How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?

@romeo said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

I disagree with this assessment so much.

Yeah, the air units in Soulstorm suck - the engine wasn't meant for them, and they worked with what they had. And yes, the Eldar are hilariously overpowered (It's the opposite of BFG:A), and the Sisters of Battle had a funny exploit. But the first Dawn of War got progressively better with each release, and as a singleplayer, Soulstorm was phenomenal. A fun, deep RTS that hits all but one of the main 40K races? Awesome.

Hell, throw a little Ultimate Apocalypse on there and the game really becomes something amazing.

I was also speaking specifically of single player. The Dark Eldar and Sisters were fun, but the Campaign was to be blunt almost bad. The Strongholds completely lacked the enjoyability of Dark Crusades. The filler missions were plagued with pathing issues and AI inability to use most of the new stuff properly.

Like I said, it was the weakest DoW game. I didn't say it was terrible or bad. (It was still stronger than Retribution's copy-paste campaign, and far better than the abortion that is DoW3)

@nemesor-xanxas said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@kadaeux It became fairly popular, but that's only because a certain saint made a god-tier mod for it.

I didn't say unpopular, just weakest of the DoW1 games. And mods don't count, there are numerous games that were shite that mods saved. And some games that had been given unnatural longevity due to mods. For example, the original doom games πŸ˜‰

@kadaeux said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@romeo said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

I disagree with this assessment so much.

Yeah, the air units in Soulstorm suck - the engine wasn't meant for them, and they worked with what they had. And yes, the Eldar are hilariously overpowered (It's the opposite of BFG:A), and the Sisters of Battle had a funny exploit. But the first Dawn of War got progressively better with each release, and as a singleplayer, Soulstorm was phenomenal. A fun, deep RTS that hits all but one of the main 40K races? Awesome.

Hell, throw a little Ultimate Apocalypse on there and the game really becomes something amazing.

I was also speaking specifically of single player. The Dark Eldar and Sisters were fun, but the Campaign was to be blunt almost bad. The Strongholds completely lacked the enjoyability of Dark Crusades. The filler missions were plagued with pathing issues and AI inability to use most of the new stuff properly.

Like I said, it was the weakest DoW game. I didn't say it was terrible or bad. (It was still stronger than Retribution's copy-paste campaign, and far better than the abortion that is DoW3)

@nemesor-xanxas said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@kadaeux It became fairly popular, but that's only because a certain saint made a god-tier mod for it.

I didn't say unpopular, just weakest of the DoW1 games. And mods don't count, there are numerous games that were shite that mods saved. And some games that had been given unnatural longevity due to mods. For example, the original doom games πŸ˜‰

Yeah, the characters were, while meme worthy, weak, and lacked the banter that made DC truly great in my opinion. FFS I still remember how that necron lord sounded like he had something shoved down his (non existent) throat. I hated not only the eldar overpoweredness, but the fun little "find the last webway gate" minigame that persists in UA and turn 10 minute matches into 3 hour ones.

@imptastic said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@demoulius i think his point is a full fleet of upgraded ships is not worth the same fleet not upgraded but containing more stock ships. I.e. a fleet containing upgraded cruiser and battle ship would not be worth a fleet of non upgraded light cruiser, cruiser, and a battleship. the extra set of torps/boarding parties alone would be enough to offset the upgrades not to mention the ability to move the ship to split the dps of the other fleet or hell just use it to ram.

Vs ships that ignored armour at close range? Vs ships that could stealth pretty much the entire game? Vs ships that can turn their shields invunerable for a limited time and/or regain them very quickly?Vs ships that had bombs vs ships that dident? Vs ships that gained boarding torpedoes or thunderhawks over their unupgraded counterparts?

Give me an unpgraded fleet any day of the week. It adds so much more flavour, options and utility to your ships. I dont care if im outnumbered if I can play my fleet to the strengths that ive tailored them for.

@romeo DoW 1 hit its peak with either winter assault or dark Crusade. Both excellent but very different experiences with the best campaign experiences in the entire DoW series. Soulstorm was deeply disappointing by comparison.

The additions they made were not up to par with dark Crusade (the units were terrible), the campaign lacked a lot of the story driven elements that made the previous games amazing, the larger campaign map and more factions made the campaign much slower and grinder than previous campaigns. In DC you were always advancing, fighting new opponents all the time and the conquest map worked, but in SS the optimal thing to do a lot of the time was sit on your ass waiting or move the really tedious one square every turn until you eventually get to fight something.

Soulstorm is one the worst DoWs that got released in hindsite, it’s between it and DoWII Retribution for worst DoW game (there is no third game, it does not exist, to think otherwise is heresy).

@caliger_reborn said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@romeo DoW 1 hit its peak with either winter assault or dark Crusade. Both excellent but very different experiences with the best campaign experiences in the entire DoW series. Soulstorm was deeply disappointing by comparison.

The additions they made were not up to par with dark Crusade (the units were terrible), the campaign lacked a lot of the story driven elements that made the previous games amazing, the larger campaign map and more factions made the campaign much slower and grinder than previous campaigns. In DC you were always advancing, fighting new opponents all the time and the conquest map worked, but in SS the optimal thing to do a lot of the time was sit on your ass waiting or move the really tedious one square every turn until you eventually get to fight something.

Soulstorm is one the worst DoWs that got released in hindsite, it’s between it and DoWII Retribution for worst DoW game (there is no third game, it does not exist, to think otherwise is heresy).

Retribution is a super-odd duck, in that the campaign wasn't inherently terrible. Until you picked a second race to do a playthrough with, and discovered that the only difference in the whole game is who you kill off in that first mission.

What I 'discovered' however is that it actually taught us a very important lesson. Retribution and Soulstorm were both severely lacking in the campaign departments. Trying to appease everyone just lead to disappointing everyone. Dark Crusade was a masterpiece for somehow pulling an interesting campaign out of a hat by having engaging characters and fun strongholds. Winter Assault was brilliantly done piece of telling a four-sided story that all came together without feeling overly forced.

@kadaeux I am nervous about the increase in factions for BFG, for fear that it will do to BFG:A what it did for Soulstorm and the DoW series, but some of there other promises (bigger fleets, conquest map, more MP balance focus ect) give me hope it will work out fine in the end.

Also I really want to see all the original BFG factions realised in the Video game format, I just don't have the heart to suggest cutting any factions.

@caliger_reborn said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@kadaeux I am nervous about the increase in factions for BFG, for fear that it will do to BFG:A what it did for Soulstorm and the DoW series, but some of there other promises (bigger fleets, conquest map, more MP balance focus ect) give me hope it will work out fine in the end.

Also I really want to see all the original BFG factions realised in the Video game format, I just don't have the heart to suggest cutting any factions.

It's a mild concern for me, less so with the Imperium (it's theoretically easy to just bind the campaigns for all three subfactions under one umbrella) but more with the Eldar. They were a source of problems in Armada 1 that were never really resolved to anyones apparent satisfaction, yet now they're going to include all three flavours? But like you, the idea of larger fleets, multiple campaigns, conquest maps etc make me a pretty optimistic, and like i've said in multiple threads, Eldar are by far the hardest of all the factions to get right mechanically.

The rest all work on basically the same groundwork. (And the Dark Eldar, after re-reading their BFG rules, sort-of bridge the gap.)

And of course balancing. Like the whole Necrons ignore holofields completely part :p

@demoulius i am sure there is some optimal lvl that would be the best to take advantage of the differences and also a lvl 1 ship has access to said bombs and other use abilities. If you are also talking about fully upgraded, favored, lvl 10 ships the variation would probably also be higher in the amount of extra ships the lowbie got. I do accept the arguments that the micro management of the the lowbie fleet would be its downfall but i dont accept that it would be a hands down you just got owned fest by the upgraded fleet unless the skill difference was also a factor. I.e. ashardlion would probably put up a good fight against solair either way. (if im remembering them as being in the top for the pvp tournament.) another note in my example i was also refering to ships of the same faction if that didnt come across. The difference between the values set for all the difference ships in factions would make the results less static.

Dont forget that as ships level up they gain crew experience to. And any lvl 1 fleet is very unlikely to have any of the renown upgrades either.

Upgrades can give a huge and massive boost to effeciency. Take the dominator as an example. Even just 1 upgrade that lets him ignore armor when upclose can present a massive boon. Mind you it doesent take long to get to lvl 2 to reach that upgrade (just 1 game I think?) but still.

Lets compare a Dominator with 5 upgrades to one that doesent. The upgraded one can have his batteries ignore armor (or rather always count it as 25) when up close (and honestly these ships WANT to be up close), have bigger shields and have the shields sometimes ignore incoming shots, and well...lets give him something else really. Doesent matter at that point. I think the point comes across. Give him the space marine upgrade so hes also pretty good at boarding and the unupgraded Dominator is lucky if he can bring the upgraded one down to 50% hp before he bites the bucket. I think its unlikely that he even manages that.

The difference in points in BFGA isent enough to make up the difference. Not even in the slightest. How much more points do you get when rank 1 vs rank 8. A few hundred points? When you can only bring light cruisers and escorts with no upgrades against fully kitted out fleets the game can be quite a struggle.... Specially given how weak and disposable escorts are in BFGA. Theyre simply not a threat.

However if those upgrades costs points though (and they dont even have to cost a whole lot..) and make the ship effectivly more expensive because you are paying for that edge, its a much more fair fight.

@demoulius my example was flawed as a lvl one would not be able to field a fleet that consists of battle ships or cruisers so really this is academic. so if we were to follow the lvl one premise the upgraded fleet would not be able to field an upgraded anything but a light cruiser and the unupgraded would have a 2 or more depending on the points differences. also you start out with a small pool renown which is enough to buy the use abilities on at least 2 light cruisers. if were were talking the fleets from you example we would have to assume the opponant is around the admiral lvl it would take to field a dominator themselves. the whole point of the argument in the first place is a progression multiplayer could not work based on these types of arguments either you have the situation we have now where upgraded blows them away or you have a point system that makes it better for the lowbies because they have more ships. one makes progressing not fun and drives players away the other makes progressing limiting and making player not want to progress at all both destroy the notion that a progression system is good for multiplayer. As for the disparity in points you point out the upgrades currently have no value and it would be impossible to define the difference in this setting without implementation and testing. every upgrade has a work around and tactics would change depending on how the fleets lined up for a meta so saying how upgrade A or upgrade B would be the decider is a hard sell

I think were both agreeing here that the higher lvl ship has a huge advantage here. Assigning each upgrade a point costs and tweaking the abilities with a higher point cost would be a form of balancing them while still allowing them as an option; without throwing the upgrade system out of the window completely.

I like the upgrade system personally and the progression system (to a degree) but it has its flaws. If you are facing someone at your own level of progression its obviously alot more fun. I would really be bummed out if they only allowed admiral ships an upgrade or two and kept everyone else basic.

In the TT campaigns you could get upgrades on all ships that survived enough battles and it gave some alot of flavour. They did get a 10% point increase and you could only request so many refits per match but it added alot of flavour. Only drawback was that you dident always get the upgrade you wanted. But that was TT, where everything was decided with dice πŸ˜‰

So long as all available upgrades are good and there are no 'auto-picks' then I dont see why having options is a bad thing. Balancing everything out though is where the real issue lies. And with 12 factions balancing everything is going to be tough...

@demoulius OR just give everyone all upgrades. Pretty easy fix right there lol.

@caliger_reborn

See, like I said, I cannot possibly imagine why.

I have all the stuff I had in the previous three releases, plus more units for them, plus two extra races. There's a most mods use it as the base, not Dark Crusade (And especially not Winter Assault).

Speaking of, Winter Assault was the weakest release by a country mile for me. Linear campaign, only one race added in and no particular gameplay changes? Dark Crusade might have turned the game in to "Dawn of Eldar", but at least it changed things. To me it's Dark Crusade > Soulstorm > Winter Assault. And nowadays, I play Soulstorm exclusively, it's the most complete version of the game.

@solaire said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@demoulius OR just give everyone all upgrades. Pretty easy fix right there lol.

In that case they cease to be upgrades and become standard gear πŸ˜›

I think that each faction should be abit different and their upgrades could easily play a role in that.

So long as theyre not breaking the balance and are actually contributing to the overall gameplay then theyre a good addition.

@romeo This is completely disregarding mods, because I didn't use any when I first played DoW, so Soulstorm is by far the weakest. With UA you could say its the best, but I always personally preferred FoK for DC since it was smaller scale so each unit mattered more and had a wider range of application, while UA usually just boils down to who gets the BFGs out first. Which is fun at first, but gets stale for me after about an hour at most.

Soulstorm was weaker for a few reasons which all stemmed from the game being too ambitious.
The campaigns where slow and grindy (and the campaign is the bread and butter of DoW, at least for me) it was often the most optimal thing to sit still and collect resources rather than push for new territory... which is tedious and boring. The increase of factions and significantly larger campaign map made moving around and conquering strongholds in the later stages of the campaign a mind-numbing chore. Especially since almost all the banter and most of the character was taken out of the stronghold battles, which I again pin on over-bloated and ambitious content additions. There were more repeats and filler battles as a direct result also.

Outside of campaign the new air units were terrible, and suffered from pathing issues at launch. Pathing issues and bugs in general were pretty awful in SS, more so than I ever remember in DC, I even had several campaigns were I had to start over due to game crashes (I'm sure I don't need to explain why that is frustrating, especially when I'm already frustrated by the pace of the campaigns). And there were many complaints about Chaos and Eldar being OP among my friends, but I never really bought into the balance too much since I was invested in the PVE content.

DC by comparison did everything SS got wrong, the campaign was fast, but not so fast it felt unfulfilling, with what I feel a perfect mix of unique battle modes and compelling strongholds to keep the campaign from going stale. I still go back to revisit Dark Crusades Campaign, something I have not done for SS in years.

WA is a totally different beast, but I still play it even now because the atmosphere in that game blew me away. I have not come across another game that captured the heart and soul of 40K quite like WA did. The bleak snow and grey Gothic city-scapes were the perfect backdrop for the rivers of blood as waves upon waves of guardsmen charged well armed and entrenched Chaos Space Marines. Perfect portrayal of the guard. The Eldar are sneaky and never give straight answers, all their missions being primarily stealth or hit-and-run based, perfect timing and management of finite resources being key to victory. The Orks were this massive mob of units lead by Gazguk, who was the coolest character ever when I first saw him, and the Chaos were just insane. It all came together to be a masterpiece that is burned into my memory as the best 40K game I ever played, only really DC kind of ecpliced it, because it gave me something totally new and unexpected that I greatly enjoyed.

TL;DR More doesn't equal better, DC and WA were vastly superior games for what they gave to you.

last edited by CALiGeR_Reborn

All that being said, I dont think SS is a bad game. I just think Its a good game, on par with DoW Retribution and BFG:A 1.
But the DoW games that came after and before it (with the exception of of DoWII Retribution) were vastly superior and exceptional games that pretty much continue to set the bar for 40K games now, and nothing yet has reached that DC/WA peak for me.

DoWIII does not exist, anyone who belives otherwise, please report to your local Adeptus Arbities Enforcement Centre for reconditioning.

@caliger_reborn said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:
DoWIII does not exist, anyone who belives otherwise, please report to your local Adeptus Arbities Enforcement Centre for reconditioning.
What doesent excist? πŸ˜›

I loved DoW II multiplayer while it lasted, it was a damn shame it suffered a premature death 😞 people were complaining that it lacked basebuilding but I never missed it. The tense action of keeping an eye on your opponent, countering their pushes, doing pushes of your own, keeping ahead in the resource race and keeping up with your tech level already made for very amazing gameplay.

Elements like directional cover, supression and individual squad abilities really made the combat in this game amazing to me πŸ™‚ Specially when coupled with the elements of the rest of the game.

@demoulius DoWII took some warming up to, since I didn’t at first recognise it as a DoW game, but I got over that initial distaste after playing the campaign and a bit of the MP.

MP was a lot like CoH, which I love as it remains the game with the highest hours played on my PC, and single player... while very different, I grew to love it in the end thanks to it dripping with narrative story telling.

@caliger_reborn said in How to get multiplayer right in BFGA 2?:

@romeo This is completely disregarding mods, because I didn't use any when I first played DoW, so Soulstorm is by far the weakest. With UA you could say its the best, but I always personally preferred FoK for DC since it was smaller scale so each unit mattered more and had a wider range of application, while UA usually just boils down to who gets the BFGs out first. Which is fun at first, but gets stale for me after about an hour at most.

Soulstorm was weaker for a few reasons which all stemmed from the game being too ambitious.
The campaigns where slow and grindy (and the campaign is the bread and butter of DoW, at least for me) it was often the most optimal thing to sit still and collect resources rather than push for new territory... which is tedious and boring. The increase of factions and significantly larger campaign map made moving around and conquering strongholds in the later stages of the campaign a mind-numbing chore. Especially since almost all the banter and most of the character was taken out of the stronghold battles, which I again pin on over-bloated and ambitious content additions. There were more repeats and filler battles as a direct result also.

Outside of campaign the new air units were terrible, and suffered from pathing issues at launch. Pathing issues and bugs in general were pretty awful in SS, more so than I ever remember in DC, I even had several campaigns were I had to start over due to game crashes (I'm sure I don't need to explain why that is frustrating, especially when I'm already frustrated by the pace of the campaigns). And there were many complaints about Chaos and Eldar being OP among my friends, but I never really bought into the balance too much since I was invested in the PVE content.

DC by comparison did everything SS got wrong, the campaign was fast, but not so fast it felt unfulfilling, with what I feel a perfect mix of unique battle modes and compelling strongholds to keep the campaign from going stale. I still go back to revisit Dark Crusades Campaign, something I have not done for SS in years.

WA is a totally different beast, but I still play it even now because the atmosphere in that game blew me away. I have not come across another game that captured the heart and soul of 40K quite like WA did. The bleak snow and grey Gothic city-scapes were the perfect backdrop for the rivers of blood as waves upon waves of guardsmen charged well armed and entrenched Chaos Space Marines. Perfect portrayal of the guard. The Eldar are sneaky and never give straight answers, all their missions being primarily stealth or hit-and-run based, perfect timing and management of finite resources being key to victory. The Orks were this massive mob of units lead by Gazguk, who was the coolest character ever when I first saw him, and the Chaos were just insane. It all came together to be a masterpiece that is burned into my memory as the best 40K game I ever played, only really DC kind of ecpliced it, because it gave me something totally new and unexpected that I greatly enjoyed.

TL;DR More doesn't equal better, DC and WA were vastly superior games for what they gave to you.

One crash I found 100% most annoying and persistent with Soulstorm was that it'd crash to desktop 100% of the time when trying to do the Eldar Stronghold.

No exceptions.

@kadaeux That's not a bug its a feature.