Last Online
Recent Posts
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic you cant have 2 seperate games in one game. The work load would be unreal in regards to balancing factions on PVE and PVP. And i dont see an easy necron campaign being enjoyable either.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic imo the bad press was rediculous and for the most part nothing more than parroting retardation. But i would agree that DoW 3 is not perfect.

Im not detracting the importance of single player here. I want BFGA to have the best of both worlds. Thats all im trying to say.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@canned_f3tus last stand would fall in the mod catagory it has nothing to do with standard melee PvP. If it were in the battle net servers it would fall squarely under custom games.

I know last stand is a coop game mode
Still a multiplayer feature. Something you seem to not care about.

DoW 3 failed because it was designed to be a moba... which is an MP build. The story was bland and the combat was wonky due to said moba design and that drove the SP crowd to hard pass and it failed.

LoL. Im gonna have to stop you at this point. DoW 3 is an RTS. It has its moba influences just like DoW 2. TBF thats where they came from! But it is an RTS more so than DoW 2.

Most people that claim DoW 3 is a moba dont even know what a moba is or dont even know how it plays.

Single players made a hard pass on DoW 3 true. Not because the story was bland but because the camp is split about how the campaign should have been. There were people that enjoyed liniar campaigns ie DoW 1 and WA. Or the ones that liked DC and SS more. Hence why i mentioned that brand managment was relics weakness.

There are far more factors that contribute to dow 3s failure not just SP. Most of them are not even because of the game itself.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@canned_f3tus dow 3 was a massive failure commercially because they went full pvp. CoH is far less niche than 40k and its also not naval combat same with DoW its not naval combat.

You are wrong about DoW 3. DoW 3 was a commercial failure not because of pvp. It was the poor brand managment that caused the DoW ip to tank ultimatly. Because guess why DoW 2 is still being played. Last stand and PVP.

This game is catering to the WH 40k community. Its already niche. But there is a decent crowd of PVPers in there. And there is always new blood to add to the mix. I know tye market is niche. But saying that it can only survive based entirely on SP is stretchin to hard imo.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Singleplayer and multiplayer are both important i cant stress this enough. But according to you guys there can only be 1 or the other and that i disagree with.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more


Devs get payed for delivering good games..... Its not like tyese guys are workinh for free.

Mods don't make games good. Replayability is based entirely on how the devs designed the game. Strategy games have alot of replayability. PVP has replayability as long as they do a good job on mechanics and options. Which they got for this game

And you are right Strategy games are niche games. But that doesnt mean that a community cant grow from it. Competetive strategy games in todays time say hello. There are not many but they are still here.

Id disagree about your assumptions over pvp players not wanting to buy games or stick around to support games. Just look at DoW, CoH

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@romeo what about the friggen faction campaigns. We have next to 0 information on how thats going to be and where its going to go. Thats why i dont get the whole. "Oh they just want to focus on pvp" for all we know The campaigns will play similiarly to. DoW DC and SS. With alot more depth. We can only speculate. Yeah fleet costumisation may be stream lined but that does NOT mean they dont give a rats ass over single player content.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic said in Faction aesthetics and customization:


  1. Doesnt matter if pvp players stick around if they dont get money for it.

LMFAO. I play pvp. Guess what i dont play for money! Im just going to assume this is an argument you based off of the Esports stereo type. Well sorry man but your point holds no water. PVPers play for the challenge not the money primarily.

  1. With the variables balance will never happen which will drive players away.

What you fail to understand is that the PvP community will stick with a good game and continue to support it even if the balance is not perfect. We know this better than anybody that balance is never perfect. PvP players are not as shallow as you are trying to make them out to be

  1. When the game gets highly repetative as take and hold will it will drive players away.

This is entirely up to the devs not the pvp community. But i dont see this happening.

  1. just because SP stop playing when they run out of content doesnt mean they wont come back as soon as there is more content especially if they really enjoyed first said content drop.

Same can be said for the PVP crowd. You see. We are not so different. Constant support is KEY.

  1. Casual players will leave this kind of PvP early anyways due to the micro/macro gameplay demands.

You mean non strategy players will leave early.
BFGA plays alot slower than the first BFGA.
If the macro and micro is to demanding for someone. RTS and RTT games is just not their thing and they should stick with other games.
Not a good point imo.

  1. The player pool for PvP in a game like this starts off really small because the title itself is niche.

And? It grows if it turns out to be good. Just like any game.

  1. Since all races are available to pvp at launch there is no tailored dlc to be had for pvp players.

I absolutly disagree. But even so. We only need patches in theory. But there are plenty of DLC options they can go with. PvP players are not picky in those regards.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@solaire i guess we should not mess with any faction than and leave it how it is than if we go by your logic.

No differences dont need to be buffs. They can also imply negatives but also advantages at the same time.

Also differences can result in changes in play style which isnt necessarily a buff but it gives options.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic said in Faction aesthetics and customization:

@jamodon i agree it makes for bad pvp but since there is no subscription and the niche pvp community for this game will likely dry up before the 6 month mark it seems like a waste of resources to be investing in PvP mechanics like they are. Making SP as amazing as possible and selling dlc campaigns seems to be the best option for them financially so it does make one scratch their head.

The PVP community dried up because of the inherit flaws of the game. PvP community doesnt just abandon games. If anything they stick around longer than anyone.
Tindalos seems like they fixed alot of core issues. I thing pvp community will enjoy playing this game more than the last one.

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.