For all I know the total number of players possible in a single match of Battlefleet Gothic Armada 2 currently in Alpha Development may already be locked in from a development point of view. However here is your chance to let Focus Interactive know what you feel is the perfect number of players you would like to see able to play together in a single Battle and what would truly make Battlefleet Gothic a great multiplayer space ship combat game that would increase replayability and increase the longevity of this release. Vote now! Feel free to use this thread to discuss the pros and cons of larger player numbers in a match.
So an update is due on the status of the Player opinion poll regarding player numbers that the players would like to see in the upcoming Battlefleet gothic Armada 2 game.
We have had 57 player votes on this subject and an overwhelming amount of players feel that 8 players is what they would like the game to support.
As the poll stands as of the timing of this post only 7 (!) polled thought they wanted to have only 2v2 battles the same as what the original game offered. That is a marginal 12% of the vote.
Of those who voted for 8 players in 'Any number and in any freely chosen team combination up to a maximum of 8 (eg 2v2v2v2, 3v3v2 etc)' there were 25 votes (44% of the vote) together with those who wanted just 4v4 team battles which accounted for another 9 votes ( an additional 16% of the vote). When added together we see that 60% of those who voted wanted a 4v4 team game in some form.
16 votes (28% of the vote) went to those who wanted BFG A 2 to be a 3v3 team game
Results can be seen here at this link: https://www.strawpoll.me/15706244/r
The poll is still open for players that still want to voice an opinion.
Seeing as player numbers have yet to be revealed by Focus Interactive we have yet to see if BFG: A2 will be a 'proper' (my opinon of course ; p ) multiplayer game.
8 for 2v2 now
you do realize that 4v4 is just a dream that would leave you sad and searching for a match for days
2v2 barely worked, needing a lot of organizing to ever get a match
but i dont care as long as they have a "any" search function
get me in a match thats as big as possible, but just get me in a 1v1 match if thats all there is
@orkan 8 Players would be very hard to balance, and would take quite a while to find a match. At the very most 3v3 might be doable, and that's pushing it.
I mean, I feel like the former doesn't matter much anyways. If you're going for an 8 player match you're probably not focused on a super-competitive match (Too many variables).
The latter point though is a colossal concern for the multiplayer crowd. The online community on the first game was apparently very small, according to the forums, and finding a match was difficult. Now double that required minimum, and you'd be waiting forever for a match.
I really think that online public user group matchmaking especially ranked can stay at 2v2 for all I care. this isn't about balance or queue times but about people getting together with their friends into custom matches and setting up the game to play how they like like in so many other multiplayer games, look at Dawn of War series, Starcraft, Total War, Supreme Commander etc this survey was always about gauging player interest in those features so that the game would have a long lifespan. After all support a good number of players and you will have even a small playerbase playing over and over as a main game. competetive ranked can stay as 2v2 but give the players the OPTION to play with more players and you have a much more long lasting game apealing to a wider demographic. THAT's what this survey was about, to show Focus Interactive that players actually want MORE players than they have accomodated in the past.
2 v 2 is realistic
3 v 3 is possible
4 v 4 is just nuts....
I know the community loves their big battles but we gotta be real here. 4 v 4 is just straight full retard and i doubt it will hardly get played and even if it pops u. It will be riddled with horrible performance issues and balance will be straight poop. But that can be said about every RTS game with 4 v 4.
The way I see it its about giving players options. For those concerned about balance (which would be most problematic i'd imagine in a straight 2v2 if all players had different factions) this would only double player numbers and any game mode featuring 4v4 could easily have balancing limitations if ever the Devs wanted it to be competetive, which it wouldn't necessarily need to be.
Imagine a 1500 point battle for each team. The more players the less ships each player controls, it would work great.
If balance wouldn't work with each player choosing a different faction they could limit each team to have max two factions per team so players on team a would take say two Imperial Navy players and Two Tau, whatever. Games are always about what limitations make the game fair but fun.
They could limit factions to play together with an 'allied faction only' they would do whatever they had to do but I really don't believe all these excuses that state that more players in a game would make a mess, unbalance the game or whatever else has been said. To me its simply a software netcode issue. Will the game perform well with extra players? If it does, patch them in, if only as a custom battle option, the players have already shown they are hungry for this. An additional 30 odd people have voted on the poll and the possibility of 8 players in a battle is the overwhelming number of players that people would like to have available. You can't argue with that.
Look at the concept of Total War Arena, the concept must have blown some peoples minds when it was announced [''ok so we'll have 10 players versus 10 players all in the same match on two teams (20 players total) and each player will only control 3 units'']. Traditional RTS heads must have went ''but muh units!'', in fact this game is now blowing up and looks to be a great success.
Innovation and pushing the boundaries of gaming is where we should be going.
I'm not asking for BFG: A2 the MMO, I'm just asking for standard 4v4 player support as per any standard Real time Tactics game, look at the Homeworld series, that did fine with 8 players playability wise (although admittedly even with just their 4 factions there were balance issues at launch).
Tindalos bought the IP faction licenses (GW supposedly sells each faction license for a around Million (unspecified currency here) according to a Behaviour Dev source from Eternal Crusade so for 12 factions that is an INCREDIBLE amount of money just to have them in the game. It is up to Tindalos to get those stats, eg damage and health values right and they have taken a lot on board but believe me, its the number of factions and all their assymetrical balance values NOT player numbers that will prove difficult to balance here.
@kadaeux Because it's a confirmed mode lmao
Pay attention to the ops actual question. Which was "However here is your chance to let Focus Interactive know what you feel is the perfect number of players you would like to see able to play together in a single Battle and what would truly make Battlefleet Gothic a great multiplayer space ship combat game that would increase replayability and increase the longevity of this release."
And my vote isn't there. AKA: 1v1.
It doesn't matter if it's confirmed, that's not the question the Op asked.
Hell, if we could vote for no multiplayer i'd vote for that. Then Tindalos wouldn't have excuses to nerf the shit out of everything until fleets are just swinging at each other with nerf bats just because a few loud snowflakes couldn't handle how certain factions played.