No conquest/campaign, no party. MPfags have, once again, killed a truly promising game.

>>1932787
Cute papercraft spaceship

>>1933120
The death of conquest because the meta fleet builders couldn't build hyper specific mega kill fleets, while also not understanding how the players using larger fleets of general purpose ships like frigates and corvettes shows just how much the MPfags don't have a fucking clue about strategy. What they know and do is a 9 to 5. They have a very specifically built fleet with a very specific gimmick. If the gimmick doesn't work, they quit. If they lose so much as one ship in the use of that gimmick, they quit. They have no idea how redundancy works or how to think in the long term if things go bad. They aren't playing a strategy game, they're rehearsing the same dance over and over, and if they miss one step they sperg out.

>>1932787
Dropped this game when they killed the campaign. I am not interested in endless PVP battles. I actually want long battles to have context and consequence.

>>1932787
Damn, I was too late to the thread and the conquest babies already cried a river.

>>1933213
They are still making a singleplayer mode and I think other than some extra work nothing is stopping you from organizing a multiplayer campaign game like wargames do.

>>1933310
>organizing a multiplayer campaign game like wargames do.
lmao ya no. You don't understand just how hard it is to tard wrangle these people without them devolving into 'uh but i wanna bring my meta fleet'. None of them even wanted conquest mode as it was intended, and what made it worse is mazer saying every update "it's great, the testers love it, it's good, good news all round!" for 9-10 months. Even a month before the cancel, same shit, only for the big announcement to be 'oh it sucks and the testers hate it' out of the blue. It's a joke, it really is. I don't care if it's an indie dev or not, they more or less soft lied to everyones face about the reception and progress of the conquest mode and cancelled it when they felt safe to do so.

I thought they hadn't stopped work entirely on conquest and were just reworking it?

>>1933317
>You don't understand just how hard it is to tard wrangle these people without them devolving into 'uh but i wanna bring my meta fleet'.
well, I am sorry you can't find like-minded individuals despite so many people criticizing the axing of conquest mode...
>Even a month before the cancel, same shit, only for the big announcement to be 'oh it sucks and the testers hate it' out of the blue
I can imagine it was looking pretty good, smaller systems working well, as shown in devlogs and the branched off version, and then they realised that when these are put together the big picture is a mess and still needs much more work that just not worth it
I remember they gave an explanation what things are not right, but since I didn't and still don't really care about the game mode, as I think it was going too in-depth and away from the tactical space battles, I didn't really commit details into memory

>>1933318
the idea of a big x4 style multiplayer game mode is dropped I think
they are planning a singleplayer campaign

a wing of sturgerons just dumping 8 torps+16 bombs or 8 R3+16 R2 Rockets is pure destruction, this is absurd. absurdly fun, that is.

>>1933310
wish people would stop doomposting, I don't care about conquest. all I wanted was cool spaceship battles and I got my carriers. it's been like a year now, and they're still screaming.

>>1932787
what game

>>1933120
This. Game needs a mode where you're dealt a random command, or you're allowed to design a bunch of ships then they give you a random assortment. Metafaggotry MP only is a death sentence for a niche indie game.

>>1935136
Enjoy your dead game, MPfag. You don't care about conquest mode, but most potential buyers do. Your comment proves you faggots are nothing but a bunch of egoistic dumbasses who don't give a fuck about the quality of a game as long as YOU have what you want.

They literally just announced a singleplayer mode that will constitute the next major update. What is this shit flinging even about?
Conquest was doa because they couldn't figure out how to implement jeune ecole without turning the interface and turnflow into a tedious nightmare, and without asymmetrical warfare the campaign devolved into an hour-long buildup to a single decisive battle and that was no better than AI skirmish but with extra steps

The devs had always intended it as a PvP mode. It wasn't killed to focus on PvP at the expense of singleplayer, it was killed because it took over a year to develop a buggy barely functional prototype that everybody who tried it hated.

>>1935430
>Why don't you want the devs to spend resources and time on something you don't care about, but I do, you fucking selfish pig
ok
I want to note that it's entertaining in a way, that people keep writing even in reviews about cancelled campaign and singleplayer when the dev just said it for the second time in the devlog that it isn't cancelled, just the previous concept of the sp/mp conquest mode.

>>1935470
Nooo, you don't understand everyone who tried was a sweaty zoomer pvp tryhard discordfag tranny!!!! Conquest would have been the bestestest thing ever and they illegally false advertised the game!

I do hope they add something like Highfleet's singleplayer or Battlefleet Gothic. I don't need deep logistics and systems, I just want a system that helps to keep track of a persistent fleet across multiple battles and maybe a map with a solar system to go through in a couple of rounds. Could be fun in MP too.

>>1935542
>everyone who tried was a sweaty zoomer pvp tryhard discordfag tranny
word

>>1933120
No campaign? Gay, skipping. I mostly play PvP in RTS (generally SupCom) but if there's no campaign I'm not interested, I need a story to provide context for the world.

>>1935247
Uh...Nebulous:Fleet Command? I put it in the thread title.

>>1935561
>>1935253
>>1933213
>>1933120
>Conquest
Yeah, nobody cared about that. Turned out it was a massive pain in the ass to work with since you'd need to save damage data for every ship and some ships wouldn't logically be able to leave a location
>But Highfleet
If a ship in Highfleet lost all it's engines it would crash and that's the end of it. Not so much for Nebulous and that led to softlocking. Logistics were also incompatable with the Custom Missile system which was a big hit with the existing playerbase.
>Singleplayer
Still coming. You'll even have a Campaign based

cope
dead game

>>1935739
Player count has been holding steady and the game is still in early access.

>>1935730
>UGGGHHHH, it was SO HECKIN HARD to add some flavor text and force customization screens in-between unscripted skirmishes :((((((
Modern devs are so fucking lazy and incompetent.

>>1935730
What existing playerbase? The couple dozens or so of faggot sweatlords dwelling at their Discord? Yeah sure, keep listening to them. The future of this game looks bright.

Somehow, Homeworld managed to have a persistent fleet for its campaign, and Battlefleet Gothic had a quite complex conquest-mode campaign. They must've been using black magic or something, if according to you such a thing would be impossible.

>>1935830
Steady at 100-150 players. That looks quite dead to me, early access or not.

>>1935989
Oh, you mean the Singleplayer campaign? Yeah, that's still coming. The Dev said he wanted the system Feature Complete before designing missions with it. Hell, he just overhauled the AI with this patch and now it's better than some players.

>>1935730
>Turned out it was a massive pain in the ass to work with since you'd need to save damage data for every ship and some ships wouldn't logically be able to leave a location
Sounds like the dev team is retarded

>>1935996
Neither Homeworld nor BFG have ships and systems as complex as Nebulous Fleet Command. What a retarded comparison.

>>1936215
NOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE COMPLEX SHIPPERINOS
AHHHHHHHHH NIGGERMAN SAVE ME

>>1936204
To be fair, we only had a dozen retards that really cared about Conquest and most of them didn't even like the core gameplay. Tell me, why would anyone buy a game if they didn't like the core gameplay?
>>1936219
Cope

>>1936215
Not an argument. Full persistence isn't necessary for a conquest mode, things like ammo or subsystem damage can be abstracted. Take for example Total War. Archers and gunners start each battle with full ammo, and wounded units (not casualties) recover instantly. It isn't realistic, true, but it shows it can be done.

There is no system in Nebulous complex enough that can't be adapted. None.

>>1936243
A dozen? Take a look around man. It is far more than a dozen. As a matter of fact, I'd say most people with a passing interest in this game that haven't bought it yet aren't doing it because of a lack of a single player mode, either linear campaign or conquest.

Gameplay needs context, that's the function of a campaign. Without it, the gameplay is meaningless, it's little better than Solitaire or Tetris

>>1936272
>Gameplay needs context, that's the function of a campaign. Without it, the gameplay is meaningless, it's little better than Solitaire or Tetris
First off, Tetris was a Massive commercial success and arguing against it is a very strange hill to die on.

Second, there's a Singleplayer Campaign coming which will provide story and context. The Dev wisely didn't bother starting on it until he had the core gameplay settled. You don't want to base entire missions on mechanics that might be patched or tweeked later on.

Third, you actually get more story from a Mission-based Campaign than Conquest simply because Conquest makes harder to establish story beats. Trying to put your Protagonist on the backfoot is hard when he can bring a fleet two times the size of his opponent's.

Fouth, for all we know it's just one retard with multiple computers trying to talk down a game he sucked at. 4chan is an Anonymous Image Board, numbers mean nothing. You want a better idea about the numbers? Go to another website.

>>1936303
>one retard with multiple computers
It doesn't even have to be that, gookmoot removed the unique IP counter for some reason

>>1935996
Actually, the game spiked up to 1850 in under a week.

>>1936307
Yeah but there's still the (you) tags

>>1936308
And within a month or two it will go to previous numbers because people don't want to play boring skirmish all the time.

File: 1623380838102.png (997 KB, 1024x730)

997 KB PNG

>>1936243
It is YOU who is coping, faglord. Coping for a dead game, full of buttraiders

>>1936321
Ah, I see. Got spanked by a Beamstone with a Raider drive, eh? Tough luck.

Played a few games, had fun. Stopped playing because I don't feel the need to try to climb multiplayer ladders. I was waiting for the campaign mode and when that was binned I refunded the game since there was no longer any reason to play it.
if I wanted just to play skirmish games forever I can just play FAF. A game that has more players then fleet command.

>>1936378
Conquest was binned. There's a singleplayer mission based campaign in the works.

>>1936403
It will be bad due to the obvious poor priorities of the devs. Perhaps in several years I might get the game on a steep discount and give the missions a go but with the Campaign mode being removed there is little reason to have faith in this failed project.

>>1936434
Campaign mode is still coming. It's just Conquest that's been removed.

There is nothing to talk about in this game except how they scrapped the only interesting thing about it.
Sad

>>1935996
>Battlefleet Gothic had a quite complex conquest-mode campaign
lol
lmao even

>>1936487
there are other interesting things to talk about but don't expect the usual /v/ tier muh conquest I wanna slam big ships into each other and watch pretty battles zoomed in hurrr players to want or even be capable of discussing the other more complex mechanical aspects of the game
it's like reading the reviews and seeing people giving negative for the singleplayer when it was said multiple times that it's coming and not cancelled
like look at this dude >>1936434 doesn't even know what he is talking about

>>1936509
And yet the only thing you've done in this thread is complaining about people complaining about conquest. Ironic.

>>1936517
No, I have also wrote about what the devs could possibly add to the game to make it cool and tried to inform the conquest simpletons so they might stop being retards and stop shitting any space for possible Neb discussion full of muh conquest bullshit like they already started in the first few posts of the thread.
I don't have a computer anymore that can run the game so I can't really talk about the newest things other than parroting devlogs anyway

File: Screenshot 2025-01-16 at (...).png (44 KB, 608x626)

44 KB PNG

>>1936368
Don't know what you're talking about cause I don't own that dead game. No money for those who kneel to MPfags

>>1936523
So you have nothing to add to the discussion. No recent meta, no review of the latest patch. Nothing other than complaining about complaining and useless hypothesizing. And all of this for a game you can't even play. Ok then.

As to what the developers could add to the game, I have a suggestion. Campaign mode, if conquest-style even better. No more ship classes and no more balance patches until there is single-player content beyond anemic skirmishes. THAT would make it cool.

>>1936487
Actually, there's quite a lot to talk about with the Carrier update. For example, there's a wide variety of loadouts for the Surgeon. Besides the 4 S2 slots it's also got 2 S3 slots that can also fit 100mm gunpods. It actually took me a while to figure out the gunpods but it turns out you really want to just use HE. See, the difference between HE and AP penetration is actually pretty mild but HE also does a bit more damage as well as AoE damage inside the target. This means you can more reliably knock out components. Even if you don't destroy the components, merely knocking them out is enough to stop PD and that lets you follow up a gun run without risking your bombers. Now of course the Gunpods are only 100mm so even AP rounds aren't doing jack shit to an ANS heavy like an Axeford or Solomon so you're going to have to use an alternative loadout for those big ships. Currently, I've tried R3 Spearfish but they tend to get swatted down by 20mm PD and I'm still trying to figure if they're being a good Loss Leader or just trash. Torpedoes are an option and Strike Craft can get Damned close to an enemy if you're willing to take hits but a good ship killing torpedo is expensive and I'm not sure if it's a good investment.

Anyway, you were saying something about nothing to talk about?

>>1936545
>metafaggotry
Yeah, nothing worth talking about.

>>1936558
>Moving goalposts
Cope

>>1936526
Well if you never bought the game you've never played the game. Thus we can discard your opinion.

>>1936608
Don't need to play the game to know it's dead, just have to look at SteamDB

>>1936545
The best anti ship ordinance for strike craft right now are the big rockets and the dumb bombs. You just have to use terrain to sneak in close and dump. They're the only things that can reliably saturate pd, avoid soft kill and still deal ship-killing damage without costing more than the ship you kill.

The problem with missiles is the same problem missiles had before carriers. Dangerous missiles are uneconomical and economical missiles aren't dangerous. It doesn't matter if they're hybrids fired from a backline missileboat or s3s launched from a bomber wing. The only good target for missiles is a target that can't protect itself, and that essentially makes them dedicated anti-capper tools or for sniping an ewar support ship. That's why you go for the cheap dumb bombs/rockets for anti-capital payload instead.

>>1936532
>So you have nothing to add to the discussion. No recent meta, no review of the latest patch. Nothing other than complaining about complaining and useless hypothesizing
wrong

>>1936066
didn't the dev say they were scrapping campaign too?

>>1936609
I'M PLAYERCOOOOOONTING

File: Yeahibetyouloveslobbering(...).png (113 KB, 249x211)

113 KB PNG

>>1936523
>see neb
>see shit loads of dev logs and info on conquest mode
>looks fun as fuck
>buy the game for conquest mode when it comes out
>still loads of 'conquest mode is going good and fun :D' dev logs
>testers emulate this, say it's fun and good on their discord
>sudden 'conquest mode sucks D:' out of no where
>testers flip flop to ya it's actually shit
>conquest mode canned for a likely far less in depth, linear story campaign alternative
>mfw
gee I fucking wonder why the conquest people are upset, it's almost like they bought the game on the concept of conquest mode only to be told 'lol no sorry too bad'

>>1936715
Did this actually happen or are you a schizo obsessed with hating on some random game (many such cases on this board)

File: image (2).png (448 KB, 895x559)

448 KB PNG

>>1936721
yes it did happen and no im not some random fag. For nearly a full year before june 18th last year, mazer was uploading dev logs talking about ALL the shit conquest is going to have. logistics, intel work, fleet building and upkeep, crew and officer selection and training, taking points, holding points. Essentially everything you'd expect in a grand strategy style space game, with the added benefit of tactical battles. More or less, empire at war but a bit more autistic. For a full fucking year the dev logs were always saying, it's great, the development is going well, the testers love it, look at all this cool stuff in the devlog video. Go on the discord, the few testers were saying more or less the same thing. It's fun, the new features are cool and building more standardised fleets is a cool shift from the meta fleets in skirmish. A full fucking year of this, then only a month later after the last devlog, mazer uploads the 'hey guys, conquest is actually shit and I have no idea what i'm doing with it so i'm just gonna stop making it and make something else instead'. Go on their discord, the testers are now saying how it's actually always been kinda bad and making non-meta fleets is boring. Ask them about any of the good things they had to say, 'oh ya but it's actually worse than you think because I actually played it'. People bought the game FOR conquest, with all the good news and cool stuff the dev logs brought, only to suddenly be told that na you don't get that anymore, we're making something else. I bought copies of this game for my mates so we could play conquest, only to be kicked in the dick but it's all fine because they're an indie dev so woopsies :D. Not once did we get even a HINT conquest wasn't actually up to snuff, if mazer and the testers were fully honest from the start, I would be less upset, but they more or less lied to all our faces and the meta fags ate it the fuck up because all they want to do is meta game skirmish.

>>1936749
I forgot to add, the thing that pisses me off the absolute most was both mazer and the testers said that people making large fleets of cheaper ships and weapons with only a few more specialised craft was somehow not ideal for a war setting. It made me realise mazers naval experience is summed up to peacetime bullshit and not an actual war, alongside the testers sheer insistence that making mega-death-fleet-murder-laser with missiles that can autolock across half a map or some shit is somehow 'fun' for the other end.

>>1936715
>>1936749
>>1936752
>only to be kicked in the dick but it's all fine because they're an indie dev so woopsies
it's not fine, but that's what you get for buying EA
I already wrote it in the thread that I can easily see that conq was looking good but when it started to form a full picture they saw the glaring holes in it and axe it.
I mean this is not a unique situation in game development, it's just this one was out in EA and people could see and feel it happen.

Unfortunately I can't refute or confirm your claim about this sudden tester flipflop, because frankly I didn't give a shit about conquest and didn't follow what's going on with the development.

>It made me realise mazers naval experience is summed up to peacetime bullshit and not an actual war
must have been hard detective work to figure this one out considering how many actual wars involved naval combat nowadays

I bought this game a while back hoping for more single player content, a system map or something to move ships around on and add some context to the tactical battle. I've played a lot of Rule the Waves, even something as relatively simple as that would have been nice. Budgets, tech progression, ect. It's fun building a ship within the constraints of what you have or finding yourself unprepared because you waited too long to start construction, hoping for a new engine tech. I bet they went too big in scope, then fell flat on their face. Sad, because I find MP to be boring

>>1936609
You mean like how the peak player count has seen a tenfold increase in the last 30 days?
>>1936692
Show me where.
>>1936642
I'll grant you big rockets but dumb bombs only work if the PD is dead. They've got only about 2km of range and travel so slowly that the PD has plenty of time to dodge them.

As for missiles, Strikecraft offer an advantage by closing the range for us. You can go ahead with a 5 km missiles that's tweaked for speed and maneuverability because the Fighters can get into 5km in fairly short order.

>>1936850
>They've got only about 2km of range and travel so slowly that the PD has plenty of time to dodge them.
You give them move orders manually and then only call the strike at very short range. Basically dive bombing in space. It just takes a little micro to use well but it's the most cost-effective way to murder big armoured ships like Axfords and Solomons.
The downside to the close range strikes is that there's a higher chance of losing bombers to pd fire but honestly I think people err too far the other direction. You're far more likely to run out of ordinance in the average 3k point match than you are to run out of bombers, so cheaper ordinance in higher risk attacks is the way to go.

>>1936951
> You're far more likely to run out of ordinance in the average 3k point match than you are to run out of bombers, so cheaper ordinance in higher risk attacks is the way to go.
It's the reverse for me. I usually run out of birds before I run out of bombs.
...Actually, I tend to get ambushed by flankers and lose my carrier more than anything else but I do tend to go through Craft at an alarming rate.

>>1936960
As OSP you have more craft and your craft are better at dogfighting so you should have a pretty easy time staying in control and protecting bombers from interception. Just don't dogfight in PD range and use the terrain to conceal craft before they're ready to engage. It's entirely possible to run low on fighters because dogfighting is a slugout numbers game and there's really no avoiding the casualties, but bombers are generally pretty survivable to anything except enemy craft. If you know where your target is you can spend a lot of time hugging terrain to approach from concealment and minimize your exposure to pd or radar.

As ANS it's a little more difficult since you're at the disadvantage, but ANS also doesn't need their craft to be busting enemy capital ships with heavy firepower. You have Solomons and Axfords for that. Outside of just protecting capital ships the only ships you really need to be killing are cappers, MMTs and maybe lineships, and none of those are well armoured so you can get away with proportionately less (and cheaper) anti-ship firepower and still have a big impact if you get a strike through. The only durable targets you'd need big firepower to crack are Monitors and it's legitimately just a waste to try and get any PD target through a Monitor blob. It helps to know that OSP really kind of needs their carriers to connect a good strike against ANS capitals to justify their existence, so if you can just run interference and keep your teammates safe without running out of fighters your carrier has basically run its job. I've had some success running a no-bomber escort carrier with 2 beam DDs just to play team goalie.

>>1937033
>As OSP you have more craft and your craft are better at dogfighting so you should have a pretty easy time staying in control and protecting bombers from interception. Just don't dogfight in PD range and use the terrain to conceal craft before they're ready to engage.
Makes sense.
>As ANS it's a little more difficult since you're at the disadvantage, but ANS also doesn't need their craft to be busting enemy capital ships with heavy firepower
Never thought of it in that way. I'm gonna try to make a Levy and friends fleet based on gunnery next time.

>>1936692
No, just that the gameplay needs to be settled before creating a single player campaign.

>>1936749
Conquest was not the campaign
Mazer is just an idiot and didn't explain it properly but it was always supposed to be just another multiplayer mode.
Like I get it, I was fucking pissed as well because I thought this was singleplayer, but it fucking wasn't. It was just more of the fucking same attached to some cool ideas like logistics and intel and tactical battles on larger maps... which fucking sucked because everything was balanced around small maps and small fleets on a tight points budget with lots of cover not, fucking Abyssal at 10 times the size with 10 times the ships. Like it would all just be fucking Gauss and Railguns and then missiles, you would just sit at fucking range and fire fucking railguns and Pinard/Bloodhound tracks till you ran out of ammo, then you would launch slow and&shit missiles hoping something is damaged enough to get hit and fuck off from the battle
Fun

Mazer would have to either break skirmish(which is fun as it is even if you ignore meta) by rebalancing everything or develop 2 separate games for 2 separate modes
Of course he shitcanned it you fucking idiot
And we are still getting all of those features AND singleplayer just limited to the skirmish sized battles and with you most likely playing as a single Carrier strike group rather than a retardo sized fleet.

Also cope&seethe about muh meta further, if you actually take the time to learn the game you will realize meme ships work as well as meta ships if you pilot them well. I just got ambushed by a Solomon with a fucking Pinard in the back slot because the guy made the BB just retardedly fast and was super aggressive with it.
Literally skill issue

devs are in the thread btw

>>1937668
>fucking
> fucking
>fucking
>fucking
> fucking
>fucking
> fucking
>fucking
Jesus christ anon, just shut up. The game is bad. Modes like conquest that give CONTEXT are what people are drawn to games for.
Why are you so invested in a game that was killed by the fag devs?

>>1937733
>Modes like conquest that give CONTEXT are what people are drawn to games for.
yeah totally like with BAR, PUBG or any of the dozens of alive and kicking multiplayer games
>Why are you so invested in a game that was killed by the fag devs?
Why are you so invested in a game that you think is bad and was killed by the fag devs?

The context is that you are not worth discussing this topic with further because you do not actually play the game.
You just heard a couple of buzzword like features in a devlog and built your own game around them in your head, one which has no bearing on reality. Feel free to cope about swear words on your christian basket weaving board and lash out against some imaginary enemy who took your beloved conquest(it was shit) away from you Don Quixote

Fucking idiot

>>1937857
>hello burger salesman, I would like this burger you have on your sign, the one that has cheese, lettuce, tomato, onion, ketchup and pickles please
>Yes sir, I will make that burger I've been talking about
>*five minutes later*
>here is your chicken burger with mayonnaise mustard, spinach, an egg and grilled potatoes slices sir
>but I didn't order this burger, I ordered the burger you had on the sign
>yes, but I changed the sign halfway through making your burger so you get this burger now
Do I still get a burger? Yes. Was I fucked over because the chef was indecisive about what he was making? Yes. If you love getting pounded by men smarter than you, just go back to the meta rape skirmish game mode and let us mald about mazer and his lies