[Community Update dev response] The Capture Point game mode needs to be Subjected to exterminatus

@imptastic said in [Community Update dev response] The Capture Point game mode needs to be Subjected to exterminatus:

@alandauron the way fighters and escorts work now makes it a lot easier to hunt down stealth ships than the previous game, assuming you would have the same outcomes for the same reasons when you have this many different variables is a stretch.

Lol, what? I'm not gonna say that you have no sense of the game cause you and I have tended to agree on more than we haven't as long as I have been coming to the forums. That being said this is either intentional misrepresentation or something that you're clearly not getting. So you can find them, then you still can't catch them. So you can put some damage on, then you still can't catch them. More than likely you still won't even find them if they are playing the hiding game because Eldar move fast enough to avoid non-directed fighters and the odds that you are able to just guess where they are with Escort ships if they don't want to be found...not likely. You're acting like the people that tend to spam the best build won't know how to avoid you, which just plain isn't the case.

starting out with having to field a 10 - 14 ship fleet and manage a dota esk meta game is not easier to get into im sorry its just not.

You keep saying 10+ ships but that isn't the case at all, even with 1v1. They can choose to take less ships that are more powerful, that's an option also. If they are completely new to the game they won't have any more issues with trying out Cap and Hold than they would trying out Cruiser Clash. The difference will come with the experience they have playing it. If you put them against the worst case scenario and best case scenario from each game mode Cap and Hold will be easier on them than Cruiser Clash.

The only way what your saying would be true is if you had the player base that was large enough to stop top tier players from playing relatively new or low skilled players since that is not and will not be the case your just giving more options to more adept players win and in the process rob players of their EPIC battles they want. i know everyone wants the perfect balance utopia but as of this moment you already have valarak out their with his relatively popular 40k channel calling it not fun. That kinda press out the gate is horrible for a niche game like this, what are you willing to pay for this slightly better "balance"?

Not true, in fact if we were guaranteed a larger player base that would prevent higher skilled from playing against lower skilled I would side with Cruiser Clash over Cap and Hold. It's precisely because I know this is a niche title that I lean in favor of Cap and Hold vs the alternative. A new player going up against a high tier player in Cruiser Clash will be much more disheartening than them going up against one in Cap and Hold. If Valarak were put up against a skilled player in a Cruiser Clash match that kept him from being able to even engage then he would also call the game not fun, I don't see any relevance to the discussion here. If you want to talk about popularity we can say with a fair amount of confidence that Cruiser Clash with the factions this imbalanced will make MP unpopular. Why? Because the first game showed us as much.

@imptastic Why not? The core principle follows your logic it's just the specifics that are different. Is it because the idea is obviously horrible and if you engage in the discussion you'll have to admit that yours is horrible as well?

Oh, so make the multiplayer like the first BFG:A. That also had multiple gamemodes and no capture points system. That probably brought a large amount of people into it's multiplayer scene.
Let's check how the online is doing there.
Oh, right. It's absolutely dead. Probably because people just couldn't hande how much fun it was.

last edited by LiberalPerturabo

@alandauron 10 to 14 ships is pretty standard if you actually want to be competetive at the take and hold game, a few factions can get away with fewer but they are not the easier factions to use thats why i keep saying it. As for being able to catch eldar after you found them it could become an issue sure but even when you start looking at things like that there are certain rules you can add to it to force conflict that dont require take and hold. you could have both sides be revealed after so long or gradually reduce the size of the map as the match goes on. point is there are plenty of creative ways to handle kiting that you dont need to force something like this on the people. As for your assement of valarak i cant speak for him but from watching his vid i think your wrong there. Hes a true fanboy he wants big epic fights like he reads about in the books and lore at least thats what i gather from him. I think if he got destroyed like your are saying he would love it but your point does stand for overall you tubers i get that. I dont think the real question lies in whats more balanced or whatever it lies in whats is more appealing and you are never going to sell me on take and hold being appealing. i believe cruiser clash is more appealing because it what everyone was expecting and under that expectation there was more than a fair amount of hype building for the game.

@liberalperturabo this is the last time im responding to you so take that for what you will but ill explain it the best i can for you as you seem to be having a hard time understanding where im coming from here. the multiplayer in bgfa 1 was based off of core mechanics for its single player, a single player that didnt need to take into account things like kiting because the ai would not do those things. the assumption that i want cruiser clash exactly the same as it was in the first is an assumption your making not information im giving you. there are ways cruiser clash could have been made better to increase the fairness quotient. Also the factions were balanced towards single player and since that ai was worse then the one in this game they needed them to be better then they should have been so the ai can at least try to be effective with them, prime example being eldar, the ai couldnt handle them at all but u put them in the hands of a competent player they became OP as fawk. then they added space marines and the were meh the troop torp spam wasnt great but they were not any worse than what was already their. then they added tau and tau broke whatever was left of the MP community. as we find out later the engine wasnt designed to be balanced the ways they needed to actually get the balance in line for that game and add new races so they started making this one. So before we start playing look at the first game game please please know what you are talking about because this is getting ridiculous.
on a side note if they never implemented take and hold on any level and balanced these factions towards cruiser clash in the first place these things you are seeing that would make cruiser clash not as fair as this take and hold system would have largely been dealt with already.

last edited by imptastic

@imptastic and once again, you still get a clash in Cap and Hold. Only straight up Cruiser Clash has the potential to not get any clash because, as in the first, the optimal strategy for winning will become avoidance.

Revealing after X time: This would help with the issue of kiting but would also destroy the ability of those kite heavy factions to be competitive since they rely on staying out of gun range. They wouldn't be able to put on enough damage fast enough to burn down the enemy enough to beat the reveal clock. Not unless it's an extremely long clock which would change nothing in the meta. At best you replace one issue with another one.

Reducing Map Area over time: I think this would be a logical method to prevent kiting forever while still maintaining the competitiveness of the factions that are better at it. I would be interested to test this out in a beta version if the devs wanted to try it. Since it's not actually a thing though, Cap and Hold is still a better option over Cruiser Clash both in balance and a fun factor.

Valarak: If it's like you say, that he enjoys big fights, then he would absolutely hate going up against Eldar as anything but Eldar(maybe Chaos) because then he just wouldn't get to have that big fight. I don't watch him though so I couldn't say either, like your thoughts this is just my opinion.

@alandauron said in [Community Update dev response] The Capture Point game mode needs to be Subjected to exterminatus:

Revealing after X time: This would help with the issue of kiting but would also destroy the ability of those kite heavy factions to be competitive since they rely on staying out of gun range. They wouldn't be able to put on enough damage fast enough to burn down the enemy enough to beat the reveal clock. Not unless it's an extremely long clock which would change nothing in the meta. At best you replace one issue with another one.

you could agument it by instead of full reveal it just show the radar blips but its just my overall point if they put as much effort into balancing cruiser clash as they have into this take and hold nonsense a lot of the "match breaking" issues would be accounted for and dealt with. I think the major factor that played out here is they kept everything regarding the game so close the chest for so long they never got a good feel for what the players actually wanted from it. there are very few people who are happy with the take and hold mode only issue they may like it as a mode but they want to see more variety then just the same thing over and over and that would apply to cruiser clash as well. but as it stands now you got a large group of people that absolutely hate it and thats not good any way you look at it.

@imptastic said in [Community Update dev response] The Capture Point game mode needs to be Subjected to exterminatus:

you could agument it by instead of full reveal it just show the radar blips

Then nothing is resolved cause they can still outrun you and will now know where all your ships are, if it's to be made "fair" and doesn't just reveal the location of kitey faction ships.

there are very few people who are happy with the take and hold mode only issue they may like it as a mode but they want to see more variety then just the same thing over and over and that would apply to cruiser clash as well. but as it stands now you got a large group of people that absolutely hate it and thats not good any way you look at it.

If you're going off the forums, sure a large portion of that group(or at least a vocal one) is upset. Heck I'm a bit upset that this is what they went with, but I understand why. With all things considered Cap and Hold ONLY is better than Cruiser Clash ONLY. They were likely trying to make all matches the same because that allows the players to build their fleets around knowing that is what they are going into. Adding in Cruiser Clash as a random chance wouldn't make people more satisfied it would make them more frustrated. If they got the game mode that their fleet goes best with they'd be happy but not so much when they got the other game mode.

I would say try and present/sell the idea of them having a shrinking map Cruiser Clash mode as a Skirmish option or some such so that players can test it out and then if it becomes a popular mode maybe we can convince them to do a community vote on which one is more liked. Maybe even a month period where the game mode for Ranked is set to Shrinking Cruiser Clash, I like the idea maybe others will also.

@alandauron naw they wont change it now they are 2 small of a developer to worry about super long term support, only way that even becomes an option is if the MP is doing better than what a niche title like this should draw from the onset and they decided to add more SP content they can monetize. only thing you could hope to get out of them is cruiser clash as they have it set up in the scrim now because that all they have currently programmed. I wish they were would be as active that something like that would matter but if we are going to draw parallels between games then logically we would have to assume that they will support the game for maybe 9 months to a year before they leave it and devote themselves entirely to a new project.

@imptastic Not sure what the point of your whole message is. I am very aware of the history of the first game and your statement about factions being balanced towards singleplayer holds no water. That game went through a bunch of iterations with most prominently eldar and orks being changed multiple times in attempts to improve the multiplayer experience. Same goes for the engine not allowing for balancing (how do you think that would even work, lol).
You are of cource entitled to your opinion on capture points (even though capture points victory happens like 10-15% of the time) and I am entitled to mine. Difference is that I've presented an actual argument on how this system is objectively benefitial to the game.

@imptastic Splitting the multiplayer ladder in two may make things worse though.

I will say that I definitely don't want to see them add a random measure of "Could be x mode or y mode each match" but it would be nice to have a weekly mode. That way the player is able to properly loadout the fleet for the game mode and we don't see Cap and Hold all the time.

Week 1: Cap and Hold

Week 2: Clash in the middle(one point in the middle)

Week 3: Cruiser Clash

...etc.

Using the Capture points in different ways they could vary up the style and changing the mode weekly would prevent it from being excessively repetitive.

It's amusing how brawlers want to force everyone to play to their brute force advantage, but refuses to even acknowledge that others, suited more for a map control, could do the same. To the point when a certain Famous_streamer lost his banana over me outmaneuvering him yesterday, and winning the points game in effect (which I've been working consistently the entire match, while the other team completely neglected that part of the game).

What a pure combat attitude leads to, and it is common across many strategic titles, is a very stiff and borefest meta. Because what's the point in being creative in your strategy when all you need is to mathhammer the odds and pick the heaviest cost-effectiveness wise hitters. It is happening in the tabletops, it is happening in the Total Wars, it was happening in the vast majority of multiplayer strategic games, without a solid foundation for non-wipe winning conditions.

The solutions to the problem can take a few approaches, or a mix of them. For instance:

It can be done with keeping only the annihilation missions, where a map control will come with a solid AoE, positioning importance, and impactful enviromental objects (giving bonuses/penalties team-wide). It will be a pain to balance though.

It can try to limit the amount of capture points, and lowering the points required to win. This way even a map control faction would have to bring a meaningful force to kill the contenders, but a brawling guy have to be prepared to spread his force and watch (and micro) on multiple fronts at once.

Optionally, the capture zones could have been placed by the players - so they would actually decide where do they want to see them and where would they like the battle to take place (of course, a minimum distance between the points, and map boundaries would have to be developed; for reference take a peek at 40k ETC style games).

There could be a tertiary winning condition, or a capture point in the middle that gives significantly more points per tick.

It can come with the rotation Alaundron mentioned, so other forces would be on top in a certain period of time.

Games that have capture points also have the ability to replace/respawn units.

Games that have 2 set armies, with no respawn/replace mechanics, don't use capture points.

I loved the first game, however I'm struggling to play more than a few rounds of this one in a row due to capture points (and to a lesser point boarding mechanics).

Why is the escort the most valuable unit in my fleet? The escort should be the expendable unit, not the game winning unit.

I like the domination mode. It adds more dynamic to the game and forces players to confront their opponents. I do think that cap points need to provide less points if they are in safe hard to reach locations though. Im pretty tired of annihilation game mode. It makes the games turn out to play out the same way over and over. There is so much they can do with this domination game mode.

Ahni should be added as a costum game feature.

@bosie i think tweaks to safe and easy to secure capture points should be halved and that would remedy the problems you are having with domination. Ninja capping will still be a good strategy and make secondary engagements still important while making central cap points the most valuable.

I think removing an escorts ability to cap/de-cap would be a good start.

I'm struggling against races like dark eldar as I can't catch them to force a fight, and I can't cover 3 cap points without 1 of my smaller groups facing their entire fleet.

The best games I've had so far have been between macro heavy line fleets, those are the ones that can go either way. If I face or use a heavy boarding fleet the game is over before it starts. Same with fast sneaky fleets.

I'd like to play a game where it's about 2 large fleets smashing each other to bits, not hunt the stealth escort or watch as ships get hulked in seconds.

@Bosie
In short, you want a game with two equally capable sides executing each other at distance. Don't take me wrong, it's ok if that's your thing, but the longevity of the game would be abysmal due to no variety in play styles, or no differentiation in factions and tactics available. Imagine this game to have nothing but IN.

last edited by dadamowsky

@dadamowsky 3 things you have to look at that supersede any game mode and thats, there will always be meta factions and races, their will always be meta tactics, and last the most balanced thing is not always the most fun thing. with 12 factions balance it is truly impossible to balance especially when you add in the fact that some factions base strategies are just completely opposite to each other. The only way to truly make the game balanced is to make all the races homogenized to the point you may as well just be playing the same faction. Taking that into account the only real question becomes will x mode be more fun for more people or will y. Of course the best question would be why cant we have all the modes we want and segregate "ranked" for the try hards that live and die by "balance."

@imptastic
And for that exact reason - the inability of balancing so many factions to the equal performance in a single field - you need to have more winning conditions than annihilation. Or capture fir that matter. The killing power and area control have to be be paired, ideally with a third condition to worry about. Otherwise all that's left is a FoTM fleet that is statwise superior, and is roflstomping everyone. Idk how about you, but i hardly find such games "fun"

last edited by dadamowsky

@dadamowsky i hate their current iteration of MP, if were setting out to make an MP game tho the first thing i would have done was make it moddable that alone will keep the community coming back long enough to work out modes that are favorable to a melee community. but as it stands now with the amount of crew tindelos has the best you can hope for it them making a new join option for annihilation only, the other modes arnt programmed and i doubt they will have the resources to do them any time soon. Even when those resources came available i doubt they would be interested as this MP is going to go the way of the dodo pretty quick.

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