I think im done with this game.

[Formosa]

Ive been playing since the pre release and I have enjoyed hundreds of hours on this game, however, I think I'm done, lack of coms from the Devs about when we can expect patches, blatant ignoring of the community, promises of more communication that never actually arrived, repetitive gameplay that is no longer fun, the list goes on, so I'm sad to say I consider this game a failure, its a shame as it had so much potential.

Hoping that the IP gets picked up elsewhere or that the Devs finally break there silence and admit mistakes were made with basic design and are willing to communicate with the community and move forward, but I wont be holding my breath.

Laters BFG community, happy gaming

[Vesorak]

I feel you.

It's far from a bad game, which is what kills me. I'm still hanging in here, but I'd like to share my thoughts.

1. Paradoxically, the idea to replicate the table top game has dealt a heavy blow to BFGA. I, like many others, liked the idea that BFGA would emulate table top rules. What I have now realized is that part of the table top experience was collecting and painting models, visiting local game shops, and hanging out with friends on a Saturday night. I don't blame the devs for this, as this isn't something that can't be expected in a video game.

I think the table top limitations such as point value may not have been necessary, at least in the manner that they were implemented. I suppose the potential of a computer platform wasn't fully realized the way it is in other RTS games. For instance, I love the intricacies of each ship and its stats, but the battles feel way too small.

2. How long did it take before game mechanics were explained? The help guide added to the game recently should have been there from the start. I don't mind a steep learning curve, but with no way to test units, the game was a confusing mess. Every publisher knows, as evidenced by baiting pre-orders with DLC, that the first week or so of launch is make-or-break.

3. The game is awfully repetitive. The game modes are also biased towards certain factions. For instance convoy defense is far easier for tanky factions. Even cruiser clash can be biased towards slow factions if they have the misfortune of being the attacker. I also don't understand why game mode specific units such as transports don't share traits with their faction. For instance, why aren't chaos transports faster than ork transports. It would even out the inability for chaos ships to take fire for their transports.

Under no circumstances should entire game modes favor one faction over the other to the degree they do in this game. That just makes things frustrating.

4. It's Warhammer. Sad but true. If this was based on Starcraft and peddled by Blizzard it would be one of the top games of the year.

[Badman]

Battle scale are too small. Why only 700 points? 4 ships vs 4 ships. In warhammer where hummies own millions of planet. In games like wh40k:DoW also were limitations but they fell ok, and when u put 8 players in one map some serious battles start to happen. Now i playing single player elite mode and my enemies bring on me like 25 ships. Its a lot better. There is tactical slow-motion so its more than possible to control 20+ ships even for causal player.

Big ships in 700 point game fells just bad. Its like in wh40k:dow when you play IG and take out banneblade. Its need some support and its owns. But alone are killed easily. You cant support behemoths in 700 points game when they cost 250+ points.

Thats also why this game fell repetitive. 4 ships vr 4 ships. It will be not near repetitive if there will be 20+ ships with different upgrades etc etc.

Also it will be 10x more fun game if players can chose weapons on different chassis (something like ork). I mean for example IN chassis cost 100 points witch 75/50/25 armor and 150 speed, or 75/50/50 and 180 speed for 150 points. Then you choose weapons for req also. For example on right broadside macrocannons and on left broadside lances, or hangar. Things like that would add so much fun and possibilities and tactics and re-playability.

So much potential in this game non used.

[Imperator5]

Battle scale are too small. Why only 700 points? 4 ships vs 4 ships. In warhammer where hummies own millions of planet. In games like wh40k:DoW also were limitations but they fell ok, and when u put 8 players in one map some serious battles start to happen. Now i playing single player elite mode and my enemies bring on me like 25 ships. Its a lot better. There is tactical slow-motion so its more than possible to control 20+ ships even for causal player.

Big ships in 700 point game fells just bad. Its like in wh40k:dow when you play IG and take out banneblade. Its need some support and its owns. But alone are killed easily. You cant support behemoths in 700 points game when they cost 250+ points.

Thats also why this game fell repetitive. 4 ships vr 4 ships. It will be not near repetitive if there will be 20+ ships with different upgrades etc etc.

Also it will be 10x more fun game if players can chose weapons on different chassis (something like ork). I mean for example IN chassis cost 100 points witch 75/50/25 armor and 150 speed, or 75/50/50 and 180 speed for 150 points. Then you choose weapons for req also. For example on right broadside macrocannons and on left broadside lances, or hangar. Things like that would add so much fun and possibilities and tactics and re-playability.

So much potential in this game non used.

Yeah we definately need bigger battles.

[Mav]

Coz eldar are shit if you run more than 3 ships without TC >>

[Bosie]

Ive been playing since the pre release and I have enjoyed hundreds of hours on this game, however, I think I'm done...

so I'm sad to say I consider this game a failure

So you've played this for hundreds of hours then you say that you consider the game a failure...

[Formosa]

Ive been playing since the pre release and I have enjoyed hundreds of hours on this game, however, I think I'm done...

so I'm sad to say I consider this game a failure

So you've played this for hundreds of hours then you say that you consider the game a failure...

that's because it is, yes they have my money, but they wont be getting anymore, that means its a failure, it also means that any future sequel will be looked over by myself and my friends, but by far the worst failure of this game is the devs utter refusal to take feedback, time and time again people are posting the same things, be that larger games (which we know can be done due to the mod), dropping renown in MP, Tac cog in ranked etc.

add to that the repetitive gameplay, the bad missions (which people have been asking to sort out since pre release) on and on it goes, so how long must I tolerate bad game design?

so yes, even after so much time sunk into this game, I consider it a failure.

[Bosie]

Ive been playing since the pre release and I have enjoyed hundreds of hours on this game, however, I think I'm done...

so I'm sad to say I consider this game a failure

So you've played this for hundreds of hours then you say that you consider the game a failure...

that's because it is, yes they have my money, but they wont be getting anymore, that means its a failure, it also means that any future sequel will be looked over by myself and my friends, but by far the worst failure of this game is the devs utter refusal to take feedback, time and time again people are posting the same things, be that larger games (which we know can be done due to the mod), dropping renown in MP, Tac cog in ranked etc.

add to that the repetitive gameplay, the bad missions (which people have been asking to sort out since pre release) on and on it goes, so how long must I tolerate bad game design?

so yes, even after so much time sunk into this game, I consider it a failure.

The devs posted that larger games were not being implemented due to potential net code issues. I would like to see games where you can field 1,000+ points.

They did listen to us about holo fields and pulsars.

They did listen to us about space marine chapters.

The did listen to us about renown free MP games (check out ranked play).

They did listen to us about bad missions (data/assassination/station).

There are other things that need looking at, who says they aren't?

As to repetitive game play, what do you expect from an RTS set in space using only three dimensions?

You've spent £30.00 for several hundred hours. At worst this entertainment has cost you £0.15 per hour.

[Imperator5]

I think they should take a look at missions though. The attack/defender thing usually grants an unfair advantage to one side.

[MiniCLoud]

- game breaking bugs at patch releases. I had my admiral in legendary league, now unusable because lost renown never came back.

- 3-4 weeks between each patches and not even able to correct ongoing balance issues. See the Orks

- game basic design never changed, it's 'skirmish' battles with a tactical cogitator for all the fucking micro a single ship can have

- playing a faction with the same ships cause I can barely change or add more given the situation. And against the always same winning fleet compositions. Dealing only with sniping orks, invisible Eldar, torpedoes and novas spam, kiting lances chaos. That becomes horribly boring

- and so much RNG for a strategy game that can decide on wether you will win or not is very frustrating

And I have hundred of hours played too, cause the concept, potential and the hopes on it were very high. But i'm getting out little by little the more it can't be played properly.