Posts made by Necroledo
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@romeo said in Necron feedback and why they are trash fleet.:

@lordprinceps

There's also the annoying issue that the Necrons cannot replenish their squads like literally every other faction can. If your fighters or bombers survive their run, they return and you don't lose a charge. But even if your Scythes live without a scratch on them, they disappear. A good carrier fleet can keep their squads going for a long time, but the Necron don't even have a chance to. Giving them infinite charges could be interesting, given how weak their squads are, and how slow their ships are (You don't have to worry about a Necron fleet kiting you, to say the least).

I am tempted to believe that must be a bug, like the Reload stance (on Necrons as well). Could you please make a topic about it, as a possible bug? It makes no sense for Necron squadrons to dissappear after returning, while every other faction gets them back. I've never noticed this happening but if it's true it makes no sense.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Very good points raised. I agree with both sides of this discussion really: I don't see anything bad about Capture&Hold itself, but there are some things that should be looked at in my opinion:

  • If the match is even in terms of points scored, and one player decides to split their fleet and use their escorts to capture points and gain an edge that way, that's a valid tactic. Having a single escort left, losing badly by points, and still trying to capture a point or 2 in a futile attemp to revert the situation ends up with the other player very bored of chasing it all over the map until they win anyway by points, since they were ahead in points already, and understandably makes people despise this mode. I'm not sure how could this be avoided, but @Valrak had raised good points against this in his video.

  • Having Capture&Hold as the only game mode in MP, and most of the campaign missions, ends up feeling repetitive despite having lots of factions and ships and loadouts to try. Personally I feel Cruiser Clash should also be present at least: just make game mode randomly selected in MP and campaigns. Oh, and when player-run lobbies are in, allow the host to choose the game mode like in DoW2.

  • With the previous point in mind (random game modes), having more game modes would be very welcome too. Breaking a blockade of defense stations or a "King of the Hill" (a single, large area in the middle of the map, earn points only by keeping ships inside it (not capturing it)) would be awesome in my opinion. Random space hazards would also spice things up in any game mode.

I really don't think Capture&Hold needs to go. Removing it would only reduce the content of the game and increase the chances of corner-hugging and chasing escorts all over the map, like in BFGA1. It just needs some tweaking, and to be accompanied by more game modes.

Something that I like from Capture&Hold is that it introduces more tactical depth into the game than a "simple" Cruiser Clash, by adding more things to take into account. I've seen some people in the Steam forums claim "40k is about battles, anything that keeps me from just straight up fighting is bad", and I'd say that's very wrong. Rarely a tabletop 40k match is reduced to a mindless clash: there are usually capture points to claim, or objectives to achieve (assassinate this unit, extract this unit, keep this area for X turns, etc). The lore is also very explicit in this: while the general objective of a war might be to eliminate a foe in that region, in the "day to day" of said war there are endless objectives to achieve: keep and hold a beach-head, provide orbital support in specific areas, assassinate key officers, destroy specific devices, and a long etcetera. All factions do this, even Orks and Tyranids, in their own way. Wars can be won while inflicting less casualties and/or taking many, if important objectives are met: the lore is full of examples of vital last stands, cunning infiltrations and more by virtually all factions of 40k, and we all know them.

In BFGA2, Capture&Hold is just an abstraction to introduce this important aspect of 40k... but as I said before, in my opinion having more game modes would introduce more of these aspects of war. Without removing the awesome 40k battles we all love.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

+1 for all points. The way the minimap is interacting right now is quite counter-intuitive; I'm inclined to believe it's bugged somehow. In all RTS games, clicking the minimap does not count as clicking on empty terrain, and this is what allows you to use it effectively to issue long movement commands.

Being able to issue 1 single movement command in the deployment phase, like in BFGA1, would be great too. I wonder why was it removed, or is it a bug?

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@jellyfoosh Thank you! It is good to know that it will be fixed. Glad to help!

Since we're talking bugged tooltips, there are 2 more I can recall right now:

  • I've seen some weapons icons (at least for the Necrons) that seem to be bugged as well when in a match (not in the Fleet Creator): the icon is white instead of showing the symbol of the weapon, and its name is something similar to "ITEM_NOT_FOUND".

  • Also, last time I tried the Lictor upgrade for Tyranids, the tooltip for that Lightning Strike had no title when in a match (as in, the space reserved for the title was blank).

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I have been wondering whether the Reload stance might be bugged for the Necrons. According to the tooltip, its effects include a significant reduction in the cooldown of both Intertialess Drive and weapons... but even when using this stance, they both still feel tremendously sluggish when compared to other factions.

I use this stance by default (I set it before pressing Ready at the start of a match), and I rarely change it during the match because I feel it's a must. It's not that other stances might not be interesting to use, but it really does feel like the cooldowns of those 2 things are so gigantic that not using Reload is like imposing a huge handicap on myself (on top of other difficulties the faction already has right now).

But, even when the Reload stance is active, they still feel way too sluggish. So I see it as 2 possible situations: either it is bugged, or working as intended. Neither paint a favorable situation for the Necrons.

  • If it's bugged then it can be fixed, but will still feel like a must-pick, which removes the tactical options that stances are supposed to give (if you absolutely need one particular stance to be able to compete, then there's no choice).

  • If it is working as intended, then those cooldowns are naturally even longer than I've experienced, which also removes the choice of stance (these cooldowns are barely viable with the current Reload, having them being even higher under other stances gives no reason to use those stances at all).

Whatever the case, those two cooldowns feel too large and in my opinion they're some of the most important handicaps of the Necron faction right now, and one of the reasons they're so low in the tier list. Having an inbuilt teleport in all ships is nice, but that being the only propulsion ability (that also, despite the tooltip, does not allow you to choose the orientation of the ship when it reappears; is that a bug too?) and with such a long cooldown in ships that are naturally so slow to move and turn does not feel enough at all. Having all weapons with 100% accuracy, fairly good volley damage and 270Âș is nice too, but not when they shoot once every solar eclipse. I believe both cooldowns should be reduced; not necesarily by much (we don't want them to go from UP to OP), but maybe a 10-20% reduction in all these cooldowns would make a long way to help the faction without breaking it in the other direction.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Totally agree on all points. These can really increase the longevity of the game, perhaps more than any future additional content or update.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

Same here. In addition, these abilities and upgrades get reset even when changing subfaction (when maybe one just wants to change the colors of their ships).

Also, it would be really nice to get a warning when no abilities/upgrades have been selected, or there are unused slots for those.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

+1 from me too. While they might have benefitted a bit from the most recent balancing pass, they still feel... somehow artificially capped, if that makes sense. Sure, they can't be hyper-destroyers like in the lore for balance reasons, but right now they could use some more help. My most wanted buffs would be:

  • Inertialess Drive cooldown. It's super long even with Reload stance, to the point I wonder if it's bugged and it just doesn't get reduced by the stance as it should. Taking away 5-10 seconds from it would make a great difference, other fleets have mobility abilities more readily available.

  • Weapons cooldown. Damage per shot is nice, but those guns could shoot a teeeeny bit faster. I'm always in Reload stance for this and the ID issue, and they still feel sluggish.

  • Crit self-repair. Pyramidal Reconstruction really feels like a must-pick, and that goes against the tactical variety that abilities are designed to give. I'd love Necron ships to self-repair crits of all kinds slowly over time, even those that would be permanent for other factions.

  • Ships costs. It's hard to even be able to field just 4 ships sometimes. A teeny reduction would be welcome. Or, apply the previous buffs to make the ships more worth their current cost, and don't change said cost.

Also, please please please consider adding more ships to the roster. Other factions have several variants of the same ship with different armaments. It feels sad to see the Necrons roster and have about half of the variety of any other faction, or even less, for no apparent reason (if other factions get variants, why not the Necrons?).

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@romeo said in Capture Points need to go, or at least give us an Annihilation alternative.:

@necroledo said in Capture Points need to go, or at least give us an Annihilation alternative.:

@beernchips Are you sure? They're equally unfair to everyone except for Solar Flare, with Tyranids and Craftworld Eldar being inmune to it. Remember all the space whales and explosive jellyfish, for example: those can create opportunities for clever players. They're all in the game to offer variety, and not having them in MP makes little sense to me, as it reduces the variety of the game mode even further.

Too much RNG guts the potential for strategy. You already have random map layouts, with random placement of objectives. Imagine starting a match with asteroid fields all over the place on your side, with all the objectives at centre or your opponent's side. Now throw in a random issue on top of that, making you waste even more time or start out with damage. You'd almost certainly lose, and you'd be pissed because it was outside of your control. Likewise, for the winning player, it'd feel like a garbage win, because it had nothing to do with you.

The unfair situations you mention, in which one deployment area is clearly inferior, can and are already dealt with by the current terrain generator. It did happen sometimes in the previous game, but in this one I've never felt my deployment area was an unavoidable mess of asteroid fields and/or stations, or that one player is clearly benefitted by the distribution of capture points (something that is also irrelevant in Cruiser Clash, which seems to be going to make a comeback in MP too).

Since the terrain is already being generated in a fair way, adding random space hazards that affect everyone equally should not create unfair situations, but simply introduce a greater variety of situations players would have to get creative with, while reducing the monotomy of it.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@hjalfnar_hgv said in The Capture Point game mode needs to be Subjected to exterminatus:

I would recommend to change the point system to the one of DoW1/2 and Company of Heroes 1/2: The points only tick if one side controls the majority of points.

Also, go down the way Star Wars: Empire at War went with their space skirmish maps, set up asteroid mining stations...not to mine credits as they did in SWEaT, but to add some more meaning to the point placement. You could also use derelict ships, space stations and space hulks. They would also provide cover for damaged ships and add some more tactical depth to the maps besides asteroid fields and nebulas.

I like your ideas. In addition, I don't think outright removing this game mode would do any good because it reduces the variety, but it needs tweaking. Just removing it would seem like a lazy and unimaginative solution to me.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@beernchips Are you sure? They're equally unfair to everyone except for Solar Flare, with Tyranids and Craftworld Eldar being inmune to it. Remember all the space whales and explosive jellyfish, for example: those can create opportunities for clever players. They're all in the game to offer variety, and not having them in MP makes little sense to me, as it reduces the variety of the game mode even further.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Certainly having only Capture&Hold makes the game repetitive, but only having Cruiser Clash would have the same result, even if we're getting awesome battles meanwhile. As @Demoulius said, having a nice rotation with a variety of game modes would keep things spicy and give a chance to every faction (i.e. a faction that's too slow to be super effective in one mode can shine in another). It even allows for things like King of the Hill, with a single large cap area in the center of the map, for example. Or the "Blockade" mode (or whatever the name was) where the attacker had to get to the other side of the map.

Oh, and I'd love to see:

  1. Random space hazards in MP. They're in the game, why not use them outside of SP?
  2. Dedicated servers, if possible. It would massively help the MP longevity of the game. DoW2 still has players in MP (outside of Last Stand) for this reason...
posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

+1 I would also love to see a greater variety of game modes, be it in the Campaigns or in MP. Capture&Hold is not bad per se, but it gets old pretty quick and too often ends up reducing what should be awesome space battles into chasing smol ships. And when you have a fast faction vs a slow one... well, it feels even unfair.

Also, please enable random space events in Ranked too! They spice up the matches as well.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

I had just started a MP match. I was playing Tyranids, and all of a sudden, when I gave a Reload order to one of my escorts, the game took me back to the Main Menu. No error given, no Victory/Defeat screen, not even some delay in this change: in less than a second I was at the Main Menu. If I clicked on Battle, I could see the fleet selection screen for split second before being inmediatly taken back to the Main Menu. This is the first time I get anything like this.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

+1. An alternative could be to allow players to gain XP no matter if they're playing SP or MP. So that whether you play exclusively SP, or exclusively MP, or a mixture of both, every time you play a certain faction you'll earn XP and unlock stuff just the same.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Gotta totally agree with @Ashardalon here. 40k is not just the Imperium, despite what many people (not necessarily here) seem to think. They're not even the protagonists; there are no protagonists in 40k. They tend to be referenced the most because they are the humans and we tend to pay attention to those first, but that doesn't mean there is not a LOT of depth in ALL other factions. I am of the firm opinion that 40k is made what it is by the sum of its many factions and subfactions, and removing and ignoring or trivializing just a single one of them would be in detriment of the beautiful complexity of this whole fictional universe.

About the campaigns, I'm glad they went with something different. We finally have a campaign that integrates the Imperium factions as the single entity with a single goal (the Imperium and its survival), which is greatly in accord with the lore. And then we have campaigns for Xenos factions that usually don't get them: the Necrons and the Tyranids. It is just not possible to have narrative campaigns for all 40k factions from release, so they had to make a choice. No matter who they chose, someone would be bummed their favorite factions did not get one, but that was bound to happen; they should be glad fans of other factions that don't usually get campaigns got them this time. I'm all for additional campaigns to be added in the future though: the basis for that is there now, it just needs funds and time.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic My point was about the available factions within a 40k game at a given time, which I consider one of the most important points of any 40k game, and I used the Necrons as an example. As a Necron player, I had nothing resembling playing them or against them until the Overlord was added to a single game mode; same for the T'au, and not even that for the Drukhari. Yet, I did not think "DoW2 has less content than DoW1 because there are no Necrons, T'au or Drukhari". I didn't care, I just enjoyed other factions and hoped for more in the future.

Some people here are not seeing their specific favourite faction having a campaign and call it less content, despite having 5 factions with a campaign as opposed to just one, or still having a skirmish mode for theirs and any other faction; this I don't understand. I will agree however that faction progression (abilities, upgrades and portraits) should not be tied to MP only, and players should be able to gain XP by playing that faction in any game mode. The game GRIP: Combat Racing does this to unlock vehicles and cosmetics and it works very well. With this basis, more progression options could be added to SP without having to redo the entire system.

@Romeo I see your point, but I don't agree with the "or anything else" part. You can still play skirmish, and with the XP gain thing I explained in my answer to imptastic (the paragraph above this one) one could have SP progression with any faction. And there are campaigns for 4 factions more than the first game. I can understand they focused more on MP this time because they wanted to add all these factions, and having 12 MP factions means a lot of work has to go into balancing, much more than in the first game. I'm all for them adding more SP content after release though: more is better!

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@imptastic Sorry to jump into the conversation, but anyone who buys the game (or any game) expecting certain content for certain faction and then gets upset that it isn't there and refunding is hardly the devs fault. One must do some research before buying a product.

About your Eldar example: I'm a huge Necrons fan, but I still bough Dawn of War 2 when it first came out and thoroughly enjoyed it. Then I bough Chaos Rising. And then I bough Retribution. And many months after that, the Necron Overlord DLC for Last Stand came out. I was thrilled and got it inmediatly, but never was I upset over the lack of playable Necrons; I was just enjoying the game as it is and hoping for it to get more content, and eventually it did. Same story with the T'au. Heck, I'm a Dark Eldar fan too and they got nothing, yet I love the game. Does that make me a hypocrite?

Coming back to BFGA2, I love the fact we have another and bigger 40k space battles game. I have enough with all factions being in and playable in all game modes, and that we have narrative campaigns for more than just the Imperium or just the Imperial Navy. It's a great start and allows to add more campaigns in the future, which I hope they do.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Same here! I really enjoyed playing the first beta and now I've got this unscatchable itch for a nice space tactics game. I don't want to let the balance/tech issues become more than just minor "meh" 's to me; this is a 40k space battles game, and I need it now! 😃

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Agreed on all points. I will only add that adding more ships to the roster shoulnd't require much brainstorming, as other factions that used to have customizable ships (Dark Eldar, Tyranids, Orks) now have one ship for each possible combination. I believe the same treatment would work very well on Necrons too: just add variants of already existing ships with different armaments. Hopefully with more weapons to choose from, too.

Also, if the Inertialess Drive is going to remain as the only movement option, then its cooldown should be reduced, and it would be great to be able to choose the orientation of the ship as it reappears, like we were able to in the teleport ability of BFGA1. Would essentially combine Ahead Full and High-Energy Turn into a single ability.

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