I Feel Like a Lot of Multiplayer Balancing Issues Can be Fixed by Selecting the Fleet + Abilities After We Learn the Opponents

Total War Warhammer does this and has a much healthier online competitive scene. Although the only issue players have with Total War way of doing multiplayer is that you can also pick races based on your opponent picks, which opens up a whole pandora's box of counterpicking at the highest level of competition and most tournaments they force players to pre select their races because of this issue. My suggestion is that you lock in your race and faction before queuing for multiplayer. Once you find the opponent you get 1-2 minutes to pick a fleet/abilities based on the race you are facing. I feel this would help diversify ones fleet choice, rather than forcing everyone to find that one perfectly optimized fleet that works against all races.

I would agree with that point, if all, or at least the largest part of the ships, would be viable. But given the State of the game, there Are only a few ships per faction which are viable for higher Levels of play, so your Options to counter pick are limited anyway.

this could lead to tailoring and finding the best ships for the enemy you face, this would cut down on variety and stop a "take all comers fleet" and the end result would be either a curb stomp for new players who dont know the meta, or cookie cutter fleets.

Please God no. This is actually one of the most annoying aspects of "Ranked" for TWW and a reason why a lot of competitive players stopped playing it, choosing to sign up for online tournaments via Custom game instead.

imo best solution would be to give you two pre-made fleet builds to choose from pre-match, similar how the first game gave you a limited amount of ships to select a list from.

@formosa this is already the case. fast builds dictate the meta.

@LKHERO: tournament house rules are popular because half of the faction match-ups favor one faction clearly over the other and monster death stars and kiting builds are not very fun to play.

I think doing that will cause a lot of factions to be completely countered. Part of the fun of having all these factions is having to bring fleets are prepared to face a variety of threats. If I know I'm going against Drukhari I'll just bring a ton of fast ships and long range weapons to counter their stealth, that's not going to lead to more engaging and varied battles.

@Tigerlord40k
Couldn't agree more.

This is my steam review...

Multiplayer is flawed in design, basically forcing you to blind pick a fleet to counter 12 different factions.

Take two polar opposites as an example, Space Marines and Dark Eldar. Both of these factions play in completely differently and to deal with these factions you would need a fleet customised to specifically deal with how these factions play. Space Marines want to get in your face and board you and remove all your troops while Dark Eldar want to stay at range and shoot you from a distance while being stealthed.

So to deal with these factions specifically you would comprise your fleet with numerous ships and close range macro to deal with space marines, and long range firepower and escorts to scan to deal with Dark Eldar. This is impossible to do with the Multiplayer design because of Blind picking, and removes core RTS fundamentals, that being: build to counter your opponent.
So what you end up doing is making a very cost efficient fleet that is all around OK but will be impossible to win some games because your fleet is not tailored correctly.

Hello folks,

We have received quite an amount of feedbacks regarding the multiplayer pre-engagement selection of ships, skills and/or upgrades and we feel this could be a step in the right direction indeed.
We will work on a feature to offer you choices before the battle begins but it will probably requires some weeks to develop.
We would probably inform the community through an update when this feature is ready.

Thank you all for your comments!

Please reconsider if possible. @Blexus-Falconer

For instance, Eldar could always face 6x Slaughters, or Slaanesh Slaughters that will simply catch them and rip to shreds.

They should choose a middle ground imo. Allow some customization during the intro phase when you're positioning your ships. Maybe just the admiral skills and passive upgrades. Or maybe allow swapping a couple of ships/number of points. I think all kinds of balance problems will come up if you get to create everything once you know your opponent. Right now, blind picking means you do sometimes roll into a less than optimal match, but 5-10 minutes later you're in a new one where it favors you - it tends to balance out.

Pre selecting fleets makes the game less in depth, and it will cause certain fleets to be pointless. IMO. Why does this team take feedback like this and run with it, when, you have to fix simple issues first with the game, for example, allowing access to all the skills at level 1 of MP. You guys do realize how much of a determent it is to noobies playing, when they get their battleship wiped without it getting even into combat because they had no access to a MWD. Then you make major changes to the meta. Your game is fine except for some really tiny issue that get exasperated by small "features" that are not good game design implemented with a player pool of less thank 8k a day. Please do not actually change this feature. Please focus your efforts on Multiplayer Match making system and skills. Which making this game suffer the same problem that BFG 1 had and eventually killed the game, its not fun when your bronze player ( no matter how big of a win streak they are on) faces off with a fully unlocked lvl 10 epic player. I've fought people that should of won vs me if they just had the skills to choose from. Your game will die not because you cant pre pick fleets, but your match making is terrible, and your leveling up skills in multiplayer do not work in BFG 1 or this game. If you are trying to be true to the TT version, neither have this weird skill restriction when playing an opponent. If your trying to make a good PC game, its a crap mechanic, and a terrible match making system.

last edited by wind459

@Lothair88,

We will exhaustively discuss the subject with the game designers team but to reassure you, the idea behind is not to allow players to fully change their fleet against their opponents.
We will try to find a middle ground between a full fleet change and no change at all, as @Ekko_Tek suggests it.

last edited by Blexus Falconer

Like having reserves? A 'bench' for spaceships, with alternates to your main lineup you can swap in?

That would be cool. Especially if allied factions could take reserves of each other's lists like the tabletop

@wind459 I'm sorry but how does choosing the same 'optimised fleet' every single game create depth, as opposed to actually thinking with regards to your knowledge of what the opponents faction can bring, and what your faction can bring. Where you then create a fleet?

Currently when I play Imperium and Chaos ( around Mid Epic 1v1 around 40 games played), I literally take nothing but 6 crusiers with Macro guns and 3-4 escorts. Because their is simply no reason not to. Everything else I could take would be better in some situations and worse in others. So you just take an all around fleet like crusiers (every single game) .... The system is totally shallow.

last edited by Nin6

That's great to hear.

@Blexus-Falconer one more question though if I may:

LKHERO has highlighted in his video some of the current strong META builds that we come across in our games. Most of the fleets feature a strong Spam o multiple same type LCs or Cs. Some of those builds are extremely hard to counter.
Are you considering any form of Force Organisation Charts or do you find them unnecessary?

You can see the video here: 2 hours 2 minutes in:

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/371102370

Examples:

  • 12 Bashas. 19'200HP in total, not counting shields.
  • Avenger + around 10 stealthed Dauntlesses
  • SM Vanguard (Boarding torps + Launch Bays) spam

Thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

last edited by Lothair88

@lothair88,

Are you considering any form of Force Organisation Charts or do you find them unnecessary?

We are investigating different ways for players to diversify their fleets but this an early thought for the moment. Our main objective was to give enough freedom to players to create their own fleets and for the moment we'll stick to this line. Let's see if people change a bit their rosters with the upcoming patches and hotfixes 🙂

Thanks!

We shall support!

BTW love the Campaign, you have really skilled Zbrush scultpors and fantastic cutscene artists!

@nin6 I have relativly the same exp as you epic teir IN/SM, and I would say at min 40 games, might be more, been playing non stop MP for 3 or 4 days (im currently I have experimented with macro cannon fleets, carrier fleets, torp lance boat mix, LC spam, its all viable in todays meta. What your doing is deciding to play the sledge hammer cause you like the sledge hammer. I prefer torp/lance boat strats, I didn't think they were viable until 2 days ago when I went on a win streak with them vs all races, and had a lot better time vs DE than when I brought the sledge squad. So your statement is right, everything could take would be better in some situations and worse in others, but your wrong for excluding your gunline from that list, cause guess what pal, it still is better in some situations than others. I LOVE the fact you have to think and learn about other races before making a fleet, and you can't just build a cheese spam list, tell me , why would you ever not go Dauntless/escort spam vs Eldar, if you had the choice?Why would I not bring a lance setup with a bunch of widowmakers to a Nyd fight? Having the advantage of picking your fleet tailored to a race will cause more cheese and less variety, in my eyes.

It's going to be hard to balance 12 factions and the ships whatever you do but this should be the main focus as easier than coding as the community can do the former whilst the latter needs tindalos employees to do the second (without mods) and they need to stop being too ambitious and sort the bugs first. Any additional campaigns should be paid DLC.

Weirdly, I rarely play singleplayer games but I get more fun out of singleplayer BFGA than multiplayer and haven't touched the multiplayer side of the game since full release but this is because single player is great.

Whenever you get a game without the traditional RTS economy behind it so a player can 'react' to what he is facing - so games with premade navies/armies (BFGA/TWW) you are always going to get players who suck all joy out of the game by looking for exploitative builds due to some unfathomable desire to be the 'best'. I think however the way to solve it can't now be implemented - a lobby system like in Age of King's with rankings on, the picking of civs and players greater than 2v2 so 3v3/4v4. This should be in BFGA 3.

last edited by Mystic_Taboo

I'd say go middle gound, ish.
Before matchup you must select only your Flagship and skill/specials, matchmaking occurs, you see your opponent and the flagship call other ships to fill the blanks so there is some point investment.
Or even better, some kind of Core battlegroup + reinforcements. Let's say you have X pts to select the ships you want and before battle starts you get to complement the ships you have with another Y number of points after you see your opponent.
Way I see it, cheesing is unavoidable and I for one find eccentric fleets entertaining.

And as others have said, 12 factions are hard to balance asymmetrically. As long as you play the race's strengths properly, fun can still be had.
Just accept that some factions fare poorly in certain situations and try not to get to get hung just because of this. The game is not it's final form and will continue to evolve. Today's underdogs maybe tomorrows no 1.