Fundamental Space Marine problems

Talk about Battlefleet Gothic: Armada here!
User avatar
Ahzek Ahriman
Posts: 434
Joined: 15 May 2016, 12:51
Location: Krakow, Poland
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Ahzek Ahriman » 13 October 2016, 16:51

Health boost would greatly improve their resitance to Chaos and any other AP fleet.

Armour needs no nerfing when their macros suck so much, they're simply irrelevant.

Standard health + high armour = great durability at the cost of small damage, very fair trade-off.

If you boost health and macros while nerfing armour we'll just get the second IN with superior speed and boarding ability, that is out of question.

Although, if the macros got buffed while boarding torps nerfed, it would be a great change too. Would solve the boarding torp cheese, make macros actually useful (kind of) while keeping SM dmg at reasonable level.
The sentence below is true
Spoiler : :
The sentence above is false

Pleb Squasher
Posts: 227
Joined: 13 March 2016, 03:54
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Pleb Squasher » 15 October 2016, 10:28

Imperator5 wrote:
Pleb Squasher wrote:
Jerjare wrote:One of Space Marines' biggest advantages is actually their biggest weakness. They have 75/75/75 armor, and low HP to balance this. The problem is there is so many things that can bypass that armor advantage and strike at the ship's chewy center. They also lack decent fighter screens, and so are particularly vulnerable to ordinance.

A big idea I had to offset this was to give the SM ways to mitigate the AP power of enemy attacks. This would be in the form of minimum armor ratings. If the SM player had +10 minimum armor, for example, an attack that would treat their armor as 25 would instead treat it as 35. AP macros would only reduce the armor by 15 instead of 25. And best of all, this would stack, so if you wanted a ship super-tanky, you could have one if you invested the upgrades.

Chapter Relic- Change it to letting the ship have +10 minimum armor rating. Offsetting lances and ordinance is more useful than +5 troops.

Techmarines- Every crew point of techmarines would give an additional +5 minimum armor rating.

Master of Sanctity- This is a very situational skill that is the least useful of the four favors. For every crew point invested, have it give the ship +10 minimum armor when the ability is active.

Now you have more opportunities to make the most out of your impressive armor rating. You can easily ignore AP macros outright, and significantly mitigate the effects of ordinance.


On your first point:
SM hulls are poorly designed. If you have ever tried fighting SM with any kind of fleet that relies on macro type weapons you'll have serious problems. Obviously IN and Chaos can take AP ammo however without this upgrade macro armed ships are almost entirely useless against SM vessels. Orks don't have any AP option and once zzap are finally balanced out they'll have no chance against SM at all.
Obviously the big issue for SM is lances, however that's a difficult discussion as you can't overnerf lances, but at the same time giving SM hulls standard hull points in the factions current state would make them disgustingly op.

A big idea I had to offset this was to give the SM ways to mitigate the AP power of enemy attacks. This would be in the form of minimum armor ratings. If the SM player had +10 minimum armor, for example, an attack that would treat their armor as 25 would instead treat it as 35. AP macros would only reduce the armor by 15 instead of 25. And best of all, this would stack, so if you wanted a ship super-tanky, you could have one if you invested the upgrades.

On this point:
No way do SM deserve this trait. It has been confirmed that when using brace, SM armour goes up to 95! That's a 95% chance that no macro damage will get through. 75% is already bad enough, 95% is ludicrous and if anything, SM armour values need nerfs regarding the use of brace.

They also lack decent fighter screens, and so are particularly vulnerable to ordinance.

SM fighter options are limited for a reason, it's so that ppl can rely more on bombers to fight SM which you need because bombers ignore armour. Also, while it's only 1 squad, it respawns for free every minute and doesn't put your thunder hawks on CD. Remember that when other factions want to deploy fighters, they forgo the use of bombers until the ability comes off CD once more. So the SM fighters are actually a great option and they take a skill slot, not an upgrade slot!


Ap macros aren't the ultimate solution to beating SM as the IN, however they are still necessary. As SM, you should only be within 3k of the enemy while boarding, otherwise you'll want to keep your distance. So AP ammo isn't that much of a threat if you play right.

If we want to see changes to SM durability, he changes should revolve around making them more durable vs Chaos as SM stand no chance against them due to their high number of lances + bombers. You could give SM standard hull points, but you'd have to nerf their armour so that they didn't ruin macro reliant fleets.
IMO, when played by someone who knows what they're doing SM are actually extremely strong as they are, the only issues being VS Chaos. If SM are going to get any kind of durability buffs, we would need to see boarding torps fixed and nerfed first.



Ignoring the whole point of SM macros being utter shit.

No, SM just need a flat out health boost. their armour just compensates for their utter lack of damage dealing.


Actually, SM fleets have pretty good damage when you mix in a BB, which is essential when playing them in larger sized games. There's a good guide in a thread somewhere on this forum from a guy who really knows how to play SM. If you play the fleet right, their damage is fine.

Also even without a BB, SM damage is low because a large portion of your damage comes from the numerous fires + hull breaches you inflict + other crits from bombardment cannons. Buffing SM health wouldn't fix them it would just further increase the problems present. It would be even harder to beat them as IN and impossible as Orks (provided you're not playing a gimmicky bullshit fleet), meanwhile buffing HP provides a buffer against lance damage but really just prolongs the problem as even IN fleets have trouble fighting Chaos lances and they are more resistant to them than SM. Part of the problem does indeed lie with lances.

A HP buff for SM is in no way a good solution by itself, it's a rushed band-aid solution that people highly desire (I actually supported this before I saw SM played to full potential) but proper thought reveals that it would not be a good option regarding balance.

Pleb Squasher
Posts: 227
Joined: 13 March 2016, 03:54
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Pleb Squasher » 15 October 2016, 10:32

Ahzek Ahriman wrote:Health boost would greatly improve their resitance to Chaos and any other AP fleet.

Armour needs no nerfing when their macros suck so much, they're simply irrelevant.

Standard health + high armour = great durability at the cost of small damage, very fair trade-off.

If you boost health and macros while nerfing armour we'll just get the second IN with superior speed and boarding ability, that is out of question.

Although, if the macros got buffed while boarding torps nerfed, it would be a great change too. Would solve the boarding torp cheese, make macros actually useful (kind of) while keeping SM dmg at reasonable level.


SM macros don't really need changing, you trade weak macros for very strong boarding. Boarding torps need nerfs and that might make other SM options (like the lance/launch bay) armed strike cruisers more viable although we might still find these weapons need minor buffs to make them worthwhile.

Also remember that SM ships weak macros are offset by BBs having extremely powerful weapons, so BBs are essential in large games.

User avatar
MadDemiurg
Posts: 436
Joined: 27 March 2016, 21:30
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby MadDemiurg » 15 October 2016, 10:39

It's just the LCs that have low damage.

Strike cruisers have 2x6 dps broadside macro batteries and 3 dps AP bombardment cannon, firing at 50 armour it's 5.25 dps with 1 broadside, dominator would have 6, but it's also slower and more expensive and strike cruiser has better crits. Plus strike cruiser can have prow 3 dps lance or 6 torps that can be boarding torps or launchbays which at least equals it out vs nova. Dominator is better for double broadside though.

Battle barges have pretty crazy damage for cost.

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Imperator5 » 15 October 2016, 12:22

Battlebarges are Fine. Strike cruisers need cruiser health and shields, Vanguard cruisers need light cruiser health.

Their gimmicky boarding torpedoes do not make up for their utterly weak shields and health. With all but orks having access to AP, the marines are in trouble.

Your "Orks can't kill them" is a problem with orks that is not only present for SM. Orks need their close range AP back and Sm need health.
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.

User avatar
MadDemiurg
Posts: 436
Joined: 27 March 2016, 21:30
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby MadDemiurg » 15 October 2016, 12:33

Strike cruiser EHP vs macro = 2400 (HP) + 100 (shields) = 2500
Strike cruiser EHP vs AP macro = 1200 (HP) + 100 (shields) = 1300

Chaos cruiser EHP vs macro = 1600 (HP) + 200 (shields) = 1800
Chaos cruiser EHP vs AP macro = 1066.(6) (HP) + 200 (shields) = 1266.(6)

Strike cruiser health is more than fine even vs AP macro in 3k range, which you generally should avoid. Their dps is also quite decent. They are weak vs lance/bombers but lance fleets generally rely on kiting (since lance dps is not that great and they need to stay at range to compete vs macros) which is difficult vs SM.

I don't think SC need much more than +100 shields.

LCs on the other hand are pretty bad and need more buffs.

Perturabo-Liberal
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 33
Joined: 22 October 2015, 19:51
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Perturabo-Liberal » 15 October 2016, 19:21

MadDemiurg wrote:Strike cruiser EHP vs macro = 2400 (HP) + 100 (shields) = 2500
Strike cruiser EHP vs AP macro = 1200 (HP) + 100 (shields) = 1300

Chaos cruiser EHP vs macro = 1600 (HP) + 200 (shields) = 1800
Chaos cruiser EHP vs AP macro = 1066.(6) (HP) + 200 (shields) = 1266.(6)

Strike cruiser health is more than fine even vs AP macro in 3k range, which you generally should avoid. Their dps is also quite decent. They are weak vs lance/bombers but lance fleets generally rely on kiting (since lance dps is not that great and they need to stay at range to compete vs macros) which is difficult vs SM.

I don't think SC need much more than +100 shields.

LCs on the other hand are pretty bad and need more buffs.


Did you ever encounter full nurgle lance\carrier chaos fleet as SM?
You can't get close to it with your SCs because nurgle will just eat through their pitiful HP (I still have no idea why the damn thing is not mitigated by armor) and you can't keep your distance because you'll just lose the DPS fight that way. There is literally no good way of approaching it with your SCs.

User avatar
MadDemiurg
Posts: 436
Joined: 27 March 2016, 21:30
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby MadDemiurg » 15 October 2016, 20:47

Personally I'm mostly seeing Slaanesh/Tzeench lance/carriers and Nurgle brawlers. Nurgle lances is a pretty uncommon and niche build. I'm not saying there are no cheeses that are hard to deal with for SM. Nurgle lance/carrier would be one thing (you can still use your barges against it if you catch up). But in general SC survivability is not bad as shown above and buffing it to the levels where it would be able to outdps said Nurgle fleet is going to make it overpowered vs most other builds.

Jerjare
Posts: 38
Joined: 01 May 2016, 20:56
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Jerjare » 18 October 2016, 05:02

Pleb Squasher wrote:
Imperator5 wrote:
Pleb Squasher wrote:
On your first point:
SM hulls are poorly designed. If you have ever tried fighting SM with any kind of fleet that relies on macro type weapons you'll have serious problems. Obviously IN and Chaos can take AP ammo however without this upgrade macro armed ships are almost entirely useless against SM vessels. Orks don't have any AP option and once zzap are finally balanced out they'll have no chance against SM at all.
Obviously the big issue for SM is lances, however that's a difficult discussion as you can't overnerf lances, but at the same time giving SM hulls standard hull points in the factions current state would make them disgustingly op.


On this point:
No way do SM deserve this trait. It has been confirmed that when using brace, SM armour goes up to 95! That's a 95% chance that no macro damage will get through. 75% is already bad enough, 95% is ludicrous and if anything, SM armour values need nerfs regarding the use of brace.


SM fighter options are limited for a reason, it's so that ppl can rely more on bombers to fight SM which you need because bombers ignore armour. Also, while it's only 1 squad, it respawns for free every minute and doesn't put your thunder hawks on CD. Remember that when other factions want to deploy fighters, they forgo the use of bombers until the ability comes off CD once more. So the SM fighters are actually a great option and they take a skill slot, not an upgrade slot!


Ap macros aren't the ultimate solution to beating SM as the IN, however they are still necessary. As SM, you should only be within 3k of the enemy while boarding, otherwise you'll want to keep your distance. So AP ammo isn't that much of a threat if you play right.

If we want to see changes to SM durability, he changes should revolve around making them more durable vs Chaos as SM stand no chance against them due to their high number of lances + bombers. You could give SM standard hull points, but you'd have to nerf their armour so that they didn't ruin macro reliant fleets.
IMO, when played by someone who knows what they're doing SM are actually extremely strong as they are, the only issues being VS Chaos. If SM are going to get any kind of durability buffs, we would need to see boarding torps fixed and nerfed first.



Ignoring the whole point of SM macros being utter shit.

No, SM just need a flat out health boost. their armour just compensates for their utter lack of damage dealing.


Actually, SM fleets have pretty good damage when you mix in a BB, which is essential when playing them in larger sized games. There's a good guide in a thread somewhere on this forum from a guy who really knows how to play SM. If you play the fleet right, their damage is fine.

Also even without a BB, SM damage is low because a large portion of your damage comes from the numerous fires + hull breaches you inflict + other crits from bombardment cannons. Buffing SM health wouldn't fix them it would just further increase the problems present. It would be even harder to beat them as IN and impossible as Orks (provided you're not playing a gimmicky bullshit fleet), meanwhile buffing HP provides a buffer against lance damage but really just prolongs the problem as even IN fleets have trouble fighting Chaos lances and they are more resistant to them than SM. Part of the problem does indeed lie with lances.

A HP buff for SM is in no way a good solution by itself, it's a rushed band-aid solution that people highly desire (I actually supported this before I saw SM played to full potential) but proper thought reveals that it would not be a good option regarding balance.

I agree that a HP buff is short term thinking. It doesn't address the sheer degree of vulnerability to lances.

I think a problem they have is that both Vanguards and Battle Barges are 'in between' ships that don't fit well in the game. Vanguard is like a very heavy effort) escort, while battle barge is a good battleship placed in the 2x battlecruiser bracket. The former is so overpriced for what you get that it's seldom worth it, while the latter is so good it's nearly essential for SM to be viable.

Then let's not forget that not only are you limited to 1 favor of each type total. For Chapter Master this makes sense because it applies to all ships, but for the others it makes mediocre skills even worse. Given how limited you are in number of ships, I think the other 3 favors should impart some lesser benefit to other ships ;right now there's no point in taking favors on Vanguards because you'll typically go CM and MotF on your barges, and Mos and Librarian on your strike cruisers. Then there's the fact that you get no passive benefit and need to invest crew points to make them decent. I'd do this :
MotF: Each crew point reduces cool down of emergency repairs by 5 seconds for all ships present. It also replaces tech marine slot on your ship
MoS: Each crew point increases troop value of all other ships by 2. It also replaces troops slot on the favored ship.
Librarian: Each crew point increases sensor range of all ships by 166m. It also replaces your astropath slot on the favored ship.

Now favors aren't a crew sink and benefit everybody. The benefits are small but that's because if you have 4 favored ships they all get all the benefits together.

User avatar
Imperator5
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 3063
Joined: 22 December 2015, 07:46
Contact:

Re: Fundamental Space Marine problems

Postby Imperator5 » 18 October 2016, 13:06

If SM ships get boosted to the same HP as any other ship, how are they more vulnerable to lances than lets say IN or Chaos?
http://forum.battlefleetgothic-armada.com/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=621

Please help me change skirmish to be customisable. Its very important for PVE players.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=515 Mod idea.


Return to “General Gameplay Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests