Dev Questions & Answers Session #1

Talk about Battlefleet Gothic: Armada here!
User avatar
zOh
Posts: 53
Joined: 19 April 2016, 21:17
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby zOh » 03 May 2016, 21:20

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.


I love you guys. I love how that's the direction you wanted and the direction you took. I like how it is now with the punishing aspect of losing ships, and the need for diversity in a fleet.

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

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby rekina » 03 May 2016, 21:37

Ravensburg, you are the best. Thank you very much for this amazing level of communication. This is what we've all been waiting for. :mrgreen:

Q: Are you going to let us rearrange skill and upgrade placement(on individual ships) in the future? I believe this is very important feature for user convenience, but sadly I didn't see the feature being included in the future roadmap post. If you are oppose to this idea, why is it?

Edit: I deleted other question as I realized it was kinda answered already.
Last edited by rekina on 04 May 2016, 04:11, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Bludfist
Posts: 997
Joined: 14 March 2016, 22:46
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Bludfist » 03 May 2016, 21:54

Bosie wrote:Loving the level of communication, and the humor you guys are bringing to the forums. Please keep it up!

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.

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.


I would like to ask you how you feel this impacts high level fleets? At this time my Chaos admiral is level 8 and my main ships are all level 10. I have over 2.5k renown on hand. During battles it is better for me to lose a ship to destruction rather than the warp. Why? I have the renown to fix that ship and use it for the next game, this means that I have no narrative for my fleet as it's always the same fleet. If I lose a ship to the warp, then that narrative develops. As I can chose between destruction and warp, I always pick destruction. If I do drop to 2k renown then I will switch from fighting to farming renown. So far I've not had to do this. I've stated before that renown is great in the campaign, where narrative is very important but in MP games it just slows down new fleet's progression.

So yes, I had the story during the initial leveling process when I had to take ships I didn't want. Now however I use the same fleet every game.

One potential change, rather than scrap renown, would be to make repairs impossible to speed up. I'd not be a fan of this, but it would create that narrative at high level. Then we'd need something to spend our renown on (to be fair we do at the moment too)!

Perhaps we could use it for fleet colours/bases or other cosmetic things that don't impact directly on games?


pretty much nailed it on the head

the whole presistent fleet story thing was..."cute" at first but later renown serves no purpose
Chaos walking into Aldorf be like
Spoiler : :
Image

User avatar
Ivanna
Posts: 44
Joined: 26 April 2016, 12:00
Location: UK
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Ivanna » 03 May 2016, 22:14

Seems like reasonable changes. Can't wait to see what kind of upgrades I get for my Starcannons :P

I'm personally glad you're opting to nerf the range of Pulsars rather than gutting the damage. I love hard-hitting glass cannons, but there was never any need for them to have the ludicrious range they got with the upgrade.

Halstead
Posts: 212
Joined: 23 April 2016, 22:20
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Halstead » 03 May 2016, 22:20

Ravensburg wrote:
Q#7 – Pulsars: what are your thoughts on their current form, and what changes do you want to try to balance them?

I know Pulsars are controversial, but they fulfill a role that fits perfectly with the Eldar hit-and-run playstyle. They are the perfect counterparts of Starcannons - high burst, high cooldown vs low damage, high rate of fire.
As mentioned earlier, before nerfing Pulsars to the ground, we’re going to remove the range upgrade and replace it with a Starcannon upgrade. I think the major issue with Pulsars at the moment comes from range upgrades that make them really disgusting, as Eldars are no longer forced to commit their ships at mid-range in order to perform the burst. We’re also thinking about increasing the duration between each pulsar shot.

Something like each pulsar mount take their turn firing in a form of chain-firing? edited: after some further thinking, this would have the effect of taking more time to dish out the same total damage as before if you don't shorten the duration of the pulsar beam.

User avatar
Harlequin
Posts: 114
Joined: 09 March 2016, 01:53
Location: Frankfurt am Main
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Harlequin » 03 May 2016, 22:42

Ravensburg wrote:- 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.


I was thinking about making an escort cap like ~10 Escorts max. per Player. (or + / -).

The rest sounds great. i'm looking forward to the upgraded starcannons. :mrgreen:
Spoiler : :
Steam-Name: "Marilyn Manson"

"We bring only death, and leave only carrion. It is a message even a Human can understand."

"Death is my meat; terror my wine."

Image
Image

User avatar
Mr Morden
Posts: 162
Joined: 16 April 2016, 16:41
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Mr Morden » 03 May 2016, 22:55

Lots of good responses and new questions>

In terms of content what is the plan for more vocie acting and more images:

In particular

Being able to change the ship's captain picture to one of your choice for any given ship - helps with the narrative aspect which was in your response - FFG have loads of pics of captains to use and GW have more in their files / books............

I know the ship colour schemes are being looked at but "Accessories" - different devices, insignia, kill markings, campaign badges, service badges etc - I love all that sort of thing.........someting to spend excess renown on............

Be cool to have a Admirals cabin with all of the same and you can move to the window to see your fleet..........

Some female Human and Eldar Cpatains would be nice and in keeping with the lore.

I know to some people this adds nothing to gameplay but it helps with that immersion / narrative......
Imperial - Lady Lukara (8), Chaos - Abraxus (8), Eldar - Flower of Carnage (2) , Orks - Big Bazza (6), Wolve - Floki (6) :mrgreen:

RedDevilCG
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 April 2016, 17:27
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby RedDevilCG » 03 May 2016, 22:58

Thank-you for this. You have no idea how much of a relief and pleasure it is to have active developer communication. Even if we don't like the answers, knowing that there is a channel for fans of this game to talk with you is the best thing for long term game health!

Cheers!

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

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Leivve » 03 May 2016, 23:52

As long as you don't break any of the Lore that's already there (which you've done a good job doing so far), I'm perfectly fine with you adding new eldar ships that didn't exist before. Part of having the license is you can add to it. If it breaks lore, naturally GW is going to come in and say "that's not canon," but you shouldn't let that stop you from trying to add to the universe. People who would get upset about you giving the Eldar a larger variety in ship choices just because "they're not in the TT," are literally just holding you back from making a good game even better.

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.
And if that don't work... use more torpedoes.

User avatar
Bludfist
Posts: 997
Joined: 14 March 2016, 22:46
Contact:

Re: Dev Questions & Answers Session 01

Postby Bludfist » 04 May 2016, 00:02

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?
Chaos walking into Aldorf be like
Spoiler : :
Image


Return to “General Gameplay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests