Yes that is why We are here.But the game cannot be sustained by just us.It needs something more to atract other people aswell.

If that means that we always end up on a lobby screen between matches, then no, there are more than enough games like that already. The game's content just isn't good enough to compensate for this boring setup.

The very least the developers should do in the short run is make absolutely certain, that every aspect of the game can be accessed from the garrison without the player having to exit to a lobby screen from which he/she has to edit loadouts or queue for actual gameplay. If this still falls under your definition of a lobby shooter, then fine, I'll take it. But I won't be happy with an other game that settles for lobby screens.

I'd rather have a balanced game with features that work in the game than do a shit ton of work to get rid of loading screens.

My priorities would be on making a fun game first, then figuring out the fluff.

Obviously.

This only more reason why the things that are supposed to be ready for release SHOULD be ready for release and polished. Then marketing machine can go wild, but to hold the ground, we need to have the ground to stand on.

Still, doomsaying threads before we even have a release date aren't helping anyone.

why are you just adressing Reiborn and skip over this again?

edit: dont lock threads, instead remove insulting rage posts.
some had good discussions going on and then someone who cant behave loses his tempter and entire thread gets locked.
thats not productive and the people who can be civilised while disagreeing with eachother dont have any opportunity to actually communicate, which will lead to anger.

But the games holding ground at the moment is us,and we are not going anywhere any time soon.So why go with the risks of bad publicity and release early and not just delay it till some more stuff are ready?

I wholeheartedly agree with @Ostrum. The garrison is the heart of the MMO aspect. It's a training center and a place of congregation.

@Njord-Halfhand has a pretty good post about what the garrison could be, and it's certainly obtainable. If it's going to have lobbies, allow us to be in a persistent interactive would even if it's just the staging ground waiting for battlegrounds to proc.

And FFS, at least make the campaign meta interesting at Launch. This is obtainable as well. There's not really enough info right now to judge how exactly warlords / battles are selected, but honestly, what it should be is warparties should get together and the party leader should have the option of choosing the territory to fight in. Leader's might have to be selected on the fly because the game can change rapidly. Party Leaders is the best way of selecting a warlord - just be sure to add some easier functions to squad management so the PL can be changed. Whether it's 5, or 30, it's still player choice and the squad goes there regardless of how many people are on the other side. That way, if a massive warparty starts knocking down territory in a certain direction, you and your buddies can at least have a say in where you want to fight rather than some guy... Who, let's be honest here it's a toss up for the Eldar between DJ, and myself and I definitely don't want another job atm, dictating every match you're going to be playing in. Could the "pre council" unlock/lock certain access to territory for map tactical advantage? I.e. controlling the zerg? Yeah definitely.

At least then the public can see it's a game in transition, instead of coming from Overwatch taking the piss out of the mixed reviews, and dropping a negative one because they're even more ignorant.

I don't really believe there is a single EC player left, who actually believes "summer 2016" release date.

The only ones sticking by that seem to be bE themselves and even them started saying "we don't know" already, so delaying is pretty much a matter of what Namco says, but knowing what comes from under Namco wings, I think we can stay positive, they aren't EA or Ubisoft who will push a broken product only to match release date *cough*SW battlefront, Assassins creed 4 player coop game*cough*.

Sure it can... But how many decent shooters we have now to play? I think EC needs campaign elements to be something greater then just decend game. Player driven campaign, your inpact on the world you are playing in is something that will keep players for much longer.
My opinion is to stay with game, give it support, criticism.
Devs should wait with release until we will have campaign and larger battles. Probably expand their team to work faster if it is possible.
Whatever if you are agreeing or not with angry voices after review with Brent, you just can`t ignore them. Fact styas that large part of community is really disappointed. And game needs comunity being satisfied or it will die quickly..

The WH40K universe is popular enough so that any genre can succeed in it, if done well.

Even Space Marine, a game which from the outside is a bland Gears of War copy (some people were saying that, lol) sold very well. Huge success. They took a simple idea - a linear campaign with a lot of action - and they executed it perfectly. Even the multiplayer was good.

The same way, a WH40K lobby shooter can do great, if the game is designed well. There is nothing in the lobby shooter genre inherently bad. Lobby shooters can be successful and fun.

As long as, you know, they are designed in a good way.

For example, you can have a (technically) lobby shooter with extra care for immersion. @0strum's idea is good. Let players, or clans, or chapters, have their own garisson. Maybe have a global garisson map as well, where anyone can spawn, for extra socializing. Miguel (and Dark Millenium) had a similar idea: Give everyone his own capital ship in orbit, allow for clans/guilds to have their own, etc. It is from these common areas that you enter the instanced matches. That would satisfy many people are increase the game's popularity.