Things im hopin will get fixed or start getting adressed this upcoming patch

Ordnance in its current state is unplayable. Carriers having to wait to deploy new squadrons is hurting them and me and other players dont really understand the reason for this change ever happening.Carriers are long range vessels not close range please change. This cool down problem is forcing carriers in a close range role which puts carriers in serious problems because carriers cant out trade Macro and lance ships. Ordnance speed needs a buff. Ships are not supposed to out run ordnance and ships are not supposed to catch ordnance either.

Lances. I think lances will be in a good spot if you guys make orders work for them as well. Perhaps have lock on and reload orders give them a different buff.

Perks and certain abilities need reworks. Some factions cant do diddly and i must say many perks dont even suit the respective factions play style.

If any one else got some ideas feel free to add to this thread.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

you want lances buffed even more?
they are already insanely good

@ashardalon i dont see it. Whats your fleet setup like.

@CANNED_F3TUS try five executors for example.

the current crit system, with BBs being four times more crit-resistant than cruisers, hurts the game imo. it shifts the meta towards BB/GC heavy fleets and it makes builds that rely on disabling systems quite weak against these top-heavy lists.

last edited by Fosil

@fosil
Respectfully, I disagree that it hurts the game.
Without this system, the meta would shift back to mass LC's/escorts spam, as GCs/BBs will be quite easy to take out of the game, both literally and metaphorically. This is why the crit resistance system was introduced in the first place, heavy warships were completely, utterly useless prior to that, with a single notable exception of Drucharii battleships.

Having to choose between light spams and focusing on bigger, heavier (more "core") warships, I believe the latter is more preferable.

Besides, it makes sense, heavier ships tend to have stronger armor.

@canned_f3tus yea 5 lance GC and a bunch of escorts
it can basically outbrawl nids at 4k
not in damage but in crits and then damage doesnt matter

archeron spam can do it too, tho you cant brawl with it so its less reliable in current meta as chaos isnt that fast

the thing about the game is specializing
if you half do a fleet, if you mix things you simply wont have the same result
heavy crit lances hitting you in the first volley can pretty much ruin any fleet one system 8 second at a time

and no its not the crit multiplier of battleships thats the problem
its the crit system, just like the boarding system as a whole thats the problem
its just on/off yes/no it does something or it does absolutely nothing kind of system making the entire thing a diceroll instead of a game of careful planning
if crew actually mattered instead of just being crits boarding would be better, if systems would degrade trough crits and battleships would have more phases in that degradation it would be much better instead of a single lucky roll just turning a ship off ,could add a cta like slow repair system alongside it
would make the game slower, but also much more about planning
wich it should be in my opinion

last edited by Ashardalon

also you ask what else needs a rework, recrewing and morale
admiral rally is far too powerfull, its good to be abel to get people out of mutiny as its also very owerfull
but a ship getting out of mutiny being at max morale is just dumb
getting a few hundred morale if your not fully broken or being at 100% fine if you are broken is a very big difference
just make it break you out of mutiny but at the +few hundred rally gave instead of at max

same for recrewing, it would be much better if recrewed ship didnt have max morale but % of donating ships morale of max morale

and recrewing more then 1 crew would be nice too

last edited by Ashardalon

@ashardalon ah ok. Im fed up with spam fleets. Thats something devs should look into as well. I dont think they should not allow it. But its kind of sad when you cant get reliable results with mixed fleets.

thing is you would need to heavily penalize things
and then you would just end up with people winning all fights with ramming again

only reason you would really ever want to mix macros with lances would be if lances would be really really shit at popping voids
things like lances doing 1/8 damage to voids but have -70ap while armor goes to something like 70/85/99 so that macros are shit at hitting hull but great at popping voids
only if you do something as drastic like that would you really need both
only then would you need macros alongside crits
and even then you would need to rework crits as even the slightest bit of damage can kill a ship in a single hit thats lucky
and that rework would slow the game down so a sudden crit instakilling a ship would be even more drastic then they already are
and if you somehow succeed at finding the balance there, wtf do you do with torps, boarding, ramming
you would just need to start over and make a new game
the games basic mechanics are binary, so you focus on one so you have the greatest chance to get the yes instead of the no
and then you succeed
if you dont you dont

last edited by Ashardalon

@ashardalon said in Things im hopin will get fixed or start getting adressed this upcoming patch:

thing is you would need to heavily penalize things
and then you would just end up with people winning all fights with ramming again

No they dont have to penalize anything. We got So many different ships with unique charecteristis out there that could make great fillers. And could promote more variation and openings for other builds. For example carriers. Improve them to a certain degree and now people can build around that. The meta changes and now players have to either know how to deal with it with the build they got by adopting tactics for those scenarios and clumping (like full macros or full lance) or bring a carrier of their own to mitigate ordnance damage until you can close the gap.

only reason you would really ever want to mix macros with lances would be if lances would be really really shit at popping voids
things like lances doing 1/8 damage to voids but have -70ap while armor goes to something like 70/85/99 so that macros are shit at hitting hull but great at popping voids

I dont think they need to change much on macros and lances. Lances need to just focus fire to bust shields where macros need to get close to be effective. Good trade off.

only if you do something as drastic like that would you really need both

only then would you need macros alongside crits
and even then you would need to rework crits as even the slightest bit of damage can kill a ship in a single hit thats lucky
and that rework would slow the game down so a sudden crit instakilling a ship would be even more drastic then they already are

Im sure there are ways of tweaking crits to be less RNG heavy and more controllable. Crits in its current state is alright i think. Perhaps a way to tweak crits is to put each weapon system in perspective. Macros should become worse at dealing crits by a long shot but get a considerable boost in alpha strike. While lances retain their criting power.

and if you somehow succeed at finding the balance there, wtf do you do with torps, boarding, ramming

Torps, ramming and ordnance are burst damage. So balance them around that. The games gotta have a balance between the importance of Modules and Hull. You can have all the modules in the world but if your ships about to die they wont do you any good.

Boarding should be just as important as alpha if you take out a module you just weakenes the enemy ship. Now that ship is dealing less damage or has become easier to kill.

I think the devs can eventually find the sweet spot where neither of them are over powering but are equally important depending on the situation.

you would just need to start over and make a new game

They dont even have to do that.

the games basic mechanics are binary, so you focus on one so you have the greatest chance to get the yes instead of the no

Thats not how Strategy games should play. Thats why unused ships in the rosters need a Role. Strategy games are based around units and their roles. In this case for example with BFGA we have something like that. But the problem is that some of these roles just arent effective enough to warrant their use or to build around it.

Here are the roles we got for units in bfga.

A.Escorts (scouts/Fodder/ troop transfer)

B Light Cruisers (Scout/ Flanker/ Fire Support)

C. Dedicated Macro ships (brawlers)

D. Dedicated Lance ships (Snipers, AV, critter)

E.Carriers (Artillary/ Defender)

F. Hybrids ( Jack of all trades master at Non primary design of this unit is as a plug in your weaknesses without having to forgo what you want to build around its min maxing tool)

If the devs can define these roles better and make unused ships better we will start seeing more variety. The options to go 1 trick pony are still there and should still work but there should be an option for players to dabble with some other tools and still stay competetive.

If this doesnt happen we will just kerp playing the stale 1 trick pony fleets until BFGA 2 or its players die of boredom.

These roles interact with each other and each role will have its strengths and weaknesses. Players can play to these pros and cons even use weaknesses to their advantage.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

Skills definitely need to be looked at in the new patch. There are many that are just borderline pointless, and having more diversity in the selection choices would be good since it would allow for more variety in playstyles within certain race's fleets. They also need to just get rid of the unlock system and have them start out all unlocked for everybody, if the game is going to have any chance of staying alive it needs to get and keep new players playing and the way it is now is incredibly punishing for someone looking to jump into the multiplayer, who has to grind out a ton of matches to get borderline necessary skills like Traktor Cannon or Experimental Thrusters

I'm not so sure about Lances needing a facelift, I agree with Ashardalon in that department, at least for Chaos. The most common chaos fleets this cycle have been Tzeentchian lance fleets that pick off your systems from afar and use the silent thrusters + cloud of change to keep stealth up while kiting w/ anything from Archerons to GC/BB, at least in my experience. Even Imperial fleets that go heavy with lance Cruisers/BC can be good hybrid type fleets using lance batteries at range and closing in for the classic torp/ram combos

Something else that needs looking at is Capture speeds, I think the change made to weigh it based on ship class was good, but it creates some problems, specifically with the dark eldar, who can easily avoid all combat and run around capping w/ stealthed battleships if the map favors it. I think the cap speeds of their Battleships could be dropped a little to compensate for the fact that they can cap, and immediately re-stealth if nobody is nearby.

I also think that devs should pause the competitive season aspect of matchmaking for a bit. Ever since it started there was a massive spike in difficulty for people playing matchmaking as everyone geared up to climb the ladder. The competitiveness of the thing just guarantees that people are going to be running whatever is the most broken/op thing in the patch (see: nids) and that can be oppressive to someone just starting out in mp. I think if the game is going to continue to have a playerbase it needs to take a breather from the seasons for a bit, just have an offseason and try to get new people in so the mp can continue to go on

@ahriman the game had imo too high weapon crit-rates compared to hull damage and the solution so far is sort of fix it for two ship classes only.

since release there were only two competitive LC spam lists and that were dauntless spam and SM torp-LCs (ork LC spam was fun but not very competitive).

dauntless were simply underpriced for their damage-output compared to the rest of the navy roster and SM LCs offer better gameplay than the standard torp-cruiser list.

the majority of meta builds were cruiser heavy with bigger flagships in a few cases. thats infinitely better than the current situation, where it is (with a few exceptions) a liability to take smaller stuff than grand cruisers.

chaos, orks, nids, necrons, arguably both tau, arguably navy and DE can ignore most of their roster for this reason and the only exception builds want to mass either torpedos or novas only.

@fosil I find a good solution is to keep Weapon Crit chance Lower While keeping Boarding and Lightning strike crit chances a little Higher. This should keep boarding and lightning strikes relevant in the meta

@ashardalon: 5 executors cannot outcrit well managed shooty hive ships at short range. you would need both broadsides constantly firing to have high enough crit-rates to compensate the different crit-reduction between GCs and BBs. the only advantage the GCs have, is having more weapon subsystems to lose, which is not that usefull if the nid player keeps his prow weapons safe, if shields are down.

@fosil
It may actually be a reasonable idea to lower the crit chances all across the board for weapons only.
Half the crit chance for every weapon, quartering could be too much.

Or the prices for BBs and GCs could also see some increase to discourage from picking BB/GC only fleets.

To that end, I believe someone has already given this idea somewhere (no idea who or where though) that the ship prices could increase for every next ship of the same class. As in: second cruiser or battleship or whatever would cost some additional points, third even more etc.
BB/GC could have a significantly higher penalty for every ship after the first or second, while lighter vessels (cruisers/ light cruisers) would only get such penalty after 4th or 5th ship, or even not at all.
I believe such solution would keep the heavies viable and very much sought after, while discouraging players from making rosters composed solely of them, as they would be losing overall fleet effectiveness compared to more balanced enemy fleets.

last edited by Ahriman

@ahriman said in Things im hopin will get fixed or start getting adressed this upcoming patch:

@fosil
It may actually be a reasonable idea to lower the crit chances all across the board for weapons only.
Half the crit chance for every weapon, quartering could be too much.

Yeah Reduce Weapon crits would be good but keep Lightning and traditional boarding (ordnance included) Same. Would make HP mean something again.

Or the prices for BBs and GCs could also see some increase to discourage from picking BB/GC only fleets.

I like That idea better than adding artificial deminishing returns to BC n up. But a price increase would be good.

To that end, I believe someone has already given this idea somewhere (no idea who or where though) that the ship prices could increase for every next ship of the same class. As in: second cruiser or battleship or whatever would cost some additional points, third even more etc.
BB/GC could have a significantly higher penalty for every ship after the first or second, while lighter vessels (cruisers/ light cruisers) would only get such penalty after 4th or 5th ship, or even not at all.
I believe such solution would keep the heavies viable and very much sought after, while discouraging players from making rosters composed solely of them, as they would be losing overall fleet effectiveness compared to more balanced enemy fleets.

I prefer the price increase of large cruisers would be better and easier and keep fleet building simple. The deminishing returns is just a over complication when you can just ramp up the price of BBs by maybe 10-15% (wich often is the difference between fielding an extra BB anyway...
People Should have the option to spam big ships if they want to but it should come with the weakness of often being out numbered.

last edited by CANNED_F3TUS

@canned_f3tus said in Things im hopin will get fixed or start getting adressed this upcoming patch:

For example carriers. Improve them to a certain degree and now people can build around that. The meta changes and now players have to either know how to deal with it with the build they got by adopting tactics for those scenarios and clumping (like full macros or full lance) or bring a carrier of their own to mitigate ordnance damage until you can close the gap.

carriers are exactly the example of things working like i mentioned, with how ordnance works they are only really good in overwhelming numbers
if you make them good enough to have a use for only a few of them they will be unstoppable if you spam em
how do you make 10 bays good while not killing everything with 20
back in the days of "nid carrier op" corrosive clutch devourers could only use their 10 bays to herd, almost never kill
the shift in bays becoming usefull for killing things happened at 14 and after that it just became exponentially better with every bay above that
the way ordnance works there is not really a way to make 4 bays in a fleet useful for anything other then a speedbump compared to a ordnance swarm fleet

@ashardalon said in Things im hopin will get fixed or start getting adressed this upcoming patch:

carriers are exactly the example of things working like i mentioned, with how ordnance works they are only really good in overwhelming numbers

Which again is not good. A strategy game that requires you to only play 1 trick pony and limits you is not a game worth playing at all. Games become predictable and stale.

if you make them good enough to have a use for only a few of them they will be unstoppable if you spam em

Not true. Cause carriers have weaknesses.

  • Long Cool downs
    -Unreliable Damage Output that can be influenced by the enemy player with both tactics and ordnance of their own
  • generally suck at close range

how do you make 10 bays good while not killing everything with 20

Meta shifts.
If ordnance becomes better people will start bringing a carrier or 2 themselves. A single well played carrier can easily soak up enemy ordnance by a decent chunk. And the rest will still have to make it through AA batteries.

back in the days of "nid carrier op" corrosive clutch devourers could only use their 10 bays to herd, almost never kill

Yeah orks and nids had OP ordnance because they had alot of it. The game and its . Doesnt mean that carriers in general were OP. Chaos and imperial carriers were still junk.

the shift in bays becoming usefull for killing things happened at 14 and after that it just became exponentially better with every bay above that
Carriers are only good at killing things if your opponent doesnt bring counter measures, or doesnt know how to deal with them.

the way ordnance works there is not really a way to make 4 bays in a fleet useful for anything other then a speedbump compared to a ordnance swarm fleet

If a player brings 4 bays they are bringing them for utility. Im not saying that they should deal insane gobs of damage.

You can have good ordnance without forcing everyone to have to spam them.

the first game handled hangars much better imo. defensive fighters could deal with twice the amount of offensive hangars, turrets would deal the same amount of damage per squadron regardless of number of attacking squadrons, you could not outrun squadrons to force more turret damage (some eldar craft could do that once), hull damage would guarantee perma destroyed turrets and you could crack defensive fighter screens by forcing turret checks with your own ships.

last edited by Fosil

@fosil agreed. There is alot more to ordnance warfare than there is to macro and lance boats. Its alot more macro focused but its supposed to be really rewarding cause you gotta be good at timing and choose your targets wisely.