Last Online


No life lost in the service of the emperor is wasted.

No sacrifice too great, no heresy too small.

Where is your Federation now, heretic?

About me

BFGA:A Alpha Tester
BFG:A Beta Tester
BFG:A Wiki Founder
BFG:A Mod Creator
BFG Story Writer
Imperial Loyalist

Recent Posts
posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Bumping this up due to increased traffic.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@jamodon A large part of why the VS sucks so much is the cost, what it needs is a cost reduction and a small buff to the Pulsar damage.

Pulsars more generally just need to be made slightly easier to use, with visible cooldown, and perhaps even limited traverse or targeting. Increasing the damage by a significant amount would be a balance and gameplay nightmare.

I’ve seen what 8 or 9 Pulsars can do when put in capable hands, and I don’t want that experience made worse.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@fosil It served the most extreme example of how horrible it would make just one Eldar ship to play against. In a Cruiser fleet everything gets worse by an order of magnitude equal to how terrible the Vanilla Voidstalker is.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

Turns out I was actually initially incorrect, each pulsar fires 3 times, putting each one at 90 damage per Lance (no wonder it felt insane) and the post-buff Lance between 135 and 180 damage per Lance.

That puts the final DPS of a theoretical post-buff Lance at 18 per weapon.

Do I really need more evidence as to the lunacy of this idea?

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@jamodon No it bloody well shouldn't, a VoidStalker will not be the only Pulsar armed ship in the fleet, nor is it the way to bring the most Pulsars in a fleet. The damage is already insane when deployed correctly as a fleet, buffing it strikes me as just... well, for lack of better terms, idiotic and short-sighted.

I recognise they are awkward, but the damage they do is really high. Its like the one really good thing about the weapon. I don't know how you can look at a weapon that is AP, wont miss when lined up, and does 600 burst damage in addition to higher DPS than DE Macros (which are a huge problem on their BBs) and think that's a good idea.

It totally butchers Necrons, it ruins the day of any slower factions like IN or AdMech, it would be zero-fun to play against, and it would make little change in the Eldar v Eldar match-ups. Everything about it is just bad, reduce or remove, please. For the Love of all that is sane.

Hell, if the main concern is the Voidstalker, buff that, leave the faction's Pulsars alone. Mark My Words, it would break the game completely.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

One thing needs to be made very clear: Pulsars doing 45 to 60 damage each is totally unacceptable.
That's a DPS of 4.5, or 6, per weapon. For frame of reference, the combined Broadside DPS of IN Cruisers averages at 6 and that is subject to armour and accuracy.

If you are determined to buff Pulsars @Jamodon then it must be no more than 10%, which would be a damage increase to a more sensible damage total of around 34 as opposed to the vanilla 30. I do not want Lances that can instantly cripple ships in one pass. I really can't stress enough how strongly I disagree with that especially if you plan to decrease the Reload.

Even a relatively tame 10% reload decrease, with the addition of Reload Stance would put a Void stalker (for example) to a top-end Lance DPS of 48. DE and non-carrier Ork BB Macro DPS comes to 44 by comparison.
It's a really terrible idea, I strongly suggest you dramatically lower any buffs to Pulsars, if not remove them entirely. They need Quality of Life changes, not flat DPS buffs.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@ashardalon I wouldn't mind the proposed change if the nid assault boats were significantly nerfed, and the Nids could regenerate lost ordnance. This would be much preferable balance and design.
Right now they wildly swing from useless to overpowered depending on factors like speed, I consider this very poor design.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@rymarq I believe there are more elegant solutions, and I don't oppose an increase entirely if it is kept small since I do agree the Nids are less susceptible to the more extreme side-effects.

posted in BFG - General Discussion read more

@ashardalon said in My ideal patch notes for next beta:

you realize nid assault boats are so slow that chaos is actually better at emptying ships with assault boats?
nids are only better vs people that dont understand ordnance
nid assault boats just dont land vs people who have some experience, ever, at all, in any situation
except when launched under 3k i guess

If the speed on them goes up, the assault damage must come down.
My point is not that they are balance issue now, but that they will become one if you start speeding them up.

and giving nids any detection at all is op??
because now a competent nid vs nid game is just an empty map until they accidentally run into eachother
only way they would find eachother is by one being incompetent and launching ordnance giving away his position
nids currently have no detection at all, how is that a good state of being currently?
id range is completely irrelevant to nids, there is no reason for aim stance to buff it, detection range is something they need even if its a small buff in aim

If you must increase the detection, make it small, like 2K max. It can get way out of hand, detection is one of those things that cause wild balance swings. I would rather a simpler solution like a detection-like ability.
Don't mess with detection ranges, that way lies only more balance problems.

you realize that being able to cancel kroot warp out is a bug right?
a bug that makes them ridiculously op
ridiculously op that also makes watercaste upgrade irrelevant
assuming you misinterpreted what he meant by Make auxiliary disengages un-cancellable

This was a misunderstanding, I thought it was the inverse. Scratch that last bit.

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