Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Torpid » Tue 09 May, 2017 5:53 am

A few little changes to the proposed changelog based on player feedback. Like to see the reception on these. Also some new novel ideas/changes that also need feedback:

How do people feel in general about OM terminators becoming size medium just like chaos/SM ones?

Nobs - Removing both immunities would probably be too strong. In hindsight it definitely seems to me that the suppression immunity is quite key for nobs functioning well, however, we can significantly reduce the invulnerability and that makes stuns even more brutal for them and in general ill just get them off the field a lot faster. Perhaps 50-65% DR instead of 100%? We could also remove the damage buff on frenzy which seems to be a random bonus. Nobody actually uses frenzy for the 20% bonus damage. Could shortern the duration of frenzy. Increase its cooldown. And of course with all these changes adjust its red cost in accordance.

Definitely keep suppression immunity, but not damage immunity. How low should it be dropped and what else done to the ability?

Autarch Fusion Gun - So, it seems the consensus is that a damage reduction and cost hike will leave the fusion gun unused in T2 just like it is in T3 now. Question is then, which do you go for? Keep it cheap at 20 power, but reduced damage, or same damage potential but 30 power? Note that the leap of the autarch temporarily buffs her speed and her damage by 20%. So she will kill transports pretty quick indeed with current damage values whilst also out-speeding them! That said, it is very costly low up front dps AV and she is fragile. She also can't swap out of it and its use in side-capping-combat is very limited...

Paladins - I still feel like paladins don't really do enough to justify their special status as the supportive, end-game T3 SHI GK option. Yeah AV capacity is nice but go interceptors not pallies to kill tanks. What about giving paladins a damage reduction aura akin to seer council? So buffing their supportive role. Atlernatively they could be made into more dedicated AV units with longer charge range and/or melee snares on vehicle movement per hit. Do they need it? Consider they are capped at 1.

Fire dragons - a 25% nerf on their up-front damage might be a little too high. I like that their value is a lot based in their ability because it makes them less about up-front amoving and better for coordinated, pre-planned hit and run strikes. Very eldar. Better to nerf their ordinary damage capacity then I think and they are after all very expensive at present. But is 12.5dps from 16.8 too much of a drop? That's per model, of which there are 5. Perhaps 13-14dps to start with? I hear very mixed things about FDs. Some people were surprised they were getting another nerf and some people were very relieved as they think them outrageously cost-effective as is.

Without Number - should it be a T2 global? Does that improve its utility and make it generally more useful? Keep cost the same. But in general is the concept of it being T2 good or bad?

Thornback fex - Do we feel like for the cost (considering the potency of the tyranid economy) that this thing is under-performing? With the introduction of the TSWB and therefore a snare into the tyranid roster their heavy melee will be quite a bit more effective. Therefore that indirectly buffs the TB fex. Was considering making the TB fex and default one do 250 on hit rather than the 200 they do at present.

Alternatively could increase the hp regen to 1hp/s from 0.5hp/s which then is multiplied by 3.5 for the zoan, which basically allows for much faster on-field healing.

Warp spiders - Is there a consensus that these guys could do with a small buff? Perhaps in this day and age they aren't quite as spammable and some (not all) of their specific penalty on their ranged attack damage on retreating units should be reverted. Maybe a slightly cheaper cost/pop/upkeep? Slightly more hp?

Or both. Question is, does it such buffs?
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Tue 09 May, 2017 6:24 am

Make gk terminators size the same as the rest.

Only problem with nobz you can make more than 1 their are a super unit when fully grades and with great buff and support you can maybe deal with one but then 2 nobz gg.

Autarch keep the damage the same as it is and same power but t2 should be fine.

paladins with the damage aura should be fine that had this in the past didn't they? they are capped as you say

Fire dragons need a whole rework their cancer no other squads has full melta damage, high speed stupid ablit which allow them to kill anything in the game and if you bother to support them gg I don't no how this unit will be balance they should never been put in the first place trust me I play fs and I done some very dirty things with fd.

without number being t2 idk would I want swarm builds don't no I don't use it in t3 anyways tho so maybe it would make in more usefully maybe cost more tho.

All fex cost to much only the Barbed Strangler is maybe worth the cost I never bother going fex no more I don't trust them no more I don't get my wroth back and it often cost me the game I should just stay t2 or go for the Swarmlord thay all need a buff in either cost or combat .

I use warp spider a lot thay need more heath trust me that's what they need bleed like shit to abit less upkeep
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
Shroom
Level 2
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat 12 Mar, 2016 12:01 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Shroom » Tue 09 May, 2017 7:00 am

boss wrote: I play fs and I done some very dirty things with fd.

^^ guide gives them +30% damage, which puts them at 109.2 melta dps. Then if I'm understanding how Dragon's Fury 50% weapon cooldown decrease = 50% dps increase equals 151.2 melta dps while guided along with a range increase to 31.2. 151 melta dps range 31. That is completely fucking retarded. That is a predator dead in 4.6 seconds, faster if it does some retarded pathing nonsense and gives FD's its rear armor(If my calculations are on point: (30% of 84) + (50% of 84) + 84.)

Leave the nerf it is well deserved imo.
Atlas

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Atlas » Tue 09 May, 2017 8:15 am

Shroom wrote:
boss wrote: I play fs and I done some very dirty things with fd.

^^ guide gives them +30% damage, which puts them at 109.2 melta dps. Then if I'm understanding how Dragon's Fury 50% weapon cooldown decrease = 50% dps increase equals 151.2 melta dps while guided along with a range increase to 31.2. 151 melta dps range 31. That is completely fucking retarded. That is a predator dead in 4.6 seconds, faster if it does some retarded pathing nonsense and gives FD's its rear armor(If my calculations are on point: (30% of 84) + (50% of 84) + 84.)

Leave the nerf it is well deserved imo.


The weapon cooldown doesn't provide nearly as drastic a dps increase as you quote but I got the gist of it. We're delaying 2.7 just a tiny bit longer to add in the last second suggestions. I'll post the edited changelog in the original preview changelog thread.
User avatar
fe_
Level 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby fe_ » Tue 09 May, 2017 11:53 am

Torpid wrote:Thornback fex - Do we feel like for the cost (considering the potency of the tyranid economy) that this thing is under-performing?

TB Fex is basically t2.5 walker for a price of a superunit. The potency of the tyranid economy can't afford you to spam fexes vs tanks\nobz. T3 for nids feels like a battle against a clock - trying to win before enemy T3 stuff is out, which is kinda sad.

T2 without number is tricky. In its current form it can be a little bit too strong. It should not behave like an old drop pod, granting a free engagement win. Maybe only spawn gaunts in your HQ and providing free reinforcements for a set amount of time near the said HQ?
hiveminion
Level 3
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri 09 Aug, 2013 1:02 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby hiveminion » Tue 09 May, 2017 12:57 pm

fe_ wrote:T2 without number is tricky. In its current form it can be a little bit too strong. It should not behave like an old drop pod, granting a free engagement win. Maybe only spawn gaunts in your HQ and providing free reinforcements for a set amount of time near the said HQ?


Yeah I think it should be a way to get a horde army going instantly without the slow drag on your economy as you build it up. So spawning in base would be fine, I would even remove the free reinforcements entirely. Maybe put the price at 350/30/200 or something.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Dark Riku » Tue 09 May, 2017 2:57 pm

Only going to reply in short as I have limited time.

The fusion gun should not get buffed lightly. Reasons are already mentioned: her own damage buff, speed and son on.
The warp spiders definitely do not need buffs.
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Oddnerd » Tue 09 May, 2017 4:29 pm

Torpid wrote:How do people feel in general about OM terminators becoming size medium just like chaos/SM ones?


Seems like a good change for the sake of consistency. You also made a good case in the other thread for why T2 AV shouldn't be great at picking off terminators. GK are more dependent on terminators than other astartes so this seems extra important for them.

Torpid wrote:Nobs - Removing both immunities would probably be too strong. In hindsight it definitely seems to me that the suppression immunity is quite key for nobs functioning well, however, we can significantly reduce the invulnerability and that makes stuns even more brutal for them and in general ill just get them off the field a lot faster. Perhaps 50-65% DR instead of 100%? We could also remove the damage buff on frenzy which seems to be a random bonus. Nobody actually uses frenzy for the 20% bonus damage. Could shortern the duration of frenzy. Increase its cooldown. And of course with all these changes adjust its red cost in accordance.
Definitely keep suppression immunity, but not damage immunity. How low should it be dropped and what else done to the ability?


I agree with removing the damage bonus, seems like a random superfluous bonus, on a unit that already hits like a truck. I also agree that the initial decision to remove suppression immunity was too harsh. Of all the effects that Frenzy had, I think suppression immunity is exactly what Nobs need to close the gap.

What concerns me is the DR. In the other thread, Atlas stated that you guys are sticking with 75%DR - it's better than keeping it 100%, but I just don't see why a squad with 4050hp at level 1 (with leader) needs massive DR. You mentioned stuns... is this all about helping Nobs survive stuns?

Torpid wrote:Autarch Fusion Gun - So, it seems the consensus is that a damage reduction and cost hike will leave the fusion gun unused in T2 just like it is in T3 now. Question is then, which do you go for? Keep it cheap at 20 power, but reduced damage, or same damage potential but 30 power? Note that the leap of the autarch temporarily buffs her speed and her damage by 20%. So she will kill transports pretty quick indeed with current damage values whilst also out-speeding them! That said, it is very costly low up front dps AV and she is fragile. She also can't swap out of it and its use in side-capping-combat is very limited...


Yeah this seems like a dangerous balancing act. I can't even predict how things will work out. Could buying the fusion gun lower her speed by a bit? Having a subcommander who is faster than a transport while carrying a melta gun with FOTM seems pretty easy to abuse.

Torpid wrote:Without Number - should it be a T2 global? Does that improve its utility and make it generally more useful? Keep cost the same. But in general is the concept of it being T2 good or bad?


I'm pretty new to the tyranid scene, but I definitely would like to have it available in T2. Because nid armies are usually pretty blobby, and because gaunts/gants have low hp they are the easiest units to lose to a wipe from AOE or bad positioning. Granted, there might be some more experienced players who could find a way to abuse this, but I would be using this simply to replace losses in T2, which seems fair enough... other races have globals that can be used to replace losses fairly cheaply.

Torpid wrote:Thornback fex - Do we feel like for the cost (considering the potency of the tyranid economy) that this thing is under-performing? With the introduction of the TSWB and therefore a snare into the tyranid roster their heavy melee will be quite a bit more effective. Therefore that indirectly buffs the TB fex. Was considering making the TB fex and default one do 250 on hit rather than the 200 they do at present.

Alternatively could increase the hp regen to 1hp/s from 0.5hp/s which then is multiplied by 3.5 for the zoan, which basically allows for much faster on-field healing.


Considering that a TB fex costs 50 req less than a SL, I rarely if ever get it. With the changes you listed I would be willing to try it, but considering that I could save the extra 50 req and get a SL with his army wide speed buff and impressive combat ability, I think the TB fex has a hard time competing.

The only time I get a fex is to get the BS fex. That has amazing infantry killing/controlling potential and is worth the cost. The veno fex in my newbish opinion, is just terrible. Because nids don't have a repair function, it cannot compete in a static firefight with a mechanical tank, because it cannot regen HP fast enough. I'd rather get the BS fex and have it disrupt/kill the enemy infantry supporting a tank and let my heavy melee chase after the exposed tank - that feels like a more viable tank counter.

Torpid wrote:Warp spiders - Is there a consensus that these guys could do with a small buff? Perhaps in this day and age they aren't quite as spammable and some (not all) of their specific penalty on their ranged attack damage on retreating units should be reverted. Maybe a slightly cheaper cost/pop/upkeep? Slightly more hp?


Yeah, the only time WS are a threat is when they drop their snare, but I rarely see them making serious contributions to combat. They cost quite a lot for a unit that is basically a teleporting haywire nade.
User avatar
Broodwich
Level 4
Posts: 527
Joined: Fri 12 Apr, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Broodwich » Thu 11 May, 2017 6:42 am

Drop FD courage to 100, drop their accuracy bonus to the ability.

Meltas already have good accuracy vs all targets, they do not need perfect accuracy on top of a damage buff. Reducing their courage helps make them more controllable.

FD toxicity stems from their anti-all capabilities, and difficulty of controlling them. They can already walk out of KB and suppression, and outshoot a lot of ranged squads. Oh, and did I mention they kill everything?
Fas est ab hoste doceri
Lesten
Level 2
Posts: 75
Joined: Sat 21 Sep, 2013 1:54 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Lesten » Thu 11 May, 2017 7:52 am

I think the problem with FDs is that they're anti-everything.
Melta weapons in general should have lower accuracy against small targets. FDs should only be anti-vehicle and anti-terminators (or non-small targets in general) in my opinion. (effectively anyway)
Maybe they could also have a lower rate of fire instead of dropping their actual damage, lowering their DPS a bit that way.

If Warp Spiders need a buff due to their haywire getting nerfed, I think their durability should be buffed not their damage. Like I said in the other thread, give them heavy armor (and perhaps reduce HP slightly?). You'd be punished more for letting them get into melee but they won't bleed you to death from ranged fire.
Deflaktor
Level 2
Posts: 121
Joined: Mon 20 Jul, 2015 7:03 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Deflaktor » Thu 11 May, 2017 8:41 am

Fire Dragons got a lot of nerfs already. They bleed heavily and as such I field them rarely as is. Very risky unit but with a very high reward if used correctly.
If there really is a need to nerf them, then I would go for removing the accuracy bonus of their ability to reduce their chase potential.

Im not sure why people deem them so dangerous (at least not as dangerous as invisible melta gun guys with melta bombs). I feel they only do real damage if it is a team game and you can pull off a fantastic flank. In any other case they are just bleeding you dry.

Broodwich wrote:They can already walk out of KB and suppression, and outshoot a lot of ranged squads.


I cant think of any ranged squad that they can outshoot efficiently.

EDIT:

Torpid wrote:Autarch Fusion Gun - So, it seems the consensus is that a damage reduction and cost hike will leave the fusion gun unused in T2 just like it is in T3 now. Question is then, which do you go for? Keep it cheap at 20 power, but reduced damage, or same damage potential but 30 power? Note that the leap of the autarch temporarily buffs her speed and her damage by 20%. So she will kill transports pretty quick indeed with current damage values whilst also out-speeding them! That said, it is very costly low up front dps AV and she is fragile. She also can't swap out of it and its use in side-capping-combat is very limited...


My proposal would be:
-30 Power
-Lower Damage
-T2
-Switchable Weapons for Autarch (but you have to pay whole price like Tacs)

This would give her a role as a transport killer, but the low damage would not be sufficient for anything else. However being able to switch back to melee would let one consider the option.
User avatar
Flash
Level 3
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu 01 Aug, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Flash » Wed 17 May, 2017 9:00 pm

Lesten wrote:I think the problem with FDs is that they're anti-everything.
Melta weapons in general should have lower accuracy against small targets. FDs should only be anti-vehicle and anti-terminators (or non-small targets in general) in my opinion. (effectively anyway)
Maybe they could also have a lower rate of fire instead of dropping their actual damage, lowering their DPS a bit that way.

If Warp Spiders need a buff due to their haywire getting nerfed, I think their durability should be buffed not their damage. Like I said in the other thread, give them heavy armor (and perhaps reduce HP slightly?). You'd be punished more for letting them get into melee but they won't bleed you to death from ranged fire.


Don't they already have heavy armor or am I crazy?
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Torpid » Wed 17 May, 2017 9:29 pm

Flash wrote:
Don't they already have heavy armor or am I crazy?


crazy
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Rostam » Thu 18 May, 2017 7:06 am

I think all terminator variants better be size large . for example if SM/Chaos/GK go for fast termis vs nids they dont have that many things in T1/T2 to counter them
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leon Tolstoy
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Thu 18 May, 2017 7:15 am

the size change is fine they need the buff a long time ago but yes nid have yet another flaw now for me to try and fix welp
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Dark Riku » Thu 18 May, 2017 2:55 pm

Because SM's have such dominating map presence and good eco versus Nids.
Oh, wait... XD
DandyFrontline
Level 3
Posts: 387
Joined: Fri 31 Jan, 2014 12:04 am

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby DandyFrontline » Thu 18 May, 2017 6:08 pm

Yea, why not to nerf Nobz to oblivion?
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Torpid » Thu 18 May, 2017 9:45 pm

DandyFrontline wrote:Yea, why not to nerf Nobz to oblivion?


Well, of course, because I wanted to ensure they still remained viable!

;)
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Fri 19 May, 2017 2:25 am

Dark Riku wrote:Because SM's have such dominating map presence and good eco versus Nids.
Oh, wait... XD


you can say the same vs orks and chaos or eldar least when it come to nid you wont need av until fexs in t3 so no deffs or Blood crushers to deal with plus tm and fc has a great time vs nid apo is just useless but he just useless in general so yea. Only thing is to strong atm is la and his wargear but torpid don't want to change them for reasons.

Also you can abuse the fact that nid av is very shit still least they got a snare but next to no av
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Rostam » Sat 20 May, 2017 12:21 pm

How about a bit of change in lictor global . how about moving the Pheremons wargear and make it a global instead of spore mine drop ?
(it is actually freeman's idea)
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leon Tolstoy
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Sun 21 May, 2017 8:01 am

Rostam313 wrote:How about a bit of change in lictor global . how about moving the Pheremons wargear and make it a global instead of spore mine drop ?
(it is actually freeman's idea)


Yea it can work but la will need a new wargear to replace pheromones for t1 but I rather it replace stalk and maybe give the la a debuff of damage per kill around the la as a wargear replacement
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
fe_
Level 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby fe_ » Sat 27 May, 2017 8:22 pm

Um, boss just pointed out to me that termagant and hormagaunts are 3.825 upkeep per pop instead of a standard 2.55 upkeep per pop. Is that intended or a bug\oversight? Because it looks like a bug to me. That definitely wasn't the case in earlier versions.
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Sat 27 May, 2017 11:33 pm

Their better be a good reason for this cos atm gaunts cost 30.6 upkeep and with endless swarm is 36 upkeep da for instance 25.5 upkeep with leader with upkeep 4.1538 = 29.6538 ..... shootas boys upkeep in total is 33.15, full upgrades for guardsmen's is like 21.680004 plus 3for1 Heretics upkeep is like 33.15 plus leader well like I say why gaunts so deal on upkeep? c
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Atlas

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Atlas » Sun 28 May, 2017 1:44 am

boss wrote:Their better be a good reason for this cos atm gaunts cost 30.6 upkeep and with endless swarm is 36 upkeep da for instance 25.5 upkeep with leader with upkeep 4.1538 = 29.6538 ..... shootas boys upkeep in total is 33.15, full upgrades for guardsmen's is like 21.680004 plus 3for1 Heretics upkeep is like 33.15 plus leader well like I say why gaunts so deal on upkeep? c


I mentioned this to you before boss, but upkeep rate is based on upkeep/pop. Some of the numbers appear to be wrong from what you're mentioning.
For example, all Commis, Sarge and GM(1 pop) are standard upkeep and a full squad is 12 pop so 2.55 x 12 = 30.6.
Endless Swarm Horms (Horms are 1 pop) is 3.825 x 10 = 38.25. This is purely due to higher than average upkeep.
Da (2 pop)w Warlock = 5.1 (<- = 2.55 x 2 so they're standard upkeep) x 5 + 4.1538 (exarch) = 33.8076.
Shootas = (5.1 x 5) + 7.65( nob which btw is very low on upkeep actually at 1.53 per pop due to being 5 pop) = 33.15 nice!
Heretics w/AC is all standard (can't remember if we lowered AC upkeep) so atm it's 2.55 x 13 = 33.15 correct again.

Just as a point of reference, Terms also have the same rate of upkeep and Raveners are above standard as well (3.1875). Is Nid eco weak because of this?

If anything, I'd rather see Endless Swarm upgrade time be reduced. It takes ages :X
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Sun 28 May, 2017 5:34 am

Endless swarm add way to much upkeep I always wonder why I have so much upkeep in t2 when I have only ravs warriors 2 termagants and hormagaunts oh wait I got endless swarm so bye bye income 3.825X 2= 7.65 rec x 3 = 22.95 so yea you have an upkeep on 23 for 6 gaunts cos of endless swarm good job. Gaunts need their upkeep reduce or remove the pop cap add on for endless swarm cos atm this upgrade just kill you the longer the game go on cos good luck getting anything when you add on ravs or Warriors to so fucking stupid but hey nids op when their starting squads have the highest upkeep
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
fe_
Level 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby fe_ » Sun 28 May, 2017 7:44 am

Atlas wrote:
Just as a point of reference, Terms also have the same rate of upkeep and Raveners are above standard as well (3.1875). Is Nid eco weak because of this?



3.1875 per pop for 12 pop total for good multi specialized 1.5 squad is not the same as 3.825 per pop for 24-40 (3-4 squads with or w\o endless swarm) for the very basic t1 infantry squad.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the way upkeep works is that gaunts will always be charged 3.825 per pop once you go over 30 pop, and up to 50% of your army in pop is gaunts.
"Regardless of the order the units are purchased in, the most expensive ones are always taxed first, while the units with cheapest upkeep go to the bottom of the list."
So basically nids pay higher upkeep than anyone esle if they have 3 squads of gants in their army. 50 pop nids army (let's say, 30 pop in warriors and 20 pop in gaunts models) payes the same upkeep as 60 pop army of eldar (let's say, 24 pop in 2 falcons and 34 models of da). The same 76.5 upkeep total.
For me it highly encourages to throw all gaunts away past early t2, considering they do not scale well, and swap them for any other squads which are 2.55 upkeep per pop - this way my eco will be better (up to 50% less upkeep).

Endless swarm is just plain out hurtful in that case, even if it was a free upgrade.

So yeah, nids eco is weak because of that. How am i supposed to spam multiple carnifexes to counter a tank if all my req already y spent on gaunts? :D

Again, correct me if i am wrong in my calculations - i want to wrong in that case. Because from now on termagants for me are straight up the worst unit in the game.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby Dark Riku » Sun 28 May, 2017 12:57 pm

fe_ wrote:So yeah, nids eco is weak because of that. How am i supposed to spam multiple carnifexes to counter a tank if all my req already y spent on gaunts? :D

Again, correct me if i am wrong in my calculations - i want to wrong in that case. Because from now on termagants for me are straight up the worst unit in the game.
This can go to the quote hall :)
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby boss » Sun 28 May, 2017 2:19 pm

Well worst bit is who wants a useless fex anyways? They cost more than a leman russ for reasons but why on earth is a Carnifexs upkeep the same as a guo or avatar or any other super unit 57.36 good luck spamming them to. I mean not only is a leman russ the same upkeep as a predator which is 45.9? I mean if this it true then I don't no what to say not only your starting units have the highest upkeep but your late game units are the high upkeep as well and cost. So pls reduce the gaunts upkeep pls and look into why on earth fexs are so high in cost and why they are the same upkeep as a super unit
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
evilmario5
Level 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon 26 Oct, 2015 2:34 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby evilmario5 » Sun 28 May, 2017 2:33 pm

Torpid: How do people feel in general about OM terminators becoming size medium just like chaos/SM ones?

-i would say that's fine.

:Nobs

-50-65% DR and removing the damage buff off Frenzy seems much better then outright removing either DR or suppression Imunity, tho i rarely play orks so i understand if ork players may easily disagree with me.

:Paladins - I still feel like paladins don't really do enough to justify their special status as the supportive, end-game T3 SHI GK option. Yeah AV capacity is nice but go interceptors not pallies to kill tanks.
What about giving paladins a damage reduction aura akin to seer council? So buffing their supportive role. Atlernatively they could be made into more dedicated AV units with longer charge range and/or
melee snares on vehicle movement per hit. Do they need it? Consider they are capped at 1.

-a slightly weaker Seer Council aura (Allied infantry within a 30 radius have their energy regeneration increased by 1 e/s and receive 10% less ranged damage. Passive Ability) would be good for Paladins, here a name for it Paladins Aura.

for all other ideas Torpid has posted for nids and eldar i have no other input for thos since i don't play eldar or Nids.
yes I play gk/om a bit no hate plz
User avatar
fe_
Level 2
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri 22 Apr, 2016 12:50 pm

Re: Further 2.7 Balance discussion

Postby fe_ » Sun 28 May, 2017 7:44 pm

Dark Riku wrote:This can go to the quote hall :)


I would be honored. :D

I'll correct myself- nids eco is weaker because of that. It's defenetly not weak, everyone knows nids op. :D
Termagants are shit tho, the only good thing about them is crippling poison.

I am not agitating for buff of nids economy here, I just want consistency or some kind of reason: this 3.825 number seems so off to me.

Return to “Balance Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 31 guests