- Chaos prow Lances damage on cruiser and battlecruiser increased from 8 to 12
...is this your idea of fixing the issues with Chaos? By buffing their single most useless weapon? Are you effing kidding me?
That's it, I'm done with waiting and hoping that you take covers off your eyes.
Mods it is.
Upgrades that increase id range are somewhat subpar, since they don't increase the id range against stealthed units, and we have escorts with scans anyway.
The "augur array" type upgrades should either work on all ships, not only escorts/light cruisers, or increase the id range against stealthed units as well. I believe that would make it a very viable upgrade against stealth heavy factions, without making it a game breaker.
I do not wish for this to devolve into a scuffle, but you clearly base your points on very simplified mathematical model, which assumes the 2 stationary ships firing away at each other's broadsides, without considering other circumstances.
Desolator is a battleship with 200 speed and 4 DEGREES PER SECOND OF TURNING SPEED, AND NO HIGH ENERGY TURN. This thing takes forever to turn and mind you, we are talking about my favorite ship in the game here. Trust me, I know what I'm talking about, you just had to pick the one ship I have used by far the most. And I will base the following calculations with a stupid AI in mind, a player will be even better at closing the distance.
Let's consider a Desolator class battleship trying to
escape keep distance from a Retribution class battleship chasing it.
Desolator: 200 speed
Retribution: 160 speed
On paper Desolator is faster. BUT. The thing is, if Desolator wants to actually fight and not JUST escape, it needs to angle itself so that the Retribution is inside its 90 degree cone of broadside weaponry.
Let's introduce a parameter "angle of bow" (alpha). Let it be an angle between line connecting the 2 ships, and the line running perpendicular to Desolator.
In other words, when Desolator is perfectly perpendicular broadsides to Retribution, angle of bow is zero. If it's running in a straight line away from it (or towards it), then the angle is 90 degrees.
It is not what "angle of bow" historically was, but it will be more useful in this form right now.
The Chaos ships unleash most of their firepower from broadsides, meaning they need to maintaing the alpha of up to 45 degrees.
Let's assume that in a certain point in time, Desolator is flying away, at an angle of 45 degrees, which allows its broadsides to just about fire on Retribution.
If we consider radial and tangential components of the Desolator's speed, relative to Retribution, you wil see that their values are as follows:
Vr = Vsin(alpha)
Vt = Vcos(alpha)
Where V = speed of 200, Vt = tangential (perpendicular) speed, Vr = radial (towards or away) speed, alpha = angle of bow. All speeds are that of Desolator of course, we do not take into account the Retribution's speed just yet.
The tangential component is perpendicular speed, and it is not important when calculating distance between the 2 ships. We'll mostly ignore it. The value of Desolator's radial speed, in the borderline case of 45 degree angle on bow, is Vr = 200sin(45) = 141.42.
Meaning that Desolator can escape at the speed of max 141 while maintaining fire. In real battlefield scenario the angle will be closer to 40-35 degrees if you pay close attention, which translates to Vr = 200sin(35) = 114.71.
So Desolator can run and maintain fire while escaping at a speed of 115-141 in best case scenarios.
Whereas Retribution will fly at full 160 speed, straight at it, while firing all 3 lance turrets at it, and taking damage reduced by 83 prow armor, not 66 armor. That does not even take into account the summary execution which gives the Retri higher reserves of combustion gauge, AND the fact that Retribution will be more likely to use Reload stance, while Desolator will want to stay in Lock On.
But you will say "Desolator can just turn away, fly back at full 200 speed, and then turn back and fire again".
Yeah sure. But Desolator has a 4 degree/s turning rate, so assuming a 45 degree alpha (perfect scenario), it will take you over 11 seconds to turn fully away, and then next 11 seconds after you escape to turn back. giving Retri ample time to regen its shields, and it doesn't even take into account the time you need to increase distance, running away from Retri at 40 speed difference. Plus the summary execution.
So, even with calculations one can clearly see that the kiting perspectives for Desolator are not very favorable. A lot of effort to achieve rather little, all the while doing not very impressive damage. And believe me, in practice this is exactly what happens.
It is even worse against Space Marines or Necrons.
As a sidenote, it's actually a practical application of what I had read a while ago (long before the first game was even been announced), that the Imperial warships rely on their heavily armored prow to protect them while closing in on the enemy. Back in the time I had a bit different image of how that would look like.
I didn't discover America, I know, just an afterthought.
Yep, there's a huge problem, in that Chaos is NOT AT ALL a "long ranged speedy skirmish faction" right now.
We frankly suck due to lances (especially chaos lances) being little more than overglorified laser pointers whose biggest strength is showing the player precisely who attacks who. At least in the current version of the game.
Sure, why not take away the literally 2 only decent ships that Chaos has.
And even if lances were good, why tone down the 2 ships that hold their ground in close quarters, when there are even more factions that can close in quickly than there were in the previous game.
Guide good or not, in this place I would like to officially request the dev team to please look into this issue and fix the Despoiler's launch bays. I do believe even some simple fix, like making heavy launch bays just a fancy name for standard launch bays on the prow, but increasing their number to 4, would suffice.
Being overall satisfied with the patch has reduced me from raging to merely laughing bitterly as we continue with the running gag of "buff lances/Chaos, but buff other factions even more".
I personally don't care at this point as I can mod out my own lances to have more reasonable damage output, but Chaos isn't going to become viable until whoever that is in Tindalos, who dislikes Chaos and blocks their progress, is kicked in their face and Chaos gets a proper, honest to Tzeentch (...) buff exclusive to them.
I feel like I'm beating head against the wall.
So Desolator needs to turn and maneuver, but Retribution is not needed, very interesting. Maybe Retribution needs to turn off the guns and wait for you to attack him?)
I have already explained it. Clearly reading with comprehension is a skill you should work on.
You know, you act like a child who doesn't want to understand the other side.
This here is a part that sums up yourself pretty well. Think about it.
Why say not to use these ships? What is the artificial limitation? Is it not part of the Chaos fleet? Can you even say to play only destroyers and frigates? You whine that the ships of Chaos are weak, but tell me not to play for strong ships, you are again brilliant)
Because if one wants to play a macro brawling fleet, they might as well pick IN.
I will explain it for the last time. Chaos is supposed to be a long ranged, fast fleet with high focus on carriers supported by lances. It is how they were in the original Battlefleet Gothic, that is how they were in the first game, and that is how they're supposed to work according to the lore.
While there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the ships above, or even making whole fleets focused on them, there IS something wrong if they are the only viable ships on the roster.
And what percentage of hit should be? Do you think that it is more than the stated? Maybe the developers are lying?) I'm curious how you need to strongly want to prove that Macro imba, that you have already doubted the percentage of hits?) Well, according to your logic, suddenly the number of hits in reality is less?
Not according to "my logic", but according to simple logic.
If you dared to put just a little bit of thought into this, you'd find out that we're not playing a browser game and shots with their accuracy are not just RNG hit or not, and they are VERY unlikely to fall under the law of large numbers.
The in-game macros fire projectiles that have to actually fly and hit first before the damage is applied, they are not exactly pre-determined upon firing whether they hit or not. Because the ship can change trajectory for instance.
And if it doesn't, how is the target's geometry accounted for? Ships are not round targets, their cut-away is an ellipse, so the projectiles' accuracy will vary depending on the axis of their spread.
So how exactly the "accuracy" parameter translates into the frequency or hit/miss? Is it the starting parameter? Or is the starting parameter something else, non-linear and meticulously adjusted so that the given accuracy is actually the frequency of hits landed.
That's what I wanted to know. And I never said that the given accuracy does not translate into the frequency. That was my theory and my personal experience that I would love to get more information about.
But apparently I was foolish to think that your insight transcends simple multiplication and division, not to mention my wanting knowledge on the matter is a reason to laugh.
Anyway, I have no interest in curing your blindness, wasted enough time already. You can live in your imaginary world were lances in BFGA2 are overpowered. Numerous players out here agree that Chaos simply can not be played in its intended playstyle, it can not effectively kite its weapons damage output is insufficient to effectively deal with most other factions right now and carriers are overall on the weak side as of now.
The buff to Chaos lances is laughable.
I can not say about IN lances/zzzaps and others as I haven't tried them yet, though they might have benefited quite a bit due to their starting high crit chance.
But for Chaos who had only 1% crit chance to begin with it's a joke. If Chaos lances got a bigger crit bonus and increased damage, then they'd probably work a lot better. Maybe.
Though I'd rather see the return to the roots, lances as your typical armor piercing weapons with armor reduction to 25.
Please for the love of whatever deity you worship, make this happen.
The issue I see with throwing a choosable upgrade to lances for Chaos is that it would only give us one of those "essential upgrades".
The way it is now, it's 2 upgrades available and in vast majority of cases most of choices are rubbish. But there's still a semblance of choice when there aren't any revolutionary upgrades. Throw in a lance upgrade and we get such revolutionary upgrade. It would be a must with little to no fun in choosing upgrade set up.
That's why I suggested to make the whatever buff to lances permanent to ships. I would have no issue if we still had system similar to the previous game, with 5 or so upgrades tied to each ship. But as it is now? Nah.
Good grief, finally.
We've been roaring ever since the game release and in every patch lances got either buff-nerfed or outright nerfed.
I'm glad they listened and fixed the ordnance to the point of somewhat usability. I'd still MUCH rather have the pre-patch system or at least that when there's an ordnance in the field, then ONLY THAT type of ordnance is locked. So you could have one fighter, one bomber and one assault boat unit in the field. Preferably though the old system.
My thanks for that.
Also, when do we finally get 2vs2 AI skirmishes? That greyed out button is still teasing me, and I absolutely LOVED this game mode in the first game.
Gee thanks, now I have this image in my head of guardsmen shooting through side holes of the ships, WWII bomber style.
Playing a good ol' mathhammer is all nice and dandy, until you play the game. Maintaining distances larger than 9k for any prolonged amount of time is somewhat tricky against a universally dumb AI, against a live player it is practically impossible, even against IN now. And I'm NOT taking into account stasis/disruption bombs or nova cannon turkey shooting.
Unless of course, said player had infused themselves with a solid dose of "combat" drugs and has a real life case of interfering signals on the screen.
So yeah. Chaos lances out-dps macros at very long ranges. But good luck maintaining that long range. Especially if playing a domination mode.
If mathematically the odds are about equal, then in reality the outcome of the battle depends on the skills of the players and microcontrol. But you are trying to highlight this fact, as if it affects negatively on your faction. What nonsense?) This shows only the skill of the players and nothing more. What you do is demagoguery.
This whole paragraph makes no sense whatsoever, it does not pertain to anything I wrote.
I see that you are compensating for the failure of your opinion with over-conceit. Considering how often you repeat this, you obviously have an inferiority complex. Please behave yourself.
No inferiority complex. Just a simple fact that idiocy does not realize its own folly. As you keep showing.
If you mean a board game, then we are not playing a board game with turn-based battles, this is RTS. We have discussed the comparison of weapons Macro against Lance as well as the ships of the Empire and Chaos, but not aircraft. Do not change the topic.
Aviation is a completely different topic, it should be considered not in a separate faction, but in a comprehensive manner in all factions.
In other words you wish for the faction and its void warfare lore to be completely remade in this game, because why? You say so?
Why not have strong points? As we found out, Chaos has damage over a long distance, has great speed. You again ignore the facts and make unsubstantiated statements.
No one found out such thing, anyone who tried playing a Chaos lance/carrier fleet will tell you that what you're stating here, is frankly BS.
Yes, you continue to ignore the facts again and again, for example, that Chaos has an advantage in range and speed.
Again, I repeat, the fact of the matter is that if the characteristics are equal in math, it all depends on the skill of the players. We found out that according to calculations Chaos has advantages, but you still continue to assert, even now, that Chaos is weak. How can he be weak, not inferior in the characteristics of the Empire, and even surpass him, and the circumstances in battle depends only on the skill of the players? This is absurd.
This is actually what you keep doing. The only calculations you bring up, are your dps charts. You fail to see how difficult it is for Chaos fleet to maintain its range, which I even proved to you mathematically. But you keep thick-headedly ignoring it, all the while accusing me of ignoring the facts. That is called hipocrisy.
The ships of Chaos are weak
With exception of brawl oriented ones, yes.
Ok, let's count. As we see, Chaos is even the better than Empire
No it isn't, you are literally the only one who gets such conclusion.
Mathematics is good, but the result of the battle depends on the conditions.
If you still don't understand my point about maths, then I can only conclude that you are simply stupid. I will tell this the very last time.
Maths results are good when you have properly taken into account enough conditions that your mathematical model illustrates the practical situation on the battlefield with enough accuracy. 2 stationary ships firing away at each other with no movements taken into account is good for an initial estimates of power, but include movement and the result changes. You can not comprehend this simple fact, therefore I will not be addressing this point further down.
Yes, the conditions depend on the skills of the players, so we found out that the ships of Chaos are not weaker, but in something stronger than the Empire, and the outcome of the battle depends only on the skills?
No. Conditions are mandated by strategy native to the given faction. Skill level of both players is always assumed to be equal in such discussions and I honestly have no idea why you're even bringing it up.
Not! Although the characteristics of the fleet of Chaos are strong, and the outcome of the battle depends on the player’s skill, therefore Chaos is still weak.
Never stated something like this. If anything it's the opposite. Currently even a skilled player will be handicapped when playing as Chaos.
Are you trying to insult me? You know, it does not offend me. Because when you write this nonsense, you insult yourself. If so rude you behave in life, I think you have no friends.
If you retrace this argument, you will find out that I was the one who wanted to keep this civil, it was you who were rude.
Both to me and Bosie. You refuse to acknowledge others' arguments, you outright reject the maths that someone else is presenting and you present a clear attitude of "I know better better than you, why should I bother considering your points".
Worst of all, you accuse others of the very things you are guilty of.
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.
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 precisely the case, and it's pretty straightforward. Whatever is visible, can be critted.
However you can crit generator from the front as it is considered to be on top, but it's relatively rare, sides and back are obviously preferable for that.
The same case with deck, except it's easier to crit from the front. Engine is the opposite, it pretty much can't be critted from the front (I may have seen it once or twice, but I can't vouch for that) but can be critted from the sides and if you're at the back it's the most favorable target.
Other than that, it's pretty straightforward really. Whichever weapons are visible from the sides you can attack, can be critted. So if you're on one side of enemy ship, you can't crit batteries on the other side.
Overall if you want to crit the engines, shooting at the back will increase your chances significantly as ships have no weapons at the back, meaning less potential crit targets other than engine/generator.
In other cases, it's a matter of RNG and setting up crit priority on the target (probably).
Not your fault that fixing issues in a singular worst possible way is their trademark already.
For Tzeentch's sake Tindalos, get your act together and start actually balancing the game, not nerfing what needs no nerf.
Return lances to at least their previous state, and try to fix your SM/Necro boner in a more viable way.
Ok, I'm starting to go on a hate spree here but seriously, where's that Tindalos from post release of BFGA 1, who could quickly and properly fix the issues presented? Without messing up big time? What went wrong?
Plus admech has the overcharge upgrade, while Chaos gets literally nothing for lances in upgrades department. Except the range upgrade which is next to useless, especially with lock on bonus.
Anyway back to the topic, I don't need to remind that Chaos lances come in pairs as that has been covered.
In any case, in my own experience so far the less-shots-but-higher-crit-chance lances of IN and AdMech have proved to crit more viciously than more-shots-but-less-crit-chance lances of Chaos.
Overall Chaos lances suck when one takes into account that Chaos is supposed to be a lance-strong fleet.
Seeing the "overcharged lances" (or something like that) perk of Apocalypse Battleship has given me an idea. How about giving all lance equipped Chaos ships a similar perk (something like "corruptive energies" or such) that makes their lances set the armor to 25, like it did in first game. I understand this could fuck up certain factions though, so this could as well be "reduce by 50, but to no less than 25".
This would keep Chaos lances at 1 dps, while returning them to a solid enough state.
I'd like to remind everyone that Chaos used to be a balance benchmark for all other factions in the first game. Not even IN was as stable.