The mistake of necrons/tyranids

Well the problem with Modelling Eldar in a real time game is that on the TT they moved twice, and unless you wanted to make them TWICE as fast as everyone else you couldnt really accomplish that. And making them that fast would present a great deal of other problems.

The skill system and how some of them were vastly superior to others also dident really help. A stealth eldar fleet with pulsars with the 'if you dont see me, my pulsars magicly do more damage' upgrade were also getting really boring really fast.

From the builds that I saw (only 1) I think its fair to make the conclusion that Eldar only had 1 competitive option for tactics to begin with, which is really bad design. It allows your opponents to hard counter you and forces you to always play in the same manner as well.

With regards to the Necrons... Their anti Eldar tech was kind of a big lore thing. Will that be taken away to give Eldar players a chance or will it be kept in place to adhere to the lore. I think both options here are steps in the wrong direction honestly and I dont envy the devs who have to decide what to do here. Either way theyre gonna piss people off. And if they choose to do something thats in the middle theyre gonna piss other people off 😑 No winning here...

last edited by Demoulius

@demoulius said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

Well the problem with Modelling Eldar in a real time game is that on the TT they moved twice, and unless you wanted to make them TWICE as fast as everyone else you couldnt really accomplish that. And making them that fast would present a great deal of other problems.

As everyone else except Necrons. Necrons were the fastest without using Inertialess Drives :p

The skill system and how some of them were vastly superior to others also dident really help. A stealth eldar fleet with pulsars with the 'if you dont see me, my pulsars magicly do more damage' upgrade were also getting really boring really fast.

Honestly, I felt like the Stealth should have been dropped alltogether. It was never an aspect of TT play, it rarely comes up in lore, and it allowed the entire concept of kiting outside of a slow opponents range and slapping them with sensor jammers if they got too close.

With regards to the Necrons... Their anti Eldar tech was kind of a big lore thing. Will that be taken away to give Eldar players a chance or will it be kept in place to adhere to the lore. I think both options here are steps in the wrong direction honestly and I dont envy the devs who have to decide what to do here. Either way theyre gonna piss people off. And if they choose to do something thats in the middle theyre gonna piss other people off 😑 No winning here...

Most Necron players (including myself) i've spoken with agreed that removing the ability to ignore holofields for Necrons is the only fair and viable thing to do. It's not true to lore, but the TT rules for Necrons meant that if an Eldar player saw you pull out Necron ships they'd usually just conceed the game there and then, because they weren't fast enough to escape the Necrons, their only shield equivalent didn't protect against Necrons, and the Eldar ships armour is so piss poor 50% of all shots would be landing and wiping out a ship a turn.

Fair enough with the speed, forget about the Crons and their LUDICROUS SPEED mode 😛

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@demoulius said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

With regards to the Necrons... Their anti Eldar tech was kind of a big lore thing. Will that be taken away to give Eldar players a chance or will it be kept in place to adhere to the lore. I think both options here are steps in the wrong direction honestly and I dont envy the devs who have to decide what to do here. Either way theyre gonna piss people off. And if they choose to do something thats in the middle theyre gonna piss other people off 😑 No winning here...

Most Necron players (including myself) i've spoken with agreed that removing the ability to ignore holofields for Necrons is the only fair and viable thing to do. It's not true to lore, but the TT rules for Necrons meant that if an Eldar player saw you pull out Necron ships they'd usually just conceed the game there and then, because they weren't fast enough to escape the Necrons, their only shield equivalent didn't protect against Necrons, and the Eldar ships armour is so piss poor 50% of all shots would be landing and wiping out a ship a turn.

Essentially this. I hate it when people undersell Necrons, especially in games as that leads people to not truly understand their capabilities, but it would make playing eldar literally impossible against a necron fleet. The ships are already faster, can casually remove ordinance, have much bigger guns, are much more hardy, and have better customization, so to let them ignore shields too would be just to much. I am a firm advocate of lore>balance, but this is a game, where people are meant to have fun. I'm willing to let it slide if it means more people will be able to enjoy the game.

@caliger_reborn said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo Particularly poor balancing can make a game dull.
Always winning or losing, depending on who you play, regardless of skill very quickly gets boring.

I don't think I've actually played a game that I can recall whose balance was so bad that I couldn't enjoy it. Like I said, Total Warhammer has laughably bad balance (Vlad Von Carstein can set up ALL of his army right beside the enemy - which is on a race that is all melee). In spite of that, I've still got well over a hundred hours on the first, and I'm knocking on a hundred hours with the second. Comparatively, I've played many games with absolutely flawless balance (Planetary Annihilation) that I abandoned fairly quick, because the game plays identical every time.

In fact, I think if you look at literally everyone of the biggest RTS games, they're all asymmetrical: Starcraft, Warcraft, Command and Conquer, Supreme Commander, Dawn of War... Hell, the game BFG:A is based on is painfully imbalanced (By which I mean BFG, though 40,000 in general is also imbalanced).

I don't think balance is an issue so long as two things remain: Fun, and options. If I'm having fun, I don't particular care if a race is overpowered (Tau) or underpowered (Eldar), I'll play around that fact. The second thing is just to make sure there's options. GDI are straight up superior to Nod in C&C, but there's still enough ways to make up for that fact as a Nod player (Stealth, hit & run, focused fire) that it's fine. Not having options (Please see: Dark Eldar for many years) means that you can't make up for your shortcomings, and that can be super frustrating, I agree.

@romeo multiplayer requires people! and sorry to say most do not share your wear with all in the area of tolerating such massive imbalances and unfortunatly when those people leave the game the multiplayer starts to take a half hour then an hour then you just get the ..... meh perhaps later? to find a game which is no fun for everyone.

Imperial Beastmen Fleet when?alt text

@imptastic said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo multiplayer requires people! and sorry to say most do not share your wear with all in the area of tolerating such massive imbalances and unfortunatly when those people leave the game the multiplayer starts to take a half hour then an hour then you just get the ..... meh perhaps later? to find a game which is no fun for everyone.

You do know you massively invalidate your arguments when you claim to be representing "most".

@romeo I'm not arguing against asymmetrical balancing, I'm arguing against your prior statement that you were in favour of ignoring balance. Which is a terrible idea, I've seen it destroy games, but the only proper way to balance fun against fairness is with an asymmetric system.

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@imptastic said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo multiplayer requires people! and sorry to say most do not share your wear with all in the area of tolerating such massive imbalances and unfortunatly when those people leave the game the multiplayer starts to take a half hour then an hour then you just get the ..... meh perhaps later? to find a game which is no fun for everyone.

You do know you massively invalidate your arguments when you claim to be representing "most".

A) i never claimed to represent anyone and no where in that quote does it say i was. B.) What a petty comment that has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. C) please troll somewhere else.

last edited by imptastic

@imptastic said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@imptastic said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo multiplayer requires people! and sorry to say most do not share your wear with all in the area of tolerating such massive imbalances and unfortunatly when those people leave the game the multiplayer starts to take a half hour then an hour then you just get the ..... meh perhaps later? to find a game which is no fun for everyone.

You do know you massively invalidate your arguments when you claim to be representing "most".

A) i never claimed to represent anyone and no where in that quote does it say i was. B.) What a petty comment that has absolutely no relevance to the discussion. C) please troll somewhere else.

Yes you did when you decided to speak for most by telling someone that "most do not share your wear with all in the area of tolerating such imbalances". Did you notice you're alone in claiming these massive imbalances existed, or that we should all be terrified and prohibit the Necrons and Nids from being playable?

No. The petty comment was you claiming that "most" don't share Romeo's opinion, when, if we were to quantify the posts here as representative, most appear to agree that you're wholly in the wrong.

last edited by Kadaeux

@kadaeux his statements were about imbalances in other games so my response is not direceted at this game what will or will not happen with balance in this game is up in the air and no one knows for sure... quantifying this threads posts does nothing to determine the mindset of a general public view as MOST people never even look at the forums of games they play. What makes your comment petty, and i'll add antagonistic is its obviously directed at me personally vs and arguments i may or may not have made. It seems to be common practice for you to dominate, belittle, or take personal slights at people when responding to an opinion you dont agree with. I have never once said they should not be included in the game I have only ever said that they should not be included in sanctioned pvp and only for the reasons that i dont want them balanced out of being fun for single player, which as i will point to again the eldar for bga1.

@imptastic said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@kadaeux his statements were about imbalances in other games so my response is not direceted at this game what will or will not happen with balance in this game is up in the air and no one knows for sure... quantifying this threads posts does nothing to determine the mindset of a general public view as MOST people never even look at the forums of games they play.

Actually it does quantify it. It doesn't matter one bit if most people don't participate in the forums, because they're not the one making asinine statements.

What makes your comment petty, and i'll add antagonistic is its obviously directed at me personally vs and arguments i may or may not have made. It seems to be common practice for you to dominate, belittle, or take personal slights at people when responding to an opinion you dont agree with.

There's nothing petty about it. You tried to dismiss another posters point by speaking for "most" people. That makes your post EXTREMELY petty.

I have never once said they should not be included in the game I have only ever said that they should not be included in sanctioned pvp and only for the reasons that i dont want them balanced out of being fun for single player, which as i will point to again the eldar for bga1.

Your very first post outright says they shouldn't be included as playable races. "I really think because of their background, Necrons and Tyranids should have been 'set piece' type of ships in BFG instead of being somewhat fleshed out fleets for players to build."

And you can point to the Eldar all you want. Like I said somewhere else, the Eldar are actually the hardest faction by a country mile to balance.

To use a metaphor, it's like putting a Red Bull Air Race plane into Need For Speed, the plane simply does not perform like everyone elses ships.

The Necrons, if true to lore, should not be in game, they're insanely powerful. But there are rules that tone them down to manageable levels (Unless you play Eldar where they explicitly have rules that render your defences literally worthless). Under most circumstances they actually perform exactly like other races ships in handling, speed, firepower types.

Their only major differences being
A: A super-fancy All Ahead Full. (Where they can actually turn pretty well and go faster than any Eldar ship ever could.)
B: Use of an "invulnerable save" instead of shields.

The Tyranids are significantly less complex than the Eldar, especially from a balance perspective. But difficult in others. The ships perform as normal ships do, there is nothing overly special there. Until you factor in Synapse control. They're the only fleet with a 'top down' level of control. (A Hive Ship is required to take up to 2 Cruisers and 12 Escorts, to get 3 Cruisers would require a second Hive Ship) And maintaining proximity to the Hive Ships or losing control of them until you can get Synapse back near it.

Personally, I don't think they're going to do that. At worst I expect that lesser 'nid ships are going to cop a mild penalty if out of Synapse range. I'm also certain they're going to be faster than on tabletop, because 'nids have a chronically short range on TT.

The fact is you can point at the Eldar, and you're wrong because the Eldar were by far the most complex race on TT and it didn't translate too well into BFG:A after people whined until the Eldar got nerfed into oblivion. Your concern about the Eldar is still valid.

And I admit to feeling a bit of concern there myself. Especially since BFG2 is going to have three Eldar factions. Which if kept true to TT all handle basically the same way.

@kadaeux umm... i am not banjo john... so ya... as for who or whats petty the facts support games frequently losing there multiplayer base over massive imbalances. to state facts is not petty but being dismissive or making slights as you did is in fact petty. The fact that you seem to hold a grudge with me over stuff that someone else said that you just toss on me should be evidence enough. As for the eldar i agree to some extent, the reason i fear the nids will take the same path as the eldar is solely because like the eldar there play style is going to be outside of the "norm" meaning unless they do some major revamping to the ai the same exact problems the eldar had will come to pass again if the ai needs the extra strength to make them a challenging foe then when played by actual players they will have many ways to cheese/out perform other races. The necron concerns are totaly lore based if they did take away some of there blatent advantages especially against eldar i could see them being able to be balanced. But again i would ask just how far and how much cant they take from the necrons before the people who love the lore get upset.

last edited by imptastic

@imptastic said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@kadaeux umm... i am not banjo john... so ya...

wtf? Who are you talking about I didn't say anything about banjo john? Wait I see. Facepalm.

My bad, sorry mate.

as for who or whats petty the facts support games frequently losing there multiplayer base over massive imbalances. to state facts is not petty but being dismissive or making slights as you did is in fact petty.

To state your opinion as fact is certainly petty. Imbalance is not the only reason multiplayer games lose players.

The fact that you seem to hold a grudge with me over stuff that someone else said that you just toss on me should be evidence enough.

I don't have any grudges with anyone online anyway in person is a whole different shipping crate of heretics.

As for the eldar i agree to some extent, the reason i fear the nids will take the same path as the eldar is solely because like the eldar there play style is going to be outside of the "norm" meaning unless they do some major revamping to the ai the same exact problems the eldar had will come to pass again if the ai needs the extra strength to make them a challenging foe then when played by actual players they will have many ways to cheese/out perform other races.

The concern with Tyranids simply isn't there. Because except for the Synapse issue, they actually played the same way other races did. (In fact, the Mark of Nurgle in BFG:A had a fair replication of how Tyranid Spore 'shields' worked on the offensive side.)

I can understand how you might think otherwise if you haven't played them before. But the whole gimmick with the Tyranid Hive fleets was their synapse basically.

The necron concerns are totaly lore based if they did take away some of there blatent advantages especially against eldar i could see them being able to be balanced. But again i would ask just how far and how much cant they take from the necrons before the people who love the lore get upset.

I can't speak for the others, but taking away their anti-holofield tech but otherwise representing them the same way they were represented on tabletop would go pretty much as far as they need to. (With the same "shit is expensive yo")

With the Necrons i'm far more interested on how, or if, they're going to pad out the roster.

Hell, if we're talking about padding out the rosters, I'm more curious about the Dark Eldar and Tau Merchant Fleets. Both have me cautiously hopeful but nervous.

@romeo I think we saw a new Druhkari ship at 0:25, neither the corsair nor the torture class have bottom spike like that in any picture I could find. I naturally am waiting more eagerly for the necron fleet, I want a carrier and will complain relentlessly until I have one!

last edited by Nemesor Xanxas

@romeo said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

Hell, if we're talking about padding out the rosters, I'm more curious about the Dark Eldar and Tau Merchant Fleets. Both have me cautiously hopeful but nervous.

Well the Tau merchant fleet doesn't really need any padding out, I think they had ships covering most of the roles, plus access to the mercenaries. What I struggle with when it comes to the merchant fleet is... how they're going to make it relevant.

As for the Dark Eldar, they literally have to pad out that roster given officially it only had two ships :p

@kadaeux said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

Hell, if we're talking about padding out the rosters, I'm more curious about the Dark Eldar and Tau Merchant Fleets. Both have me cautiously hopeful but nervous.

Well the Tau merchant fleet doesn't really need any padding out, I think they had ships covering most of the roles, plus access to the mercenaries. What I struggle with when it comes to the merchant fleet is... how they're going to make it relevant.

As for the Dark Eldar, they literally have to pad out that roster given officially it only had two ships :p

I've said it before without any proof and I'll say it again without any proof (Because I'm a moron): Give the Protector fleet the "proper" T'au warships (Like the Custodian, for example) so that they're the slow snipers we all know and love. Then give all auxiliaries to the Merchant fleet. This will both give the two defined roles (The Protector fleet being vulnerable snipers, the Merchant fleet being a hodgepodge of oddball ship designs), and give the Merchant fleet a reason to exist.

As for the Dark Eldar, my concern isn't that they won't pad them out - I'm sure they will. I'm just worried they're going to feel like "spiky Eldar ships" as opposed to their own unique thing.

@nemesor-xanxas said in The mistake of necrons/tyranids:

@romeo I think we saw a new Druhkari ship at 0:25, neither the corsair nor the torture class have bottom spike like that in any picture I could find. I naturally am waiting more eagerly for the necron fleet, I want a carrier and will complain relentlessly until I have one!

See, I ain't nervous about the Necron at all. We know about that fleet already, and their "playstyle" is also super well-known (Super expensive, super powerful), so I'm sure they'll be a slam dunk for Tindalos. The Dark Eldar in comparison were basically unrepresented in BFG, so we have neither pre-existing fleets to look at, nor how they'll differentiate it from the other two Eldar factions.

@romeo Yeah, I understand. I've been kind of worried about the Necron fleet ever since they mentioned that weird thing they were doing with our drives and we same that picture of a cairn with terribad stats. The Druhkari are in a bad spot too though. They only have two ships, hell they really only have one ship because the corsair isn't exclusively theirs! I just really don't know what they would do with them. They big difference I recalled was the mimic engines, which don't work on the nids (or the crons but does that really need saying?). They basically glass cannons like the eldar, but MORE glass and MORE cannon. Their ground stuff doesn't really apply here, you can't poison a spaceship after all (except the nids), close range melee isn't a good idea either, which really just leaves them with fighters, and the eldar are already a carrier fleet. I recalled just now they had that special boarding impaler gun, so maybe a more boarding focused fleet? I don't know, though I'm sure someone will have ideas.