Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Generic non-balance topics.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Antandron » Sun 21 Jan, 2018 7:09 pm

-
Last edited by Antandron on Thu 02 Dec, 2021 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Sun 21 Jan, 2018 8:29 pm

Image


Is this obvious enough now?
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Dark Riku » Sun 21 Jan, 2018 9:54 pm

Antandron wrote:Q: You are in T3 with 600/150, what do you want to buy?
a. Leman Russ
b. SM or Chaos Predator
c. Looted Tank.
d. Fire Prism

In order: prism, looted, russ, pred
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Nurland » Sun 21 Jan, 2018 10:44 pm

FP AV shots are also pretty bursty and have 20ish extra range to lascannon tanks (which are more expensive than FPs and require you to commit more to get any work done with them. And 10 extra range to LR vanquisher which is already a very long range cannon.

Altough the disruptive shot has lousy dps it is rather bursty, huge range, good splash pattern, does kb and has plasma cannon as damage type so it does nice extra damage to (S)HI. Focused shot also has pee cannon damage so it really hurts HI.

It lacks the raw toe to toe power of other tanks but has amazing range and two different firing modes to justify other weaknesses.
#noobcodex
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Sun 21 Jan, 2018 10:48 pm

Dark Riku wrote:
Antandron wrote:Q: You are in T3 with 600/150, what do you want to buy?
a. Leman Russ
b. SM or Chaos Predator
c. Looted Tank.
d. Fire Prism

In order: prism, looted, russ, pred


I would have made looted and pred equally good now that looted needs the upgrade first for max performance and russ is most definitely better than the prism. It has 55 range and (i cant believe this hasnt been brought up before........*facepalm*) 55 sight range. With more hp and better repair support its most definitely the best tank out there atm.

EDIT @Antandron:
Also, you don't want to be comparing dps values. You have overlooked the fact, that the Looted Tank has the highest burst dmg out of all tanks. That includes the Leman Russ with the Vanquisher Cannon upgrade.
Last edited by Adeptus Noobus on Sun 21 Jan, 2018 11:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Dark Riku » Sun 21 Jan, 2018 10:59 pm

I am comparing overall usefulness and will stick to my opinion unless some really compelling arguments are made. Don't see that happening though :)
The pred is just a beatstick. It does nothing special, unlike the other tanks.

An upgraded looted cost about the same and has better stats than a standard pred.
Which also means the looted is out on the field faster since it costs less. While being better (ability).
Atlas

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Atlas » Mon 22 Jan, 2018 3:26 am

Yeah, let's just roll with the assumption that we would do a rework of Eldar vehicles here.

You just can't buff other aspects of a Fire Prism without modifying the range. A Prism's effectiveness is so binary specifically because it is so specialized. It either stays out of range for the entire match and dominates or it gets sneaked up on and dies miserably. A rework would all but demand a lowering of weapon range.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Mon 22 Jan, 2018 10:41 am

But it isn't binary. It's long-range AV/AI/area denial/disruption. To protect your Prism you can simply purchase Rangers. The lowering of their cost really does mean that you can fit them into any build at any stage of the game.

A rework of the Prism should only be discussed if its warranted. The Prism does what it is supposed to. Even in teamgames. It is just the lack of detection and strategic positioning that leads some players to believe that Eldar T3 is shit in general. Rangers + Eldar T3 are just awesome all day long.

EDIT:
I can maybe see the Falcon getting its old speed back now that its weaponry is taking a hit in 2.8.


DISCLAIMER:
Don't get me wrong when I strongly argue against something. I am not stopping your from making anymore suggestions. But these need to be argued according to the sticky, that nobody seems to bother with. I don't see valid reasons, arguments, etc being presented.
User avatar
Ace of Swords
Level 5
Posts: 1493
Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
Location: Terra

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Ace of Swords » Mon 22 Jan, 2018 5:20 pm

The range isn't even the most powerful thing, it's the constant KB that renders even late T3 squads like Nobs useless or makes capping a VP almost impossible.
Image
Thibix Magnus
Level 2
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2015 7:10 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Thibix Magnus » Mon 22 Jan, 2018 11:08 pm

Adeptus Noobus wrote:Falcon [...] weaponry is taking a hit in 2.8.


whaaaat :shock:
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby boss » Tue 23 Jan, 2018 3:17 am

Is fire on the move accuracy is going down form 100% to 75% for 2 of it weapon the
eld_dual_shuriken_catapults_fire_prism

piercing_pvp damage
22 damage per hit
19.13 damage per second
and
eld_scatter_laser

piercing_pvp damage
45 damage per hit
22.5 damage per second

and before you say wtf as most eldar players do to nerfs :twisted:
other than the wartruck the rest have 75%
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
LOCALgHOST
Level 3
Posts: 431
Joined: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby LOCALgHOST » Wed 24 Jan, 2018 12:25 am

Adeptus Noobus wrote:Do People forget that Eldar are meant to be fragile and thus micro-intensive? I suggest you look up Indrids earlier casts when actuall Eldar mains were still active. See what they can accomplish with good strategical positioning and micro. In their Hands Fire Prisms become nearly untouchable. It has insane range and good firing modes. Why should that vehicle recieve a shield on top of that? With all due respect but you guys are playing Eldar wrong if you want them to be durable like Space Marines. Eldar are simply not made for stationary digging in and holding a position. Move around, kite, flank, disrupt, buff, disable...all at the same time. THAT is the Eldar way.


SO true. Prism is OK.
Thibix Magnus
Level 2
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2015 7:10 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Thibix Magnus » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 8:20 am

Atlas wrote:Yeah, let's just roll with the assumption that we would do a rework of Eldar vehicles here.

You just can't buff other aspects of a Fire Prism without modifying the range. A Prism's effectiveness is so binary specifically because it is so specialized. It either stays out of range for the entire match and dominates or it gets sneaked up on and dies miserably. A rework would all but demand a lowering of weapon range.


thanks for keeping the discussion open :) I remembered there was a previous one, finally found it

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2354&start=30

Trying to summarize the rework options (for both tanks ideally):

A) direct trade-off: no upgrades, the purchased unit itself is changed (as you suggest, e.g. lower ranger for FP).

B) additive upgrade (aspect of the Eagle): my first thought, and preferred. FP / falcon remains as it is, but gets this sizeable forward speed buff for a very costly upgrade. Backwards speed remains the same, so not not much more survivable when retreating from a threat.

C) branching upgrades: two different versions. e.g. start with a cheaper FP with reduced range, choose an upgrade to either the current version or a faster one.

My worry with A, if it works it could make the tank play much funnier (although the fluff has both speed and range), but it's a bit risky if we then realized the range was more essential.
My assumption regarding B is, you can always find a price that would make it balanced (maybe the reasoning doesn't work but atm I don't see why not...). Maybe ask some good but unbiased players how much they would pay for that upgrade, and take the higher price. It makes the change a bit more incremental maybe ? It's greedy maybe to have both speed and range but I wouldn't see the issue if you pay for it.

Adeptus Noobus wrote:But it isn't binary. It's long-range AV/AI/area denial/disruption. To protect your Prism you can simply purchase Rangers. The lowering of their cost really does mean that you can fit them into any build at any stage of the game.

A rework of the Prism should only be discussed if its warranted. The Prism does what it is supposed to. Even in teamgames. It is just the lack of detection and strategic positioning that leads some players to believe that Eldar T3 is shit in general. Rangers + Eldar T3 are just awesome all day long.

EDIT:
I can maybe see the Falcon getting its old speed back now that its weaponry is taking a hit in 2.8.


DISCLAIMER:
Don't get me wrong when I strongly argue against something. I am not stopping your from making anymore suggestions. But these need to be argued according to the sticky, that nobody seems to bother with. I don't see valid reasons, arguments, etc being presented.


As I see it, the rework discussion would be from an immersion, design perspective. Not a change warranted because of balance. I'd say it's a move from one balanced state to a different balanced state.
All units in OM roster, and most others I suppose, were created around the fluff and what the modding tools allowed, and then balanced... not because they were needed from a balance perspective (and again if terminators were cheap and frail we might want to change that even if it was balanced).
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby boss » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 12:37 pm

How about we just leave fire prism the way they are, eldar don't need more buffs in elite
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 4:09 pm

Thibix Magnus wrote:As I see it, the rework discussion would be from an immersion, design perspective. Not a change warranted because of balance. I'd say it's a move from one balanced state to a different balanced state.
All units in OM roster, and most others I suppose, were created around the fluff and what the modding tools allowed, and then balanced... not because they were needed from a balance perspective (and again if terminators were cheap and frail we might want to change that even if it was balanced).


But it is not. Not even close. The effort to rework Eldar again, after they are finally in a very good spot is just a bad idea. While fluff should have its place (so we don't get summersaulting force commanders) it should not be the prime directive. Balance always comes first.

On the topic of OM: Caeltos did not just think to himself "wow that seems to be a nice idea cuz fluff" but actually put effort into coming up with a unit and making it balanced at the same time. Obviously that is tedious and difficult work if you have no prior experience on the field but that was his methodology (at least I hope so). But then the crazy train rode into town and suddenly Paladins could retreat because let's just try it out. We all know how bad that change was. Operatives with their crazy dmg deleting heroes and infantry units like they were nothing, etc. You can see where "let's try it" goes. There are just some changes that you just know will have massive implications for not only said unit but all matchups or at least most of them.
Giving a Fire Prism a shield and making it more tanky is just one of those ideas.

I can only encourage people to go to the balance section and read this (by Codex): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2099
Mods should also make sure that every idea follows that guideline.

DISCLAIMER: I repeat myself but I am not disagreeing with people in general, I merely think every idea should follow that guideline and be sensible. Just wanting stuff because will ruin this game.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Antandron » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 5:34 pm

-
Last edited by Antandron on Thu 02 Dec, 2021 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 5:40 pm

Let me give you a better example then. People were complaining a LOT about the efficiency of the Falcon shield and how it could face-charge even Leman Russes and cause serious damage without ever coming close to being nearly dead itself. That was the Falcon mind you. Now what would happen if we slap a shield (however strong/weak it might be) onto the Falcon? It is not that I need numbers, this one is just from past experience. The Fire Prism already dominates everything from long-range which is its way of being tanky. It only requires you to keep Rangers close and micro it.
Thibix Magnus
Level 2
Posts: 118
Joined: Fri 20 Mar, 2015 7:10 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Thibix Magnus » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 5:43 pm

Adeptus Noobus wrote:
Thibix Magnus wrote:As I see it, the rework discussion would be from an immersion, design perspective. Not a change warranted because of balance. I'd say it's a move from one balanced state to a different balanced state.
All units in OM roster, and most others I suppose, were created around the fluff and what the modding tools allowed, and then balanced... not because they were needed from a balance perspective (and again if terminators were cheap and frail we might want to change that even if it was balanced).


But it is not. Not even close. The effort to rework Eldar again, after they are finally in a very good spot is just a bad idea. While fluff should have its place (so we don't get summersaulting force commanders) it should not be the prime directive. Balance always comes first.

On the topic of OM: Caeltos did not just think to himself "wow that seems to be a nice idea cuz fluff" but actually put effort into coming up with a unit and making it balanced at the same time. Obviously that is tedious and difficult work if you have no prior experience on the field but that was his methodology (at least I hope so). But then the crazy train rode into town and suddenly Paladins could retreat because let's just try it out. We all know how bad that change was. Operatives with their crazy dmg deleting heroes and infantry units like they were nothing, etc. You can see where "let's try it" goes. There are just some changes that you just know will have massive implications for not only said unit but all matchups or at least most of them.
Giving a Fire Prism a shield and making it more tanky is just one of those ideas.

I can only encourage people to go to the balance section and read this (by Codex): viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2099
Mods should also make sure that every idea follows that guideline.

DISCLAIMER: I repeat myself but I am not disagreeing with people in general, I merely think every idea should follow that guideline and be sensible. Just wanting stuff because will ruin this game.


I know quite well the balance sticky thread after all these years :) look I don't know, maybe there is something I don't get but I still don't see it as a balance discussion (the FP shield idea is not mine), this is why I didn't post the OP in the balance discussion, and such guidelines hardly apply. This whole thread went sideways because I dared ask about T3 in 3v3 and made a title about what was only a side benefit, which is totally my fault but not the intent.

Caeltos maybe didn't add OM and raptors and all saying "wow that seems to be a nice idea cuz fluff", but from what I see didn't based his huge work solely on what was needed purely from a balance perspective either, he created a new balance environment. It's what I try to call "design", what comes before balance, the play style and immersion that comes with the play style. And again, just look at His Words in this old transcription from forgotten eras:

"Point being, the balance can be "correct", but the other part is not. The best-case scenario is that it's both immersive, fun & balanced"

"So the Eldar tank's thematical design would be that they have really poor survivability if alone – but they should have the speed/acceleration/rotation as a tool for counter-play. This helps to distinguish other vehicles in the game"

(Caeltos, "Eldar Design notes & questions", verses XVI and XX1)

viewtopic.php?t=2354

Like Atlas, he also thought about a simple trade-off on unit purchase while I would rather have an upgrade, if we accept the assumption that there will always be a price that makes it balanced if the design is sound.

(I realize I did made a comment on the matter at that moment, how time flies)

but I'm not obsessed about it, I'm answering a lot only because I feel there are several parallel understandings in this thread and I'm frustrated cuz I gave it a messy start. I personally don't have the slightest idea of everything you guys know about game development, I'm only thankful for what you are doing. I try to throw ideas but have no knowledge to support them in detail, just seeing if it rings a bell to people who know more than me. Strictly on the design, if absolutely no one here believes it would be interesting to find a balanced solution to make eldar vehicle play more unique, interesting and immersive, because it's fine as it is (and I do agree on the balance side alone) by all means I won't insist :)
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Antandron » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 6:26 pm

-
Last edited by Antandron on Thu 02 Dec, 2021 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 7:43 pm

With all due respect, you answered the question yourself. Eldar have always been and always will be the most micro-intensive race.
User avatar
Forestradio
Level 5
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun 13 Oct, 2013 5:09 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Forestradio » Thu 25 Jan, 2018 8:36 pm

Antandron wrote:(possibly) no rear armour
i just found this funny that's all

let this pointless thread die mods, kill it if you have to
User avatar
TheGoldenChicken
Level 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue 06 Jun, 2017 9:54 am

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby TheGoldenChicken » Fri 26 Jan, 2018 10:10 am

Adeptus Noobus wrote:With all due respect, you answered the question yourself. Eldar have always been and always will be the most micro-intensive race.


I agree, more skillfull micro play should be rewarded, but there should also be a limit on how much you can get out of a single unit in contrast to how much work you can put into it, otherwise, all other game factors become pointless, and the game becomes a "who can react to this fastest" simulator.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Fri 26 Jan, 2018 10:24 am

Isn’t that the crux with all skill based rts games? If I can out-maneuver you with speed and positioning you are supposed to lose.
This discussion is also coming from a teamgame pov where micro is far less important than in 1v1s. A shielded or faster Prism in a 1v1 would be virtually unkillable.
Atlas

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Atlas » Fri 26 Jan, 2018 7:08 pm

I would like to see some more concrete suggestions on this whole idea. It's really easy to shut down half-baked ones. Let's not get too bogged down on deep, philosophical aspects of game design that is almost impossible to find agreement on.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Antandron » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 6:58 am

-
Last edited by Antandron on Thu 02 Dec, 2021 9:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 9:21 am

But you continue to ignore the strength of the Falcon and Prism when suggesting speed increases. Yes the Falcon is the slowest Transport but it also packs the hardest punch by far. What other transport in this game can really contest the strength of the Falcon?
crog
Level 2
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon 05 Dec, 2016 12:30 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby crog » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 11:00 am

Explain Adeptus noobus how do you with your super uber micro don´t lose the prism in scenario A.) ASM Jumping melta bomb and a little bit of av or teleporting fist commander
or B.) Let´s assume you don´t hold your prism back in the base at range and a leman or predator or looter flanks you. They chase you with their higher speed you are not able to flee. What are you gonna do?

This very slow prisms are completely against the LORE and a speed buff wouldn´t make them a russ with their shitty hp unlike in dow1.
Frustrating that eldars technologie isn´t able to produce a fast vehicle which is faster than the ones of the orks.


The shield for prism was suggested by me, my thought was a weaker shield just that you can survive 1-2 shots more since you can´t run a way with this speed.
Last edited by crog on Sat 27 Jan, 2018 11:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
crog
Level 2
Posts: 90
Joined: Mon 05 Dec, 2016 12:30 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby crog » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 11:07 am

Antandron wrote:The Fire Prism is slower than a Predator and has the HP of a Chimera. I also suspect that the AV potential is not great:

Prism Cannon Focused : 29dps range 65
Pred Lascannon: 55dps range 44
Carnifex Venom Cannon: 50dps range 55

One method of discovering which units are OP and which UP is a quiz.

Q: You are in T3 with 600/150, what do you want to buy?
a. Leman Russ
b. SM or Chaos Predator
c. Looted Tank.
d. Fire Prism

I am not saying Fire Prism is broken, just that it is a bit lame. Crippled HP, not fast and not great AV. Just long range disruption of Infantry blobs, Nobz in particular.

a.) leman russ
a.) leman russ
a.) leman russ
b.) guards man for repair

We all know how many games IG has won by just dropping some tanks in t3 , nobody is still caring . But if you suggest a shield or more speed for an eldar t3 vehicle, some people feel insulted.
User avatar
Forestradio
Level 5
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun 13 Oct, 2013 5:09 pm

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Forestradio » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 2:56 pm

Antandron wrote: how could moving from speed 6.75 to 7.25 make that much of a difference?
it makes a gigantic difference
lore is never a balance argument
come up with an actual proposal and atlas might listen to you
User avatar
Ace of Swords
Level 5
Posts: 1493
Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
Location: Terra

Re: Eldar late game in 3v3: faster vehicles

Postby Ace of Swords » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 3:33 pm

Antandron wrote:how could moving from speed 6.75 to 7.25 make that much of a difference? t.


If you have to ask it means you've never played this game.
Image

Return to “Community General Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests