Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Wed 06 Aug, 2014 9:30 pm

the fact that they are good or not is not relevant , some people don't want the extra pop on the sarge.
some people don't need the tacs to be more durable, some people don't want 20 pop tacs , so you cant force that 20 pop tac on them. that is why all the other drop in globals don't come with any upgrades either.

it restricts build variety.
User avatar
Raffa
Level 4
Posts: 580
Joined: Tue 30 Jul, 2013 1:41 pm
Location: England

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Raffa » Wed 06 Aug, 2014 9:50 pm

OP:

Mark Target at 40% is still a little crayzay, but not as bad as 50% which is a wrecking ball.

Drop pod in T1 is potentially a gamewinning retreat spike with 150 heavy_melee. Then again it's 300 red...still it'd be more suitable if it dropped a tac squad with a sarge in T2. Although it certainly can be very powerful right now when it reinforces your whole army after terribad bleed.

Generally speaking, Tyranids either have really good MUs or really average/bad ones. FC especially is going to be trashing nids like never before with his hammer.

Manticore at 60 power is nutz :ooo
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Dark Riku » Wed 06 Aug, 2014 10:00 pm

Raffa wrote:Mark Target at 40% is still a little crayzay, but not as bad as 50% which is a wrecking ball.
What do you call the doombringer then? In T1 for less resources... Eldhur!

Raffa wrote:Drop pod in T1 is potentially a gamewinning retreat spike with 150 heavy_melee.
If you can time that long ass animation and with the placement issues and manage to retreatkill with it. You need to get an achievement!

Raffa wrote:Then again it's 300 red...
req ;)

About the drop pod: It's losing it's previous design. It used to be a good reinforce option in case you lost a lot of models.
The trade of would be the high red cost. Now you pay too much req for it to be useful and you get a tac squad that you probably don't want, increasing your upkeep. It's only useful now if you actually want/need that tac squad.
User avatar
Ace of Swords
Level 5
Posts: 1493
Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
Location: Terra

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Ace of Swords » Wed 06 Aug, 2014 10:06 pm

saltychipmunk wrote:the fact that they are good or not is not relevant , some people don't want the extra pop on the sarge.
some people don't need the tacs to be more durable, some people don't want 20 pop tacs , so you cant force that 20 pop tac on them. that is why all the other drop in globals don't come with any upgrades either.

it restricts build variety.


It's not restricting anything and ofc it matters that the sarge is good, it brings dps melee and ranged dps, aswell as resistance with a great ability, your popcap/upkeep reasons are just stupid when it comes down for free if it was always free I would get it on all the tacts squads.

Oh and yeah, without numbers comes with upgrades.
Image
User avatar
Lost Son of Nikhel
Contributor
Posts: 636
Joined: Wed 13 Feb, 2013 4:26 pm
Location: The Warp

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Lost Son of Nikhel » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 10:49 am

I suggested this before, but I'll really love to see some kind of melee charge or a sprint ability for AC EW CSM to take advantage from their high melee damage.

At the moment is almost is an useless trait, because rarely you are going to use them in melee for their lack of melee abilities and because you want to make them stayed in cover) shooting things, not kicking asses in melee.
"Pater, peccavi in caelum et coram te; iam non sum dignus vocari filius tuus". Dixit autem pater: "manducemus et epulemur, quia hic filius meus mortuus erat et revixit, perierat et inventus est"

There will be no forgiveness for us.
Bahamut
Level 4
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri 27 Sep, 2013 12:58 am

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Bahamut » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 2:42 pm

I feel like the drop pod should go back to be the way it was
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 3:05 pm

Ace of Swords wrote:
saltychipmunk wrote:the fact that they are good or not is not relevant , some people don't want the extra pop on the sarge.
some people don't need the tacs to be more durable, some people don't want 20 pop tacs , so you cant force that 20 pop tac on them. that is why all the other drop in globals don't come with any upgrades either.

it restricts build variety.


It's not restricting anything and ofc it matters that the sarge is good, it brings dps melee and ranged dps, aswell as resistance with a great ability, your popcap/upkeep reasons are just stupid when it comes down for free if it was always free I would get it on all the tacts squads.

Oh and yeah, without numbers comes with upgrades.


how does it not restrict build variety ? the act of having the sarge in there means that builds that dont want a sarge are hindered, yes technically the sarge is basically free because he is part of the reduced cost global, but I for one purposefully omit the use of sarges on my two tac squads so that i save 10 pop , it is the same concept behind not fully reinforcing sniper squads to save on pop cap and upkeep.

if all you want from the tacs is a plasma gun or a rocket launcher , then having the extra population in the form of a sarge hinders the build by padding the upkeep.

this is why we never seem to see eye to eye, you look at a unit in terms of what it can bring to field, regardless of what the player wants . I look at what a player wants. I wont deny that the tac sarge, for what he does, is a good buy. But just like how certain weapon upgrades are situational , so are squad leaders.

And you have to at least consider that there are situations in which people wont want a tac sarge. And having him tied to the global would inevitably mean the global is less flexible and that less builds would use it.

If you accept that possibility and still support the idea of adding a sarge then fine. That is your opinion. but i will still disagree
User avatar
Ace of Swords
Level 5
Posts: 1493
Joined: Thu 14 Mar, 2013 7:49 am
Location: Terra

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Ace of Swords » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 3:17 pm

You are plain wrong dude.

You don't reinforce snipers and grenade launchers tics or ist because they don't lose effectivness AT ALL.

Again, not only me, but ask riku aswell, when you purchase a missile launcher on your tacts and you still want AI you'll also purchase the sargent because it's bring the AI damage back to what it was.

The sargent is never wasted upkeep or resources it INCREASES the squad effectivness against all infantry and to some extent vehicles since it add durability.

And again your point doesn't hold up at all, if it's free you aren't committing anything.
Last edited by Ace of Swords on Thu 07 Aug, 2014 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Torpid » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 3:18 pm

Not having the sarge come with the squad by default will allow for some builds to be viable that wouldn't if the sarge came down, true. However, the opposite also happens; because you want the new tac squad to be combat ready and cheap, not costing additional req/power for the sarge, by not having the sarge previous builds that were viable become closed off.

Therefore whether or not having the sarge come with the tacs leads to more build flexibility isn't wholly obvious. It all depends on the perceived combat value of the tac sarge, his initial costs and his upkeep costs (which were recently reduced and is why I now do choose to get sarges on my tacs most of the time, remember having the sarge means more hp and so less bleed vs squads with more than 3 models). For me because of my SM playstyle it would increase build flexibility because in T2 I really don't want my tac squads running around with 3 men as they're practically useless then and wasted upkeep.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 3:33 pm

yes it is subjective , some people do want the sarge , and some people do not want the sarge , for many reasons for an against.

And no ace i am not wrong. Ive won over 600 games using double tac without getting tac sarges. there are clear situations in which you don't need the sarge.
And you are also wrong about snipers and grenade launchers , those extra models do contribute to the squad , just not in a way you want.

those scouts still do 8 dps each, those tics do 5 each i think, it is just that your squad no longer uses those models in a way that allows for that damage to be useful, but it is still there.
and the exact same thing is true about a tac sarge. Yes he still does good ranged dps , yes he has melee , yes he adds hp, and yes he has an ability.

but is a person who just wants a rocket launcher or a plasma damage source going to care about hp, pierce damage , or a chain sword? no they wont.


he is exactly like those extra tic models and scout models. there are times where he is needed and there are times when he is not needed.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Torpid » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 4:03 pm

saltychipmunk wrote:he is exactly like those extra tic models and scout models. there are times where he is needed and there are times when he is not needed.


So a baneblade and a and the power fist force commander are exactly like the third model on a set-up team? Probably be wise to use language more appropriately.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
David-CZ
Contributor
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue 28 May, 2013 1:41 pm
Location: Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby David-CZ » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 5:19 pm

I don't get it. Nevermind that though.

I was just thinking there might be some negative side effects to having a sarge in T1. For the opponent that is. But that's probably something that has to be seen first.
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 5:21 pm

that doesn't even make sense , those are single model unit.

My point was that the usefulness of a model depends entirely on what the player wants. a single scout model still does everything it did before the sniper rifle was bought. It is just that now the way it does damage and the way the sniper model does damage conflict and thus the usefulness of that scout model is diminished. But it is still a scout model , it didn't lose anything when the sniper rifle was purchases.

the same is true for a tac sarge, he is a good model, but only if you use him in the role he is built for, otherwise his value is diminished.

going back to the av example. if all you want is av, then who cares if the tac sarge is good against infantry or can hold his own in melee, what he does , is not what the player wants , therefore his usefulness is diminished. and in normal cases you just would not buy him or , going further. keep the tac down a model.

in the case of the scouts you could just let a model die .
in the case of the sarge you would just not buy him
but this global would force a 20 pop squad on you. and sure that is fine if you want a fully kited tac but if you dont , then this global does next to nothing for you. And it goes back to being that one ability that takes up space on your global bar.

David-CZ wrote:I don't get it. Nevermind that though.

I was just thinking there might be some negative side effects to having a sarge in T1. For the opponent that is. But that's probably something that has to be seen first.


when they talk about the sarge they mean move it back to t2
User avatar
Element
Level 3
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed 30 Apr, 2014 4:44 am
Location: "A place you are just unable to fathom"

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Element » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 5:51 pm

"One dimensional view (Not that it's wrong)"

It's not restricting anything and ofc it matters that the sarge is good, it brings dps melee and ranged dps, aswell as resistance with a great ability, your popcap/upkeep reasons are just stupid when it comes down for free if it was always free I would get it on all the tacts


"Someone who understands both arguments and sides on the opposite side of the one dimensional person (Not wrong)"

how does it not restrict build variety ? the act of having the sarge in there means that builds that dont want a sarge are hindered, yes technically the sarge is basically free because he is part of the reduced cost global, but I for one purposefully omit the use of sarges on my two tac squads so that i save 10 pop , it is the same concept behind not fully reinforcing sniper squads to save on pop cap and upkeep.

if all you want from the tacs is a plasma gun or a rocket launcher , then having the extra population in the form of a sarge hinders the build by padding the upkeep.

this is why we never seem to see eye to eye, you look at a unit in terms of what it can bring to field, regardless of what the player wants . I look at what a player wants. I wont deny that the tac sarge, for what he does, is a good buy. But just like how certain weapon upgrades are situational , so are squad leaders.

And you have to at least consider that there are situations in which people wont want a tac sarge. And having him tied to the global would inevitably mean the global is less flexible and that less builds would use it.

If you accept that possibility and still support the idea of adding a sarge then fine. That is your opinion. but i will still disagree



"Someone who understands both sides but sides on that of the person one dimensional view (Not Wrong)"

Not having the sarge come with the squad by default will allow for some builds to be viable that wouldn't if the sarge came down, true. However, the opposite also happens; because you want the new tac squad to be combat ready and cheap, not costing additional req/power for the sarge, by not having the sarge previous builds that were viable become closed off.

Therefore whether or not having the sarge come with the tacs leads to more build flexibility isn't wholly obvious. It all depends on the perceived combat value of the tac sarge, his initial costs and his upkeep costs (which were recently reduced and is why I now do choose to get sarges on my tacs most of the time, remember having the sarge means more hp and so less bleed vs squads with more than 3 models). For me because of my SM playstyle it would increase build flexibility because in T2 I really don't want my tac squads running around with 3 men as they're practically useless then and wasted upkeep.
.

My point:
Stop arguing over nonsense. There are certainly pros and cons to both. The simple truth is that the most probable outcome will be that of popular opinion (Most likely a sergeant zoning with the squad)

"What would make everyone happy"
To implement an option point check for the drop selection in which the player has the options to check off to either

1. Just get the drop pod
2. Get the drop pod with a tac squad
3. Get a drop pod with a tac squad and a sergeant

To which the red and req cost scale as appropriate. This would enable the maximum VARIETY, and appease to all players, however I'm not sure whether or not Caeltos and his team can inplement this, to which the only other option and more likely than not (what will probably happen) is a popular opinion poll held to be closed off at a certain time on a certain day that will decide the fate of the drop pod (that can always voted on again for change given a change in community preferences)

I just hate to see bickering over subjects in which there are multiple answers to the solution yet people act like there is only one. Now can we move on?
"The meaning of life is to have purpose, and the purpose of life is what you choose to make of it, in addition to what you come to understand along the way."

"Because I choose to."

"The humble person knows not everything, nor nothing at all, but certainly something worth knowing."
Atlas

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Atlas » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 6:19 pm

I mostly side with Silenze here. This whole discussion seems way overblown from where it should be. Whether the tacs drop in with a sarge or we just go with the devs' ideas, they both seem like answers to the same question here.

As for the whole upkeep problem, even if the pod eventually does come with a sarge you could always just not replace the sarge (or heck, just any other tac model) when they take a casualty and there you go. People don't grenade their own units just to lower upkeep; they let them die in combat and just don't reinforce. If you have problems dropping a tac model in T2 then I don't really think upkeep matters at that point.

But I feel like we should try out this T1 Drop Pod. I think this'll open up double scouts and tacs a lot more than it already is.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Torpid » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 6:44 pm

I'm posting on the basis of clarifying what people's arguments are and making them linguistically sensible.

"he is exactly like those extra tic models and scout models. there are times where he is needed and there are times when he is not needed."

This is what you said. There are times in which the power fist force commander is needed and times in which he is not. I can say the same about the baneblade, so is whether or not we buy a baneblade or a power fist force commander the exact same mental conundrum as whether or not we want a sarge on our tacs, or a model on our set-up team squads?

Obviously not, the purpose was to illustrate how the line of reasoning is flawed.

I'de also like to note that I haven't sided with anyone in this particular debate. All I've done is criticise flawed reasoning and state that due to my SM playstyle I personally would rather a sarge on the tacs the majority of the time. However I lack a full enough understanding of the playstyles of the SM playerbase, to make a broad statement as to how such a change would affect the flexibility of builds overall and so I didn't comment on that and that is where the debate headed.
Last edited by Torpid on Thu 07 Aug, 2014 7:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Torpid » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 7:08 pm

Silenze wrote:
My point:
Stop arguing over nonsense. There are certainly pros and cons to both. The simple truth is that the most probable outcome will be that of popular opinion (Most likely a sergeant zoning with the squad)

"What would make everyone happy"
To implement an option point check for the drop selection in which the player has the options to check off to either

1. Just get the drop pod
2. Get the drop pod with a tac squad
3. Get a drop pod with a tac squad and a sergeant

To which the red and req cost scale as appropriate. This would enable the maximum VARIETY, and appease to all players, however I'm not sure whether or not Caeltos and his team can inplement this, to which the only other option and more likely than not (what will probably happen) is a popular opinion poll held to be closed off at a certain time on a certain day that will decide the fate of the drop pod (that can always voted on again for change given a change in community preferences)

I just hate to see bickering over subjects in which there are multiple answers to the solution yet people act like there is only one. Now can we move on?


Firstly, read my posts again, I have taken no sides.

Secondly, it isn't nonsense. There is no solution as this isn't a maths question. This is good old economics and so the answers may change under many different conditions, yet there is still one optimal way of going about something at any given time, our job is to discover what that is. In this case the conditions that will affect that answer are what underlying axioms we use and what the playerbase tends to do.

On a different note I'de like to remind people that what the majority thinks is irrelevant, rather what is important is why the majority think what they think.

Your suggestion would indeed maximise the flexibility of the global, but you're using flexibility as your axiom of good, that is to say, that with no explanation, you're just asserting that variation is good - why? Maybe some players don't want the variation in the applications of the global. Maybe they think that that would make it OP for its cost, after all it is ultimately down to the flexibility of tactical marines and their upgrades that justifies their dedicated anti-infantry upgrade to not quite be as storng as that of other, similar squads (TCSM/GM) right?
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 7:40 pm

i use flexibility as the basis for good , because of the current situation of the tac drop. ie it is a very inflexible global that has very few situations in which it is actually a boon instead of a blatant waste of resources.

From what I have gathered Cael wants the global to be used more often, And the way I see it the best way to do that is to make it as flexible as possible.

The more upgrades you add to something, the more focused it becomes and the less flexible it is , therefore there are fewer situations in which it is applicable , and therefore it will be used less.

It only turned into bickering because it always turns into bickering when Ace and I talk about the same topic. Our views are very much conflicting and we are both very stubborn.

bottom line , if cael wants a global that would be used alot , then it needs to be a global that can be both used early enough while also not restricting any future build paths. And the best way to do it "IN my opinion" is what he has in the op, 300 req 100 red squad in t1 . Even if you don't use it until t2 , it is still a good buy just on the 150 req saved.


and really we all know exactly whats going to happen if there is a sarge on that global, drop the squad ---- upgrade to sterns.
User avatar
Forestradio
Level 5
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun 13 Oct, 2013 5:09 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Forestradio » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 10:35 pm

Drop Pod atm only feels useful against tyranids when you did a 3x scout build in t1 and want plasma to pop warriors (if you don't pop warriors vs nids as SM, bad things tend to happen).

Otherwise, the red seems to be better spent on FTE and repair as FC and TM, although apo globals in general seem kinda meh, especially larraman's blessing.
User avatar
Element
Level 3
Posts: 269
Joined: Wed 30 Apr, 2014 4:44 am
Location: "A place you are just unable to fathom"

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Element » Thu 07 Aug, 2014 11:40 pm

Firstly, read my posts again, I have taken no sides.

Secondly, it isn't nonsense. There is no solution as this isn't a maths question. This is good old economics and so the answers may change under many different conditions, yet there is still one optimal way of going about something at any given time, our job is to discover what that is. In this case the conditions that will affect that answer are what underlying axioms we use and what the playerbase tends to do.

On a different note I'de like to remind people that what the majority thinks is irrelevant, rather what is important is why the majority think what they think.

Your suggestion would indeed maximise the flexibility of the global, but you're using flexibility as your axiom of good, that is to say, that with no explanation, you're just asserting that variation is good - why? Maybe some players don't want the variation in the applications of the global. Maybe they think that that would make it OP for its cost, after all it is ultimately down to the flexibility of tactical marines and their upgrades that justifies their dedicated anti-infantry upgrade to not quite be as storng as that of other, similar squads (TCSM/GM) right?


First off, I apologize for misinterpreting what very much looked seemed like you giving your opinion. 2nd The drop pod is/was only used 1nce maybe 2x in a game. Especially from that of the same SM player whether it was oldschool without tacs and newschool with tacs. I highly doubt it will become OP by making it more appeasing to the player to build upon them in a manner they want to, and I even stated that the price of the drop pod would scale more as what was included in the drop pod increased, 3rd Caeltos wouldn't be introducing the drop pod to t1 if the goal wasn't to make it more flexible to be used. If that were the case he would keep it as is inky available in t2. Finally, it's Not like that anything anyone is suggesting for drop pods or anything else for that matter is going to happen (what is going to happen is what Caeltos wants to happen, though I see and understand so many people wanting to influence that right now, it's only natural) hence the reason why this is the only time I've jumped into this thread, (to break up what I see is an argument that should not even be taking place right now), for the reasons I said above, because I want to see his ideals tried out next patch before discussing and politicing over a "tentative" channelog.
"The meaning of life is to have purpose, and the purpose of life is what you choose to make of it, in addition to what you come to understand along the way."

"Because I choose to."

"The humble person knows not everything, nor nothing at all, but certainly something worth knowing."
User avatar
Cyris
Level 4
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri 22 Mar, 2013 10:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Cyris » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 3:56 am

Sarge included in drop pod would be nuts strong. I can't fathom where Salty is coming from on this one!

I prefer this T1 aim though. You've got my support Cael, let's see where this goes... I'm in favor for anything that attempts to make Drop Pod more then an in-base reinforcement efficiency math problem.
User avatar
ChrisNihilus
Level 3
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed 27 Nov, 2013 10:29 am
Location: Udine, Italy

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby ChrisNihilus » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 7:36 am

* Interceptor Squad Teleport & Furious intervention now has a small delay of 1.5 seconds before teleporting.


Will this delay have some kind of animation or noticeable effect, so the opponent can react?
"This quiet... offends... SLAANESH!"
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 12:43 pm

Cyris wrote:Sarge included in drop pod would be nuts strong. I can't fathom where Salty is coming from on this one!

I prefer this T1 aim though. You've got my support Cael, let's see where this goes... I'm in favor for anything that attempts to make Drop Pod more then an in-base reinforcement efficiency math problem.


its about pop cap and upkeep efficiency. It may seem small (one squad) but in certain match ups (mainly ones that are not nids or imperial guard). I can save as much as 18 pop by not reinforcing my snipers and not buying / having tac sarges. It adds up pretty quick especially if you follow this practice from the word go.

It does not work in all match ups as i have said. But there are match ups where not having that 18 pop will allow you to crush your opponent in the resource race . even if you are down a few req points.

it is the kind of bo where you go straight for the librarian when you tier up.

ChrisNihilus wrote:
* Interceptor Squad Teleport & Furious intervention now has a small delay of 1.5 seconds before teleporting.


Will this delay have some kind of animation or noticeable effect, so the opponent can react?


wont lie , the more I play with interceptors right now , the more I hate the delay change. I use the instant teleport to keep them from dying way more than i use it to actually jump on shit.
User avatar
Sub_Zero
Suspended
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed 16 Oct, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Sub_Zero » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 1:03 pm

I think the delay is only needed when their teleportation becomes instataneous. T1 interceptors are fine.

I want to comment on the manticore's change. A big leap from 90 to 60 is too drastic. 70-75 would be more appropriate.
User avatar
Forestradio
Level 5
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun 13 Oct, 2013 5:09 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Forestradio » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 2:36 pm

Everything t1 interceptors do the BC does for better and cheaper, especially with the Blessed Aegis buff.

But at least this way with breaking suppression they won't get controlled by the unit (setup teams) they're supposed to counter.
Cheah18
Level 3
Posts: 310
Joined: Sat 28 Dec, 2013 4:45 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Cheah18 » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 3:45 pm

Give the kasrkin sergeant power melee :D :D but ok seriously give him a hot-shot laspistol (hellpistol?)
saltychipmunk
Level 4
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 3:22 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby saltychipmunk » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 4:19 pm

Radio the Forest wrote:Everything t1 interceptors do the BC does for better and cheaper, especially with the Blessed Aegis buff.

But at least this way with breaking suppression they won't get controlled by the unit (setup teams) they're supposed to counter.


seems pointless to me though. if the bc just does it better and cheaper , giving them a delay or suppression resistance/ immunity wont change the fact , that the BC still does it better and cheaper.

And i really don't want to lose their ability to rapidly disengage from fights. cant we just make them cheaper?
or give them something that the bc cant do ? (knock back on landing)
User avatar
Caeltos
Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:49 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Caeltos » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 7:02 pm

Forgot to mention that, is that their teleport functions much alike other mid-jumps that they have an huge damage resistance for the period. So calm down.
User avatar
Sub_Zero
Suspended
Posts: 915
Joined: Wed 16 Oct, 2013 4:12 pm

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Sub_Zero » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 7:09 pm

In order to make a tank out of your Bro Cap you spend 60 power and around 300 req. Interceptors cost 500 / 50. +-200 more req and 10 less power. Interceptors do way more damage (3x 30 dps vs around 40 power melee dps), they get in amongst any ranged unit in a blink of an eye and they become really potent with their T2 justicar and have really cheap and useful grenades. The Bro Cap always walks his way to any ranged unit. In no way he is better than interceptors. He can die under fire without reaching a suppression team. You need grenade launchers to avoid that (you give up damage to single entities). Go ahead, spread this nonsense that the Brother Captain is better than interceptors at dealing with ranged units.
Bahamut
Level 4
Posts: 578
Joined: Fri 27 Sep, 2013 12:58 am

Re: Patch 2.3.1 (Tentative balance changelog preview)

Postby Bahamut » Fri 08 Aug, 2014 8:55 pm

Caeltos wrote:Forgot to mention that, is that their teleport functions much alike other mid-jumps that they have an huge damage resistance for the period. So calm down.


SO pretty much the same as ravaners but without the animation?

Return to “Balance Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 29 guests