GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Generic non-balance topics.
DandyFrontline
Level 3
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri 31 Jan, 2014 12:04 am

GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby DandyFrontline » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 1:52 pm

Just wondering if it possible to make GM build sandbags as cover instead of those 'tank traps' ? If possible it would be nice to introduce in game. Will looks waaay better Image
User avatar
Indrid
Moderator
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:06 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Indrid » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 2:33 pm

They are called dragon's teeth.

I agree sandbags would make more sense but the dragon's teeth were probably chosen because of their specific size and crush properties.
DandyFrontline
Level 3
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri 31 Jan, 2014 12:04 am

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby DandyFrontline » Sun 08 Nov, 2015 3:00 pm

Indrid wrote:They are called dragon's teeth.

I agree sandbags would make more sense but the dragon's teeth were probably chosen because of their specific size and crush properties.


Heh, didnt know that their actual name is dragon's teeth. Still, as google and my logic says to me Dragon's teeth is a tank trap. So it make no sense GM build it as cover and it can't stop even light vehicle like sentinel.

Im not a modder but is it a big deal to change skin without changing the properties?
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby saltychipmunk » Mon 09 Nov, 2015 5:00 pm

I would prefer sand bags if it meant we needed to deploy fewer cover objects to get the job done. The current Teeth try very hard to be at odds with the guardsmen.

Guardsmen are a unit that relies on the addition of new models for statical increases in performance.

Cover on the other hand is notoriously inefficient at protecting high model squads to the point that a piece of cover fails to protect the smaller 3 model squads.

to make matters worse dragon teeth are even smaller than standard cover so you need 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 ---- (unreasonable number) of them actually protect your guardsman.

they are too damn clunky. in a game where guardians get a deployable shield that provides perfect cover for a full 5 model squad. at the activation of a single ability.. why do we still need to dick around with 10 - 30 individual tiny pieces of cover....

Heck ill gladly take 3 sand bag walls that provide only yellow cover over having to place 12 green cover teeth.
User avatar
Black Relic
Level 4
Posts: 844
Joined: Mon 29 Jul, 2013 3:05 am
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Black Relic » Mon 09 Nov, 2015 7:48 pm

if you build dragon teeth cover all the guardsmen are usually near the object as they construct it. That means all of them get the cover bonus as long as you do not move them of course.
"...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
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Oddnerd » Mon 09 Nov, 2015 11:07 pm

Given how easily they are destroyed I certainly see why sandbags would make more sense. Big concrete blocks seem like they would be more difficult to crush.
User avatar
Lichtbringer
Level 3
Posts: 271
Joined: Sun 19 Jan, 2014 5:13 pm

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Lichtbringer » Tue 10 Nov, 2015 12:08 am

I do wonder, can units walk through the Dragonstheef? Because that would be a gameplay change if we made it to sandbags.
User avatar
Interdiction
Level 2
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon 10 Mar, 2014 11:25 am
Location: USA

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Interdiction » Tue 10 Nov, 2015 2:28 am

Don't the IG have those Aegis things too? I've no idea if we could do those but they could work too. Sandbags at least would be pretty cool though, given that they make more sense than dragon's teeth. Honestly we'd probably have to rework the size of each section a tiny bit but it wouldn't really be THAT bad would it?
The Codex Astartes does not support this action? Well, F*ck you, I'm a Black Dragon!!!
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Dark Riku » Tue 10 Nov, 2015 6:56 pm

Lichtbringer wrote:I do wonder, can units walk through the Dragonstheef?
No.
User avatar
xXKageAsashinXx
Level 2
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu 19 Mar, 2015 5:34 pm
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby xXKageAsashinXx » Fri 04 Dec, 2015 5:04 pm

Changing from the Dragon's Teeth to sandbags wouldn't really change anything except the fact that it looks more practical (creating a concrete block in 10 seconds or less...), then add on that depending on how it's implemented it can adequately provide cover for a 7-12 model squad, sandbags are definitely the way to go. If I remember correctly, sandbags in the maps are green cover if they're not destroyed, whether partially so that they're yellow cover or completely, so it truly would just be an aesthetic change.

Thinking about this, why not allow them to build both cover, and change the Dragon's Teeth from their (30 health, building, small) to (100 health, building, medium) with the heavy crush property and increased build time? Maybe have it as an add-on to the sergeant or the commissar or require T2 or T3?
Image
So... I hear you refuse to repent.
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Nurland » Fri 04 Dec, 2015 8:01 pm

Not a fan of the heavy crush idea
#noobcodex
User avatar
Indrid
Moderator
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:06 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Indrid » Sat 05 Dec, 2015 1:54 am

Heavy crush is a really bad idea. You need to use it sparingly when creating maps for example, because the Sentinel and T2 transports etc can't get through it and might get blocked off from large parts of the map. If a unit can just create it on the field you might get some really toxic things happening.
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby saltychipmunk » Sat 05 Dec, 2015 8:26 pm

xXKageAsashinXx wrote:Changing from the Dragon's Teeth to sandbags wouldn't really change anything except the fact that it looks more practical (creating a concrete block in 10 seconds or less...), then add on that depending on how it's implemented it can adequately provide cover for a 7-12 model squad, sandbags are definitely the way to go. If I remember correctly, sandbags in the maps are green cover if they're not destroyed, whether partially so that they're yellow cover or completely, so it truly would just be an aesthetic change.


It would be way more than that. The many reason why teeth suck is.

1 they are small
2 because they are small you need a bunch of them and
3 because you need a bunch of them it takes too long to get a practical amount set up.

Sand bags are larger so you need less of them and therefore they are more practical to use.

Now you can argue too just speed up teeth placement. But I think it would more intuitive to place a hand full of bag models over a half dozen teeth everywhere.

That would solve the thematic issue of why are tank traps not acting like tank traps and simplify a cumbersome mechanic that sees little practical use.
User avatar
Indrid
Moderator
Posts: 898
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:06 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Indrid » Sun 06 Dec, 2015 1:56 am

From eyeing them in the editor with various overlays, looks like the sandbag wall is 1m wider. Would certainly make more "sense" and IMO be more aesthetically pleasing if they chucked down sandbags, but I'm not sure if the extra size would be a balance concern.
User avatar
xXKageAsashinXx
Level 2
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu 19 Mar, 2015 5:34 pm
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby xXKageAsashinXx » Mon 07 Dec, 2015 3:05 pm

Indrid wrote:Heavy crush is a really bad idea. You need to use it sparingly when creating maps for example, because the Sentinel and T2 transports etc can't get through it and might get blocked off from large parts of the map. If a unit can just create it on the field you might get some really toxic things happening.

I had a feeling this would pop up, so I hesitated in proposing the heavy crush idea. But, in a way it's not like it's the end of the world bad. Hardly anyone uses those tank traps in the first place because they suck so badly at their only job, which is to provide cover for the infantry. You can see use out of them because either you're willing to nearly sacrifice the unit taking cover behind it to stall (cause melee and 'nades force you out of cover, which makes the tank traps useless), or there's a map where there's a big open area that separates two sides of the map and you decide to somewhat fortify one of those sides. Doesn't mean it actually works though, of course, since cover becomes nearly useless in T2 due to all the abilities everyone is privy to, and that's even if you ignore everything that was available in T1.

Now, their main use would be to block access to certain places or make utilizing transports and sentinels hell, before explosions blow them up to kingdom come or they get run over by legitimate tanks, or walkers, or super heavy tanks, or land raiders... okay, maybe not the last two since it rarely reaches that point in 1v1s but still, it's there.

I have a feeling I ought to say that I'm not pushing for this heavy crush idea, but that I'd like to see all the things wrong with it.
Indrid wrote:From eyeing them in the editor with various overlays, looks like the sandbag wall is 1m wider. Would certainly make more "sense" and IMO be more aesthetically pleasing if they chucked down sandbags, but I'm not sure if the extra size would be a balance concern.

If by balance concern you mean "an ability finally doing its job", then I guess so, since the guardsmen shouldn't be shot up somewhat as fast considering that if done right, there wouldn't be gaps in the sandbags that could possibly make a model or 5 of them have cover in the wrong direction due to their positioning. Also, it makes the " blocks enemy melee troops" thing legit for the same reason as the line above.
saltychipmunk wrote:
xXKageAsashinXx wrote:Changing from the Dragon's Teeth to sandbags wouldn't really change anything except the fact that it looks more practical (creating a concrete block in 10 seconds or less...), then add on that depending on how it's implemented it can adequately provide cover for a 7-12 model squad, sandbags are definitely the way to go. If I remember correctly, sandbags in the maps are green cover if they're not destroyed, whether partially so that they're yellow cover or completely, so it truly would just be an aesthetic change.


It would be way more than that. The many reason why teeth suck is.

1 they are small
2 because they are small you need a bunch of them and
3 because you need a bunch of them it takes too long to get a practical amount set up.

Sand bags are larger so you need less of them and therefore they are more practical to use.

Now you can argue too just speed up teeth placement. But I think it would more intuitive to place a hand full of bag models over a half dozen teeth everywhere.

That would solve the thematic issue of why are tank traps not acting like tank traps and simplify a cumbersome mechanic that sees little practical use.

^this right here
Image
So... I hear you refuse to repent.
User avatar
Wise Windu
Moderator
Posts: 1190
Joined: Sat 14 Sep, 2013 2:22 am

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Wise Windu » Mon 07 Dec, 2015 3:13 pm

This all sounds like a pathing nightmare. The pathing in this game is bad enough as it is :P

xXKageAsashinXx wrote:Now, their main use would be to block access to certain places or make utilizing transports and sentinels hell,
It's already hell. Sentinel and transport blocking would make vehicle control more frustrating than it is already.
User avatar
xXKageAsashinXx
Level 2
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu 19 Mar, 2015 5:34 pm
Contact:

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby xXKageAsashinXx » Mon 07 Dec, 2015 4:29 pm

This is warhammer 40k, there isn't enough hell to go around at the moment. :twisted:

On a serious note, I guess I overlooked that aspect in favor for other things since it wasn't mentioned. Whoops. All I really got is, hope you have some sort of explosive to blow the tank trap away.

One thing I've always wondered though, now that you bring up Sentinels, is why they can't walk through low obstacles? Isn't that the point of long-legged walker-like vehicles? To be able to "step over" things that would normally stump wheeled and treaded vehicles?
Image
So... I hear you refuse to repent.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Dark Riku » Mon 07 Dec, 2015 5:58 pm

Giving it the heavy crush property sounds very bad and toxic for the reasons already mentioned above.
Even faster build time than Elite has already given it or bigger blocks wouldn't be OTT imo. Sandbag skin would make more sense to me too.
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby saltychipmunk » Mon 07 Dec, 2015 7:18 pm

xXKageAsashinXx wrote:This is warhammer 40k, there isn't enough hell to go around at the moment. :twisted:

On a serious note, I guess I overlooked that aspect in favor for other things since it wasn't mentioned. Whoops. All I really got is, hope you have some sort of explosive to blow the tank trap away.

One thing I've always wondered though, now that you bring up Sentinels, is why they can't walk through low obstacles? Isn't that the point of long-legged walker-like vehicles? To be able to "step over" things that would normally stump wheeled and treaded vehicles?


Something that always angered me about sentinels specifically is how they get stuck on infantry. not huge infantry like a tyrant a warboss or dudes in power armor but the little units like guardsman and gaunts. 70% of the sentinel's height is its massive legs one would think it could easily walk over small unit or crush them with its massive chicken legs.


And that would make them so much easier to use with the ridiculously bulky armies ig happen to field because of the "add models = upgrade" concept they have going for most of their core infantry.

A dream, perhaps. But it would be cewl.
User avatar
Interdiction
Level 2
Posts: 64
Joined: Mon 10 Mar, 2014 11:25 am
Location: USA

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Interdiction » Tue 08 Dec, 2015 2:23 am

Yes for the sandbags, no for the sentinel thing. I mean, with good micro most if not all of those problems can be avoided, even if it is rather annoying when it gets stuck on infantry. Also, would it even be possible to make it walk over obstacles? In either case I just don't think it is needed, a well-microed sent can be annoying enough as it is. :P
The Codex Astartes does not support this action? Well, F*ck you, I'm a Black Dragon!!!
User avatar
Psycho
Level 3
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:08 am

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Psycho » Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:20 am

Compared to the Dire Avenger shields, the dragon's teeth are practically useless, as you need a lot of time to build a line, and even more time as you need multiple lines if you wish to properly cover all your guardsmen rather than the outer edge of the blob guardsmen usually form in. To make matters worse, as they have just 30hp they'll be destroyed to anything and leave your guardsmen exposed in the open with no cover whatsoever, so you'd be better off putting them into light cover rather than heavy deployable cover. I'm unsure as to what was the intended effect of this when it was implemented but I'm sure it's not working as it was originally intended, since nobody uses it at all.

I had to try in a match against AI (wouldn't want to risk ruining someone else's fun just because I wanted to test something) and you'd not only need multiple lines of cover, but they'd all be destroyed by anything almost immediately. By the time the enemy gets anything with splash damage that can properly damage it, it's 100% useless as all in a wide radius gets destroyed due to the 30hp. Funny seeing a single guardsman being able to take over three times the amount of damage a solid piece of concrete can. I'd sooner trust the guardsmen to act as cover for the dragon's teeth rather than the other way around.

30hp is insane, though. It's as if they missed a zero in the coding. Even a single tyranid ripper has more hp. Increasing the hp would be a good start, though at that point it risks turning the IG meta into cover spam.
User avatar
Psycho
Level 3
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:08 am

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Psycho » Fri 19 Feb, 2016 7:11 pm

In my infinite boredom, and remembering this thread, I decided to try an idea I had for a while for guardsmen and their cover to see if I could get all 12 models in proper cover, rather than the usual 4 or 5 that get into cover with a simple line or natural cover. Looks like I succeeded.

Image

Had a warboss stroll around later on and start shooting my guardsmen, but eventually he retreated out of health while my guardsmen barely dropped a hundred health total or so. Still takes more effort than it looks like to make, and the 30hp means it dies to absolutely everything before even getting to T2 even if one disregards vehicles and jump troops. Sure hope Caeltos does something regarding deployable cover, because it'd feel like a mechanic that'd make IG more unique.
User avatar
Raven
Level 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue 05 May, 2015 9:54 pm

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Raven » Fri 19 Feb, 2016 8:01 pm

Sorcerer wrote:In my infinite boredom, and remembering this thread, I decided to try an idea I had for a while for guardsmen and their cover to see if I could get all 12 models in proper cover, rather than the usual 4 or 5 that get into cover with a simple line or natural cover. Looks like I succeeded.


IT'S BEAUTIFUL
I swear I'm not as bad as this game as it may seem.
User avatar
Psycho
Level 3
Posts: 367
Joined: Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:08 am

Re: GM sandbags instead of 'tank traps'

Postby Psycho » Sat 20 Feb, 2016 11:56 pm

Sorcerer wrote:In my infinite boredom, etc...


Tried it again and ended up with inconclusive results, many guardsmen out of cover or AI wanting to put guardsmen in front of the cover rather than behind it. Looks like it depends entirely on the space between the two wedges. Needless to say that's infinitely worse since now the ones without cover get shot up first. Didn't want to believe the most efficient formation was that either, since it takes a titanic amount of effort to create just once, let alone numerous times.

Tried numerous other formations. Seems the most efficient and at the same time less time-consuming would be two rows ~10 teeth long, with just enough space between them for the guardsmen to be forced into cover just by being there. Those who refuse to take cover between the two rows due to AI will usually take cover behind the second row, assuming the AI doesn't put them in front. Increasing the rows to three solves the issue completely though you don't always have THAT much time in your hands to build it.

Found something awful regarding cover construction, too. In theory it takes 10/(numer of guardsmen building it, up to 6) to build one, so around two seconds all things considered. Problem is, guardsmen gather around it to build it, and take up space of the next tooth that would be built, and it takes like two more seconds for the AI to register the obstruction and move them out of there. In practice, the build time is far greater than the amount of time mentioned, almost double. This is assuming the guardsmen can get out of there quickly, not taking into account that guardsman getting stuck for a little bit due to 12 models gathering around such a tiny place.

All in all, I can imagine its hp increased CONSIDERABLY along with its build time also reduced due to the egregious amount of teeth necessary for it to be of any use. Increasing the build speed by a tiny fraction would already be a massive change if the tooth finishes building before a guardsman gets a chance to step onto the next tooth before it's in place. I can even imagine it synergizing well with the Lord General's take aim ability, as you'd want your units to shoot further so that you don't have to get them out of cover if they're almost in range. With bunkers and turrets holding down a VP, it'd be a beautiful thing to see, along with the global and artillery magnet it'd be. Sure wish Caeltos considered it.

Return to “Community General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests