The army management screen needs to show the units and weapon statistics

[FroBodine]

For example, in the first army management screen of the campaign, I can add Aggressors. They have a Boltstorm Gauntlet as their weapon. Ok, what does this weapon do? How much damage? What is the range, etc.?

Every unit should display their full stats when you click on them in the army management screen. Otherwise, we don't have the information we need to decide who to choose for our army.

Please add this. I'm surprised this is completely missing from a game like this, where stats are everything.

[archonsod]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Nürggle:

IRL in a table match, YOU DONT ABLE TO KNOW OPPONENT UNITS STATS ( base only ) AND LESS WEAPON STATS !! THIS IS A FACT AND A OFFICIAL RULE !!

I stopped playing tabletop years ago, but back then if you couldn't provide a copy of your army list when an opponent asked it was grounds for DQ.

I'm not sure the comparison is particularly relevant though. If I wanted to play tabletop, I'd play tabletop. Pretty sure I've still got a DE army kicking around somewhere.

And only you, have a issue to read weapons stats ingame ( battlesector ), me and many others we have no issue with this, and can find them and use them or not, because a wh player dont need to know exactly weapons stats, just look the models and whats weapons is equiped to have idea whats power he is.

Well yes, and anyone familiar with the background can make a rough educated guess at what something does (or is supposed to do). In all likelihood, for a significant chunk of the player base the actual numbers probably aren't going to be all that relevant. That cuts both ways though; they're hardly likely to complain if the numbers are available either.
However, a more apt comparison would be computer wargames given that is what this game is rather than an attempt to just emulate tabletop. In that genre, it's been standard since VGA graphics were a thing to allow access to the unit statistics whenever it's thought they might be relevant. These days, it's usual to highlight exactly what changes and in which way before the player has to make the choice. As a general rule, it's also a genre that does tend to attract a significant number of players who do in fact care about the numbers, and how those numbers interact with each other.

and now you will complain about WH rules, old for more 30 years...

I've been moaning about them ever since they ruined it with 3rd Edition, I certainly don't intend to stop now (just think yourself lucky it isn't WHFB, we'd be here all week :P)

[Atoastydoofus]

I've yet to see a thread where nurggle isn't the only one playing a bad game of devil's advocate. While also being a hypocrite about ad hominem usage against him.

[Terrapin]

Having to keep a datasheet to play a computer TBS game? What is this 1990? The info needs to be available at the army management screen period, it's not rocket science.

Also, leaving your singleplayer campaign to load a skirmish map just to get weapon info is one of the stupidest suggestions I have heard(well, next to the datasheet suggestion).

[Ellye]

I've asked for a refund of the game over the fact that the developers seem to enjoy keeping their pet troll in this forum while ignoring basic UX requests.

Not sure if it will go through, as I played a bit over 2 hours, but well.

[Terrapin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ellye:

I've asked for a refund of the game over the fact that the developers seem to enjoy keeping their pet troll in this forum while ignoring basic UX requests.

Not sure if it will go through, as I played a bit over 2 hours, but well.

Honestly don't blame you. I enjoy the game too much for that but the refusal to address the bonus objectives and how they are determined/scored(different thread) would be enough for me to ask for a refund if I didn't have 20 plus hours already. It's a simple question that has been asked in at least 4 different threads and they steadfastly refuse to answer it.

That and things like the issue in this thread have kept me from recommending the game to my non-40k friends who don't know their bolter from their lascannon.

[Shards]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Ellye:

I've asked for a refund of the game over the fact that the developers seem to enjoy keeping their pet troll in this forum while ignoring basic UX requests.

Not sure if it will go through, as I played a bit over 2 hours, but well.

"We've heard this and we're already working on planning updates over the next few weeks and months to respond to all our user feedback."

And, I would quite like everyone in this thread to stop aggroing each other please? We can deal with you asking and pointing out your wants for the game, but no-one needs to be griping at other users here.

[Shards]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Terrapin:

It's a simple question that has been asked in at least 4 different threads and they steadfastly refuse to answer it.

There have been a lots of really interesting comments and feedback since release on Thursday. The team are busy collating these and working out how they can best respond to them. They aren't going to come in and say "we're going to do X and Y" when they haven't yet had chance to get together as a team and work out what they can do and how quickly.

Again, we're here, we're reading this and we'll reply where we can give a clear answer, but some jumping into every thread going "we can't answer this yet" probably isn't what you want :)

[Terrapin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shards:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Terrapin:

It's a simple question that has been asked in at least 4 different threads and they steadfastly refuse to answer it.

There have been a lots of really interesting comments and feedback since release on Thursday. The team are busy collating these and working out how they can best respond to them. They aren't going to come in and say "we're going to do X and Y" when they haven't yet had chance to get together as a team and work out what they can do and how quickly.

Again, we're here, we're reading this and we'll reply where we can give a clear answer, but some jumping into every thread going "we can't answer this yet" probably isn't what you want :)

Fair enough for most instances, but someone had to design the bonus objectives and knows how they are calculated. It's not a code change we are asking for, simply an explanation.....followed by a code change lol.

As for myself, I'll try to be more patient but surely you guys can see where getting or not getting these objectives and having no way to know the reasons why would be frustrating in a game where strategy is the focus?

[Shards]

In general, I've found that the bonus objectives make sense and are related to the side-objectives (like Sisters models alive or Death Company dead), but it's fair to wonder exactly what gives those extra points on something like Gallian's Staff that seems fairly binary in objectives.

But, as said, there's more than this one issue and the team needs to manage it's energies (if a designer is creating a list of all those rules to explain in here, they're not designing a system for displaying info in a menu). Again, I don't want to come here and promise "oh, we'll explain it all by Thursday" when there's so much new info that the team is having to deal with from the release, but I'll also say that you've been heard and someone will be working on it.

[Terrapin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shards:

In general, I've found that the bonus objectives make sense and are related to the side-objectives (like Sisters models alive or Death Company dead), but it's fair to wonder exactly what gives those extra points on something like Gallian's Staff that seems fairly binary in objectives.

But, as said, there's more than this one issue and the team needs to manage it's energies (if a designer is creating a list of all those rules to explain in here, they're not designing a system for displaying info in a menu). Again, I don't want to come here and promise "oh, we'll explain it all by Thursday" when there's so much new info that the team is having to deal with from the release, but I'll also say that you've been heard and someone will be working on it.

10-4

[ThePhil]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από isn't working for some reason so I reply to Shards here:

"But, as said, there's more than this one issue and the team needs to manage it's energies (if a designer is creating a list of all those rules to explain in here, they're not designing a system for displaying info in a menu). Again, I don't want to come here and promise "oh, we'll explain it all by Thursday" when there's so much new info that the team is having to deal with from the release, but I'll also say that you've been heard and someone will be working on it."

I would be curious to know how many rounds of focused usability testing the company did with new players. Did they bring in players who weren't already familiar with 40k? This thread should not have been the first time that the feedback the OP provided was given, and could have easily been avoided by bringing in people who are familiar with strategy gaming but don't know the 40k units.

The game is fun, yes. But everything leading up to the first battle round is opaque as hell. One could reasonably argue that the army management screen is where the battle is mostly decided. I would recommend making usability and clarity of the Army Management and HQ Research screens the #1 priority for the designers. Let the coders code to squash bugs, of course.

Overall, very good game. Thanks for continuing to work on it post-launch.

[Canniballistic]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shards:

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Terrapin:

It's a simple question that has been asked in at least 4 different threads and they steadfastly refuse to answer it.

There have been a lots of really interesting comments and feedback since release on Thursday. The team are busy collating these and working out how they can best respond to them. They aren't going to come in and say "we're going to do X and Y" when they haven't yet had chance to get together as a team and work out what they can do and how quickly.

Again, we're here, we're reading this and we'll reply where we can give a clear answer, but some jumping into every thread going "we can't answer this yet" probably isn't what you want :)

Would think you guys had done a little QA and knew about some of the more obvious issues and then could just say "yeah we know about this and it will be fixed sooner/later".

The same goes for feature questions... you guys dont have any plans for the future? Was the team so focused on delivering whats currently here that no one sat down to actually plan what comes next? Seriously?

[Shards]

There's an infinite list of stuff that we'd like to do, I'm not going to list it all out here :)

Similarly, I'm not going to just fob you off with "yeah, sure". I'm much happier giving you guys concrete lists of what will be done and only give those lists when they're actually concrete. I'm also a player of games and that's how I prefer to be treated as a customer and I'll aim to give the same level of respect to you lot.

[Shards]

I got the list of Bonus Objectives from the team and pasted as a guide here:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2558517317

Realistically, most of these are impossible to not get, as they trigger on mission complete. We'll look at more robust bonus objective rewards in the future.

[Terrapin]

Αναρτήθηκε αρχικά από Shards:

I got the list of Bonus Objectives from the team and pasted as a guide here:

https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2558517317

Realistically, most of these are impossible to not get, as they trigger on mission complete. We'll look at more robust bonus objective rewards in the future.

Thanks a lot. That clears it up and shows where the confusion was coming from.

Bonus objectives are not really "bonus" objectives other than the scaleable ones. As you said, you can't miss them and you can't end the mission without doing them. I'm not sure why they are called "bonus" objectives but at least now we know what the deal is with them.