No I didn’t know that, would be interesting to see more of them try it, just for curiositys sake.

It makes me wonder—would the dynamic change if there was only an upvote? So you could choose not to upvote, but the default action would be a neutral one, and if you liked/wanted to support/etc you could signal that.

I see tons of posts on here now that are downvoted to oblivion, because they are a legitimate article that says something a group doesn’t like. There won’t even be comments on the post. So like a Reuter article that discusses Palestinian casualties and no comments and like -20. This doesn’t seem like a super useful mechanism. Or at least, it’s just functioning today as a content preference “I don’t want to see this typed content” as opposed to “this is bad info, out of line with the community, etc.”

And despite ranking my list by either hot, or top day/six hours, I still see the downvoted posts regularly so the mechanic doesn’t even really do anything in terms of visibility. Or possibly there’s just too little content on a given community for it to get filtered out.

Yeah Ive played warframe. And there are plenty of games that have higher multiplayer counts or coop numbers.

But warframe is its own thing—engine wise, what might work in warframe, might be impossible in the new space marine game given the mechanics and engine they’ve used.

I’m not trying to say “hey the devs are right and no one should criticize them”. I’m just sympathetic to the idea that even though 4 player coop might be a sort of industry standard target for stuff like this, you might find that design Choices you made about the game might make that experience non-viable.

Yeah that’s a good way to look at it—they’re the baseline with other stuff scaled up or down off of them.

For sure, but it does vary game to game though. I didn’t find a problem with it, but chaos gate:daemonhunters had a lot of reviews with people complaining that the grey knights were too human and squishy compared to their lore conception.

But like others have said, given the engine and or chosen enemies, it’s likely that since they’re using swarms it was just too much overhead or insane numbers of tyrannids on screen at the same time and game sync was hard to manage.

Haha true, I should have said like an actual huge fortune, since a regular army still costs an insane amount for what amounts to molded plastic…

Right—exactly. Like yeah an ultramarine is more durable and lethal than a single gene stealer, but that’s why the tyranids roll in large packs, etc. if the space marines in tabletop mirrored the books “propaganda” the tabletop game wouldn’t really function very well. You’d have to have like a small fortune in enemy figurines to compete against them. Not saying tabletop is balanced well or anything, also haven’t played in years, just that there’s lore, and then there’s gameplay mechanics and balance, and sometimes you compromise on the lore to improve the gameplay, etc.

On the other hand—you could say the high point heros are closer to the lore vision of space marines, and that the characters in this game are closer to a hero character than a rank and file SM squad member…

Either way excited to see more gameplay, I remember liking the old one.

It kinda works both ways—in order to make 4 player coop functional, you’d require so many tyranids on screen that it would be unplayable, both hardware and for the players brain.

I know fanboys would scream if the marines were squishier, but what’s always confused me is that despite the legendary invincibility of space marines, in tabletop they still feel moderately squishy. Sure not like tyranids and orcs and such, but not like super human either. I suppose terminator squads with custom gear might feel closer to that mark.

All relative I guess.

Hahah brilliant, love it. Definitely the best way to end that stuff—surprise them or confuse them.

I think I missed pirates viiings knights, sad now!

That’s fine and all but I’m technically an elder Millenial, and we definitely played online pvp games when I was in high school. I was there for the first counterstrike alpha/beta. My brother and I spent an entire week playing CS one time while my parents were in a trip, 10 hours a day with breaks for pizza. We had a system for sharing play because we only had the one desktop… lol.

We had quake lan parties and even did a quake tourney in our school computer lab because this was before they really sorted out locking the computers down. I feel like tribes and unreal tournament were out pretty quick as well. Quake arena. Half life multiplayer and then CS, day of defeat, etc.

Super toxic online was sorta a thing, but I feel like that didnt mainstream until COD lobbies on consoles, and the advent of voice chat. Or rather most of the servers I played on were specific servers, hosted by people with admins, and while people would misbehave, you generally wanted to not get banned and keep coming back—you knew the other names and such, so that had an ok moderating effect.

This is what peak performance looks like.

Yeah I like the spirit, but BMI is such a stupid and flawed measure. It’s ok as like a population level heuristic to say things are trending one way or another, but like athletes that have lots of muscle and are tall look the same as morbidly obese people to BMI, which is obviously silly.

Hahaha

It reminds me of an interview I saw with Alan Richardson (?), the guy playing reacher on the Amazon series. It was in support of the new season, but basically the conversation revolved around how exhausting it was to maintain the required physique for the role, and how it meant he couldn’t do some of the things he normally enjoyed—he was too heavy to run without impact injury, and flexibility and reach was an issue.

I’d imagine transitioning between these physiques can probably be challenging and taxing on the body as well.

Ugh so annoying. So like both in movies and body building, what they’re selling is actually not a healthy or strong physique—but someone who could be on the verge of organ failure.

I like the idea of fitness, and being in functionally good shape, so this sort of exaggeration is something I find uniquely distasteful—portraying a a goal state that is actually just a grift/scam, and that is dangerous to partake in.

Gotcha so the idea is they’re just gonna give it a shot and try to eat you, regardless, because the stakes, they are high?

To be fair, in a moral sense, they should absolutely try and eat every human they can get their claws on; we have done a bang up job on making their habitat and food sources disappear.

So are polar bears considered more dangerous and aggro than grizzlies? I mean it wouldn’t be too crazy, particularly since it’s probably rare to encounter one, compare to grizzlies. But just had never really heard that.

Yep that’s exactly what this is.

An explanation that had not occurred to me, but definitely makes sense in this context.