Dev Questions & Answers Session #1

Talk about Battlefleet Gothic: Armada here!
shadowsfm
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 319
Joined: 07 February 2016, 11:15
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby shadowsfm » 04 May 2016, 03:59

if they extend the cooldown of pulsars, eldar ships would spend even more time running away :(

rekina
Posts: 71
Joined: 08 April 2016, 22:00
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby rekina » 04 May 2016, 04:00

shadowsfm wrote:if they extend the cooldown of pulsars, eldar ships would spend even more time running away :(


exactly. extending cooldown doesn't solve anything, there must be a better way of balancing than this imo. well technically say though, opponent will have more time to reorganize things such as waiting for used skills and reps... wait, maybe it solves something :mrgreen: not sure tho, extending cooldown is still going to bring the whole game's tempo a lot slower and loosen.

BeverageTyrant
Posts: 18
Joined: 23 October 2015, 11:37
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby BeverageTyrant » 04 May 2016, 04:19

First off, I appreciate the comments and look behind the curtain into your thought process. It's long overdue.

That being said, some of your comments I found to be very....off putting? Rude? Probably just me but your comments about pulsars, about punishing players, dismissing out of hand such things as (most players like 600 point games), and the Admiral Rank imbalance in matchmaking I think is very tone deaf. You seem to think that players are whining for the sake of whining, rather than making legitimate points. I highly disagree that Imperial and Orks are "almost there," as much as I disagree that simply removing the range of pulsars will bring them in line. Two shotting full shielded and hulled CA's is NOT balanced, range or otherwise.

Even a cursory look at the forums here, in Reedit and on Steam show that people want MORE points. No one has to take all their capital ships into a match, they can choose to do escorts. A 300 point max per fleet for 2v2 if far too little. Yes, custom games for this is nice, but a lot of us play for actual competitive ranking. You cannot build a balanced fleet with 300 points short of CL's and FF/DD's. This game is lacking that "epic" feel of true fleet battles, in my opinion. I'm against a death penalty to begin with.

You'd be surprised how many players get frustrated with their new fleets playing against a Rank 5-8 admirals and simply stop playing. Giving them bonus points is useless as they don't OWN the ships to field a bigger fleet aside from escorts, and the ships they do own don't have the upgrades/favors to compete with those that do. This attitude especially needs to be revisited I think.

Lastly, while I also appreciate the desire to stay close to the source material, i.e. the Table Top game, you're making a PC game being played by a majority of people who never tried the TT. Your first responsibility should be to making a good VIDEO GAME. While one can be an inspiration to the other, things like fast clicking, APM, real time moves have no correlation to the TT. Sticking to point values from the table top for instance is sticking too close to the source material at the detriment to the video game version.

Rereading this before I post it, I realize I'm more negative than I wanted to be but I stand by my comments. Its nice to finally see some real communication and some progress from the creators of the game, but you've got a long way to go. There is going to have to be serious philosophical changes in the attitude of the creators if the game is going to grow and keep its playerbase. These are great steps in the right direction and I do commend you for that. Hopefully with time and more experience the right changes will be made.

User avatar
XViper
Posts: 160
Joined: 23 April 2016, 17:15
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby XViper » 04 May 2016, 05:41

Wow.... what a horrible response to those questions....
Where to even begin.

I feel like I've just lost any hope I had for this game becoming something I could genuinely enjoy playing.

Let me pre-empt by saying I haven't read anyone elses responses yet.

Ravensburg wrote:#3 - Has Tindalos considered changing the matchmaking so that players have more control over the size and type of matches they get put into?

This is something you will have in custom games once the multiplayer is implemented in that mode. The ranked matchmaking will not work with random missions – but I can’t tell you too much about this for now : )
The answer to the question is no, in the classic multiplayers mode you have to build a fleet that will be able to face any situation, not just cruiser clash. Players shouldn’t have the possibility of setting fleet points because it would break the balance for getting ships lost in warp, heavily damaged and destroyed. We wanted, from the beginning, a punishing game where players should face the consequences for their failures. I know frustration in video games is not “l’aire du temps”, but that’s just how we wanted BFGA to be, with a bit of old school flavor.


How do you 'build a fleet that will be able to face any situation', when you have such a limited number of ship slots that you can fill? If you wanted to 'swap out' the ship for something else you then also completely lose all ship progression.

You wanted BFGA to be 'frustrating to play'?? Are you serious right now? *facepalm*

If you give players more ship slots, you mitigate the 'risk' for players losing ship (don't even get me started how ridiculous losing ships to the warp in multiplayer is....). Considering you want the game to be frustrating, this certainly can't happen! I assume you're not going to bother fixing the problem where a player is forced into a 600 point game with 300 points of ships either... They need to be punished for losing right? I guess people are going to have to get used to spamming Escorts. 'yay'.

Ravensburg wrote:#4 - Has Tindalos considered scrapping the progression system in multiplayer in favor of a new system?

War is not fair, the 40K universe is not friendly, life is hard, and equality obsession in games is not my cup of tea.
So it’s a nope, the main multiplayer mode of BFGA isn’t meant to be a solely competitive experience, but something that include a bit of narrative content. You’re fleet in multiplayer has its own story, with both hard times and glorious moments. Also, the progression allows for a better and more progressive comprehension of your fleet.
I don’t say that balancing between player’s levels is not important but we’re not obsessed with it. The bonus points for fighting higher level opponents should have been more visually explicit I admit, but it can be very significant. I suspect some players may not have noticed it before claiming for justice and equality on forums. Btw, we are considering increasing this bonus for the next patch, and make it more clear for everyone.
We see this mode more like a playground where you upgrade your fleet, get bigger ships and have the possibilities of testing various options. There is no leaderboard, the Elo is hidden, consequences of losing a game or some ships is not that hard once the frustration has passed, and it’s really fast to get a level 8 fleet. That’s where we want the people to go because competitive BFGA will start at this level in Ranked Matches.


What a total cop-out!
Equality in games isn't your cup of tea? This isn't obsession. This is basic game design! Equality is 'balance'. Beyond player skill, the game should be balanced!
What narrative?! There is no narrative! I'm not going to keep a journal of my battles to write a bloody story to tell my grandchildren.
Completely isolated random skirmish battles against random human opponents in a multiplayer match has no narrative.
Saying you're "not obsessed" with balancing player levels, just comes across as "we can't be bothered".
There is no persistence between the opponents we face, so why is there persistence from the outcomes of our battles?
How does the 'unnecessary' progression allow for better and more progressive comprehension of my fleet exactly?? All it's doing is forcing me into a several hour long 'tutorial' for my chosen race in a multiplayer setting. If I want to 'comprehend' my fleet and ships, I'll do that in Single Player thanks very much.

A 'playground' is somewhere to have fun. Whoever heard of a 'frustrating' playground? The ability to 'test various options' is extremely limited, due to low point limits, and limited ship slots. When does the 'frustration' from being unable to use ships from my already small selection pass exactly? If I'm going to lose I'm better off just leaving the match than actually letting my ships die! You're punishing players for actually staying in the game. But then again, you want it to be frustrating and punishing right?

It's really fast to get to a level 8 fleet? Clarify 'really fast'?
Once you've reached Level 8 with one race, you may as well have reached Level 8 with all of them. It's a tedious and completely unnecessary grind of frustration!

The progression system is idiotic, and is probably one of the biggest obstacles in me actually enjoying this game.
USE A DYNAMIC CUSTOMISABLE POINT SYSTEM! PLEASE!

Ravensburg wrote:#6 - What factors are effecting the match size limitation and how soon could we be seeing larger fleets?

- Performance:
We’re using the UE4 physical engine for ships and all projectiles. We made some tests with higher fleet points and the worst case scenario is when players spam escort ships, causing performance to drop even on a good computer.

- Network:
This is the most problematic point. 2v2 is where we need higher fleet points the most – sadly, it’s also where it affects network performance the most. 2v2 is not twice as bad regarding network performance, but four times - it’s exponential.

- Gameplay:
We allowed 900 point games in the CTT. The game at this point starts to become less tactical, less fun, and fleets are hard to manage. In the end, we observed that the favorite engagement for most players was 600 pts.

- Conclusion:
If we can overcome the technical barrier, we would like to raise the fleet point limits in 2v2 and allow players to create bigger engagements in custom games. I can’t tell you for sure when this would be implemented.


"Less tactical" & "Less fun". For WHO exactly?! You've already said you want the game to be frustrating.... so who are we trusting to determine what 'fun' is exactly?
If games over a certain size perform badly for certain players, those players won't play those larger games.
Or if you think Escort spam is such a problem, then you could limit the number of Escorts a player can choose. (2 per line ship, for example). Problem solved. Enforce some roster limitations (like they do in the Tabletop).

Ravensburg wrote:Q#8 - The Eldar fleet is very anemic beyond the Light Cruiser choices, will there be new ships to supplement this?

I would love to! Sadly, there’s no existing official reference. All the Eldar ships from the TT are here. As I don’t want to mix the Corsair with the craftworld fleet, there’s no lore-friendly solution at the moment.


So rather than have 'Eldar' as a better rounded and enjoyable race with a 'better' fleet composition, you'd rather just keep Corsairs and Craftworlds seperate, and instead have two lackluster options with little to no fleet composition options, for the sake of what? A bit of writing in a book? You're literally cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Do you actually have the freedom or ability to 'create' new ships? or are your hands completely tied by Lore and Gamesworkshop on that front?
Oh and FYI, having only "two" Light Cruiser choices is still anemic.

*******

That's probably come across as a very negative post.... and that's because it was meant to be.
Almost EVERY post I've made on this forum to date has been upbeat and positive, full of hope and ideas, and a desire to make things better.
But those replies were just loaded full of lead, completely designed to 'shoot down' the thoughts, ideas and concerns of dozens of players in this community.
There was a very heavy "It's THIS way, so SUCK IT!" vibe from those replies, and I can't help but feel incredibly angry and saddened by the direction this game now appears to be taking. It feels like you guys don't seem to care about the feedback your players have been giving you?
If the stance to those above points is set in stone, I feel like there's no point in sticking around, as this game has fallen so far below my expectations and hopes, I'm not really sure what to do at this point. I play games to have fun and enjoy myself, not for an experience in frustration and punishment. The fact that this is one of your design goals has baffled me to the core, and something I'll never truely understand.

I'm just so so SAD right now. I haven't felt this disheartened about a game in a long long time.
I feel like you've just crushed my hopes and dreams.
Last edited by XViper on 04 May 2016, 06:23, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Leivve
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 March 2016, 00:18
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Leivve » 04 May 2016, 06:05

Bludfist wrote:
Leivve wrote:
Dark Eldar literally only have 2 ship classes, so you're going to have to do this eventually for the sake of balance, so might as well do it to make the Eldar more interesting.

Im sorry but why do people keep saying the DE has only 2 vessels?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-aXA8 ... yLVNB/edit


they had an entire fleet?


2 Ship classes, Escorts and a crusier. Granted the cruiser could be customized akin to how the orks can. But only having two classes of ships would be extremely anti fun for the person who is playing them.

Also those aren't official rules.
And if that don't work... use more torpedoes.

shadowsfm
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 319
Joined: 07 February 2016, 11:15
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby shadowsfm » 04 May 2016, 06:10

XViper wrote:
How do you 'build a fleet that will be able to face any situation', when you have such a limited number of ship slots that you can fill? If you wanted to 'swap out' the ship for something else you then also completely lose all ship progression.

you don't lose ship profession. the ship won't lose its level , though you would still need to have the renown points to buy and re equip skills and upgrades

XViper wrote:So you're saying if I want to play the type of game I want, at the point value I want, I can't use any upgrades or technical skills on my ships, or even CHOOSE my fleet composition?


you can still choose the fleet composition or you can use your multiplayer fleet

User avatar
XViper
Posts: 160
Joined: 23 April 2016, 17:15
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby XViper » 04 May 2016, 06:22

shadowsfm wrote:you don't lose ship profession. the ship won't lose its level , though you would still need to have the renown points to buy and re equip skills and upgrades


Well that's still pretty crap losing all skills and upgrades.
I'll test that later though when I can access the game.
So if I want to 'readd' the ship, it remembers all the previously levelled ships and places them in the list?

shadowsfm wrote:
XViper wrote:So you're saying if I want to play the type of game I want, at the point value I want, I can't use any upgrades or technical skills on my ships, or even CHOOSE my fleet composition?


you can still choose the fleet composition or you can use your multiplayer fleet

Yeah, that's my bad. (will update my previous post). I somehow missed that point, lost amongst all the 'pre-made' points.
Although what's the point of having max level pre-made fleets if they don't have skills, upgrades or favours?
Isn't the only point in ship levels to have access to upgrades and skills?

User avatar
Uksharazad87
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 310
Joined: 22 October 2015, 13:40
Location: Chatteris; United Kingdom
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Uksharazad87 » 04 May 2016, 07:41

my question: You stated that you're using the UE4 Engine, that even the shells are modelled. Will a way to view you fleet in action, a replay system, so we can see every pixel you've slaved over ever be iplemented, also "spectator" mode.

User avatar
BrianDavion
Posts: 1017
Joined: 12 March 2016, 02:32
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session #1

Postby BrianDavion » 04 May 2016, 11:59

How do you 'build a fleet that will be able to face any situation', when you have such a limited number of ship slots that you can fill? If you wanted to 'swap out' the ship for something else you then also completely lose all ship progression. You wanted BFGA to be 'frustrating to play'?? Are you serious right now? *facepalm*

If you give players more ship slots, you mitigate the 'risk' for players losing ship (don't even get me started how ridiculous losing ships to the warp in multiplayer is....). Considering you want the game to be frustrating, this certainly can't happen! I assume you're not going to bother fixing the problem where a player is forced into a 600 point game with 300 points of ships either... They need to be punished for losing right? I guess people are going to have to get used to spamming Escorts. 'yay'.


Ok, honest to god question, are you one of those people who insists on playing every video game he owns on the easiest mode with the invincability cheat on? if not then you understand and accept that games are going to have some challange to them. part of the game is some concequences for losing your ships, you may not like it but that's a personal issue, some people like a degree of concequence for failure.

as for building a fleet capable of facing any situation, gamers have been doing that thing for ages. it's called a TAC List (for Take All Comers) and in table top list building it's the norm. it's considered in poor taste to go and specially hyper tailor your list to counter your opponent.
I imagine the devs are trying to bring in an element of that table top list building feel to the game.

It's really fast to get to a level 8 fleet? Clarify 'really fast'?


a weeks worth of pretty casual play in my experiance. a day if you're playing a lot

User avatar
XViper
Posts: 160
Joined: 23 April 2016, 17:15
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session #1

Postby XViper » 04 May 2016, 12:36

BrianDavion wrote:Ok, honest to god question, are you one of those people who insists on playing every video game he owns on the easiest mode with the invincability cheat on? if not then you understand and accept that games are going to have some challange to them. part of the game is some concequences for losing your ships, you may not like it but that's a personal issue, some people like a degree of concequence for failure.

as for building a fleet capable of facing any situation, gamers have been doing that thing for ages. it's called a TAC List (for Take All Comers) and in table top list building it's the norm. it's considered in poor taste to go and specially hyper tailor your list to counter your opponent.
I imagine the devs are trying to bring in an element of that table top list building feel to the game.


No I'm not. I rarely play games on easy. I don't mind a 'challenge'.
I see the point of the consequences in the campaign.
I don't see any logical reason to use that mechanic in a multiplayer setting (unless you're doing some sort of best of 3/5 situation), or some kind of tournament.
The only challenge that should exist is that of the skill of my opponent. Not because he got to bring the ships he wanted to the battle and I didn't, because I lost some in the last battle, and he didn't. (even though we didn't play against eachother!)

I understand the need for a force organisation chart, or roster limitations. I totally condone that. But not wrapped up in this stupid ship level progression system. If building a fleet was more like the Tabletop, I'm ALL FOR IT!
You give me X points to build my fleet with.
Ship costs X points.
Upgrade A costs X points
Skill B costs X points.
Weapon Z costs X points.

Ship + Upgrades + Skills + Weapon = Total points of the ship.

But it's not. Instead we have this retarded mess.


Return to “General Gameplay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests