Don't kill Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2

Please for the love of the Emperor, don't let the game's multiplayer scene die by slow and questionable balance decisions. The first game had so much potential squandered by lack of communication and bad balance. Now back to the cautiously optimistic hype battle barge.

last edited by Foehammer

I seriously doubt they will screw it up, multiplayer balance was one of the key appeals mentioned for BFG2 as well.
They likely intend to make a bunch of $$ off it as well, thus it's very much in their interest to learn from BFG 1 and build a strong multiplayer community.
Having all 12 factions avaliable from the get go is also likely going to prevent power creep and maintain balance between the factions.

Balance wasn t really here in BFG with only 6 factions, do you really think it is easier to balance 12?

I worry for the future of the game

out side of imps and chaos the other 4 factions all had various balance issues

and it was these very same blance issues like eldar death beams and ork Zzzap cancer that cuased the player base to crash

now its not 6 but 12 factions, granted some factions are "reskins"/or rehashes

Will the old factions get touch ups to bring them all in line? can the devs balance properly this time around? will they listen to feed back this time and act in a timely manner and not wait months on end?

If not BFGA2 will "die" and become become the a ~100 player abandoned graveyard like the first game

last edited by Duotian

The main issue with balance in the original was the overpowered Tau BB and the weak sauce the pointy eared space elves brought post nerf.

All the other races could be dealt with as any other race, yes even Orks. Although I had to always work very hard to beat even mediocre Ork players.

My main hopes for MP are that we get a victory point system added and renown/levels are removed.

It will be interesting to see if they pull it off though. As I recall, the actual tabletop BFG was hilariously imbalanced as well.

@dire_venom Yeah they say they are gonna improve balance and multiplayer. But people have failed to deliver before. All i know is that if they dont revamp and rework some things and throwing 12 factions on top of that. The outlook is not very good. Tindalos needs to be honest. Are they gonna double down on Single player or multiplayer. You rarely can do both.

@bosie There was alot more that caused imbalance in,the game than just Tau and eldar alone. Questionable design decisions didnt help either. Abilities, certain upgrades etc etc all added to the game being very imbalanced and hard to fix. I wouldnt mind seing the team removung or revamping how abilities are used in the game. Maybe even a change in focus and slowing the game down a bit.

@canned_f3tus said in Don't kill Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2:

@bosie There was alot more that caused imbalance in,the game than just Tau and eldar alone. Questionable design decisions didnt help either. Abilities, certain upgrades etc etc all added to the game being very imbalanced and hard to fix. I wouldnt mind seing the team removung or revamping how abilities are used in the game. Maybe even a change in focus and slowing the game down a bit.

Some fair points, and to their credit they did remove things like taunt.

Hopefully they dont put in that garbage "progression" renown nonsense that should have stayed inside single player

too many new players that tried to join later were kneecapped by that on top of being forced to fight level 10 admiral players

@duotian i agree progressive fleet managment didnt work for multiplayer. It worked for single player though. So they should split some features from singleplayer and multiplayer.

There are alot of things that in practise worked well for single player like ability slots and such but didnt do well for multi cause of meta, cookie cutter builds, ability stacking etc. So im hoping tindalos reworks the ships inventory costumization to help balance the game. Bfga just had way to many balance dials. So they should imo tie abilities to upgrades instead of them being seperate.

I don t agree, progressive fleet management has totally a place in multiplayer but free upgrades has not. If upgrades/skills has a point cost it allows more strategy and still can be balanced between veteran upgraded ships and new naked ones

Skills, abilities and crew upgrades should change the points cost of the ship.

As a simple analysis from a Alpha Tester / Moderator / Current Players point of view, I'll try and summarise my thoughts on the topic below:
(Just skip to the end if you want to ignore my randomised chain of thought and get to the good bit)

  1. BFG:A(1)'s balance for multiplayer was poor due to several factors. Firstly, ship skills and abilities were not calculated into fleet points costs and as many have said before, this meant that a fleet could have significantly stronger ships than their counterparts even though the ships were the exact same. The Developers / Publishers are aware of this issue and with any luck they are addressing it this time around. it would have been a large change to the original game, so I feel that it is reasonable that they held it back for BFG:A(2).

  2. In the end the game has three major factors for fleet combat styles: Agility, Durability & Firepower. Each fleet uses a different combination of the three, and what we saw is that the fleets which were 'all-rounders' (Chaos, Marines and Imperials) all worked relatively well against one another, whilst the three factions that focused too heavily on extremes (Eldar, Orks and Tau) were far more difficult to balance as they tend to either excel or fail miserably based on if the player used them to their strengths or not. With BFG:A(2) on the way this is my biggest fear, that Tindalos will not be able to completely even out the playing field.

For example, we know that there are several factions that are at extremes. The Aeldari will be lightning fast but massively fragile as we've already seen, The necrons are ultra durable, ultra slow and massively up-gunned which effectively makes them the orks taken to even further extremes, the tau merchant fleet which goes the other way and is frankly under gunned, under armoured and only slightly faster than opponents in general and the adeptus mechanicus which may take the firepower advantage at short range engagements from everyone else.

So basically, there is a lot of room for errors, and whilst I wish I could say otherwise I cannot promise that this issue will be effectively dealt with on launch. It comes down to the fact that certain fleets took their combat style to extremes, which by default makes them either excel or fail based upon the tactics of what they are fighting, compared to an all-round type fleet which can handle itself against any opponents based upon the use of tactics to win a fight. Thus I would say that the best way to resolve the issue would be to bring the "extreme" playstyle fleets up to their pinnacle levels without gimmick playstyles (See: Eldar Pulsar Spam) and then bring the all-rounders to a level where they are outclassed in 1-2 traits by their opponents heavily, but also outclass their opponent in 1-2 traits back so that they have strategic options.

  1. Frankly I had a lot more to say but I am tired so I will put it simply like this: BFG:A(2) should not be balanced in the traditional sense where every faction is of equal power. It's be weird if it was to be honest. Because in the end, much like 40K and old Warhammer Fantasy, it is the application of your tools that wins a battle, not the fact that you brought Tool C to the battlefield. Yes, there were some exceptions to this rule in BFG:A(1) (Pulsar Spamming Voidstalker comes foremost to mind) and it will be the way in which Tindalos handles such ships that will determine whether BFG:A(2) is a fair and balanced game, even if it is "unbalanced."

I may only be speaking for myself, but I would not have an issue with using a force that is harder to win with than others (E.g. Current Eldar vs Tau) as long as there is a decent chance to win. I can handle fighting battles where I may only have a 35-40% chance to win based upon the fleet compositions, because strategy can still pull you through the match.

Therefore my summary reaches the following conclusion: BFG:A(2) will probably not be a 'balanced' game in the traditional sense of the word, but as long as there are not any 'unbalanced' factions/ships/gimmicks within the game, then it will be completely manageable. This concludes my stupidly long waffle that frankly could have been done in two paragraphs...

@archmagos-alexi Er friend the Necrons have the fastest fleet in the game (when going in a straight line). This is one of the reasons they were considered hideously overpowered by many in the tabletop game. Its even worse in lore, where inertialess drives let them literally fly circles around everything (and yes they got those back as per everything after the 5e codex). To put the movement into perspective in tabletop when facing the sunwards edge the eldar destroyers (the fastest ships after the crons) had a max move of 30cm. To clarify that sunward thing real quickly though unlike in game the Eldar moved different speeds depending on how they were facing, with sunward facing being the fastest, and all had 3 speeds. When going full speed ahead a Cairn class battleship (the necrons slowest ship) went 20+(d6x10) cm for a maximum of 80cm, and an average of 50cm. Or, to put that into perspective, the necrons slowest ship usually went about 2 times faster than the eldars speediest ship, and could go up to 3+x if they were rolling good. The fastest Eldar ships (their raiders) went 50cm base, 80cm all ahead average, and 110cm max. Hell even the 2nd strongest ship the scythe class had the same maximum base movement speed of an eldar destroyer (30cm) and a max far high (90cm) This, combined with scary guns that ignored holo/shadowfields, super tanky ships, lances that ignored all shields on a good roll, and some OP wargear (sepulcher, energy drain), made them hideously overpowered. Though I love my crons, I am seriously worried about how the hell you can balance them. Even I wouldn't play them in TT (I had a chaos fleet way back when).

@nemesor-xanxas Huh, I have to apologise for that complete lack of knowledge on my part. It would seem that I was horridly misinformed, never actually looked into the Necron fleet properly... Now I look like an idiot.

@archmagos-alexi Its both fine and unsurprising. Necrons are a very very rare faction to encounter in lore, and because warhammer is primarily ground based (and fleets kind of ruin that by orbital bombardment) the fleet is even rarer. The only places they are present is in DoW tempest (by goto, so no one reads it), an add on to BFG's core rules (assuming you got the core rules there isn't really a reason to get this as all the popular races are in the core rules) the magazine (even white dwarf doesn't have the many subscribers, and i think bfg magazine is not only closed but out of print), Baal: Exterminatus (where its barely mentioned and missable), Dark creed (a fairly old book, pre 5e) and Fall of orpheus + hellforged (the only places you likely saw them). Beyond that they aren't mentioned anywhere, so its pretty easy to not know their capabilities. Necrons, even more so than most xenos, get no lore because they are good at killing Spess Muhreens so there are very few who actually know their lore extensively or what they are capable of, unlike orks eldar IOM and chaos which show up all the time. The most you likely encountered them was DoW, where they were slow for some reason and their units were strange (the guass blaster, and anti heavy infantry weapon was anti-vehicle and bad against infantry but the heavier Gauss canon was the reverse for some reason). The necrons are slow perception comes from this game mostly, as it is by far the most exposed form of media with them in it. Necrons can be pretty fast (especially the higher ups, the command barge which they go around in for example has a cruising speed of 250kph as per outer reach which is a bit fast for a tank). There was a very short period where they were slow (for like 10 minutes in 5e) because the dreaded Ward, destroyer of lore and buffer of spacemarines tried to retcon away their FTL entirely (as in, they didn't even have any and had to do something else, he erased their one true victory against the smurfs and lead to the hatecrime against lore known as Warzone:Damnos being written) but everyone though that was dumb and the retcon was immediately retconned by all of the above (though in devourer they are said to have both forms of FTL but think the wardian kind is dumb and don't use it). With all that, its an easy mistake to make and it doesn't surprise me. There is just too much lore to properly cover to avoid making such mistakes, so it really isn't you fault. For example, to those uninitiated in lore they might think a gloriana could take the sperenza because it could likely take an average ark mechanicus.

Well tbh I not happy they are making battle fleet gothic armada 2 at all they can't even balance 6 races yet they are going to add another 6 what a joke.

One thing I think they need to include is a multiplayer 'sector control' campaign mode, based on the campaigns in the original BFG rulebook. Where you're basically doing a small campaign to control a sector of systems.

Having been a part of BFG1 from the tech alpha I have to say the main problem with the game was the slow and gradual abandonment of the strategic elements (formations, importance of positioning, subsystem management) in favor of arcade"y" abilities that just invited spam, and the progression system ripped straight from the single player that frankly had no place in a multiplayer experience.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.