This game still has serious balance concerns

Talk about Battlefleet Gothic: Armada here!
User avatar
ApostleOfExcess
Posts: 24
Joined: 10 June 2016, 06:56
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby ApostleOfExcess » 21 July 2016, 02:42

Imperator5 wrote:
McNash wrote:
Drakausa wrote:
Com'on guys, the game is not balanced because the devs (Ravensburg) said plainly "unconcerned about balance". Plainly and without equivocation. However I do support the players 'begging' for more balance, including myself because begging on the Forums is all we can do once we have bought the game.


Did he say that? Really? Like, seriously?

Reaaaaally? *.*


That is absolutely awesome! Stupendous! Finally! A studios with more interest in adding new content than wasting time and resources in editing some ultimately irrelevant stats over and over again! I look forward to the coming weeks to see what new features they may add instead of falling in the decade-old trap of trying to achieve "perfect balance" ^_^


Image

I remeber playing as Choas in Dawn of War.

When I saw a Tau, Necron, or Eldar player on the enemy team (and there often was) part of me would just want to quit, and sometimes I did. Never returned after a while.

It is good to see, the devs take the same approach as Dawn of War.

Adrmial Seraph
Posts: 400
Joined: 11 March 2016, 07:26
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby Adrmial Seraph » 21 July 2016, 04:47

ApostleOfExcess wrote:
Imperator5 wrote:
McNash wrote:
Did he say that? Really? Like, seriously?

Reaaaaally? *.*


That is absolutely awesome! Stupendous! Finally! A studios with more interest in adding new content than wasting time and resources in editing some ultimately irrelevant stats over and over again! I look forward to the coming weeks to see what new features they may add instead of falling in the decade-old trap of trying to achieve "perfect balance" ^_^


Image

I remeber playing as Choas in Dawn of War.

When I saw a Tau, Necron, or Eldar player on the enemy team (and there often was) part of me would just want to quit, and sometimes I did. Never returned after a while.

It is good to see, the devs take the same approach as Dawn of War.


And this is why it's bot a good approach. You need to care about balance as a dev because without it, no one is going to play your game.

User avatar
McNash
Posts: 191
Joined: 24 March 2016, 00:50
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby McNash » 21 July 2016, 05:04

I don't remember if it was Sam Bass or some other EALA employee in charge of C&C development, but he stated that back in the day singleplayer gamers represented 70 percent of the total gaming population of most C&C games. Then, during the C&C post-production phase, Chris Corry, lead designer, commented they had spent in patching and balancing C&C3 enough money to make another C&C.

While I may understand a developer to want to debug a game does it sound rational for a company to expend 50 percent of the money put in a videogame development to try to satisfy only 30 percent of the customers? If you were in charge of a business, any business, would you do such a thing? Or would you actually use the money to create more content in order to increase the sales?
Image

User avatar
ApostleOfExcess
Posts: 24
Joined: 10 June 2016, 06:56
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby ApostleOfExcess » 21 July 2016, 06:59

McNash wrote:I don't remember if it was Sam Bass or some other EALA employee in charge of C&C development, but he stated that back in the day singleplayer gamers represented 70 percent of the total gaming population of most C&C games. Then, during the C&C post-production phase, Chris Corry, lead designer, commented they had spent in patching and balancing C&C enough money to make another C&C.

While I may understand a developer to want to debug a game does it sound rational for a company to expend 50 percent of the money put in a videogame development to try to satisfy only 30 percent of the customers? If you were in charge of a business, any business, would you do such a thing? Or would you actually use the money to create more content in order to increase the sales?

Well, I mean, first off, the balance issue isn't specific to multiplayer. It's a disaster in singleplayer as well, that is mitigated only because the AI is never a good match against the player under any circumstance, and even when it outnumbers the player, often has to resort to cheap tricks to have a chance.

You can talk about C&C all you want, but BFG appeals to a tiny minority of the gaming market to begin with. It has 600 players on at one time, average. And that number is declining. It's a tiny game.

BFG will never attract more players than has now unless they make the base game tolerable. C&C, over its time, sold tens of millions of copies. You could just walk into a store and buy it. You can't do that with Gothic.

Look at every single alpha game out there, all about the same size and funding as Tindalos. What is the common failure? Why do the games fail so often? Because they promise so much content, they neglect the base game, and then they run out of fund developing this new content and just fail. 9/10 indie games end this way, to the point they are rightfully shamed on steam.

Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.

If the devs follow that line of thought the game will be dead in a year. They'll abandon, just as they did the past two games, also which are dead.

I have to ask you; how many people do you think the space marines attracted?

http://steamcharts.com/app/363680

Honestly I've never seen the advice you recommend ever work, once, in the history of gaming. Do you think the business staff of EA, of all companies, didn't think of this immediately? They went against it because becoming known for creating shit games depresses sales for everything.

I mean, Tindalos doesn't have the best track record with this. Instead of fix their old games, "they created new content" with Gothic. Those two games are unplayable and dead now. What happens when they decide to abandon Gothic and move on once again?

Additionally, I'd have to ask why you would even want to create content if it's not playable. Massive middle finger to the customer, like selling someone a rotten apple and then blaming them for the taste.

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby Imperator5 » 21 July 2016, 17:02

ApostleOfExcess wrote:
McNash wrote:I don't remember if it was Sam Bass or some other EALA employee in charge of C&C development, but he stated that back in the day singleplayer gamers represented 70 percent of the total gaming population of most C&C games. Then, during the C&C post-production phase, Chris Corry, lead designer, commented they had spent in patching and balancing C&C enough money to make another C&C.

While I may understand a developer to want to debug a game does it sound rational for a company to expend 50 percent of the money put in a videogame development to try to satisfy only 30 percent of the customers? If you were in charge of a business, any business, would you do such a thing? Or would you actually use the money to create more content in order to increase the sales?

Well, I mean, first off, the balance issue isn't specific to multiplayer. It's a disaster in singleplayer as well, that is mitigated only because the AI is never a good match against the player under any circumstance, and even when it outnumbers the player, often has to resort to cheap tricks to have a chance.

You can talk about C&C all you want, but BFG appeals to a tiny minority of the gaming market to begin with. It has 600 players on at one time, average. And that number is declining. It's a tiny game.

BFG will never attract more players than has now unless they make the base game tolerable. C&C, over its time, sold tens of millions of copies. You could just walk into a store and buy it. You can't do that with Gothic.

Look at every single alpha game out there, all about the same size and funding as Tindalos. What is the common failure? Why do the games fail so often? Because they promise so much content, they neglect the base game, and then they run out of fund developing this new content and just fail. 9/10 indie games end this way, to the point they are rightfully shamed on steam.

Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.

If the devs follow that line of thought the game will be dead in a year. They'll abandon, just as they did the past two games, also which are dead.

I have to ask you; how many people do you think the space marines attracted?

http://steamcharts.com/app/363680

Honestly I've never seen the advice you recommend ever work, once, in the history of gaming. Do you think the business staff of EA, of all companies, didn't think of this immediately? They went against it because becoming known for creating shit games depresses sales for everything.

I mean, Tindalos doesn't have the best track record with this. Instead of fix their old games, "they created new content" with Gothic. Those two games are unplayable and dead now. What happens when they decide to abandon Gothic and move on once again?

Additionally, I'd have to ask why you would even want to create content if it's not playable. Massive middle finger to the customer, like selling someone a rotten apple and then blaming them for the taste.


A: Dawn of war still has active modding and community, for both games.
B: EA maybe sinking that much money to patches to do PR. Though how can balancing cost that much I can not fathom. Perhaps that cost included expansions too?
C: On easy, neither DoWs or BFGA is hard.
D: A lot of problems in game stem from bad missions. Even if all factions were the same, unfair attacker/defender problems and RNG would still screw it up.

Also, indeed single player is much more popular in most games. Just because this one has a smaller population, it does not matter.

However, single player games lack customisation and variety here. You can't customise Skirmish, and custom games are a bad addon without any of the addictive RPG elements.

That's the problem that BFGA needs to solve. Bad mission balance and bad game types.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=20991

Here are some ideas how to fix the map game mode problems.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

User avatar
Ashardalon
Posts: 568
Joined: 12 April 2016, 12:53
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby Ashardalon » 21 July 2016, 17:28

Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.


seriously this just shows you never try any new strat, oh no my korn bezerkers cant win vs those banshees, lets definetly not try cultists with grenade launchers, its not like IG or chaos have the best army to fight eldar its not like IG can beat eldar without them ever getting in firing range its not like winning in that game depended on making use of your race's strengths wile exploiting your enemy's weaknesses instead of just having a standard build order +stutterstep

DoW didnt fail, it still has a massive community and its succes is the only reason anyone will give any fucks about the failure that will be DoW3
not every game needs to be symmetrical
a symmetrical game would be redicoulus in the W40K universe

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby Imperator5 » 21 July 2016, 17:45

Ashardalon wrote:
Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.


seriously this just shows you never try any new strat, oh no my korn bezerkers cant win vs those banshees, lets definetly not try cultists with grenade launchers, its not like IG or chaos have the best army to fight eldar its not like IG can beat eldar without them ever getting in firing range its not like winning in that game depended on making use of your race's strengths wile exploiting your enemy's weaknesses instead of just having a standard build order +stutterstep

DoW didnt fail, it still has a massive community and its succes is the only reason anyone will give any fucks about the failure that will be DoW3
not every game needs to be symmetrical
a symmetrical game would be redicoulus in the W40K universe


SM vs CSM can be almost symmetrical, especially if no demon-engines and such are present. But there is 40k chess already, which can be set to use the original chess gameplay.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

User avatar
Ashardalon
Posts: 568
Joined: 12 April 2016, 12:53
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby Ashardalon » 21 July 2016, 17:56

after the constant tzeensh nerfs from a few years ago a sm sorceror with a psychic hood will beat a tzeensh almost always

making you restrict your army lists to some ridiculous degree you might be able to make something balanced but last time i checked an army list sm cost 5 points less have more cheaper weapons and are immume to morale, chaos on the other hand have... euhm ...
yep not balanced

and yea there is regicide, still chess isnt balanced unless you play 2 games one black one withe, true symmetrical balance is impossible in a turn based game

User avatar
ApostleOfExcess
Posts: 24
Joined: 10 June 2016, 06:56
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby ApostleOfExcess » 21 July 2016, 23:58

Ashardalon wrote:
Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.


seriously this just shows you never try any new strat, oh no my korn bezerkers cant win vs those banshees, lets definetly not try cultists with grenade launchers, its not like IG or chaos have the best army to fight eldar its not like IG can beat eldar without them ever getting in firing range its not like winning in that game depended on making use of your race's strengths wile exploiting your enemy's weaknesses instead of just having a standard build order +stutterstep

DoW didnt fail, it still has a massive community and its succes is the only reason anyone will give any fucks about the failure that will be DoW3
not every game needs to be symmetrical
a symmetrical game would be redicoulus in the W40K universe

I kind of actually wonder if you even played DoW; or if you did, if you played anything but Eldar.

Now, after the community is dead, they released patches that can make the game tolerable (every faction but eldar, necrons, and tau still lose 9/10 games though, of the few games that happen).

The eldar were broke, completely. They had objective advantages that made it easier to beat any other army. Same with the Tau. The Necrons, at least, were tolerable until endgame. In Winter Assault, Fire Prisms were best tank in the game. The Avatar of Khaine allowed them to have more buildings and vehicles than the god damn IG (so much for your "non-symmetrical" games). This was never fixed, and IG would lose against Eldar everytime. The Avatar of Khaine's ability was so broke, many Eldar players refused to even move it from the base, because they didn't want to lose the pop increase. Not only is that ludicrously unbalance, it is in violent contradiction with the lore.



Apparently, as the dev team were rumored to be Eldar players, they continue to hamifistedly apply nerfs to non-Eldar factions. In Dark Crusade dreadnought weapon upgrades were rendered useless by the pathetic move and shoot nerf. Another violation of the lore, never would there be a dreadnaught designed to shoot caught by a winning space marine player. Meanwhile, as they nerfed these factions, they decided, of course, to keep the Eldar fleet of foot ability, which basically made this nerf not apply to them. Another disaster.

Then, in Soulstorm, the Tau flier could literally win entire games. Tau players only that one unit to win. They could level entire bases without being seen from their ludicrous range, and did so many times until the damn thing was nerfed. Necrons won games without capturing a single strategic point.

In fact, fliers, new content by the way, were so unbelievably broken that every mod that tries to fix this either heavily dilutes their abilities, or just outright removes them.

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: This game still has serious balance concerns

Postby Imperator5 » 22 July 2016, 11:53

ApostleOfExcess wrote:
Ashardalon wrote:
Dawn of War failed and people stopped playing it because of the balance. This is fine if you play Eldar; but what if you enjoy Chaos? Or Imperial Guard? In both single player and multiplayer you were fucked. That's objectively poor game design, and the devs ignored it for years, "creating new content" until that didn't work anymore.


seriously this just shows you never try any new strat, oh no my korn bezerkers cant win vs those banshees, lets definetly not try cultists with grenade launchers, its not like IG or chaos have the best army to fight eldar its not like IG can beat eldar without them ever getting in firing range its not like winning in that game depended on making use of your race's strengths wile exploiting your enemy's weaknesses instead of just having a standard build order +stutterstep

DoW didnt fail, it still has a massive community and its succes is the only reason anyone will give any fucks about the failure that will be DoW3
not every game needs to be symmetrical
a symmetrical game would be redicoulus in the W40K universe

I kind of actually wonder if you even played DoW; or if you did, if you played anything but Eldar.

Now, after the community is dead, they released patches that can make the game tolerable (every faction but eldar, necrons, and tau still lose 9/10 games though, of the few games that happen).

The eldar were broke, completely. They had objective advantages that made it easier to beat any other army. Same with the Tau. The Necrons, at least, were tolerable until endgame. In Winter Assault, Fire Prisms were best tank in the game. The Avatar of Khaine allowed them to have more buildings and vehicles than the god damn IG (so much for your "non-symmetrical" games). This was never fixed, and IG would lose against Eldar everytime. The Avatar of Khaine's ability was so broke, many Eldar players refused to even move it from the base, because they didn't want to lose the pop increase. Not only is that ludicrously unbalance, it is in violent contradiction with the lore.



Apparently, as the dev team were rumored to be Eldar players, they continue to hamifistedly apply nerfs to non-Eldar factions. In Dark Crusade dreadnought weapon upgrades were rendered useless by the pathetic move and shoot nerf. Another violation of the lore, never would there be a dreadnaught designed to shoot caught by a winning space marine player. Meanwhile, as they nerfed these factions, they decided, of course, to keep the Eldar fleet of foot ability, which basically made this nerf not apply to them. Another disaster.

Then, in Soulstorm, the Tau flier could literally win entire games. Tau players only that one unit to win. They could level entire bases without being seen from their ludicrous range, and did so many times until the damn thing was nerfed. Necrons won games without capturing a single strategic point.

In fact, fliers, new content by the way, were so unbelievably broken that every mod that tries to fix this either heavily dilutes their abilities, or just outright removes them.


I had a nice dow1 lore mod, but it had so many douchenozzles in the Dow1 modding community that I did not get permission to release some of the graphical assets. Though I must point out that the Steel legion and Firestorm over Kronus mod teams were very nice and let me use their assets if credit was given.
Than I lost all my harddrive in a malfunction. I got a half-done version yet. I guess I could release it since the asshat mod teams are all history, russian modders having pillaged their assets years ago, but Ultimate Apocalypse is just plain better. Though it did have a Thunderhawk flyer.

In the end I just went for Dow2 and that modding community was (is) still very nice, with helpful people all around.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.


Return to “General Gameplay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron