Commander Sidearms

[Ace of Swords]

Yes, and I want an apo with a thunderhammer

You guys are really just being totally ridiculous.

An apo with a 16dps pistol is good enough tyvm. He gets sanguine you know? And for very cheap too!

Maybe 14dps is too extreme for her, but she fires so consistently, i.e. not in bursts that her pistol is even worse than her dps indicates. But less than 3dps, really? How does she not warrant a sidearm buff?

I honestly don't care about her fighting capacity because she's an entirely dedicated support hero that can make eldar units quite retarded, like fortune'd falcons.

I wouldn't mind if she had better brawling abilities but a buff to her pistol isn't the way to go for them.

Beside you are fucking comparing FS to FC, what the fuck.

[Dark Riku]

But less than 3dps, really? How does she not warrant a sidearm buff?

How does it not? How in the world does it?!! °_O She performs more than fine.
Give apo fortune pls, give apo speed 5.5 base pls. Give him starting melee dps of fs pls.
These arguments are retarded.

Torpid is back, that's just great. Can you fuck up again and get banned again pls?

[Forestradio]

maybe give her a Spear starting weapon

This reduces her attack speed which also reduces the amount of specials she will trigger which is not a good idea.

Farseer with just fortune = 35dps melee, 2.5dps roughly ranged. 4hp/s regen and 780hp. Speed 5.5

FC with just alacrity = 40dps melee, 16dps ranged 1hp/s regen and 920hp. Speed 5.5.

I think they're very similar

lol?

Wow FTE is so underpowered it doesn't reveal the fog of war or detect units like farsight does, and wow farsight is so underpowered it doesn't buff damage like FTE does, they both need to be changed to exact clones of each other ASAP! Plz Kaeltos fix

[Atlas]

My patience is done with this thread now. Be constructive or I'm just wiping posts till it is.

EDIT: Thread fix't. - Atlas

[lolzarz]

w8 since when did Torpid get banned

[Lulgrim]

Looking at user notes was banned shortly in July 2015 but fine for ages.

[Oddnerd]

w8 since when did Torpid get banned

Ages ago, it was known as the day the forums died.

[Forestradio]

the day the forums died.

[SinisterLaugh]

While we at it, let`s also buff autarch pistol damage (2.47 with 22 range). And shees...

[Torpid]

I honestly don't care about her fighting capacity because she's an entirely dedicated support hero that can make eldar units quite retarded, like fortune'd falcons.

I wouldn't mind if she had better brawling abilities but a buff to her pistol isn't the way to go for them.

Beside you are fucking comparing FS to FC, what the fuck.

In T2, the bold. She sucks in T1. Let's not be silly now, the FC in T2 makes SM units quite retarded with battlecry buffs + standards with the TH specials.

I find that the FC and FS play extremely similar. A defensive macro style with both SM and eldar seems to be optimal with those heroes and those heroes often end up spending a lot of time alone soloing stuff when used to the best potential. The times in which you would get power sword on the FC and blob is the same sort of times you go spirit stones on FS and blob and they're equally infreqeunt.

But I feel the FS performs far worse than she should in T1. I understand that eldar are meant to be weak in T1 because their T2 is awesome, but my experience is that the farseer is still too weak in T1 compared to the WL/WSE and it puts her really on the back-foot and generally makes her the weakest of the eldar heroes (hence of course why she never does well in tournaments).

I think a buff to her pistol would sere to solve this particular issue while simultaneously playing into the lovely idea of getting people to stance-change more and play more interestingly with their melee heroes - and as a result better micro on melee heroes being rewarded more too.

The way I see it is that the SM fanboys have come out of their holes here in the form of yourself Ace, Riku and Forest. It may not be totally overt bias, but I see no reason why you would support Caeltos' initial buffing of the FC pistol, or the Apo's with sanguine for that matter, yet not the farseer even when we are speaking about the same relative percentage increases in damage. Or did you simply not and still don't agree with the FC pistol buffs?

I'd rather this than buffing her melee weapons or specials somehow as they are good as is, her dps is scary and her specials amazing, she just lacks hp and kb immunity but that's fine as she's a support hero after all. I think a pistol buff is perfect! And may as well buff the ranged damage of her spears too imo.

But less than 3dps, really? How does she not warrant a sidearm buff?

How does it not? How in the world does it?!! °_O She performs more than fine.
Give apo fortune pls, give apo speed 5.5 base pls. Give him starting melee dps of fs pls.
These arguments are retarded.

Torpid is back, that's just great. Can you fuck up again and get banned again pls?

Well that's where we disagree good sir. I don't think she does. I think she's too weak atm. It's obviously far deeper than just her pistol not being too good lol, but, I think that's a nice start.

Apo plays very differently from the farseer. FC is very similar. That's the key difference here. Also, heal is a lot stronger than guide in T1 and hell, forever now that it scales! Why would apo need to be speedier when all he does is blob as it is and is one of the more offensive heroes in terms of macro-composition?

P.S - I'm just going to ignore the troll posts. If one doesn't wish to partake in useful discussion then I shan't waste my time trying to get one to do so. But I note this because my reason for not responding is not a result of theoretical submissiveness

[Dark Riku]

but my experience is that the farseer is still too weak in T1 compared to the WL/WSE and it puts her really on the back-foot and generally makes her the weakest of the eldar heroes

Maybe we should nerf the other 2 instead of making unneeded buffs?

(hence of course why she never does well in tournaments).

Remind me again with what Eldar hero Noisy won the tournament again when he played Eldar. Oh right, the FS ...

The way I see it is that the SM fanboys have come out of their holes here in the form of yourself Ace, Riku and Forest. It may not be totally overt bias, but I see no reason why you would support Caeltos' initial buffing of the FC pistol, or the Apo's with sanguine for that matter, yet not the farseer even when we are speaking about the same relative percentage increases in damage. Or did you simply not and still don't agree with the FC pistol buffs?

Because unlike Eldar. SM's overall performance is lacking. This is my own opinion. I do not speak for anyone else. Just clarifying as you misquote a ton.
SM fanboys guys! I play Chaos and Nids, but mkay!

Ignoring your posts is indeed a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion.

[HARRYY]

SM lacking....? trololo. Maybe if you dont play FC.

For now, we should only talk about SM-roster balance if FC gets some well-deserved nerfs.
same with IG & INQ . they must come hand-in-hand

[Forestradio]

The way I see it is that the SM fanboys have come out of their holes here in the form of yourself Ace, Riku and Forest.

Just going to say that I view SM and Orks as the two best balanced races (Eldar probably follow), that I have played random for quite while now (aside from a spell with all 3 ork heroes and some tm) along with a touch of mek/knob/wl/fs.

I don't understand how you can accuse me of fanboying for any particular race at the moment, and as we discussed in Steam I'm generally pretty nervous about any sort of buffs being implemented to ...anything these days, in light of some recent changes.

If the fc/apo pistol buff came up now I would probably be against it too

[Ace of Swords]

I honestly don't care about her fighting capacity because she's an entirely dedicated support hero that can make eldar units quite retarded, like fortune'd falcons.

I wouldn't mind if she had better brawling abilities but a buff to her pistol isn't the way to go for them.

Beside you are fucking comparing FS to FC, what the fuck.

In T2, the bold. She sucks in T1. Let's not be silly now, the FC in T2 makes SM units quite retarded with battlecry buffs + standards with the TH specials.

I find that the FC and FS play extremely similar. A defensive macro style with both SM and eldar seems to be optimal with those heroes and those heroes often end up spending a lot of time alone soloing stuff when used to the best potential. The times in which you would get power sword on the FC and blob is the same sort of times you go spirit stones on FS and blob and they're equally infreqeunt.

But I feel the FS performs far worse than she should in T1. I understand that eldar are meant to be weak in T1 because their T2 is awesome, but my experience is that the farseer is still too weak in T1 compared to the WL/WSE and it puts her really on the back-foot and generally makes her the weakest of the eldar heroes (hence of course why she never does well in tournaments).

I think a buff to her pistol would sere to solve this particular issue while simultaneously playing into the lovely idea of getting people to stance-change more and play more interestingly with their melee heroes - and as a result better micro on melee heroes being rewarded more too.

The way I see it is that the SM fanboys have come out of their holes here in the form of yourself Ace, Riku and Forest. It may not be totally overt bias, but I see no reason why you would support Caeltos' initial buffing of the FC pistol, or the Apo's with sanguine for that matter, yet not the farseer even when we are speaking about the same relative percentage increases in damage. Or did you simply not and still don't agree with the FC pistol buffs?

I'd rather this than buffing her melee weapons or specials somehow as they are good as is, her dps is scary and her specials amazing, she just lacks hp and kb immunity but that's fine as she's a support hero after all. I think a pistol buff is perfect! And may as well buff the ranged damage of her spears too imo.

What makes you think that I supported the sidearm buff to begin with?

No really I want to know, because you are going full retard right now, the farseer gets stronger as the game goes since everything she does is multiplied the more damage your units put out, the fact that she can buff/debuff at command on a quite short CD (esp with the runes) and ranged without need to be close to her units is quite a big deal, the fact that she can buff/debuff vehicles makes her definitely superior to the FC, her late game control is much stronger with time field which pretty much counters any late game the opponent can field, without even talking about stuff like guided brightlances which destroy walkers and tanks alike in only a few shots, good luck ever buffing a lascannon with battlecry.

Also, back on the sidearms, first off I never gave a shit about this buff, second If I had to guess and enter into caeltos's mind, this buff was made to SM because they greatly lack retreat killing options unlike other races (IG included) which have very strong melee units or other strong stuff that can easily guarantee retreat wipes or finish off retreating units with low hp (for IG it might not be obvious so I'll list it there, Ogryns melee and ranged damage/Cata's old reliable and explosives/high dps ranged units like kas and AK troopers).

If this was indeed the reason for such buff, I would say that it's pretty fucking obvious as to why eldar shouldn't get their sidearms buffed.

And general speaking, support heroes are never strong in t1, because they dominate the late t2/late game as to where more aggressive heroes are stronger in the beginning but fall off significantly later and in no fucking way the FC and FS are comparable, one is an aggressive hero with some disruptive support the other one is an entirely support hero which arguabily has the best starting ability in the game which scales immensely well as the game progresses, unlike the FC which falls off when he needs to support his ranged army and when vehicles and unknowable stuff hits the field.

[HARRYY]

Id also say FS is ina good spot. far away from being underpowered and theres also no buff needed for her sidearms. shes just not working this way.

Personally I find the WL a bit overperforming in some spots. His leap is just ridiculous and something relic did wisely decided to abandon.

[Dark Riku]

SM lacking....? trololo. Maybe if you dont play FC.

Yeah, let's only consider the FC for balance, herpderp. trolololol. Why don't you suggest some more changes based on your imagination? Termis not being able to level is a really good suggestion Harry!

[HARRYY]

Im not saying consider only the FC for balance. you just want to read it the wrong way.


termis level? oh come on, dont be childish now. 10 years later you'd still jump on this? have some mercy man. I have to re-learn dow2 with this whole ELITE-mod and I havent spent 6 years of lifetime on this game. Meanwhile I read on the codex for informations and its helping. For my excuse tho, I didnt remember Termis do NOT level. I just recalled they can level , as they once did in retail. Have some forgiveness.

Riku you only seem to be happy when everybody shuts up. Thats boring. And doesnt make up for a vital forum and an active community.

[Dark Riku]

I don't want to read it the wrong way. You're basically saying that SM's don't underperform because the FC carries the race and needs nerfs.
What about the other 2 heroes? And even then I do not agree with your statement at all.

10 years later? XD Try weeks... and it's only 1 example of the very questionable things you've posted...
Termis didn't even level in retail for the longest time either.

No, I'm happy when people get their facts strait and don't suggest retarded bullshit while discussing things sensibly.

[Aetherion]

Ooookay things are getting a bit aggressive here, and I don't want to step on any toes, but a point raised earlier was the autarch's ranged dps which i feel could use a little love, considering her role in tying things up and chasing them down. Due to her leap, she tends to have difficulty getting the last swing off that 2hp and so i feel a little increase can be considered, thoughts?

[Oddnerd]

What was the original rationale for improving the sidearm damage of the APO/FC? Would that rationale apply to any of the other commanders?

Also, buff LC sidearm plz <:^)

[Caeltos]

What was the original rationale for improving the sidearm damage of the APO/FC? Would that rationale apply to any of the other commanders?

To furthermore encourage the useage of the different stances for the commanders. Apothcary can still somewhat still sit back and fire away and be defensive without the Bolter as a neccassity to fully come circle with that playstyle. It can be seen more as an augmentation and a utility ability added to it, and the cost should align with it.

Force Commander to be more used as punish the engagement, rather then to force the initiative.

They were both commanders to set the stage for what I'd like to furthermore dwell onto, but whereas if anything will get changed is still uncertain.

[Torpid]

What was the original rationale for improving the sidearm damage of the APO/FC? Would that rationale apply to any of the other commanders?

To furthermore encourage the useage of the different stances for the commanders. Apothcary can still somewhat still sit back and fire away and be defensive without the Bolter as a neccassity to fully come circle with that playstyle. It can be seen more as an augmentation and a utility ability added to it, and the cost should align with it.

Force Commander to be more used as punish the engagement, rather then to force the initiative.

They were both commanders to set the stage for what I'd like to furthermore dwell onto, but whereas if anything will get changed is still uncertain.

Thank you for expanding on that Caeltos, however, for the bold, would it not have been more prudent then to increase the FC's pistol damage but reduce his FOTM accuracy so that he wasn't as strong as he now is while chasing things down, but could do more damage when sat behind green cover trolling some ranged unit trying to move him away from their natural req point? One could do the maths to make it so that on average his ranged dps would not be any better when chasing, but be quite a bit better when actually toggled to ranged stance and actively engaging in range.

[Caeltos]

Thank you for expanding on that Caeltos, however, for the bold, would it not have been more prudent then to increase the FC's pistol damage but reduce his FOTM accuracy so that he wasn't as strong as he now is while chasing things down, but could do more damage when sat behind green cover trolling some ranged unit trying to move him away from their natural req point? One could do the maths to make it so that on average his ranged dps would not be any better when chasing, but be quite a bit better when actually toggled to ranged stance and actively engaging in range

It's certainly an option. I figured it'd be best to just go more 'extreme' in the sense of changing how people would play by simply adding more oomph to his damage. His current form would more or less function the same, but at the same time present with an alternative (By using the damage defensively). Naturally balance stuff comes out with overtuned, and they're generelly abit easier to tune down in performance, because the issue can be spotted by evidently by the overperforming factors. A unit/ability that is underperforming in general in a game, can be troublesome to work with, and usually leads to just slow-hampered processes of evaluations that will take time to settle in, and even by the time things settle in perfectly - the unit might have been fine prior the patch before, it just didnt' catch on fast enough. So it's back to tuning down again.

Core idea is to have the damage to be in a sweet spot, where the damage isn't completely obnoxious to deal with, at the same time as he is a powerhouse in close quarters that he should be best tackled with crowd control / ranged warfare - but if his Bolt Pistol is negating the counteraspects too much, then a problem is occured - and it has to be evaluated, whereas if it's neccassarily the bolt pistols damage that's at fault, or the matchups in general - where the Bolt Pistol bleeds more effective in some matchups then others.

Personally, if it were up to me - I'm torn on the complete RNG aspect of the game, since people are abit torn on the whole RNG(0.5 accuracy etc). RNG can provide a certain degree of 'excitement' and players has to be aware of the potency of that factor, whereas consistency makes things abit too predictable and takes away some of the excitement. For an ex. high impact stuff like Melta Gun Techmarine which had a 0.5 accuracy had like really wonky performance, it would sometimes miss extreme crucial shots where it would win games turned into losing games. The whole shabang, it's really infurating. What's even worse, is that with a comparison to Company of Heroes which has alot of similiarities is that

Company of Heroes has a severely longer gamelength - which means the RNG factor plays it's part ALOT LONGER. You had some bad RNG, well - maybe you'll get some lucky RNG if you just stick in the game and so on and forth.

Dawn of War 2 is significantly much more fast paced and leaves little room for mistakes to be made, and you gotta sometimes pray RNG is with you. I think DoW2 pacing would pay off better with a consistency formula over a empthasized RNG gameplay elements in it.

I derailed abit, but it has to do abit with the accuracy formula and how much impact it can have. But at the end of the day, yes - and alternative/solution so that the Force Commander defensive gameplay can be perservered but still maintain his somewhat 'balanced' agressive play is in the best of interest. Just gotta figure out the numbers, best approach and mechanics of the game.

[Atlas]

Much ado about a simple pistol buff here. Isn't this the same crowd who shrugged their shoulders on the apo/fc buff?