Are stances ok?

I just went throught BFG rulebook to look at chaos ships and I came across the description of the orders. I just realized that ships stats have to be very closely related to orders bonus. But in BFGA2, if ships stats are relatively close to TT rules, order are gone. They have been replaced by stances and full ahead speed, rush etc, and stances are very different. I wonder if it could be the origin of many balance problems discussed on this forum.

The gap between close range macro and lance dps is because of reload stance bonus. Some ships overperforming at ranges they souldn't (Slaugter) is because of lock on stance (on release Eldar long range was a big prbl to). Smaller ships being crit every second too. It seems like a lot of problems are realted to stance or the fact that ships stats stayed mostly the same despite stances had changed completely.

So you could keep stances as they are but you probably have a lot of ship modification to do. (as we can all agree that most of the ships in this game are not well balanced) or maybe you could go back and have stance closer to the TT orders.

  • Lock on would be your stance if you want to shoot better = +20% to hit for macro and some crit bonus for lances (100% may be to high, that's why crit resist had to be improved) no more range bonus
  • Relaod would be your mobility / ordnances stance = lowering cd on ordnances / mobility skills, nom more imba +66% dps lol
  • Brace for impact is your defensive stance bonus for turrets / and less moral dmg, no more -25% damages.

That way ships performances would be way simplier to balance depending on only one stance and weapons / ships stats of course.

/discuss

last edited by CanardNoir

If you are using the TT rules, the movement also would need to be different. For example All Ahead Full wasn't a 200% increase in speed.

@tyran272

Never said we should use TT rules :p

Some stances bring too much bonus and for 0 counterpart so you always pick the best one and don t bother switch to another one.
If you are brawler or vs mass carrier = brace
Lance build = lock on
Macro build = reload
ans so on

@beernchips This is wrong. Reload is one of the most used though because it buffs both macro firing rate and combustion replenishment, so it is used the most. Usage of stances is reactive though.

Lock on: Failing to hit enemy because of long range or fishing for a crit with lances
Reload: Chasing/Kiting and close range brawling (orks are exception since their heavy macro accuracy is horrible and +20% hit chance from lock on is very beneficial)
Brace for impact: Should be used only if you expect a tremendous ammount of damage to hull, from ram, bombers or torpedoes.

I do agree that it'd be nice to get some cuts to macro firing on Reload, as combustion replenishment is already very powerful. Additional range on Lock on should probably be gone too.

last edited by JawRippa

For macro reload is +66% shots so better DPS and crits possible. The accuracy increase from lock on will never give that much DPS increase and with gauge and cd bonus you will chase or kite easier so macro ships have no reason to use lock on. For long range lances (13.5k and more) the range bonus means you dont have to chase because you get insane range with perfect accuracy so lock on is better than reload. It is debatable for short range ships or those who benefit from the CD reduction

Certain ships benefit hugely from stances. And it creates Metas.

For example OP pointed out Lock on with Slaughter ( Chaos Macro Cruiser) . While Lock on brings a lot less DPS to the ship than reload does because of the extremely large reduction in time taken between shooting, it makes for pure Slaughter fleets a completely viable strategy. And currently the meta for Chaos. If Lock on did not give the range increase to this ship, it would not be a viable strategy because the ship would no longer be able to fire at 13500 range, which means its viable against factions like Tyranids and Orks, or Space marines that will beat you if they get close.

Without the range increase to the slaughter from lock on, the pure slaughter fleet would then be only viable in certain matchups, like a lot of Carrier fleets and lance fleets currently are, for example, lance fleets suffer against large ork fleets because you will eventually get cought and killed, and the DPS that lances gives, is no where near enough to punch through that much HP and armour fast enough. On the other hand Carrier fleets are shut down by Necrons starpulse so using these types of fleets is hit and miss.

So yes you could say that the huge benefits these stances gives does promote these extremely bland but effective one ship fleets like the Slaughterbecause of how versatile it makes ships and may be a root to some imbalances.

@nin6 it makes marginal difference if I kite from 9.000 or 13.500 range.

@fosil

Okay, so tyranids can rush 8k distance all in one go, + 4.5 k boarding range. As an example. Shooting from 9k would open you up to tyranid boarding.

last edited by Nin6

@nin6 nid thread range is a lot longer with tentacle play. but thats not important, because you can eat the boarding and rush kill them with close range reload fire and some ramming.

@fosil

And orks? Can you out dps 10 - 12 sixteen hundred Hp light crusiers, or 7-8 two thousand HP Battlecruisers armed with Mega cannons that fire at 9k range plus potential boarding?

Are you referring to Slaughters?