Best posts made by Zucadragon
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@nemesor-xanxas No need to apologize, I just reached a point where I realized I was defending this game and its developers up to an unreasonable degree.

I do have to say though, I don't particularly have an issue with trying to get every faction towards a 50% win rate, but it makes me wonder what it's based on. The difference between experienced and inexperienced players is pretty high, so if high ranking necrons manage to trash a of lot of newbie other factions, that would up that win rate percentage without it actually meaning anything.

It would be really nice to see these win rate percentages for the various gameplay ranks, say bronze, silver, gold, etc. That way you can see more clearly how a faction is doing in low level battles AND in high level battles. If the winrate is a lot lower in gold+ ranks, then that obviously still shows a big problem.

So I guess I partially agree on that one, winrates aren't everything, but they are definitely useful is used correctly. I play a lot of GW2 and though some updates mess things up at times, generally, the devs do a good job of keeping everything around 50%, though their match making really works around that as well, if you win a lot, you get put up against better players, lose a lot, you get put up against weaker players, that way you can generally win and lose in just about equal amounts.
In that game I've got around 250 matches and I've won 113 of them, so that's pretty close to the mark!

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Obviously, they just need to create a giant wall and have the Tyranids pay for it.

Ahum

More on topic:

  1. Great idea, I wonder how this will affect Necrons and other factions when they can effectively jump into blind spots more easily, but I think a good compromise could be achieved. I'd personally say that perhaps giving them another movement skill would work as well, A very short 2 second boost in speed which then allows them to dodge more easily and more often.

  2. Great idea!

  3. I would say, in this case, it could do to make their ability to attack multiple ships at once more powerful, make it so the necrons gain a distinct advantage in close quarters fighting, even getting buffs to their damage when they can hit more and more ships at once. Forcing players to spread out or run away, which in turn gives the necrons more ability to harass.

I do like the idea of the energy beam though, though I reckon that'd be hard to implement. How about, with the scarab defensive swarm, that multiple ships can actually form a shield together with it, allowing the necrons to create a barrier where multiple ships working together will have increased protection, and the ships behind them can be almost completely safe for as long as the swarm survives... Those swarms will take care of bombers and torpedoes aswell.

posted in Battlefleet Gothic: Armada read more

@romeo Really? That's the only criteria you have to keep this game? Seems a bit harsh.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I think, from what I saw, that the campaigns will roughly be like what we found the campaigns to be in DOW1 Soul Storm but then more fleshed out. You have specific regions (Or in this case, planets) that offer bonuses or abilities and so the more that is conquered, the more you can grow your fleet.

That's what it looks like to me, but I am really looking forward to how it's all implemented and how the progression will work. It has to be hard to find some kind of point where the campaign isn't too hard, or too easy if certain choices or negative/positive streaks happen.

I am so curious to see how it will go.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

Various texts in ship weapons still have placeholder texts. It took a while to check everything, but the full list is:

Corsairs:

Heavy Pulsar Cannon Beam - angle of fire = weapon_angle_side_front doesn't exist.
Pulsar Cannon Beam - Same thing

The same thing for these weapons happens with the Asuryani

Tau protectorate fleet:

The cutting beam weapon has a whole load of placeholder texts.

Merchant fleet has the same problem with it's Cutting Beams.

I hope I didn't miss anything.

Multiplayer games

Sometimes, when I start up a 1v1 or a 2v2, the screen will just say 'loading' forever and I eventually have to alt f4 out of the game and restart it because it will be stuck there forever.

Regularly, in between two loading screens when a match starts, a highly distorted image will appear, I'm guessing these are backgrounds but they are often really dark, saturated, showing just few points of color or light in them.

And that's about it for now, if I find anymore, I'll add them to this post with an update note.

On the not so technical side

I would love it, if after a match was over, and the camera pans around a winning ship, you instead get a button that allows you to quit the game and go back to the menu. I'm sometimes to late with telling a player it was a good game. But if you're not quick enough, you're basically too late, and then you're back out of the game. Sometimes I'm having a good banter with a player who I'm fighting against, I would love for there to be a way to continue this, ask for feedback, tips, or perhaps give some when the match is over. Or for there to be an option, a choice to ask the player you're playing with in a 2v2 for another game.

Edit 19/01/2019

When you start with Tau, you don't get a tooltip showing you what the two different modes, Kauyon and mont'ka do.

Edit 21/01/2019

Every now and then, I've only had this happen twice, an engagement suddenly ends and a window pops up saying "Fatal error" before the match is actually over. It's very rare it seems. But it cuts the fight immediately and then returns you to your race and fleet selection part in multiplayer battle.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

I would like this too, it would make things a lot easier to handle.

On top of that, just having, say, the option to have faster, smaller ships actually match speed with your largest ship helps out as well.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

I've only had the chance to play some of the Imperial campaign, and for the first few sectors, I felt it all was a little too easy, I was soon making like 1500 spacebucks a turn and my fleets were merrily taking system by system with little to no opposition.

But everything changed when enemies started to seriously attack multiple systems at once. And not only that, sometimes with large fleets, some larger than my own fleets... Suddenly I was defending various systems, splitting up my forces, making use of turrets and space stations a lot more heavily to give me a boost and edge in fights.

I'm now in a situation where I have little time to think about attacking the enemy apart from small pushes of my territory, while I'm moving fleets around to defend various systems, almost losing some of them to very heavy and hard battles.

It's been great, and I'm thoroughly engaged and would say, that if this sort of pattern is true for the Necron and Tyranid campaign as well, I'm gonna have to sink in a lot of hours and enjoy all of them!

I would say, that as a small criticism, at first it's not really apparent what "Threat" really does, later on, when the attacks started to get more and more frequent and heavy as my threat level goes up, I realize that it basically means more incursions, stronger and more movable enemies, but I would love to have a way to really see how much of a deal my threat level is to the situation. Like see what kind of percentage change it makes, what kind of risk I've got for letting the threat build up to level 1 or 2.

Still, this is fun, and I like having fun!

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Like other people said, it's about your leadership points. Say you have a fleet of 1000 points, but you only have a leadership of 675, it will try to fill up that engagement with as much of one fleet as possible, and then add as much of the second fleet while the rest of the ships stay in reserve.

And while in skirmish or multiplayer battles, disengaging might not have much of a purpose or real use, apart from surrendering the match. In the Campaign, if you disengage a ship, then one of the reserve ships can come in from your starting engagement zone and join the fight.

This isn't really required the first few sectors, the battles are still pretty easy, but soon enough, you're going to be fighting larger and large battles, and though your command points will go up, it will take a while and sometimes you'll fight strong odds and you'll have to make the choice of losing ships, or disengaging them.

I recently had a fight where I had around 1100 points worth of imperial ships, fighting against a force of around 1400, and it was a really tough battle. I had to disengage two of my ships... But then the remaining two of my reserves came in and I managed to just barely win that fight.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@nemesor-xanxas Dude, what? This is what I'm talking about, your focus is on those specific factions, but then you pretend like nothing else almost was done.

Have you looked at the change logs, there were a lot of changes, specifically to make Tyranids lett strong, to make Corsairs cheaper and thus more viable.
Drukhari got a small nerft but I do believe it could be improved.

Skirmish and Campaign were both improved, you gain Skirmish XP now, and in the Campaign, people can pick how they want to fight, and if they want the urgency gauge.

Some other factions got buffs and nerfs as well to various aspects. Necrons got an armor boost to make them more durable, though I do agree, that's not enough to make them perfectly viable yet.

These are pretty much all things people asked for on the forums, so they obviously listen to people, but also haven't gotten through all of it yet.

You're acting like only a few small things were done, but the game is barely out and they're making changes, and if you can't wait a few weeks for more balance fixes and changes to be made, then really, that is on you.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@nemesor-xanxas Damn, that's a lot of work you put in, I only got in here pretty late and never experienced the game. For some reason, I find myself wanting to be stubborn on this, but I can't really find any reason to explain these numbers away without going:

You're right. Which means I'm left with hopes, the hope that the devs will listen in and deal with a lot of those complaints. On my part, I'm sorry for being such a hardass about stuff, because it's clear that those who have been around here much longer than I have, have dealt with it a lot more.

I mean, I guess my own feedback had also been ignored when I posted it, never getting a response from any dev, just other players, so that just counts up to it. So yeah, erm, I concede.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Oh man, didn't know about the listening post thing only giving out the battleplans when there's an enemy pressence still there, that's good to know, I was wondering why I wasn't getting any Battleplans.

posted in Battlefleet Gothic: Armada read more

@imptastic said in First Update & Beta Branch Info:

@zucadragon all i know is i put 10 hrs in the imp campaign and cant play it anymore because i have an ork cut scene that cant be ignored or waited out. seems pretty botched to me this is dont release a game that hasnt been played through hundreds of times before launch 101. A very basic beta would have given them the info they needed to deal with 90 percent of the bugs in that list but they refused and now here we are praising them for fixing problems that should have never been. I think we need to step back and really look at the game in its entirety at this point. MP is a dumpster fire in balance, the whole boarding system is broken, The most lackluster faction is a third of the SP content, nids are not even close to swarmy, there is literally a guard function in the game that no one can say what it actually does, tool tips on points of interest are either not worded correctly or not working at all, and every aspect of the game currently has at least 1 game breaking bug. I think this give them to benefit of the doubt argument went out the window when they released the game in this condition.

I don't agree, there's few players on the forums talking about game breaking bugs like the one you're experiencing. They had an alpha team play through the campaign before release, and many of those have commented on how great it has been in various threads.

Not every problem can be found right away, one player I read can hardly start the game without having major issues, but most players are having a good time, with small little gripes and problems here and there.

MP is not a dumpster fire, look on youtube, at high ranking players talking about how some just don't have the experience yet to really know what they're doing and how to play the game right. A lot of people come in, expecting one thing, and getting another experience from what they expected, but then don't put in the time and effort to learn the system, the pros and cons. It's like with Tyranids ever so often being claimed to be over powered, but then high level players show that a well balanced fleet from pretty much any other race show that they aren't that hard to beat. It just takes experience.

The boarding system isn't right the way it is right now, I completely agree on that one at least, but the devs are working on improving that... And commenting on that within 1 WEEK of the game being launched, I just wonder what players expect from a non-AAA studio. Look at other games that have had years of development behind them, at Battlefront 2, at Destiny, at games like Fallout 76 with massive developers behind them, being botched up significantly worse, and in comparison, I don't see that giving this studio the benefit of the doubt as a bad thing.

Those developers provide excuses and then seem to make things worse and worse, because it's all about marketing, about making money, about milking the playerbase of every single penny. I think, seeing how the developers around here are reacting to things, is a looooooot more promising of future content, updates, fixes, everything.

When you say that the idea of giving them the benefit of the doubt went out the window, you forget all the various other games that were released with worse issues and problems the last few years. Dawn of War 3 comes to mind, which released in a state that just wasn't even fun to play AT ALL. I can understand that your personal situation makes you feel like this wasn't worth it, I can get that, but on a whole, this game has been rather successful. Saying that every 'aspect' of the game has a game breaking bug, means absolutely nothing, that's just words being uttered out of frustration for the specific aspects you have issues with and some other people have issues with.

Yes there are bugs, yes there are problems, yes the developer even has a history of handling things wrong. But so far, they are handling things the right way, listening to feedback, fixing bugs that are being reported and doing their best, that's what I see. No it's not perfect, no it's not great even in many 'aspects', there are problems. But my point is, at the very least, what has been shown so far and HOW the developers have handled things so far, allows someone to give the benefit of the doubt.

If you're so negative though, so against that idea, why even try?

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

So I finished the campaign for the Imperium... Though some of the design choices made it rather confusing, where it took me a while to figure stuff out just because nothing gave me a good indication of what I was supposed to be doing.

The other campaigns will get their own separate post, this is purely for the Imperium campaign right now.

BUT, first up, some general comments:

Some of the hint text on loading screens is shown for such a short time, that you can't even read it completely before it switches to the next.

I also found that the game responds really finnicky to alt tabbing while loading things, in many cases, it means the game would just show a black screen in the end and I'd have to wait for a while to alt-f4 shut it off completely and restart the game.

Alright, onward to the campaign comments.

On the first system map, it felt like the game was rushing me ahead very quickly with only little information. Where the tutorial showed gave me specific things to do, after that short tutorial was done, I was left to figure out everything by myself. I got a shipyard, but it felt like I could just get new ships regardless of where I was. I got all these planets with things that give certain -1 and +1 resources to whatever, but I'm not sure what they do, because they are all terms I can't relate to my actual progress in the game.

My ships upgrade, but where can I see how much effect that actually has on the ships? After certain battles, it just tells me with an icon that the ship upgraded! Yay, great, but what difference does it make?

Once I got more into the groove of things, I slowly figured some stuff out, but it's pretty confusing at first and I'd love if there was some kind of section in the game I could access that would explain things more deeply.

For example:

What is this threat level of enemies? I was at some point at urgency level 3 but I didn't feel a noticeable difference in enemy behavior and my response to it.

Same with Active Fleets/command capacity up top. At some point, when I leveled up, it increased. But that doesn't seem to make a difference for me, I'm at 2/2 - 1/2 - 1/1... When I mouse over, it doesn't give me specific information over what either of those three stats really means and I would love to know. Like, does it means fleets in a system? Or used command capacity in a system? Can I build more fleets in one system and still have it as 1 active fleet?

It seems I have 2 fleets, but I've got 3 fleets on screen, so what's going on there? How does it count 2 fleets specifically? Would be cool if I moused over it, it would show me what it sees as fleets and count as fleets.

Next up, I had a system that had turrets, that was being attacked by an enemy, I had one fleet there (which was good enough to defeat the enemy, barely) but unlike when I attacked an enemy system with turrets and those actually had two points capped with two turrets each. I did not receive any turrets in this defensive battle.

How do turrets work then?

And that's about it, I liked the battles and most of the rest pretty much and am looking forward to playing the other campaigns!

Next up, Necron campaign.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

I have found it being an issue myself as well, higher ranked players can set it up that boarding actions have 10% less cooldown and are more effective. Especially in 2 vs 2 games it's been very troublesome when dealing with 2 enemy players who are both Space Marines and both have 3 ships for boarding actions, they can take down your fleet really really fast and are still pretty sturdy themselves.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

@orkan That's a brilliant idea, the ship has a little warning going "There's boarders on your ship!!!" and slowly, the troop count is going down and you have to deal with it, otherwise you're in trouble!

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

So in many games I had some pretty good fights, but when I'm facing space marines and a large mass of troop carrying ships, I find myself completely unable to fight them at all, even if I'm playing a fast race, It's hard to stay out of the way effectively, and once in range, they can take down your largest ships very easily by just mass troop attacks.

I have won very very few games against mass troop players in 1 vs 1 and like, literally none when it was 2 vs 2 and the enemy had two space marine groups.

Especially the slower races seem to be unable to deal with it. Like say Tau Protectors, they don't have the speed to really get out of the way easily enough, and though they can shoot from afar, they can maybe critically damage one enemy ship before the fleet is upon them, and then it's just a take down of ships, one by one by one rather quickly.

Maybe I'm missing something, maybe it's my inexperience to deal with this because I can't adequately prepare for it (Because you don't know what you'll be up against), but I personally have found it very frustrating and almost a complete lost cause to fight against enemies using this tactic.

Anyone else fare better? And if so, how?

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

@drunkbacongod Yup, that's my experience as well, I have fought a couple of mock battles against a buddy of mine, trying to test out things, he'd go for a full on Tyranid ramming fleet while I went for whatever I could do, and in every case, getting rammed and drained of troops just ruined me.

I think an easy fix would be just to up the amount of troops available on a ship, making it harder to just drain it in seconds.

@cool_lad Yeah that's my experience with the Necrons as well against boarding fleets. The Necron ships are otherwise pretty powerful I find, but once they lose too many troops and get more critical damage because of it, it goes down really fast. I still think the nerf to the pulse star thing was a pretty good choice, because it could decimate fleets before, but now it's really hard to survive as a Necron versus very dedicated ramming/troop spamming ship compositions.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

It would just be cool if you could say, make three fleet templates for one faction, so when you know who you're up against, you can pick your desired fleet accordingly!

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

It would be nice to go through multiple iterations of beta, take feedback into account and work on multiple patches to fix the bugs and issues in order to release a better game. Open up a second region in the campaigns to show a bit more meat of it, the first sector is too tutorial-ly to really show much.

posted in BFG:A2 - Technical Feedback read more

@aram_thehead said in [Feedback] Why do necrons still suck:

@zucadragon oh so while I kill crew, when I manage to completely eliminate one crew step, I also damage a system? Did I get that right? Nice! One more question: will the system be permanently damaged or temporarily? (Red or orange?)

That's a good question, I think it's temporary, but I'm not 100% sure about that, I'll have to specifically test that out again, I don't do a lot of boarding actions because I don't like using em that much!

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