The first game had quite a different system of how the ordnance worked in the first place. The ordnance/turret meetings were decided via hit and roll for all craft at the same time, and fighters were restricted to its own mothership.
I actually like the second game's system better on a fundamental level, but the details are handled indeed very poorly compared to the first.
Ordnance is too slow and most of the time it can't even outrun the ships, which is stupid and works massively against any ordnance given the damage-over-time rather than hit-and-roll system and worst of all, they implemented this incredibly, ridiculously dumb system with ordnance locked until the previous squadron returns or is destroyed.
The potential fixes are numerous and incredibly easy. Increasing the squadron speed, dodge chance, number of ordnance per squadron, damage and so on, is as difficult as changing the number in an ordnance stats file.
But Tindalos got a massive boner for macros in this game, and they have so far culled anything and everything that could be even half as potent, and they made them not only unviable as the damage source, but reduced their utility all across the board.
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.
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.
Take Chaos fleet, use Desolator and Executor and reach the top 10 in the next tournament using mostly them.
Then we will talk about them being actually competetitve.
You rejected my experiences with faction as non viable arguments. Said that they were not "facts".
But you yourself claim you can use them competetively.
Isn't that what you call double standards?
Again, you're a hypocrite who thinks himself more knowledgable than everyone else and refuse to acknowledge anyone else's arguments, while insulting them and accusing of the very same things that you commit. As is traditional, one does not even realize their own folly.
I have already wasted enough time trying to go through that "holier than thou" attitude of yours.
That is a silly argument. Situations like match-ups you gave are a typical quirk associated with a multiplayer.
But when a game is fundamentally rooted in a certain setting (unlike Starcraft for example, where setting is adjusted to the game), then the playable factions should very much follow its characteristics presented in a lore.
Of course, it doesn't mean that something should be outright broken because it was overpowered in the lore.
But the case with ordnance currently, is the exact opposite. The ordnance is overall weak right now, there is literally no balance reason to keep the ordnance as weak as it is, so if anything, it should be made more viable.
Balance is as important as ever, but only when it makes sense in conjuction with the lore. You can't play a 40k game and just not take lore into account for convenience sake.
Apologies Beern. I'll cease this thing since our friend wannabe batman is too much detached from the realities of the situation he tries to discuss.
Just a few last pointers and I'm off.
Why do you think so? This is the same strength as the Imperial Navy, no more, no less. I remind you that the Empire has exactly the same strength in aviation as Chaos, the conditions of aviation are equal.
Because in lore during the Gothic war Chaos literally swarmed the Imperial Navy with ordnance, to the point they had massive problems with it and had to rapidly convert existing ships to accomodate more launch bays.
So you want more damage? I gave you math (which you do not understand because of my stupidity), Lants have a DPS more by 4.6k+ range.
This only proves how little you understand the topic.
Reload, have you heard of it? It increases macro dps by 66%, throw it in to your calculations. For that matter, lock-on also increases dps of macros, since the accuracy gets increased as well.
I don't wish to litter this thread anymore, so I'll leave it up to you to correct your own maths. You'll see that when stances are included, lances are beaten quite badly at all but the highest ranges, and those are very difficult to maintain, as I've already shown you with the speed/turning calculations, which you so stubbornly refuse to acknowledge.
First, if you do not know, personal experience cannot serve as evidence. Besides, judging by what you write, I very much doubt your competence. Without facts, these are just your words that mean nothing.
You are the second, where did you get the idea that I have no personal experience of playing for Chaos? You have a memory problem, because I wrote it more than once. I repeat again, I have the experience of playing for Chaos, I had an Epic Rank before the wipe, which means I won more often than I lost. But unlike you, I do not just declare "I have personal experience, because my statements are already a proven fact," I rely primarily on calculations and comparisons.
Yes, it can not. But it makes me see what are the issues, and then I back it up with maths.
You are the second, where did you get the idea that I have no personal experience of playing for Chaos? You have a memory problem, because I wrote it more than once. I repeat again, I have the experience of playing for Chaos, I had an Epic Rank before the wipe, which means I won more often than I lost.
I may very well be wrong here, but due the way you reacted to my points about Slaughter/Carnage/Repulsive I have a feeling you attained your rank using the much more viable brawling side of Chaos fleet.
Feel free to correct, just please, do not lie on the matter. My respect if you used predominantly a long ranged fleet afterall.
No, you have not proven anything, do not flatter yourself). You simply make statements saying “I have this experience” which can serve as proof of your skill and no more. But write "proof on paper is not proof" - and I ignore the facts?)
On the contrary, I have, actually. 40 speed difference is completely negated by the need to keep the ship at an angle that allows the broadsides to fire. The only way for Chaos ship to keep distance, is for it o just run away in the straight line, which not only is counter-productive because it can not fire, but it even doesn't work in hte long run (map, cornering etc.). It is my experience on the matter that allowed me to notice this issue, and then I applied mathematical calculations to explain the problem. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge those simple facts.
Why did you decide that these are “objective facts”?) If your unfounded opinion you call “objective facts” from this, they will not become objective facts. All the facts that you brought, this is the speed of the Battleship Chaos during the attack and the turn time, no more. Everything else is your unfounded opinion.
Which facts make it so Chaos has no chance of effectively keeping the distance. This opinion is very much founded, and other players on this forum apparently happen to agree with me.
Are you completely blind?? "We compare guns against guns"
which aviation? We compared the ships of damage, you yourself suggested to compare the Chaos and Empire Battleships, and now you are writing about aviation, which is a completely different topic. Are you completely madman? Or do you simply have no arguments about our cannons topic, and you are trying to shift the topic from the inconvenient to you, where you have made yourself a fool?
Aviation is one of the strengths of Chaos faction. But since they are very weak all across the board it takes away one of Chaos supposed strengths. Which is not made up for in any other way, and was only there as an argument to point out how f.cked overall Chaos as a faction is at this point. Since you keep claiming that Chaos is just fine.
It did not pertain to the example scenario of battleship duel, whose sole purpose was to show how the slight advantage in speed is negated by the angle required to attack, and simply doesn't work.
Someone is apparently blind here indeed. But it's not me.
So the facts on paper mean nothing? But your unfounded and "authoritative" statement is irrefutable proof)
They do not mean nothing. But they need to considered carefully, in conjuction with othert facts instead of just taken at face value.
It is not enough for you personally, it was enough for me. And how much do you think the necessary speed? Maybe 240 speeds? I can tell you that 240 speeds are in the Eldar Battleships. These ships do not have a range, the Drukhari have a 9k max range without the possibility of "Lock On". Their weapons are on the nose, because they cannot attack and run at a speed of 140 as the battleship of Chaos, moreover, that the Eldar shields would work, you need to go to the enemy.
But you continue as a capricious child, and as it turned out a stupid child and declare: “200 speeds are not enough for Chaos, you need 240 speeds”.
And now tell me again that you do not want an imba))
Never have I claimed that Chaos should have 240 speed or something like that. The problem is that Chaos simply can not deal enough damage lance before they are caught, and they will. Which brings us to the initial point of this whole talk.
Imagine this is possible. As I said, everything is relative. For example, playing for Eldar, especially Drukhari and Asuryan, I rammed in situations where the damage done is more than the damage I take or my ship is not very healthy and will die anyway or need to kill the injured flagship.
And would you make an Eldar fleet that relies on ramming by default? You confuse situational actions with go-to strategy.
For Orcs it is possible to run against the Empire or the Necrons, or even kite playing for an aviation fleet.
I'm sure it would turn out great against fleets not focused solely on battleships. "It is possible" is not the same as "one of the basic strategies of the faction".
Tyranids from this patch can cause decent damage, I have an assembly for damage.
With this one I can agree
You know, now I understand your level of skill and why you are hard to play). Everything became clear.
Yes yes, I forgot whom I was talking to. Please pardon me your majesty for trying to insult your undoubtedly unrivaled knowledge, experience and insight of this game, and correcting your absolutely irrefutable "facts" that Chaos can stay in its comfortable range and outshot opposition with lances with even moderate efficiency.
We are unworthy of treading the same forum soil as the ultimate expert of dps charts and linear speeds sir yaBATMAN.
Chaos just so happens to have absolutely no skilled players, only Tau has.
See, there's a difference between us. I have a practical experience with the subject (Chaos lance/carrier fleets) that I can back up with practical application of maths.
You have a theoretical maths derived from basic ship stats, with clearly no practical grasp of the issue.
You still claim that Chaos is weaker than the Empire, despite objective facts refuting this.
There are objective facts yes, but the "refuting this" part is your postulate only. Postulate that you desperately try to force through, despite numerous points against.
We compare guns against guns. Or, besides Lance's buff for Chaos and increasing speed for Chaos, do you want the strongest aviation exclusively for Chaos?
I will tell you, if you do not know, in Chaos aviation is exactly the same in strength as in the Empire). "Does Chaos have the same aviation as the Empire? Chaos is weak again, Chaos has to have aviation stronger, otherwise it's not fair !!"
Here goes your thickheadedness again.
No, I never said Chaos should have a stronger aviation. They should have stronger carrier capabilities. Which they do. But it doesn't matter since the aviation overall sucks at this point, whether it be IN, Chaos, Tau Eldar or anyone else. And since it is so useless all across the board, it naturally takes away one of the Chaos' natural strong points.
Too complex to understand, eh?
And so, the speed of Chaos is 200 against 160, the damage of Lance was also considered good, the range is large, the same damage at any range, but you still haven’t found such a thing). And you also asked why I write that you ignore the facts?) Yes, any idiot would understand after such an explanation, only you don’t understand)
Because what you present here is what it looks like on paper. I'm not going to explain it yet again. Play long ranged Chaos fleet. You will see that 40 speed of difference is not enough to do jack' sh't, since it only works in perfectly radial-away speed case, without considering the map limits, the combustion gauge and front firing arc advantages the IN has.
And who said it should be easy? It all depends on your skill and the ability of the enemy. Do you think it is easy for the Empire to catch up with an experienced player for Chaos?
No one said it should be easy. But it should be reasonably doable, and viable tactic. Which it simply isn't, and rankings only prove that.
Are you seriously?? How long have we taken into account the movement, calculated, even you gave examples, and you write "with no movements taken into account"? You do not only show your stupidity, but still have problems with memory.
And so, we take into account the damage, range as well as the advantage in speed, which gives a technical opportunity to keep a distance. In order to put this into practice, you need skills, unexpectedly? But there is such an opportunity and this is taken into account when the power of the ships is compared.
There are still such parameters as health, shields, morale, the number of crew, but all these parameters in our example were the same, so no one had the advantage. There was no point in mentioning them, we stopped at the decisive and distinguishing on the example of 2 ships - range, damage, speed.
I took into account movement. You only took into account raw dps, and later a straight line speed, when it was pointed out. You constantly ignore that Chaos is completely unable to keep distance while firing at the same time, and if they just run away without firing, then they lose anyway.
And they can't even do that, because again, map restrictions, combustion gauge, cornering, bombs etc.
Wrong. The strategy is determined by the player, based on their characteristics as well as his preferences, skills and situation. The most skilled players are able to adapt and adapt to the conditions, using non-trivial strategies and timely respond to threats.
Although savvy is not about you.
So would you like to try a brawling/ramming strategy using Eldar? Running and gunning with Orks? Or long ranged sniping fleet composed of Tyranids? How about boarding AdMech?
No? That is because factions naturally lean towards certain strategies more than others. Just like Tyranids are a natural boarding faction by both design and lore, so is Chaos a long ranged faction by default.
Sure they can adapt and use something more brawly for example.
But if the faction's default playstyle is simply not viable to the point where no sane player (regardless of skill) would want ot use it, there is where the problem starts.
True? The only math you provided is the Desolator's speed at the angle of attack and the turn time from the angle of attack of 45 degrees to 0 degrees, a straight line. I did not miss anything? So I took your math into account and even cited it as an example not once.
It turns out that you now either intentionally lied, or do not remember what he says about the problems with your memory. Which of these 2 options is truthful?
I proved that the 40 speed advantage on paper does not translate to being able to run away in practice. And you outright deny it with the same argument from the beginning, "200 speed vs 160".
It turns out that you now either intentionally lied, or do not remember what he says about the problems with your memory. Which of these 2 options is truthful?
See point above. You can't see the truth when it's almost literally spelled out to you. Not surprising that you start seing lies.