Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Oddnerd » Fri 09 Sep, 2016 6:32 pm

I just can't make myself like/want this thing.

The best way I can describe the problem is to say that the baneblade is a unit that cements (or flaunts) an advantage, rather than providing one. Basically, I purchase a baneblade because I am already winning; I never save up for a baneblade because I think it will turn the tide. That has been my experience of it in 3v3, at least. It is like a big, slow, expensive teabag that says "This is how much I dominated the economic part of the game".

The most glaring comparison I can make to other super units is the LRR. The LRR cost 300/20 less than a BB, and brings so much to the SM army that it is practically a 3v3 staple - fall back point, reinforcement aura, heal aura, suppression immunity aura, melee deterrent grenade blast. It doesn't have the same damage output of a BB, but its selection of guns means it can damage both infantry and vehicles. Scariest of all are those flamers which can shut down enemy infantry both offensively or defensively.

The baneblade brings no significant support capability to the IG army, so it's damage output has to be its selling feature. It's main cannon does 150% of a vanilla leman russ cannon, with 11 more range (but a minimum range), strong but worse than a vanquisher russ against vehicles and worse than an executioner russ against infantry. Its demolisher cannon can take chunks out of infantry, but if I don't get a BB I never miss that ability (and it can't hurt vehicles, cuz psychic damage). Its sponson lascannons do token AV damage. Its 3 heavy bolters do ok piercing damage and technically do courage damage (never seen them suppress anything though), but what IG player hits T3 and finds that they are severely lacking in piercing damage? And of course, why would a 1000/200 slow tank the unit to provide it? A huge part of the problem is that it is so slow. Mobility is critical to tank survival, especially in T3 when there are nobs and nid blobs about.

If I was in a static firefight over a heavily contested VP I might consider a BB over a russ, but otherwise I just can't be bothered to spend the time saving up 1000/200, then waiting for it to hit the field.

Please, sell the baneblade to me... what am I missing? What makes it so great?
User avatar
_4ut_
Level 2
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue 22 Mar, 2016 11:45 pm

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby _4ut_ » Fri 09 Sep, 2016 6:47 pm

Oddnerd wrote: ... what am I missing?

It's simple, watch this:
Guardsman > Kaskrin
Leman > Baneblade
IG balance > logic
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Nurland » Fri 09 Sep, 2016 8:16 pm

Why is this not in the balance section?

Anyway. BB is not that much of a 1v1 unit due to its huge cost. It is worth the price but it just generally hits too late apart from 3v3s.

Wouldn't call 27,5 dps "token AV damage"
#noobcodex
DandyFrontline
Level 3
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri 31 Jan, 2014 12:04 am

Re: Yet Another

Postby DandyFrontline » Fri 09 Sep, 2016 11:04 pm

Nurland wrote:Why is this not in the balance section?

Anyway. BB is not that much of a 1v1 unit to bd fair due its huge cost. It is worth the price but it just generally hits too late apart from 3v3s.

Wouldn't call 27,5 dps "token AV damage"


Imo, its even worse at 3vs3. Honestly, its just way too overprice for what it does. It should be more like other super-units 800/170 or 700/180 . Atm its always better early LR then another later. If there is some unit in this game that worth 1000/200 - its LRR.
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Oddnerd » Fri 09 Sep, 2016 11:58 pm

The time it takes to wait for the resources and the additional build time are almost unbearable unless you already are winning by a sufficient margin to be able to amass those resources with minimal bleed. 2 upgraded russes costs more, but you can buy them in increments, which makes a big difference.
User avatar
Impregnable
Level 4
Posts: 875
Joined: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: SEGMENTUM TEMPESTUS

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Impregnable » Sat 10 Sep, 2016 2:24 am

"Excalibur!"
"Excalibur!"
"From the United Kingdom!"
"I'm looking for heaven!"
"I'm going to California!"
"Excalibur!"
"Excalibur!"
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Torpid » Sat 10 Sep, 2016 12:55 pm

I have noticied myself that the baneblade is terribly lacking. It's huge sunk costs make it totally unviable in 1v1 and it just gets nuked into its ass in 3v3. There is also an internal balance issue of lemans simply being too good.

What do you guys think of the following changes:

Baneblade -
Cost reduced from 1000/200 to 700/180.
Demolisher cannon ability range reduced from 50 to 40.
Baneblade primary cannon damage reduced from 180 damage per shot to 160.
Baneblade hp reduced from 3250 to 3000.

The reduction in sunk costs makes it more viable for 1v1, especially on the req side which is where IG do struggle and will struggle even more so in future patches. It doesn't solve the issue for team games yet it does give the BB a very distinct role from the leman wherein it is the thing that can sit on a VP and defend it. Its demolisher cannon gives it more spike damage than the leman and so long as it isn't moving so its bolters hve full accuracy it has more dps to infantry too + it suppresses. It's the ultimate mobile firing platform for defending VPs. Whereas lemans have better AV and move faster so as your more vehicular 'strike-force'. The changes try to accomodate both issues. It being cheaper also means it getting triple nuked isn't such a loss.

The hp/cannon damage nerf is just to go in line with the huge cost decrease. The demolisher cannon range change makes countering it with AV SUTs slightly easier as they all have 65 range. Ultimately the BB is an anti-infantry platform of great power that stops an enemy pushing into an area - it isn't supposed to solo armies.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
Ace of Swords
Level 5
Posts: 1493
Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
Location: Terra

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Ace of Swords » Sat 10 Sep, 2016 7:14 pm

BB shouldn't be any less than 800/200, it's still much more tankier than any other super unit and GM/bunker repair support is the best in the game.
Image
User avatar
MaxPower
Contributor
Posts: 614
Joined: Mon 11 Feb, 2013 10:18 pm
Location: Leipzig

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby MaxPower » Sat 10 Sep, 2016 7:50 pm

Torpid wrote:I have noticied myself that the baneblade is terribly lacking. It's huge sunk costs make it totally unviable in 1v1 and it just gets nuked into its ass in 3v3. There is also an internal balance issue of lemans simply being too good.


Maybe we should nerf the Lemans then or the IGs ability to repair them in next to no time to make the BB more viable?
"A fortress is built with blood and toil. Only by blood and toil may it be taken." Leman Russ
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Torpid » Sat 10 Sep, 2016 8:19 pm

MaxPower wrote:
Torpid wrote:I have noticied myself that the baneblade is terribly lacking. It's huge sunk costs make it totally unviable in 1v1 and it just gets nuked into its ass in 3v3. There is also an internal balance issue of lemans simply being too good.


Maybe we should nerf the Lemans then or the IGs ability to repair them in next to no time to make the BB more viable?


Lemans will be getting nerfed. No more elite tank crew. Thus lower hp for them.

And guardsmen leaders getting more upkeep so triple guardsmen will be strongly nerfed and fully upgraded guardsmen loitering in t3 likewise.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Vindicarex
Head of Balance
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun 06 Mar, 2016 2:46 am

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Vindicarex » Sun 11 Sep, 2016 2:04 am

I built a BB vs Tex in 1v1 and it died to banshees Kappa.

So I tend to agree it could use buffs.
User avatar
Broodwich
Level 4
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri 12 Apr, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Broodwich » Sun 11 Sep, 2016 8:16 pm

Drop price/hp/dmg of BB
Elite BB tank crew to fill that gap later
Fas est ab hoste doceri
User avatar
egewithin
Level 5
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon 26 Jan, 2015 7:08 pm

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby egewithin » Sun 11 Sep, 2016 8:43 pm

Vindicarex wrote:I built a BB vs Tex in 1v1 and it died to banshees Kappa.

So I tend to agree it could use buffs.


IMO, Tex himself is a bigger problem than BB. :)

#nerfTex
Vindicarex
Head of Balance
Posts: 80
Joined: Sun 06 Mar, 2016 2:46 am

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Vindicarex » Sun 11 Sep, 2016 10:19 pm

egewithin wrote:
Vindicarex wrote:I built a BB vs Tex in 1v1 and it died to banshees Kappa.

So I tend to agree it could use buffs.


IMO, Tex himself is a bigger problem than BB. :)

#nerfTex


True, but any other super unit would have very little problems forcing off banshees rather quickly. But the BB can miss it's most important shots much more easily and the min range..
Atlas

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Atlas » Mon 12 Sep, 2016 5:13 am

Sentinel Enforcer constantly trolls me with "when bb buffs" steam messages but yeah, BB needs some help.

Putting aside how awesome of a unit it is/isn't for now, it simply comes out wayyyy too late to actually matter usually. The combination of its cost and build time is just staggering considering.

On top of that, putting down a repair bunker just adds even more to an already pretty prohibitive cost(req wise at least). It also has the terrible tendency of getting stuck thanks to DoWII pathing :D

So yeah, I think it could use small buffs of some form.
karnakkardak
Level 2
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed 01 Oct, 2014 9:18 am

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby karnakkardak » Mon 12 Sep, 2016 6:48 am

bb has too much cost and karskin a bit of useless, but nowadays ig is fine i think. not too strong(because eldar. pro level eldar really really annoying), not too powerful.
and some worried about repair rate nerf. ig always have a lisk which can game changed lose or not their vehicle.
User avatar
Cyris
Level 4
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri 22 Mar, 2013 10:22 pm

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Cyris » Tue 13 Sep, 2016 7:05 pm

I used to be in the no camp, but I've come around. While I wouldn't call for stright buffs, I like Torpids direction: Reduced cost and potency. I'd like the BB to be a bit more viable in 1v1, while also not losing you as much investment when it inevitably gets nuked in 3v3. I also like Broodwich's addition, of putting a Crew upgrade in there. I feel like that combination would give it more flexibility without making it too much stronger.
jmcopel
Level 1
Posts: 24
Joined: Sun 25 Sep, 2016 10:45 am
Location: Pretoria, South Africa
Contact:

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby jmcopel » Mon 17 Oct, 2016 9:32 pm

Agreed levels over 9000. Please can this be fixed.
newtonia
Level 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu 07 Jul, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby newtonia » Sun 23 Oct, 2016 5:38 pm

Torpid wrote:
MaxPower wrote:
Torpid wrote:I have noticied myself that the baneblade is terribly lacking. It's huge sunk costs make it totally unviable in 1v1 and it just gets nuked into its ass in 3v3. There is also an internal balance issue of lemans simply being too good.


Maybe we should nerf the Lemans then or the IGs ability to repair them in next to no time to make the BB more viable?


Lemans will be getting nerfed. No more elite tank crew. Thus lower hp for them.

And guardsmen leaders getting more upkeep so triple guardsmen will be strongly nerfed and fully upgraded guardsmen loitering in t3 likewise.


IG nerf? pls no more, its hard enough to play against eldar with IG.
User avatar
Black Relic
Level 4
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon 29 Jul, 2013 3:05 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Black Relic » Sun 23 Oct, 2016 7:22 pm

Eldar is just a race that is slightly overpowered.

And the IG leader is super strong in a 3 GM build. But i do hope the upkeep increase isn't by much.

As for the Leman change i would rather remove the inherent 35% damage resistance tbh and replace it with the extra armor upgrade to add 100 more HP in energy alone (did not stack) similar to how Retail had it but not a large amount. The upgrade would be a lower cost like 50/10 because the energy couldn't be repaired. Idk though a 700 hp base tank even with the 35% damage resistance doesn't seem like much. or keep elite tank crew remove 35% damage resistance and replace it with the tank getting melee resistance making heavy melee be less reliable vs IG tank and require races to get range form of AV to be more of a threat. But if that does happen the zoanthrope needs the snare back. But that's enough for brainstorming.
"...With every strike of his sword, with every word of his speech, does he reaffirm the ideals of our honored master..." -From the Teachings of Roboute Guilliman as laid down in the Apocrypha of Skaros. Space Marines Codex pg. 54
newtonia
Level 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu 07 Jul, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby newtonia » Sun 23 Oct, 2016 8:31 pm

Black Relic wrote:Eldar is just a race that is slightly overpowered.

And the IG leader is super strong in a 3 GM build. But i do hope the upkeep increase isn't by much.



all you have to do is focus on the gm squads, apply disrupt on LC and focus or bait the LC away from the gm squads. LC isn't even that hard to deal with, just have a designated anti melee unit on him and he's done while you try and make gm squads retreat. commanders and ogryns are the only reliable units that is left for IG to tie up units, removing their capability in doing so will make commanders (especially LC) only for support.

Also lehman russ isn't op, like almost every race, its the go to unit for IG t3, heck its the only cost effective buy for t3 in IG. might as well nerf nobs, or nerf termies.
User avatar
Black Relic
Level 4
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon 29 Jul, 2013 3:05 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Black Relic » Mon 24 Oct, 2016 6:02 am

The 3 GM is actually amazing when paired with spotters and another t1.5 purchase if needed. The focus fire is actually insane. And if the LC is too far away from the GMs squads you are using him wrong. He is not an FC. He can skirmish but you use him in conjunction with the GMs. Put inspire determination and loyal to the end on plasma gun GMs with spotter support. And just watch what happens.

Saying "all you have to do" vs the LC is not really a good way to start as well. Since imo 3 Gm works the best with him than the other 2 heros. He can get the fire power of 4 GMs when he executes a model. Giving stupid focus fire. And if he also has a sentinel that he has the anti melee in place so your LC can just sit and wait for a jump troop if needed or he can just cap something if the IG player is confident. And if you get forced off the sent will immediately decapp a req point and the 3 GM will harass power.

3 Gm is amazing with LC anyway since he can get stubbornness. Not to mention the basilisk flare being maybe the most annoying global due to its affect and red cost. Or you could just get spotters for a on demand basilisk flare (without the detection though) and being able to explode the mine that are dropped from the global bar. Not including how now the enemy has to back off whilst getting shot in the back by 3 GM squads.

If anything the 3 GMs is a pretty safe with every hero, the LG being arguably the worst due to the lack of inherent counter initiation since he has to get another squad while the other two have ways to help deal with a jump troop.


As for the Leman not being OP. You are kinda right. It isnt that strong vs races like eldar or Orks too much since Eldar can get Warp spiders to disable and fire dragons run in. and Orks can get tank busters so the hard AV really hurts and doesn't require set up and makes the player have to pay attention to the tank. Even though if i saw either of those units i'd probably focus them down first. But a Leman vs SM or Nids can be deadly and game ending for them. The SM is forced to invest in ample AV so the Leman Russ doesn't have alot of room to operate (which is normal and totally fine imo). The nids have no snare out side of rippers which have to chance in getting to melee with an executioner upgrade on the Leman.

I think it does overperform a little bit. But I can live with losing the HP it gets from the Elite Tank Crew, What i mainly want is to keep the sight radius. This bit does contradict what i state in my previous comment a tad but whatever.
"...With every strike of his sword, with every word of his speech, does he reaffirm the ideals of our honored master..." -From the Teachings of Roboute Guilliman as laid down in the Apocrypha of Skaros. Space Marines Codex pg. 54
Atlas

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Atlas » Mon 24 Oct, 2016 8:14 am

BB cost is being experimented on with the 2.6 patch. Nothing is final on it, but it is noticeably cheaper in the latest version.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Yet Another "Baneblade is sub-par" Thread

Postby Dark Riku » Mon 24 Oct, 2016 12:08 pm

newtonia wrote:Also lehman russ isn't op
That's debatable. The damage reduction is kinda ridiculous, also considering GM support.

newtonia wrote:might as well nerf nobs, or nerf termies.
Whut? °_O

Return to “Balance Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests