Faction aesthetics and customization

A thing i think BFG1 managed to do well was capture the feel of 40k. This was primarily done via the campaign obviously, but the UI and music played a big part in feeling immersed in the universe particularly from the imperial navy side of things. The way you had a home fleet type system where you could preview your ships next to amazing backgrounds also aided in immersion and that satisfaction you get from making your own customized fleet with a certain design. Especially nice was the way different factions had different looking panels when customizing your fleet. I think if this was re introduced in this game it should go without saying that it would be nice to customize the name of your ships and maybe captains as well.

Now this might be a bit harder to pull off but a thing they did in the first dawn of war game and the dlcs was to have themed music (for the main menu anyway) which added a lot to the atmosphere of the faction you were playing especially for new players like me when i was getting introduced to 40k through said games. I understand this is a lot of work but all of these things together could drastically change the feel of the game cuz during this beta the menu and what not just felt kinda cold and boring, sleek but with nothing to really differentiate it from other menu screens & UIs that you see in other sci fi games.

@measly

I wouldn't hold your breath, they've made it pretty clear they're gunning for multiplayer primarily, and stuff like this isn't as important over there.

@romeo , Blizzard don't think so. Each faction in Warcraft 3 and both Starcrafts have "different looking panels" and "themed music".

Didn't they learn from BFGA1 that PVP isn't the strong suit of this game? Focusing on it seems counter productive.

The concept of persistent, upgradable fleets in multiplayer BFGA1 was a cool concept, it was fun to warp out ships to keep them alive. Unfortunately, it failed as a system because experienced players (who already had a huge advantage due to knowing the game well) also had a massive advantage in ship upgrades and didn't need to worry about having enough points to repair their ships afterward. Split queues (1v1, 2v2, and 1v1 ranked) also raised the critical mass of players needed to sustain finding matches, causing people to give up when they couldn't find a match.

I hope BFGA2 avoids both these issues. For the first, all they need to do is make sure that at least 2 of the strongest skills and 2 of the strongest upgrades are available right away on every faction. That way new admirals can build a competitive fleet, and even strong options available later (like invisible orks) provide diversity rather than an increase in raw power. For the second, they're already doing better by not having ranked/unranked, but allowing us to search for both 1v1 and 2v2 (pick a fleet for each) would be the logical improvement.

Anyway, different music for different factions would be awesome, even in multiplayer.

@jamodon i agree it makes for bad pvp but since there is no subscription and the niche pvp community for this game will likely dry up before the 6 month mark it seems like a waste of resources to be investing in PvP mechanics like they are. Making SP as amazing as possible and selling dlc campaigns seems to be the best option for them financially so it does make one scratch their head.

@takt said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@romeo , Blizzard don't think so. Each faction in Warcraft 3 and both Starcrafts have "different looking panels" and "themed music".

While I appreciate that Blizzard does that, there are a few differences there:

  • Blizzard has about ten times the staff and probably closer to a hundred times the budget on each game.
  • They had only four and three races to do that with, respectively. BFG2 has almost double that just on its own.
  • The first Starcraft and especially Warcraft 3 weren't designed with competitive multiplayer in mind upon release.

Make no mistake, I would looooooove more singleplayer focus this time around, but it seems we're not as important as the multiplayer crowd.

@imperator just because BFGA 1 multiplayer failed doesnt mean they shouldnt try to improve upon it. Not doing so results also in a lot of counter productice things

@romeo. Oh please. You havent even seen any single player content except for the first 2 to 3 missions. You are making assumptions at this point off of nothing. Tindalos did a good job in singleplayer the first time. They will do good job this time around too.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

@imptastic said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@jamodon i agree it makes for bad pvp but since there is no subscription and the niche pvp community for this game will likely dry up before the 6 month mark it seems like a waste of resources to be investing in PvP mechanics like they are. Making SP as amazing as possible and selling dlc campaigns seems to be the best option for them financially so it does make one scratch their head.

The PVP community dried up because of the inherit flaws of the game. PvP community doesnt just abandon games. If anything they stick around longer than anyone.
Tindalos seems like they fixed alot of core issues. I thing pvp community will enjoy playing this game more than the last one.

@canned_f3tus said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@romeo. Oh please. You havent even seen any single player content except for the first 2 to 3 missions. You are making assumptions at this point off of nothing. Tindalos did a good job in singleplayer the first time. They will do good job this time around too.

Short of a god damn miracle, there's not really much I can see saving singleplayer. Unless I somehow missed them reintroducing ship customization, and a surprise announcement that fleet progression was coming back for all twelve factions, then yes, it's pretty god damn clear where the focus has shifted.

@CANNED_F3TUS

  1. Doesnt matter if pvp players stick around if they dont get money for it.
  2. With the variables balance will never happen which will drive players away.
  3. When the game gets highly repetative as take and hold will it will drive players away.
  4. just because SP stop playing when they run out of content doesnt mean they wont come back as soon as there is more content especially if they really enjoyed first said content drop.
  5. Casual players will leave this kind of PvP early anyways due to the micro/macro gameplay demands.
  6. The player pool for PvP in a game like this starts off really small because the title itself is niche.
  7. Since all races are available to pvp at launch there is no tailored dlc to be had for pvp players.

@imptastic said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@CANNED_F3TUS

  1. Doesnt matter if pvp players stick around if they dont get money for it.

LMFAO. I play pvp. Guess what i dont play for money! Im just going to assume this is an argument you based off of the Esports stereo type. Well sorry man but your point holds no water. PVPers play for the challenge not the money primarily.

  1. With the variables balance will never happen which will drive players away.

What you fail to understand is that the PvP community will stick with a good game and continue to support it even if the balance is not perfect. We know this better than anybody that balance is never perfect. PvP players are not as shallow as you are trying to make them out to be

  1. When the game gets highly repetative as take and hold will it will drive players away.

This is entirely up to the devs not the pvp community. But i dont see this happening.

  1. just because SP stop playing when they run out of content doesnt mean they wont come back as soon as there is more content especially if they really enjoyed first said content drop.

Same can be said for the PVP crowd. You see. We are not so different. Constant support is KEY.

  1. Casual players will leave this kind of PvP early anyways due to the micro/macro gameplay demands.

You mean non strategy players will leave early.
BFGA plays alot slower than the first BFGA.
If the macro and micro is to demanding for someone. RTS and RTT games is just not their thing and they should stick with other games.
Not a good point imo.

  1. The player pool for PvP in a game like this starts off really small because the title itself is niche.

And? It grows if it turns out to be good. Just like any game.

  1. Since all races are available to pvp at launch there is no tailored dlc to be had for pvp players.

I absolutly disagree. But even so. We only need patches in theory. But there are plenty of DLC options they can go with. PvP players are not picky in those regards.

@romeo what about the friggen faction campaigns. We have next to 0 information on how thats going to be and where its going to go. Thats why i dont get the whole. "Oh they just want to focus on pvp" for all we know The campaigns will play similiarly to. DoW DC and SS. With alot more depth. We can only speculate. Yeah fleet costumisation may be stream lined but that does NOT mean they dont give a rats ass over single player content.

@canned_f3tus first off you misinterpreted the first point it was from the devs standpoint. not the players weather or not the players get paid is irrelevant but if the devs dont get paid maintaining pvp is just another expense. Secondly balance will always drive people away it has in every game including SC which is the most balanced game in rts that isnt single faction. third there is no moddablity so this game will get stale it is just the nature of the beast it will not hold a crowd like aforementioned SC. fourth the SP crowd will not comeback if they dont like the mechanics or feel that the concessions made for MP are too much, and they are if numbers hold 90 percent of the playerbase. fifth casuals will try and find the excessive demands of this game to much and leave thus reducing the pvp player pool and increasing match times, those casuals will have came for the SP content so i doesnt matter if its not their thing it still hurts the pvp scene as a whole not to have them their as fodder. sixth its a niche game its growth is already severely limited and having it grow faster than it decays is highly unlikely, i hope for your sake you are correct but i wouldnt be holding my breath. Seventh getting the pvp crowd to buy things or stick around to buy things are largely negligible compared to getting the SP crowd interested in new products since the SP crowd is far larger and has soo much more buying power potential. The only other dlc they could offer the pvp crowd is largely cosmetic and with low numbers its doubtful that it will be impactful enough to warrant the time any dlc content would need to be designed to cater to SP from a financial point of view.

@imptastic

Devs get payed for delivering good games..... Its not like tyese guys are workinh for free.

Mods don't make games good. Replayability is based entirely on how the devs designed the game. Strategy games have alot of replayability. PVP has replayability as long as they do a good job on mechanics and options. Which they got for this game

And you are right Strategy games are niche games. But that doesnt mean that a community cant grow from it. Competetive strategy games in todays time say hello. There are not many but they are still here.

Id disagree about your assumptions over pvp players not wanting to buy games or stick around to support games. Just look at DoW, CoH

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

@canned_f3tus any mp number you find on any game include everyone online playing in the servers, all servers and if you look under the hood of battle net you will find that the majority of player playing their game multiplayer are doing so in custom games not ladder or unranked melee. its not strategy that are niche its 40k and naval combat that make it niche. as for them getting paid its them getting paid by copies sold not player retention PvPs only means of generating more income for them is if it advertises the game and the people they advertise it to buy it. The numbers behind that i do not know but if the mechanics implemented to make mp good strip away a decent percentage of the SP crowd then it will be a net loss.

@canned_f3tus dow 3 was a massive failure commercially because they went full pvp. CoH is far less niche than 40k and its also not naval combat same with DoW its not naval combat.

Singleplayer and multiplayer are both important i cant stress this enough. But according to you guys there can only be 1 or the other and that i disagree with.

@canned_f3tus its not one or the other is dont make one subjective to the other. you seem to be missing the whole argument, PVP crap should stay in pvp and all the stuff that was great about the first one should stay in SP its not rocket science but as it stands now SP is dramatically effected by decision made catering to the MP crowd and that is HORRIBLE especially considering the SP crowd is where the bread and butter is at in these games.

number 1 example atm is look at necrons... they are pathetic and will always feel like they dont belong in single player because they dont feel or play how they are supposed to. The reason of course they dont is because that would make them OP for MP, which is just another in a long line of sacrifices they have made for MP.

last edited by imptastic

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