600 pts in 2v2 is not enough.

Doesn't need to be a really long post.

Just. 600 pts per player in 2v2, isn't enough.
The same problem existed in the first game.

I understand perhaps not wanting to give players the full 1200 they have in Solo, but don't directly halve it. (Personally I'd be fine with 1200 pts each in 2v2).

I think 900 would be a more suitable point allocation per player in a 2v2 setting.

I feel like 700 is about right to be honest for ranked. If you want to take a big ship I think you're supposed to coordinate with an ally who's bringing more numbers for scouting and support, but right now it does feel a bit too restrictive.

last edited by nonesuch

I hope you are kidding? We already have double battleship, triple grand cruiser fleets and so on. The only thing stopping those at the moment is that they dont have enough points to properly support their cheese.

They can bring the extra firepower currently but will lose out on mobility and so on. Upping the points breaks the game even more. Balanced fleets already suffer enough at the moment, dont see any reason to make it even worse....

I don t like people deciding for everyone what should be the "right" point fleets. I think BFGA should the possibility to play different sizes like 600 - 800 - 1000 in 2v2 instead of just 1 size for all

im sure their comes a point where the game has a hard time processing the extra action, but a simple disclaimer would void backlash on it so ya i would be in favor of both sides having the option to agree on larger fleet sizes all though it is more practical to have a commonly accepted standard number.

More options are usually good. So I would be totally in favor of player set fleet cap, with an absolute limit of 2k (1k per side in 2v2).

With that said I think 1200 / 600 is the right fleet size where the game should be balanced around.

To be honest in beta there was a LOT of 2v2 going on and not so much 1v1, my opinion of it is that 1200 points 1v1 battles are actually pretty taxing whereas 600 points is just 3 or 4 ships and that's much easier to manage and more relaxing to play.

2v2 has just the right amount of ships to control with the (worse than BFGA1) UI. 1v1 has way too many ships, especially since the UI didn't get better to support a higher amount of ships to control. Especially with the (stupid) removal of tac cog on top of increased unit counts.

@datonkallandor said in 600 pts in 2v2 is not enough.:

2v2 has just the right amount of ships to control with the (worse than BFGA1) UI. 1v1 has way too many ships, especially since the UI didn't get better to support a higher amount of ships to control. Especially with the (stupid) removal of tac cog on top of increased unit counts.

true story... i have no desire to manage 10 - 14 ships.

Good idea, make the game Slow down even more than it does with 1200 points allready XD know the Term technical limitstation? No offense but optimising their games for smooth Performance is no strength of the dev Team. Mordheim has a Bad Performance, as does BFG 1 when compared to games with an Equal demand on Hardware. BFG 1 even causes interesting perfomance Drops on Systems without the dev Team ever figuring out why and how to Solve them. Going for even more points will simply kill the game in no time. Maybe when they have more experience in optimisation and Figure the problems out it might work. Or they could go for a simple solution to the perfomance issue.....

@androas mordheim is from Rogue Factor not Tindalos
Focus is just the publisher

Ok you have a point. Makes you question Double why different devs suffer from the same Problem under one publisher..... alltought its not new that publisher decide where the important Parts of quality are and ask for a Focus on those points. Like graphics i mean visual wise bfg2 is top notch. Still my point Stands, more points lead to more strain on the engine a problem the first game suffered and is still suffering after the Team basicaly Gave up on it. The smartest decision would be to build in an toggle for everything background. Add the option to play on an White Grid with nothing but black on it and make the asteroids and stuff just circles. Allow to disable the animated Menue background while at it. This should Solve some of the issues. From there, points could be opened up, with an Inga me advice to disable the background grafics. Leaving it optional. Then the Team could start to finetune the Performance problems. And over time Solve them, without having people leaving because matches Slow down to an near halt because of to much Action.

@beernchips said in 600 pts in 2v2 is not enough.:

I don t like people deciding for everyone what should be the "right" point fleets. I think BFGA should the possibility to play different sizes like 600 - 800 - 1000 in 2v2 instead of just 1 size for all

It would be nice if that could be done for custom games with friends, but for matchmaking, for a niche game like this, it's best for the devs if they stick with a single points value choice.

I disagree with the OP, 900 points is too high. Actually, after my own experience with the game, I'd say the main problem is that certain classes of ship are too expensive, and that balance is still required in that area (light cruisers seem universally too expensive, for how under-gunned they are: their hull points and speed simply don't make them worth 2/3rs or more the price of a cruiser, and their slightly better/more guns don't make them worth x3-x5 the price of a frigate/destroyer/corvette). With the glass-cannon factions in particular, I found the main reason stuff that I'd consider cheese (double DE battleship comes to mind) were played, is because taking more light ships is begging to have your points destroyed piecemeal (it didn't help that DE light ships can't field the same number of guns as the battleship on their lighter chassis'): basically since your ships become even MORE delicate, they die faster, you lose weapons faster, leading to you not being able to do enough damage, which is a death sentence to a faction that needs to do damage, since it can't really take it. I mean, as DE, your choice was two battleships, or a battleship and a cruiser (ha!), or a battleship and two light cruisers (none of which would be the pricier, more toys ships). If you wanted more utility toys, like squadrons, you were stuck on two ships (and maybe an escort, their escorts are pricey too, but they can usually take at least a scout with basically no guns if they don't take double BS). All the factions I played (Imps/Craftworld/Corsairs/Dark Aelderi/Chaos) could have used tweaked points on LCs, and most on battleships (Chaos stands out here, but Imperial seemed to need it too, and double BS wouldn't have happened if some of the other BSs were a tad cheaper, and the BS you could take two of was exactly 301 points). Battlecruisers seemed the closest to fair/balanced points-wise for quality, and Grand cruisers were pretty good as well (though some loadouts seem poor, basically any that combine long/short range, since not having 180/240 degree fire on those weapons, or quick turns, make them weaker than specialist ships, and they're too slow to force a specific engagement range).

TL:DR Fix the points cost/balance of ships, probably (based on where I see problems) valuing armour/speed/hull points (hull points to a lesser degree) less, and turrets, boarding action types, and weapons, more. No need to majorly change the points value of the games (though I'd probably not care if it went from 600 per player, to 650 or 700 per player; more would be edging into territory that helps cheese and hurts balanced fleets imo).