Well, a refund is getting easier and easier to do, but that isnt a discussion for this thread.

I disagree that a plan is screwed when you start working on it. With a PROPER and realistic plan, you should be able to follow it pretty good, with the exception of a few unforseen events.

It's potentially a bit of a pain in an instanced battle.

It's fine if your objectives are based on a straightforward Deathmatch, Last Man Standing, or Kill the Dude with the Thing (and subsequently Take the Thing). You can scale up to as many teams as you can find reasonably balanced spawn locations.

You can just about swing some slightly unusual adaptations of Capture the Flag Ancient Relic, or Domination.

Of course, the further EC goes down this line, the more criticism it'll get for moving away from the original vision, no matter how fun the gameplay might be or how permanent those game modes are expected to be beyond giving us something to do during early access.

However, I expect it's significantly more work to create Assault style objectives as we've seen the team using, as you can't really use a map designed for a defined attacker and defender with more than 2 factions without some way of effectively blending them back down into 2 factions (e.g. alliances).

That makes it a headache, because the attacker-defender model is the one you'll want 99 times out of 100 in an open world. So any new 1v1v1 maps created would effectively be discarded as and when (or if) we get the open world elements up and running. 1v1v1v1 then puts you through the same process all over again.

Come to Chaos. We have Space Marines too, only with more attitude and a greater number of mutations.
We also have cookies. And no queues.

I dont think anyone is demanding extra features. A lot of folks are fairly upset that promised features are being removed. At this moment right now I have no clear vision of how this game is supposed to play out and whats worse I dont think the developers have a clue either.

But maybe thats why Nathan is here now, There was going to be a lot of empty or broken promises and Nathan had to come in and point the game into a realistic direction that it could be successful. But that is just me speculating I have no idea what is going on lol. All we can hope for is a awesome warhammer 40k mmo, and I think they can do it.

Wow, the devs have alot of work to do post launch now.

I'm happy their being honest though. That just doesn't happen anymore.

I agree, they could have left us in the dark about all this and we get majorly bummed when it releases.

It's not like all of the features are just getting thrown in the bin, they will implement them when they can which is still better than nothing at all.

Go try out Heroes and Generals, come back to me when you find yourself in a queue. I have more queuing time in Planetside 2 than I ever have in Heroes and Generals.

Define "minimal features". Going by your logic, we have.

• Warthunder at launch had "minimal features" (that's if you call 3 game modes, 4-5 maps for 1 mode and more than 100 planes minimal).
• Warframe at launch had minimal features, so did Heroes and Generals.
• Even Planetside 2 had minimal features at launch, it still does if you compare it to Planetside 1.
• Oh, Dota 2 had minimal features at launch too, compare to LoL or Dota 1 of course.

IMO, a game with "minimal features" at launch would be Order 1866, not Warframe or Dota 2.

We can't debate opinion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on whether this game will meet their own expectations. It's a personal judgement which can't be refuted.

Similarly, it can't be argued that Eternal Crusade has suffered numerous cuts to key features, so much so that the product Behaviour is now putting forward isn't at all like what was originally pitched in their manifesto; and we're left with a game that's a fraction in scope. To claim otherwise is cognitive bias to the point of being intentionally dishonest; it's factually wrong, opinion or not.