Currently the Salamanders have jet black skin and red eyes. I'm not that up to their backgound to say what they might culturally represent, beside being the nicest Space Marines around.
Krieg looks more french than german inspired.
GW seems to be increasing the diversity recently on the fantasy side at least I think. As far as I remeber every Sigmarine related model that actually shows some skin seems to be painted as black guys.
Pretty much a colour change and the helmet looks the french helmet had a baby with late war german helmet.
Currently the Salamanders have jet black skin and red eyes. I'm not that up to their backgound to say what they might culturally represent, beside being the nicest Space Marines around.
Krieg looks more french than german inspired.
GW seems to be increasing the diversity recently on the fantasy side at least I think. As far as I remeber every Sigmarine related model that actually shows some skin seems to be painted as black guys.
The books also talk about the geneseed causing massive changes as well. Are SM even really the same species after it?
It's been awhile since my biology classes, but would they be counted as a species at all? I mean, they can't reproduce in the traditional sense.
They have to recruit children and transform them into space marines through genetic modification and implanting new organs.
The way it was described in the space wolves books they took noteworthy warriors off the battlefields of their fief world. Was described as then being implanted with the seed, some survived the changes it wrought, some dies monsters.
0
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
depending on exactly what sort of gene fuckery Emps got up to, assuming the process doesn't leave them sterile, it's likely that marine babies would just be baseline humans. Unless the modifications get into actively rewriting the DNA or something.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
0
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
depending on exactly what sort of gene fuckery Emps got up to, assuming the process doesn't leave them sterile, it's likely that marine babies would just be baseline humans. Unless the modifications get into actively rewriting the DNA or something.
They do exactly that.
A couple of the books describe it, but the modification process takes something like a year of incubation.
+1
Options
NEO|PhyteThey follow the stars, bound together.Strands in a braid till the end.Registered Userregular
depending on exactly what sort of gene fuckery Emps got up to, assuming the process doesn't leave them sterile, it's likely that marine babies would just be baseline humans. Unless the modifications get into actively rewriting the DNA or something.
They do exactly that.
A couple of the books describe it, but the modification process takes something like a year of incubation.
Hmm, I've admittedly not looked too close into the matter, but I could have sworn the process was mostly implanting a bunch of extra organs that tweak the body, rather than changes at a DNA level.
It was that somehow, from within the derelict-horror, they had learned a way to see inside an ugly, broken thing... And take away its pain.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
it goes into some detail in the deathwatch rpg book. but yes, they do implant a few extra organs, but the geneseed also acts like a retrovirus and changes your DNA at the cellular/mitochondrial level
depending on exactly what sort of gene fuckery Emps got up to, assuming the process doesn't leave them sterile, it's likely that marine babies would just be baseline humans. Unless the modifications get into actively rewriting the DNA or something.
They do exactly that.
A couple of the books describe it, but the modification process takes something like a year of incubation.
Hmm, I've admittedly not looked too close into the matter, but I could have sworn the process was mostly implanting a bunch of extra organs that tweak the body, rather than changes at a DNA level.
It's both! They've got a bunch of extra organs, their ribs become a solid slab of bone, etc, but the process also involves coding changes in the genome in all of their cells.
0
Options
Casually HardcoreOnce an Asshole. Trying to be better.Registered Userregular
Man, this game can't come fast enough. I've been eyeing WH40K figures for awhile....and cry....cause 2rich4myblood.
depending on exactly what sort of gene fuckery Emps got up to, assuming the process doesn't leave them sterile, it's likely that marine babies would just be baseline humans. Unless the modifications get into actively rewriting the DNA or something.
They do exactly that.
A couple of the books describe it, but the modification process takes something like a year of incubation.
Hmm, I've admittedly not looked too close into the matter, but I could have sworn the process was mostly implanting a bunch of extra organs that tweak the body, rather than changes at a DNA level.
It's warhammer, all we really have to ask is "what's more grim-dark" and that will probably guide us right
The Noise Marines are just pissed off because the Orks played it at the gig first and now if they played it during their set, the audience will denounce them as poozers.
Although he sustained what many thought was a mortal wound on Cyrene, he miraculously survived. Understanding the gravity of Jonah’s sacrifices for the Chapter and his undeniable role in their victory against Arch-Traitor Azariah Kyras, the newly-appointed Chapter Master Gabriel Angelos promoted him to Chief Librarian.
Totally not suspicious (or red herring?).
Oh Gabriel, didn't you learn from Kyras (chapter master / librarian who fell to chaos and nearly ended the sector)? Or Isador (best bud librarian who also fell to chaos and nearly ended the sector)?
So you're of course making Isador's protégée chief librarian?
I mean let's face it, given Retribution the chapter may be stuffed with Librarians but they really don't seem to have much luck with them, and I'm beginning to see why.
I've never particularly liked(or been good at) pure RTS games, so swapping back to the previous RTS style for... reasons, doesn't really do it for me either. My hope this far into development is simply that there will at least be something like The Last Stand in 3 that will appeal to those of us who preferred 2's style, so there will at least be some more tangible appeal to me than looking at screenshots of the spaceman game that I'm no good at playing.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
I've never particularly liked(or been good at) pure RTS games, so swapping back to the previous RTS style for... reasons, doesn't really do it for me either. My hope this far into development is simply that there will at least be something like The Last Stand in 3 that will appeal to those of us who preferred 2's style, so there will at least be some more tangible appeal to me than looking at screenshots of the spaceman game that I'm no good at playing.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
But...that's the game? The balance of both is what makes it fun and challenging. It would be like building an aimbot into an FPS as an option.
I've never particularly liked(or been good at) pure RTS games, so swapping back to the previous RTS style for... reasons, doesn't really do it for me either. My hope this far into development is simply that there will at least be something like The Last Stand in 3 that will appeal to those of us who preferred 2's style, so there will at least be some more tangible appeal to me than looking at screenshots of the spaceman game that I'm no good at playing.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
But...that's the game? The balance of both is what makes it fun and challenging. It would be like building an aimbot into an FPS as an option.
There's always a balance between automation and manual work in these games, though. You don't have to tell your drones to harvest gas/minerals in Starcraft, and attack-moving automates (in a fashion) the process of stopping one action to do another when necessary. For a lot of people, base-building isn't so much "the game" as it is the tedium they have to get through so that they can enjoy "the game" of fighting dudes with other dudes. Hell, that's part of why archon mode is a thing in StarCraft 2.
Not that I necessarily would use such a mode, but I don't think it's as strange an idea as you suggest.
I've never particularly liked(or been good at) pure RTS games, so swapping back to the previous RTS style for... reasons, doesn't really do it for me either. My hope this far into development is simply that there will at least be something like The Last Stand in 3 that will appeal to those of us who preferred 2's style, so there will at least be some more tangible appeal to me than looking at screenshots of the spaceman game that I'm no good at playing.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
But...that's the game? The balance of both is what makes it fun and challenging. It would be like building an aimbot into an FPS as an option.
I know a lot of people for whom the game part of an RTS is strictly the micro. They hate the base building entirely. I'm a bit into the opposite camp (although I do like to micro some hero-type units around in a late game scenario).
I think that the rigid way of thinking about the genre - that it must be [X] way because that's the way it's always been, and screw giving the player the ability to tailor the experience - is probably why the genre is nearly extinct.
Funny you mention FPS aimbots / aim assist, because modern FPS games do exactly that - they let players tailor how much aim assist they're granted. Some players max out the aim assist because they prefer the acrobatic elements of a game over the technical shooting side and would prefer that an AI handles the meat of aiming; some players prefer the technical side and turn aim assist off entirely.
I don't want to mess with hotkey control groups & camera positions. I deeply appreciate the talent it takes to master that and turn it into a reflex, but it isn't fun for me; the game stops being a game and more of a rhythmic chore. I don't even get to watch the battles if I' 'playing properly', because I'm too busy hammering hotkeys and making sure the production chains are running smoothly and there's no resources building-up in the bank and oh shit gotta go micro over here and split my guys before the AoE gets them. The game may as well have abstract shapes because I can't appreciate any of the art or animations except when watching replays.
I don't see how it would subtract from the experience of traditional RTS players who do enjoy that whole song & dance to also give the option of handing-off some of the tasks to the AI. Hearts of Iron allows for that, and the automation allowances haven't ruined the game for players that prefer to do everything manually.
I'm pretty certain aim assist in any FPS on the PC is frowned upon and segregated as much as possible. The only one I know of that isn't is overwatch, and I wouldn't consider it entirely an FPS.
Your argument is something that is tackled on a design level only for RTS games, and Relic's previous games from CoH1 onwards show one way of how it is handled. In fact it's one of the reasons I like Relic's games. I'd go so far as to say there hasn't been a "standard" RTS formula for quite some time now. These games were not macro heavy. Bases were more academic exercises in tech pacing with very little branching and no other management needed since all resources were on-field. It allowed you to focus on on-field control and in turn allowed them to design the combat to be more than mashing blobs of units together.
On the other side of things, you have games like Supreme Commander which were much more macro heavy focusing on resources and production. Some people prefer this style of RTS to the style Relic uses.
I wish there were more games that focused more on tactics like unit positioning, use of terrain, etc, instead of the focus on hitting the right special ability at the exact moment in a frenzy of visual effects.
Maybe also slower paced, so I can actually enjoy the battles unfolding.
honovere on
+2
Options
daveNYCWhy universe hate Waspinator?Registered Userregular
Anyone remember Dark Reign? That had a fair amount of AI available to your units. You could set them to auto-retreat once they hit a certain damage threshold (they'd head to the repair depot if you had one) and there were preset behaviors you could apply, scouting the map, hit and run, and burninate. It was nice because you could pop out some light units and send them off to do something semi-useful without needing to babysit absolutely everything. It also meant that two prong attacks were less likely to end up with one prong just eating bullets until it died because you were actively running the other prong.
Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
+1
Options
3cl1ps3I will build a labyrinth to house the cheeseRegistered Userregular
I wish there were more games that focused more on tactics like unit positioning, use of terrain, etc, instead of the focus on hitting the right special ability at the exact moment in a frenzy of visual effects.
Maybe also slower paced, so I can actually enjoy the battles unfolding.
DoW II's multi was very much like this (at least in vanilla - I never played the expansions), especially in the 3v3 mode. Positioning, comp, and knowing when and how to engage were very important.
You've seen our Wraithguard, and then our Wraithbladesabd Wraithknights, and now here's pur spotlight on our mighty Wraithlord! We're all in on ghost robots here in Vantown.
I wish there were more games that focused more on tactics like unit positioning, use of terrain, etc, instead of the focus on hitting the right special ability at the exact moment in a frenzy of visual effects.
Maybe also slower paced, so I can actually enjoy the battles unfolding.
DoW II's multi was very much like this (at least in vanilla - I never played the expansions), especially in the 3v3 mode. Positioning, comp, and knowing when and how to engage were very important.
DoW II was still way faster than CoH. In Company of Heroes, you can hear your units yell they're under fire, scroll the screen over, and do something.
In DoW II, your units are already dead by that point
I've never particularly liked(or been good at) pure RTS games, so swapping back to the previous RTS style for... reasons, doesn't really do it for me either. My hope this far into development is simply that there will at least be something like The Last Stand in 3 that will appeal to those of us who preferred 2's style, so there will at least be some more tangible appeal to me than looking at screenshots of the spaceman game that I'm no good at playing.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
But...that's the game? The balance of both is what makes it fun and challenging. It would be like building an aimbot into an FPS as an option.
One thing I loved about starcraft 1 was the mode that gave you shared control. One could focus on base/logistics while other focused on offensive micro.
I've never particularly liked(or been good at) pure RTS games, so swapping back to the previous RTS style for... reasons, doesn't really do it for me either. My hope this far into development is simply that there will at least be something like The Last Stand in 3 that will appeal to those of us who preferred 2's style, so there will at least be some more tangible appeal to me than looking at screenshots of the spaceman game that I'm no good at playing.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
But...that's the game? The balance of both is what makes it fun and challenging. It would be like building an aimbot into an FPS as an option.
One thing I loved about starcraft 1 was the mode that gave you shared control. One could focus on base/logistics while other focused on offensive micro.
The fun thing is that all three versions of the RTS game that have been talked about have been created already, more or less.
If you like building bases and watching waves of enemies break upon your carefully positioned defenses, you've got the Tower Defense genre.
If you don't like building bases, but just want that done so you can go out with an army and kill the other army, then the exciting MOBA world awaits (with the unfortunate downside of other people, but there's some single player modes out there).
If you like the balance of both, then you've got the baseline RTS.
Posts
Pretty much a colour change and the helmet looks the french helmet had a baby with late war german helmet.
You have sent me into a deep rabbit hole.
Thanks.
The way it was described in the space wolves books they took noteworthy warriors off the battlefields of their fief world. Was described as then being implanted with the seed, some survived the changes it wrought, some dies monsters.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
They do exactly that.
A couple of the books describe it, but the modification process takes something like a year of incubation.
Hmm, I've admittedly not looked too close into the matter, but I could have sworn the process was mostly implanting a bunch of extra organs that tweak the body, rather than changes at a DNA level.
Warframe/Steam: NFyt
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
It's both! They've got a bunch of extra organs, their ribs become a solid slab of bone, etc, but the process also involves coding changes in the genome in all of their cells.
It's warhammer, all we really have to ask is "what's more grim-dark" and that will probably guide us right
Steam: Elvenshae // PSN: Elvenshae // WotC: Elvenshae
Wilds of Aladrion: [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/comment/43159014/#Comment_43159014]Ellandryn[/url]
Sounds like a perfect opportunity for a sexy crossover with Mass Effect.
Why I kept hitting "quote" instead of "edit" trying to fix a typo...
Actually all these themes sound pretty fitting for their faction:
There's an interview with the composer up now as well:
It is heresy, isn't it?
DAMMIT.
Oo\ Ironsizide
I mean, Noise Marines are pretty OK with heresy
Steam - NotoriusBEN | Uplay - notoriusben | Xbox,Windows Live - ThatBEN
https://www.dawnofwar.com/article/unit-spotlight-wraithblade
https://www.dawnofwar.com/article/unit-spotlight-jonah
Totally not suspicious (or red herring?).
Oh Gabriel, didn't you learn from Kyras (chapter master / librarian who fell to chaos and nearly ended the sector)? Or Isador (best bud librarian who also fell to chaos and nearly ended the sector)?
So you're of course making Isador's protégée chief librarian?
I mean let's face it, given Retribution the chapter may be stuffed with Librarians but they really don't seem to have much luck with them, and I'm beginning to see why.
For the life of me I can't understand why RTS game designers in our glorious new age of modern design can't just give players an option for automating the parts of the game they don't want to manage.
I don't really like (most) of the micro, but I love base building. Let me build the base & turn on an AI to handle the battles (mostly), until / unless I switch off the AI to take control for whatever reason.
Lots of players don't like the base building but love the battle micro. Let them turn on an AI to handle the base building while they play with their mans out on the battlefield.
This shouldn't even be hard to implement; the AI is already fucking right there in the game. I have no clue why it is that no designer has said, "Maybe this is a thing we could use to give players options as to what parts of the game to play vs which to automate. Or they can just turn it all off if they want to be hardcore & do everything themselves."
But...that's the game? The balance of both is what makes it fun and challenging. It would be like building an aimbot into an FPS as an option.
There's always a balance between automation and manual work in these games, though. You don't have to tell your drones to harvest gas/minerals in Starcraft, and attack-moving automates (in a fashion) the process of stopping one action to do another when necessary. For a lot of people, base-building isn't so much "the game" as it is the tedium they have to get through so that they can enjoy "the game" of fighting dudes with other dudes. Hell, that's part of why archon mode is a thing in StarCraft 2.
Not that I necessarily would use such a mode, but I don't think it's as strange an idea as you suggest.
I know a lot of people for whom the game part of an RTS is strictly the micro. They hate the base building entirely. I'm a bit into the opposite camp (although I do like to micro some hero-type units around in a late game scenario).
I think that the rigid way of thinking about the genre - that it must be [X] way because that's the way it's always been, and screw giving the player the ability to tailor the experience - is probably why the genre is nearly extinct.
Funny you mention FPS aimbots / aim assist, because modern FPS games do exactly that - they let players tailor how much aim assist they're granted. Some players max out the aim assist because they prefer the acrobatic elements of a game over the technical shooting side and would prefer that an AI handles the meat of aiming; some players prefer the technical side and turn aim assist off entirely.
I don't want to mess with hotkey control groups & camera positions. I deeply appreciate the talent it takes to master that and turn it into a reflex, but it isn't fun for me; the game stops being a game and more of a rhythmic chore. I don't even get to watch the battles if I' 'playing properly', because I'm too busy hammering hotkeys and making sure the production chains are running smoothly and there's no resources building-up in the bank and oh shit gotta go micro over here and split my guys before the AoE gets them. The game may as well have abstract shapes because I can't appreciate any of the art or animations except when watching replays.
I don't see how it would subtract from the experience of traditional RTS players who do enjoy that whole song & dance to also give the option of handing-off some of the tasks to the AI. Hearts of Iron allows for that, and the automation allowances haven't ruined the game for players that prefer to do everything manually.
Your argument is something that is tackled on a design level only for RTS games, and Relic's previous games from CoH1 onwards show one way of how it is handled. In fact it's one of the reasons I like Relic's games. I'd go so far as to say there hasn't been a "standard" RTS formula for quite some time now. These games were not macro heavy. Bases were more academic exercises in tech pacing with very little branching and no other management needed since all resources were on-field. It allowed you to focus on on-field control and in turn allowed them to design the combat to be more than mashing blobs of units together.
On the other side of things, you have games like Supreme Commander which were much more macro heavy focusing on resources and production. Some people prefer this style of RTS to the style Relic uses.
Maybe also slower paced, so I can actually enjoy the battles unfolding.
DoW II's multi was very much like this (at least in vanilla - I never played the expansions), especially in the 3v3 mode. Positioning, comp, and knowing when and how to engage were very important.
You've seen our Wraithguard, and then our Wraithbladesabd Wraithknights, and now here's pur spotlight on our mighty Wraithlord! We're all in on ghost robots here in Vantown.
Check out his Glaive Charge ability.
https://www.dawnofwar.com/article/unit-spotlight-wraithlord
DoW II was still way faster than CoH. In Company of Heroes, you can hear your units yell they're under fire, scroll the screen over, and do something.
In DoW II, your units are already dead by that point
One thing I loved about starcraft 1 was the mode that gave you shared control. One could focus on base/logistics while other focused on offensive micro.
The fun thing is that all three versions of the RTS game that have been talked about have been created already, more or less.
If you like building bases and watching waves of enemies break upon your carefully positioned defenses, you've got the Tower Defense genre.
If you don't like building bases, but just want that done so you can go out with an army and kill the other army, then the exciting MOBA world awaits (with the unfortunate downside of other people, but there's some single player modes out there).
If you like the balance of both, then you've got the baseline RTS.