After the Road map?

@Jellyfoosh After the release of the Chaos campaign, can we expect to see and updated road map?

I'd suspect that has a lot to do with how well the Chaos Campaign sells. Supporting games like this requires an source of income, otherwise they'll need to move on to other projects.

Could do a sandbox campaign. Play as any faction.

New ships

New coop game modes, preferable with more than 2 players.

More overall campaign complexities.

New map objects like mine fields, or warp rifts.

A sandbox campaign would suck. If you pay attention, the campaign has many of the same missions across the factions but are tweeked for flavor etc to the point you don't notice it. that said a Ork campaign strikes me as an obvious next contender if they do another campaign. or Eldar. Tau is right out as they're not active in the eye of terror region.

I think they need to focus on the multiplayer next or else the game will be dead .

i dont see the number justifying more content on any level. a quick glance at steam charts for the game isnt promising doesnt seem like they retained as much would be hoped for i suppose this weekend will tell the full story though.

@imptastic Tindalos did a pretty good job with the expansion. There is alot of costumization for the campaign. Its too early to say that it's not looking good. If the weekend doesnt garner promising results it will just show that bfga isnt meant to be a single player game and that they should just go for multiplayer content like Observer mode etc etc. And focus on game mechanics.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

@CANNED_F3TUS thats an interesting take but i couldnt disagree more... all it shows is that the SP crowd was underwhelmed by the changes they made from bgfa 1 to bgfa 2 and that theyre not interested in purchasing more for it. or it could simply mean they have moved on, or it could mean that they arnt getting the word out well enough to the SP community. either way moving towards PVP is a bad idea for the company as they cannot monetize it. The game itself is not set up for it nor does it have the potential to be set up for it. Hyper balance would turn off the 40k fluff lovers, and is probably impossible with the amount of various factions without making them homogenized. The fact is that the only way the game could survive as a profitable venture for them is SP and they burn a lot of bridges in that regard with the concessions they already made for PvP. Its the same story over and over again for RTS and MMOs as a whole. the more you push for MP the more you destroy the SP identity of the game. I preordered the first and cant be bothered to buy the expansion simply because in the scheme of things i would rather play bgfa 1 over this. But you are right we wont know for sure till we see the steam charts for this weekend but i can assure you if tindelos doesnt like the numbers you can bet they wont be keen on pumping time and money into MP.

@imptastic you can monetize multiplayer. SC 2 is proof of that and they are making money off of the multiplayer crowd in a variety of ways. CooP game modes are insanely popular. Just imagine what amazing narrative missions could be built for single or coop players in the arcade mode.

BFGA always struck me as more of that type of game. Let's face it. BFGA 1s campaign was mediocre at best. So I know that that wasn't it's main selling point or else people would have not disappeared so fast. The persistent fleets and costumization was one of the games core flaws people were ranting over it wholesale with only the small minority loving it.

If BFGA 1 was such an amazing game for singleplayers. Than where are they? DoW 1 and 2 is another one of those games that is a popular single and multiplayer platform. And even now you have people playing compstomps alone after several years! BFGA 1 struggles to muster 32 players on a good day! Please help me out here.

BFGA 2 most recent expansion is good. It brought back costumization in a smaller format and there are alot of options. Something that players should like. We will see. Maybe the gungho 32 players that play bfga 1 might hop over.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

@CANNED_F3TUS first off its your opinion that the bgfa 1 campaign was mediocre, the depth of story offered by 2 is better i will admit but when it is marred with this gameplay it is boring and tedious, as for coop that doesnt require the balance sacrifices that PVP does so its a moot point. As for DoW 1 and DoW 2 they are fundamentally different in there scope and gameplay so its an apples to oranges argument if you want a more in depth response to that i will give it. As for the amount of player bgfa 1 is mustering currently its also what 5 years old or something like that i mean theres gonna be drop off and since its not being updated and there will be no further content for it its not hard to see why the drop off happened (side note the on june 21 the peak for bgfa 2 was 375 so comparatively its not a good argument for you.), also it was designed for SP and the MP is not appealing to that sub sect of players anyways. As for the monetization schemes that SC2 employs there are many reasons that wouldnt apply here for 1 SC 2 is one of the most balanced rts PVP games there are, blizzard controls the lore and fluff so they can make any changes they want and its only 3 factions to balance not to mention while the scene is dying it actually has an esports scene. i know you really want to make it work and i feel bad for you but this game isnt from a triple A company with triple A resources, the 40k controlled content inhibits there ability to be reactive, and at the end of the day they are like 13 people dealing with 12 factions.

@CANNED_F3TUS

WoW
The first bfg singleplayer had much bigger problems like some mission typs are just not "fair" balanced or that you are by design are meant to loose some fights, or a timer system. Thats not something many singleplayer people can put up with BUT at its core the customisation etc. saved it. And its still loved for that.

And how long do you see people play a x years old singleplay, with little replay valve?

In bfg2 the costumisation is shallow at best, the singleplay experiance is at its core better but offers very little except for somewhat story driven random battle after another (mostly). The same is true for bfg1 but again the customisation it offered made ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

I am not saying that there are hardcore mp people that like bfg or 40k in general for this.
BUT warhammer 40k is not loved because of is balanced hardcore mp scene, its because of its narrative and customisation.
Most people play together to show of there figures and army builds (costumsation) with all it has to offer (a lot more then bfg2) and not primarly because they want to win/a fair fight. And that is at its core much better done with a good singleplayer experiance.

In short the singleplayer experiance in bfg 2 is overall at its very best slightly above average at the moment with all it has to offer and thats why its failing.
Thats just not good enough especialy for a niche genre.

last edited by Kando

@Kando said in After the Road map?:

@CANNED_F3TUS

WoW
The first bfg singleplayer had much bigger problems like some mission typs are just not "fair" balanced or that you are by design are meant to loose some fights, or a timer system. Thats not something many singleplayer people can put up with BUT at its core the customisation etc. saved it. And its still loved for that.

And how long do you see people play a x years old singleplay, with little replay valve?

There are several games out there that have had support dropped and people still play it in the hundreds to this day. Especially RTS games

In bfg2 the costumisation is shallow at best, the singleplay experiance is at its core better but offers very little except for somewhat story driven random battle after another (mostly). The same is true for bfg1 but again the customisation it offered made ALL THE DIFFERENCE!

BFGA 2 costumization is to the point and rids itself of alot of redundancies. BFGA 1 system had alot of options but you were not gonna take them. That causes sever balance problems and ultimately means that the first system was not well thought out and ultimately pointless.

I would BFGA 2s system over the OG any day.

I am not saying that there are hardcore mp people that like bfg or 40k in general for this.
BUT warhammer 40k is not loved because of is balanced hardcore mp scene, its because of its narrative and customisation.

I'm all about costumisation but my options need to have a purpose. BFGA 1 doesn't even do that. It goes back to my previous point. Why have a million options when 9.999999 thousand of them are trap options.. You see?

Most people play together to show of there figures and army builds (costumsation) with all it has to offer (a lot more then bfg2) and not primarly because they want to win/a fair fight. And that is at its core much better done with a good singleplayer experiance.

You are talking about the Table Top. Even than You will have people that want narrative based play. And others that want to compete. JUST like the Table top which also have tournaments. So I dont get your point.
And if you compete. You are gonna want a fair fight. Lets be real here. If a power gamer went to your table with a faction that is brutally overpowered I will bet a left nut that you are not gonna want to play vs him cause you know what the outcome is going to be.

In short the singleplayer experiance in bfg 2 is overall at its very best slightly above average at the moment with all it has to offer and thats why its failing.
Thats just not good enough especialy for a niche genre.

You got that right. It's a niche genre. A Genre where there is a lot of competetive players. People naturally are gonna want to play against otgers cause its fun to them. Thats what the strategy scene has always been about.

Its just like I been telling imptastic catering strictly to narrative players is not gonna be the right way either. Cause its often gonna be the PvP scene that keeps the game alive in strategy and BFGA has never been a 1 or the other style game.
Their DLC shows that the game favored PvP over narrative.

@CANNED_F3TUS

There are several games out there that have had support dropped and people still play it in the hundreds to this day. Especially RTS games

So? whats your point? Do not enough people play bg1 at the moment for you? Maybe its time to replay/install and play the campaign again with all its option at least there was something deeper there.
A game does not need constantly x amount of players to be considered succesfull or even good!

BFGA 2 costumization is to the point and rids itself of alot of redundancies. BFGA 1 system had alot of options but you were not gonna take them. That causes sever balance problems and ultimately means that the first system was not well thought out and ultimately pointless.
I would BFGA 2s system over the OG any day.
I'm all about costumisation but my options need to have a purpose. BFGA 1 doesn't even do that. It goes back to my previous point. Why have a million options when 9.999999 thousand of them are trap options.. You see?

So basicaly what you are saying is "not op=trap"? To be fair there where some trap options but there was enough to have some fun, too.
I hate this mp mentality.

You are talking about the Table Top. Even than You will have people that want narrative based play. And others that want to compete. JUST like the Table top which also have tournaments. So I dont get your point.
And if you compete. You are gonna want a fair fight. Lets be real here. If a power gamer went to your table with a faction that is brutally overpowered I will bet a left nut that you are not gonna want to play vs him cause you know what the outcome is going to be.

The tt had NEVER EVER a balanced mp scene/game. So you want a reason why there was "competative" play? Because some neckbeards just want to win and even more when there is a price involved.

Even starcraft the most succesful mp rts game ever was not made to be a giant mp hit, first and formost it was made as a singleplayer game. Everything else came after.

So stripping out one big part that made the first game worth playing for better balance. Good for you! We see where this mentality is going in bfg2. Less players then the first one and a game that is AT ITS BEST as interesting as bfg1.
And that is very sad for a sequel with so much potential. Thats just not good enough.

You got that right. It's a niche genre. A Genre where there is a lot of competetive players. People naturally are gonna want to play against otgers cause its fun to them. Thats what the strategy scene has always been about.
Its just like I been telling imptastic catering strictly to narrative players is not gonna be the right way either. Cause its often gonna be the PvP scene that keeps the game alive in strategy and BFGA has never been a 1 or the other style game.

Stop running after starcraft and so one. Make a good singleplayer first and then consider its mp potential. The other way around, more often then not, does not work.

Since its all about making continues money now, something i am sure of rarly makes a game better. The chance you will see ANY good rts mp game in the near future is close to zero.
So, stop forcing another failure on the singleplayer people.

Also i wasnt just talking about the rts genre but also about the warhammer ip in general as niche.

Sure there a serious "competative" people for (almost???) EVERYTHING even funny and disgusting things. But lets be real here. If you want to make bfg even as close as succesfull/competative/loved as the original command and conquer, thats almost certainly not gone happen. Very simple.
bfg2 as it is, itself is mostly still alive because of 40k nerds and tt nostalgia.

last edited by Kando

@CANNED_F3TUS u keep bringing up years old rts games that still have a community but fail to mention the difference they have in game mechanics and modding potential. ill go down the list you gave me before and sort them out to illustrate.

  1. DoW 1 tbh i dont know much about it as i never really followed it but from what i understand it has a decent modding community and the basic tenants of build a base destroy a base game play offers the opportunity to counter things on the fly which creates dynamic game play. how that differs from this game is there is no building counters on the fly what you have is what you get and you can very well be countered out of the game before it even loads depending on what they chose, the feeling you get from this is very much akin to rng mechanics.

  2. DoW 2 its currently only alive because the community has taken over balancing for the game and they are doing things that games workshop would never allow which is changing weapon loadouts and the like for vehicles and units that they never had or damage types they dont have in fluff. beyond that once again you run into the dynamic vs static game play i argued with DoW 1.

  3. Starcraft the games numbers you see also include custom games and single players as its an online only game meaning that how healthy its competative MP community is in question from the outset, but for sake of argument we will assume its healthy. Starcraft as an ip is owned by blizzard so changing fluff for balance is possible, it also has triple A reasorces behind it which means more devs to tackle issues, and its much less to try to balance given how few factions it has in comparison. Also as argued with the two above its dynamic not static game play.

A secondary point about how bgfa 1 customization was really none existent, prehaps in MP you could make that statement but going up against the AI in any fashion every choice was viable, that said you really dont have much choices in bgfa 2 so i dont understand the argument in the first place. if you dont choose meta fleets with meta factions you are at a huge disadvantage currently much more then if you took the wrong upgrade in bgfa 1 so it all depends on how you look at the game in the first place.

last edited by imptastic

Although i love both games, i must say that i do miss the customization from BFGA 1. The customization in BFGA 1 allowed you to make many weird fleets, and kept the replay-ability of multiplayer quite high. Granted, there were a few balance issues but there was nothing that couldn't have been easily fixed. Persistent did have issues with Experienced players also having better stuff and stomping newbies, but again this could have been fixed by just giving everyone all upgrades at the start and having ship level more of a cosmetic thing. (possibly unlocking skins/colours)

BFGA 2's customization is quite sad. The game has more ships and factions to make up for this, but it is pretty boring just taking the exact same 2 skills and 2 upgrades over and over. This is partly why i dislike 1v1 in BFGA 2, it's just so damn repetitive. Same upgrade, same skills and same fleet. The upgrades in BFGA 1 allowed you to make some really weird and wacky fleet compositions work, however in BFGA 2 you usually just get smashed whenever you don't follow the meta due to the amount of ships that are on the field and the fact that you only get 2 slots for skills and upgrades, so you can't really mix Meta and off-meta skills/upgrades together create something usable. You always have to go for the Meta option.

last edited by Solaire

At last i want to say that i dont want the exact costumisation of bfg1 back, CANNED_F3TUS was at least right in the way that it had a lot of problems.

BUT basicaly removing it all together was/is the biggest miss step bfg2 could do.

@Kando agree it wasnt perfect but in a sequel you would expect it to be expanded upon not dumpstered lol

@imptastic fair enough. How do you guys feel about the expansion. And the campaign overhaul.

@CANNED_F3TUS i came back to the forums to read the patch notes and was unimpressed so i didnt buy it.

If you like the other campaigns you will like the chaos one also. Dont need to say more.

So campaign overhaul? Many of does should have been in by release for example swaping ships between fleets.
So campaign basicaly for me finaly reached alpha status.