IN 'Concerns'.

Share your glorious tactics. Glory to the Emperor!
Dreese5581
Posts: 107
Joined: 28 October 2015, 15:53
Location: Detroit, where the weak are killed and eaten.
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Dreese5581 » 23 April 2016, 12:40

Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf wrote:Only things I would like to change: A bit higher rate of fire for imperial lances. They have shorter range then chaos, and because of lance ROF ships with mixed weapons are not used, the lance range upgrade would be a MUST HAVE...so you waste an offensive upgrade for only half of your weapons. An ROF buff could change that.

Secondly, and this would be good for every faction except Eldar, reduce Holofield strength against macro weaponry to 65 percent. In the tabletop, this was what the Eldar players had to avoid. Macro weapons had a higher chance to hit through a holofield then lances. This could reduce the Eldar OP factor.


Eldar just got a macro weapon nerf on their holofields. They also lost all their def upgrades (the new ones give instant max holofield and a min value, but if you keep moving they do nothing). So vs a smart player with lots of macros you should shred an eldar fleet. On the gothic that everyone is complaining on the range about, the base stats for all the ships come from table top rules. Several ships have been changed. But the range on the gothic in the is the same as TT, hasnt been changed. What you want with the gothic would pretty much end people playing chaos as without the range advantage they would be screwed vs IN. A smart player can still get in close to chaos, specially with all the abilities available. The gothic though might need a 1 point str upgrade on its lances. They changed the number of lances on all the ships. On TT they had a 50% chance to hit but you had more of them. In this game they have 25% chance to miss but you have less shots. The gothic is one of the ships most hurt by this (although i miss the 3 lance shots frontal on the dauntless too). So i can see maybe upgrading the gothic lances by 1.

The dauntless is a great ship, not sure what your complaining about. They have good firepower vs all races. The reduced lances up front hurts, but they added a 270 degree WB so you dont really lose damage. Hell that makes them BETTER vs Eldar.
Fanatic Table Top Player
The Lord Tzeentch compels me!
Come to the side of Chaos, for we have cookies!

User avatar
Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf
(Former) Technical Tester
Posts: 273
Joined: 23 October 2015, 09:27
Location: Celle near Hannover
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf » 23 April 2016, 12:44

Dreese5581 wrote:
Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf wrote:Only things I would like to change: A bit higher rate of fire for imperial lances. They have shorter range then chaos, and because of lance ROF ships with mixed weapons are not used, the lance range upgrade would be a MUST HAVE...so you waste an offensive upgrade for only half of your weapons. An ROF buff could change that.

Secondly, and this would be good for every faction except Eldar, reduce Holofield strength against macro weaponry to 65 percent. In the tabletop, this was what the Eldar players had to avoid. Macro weapons had a higher chance to hit through a holofield then lances. This could reduce the Eldar OP factor.


Eldar just got a macro weapon nerf on their holofields. They also lost all their def upgrades (the new ones give instant max holofield and a min value, but if you keep moving they do nothing). So vs a smart player with lots of macros you should shred an eldar fleet. On the gothic that everyone is complaining on the range about, the base stats for all the ships come from table top rules. Several ships have been changed. But the range on the gothic in the is the same as TT, hasnt been changed. What you want with the gothic would pretty much end people playing chaos as without the range advantage they would be screwed vs IN. A smart player can still get in close to chaos, specially with all the abilities available. The gothic though might need a 1 point str upgrade on its lances. They changed the number of lances on all the ships. On TT they had a 50% chance to hit but you had more of them. In this game they have 25% chance to miss but you have less shots. The gothic is one of the ships most hurt by this (although i miss the 3 lance shots frontal on the dauntless too). So i can see maybe upgrading the gothic lances by 1.

The dauntless is a great ship, not sure what your complaining about. They have good firepower vs all races. The reduced lances up front hurts, but they added a 270 degree WB so you dont really lose damage. Hell that makes them BETTER vs Eldar.
Ah...did you misunderstand me? I don't want more range for IN lances, but higher ROF. Not much, though. Just a bit. Chaos would still keep their range advantage. Chaos would have higher range and higher damage, while the short range IN laces would get a bit more damage at close range because of the ROF, so ships with mixed broadside armament like the Lunar-class wouldn't be out of favour that much anymore.

And I never said I don't like the Dauntless-class (write it big, it's a name ;) ), in fact it is one of my favourites. Range upgrade on 9k prow lance, frontal engangement set and have fun. They are extremly durable with their frontal armour facing the enemy.
"God-Emperor? Calling him a god is what started this mess in the first place..." Bjorn the Fell-Handed
Purging the bugs you'll never know!

Candor
Posts: 313
Joined: 01 March 2016, 15:18
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Candor » 23 April 2016, 13:14

A pure DPS buff for IN lances wouldn't do much IMHO, and nor would a range upgrade.

The reason why the Lunar is currently a suboptimal choice*, and why the Gothic is a bit mediocre is that in TT lances were good at long range, and for when you were focussing down one ship, because unlike batteries they ha no damage falloff because of blast markers or range.

Because we have no blast marker mechanics and brawler Macro ships can get AP, we're in a situation where lances have only one major advantage, which is the efficency at range, which is where the calls for a Gothic range buff come from - because at the moment lanceboats only have one role, the sniper.

What I would do instead is give Imperial lances a damage buff or greatly increased crit chance against targets which have recently been hit by an Imperial Macrocannon, thereby thematically fitting with the tabletop, while also requiring a little bit more finesse than a straight up buff, and therefore would be a bit fairer.

*I however use the fact that Lunar weapons upgrades are inefficient to double down on defensive upgrades, giving me a tanky, flexible ship which soaks up damage for better damage dealers.
"Our country will, I believe, sooner forgive an officer for attacking an enemy than for letting it alone."

User avatar
Avlaen
Posts: 557
Joined: 22 March 2016, 03:13
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Avlaen » 23 April 2016, 13:28

Candor wrote:A pure DPS buff for IN lances wouldn't do much IMHO, and nor would a range upgrade.

The reason why the Lunar is currently a suboptimal choice*, and why the Gothic is a bit mediocre is that in TT lances were good at long range, and for when you were focussing down one ship, because unlike batteries they ha no damage falloff because of blast markers or range.

Because we have no blast marker mechanics and brawler Macro ships can get AP, we're in a situation where lances have only one major advantage, which is the efficency at range, which is where the calls for a Gothic range buff come from - because at the moment lanceboats only have one role, the sniper.

What I would do instead is give Imperial lances a damage buff or greatly increased crit chance against targets which have recently been hit by an Imperial Macrocannon, thereby thematically fitting with the tabletop, while also requiring a little bit more finesse than a straight up buff, and therefore would be a bit fairer.

*I however use the fact that Lunar weapons upgrades are inefficient to double down on defensive upgrades, giving me a tanky, flexible ship which soaks up damage for better damage dealers.


the problem with a tanky lunar is you can have a tanky dominator or a tanky tyrant who would still outperform it.

Magni
Posts: 50
Joined: 11 March 2016, 21:47
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Magni » 23 April 2016, 15:28

I think the problem is tha a lot of new players come in and don't really understand that the biggest strenght and to some degree weakness of the IN is their flexibility. They build their fleet around a single tactic and then predictably fail when they run into a counter to it. You can do such a rather one-track approach with Eldar or Orks or to some degree Chaos, but with the Imperials you really need to be building your fleet roster so you can adjust what you take into the fight and what tactics you use depending on the mission type and the enemy.

Dreese5581
Posts: 107
Joined: 28 October 2015, 15:53
Location: Detroit, where the weak are killed and eaten.
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Dreese5581 » 23 April 2016, 17:22

Hjalfnar_Feuerwolf Not all my comments where directed at you, think at least one thing i agreed with you on. Look back and several posters before you where asking for range on the gothic and someone previously said that the dauntless sucked. I kinda want a dauntless to replace my Hellbearer mk2 >.<
Fanatic Table Top Player
The Lord Tzeentch compels me!
Come to the side of Chaos, for we have cookies!

Candor
Posts: 313
Joined: 01 March 2016, 15:18
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Candor » 23 April 2016, 18:25

Avlaen wrote:
Candor wrote: *snip*


the problem with a tanky lunar is you can have a tanky dominator or a tanky tyrant who would still outperform it.


Well it would need less supervision versus foes with heavy armour, and the damage falloff isn't as bad.
"Our country will, I believe, sooner forgive an officer for attacking an enemy than for letting it alone."

User avatar
Avlaen
Posts: 557
Joined: 22 March 2016, 03:13
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Avlaen » 23 April 2016, 18:38

Candor wrote:
Avlaen wrote:
Candor wrote: *snip*


the problem with a tanky lunar is you can have a tanky dominator or a tanky tyrant who would still outperform it.


Well it would need less supervision versus foes with heavy armour, and the damage falloff isn't as bad.


Eh perhaps, but wouldnt a dominator be better for that jsut set it to 3k with ap ammo and auto novacannon?

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

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Imperator5 » 23 April 2016, 18:42

Don't use MWJ anymore, its crap.
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.

Candor
Posts: 313
Joined: 01 March 2016, 15:18
Contact:

Re: IN 'Concerns'.

Postby Candor » 23 April 2016, 18:50

Avlaen wrote:
Candor wrote:
Avlaen wrote:
the problem with a tanky lunar is you can have a tanky dominator or a tanky tyrant who would still outperform it.


Well it would need less supervision versus foes with heavy armour, and the damage falloff isn't as bad.


Eh perhaps, but wouldnt a dominator be better for that jsut set it to 3k with ap ammo and auto novacannon?


Well it is personal taste a bit atm. Well you might not want to be within 3K all the time, and the AP upgrade is an upgrade you could be spending on more defenses or a ramming spike.

I also don't trust Autocast with Novas; I've dropped enough Nova shells on my own ships during a brawl, I don't need the AI's help! :P
"Our country will, I believe, sooner forgive an officer for attacking an enemy than for letting it alone."


Return to “Imperial Navy”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests