Tyranids Faction Feedback Thread

Kind of surprised noone ever made this, considering that space bugs are pretty popular. I'll be the first to break silence then. Any high level Nid player out there willing to add something to this thread would be great, please don't shy away!

About myself? Right now I'm 2nd on a Nid leaderboard (for whatever that's worth anyways). At the very least I'm pretty confident in my knowledge about their strengths and weaknesses, matchups and most disgusting meta fleets ever. Also English isn't my 1st language. It'll be a hard read, please bear with me, haha.

1. About 2nd update and Nid rebalance overall.
Mostly, a fail. Point cost reduction is always welcome, especially on escorts. Adding new orders however, how should I put it? Questionable decision, I guess. As a result, Nids competitive fleets became stronger and bad fleets are still bad. I'll try to break this down point by point as to show how and where rebalance was a miss (and where it was a hit, even if as collateral).

2. Reclamation Pools (aka infinite ordnance).
Must go. No matter how I like the concept of carriers and ordnance play, adding limited charges on abilities is one of the most basic design desicions in the game. One must balance things around it, not break it right away. Right now ordnance is in very weird spot (fighters and bombers mostly, torpedoes not so much). It can deal huge amount of damage to an unprepared opponent, but a good player has many ways to shut it down (like break line of sight, kite, blob&brace or combination of everything). A powerful tool, but it badly lacks finesse. Instead of breaking rules you guys created yourself I'd advise make ordnance more reliable, give player more control over it (like, literally give control over strike craft) and balance it's actual firepower around that.

3. Spawning Sacs.
Is what makes 'infinite ordnance' truly infinite. As for it primal function - anti-boarding mechanism - it's pretty meh. You need to time it right to get any value at all, which in many cases is impossible in the middle of a battle. Still better than nothing, I suppose? If it stays, I advise make it to refill troops over time instead.

4. Adrenal Glands (aka DoUbLe RuSh)
Contrary to popular belief, isn't OP (after rush distance nerf, that is). Nids gain 20% increased mobility on average compared to 1.1 update and they are still 2nd slowest race in the game (if orks dont take speed upgrade, if they do then nids are slower). The most complaints come from players that preferred to kite Nids to death before update, do I feel them? I sure do. I don't paly solely Tyranids, as Necron and Tau I deal with jaw Nids on a regular basis in legendary/epic rank. The thing however, when melee brawler fleet meets ranged kite fleet, melee one should eventually catch up. Asking for mobility nerf on an already very slow faction is basically asking for a 100% free win. The balance point should lie in how much damage runaway fleet is able to do before it's caught, and that is actually a pretty well known complaint as well.

As for actual double ram that jaw Nids got as a free bonus - eeehhhh? I'm not sure, honestly. It sounds powerful on paper, but when chasing I usually burn it to actually get in range at all, and when against brawling fleet, second ram when already chewing a ship usually is a waste. Somehow, my worst matchup (Orks, which is basically a free win for them if opponent is even remotely skilled) didnt change at all. Likewise, my best matchup against jaw Nid (as Necron. Seriously, just dispose of your precious Mass Recall, take damage skils and go crit their jaws and kill them. Nids have zero staying power) is the same too. Overall the very concept of a melee fleet is skewed so heavily I doubt those ever become balanced in a way everyone be happy about. Down below I have a couple suggestions on how to lessen their impact without touching rush nor jaws as a weapon.

==================================================================

But that is all about strong, meta Tyranid compositions. We all know that the reason for rework in the first place was them being destroyed in higher tier play. So why and where do Tyranids suck? There is substantial number of bad fleets deflating their winrates and all of them rely on mechanics that are flawed at their core, but those mechanics get completely negated or bypassed by meta comps which basically what makes those meta comps strong.

And of course, I'm talking about Tyranids actual DPS and Synaptic Link.

5. Synaptic Link.
The idea was there, I get that. Planning battle around killing/protecting one high valuable target adds a good amount of tactical play and mindgames to every match, which is what I personally like so much in RTS, especially when put against a human opponent. In reality however, the amount of firepower needed to bring down any single given ship - is not so great. Which basically forces every Tyranid player to make a choice - do I want to hide my Synapse ship and basically gimp my fleet by throwing away both flagship and it's skills? Or do I use this juicy juicy Synaptic Relay upgrade that nullifies the problem but limits my fleet diversity to 4 (2 really) ships? You get the point so let me put it bluntly.

You either Rework Synaptic link effect and debuffs
or
Remove Synaptic Relay upgrade from the game and make Nid ships stronger to compensate. That's all.

(I personally like second option more becuz mindgames but whatever)

6. The Damage
Is bad. Is what everyone thinks of it, but it's actually terrible. On top of not-so-inspiring DPS numbers all Nid ships have 'Instinctive' trait that does not let them focus fire. They always attack target closest to them, which believe me or not is a huge deal. It basically gives control over what to shoot to your opponent - by microing ships with shield down back you make sure Nids can never ever do any damage. This is further complemented by poor range, making shield DoT pretty reliable source of damage by comparison. Funny, but true.

I advise to make clear what you want Tyranid race to be. If a purely boarding and hulking race - be prepared to every ship without means to do additional boarding action to be obsolete (which is what we have now). If you want diversity and use for a ships with no hangars - give them dakka. A lot. There is no need to dispose of an Instinctive trait, just make them really dangerous 'almost melee' brawling shooting kind of ships. Even if numbers would look scary, the real impact will be lessened by micro and counterplay which is how things should be.

Also if you ever consider something of this scale, take a look at Nid ships turn rates. For a race that needs to be in melee most of the time those are absolutely atrocious. You know, just a reminder.

=================================================================

And that's a wrap! Thanks for reading, any kind of feedback would be much appreciated. As of now Tyranids remain the most disbalanced race in the game and are still in need of attention. I myself was pleasantly suprised that developers are still willing to make such drastic changes even after game release, so I'm not giving up on hope to ever see this game to realise it's full potential.

last edited by doctoryog

Honestly while I completely agree, does anyone has a suggestions on taking Imperial Navy Fleets? currently having issues with all the ram damage.

mostly agree

i like spawning sacs as it takes consideration

and im not fully against reclamation pool, its in the lore it was in the TT
its just that in the game currently ordnance is either pointless or op, it has a tipping point after a certain quantity
multibay ships should cost a lot more, the 4 bay devourer more then 300 would be ideal
a nid fleet should never have more then 14 bays ideally, then they could use it as a herding tool

ideally for the synapse rework, i would prefer more ships over stronger ships
even if it required nerfing their boarding i would like to see nids with more numbers then orks
nids would be good as a more extreme orks, orks kindof fall apart when losing the warboss, nids should do so completely, problem is with current numbers nids have no chanse to protect their admiral with the ridiculously small fleets they have

also, the jaw LCs need to be fixed
a 50/50 chance to commit suicide on your fist attack is just dumb

What I tried to express was that the real problem of all and every Tyranid ship lies within poorly designed (for a real-time strategy game that is) Synaptic Link and poor damage output. Adding orders was just a step in the wrong direction, so expecting a rollback of some sorts combined with a true problem fix is natural. How exactly that can be done is completely up to developers, but lore and table-top BFG won't become good reference for that, I can assure you. We already have results, after all.

Also I don't think requests for more numerous Nid ships and carriers with 300+ cost complement each other well, sorry 😃

Overall I'm against carriers having this much cost over 'normal' ships. Why? Because that makes full carrier fleets more skewed in gameplay. You may have the firepower to bring down an entire enemy fleet, but you have only half of usual for your faction ship number. It means less troops, less HP, less map presence. It means for every win you get you are more likely to lose to fleet that relies, lets say, on boarding. Or burst torpedo damage. Or kite and capture points using stealth. You are vulnerable to them simply because your headcount is less than average for your faction, and your ships are balanced by cost and winrates, not by perfomance. Did I convey that well? To have balanced 50ish winrate in the end you will have to stomp someone weak to ordnance, and be stomped in return by someone able to take advantage of one of your many weak points. I guess that sounds familiar now, doesn't it?

last edited by doctoryog

Sorry for the incoming off topic

Except that bays allows you to scout freely and conduct boarding/bombing across the map so costs of bays must be high to every option it gives. The problem of bays relies more in the mechanic itself : you must spam to be effective.
1 bay can be used only for scouting, every ship will have enough turrets to remove 1 squadron if used offensively.
2 bays are a bit more useful but all cruisers have enough turrets to negate 75% or more of incoming squadron
3 - 4 bays is OK to be used even in low numbers as complement as other ships
It means like, unlike standard weapons, bays have an exponential effectivity, as exemple, 2 macro deals twice damages (additive efficiency) but having 4 bays instead of 2 x 2 is much more effective because you will overrun the turrets instead of having 2 squadrons dying 1 after the other (unless you can time up perfectly you squadrons to reach the target at same time)
I think that in ship cost calculation, bays costs should be reduced for low bays count.

@Beernchips that's fine, haha (probably). Carrier/ordnance fleets were always one of my favorite playstyles, that holds true not only for this game. Should I create a new discussion with maybe some ideas about them, I wonder?

Also what you pointed out is absolutely correct, launch bays offer very much compared to 'normal' weapons in many aspects of the game. Yet still, I would like to see those to have some kind of 'common denominator'. Maybe - by reducing firepower, maybe - by reducing freedom of usage and versatility (sounds bad, I know). But not - by increasing cost/reducing ship count.

Just one tiny itty bitty correction:

Every weapon type and ability has exponential increase in effectivity, not only launch bays. Lets take macros. You have 2, and bring some enemy ship down in 2 minutes. Now, you have 4. Does that mean ship will die in 1 minute? Nnnnnope! (No hard math here, don't you worry) Every ship in the game has shields (or regen). And of course during those 2 minutes they come online several times. Getting more macros means reducing shield uptime (amount hp healed), meaning ship will surely die faster than in 1 minute. That doesn't end here though. Bringing one ship down faster means enemy fleet loses part of it's firepower sooner too. That means you may not lose that one cruiser you would lost otherwise and speed up your victory more, and more after that.

This is the very reason thing called 'unit spam' exists in (not only) this game. So i'd advise not to give launch bays any special treatment - and yes, I understand that strike craft snowballs more than anything else.

last edited by doctoryog

I was not speaking in time to kill but in efficiency.
Macro deals damage regardless of their numbers. 2 macro batteries = 2 x damages of 1 macro battery (mitigated by accuracy/armor and need to strip shields before taking hull)
Bays don t work like that, you deal 0 damage until you reach the critical number of bays you need to overrun turrets than every additionnal bays deals 100% of their potential damage output.
Thats why spamming bays is the only way to use them efficiently, not enough bays = useless but if you have enough then every additionnal bay is very effective.

To correct myself bays are not exponential, its more like a threshold function which increases faster after the threshold than standard weaponry additive damage output

@doctoryog said in Tyranids Faction Feedback Thread:

Every weapon type and ability has exponential increase in effectivity, not only launch bays. Lets take macros. You have 2, and bring some enemy ship down in 2 minutes. Now, you have 4. Does that mean ship will die in 1 minute? Nnnnnope!

Your example is simply "damage scales with damage" which is indeed the case but not the argument you are trying to make. The difference between 10 bays and 20 is incredible. 10 Bays can be kited and they might do 0 damage. 20 Bays will remove an entire fleets turrets and slowly kill it over time. This is not even close to how the scaling of other weapons turns out.

last edited by CowGoMoo

@beernchips said in Tyranids Faction Feedback Thread:

bays are not exponential, its more like a threshold function which increases faster after the threshold than standard weaponry additive damage output

@CowGoMoo yeah, I guess this line says it better than me. Anyhow, I'll stop here, or this will completely turn into launch bay discussion.

thing is that a nid discussion has to be a launch bay discussion
because bays are the controversial part of nids and have always been
and because of their low speed the threshold is also more relevant, chaos assault boats areeasier to time with interceptors that have the same speed but are also a lot more reliable to land in low numbers because of their speed, it even lets them dodge some interceptors that are slightly distracted

pyronids are irrelevant and jaw nids are in a close to good spot
its the bays that are the core of the nid issue

So... the update. Should I even give a feedback on it, I wonder.

The Synaptic Relay is gone. I doubt any high level Nid would argue against that decision, even if it alone would make spacebugs' winrates plummet. We aren't getting any kind of compensation for that though, well? Time will tell if that's reasonable or not.

I tried to bring a hiveship specifically to use this new version of Relay, eeeehhhhh - I dunno, keeping your flagship behind is definitely cheaper, I'd say.

The ordnance change though, oh boy. With related posts already present I'll try to be as neutral as possible and just call it the worst way possible one could ever try and fix carriers. OP orders are here to stay, but cooldown thing is definitely a way to remove Infestation Devourers from meta, haha. With Chaos Khorneflakes Carriers, Ork Looting Upgrade Carriers (and many other fun fleets), and entire Tau race as collateral. Their legendary rank table is shrinking as I write this, poor souls.

And yes, we aren't getting damage. No pyroacid for us, gentlemen! Not that I really was expecting developers to - I dunno - make 2/3 of ship roaster viable or something. (I'm actually not being sarcastic, I really wasn't, that kind of change is usually very slow to come up, even if everyone agrees it's kind of needed)

Overall with my experience I noticed one reiterating detail with many, many games and their respective developers. It is that bad decisions are always to stay. Sometimes they are toned down, but if some kind of new button is added, this very button is never going away. So i'm reeeeally worried about the direction we are going right now.

last edited by doctoryog

I am not a specialist of nid lore but their torps are probable living organism so they should have homing effect either like tau or sm as a point-target or like a "smart" that target when an enemy is at a certain range. Also harpys should be like doom scythes and deals damages overtime

last edited by Beernchips

They do have homing torpedoes in lore, yes. I'm pretty sure there was also a request to add those, but at that time Nids were OP, so obviously it was ignored. And I say obviously because nerfing Relay and rebalancing entire roster with new/reworked weapons seemed too much of a hassle back then so we got what we got.

last edited by doctoryog

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.