Ok, so I had an idea this morning, and it seemed good enough to consider suggesting it here. What do you think about executions performed by a squad leader accruing passive buffs onto a squad? I was thinking that a squad leader could equip a standard that would give executions a bonus that applies to all members in his squad. Trying to define the bonus %'s itself is arbitrary at this point in time as the game is so early in development, but basically, it makes combat revolve around executions, and makes leaders have a more cinematic style of combat like they have in other 40k games. Theres many ways that this could be implemented. The bonuses could stack (or not), providing incentive for the leader to get into melee combat, and thus providing opportunity to kill said leader (from the other teams perspective). What interests me most about this idea is how much emphasis it places on squad leaders. Not only are they figureheads, they are VIPs. They not only plan the strategies and are "in charge", they actively provide other teammates with increased combat effectiveness. Having a real benefit to executions makes executions have a purpose. You feel like you need to be 40k warrior. You need to engage in visceral combat, it's not just for fluff or gore, it's for morale and leadership!
I like this idea. 40k has always revolved around crushing your opponent to bits and what better way to do that than to encourage the leaders in the battle to do so!
This actually sounds really fun. After winning a fight, the rest of the squad stands guard as the leader executes the last enemy, perhaps offing a factional quip as he does so, and then moves on empowered by their victory. It has a real 40k feel to it.
My my how did this thread pass by me. Well i got a question for you devs, maybe you answered it in this thread or some similar where you posted (anyone feel free to direct me)but here i go: Psyker classes, how, what, where? In the AMA Michael Chan commented on these by saying "some races will have psykers as classes". As in plural, and the question was referring to them being regular classes and not hero ones. We saw the Eldar just get theirs showcasted in the artwork recently so thats one race confirmed. What i wanna know is whats the developers opinion on other psyker classes being presented in regular form for the other races. Im sure its something you have talked about and id like to see your reasons as to why you think there would be issues. Im certain there is some you are having since you are dancing around the question (including the AMA ones) not being too concrete on the matter. Understandable of course cause it might still be something you are pondering deeply and would not want to rush it. Yet i want to know what is the culmination of all your current brainstorming on the matter, what hurdles are you seeing here that wouldnt affect the Eldar in the same manner. What fears you have about doing the deed and making them regular classes for all races (balanced to not be OP ofc).
Great to hear that. Xarl of the VIIIth had a two handed chainsword called 'Executioner'. It often needed replacement teeth. Which reminds me...Will weapons have natural degradation over time, or at least over a period of combat? I know you were exploring something like that with armor, I believe, but what about weaponry? Surely a lascanon's barrel will eventually start to erode after a bit.
Hey Brent, are all variants of power weapons going to be available? (i.e. power scythes, chain fists and so on)
I really like the explosions + cliff edge = rock slide idea. In regards to persistent world though, I thought the idea was that at campaign restart the world resets? Therefore can't the rocks go back up to the top of that cliff then? If the Pikko server can work out 100's of players shooting and hacking each other, can't the nodes not involved handle the number crunching? I can't imagine all nodes would be at 100% capacity at all times after all. I guess then it becomes an issue for clients and bandwidth, but obviously that can be scaled according to their tastes, rock a - e aren't capable of being rendered on clients 1 - 10, so they aren't essential, but boulder a - c can affect world geometry, so are necessary components. The server works out the size, works out it's mass etc (choosing from pre-built meshes), and works out it's trajectory and sends that like any other bullet fired to the clients. The hit boxes for world collision is sent out as well, meaning that everyone will have to either step aside or jump over etc. Obviously some fudging is necessary because well, otherwise it becomes to resource intensive, but surely from then on everyone near that area is going to need to get updated figures for the state of the world in that region anyway, is extra boulders a at x1y1z1 at rotation s, extra boulder b at x2y2z2 rotation t and c at x3y3z3 rotation u going to be that more in the way of resource intensity to the point that it's undoable, especially since those rocks aren't going to move again? You can further limit this by saying only weapon states of ordnance or higher for example can affect world geometry (in certain areas).
