Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Share your ideas and suggestions for Battlefleet Gothic: Armada.
MYNAME?
Posts: 881
Joined: 19 March 2016, 18:39
Contact:

Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby MYNAME? » 11 April 2016, 06:11

I think what would be really refreshing for everyone to have bombs become a bit more difficult to use. There are plenty of threads on here but they are all pretty swamped. So here are my ideas that me and some people came up with.

Stasis, Disruption and plasma bombs could have a limited cast ark. You can still maybe teleport them or shoot them out of the side of your ship or what not. Since Stasis bomb is a tool for catching kiters as well as for kiters to get out of a bind, it would maybe be cool to have them only be able to cast these things in a 90* Degree ark in front and behind your ship. This would allow the stasis bomb to still be used defensively and offensively. Plasma bombs could have a 90 degree ark left and right and have it be an effect that is either teleported or shot out via pod. If it comes in form of a pod it cant be shot down. its just an "animation" the indicators and all that good stuff would still be there. Like a space grenade almost. Last but not least the Disruption bomb. We could have the disruption bomb be deployable in a 270* Degree angle.

Also something to add as well if they would have the bombs teleported. It should automatically cause the lightning stike ability to go in CD mode. You will still be able to use the Close range boarding torpedos but not the Lighting strike when you just casted a bomb

These changes would probably work out really well and reduce the point and click strategy of some players. Yes Bombs are fairly easy to dodge already but i think having line of fire Limitations on these things would make using bombs take a lil bit more skill.

Micro Warp Jump

Its a very good skill but it is too good IMO (I use it on all my ships almost....)

MWJ should have one draw back. Not sure what this drawback would be. But im sure some of you guys got some ideas for this.
I think maybe having your ship get a small debuff after MWJ was initiated wouldnt be too bad. Debuff to (Speed, Accuracy, Damage) would be optional OR have it affect Command Decision. Having it reset your Command Decision cool down would work too.

Arcas
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 March 2016, 06:06
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Arcas » 11 April 2016, 08:41

IMHO all teleported bombs should count as using the teleportarium, using them comes at the cost of the boarding action provided by lightning strikes.

Then again i see no reason why lightning strikes and regular boarding actions should be mutually exclusive. Having both would be too powerful, but the reason for that is that crits are too powerful right now. Nerfing crits would take care of that too, allowing both types of boarding actions simultaneously, one of which could be mutually exclusive with teleporting bombs.

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Kadaeux » 11 April 2016, 11:23

No. The bombs should behave like probes that detonate at their chosen destination and are vulnerable to point defence (but are armoured enough to take some hits.)

User avatar
jcvonpreussen
Posts: 26
Joined: 07 April 2016, 18:00
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby jcvonpreussen » 12 April 2016, 05:00

The more I play this game the more I tell myself I should have picked the bombs. A combinations of stasis + bombs + MWJ in a light cruiser fleet does seem to be the best combo so far.

However, I play Adeptus Astartes light cruisers since 2 days, as it was suggested on this forum, and they can pretty much counter "ability" - skill tactics. Yet, it's all in rush / boarding action. I feel like a civilized Ork... And I prefer half ranged combats.

Finger crossed. Abilities need new thoughts.

Arcas
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 March 2016, 06:06
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Arcas » 12 April 2016, 06:01

Kadaeux wrote:No. The bombs should behave like probes that detonate at their chosen destination and are vulnerable to point defence (but are armoured enough to take some hits.)

That would make an interesting game mechanic, basically increasing the warmup before the detonation with increasing distance to the target.

But from a fluff point of view it just feels wrong. A plasma bomb is way, way stronger than a torpedo, yet one could fire it like a augur probe. That doesn't feel right to me.

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Kadaeux » 12 April 2016, 06:41

Arcas wrote:
Kadaeux wrote:No. The bombs should behave like probes that detonate at their chosen destination and are vulnerable to point defence (but are armoured enough to take some hits.)

That would make an interesting game mechanic, basically increasing the warmup before the detonation with increasing distance to the target.

But from a fluff point of view it just feels wrong. A plasma bomb is way, way stronger than a torpedo, yet one could fire it like a augur probe. That doesn't feel right to me.


A torpedo IS a plasma bomb. It's literally the defining fact of Imperial ship to ship torpedoes.

"The term 'torpedo' has always been used to describe any long-range missile carried by a spaceship. A typical anti-ship torpedo is over 200 feet long and powered by a plasma reactor, which also acts as a sizeable portion of its warhead, turning it into a devastating plasma bomb." - Battlefleet Gothic, page 28.

In fact. A single torpedo is more powerful than a basic Plasma Bomb. You look at the rules, 1 torpedo = 1 point of damage in BFG. The Nova Cannon does 8 damage.

A nova cannon is described as "unleashing a force more potent than a dozen plasma bombs" and does up to 6 damage regardless of armour value. In short, six torpedoes are the equal of a dozen plasma bombs or more.

Arcas
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 March 2016, 06:06
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Arcas » 12 April 2016, 08:37

Kadaeux wrote:
Arcas wrote:
Kadaeux wrote:No. The bombs should behave like probes that detonate at their chosen destination and are vulnerable to point defence (but are armoured enough to take some hits.)

That would make an interesting game mechanic, basically increasing the warmup before the detonation with increasing distance to the target.

But from a fluff point of view it just feels wrong. A plasma bomb is way, way stronger than a torpedo, yet one could fire it like a augur probe. That doesn't feel right to me.


A torpedo IS a plasma bomb. It's literally the defining fact of Imperial ship to ship torpedoes.

"The term 'torpedo' has always been used to describe any long-range missile carried by a spaceship. A typical anti-ship torpedo is over 200 feet long and powered by a plasma reactor, which also acts as a sizeable portion of its warhead, turning it into a devastating plasma bomb." - Battlefleet Gothic, page 28.

In fact. A single torpedo is more powerful than a basic Plasma Bomb. You look at the rules, 1 torpedo = 1 point of damage in BFG. The Nova Cannon does 8 damage.

A nova cannon is described as "unleashing a force more potent than a dozen plasma bombs" and does up to 6 damage regardless of armour value. In short, six torpedoes are the equal of a dozen plasma bombs or more.

Well, warheads obviously come in various sizes, don't they? That of the BFGA plasma bomb does up to 200 damage, that of a torpedo does 45 if i recall correctly (or was it 35?).

Sending something like an augur probe that contains the payload of four regular torpedoes begs the question why regular torpedoes are so much bigger and less flexible.

It's literally the defining fact of Imperial ship to ship torpedoes.

No, your own citation falsifies this. The "typical" torpedo may work in a certain way, but that directly implies that there are others, and therefore the use of a plasma warhead cannot be the defining criterion. It just means that very most torpedoes use plasma to deal damage (albeit it doesn't even explicitly state that the main warhead is plasma based, just that the detonation of the reactor is a significant part of the explosion. The main warhead could be anything.)

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Kadaeux » 12 April 2016, 08:58

Arcas wrote:Well, warheads obviously come in various sizes, don't they? That of the BFGA plasma bomb does up to 200 damage, that of a torpedo does 45 if i recall correctly (or was it 35?).

Sending something like an augur probe that contains the payload of four regular torpedoes begs the question why regular torpedoes are so much bigger and less flexible.


In the lore, no. A Torpedo carried by a Cobra Class is the same as carried by a Retribution Class Battleship. (Though escorts don't get access to rarer torpedo types.)

No, your own citation falsifies this. The "typical" torpedo may work in a certain way, but that directly implies that there are others, and therefore the use of a plasma warhead cannot be the defining criterion. It just means that very most torpedoes use plasma to deal damage (albeit it doesn't even explicitly state that the main warhead is plasma based, just that the detonation of the reactor is a significant part of the explosion. The main warhead could be anything.)


And as I said, it is the defining characteristic of a ship to ship torpedo. You're basically trying to argue that because some Submarine launched missiles have nuclear warheads we can't refer to the standard ship to ship missile as a standard ship to ship missile.

We know about other Torpedoes.

Vortex Torpedoes.
Melta Torpedoes.
Boarding Torpedoes.
Barrage Bombs. (Orbit to surface weapon only.)
Short-Burn Torpedoes.
Guided Torpedoes.
Seeker Torpedoes.

As well as some rare ones mentioned in the lore, (like 1st Ed Space Hulks torpedoes which contained 112 separate warheads each with a yield of 5 gigatonnes of TNT equivalent.)

You know what all of those have in common? None of them are standard anti-shipping torpedoes. They're explicitly rare torpedoes that have to be requisitioned specifically and even then a ship only gets a tiny amount of them. (And in the Melta and Vortex torpedoes, are nearly as dangerous to the carrying ship as the enemy.)

Arcas
Posts: 57
Joined: 31 March 2016, 06:06
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Arcas » 12 April 2016, 09:19

Kadaeux wrote:
Arcas wrote:Well, warheads obviously come in various sizes, don't they? That of the BFGA plasma bomb does up to 200 damage, that of a torpedo does 45 if i recall correctly (or was it 35?).

Sending something like an augur probe that contains the payload of four regular torpedoes begs the question why regular torpedoes are so much bigger and less flexible.


In the lore, no. A Torpedo carried by a Cobra Class is the same as carried by a Retribution Class Battleship. (Though escorts don't get access to rarer torpedo types.)

No, your own citation falsifies this. The "typical" torpedo may work in a certain way, but that directly implies that there are others, and therefore the use of a plasma warhead cannot be the defining criterion. It just means that very most torpedoes use plasma to deal damage (albeit it doesn't even explicitly state that the main warhead is plasma based, just that the detonation of the reactor is a significant part of the explosion. The main warhead could be anything.)


And as I said, it is the defining characteristic of a ship to ship torpedo. You're basically trying to argue that because some Submarine launched missiles have nuclear warheads we can't refer to the standard ship to ship missile as a standard ship to ship missile.

We know about other Torpedoes.

Vortex Torpedoes.
Melta Torpedoes.
Boarding Torpedoes.
Barrage Bombs. (Orbit to surface weapon only.)
Short-Burn Torpedoes.
Guided Torpedoes.
Seeker Torpedoes.

As well as some rare ones mentioned in the lore, (like 1st Ed Space Hulks torpedoes which contained 112 separate warheads each with a yield of 5 gigatonnes of TNT equivalent.)

You know what all of those have in common? None of them are standard anti-shipping torpedoes. They're explicitly rare torpedoes that have to be requisitioned specifically and even then a ship only gets a tiny amount of them. (And in the Melta and Vortex torpedoes, are nearly as dangerous to the carrying ship as the enemy.)


You are trying to redefine the meaning of "defining criterion" to mean "most common variety". You're also sneaking in the word "standard" in your ship to ship missile example.

if you had said, "a plasma warhead is a defining criterion of a standard torpedo compared to the more specialized variants of torpedos", then that would be one thing.
But the term "torpedo" without any other qualifiers such as "standard" and what is supposed to be compared to encompasses things like vortex torpedoes etc, and thus the plasma warhead is not its defining criterion.
Defining criterion of a torpedo without further qualifiers is that it's a a tube with a warhead of any kind and a engine that propels itself towards the target.

Similarly, just because a standard ship to ship missile may have a semtex warhead, that doesn't mean that a semtex warhead is the defining criterion of a ship to ship missile. Also it would mean that anything with a semtex warhead is a ship to ship missile. That air-to-air missile that happens to have a semtex warhead too might disagree.
Otherwise that would also mean that e.g. a nuclear ship to ship missile is NOT a ship to ship missile. It may not be a *standard* ship to ship missile, but it still is a ship to ship missile.

User avatar
Kadaeux
Posts: 517
Joined: 05 November 2015, 05:38
Location: NSW, Australia
Contact:

Re: Make offensive skills (bombs) take more "Skill" to use and MWJ Suggestion

Postby Kadaeux » 12 April 2016, 09:31

Arcas wrote:You are trying to redefine the meaning of "defining criterion" to mean "most common variety". You're also sneaking in the word "standard" in your ship to ship missile example.

if you had said, "a plasma warhead is a defining criterion of a standard torpedo compared to the more specialized variants of torpedos", then that would be one thing.


No, i'm not trying to redefine it. I've stated fact. I stated that it was the defining fact of the Imperial Anti-Shipping Torpedo.

I did not say it was the defining fact of the Vortex Torpedo. I did not say it was the defining fact of the Melta, Seeker, Guided, Short-Burn or Boarding torpedoes.

But the term "torpedo" without any other qualifiers such as "standard" and what is supposed to be compared to encompasses things like vortex torpedoes etc, and thus the plasma warhead is not its defining criterion.
Defining criterion of a torpedo without further qualifiers is that it's a a tube with a warhead of any kind and a engine that propels itself towards the target.


Except I didn't say just torpedo. I said "A torpedo IS a plasma bomb. It's literally the defining fact of Imperial ship to ship torpedoes." all other Torpedo types are specifically defined by name.

Similarly, just because a standard ship to ship missile may have a semtex warhead, that doesn't mean that a semtex warhead is the defining criterion of a ship to ship missile. Also it would mean that anything with a semtex warhead is a ship to ship missile. That air-to-air missile that happens to have a semtex warhead too might disagree.


I see you're one of those who fails to understand that because a dead person is Alma Kogan does not mean all dead people are Alma Kogan. The fact that an Imperium Anti-Shipping Torpedo is defined by it's Plasma Bomb component does not mean all Plasma Bombs are anti-shipping torpedoes.

Otherwise that would also mean that e.g. a nuclear ship to ship missile is NOT a ship to ship missile. It may not be a *standard* ship to ship missile, but it still is a ship to ship missile.


No, it's not a ship to ship missile. It is a nuclear missile. It may have anti-shipping capabilities but it is DEFINED by it's warhead.


Return to “Ideas & Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron