrain will allow for that kind of thing to work like that. Hopefully sooner then later, there will be a video or at least a screenshoot to show an example of it.

Savij

Originally posted by d0gz1lla

Well yeah, complex terrain will allow for that kind of thing to work like that. Hopefully sooner then later, there will be a video or at least a screenshoot to show an example of it.

they want to make the first prealpha-gameplay video this month!

grigdusher

Originally posted by Savij

Originally posted by d0gz1lla

Well yeah, complex terrain will allow for that kind of thing to work like that. Hopefully sooner then later, there will be a video or at least a screenshoot to show an example of it.

they want to make the first prealpha-gameplay video this month!

i imagine after the forum.

d0gz1lla

Awesome, cant wait to see it.