Never shift in to reverse without a backup plan.
Could be fun. Personally, any option sounds fine to me.
- You have to plan out your fleets around restrictions.
- Gives more utility to weaker ships.
- Forces you to play around and customize a ship you may not have used.
- Losing certain ships for repairs could be utterly crippling.
- You lose out on the option to customize your fleet exactly as you'd like.
- You can adjust your fleet to specific desires.
- Gives the progression system a linear path.
- Gives more utility to the expensive ships.
- Harder to balance around.
- Makes it very easy to ignore certain ships.
Hi guys, BFG:A 2 campaign will feature a lot more content than BFG:A 1, and some element of grand strategy, but don't expect a Total War in 40K!
Tindalos is a small talented team but Creative Assembly is a studio of 500 devs.
I don't think any of us were actually expecting that of you, that would've been incredibly unfair. I was just saying that to the OP as I think condemning Total War is disingenuous.
Frankly, if we get something as complex as Total War, this will likely be my game of the year. Never-the-less, I think @CANNED_F3TUS is correct in saying we likely will get something more akin to the first Dawn of War games in that you're not dealing with diplomacy and research, just finances and "where to attack".
@romeo hmm yeah it would be cool if they can kind of make 2 seperate versions. But i have no clue how they are gonna wing that. SC 2s coop feature is pretty neat with leveling up your army and all the unique upgrades you can unlock while the base pvp is unnaffected.
Well, we do know some things are being split for multiplayer (No modifications on ships, Cruiser Clash exclusive game mode and no progression system). I hope that multiplayer is kept really, really separate from singleplayer, because their objectives are very different from one another.
@romeo i think your starting to touch the subject i am most afraid of.... this crusade to balance multiplayer making single player not fun. 12 factions is in my opinion to many for multiplayer period! some of these factions should be made npc only, single player only, or excluded from "ranked" play. As it stands if necrons cant sit there and laugh at eldar the game is broken according to the table top.
Yeah, the tabletop has literally never been fully balanced, nor has Starcraft I or II, nor Supreme Commander, Command and Conquer or literally any asymmetric game. I think chasing that ideal is, to be blunt, pointless: Blizzard has an eight year head start, and only three factions, and people still call that imbalanced. But if they have to still try to appease the multiplayer crowd, my sincerest hope is that they rope off that half of the game completely, and don't let it ruin singleplayer.
@bellumvinco I think the best course of action with regards to this is removing the whole idea of fleet repairs and the upgrade meta-game. I do like the idea of a progression system attached to multiplayer, but I think it should be cosmetic or tiny upgrades like Company of Heroes 2's bulletins.
With 12 factions balance will be tough for sure, however making non admiral ships function more like regular RTS units with less variables in terms of different upgrades, abilities, crew score etc should make it achievable. Balance doesn't have to be absolutely perfect for a fun competitive scene, just near enough. I think leveraging different points costs for ships as well as having their base stats to tweak will mean that they can hopefully finesse it into a good state.
What do you guys think about having a pool of actually designed and static maps?
I don't think I could disagree with this any harder if I tried. The upgrades are great fun, and frankly I'd like to see repairs play an even greater part in singleplayer - it would help force fleet diversity. For multiplayer-only, sure, strip the game to the bone in the name of balance. But that shouldn't be a game-wide implementation.