2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby boss » Fri 26 Jan, 2018 10:02 pm

Yea for transport with stuff inside of them idk why it not in the bug list cos this never happen in retail
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: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Dark Riku » Fri 26 Jan, 2018 10:24 pm

Oddnerd wrote:Wasn't the instawipe a bug rather than the intended function?
It instawiped shit too without the bug.

boss wrote:Yea for transport with stuff inside of them idk why it not in the bug list cos this never happen in retail
I'm pretty sure this one is in retail too :)
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 12:01 am

Oddnerd wrote:Wasn't the instawipe a bug rather than the intended function?

Yes, yes it is.
Professional Asshole
Level 1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun 14 Jan, 2018 10:55 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Professional Asshole » Sat 27 Jan, 2018 4:30 am

@Adeptus Noobus, point taken with regards to suggestion 1...

Now for a further elaboration on suggestion 2...

Curse of Machine Spirit: Rather then stopping the machine outright it's a ten sec long ability that slows vehicle by 20%, renders all abilities unusable for duration and it prevents the vehicle (if melee walker) from making special attacks. Idea here is for CoFS to let the purifiers get in and acquaint the dread with the business end of their hammers, would also synergize well with TL's Hide them ability to hide the purifiers.

Suggestion 3: Whatever the hell you do don't fucking turns purgs into a SM devastator squad lite...what's the point of playing OM if their SM lite. If your going to do that you might as well get rid of OM.

And now for a 4th suggestion: This suggestion is simple and expands on a concept in the Non-Consensus thread, mainly reworking operatives. The concept is this, the sarge is now a t1 upgrade that gives the benefits of the fallback plan upgrade but loses the melta bomb upgrade. Melta bomb upgrade becomes part of a Anti Tank t2 kit, these guys would in short like melta Storm Troopers.

Thoughts?
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Mon 29 Jan, 2018 6:58 am

A disclaimer first so people do not get the wrong impression:
I am not lead-balance designer by any means. That responsibility has fallen to Atlas now. I merely represent/am part of a group of people (to which Atlas belongs as well) that formulate future balance changes.

@suggestion 2: (my response to Atlas)
The ability is basically a Haywire Grenade so nothing too fancy BUT.... from a design pov it is not a good idea because the GK Libby is slow. He will never get into range unless you give him a sick range on that ability. The disabling part also bothers me because GK have Autocannons, Lascannons, Sniper_AV, heavy melee, basically a LOT of potential AV sources and I feel the additional snare on the Libby would be OTT, ESPECIALLY considering that Operatives have a Melta Bomb nowadays.


@suggestion 3:
OM are by no means SM lite. If you look close enough, you will realize that SM are OM lite as many of the OM units that are similar to SM units are just straight up stronger (note: I did not say better).

@suggestion 4:
I have no real thoughts about this one.

I would ask you however to elaborate on why OM need help in the AV department in the first place. The current iteration of Purgation with their low setup/teardown time, the Libby support and the Melta Bomb from the Operatives seem fine to me. You also have access to an infiltrated long-range anti-infantry and anti-vehicle sniper unit. Last but not least you have the Rhino that has a Lascannon and plenty of speed to chase down wounded vehicles.
While you may lack the snaring capabilities of SM or Chaos, you have the advantage of higher mobility. Combined with a snare, that should be sufficient.
Tex
Level 4
Posts: 909
Joined: Sat 27 Jul, 2013 9:33 pm
Location: Canada

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Tex » Tue 30 Jan, 2018 2:14 pm

It requires micro to make it work. I think that's the only thing people end up disliking about GK AV. I say that sincerely and without disrespect to the people who say GK AV sucks.

I used to feel that way about ork AV when I was early on in my days of Dow2. I just couldn't kill vehicles because I didn't have a snare. I had come off of the ORCs in WC3 where I had nets I could throw and immobilize the units I wanted to kill. Now in Dow2 my ORKs didn't have a tasty snare and I was forced to learn how to micro the "bang bus" aka wartrukk, which eventually became my retail calling card after about 30 or 40 matches of perfecting the technique and timing.
The point of the story is I would encourage you to perform many repetitions of GK AV scenarios and what you will find is that the AV procedures will become well rehearsed and natural, and then voila, the micro will no longer feel taxed by your situational thinking. Instead, it will feel instinctual and you will be able to transition into your other inputs much more easily.

I'm almost 100% sure this is the primary "issue" with GK AV.
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby boss » Tue 30 Jan, 2018 5:18 pm

Gk av is just get 2 purges or more then get Interceptors then amove and kill all atm ;)
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
Cyris
Level 4
Posts: 649
Joined: Fri 22 Mar, 2013 10:22 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Cyris » Sun 04 Feb, 2018 6:37 pm

I am strongly opposed to the Purgation changes. I think they are making the unit bland and giving OM WAY too much AV.

Caveat: I have not mained OM for a few patches, and I've not been playing much lately, so my feedback is less valuable.

Bland:
My goal for OM has always been - make them different, then balanced. I like how they are NOT a copy of Chaos/SM. I liked the lack of setup, the Rhino in T1, the theory of Ops (heh), the Energy transfer theme, the lack of a predator, focus on termanators etc. These, and other aspects of the faction have made them enjoyable to play as and against, balance issues aside.
The last round of changes made psy-purgs a lot more like AC setup teams, which bugged me. The various balance kinks that got worked out afterwards left the unit in a state I don't like as much. The reduced tear-down time gave them some unique tactics, but it is still lacking.
This round of changes pushes them even further to being samey with a full on las-cannon copy. Booring.
Yes, losing models on the purg squad sucks compared to NM/tacs or setup teams who get to keep a full weapon. I think that's great. It's a weakness that the OM player needs to adapt to. It also means that flesh-hooking 1 models leaves 2 more firing. It's also unique. So leave it alone imo! Purgs in T1 are fine right now, even a bit OP in some swarmy matchups.

AV:
OM AV is better then fine right now, I think it's border-line OP. Ops and Purg both having transitional AV is super potent when paired with the kinds of T2 options around now. Adding a las-cannon into the mix is going to be over the top. In order to balance this, some major changes have to happen to the rest of the roster, so why even change it? This is addressing a non-existant problem.

Things I like:
Psilencer no longer deals damage in an area of effect.
I had a feeling about this... The Codex is out of date to the point of uselessness for OM details like this. Make just this change to Purgations (maybe the health reduction too) and call it a day. I do not like any of the other changes. Sorry :/

2c

Edit: Oh, and I'm pretty sure the sarge flame nade is nuts OP, but I can't really say till I use it. It looks nuts on paper, but it's so hard to judge abilities like it from a few numbers.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Torpid » Wed 14 Feb, 2018 9:39 am

Looking at the IST changes with the increased cost of the sarge and thus IST getting their durability in t1 much later if at all, they will be forced off much sooner. I see this is an issue due to them being the primary melee counter. Them losing their kb on demand grenade will also make them much worse vs melee.

Make sure to increase the courage damage on the purgation's flamer if you reduce it from 3 models to 1 model otherwise squads will take forever to suppress.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Chokolata
Level 1
Posts: 25
Joined: Sat 14 Jun, 2014 5:30 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Chokolata » Sat 24 Feb, 2018 3:58 pm

Just wondering what the opinion is on Eldar tier 3. Specifically scaling of tier 2 units into tier 3. Or potential of moving certain tier 2 units into tier 3 with power level adjustments.

I am specifically referring to Reapers and to a lesser degree to Dragons and Spiders.

If I am mistaken, any tips or videos on how to use Reapers effectively in tier 3?
anl1m
Level 0
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 15 Jun, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby anl1m » Sat 24 Feb, 2018 7:31 pm

Why Warp spiders have armor type: infantry, while others aspect warriors have: heavy_infantry?
User avatar
egewithin
Level 5
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon 26 Jan, 2015 7:08 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby egewithin » Sat 24 Feb, 2018 7:55 pm

anl1m wrote:Why Warp spiders have armor type: infantry, while others aspect warriors have: heavy_infantry?


Only Fire Dragons and Dark Reapers have heavy HI (heavy infantry) armor in Eldar army as aspect warriors. Even Seer Council has infanrty armor. Spiders would be too strong with HI armor.

Chokolata wrote:Just wondering what the opinion is on Eldar tier 3. Specifically scaling of tier 2 units into tier 3. Or potential of moving certain tier 2 units into tier 3 with power level adjustments.

I am specifically referring to Reapers and to a lesser degree to Dragons and Spiders.

If I am mistaken, any tips or videos on how to use Reapers effectively in tier 3?


I suggest you to focus fire every T3 heavy infanrty with Dark Reapers. Like Nobz, Terminators and stuff. Use their pining fire ability to suppress any melee squad that can be supressed. You can't suppress Terminators. Also, use Eldar buffs on Dark Reapers to hurt HI squads. Like Guide, Warp Spider global thing, Warlock Enhance, or something else that I can't remember.

Spiders can still be used to focus fire everything. Also, jump close to a tank, use their grenade and than use your nuke. Always works. You can also keep using them as a capping tool around the map.

For T3; it depends on what you are facing with. D-Cannons for big 3v3 middle fights, Seers for damage sponge and tear apart any melee thread with support or just rushing into enemy ranged blobs, Prisims are always nice, unless you are depending on your melee squads.
anl1m
Level 0
Posts: 4
Joined: Sat 15 Jun, 2013 9:29 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby anl1m » Sat 24 Feb, 2018 8:29 pm

It is still difficult to resist for Eldar against super heavy infantry, as a terminator of all kinds, especially when there are 2 squads and more with support
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby boss » Sun 25 Feb, 2018 3:03 am

You know these guys were added for a reason you know
Image
not just for shit and giggles but to deal with all infantry, heavy and super heavy at a long range and all this for just 15 pop with the leader ;)
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Rostam » Sun 01 Apr, 2018 9:43 am

@Atlas
The cost of Ogryns right now is 425-90 and the bonead leader is 100-25 which seems a bit expensive for a T2 unit that is an equivalent of a walker-ish for IG (I know they are SHI but still they bleed with less than 2000 hp)
How about some cost decrees for them? like 400-85 for the squad; it would be 500-110 with the leader which could be better than current 525-115
Its also not that huge but it might be a nice little change for those guys (Reducing 25req 5power cost)
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leon Tolstoy
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Rostam » Fri 06 Apr, 2018 10:24 pm

@Atlas
This might sound a bit silly; but could you change the bucket helmet of Black templars fc
and give him a chaplain helmet (Emperor's death mask with skull) instead. wanna see our beloved faithful reclusiarch or master of sanctity with the black templars instead of bucket fc :S
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leon Tolstoy
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 545
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Rostam » Sat 07 Apr, 2018 11:50 am

@Atlas
The current price of shootas is 240 and sluggas 270
Shoota boyz are usually better preserved than sluggas and t1 sluggas arent that tough to kill and low hp on them in comparison to other melee units,vanilla sluggas go down to vanilla heretics even which are 200 they can doom blast also . with that in mind how about the below idea?
decreasing vanilla sluggas to 250 (from270) and increasing vanilla shoota's price to 250 (from240)
is a little price change which might be justifiable
“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” Leon Tolstoy
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Nurland » Sat 07 Apr, 2018 1:40 pm

Shootas are 270 though. And sluggas haven't been the greatest in T1 but scale amazingly into T2 with Nob leaders.

Also 270 req shootas seem more than fine since their upgrades are very good. Both sluggas and shootas are bleedy in vanilla form but much less so when they have upgrades. Hence the peice reductions would reduce their later bleed probably too much.

Also it would make Orkz easier to do a high pressure T1 into a quick vehicle which is already one ofthe more popular and effective ways to play Orkz.
#noobcodex
RedReVenge
Level 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:30 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby RedReVenge » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:50 pm

Lictor:
- Move to Tier 2. Decrease cost to 350/40.
- Weaken stats of the Lictor to put it in line with T2 units (Unsure what should be reduced).
- Add “Stalker” upgrade for 75/30 in Tier 3. This upgrade brings the Lictor back to it’s current statline that it has now. In addition, the Lictor suppresses attacked enemies while it is infiltrated? Lictors in T2 was one of my favorite things about retail (before they took that away).

Why: The point of this change is to give Tyranids a ‘demi-hero’ in T2 (Similar to how SM have the Librarian and Orks have the Weirdboy). It gives tyranids another way to counteract artillery and suppression teams in T2. Lastly, the Lictor seems awkward as a T3 unit. When was the last time you saw someone field this unit in tier 3? I think it can fulfill its role much better in T2.

Warrior Brood:
Thorax Swarm Change:
- Desiccator Larvae: When this ability is triggered, it knockbacks enemy units in range.
- Electroshock Grubs: Increase throw speed, Increase throw range, decrease damage.

Why: The Desiccator Larvae change gives Warriors a small increase in survivability against melee attackers. The changes to Electroshock Grubs is meant to increase the viability of the grenade since warriors don't have a way to close in quickly. Every other faction is able to get AV grenades safely and consistently into combat (ASM jump pact, Warp Spiders teleport, Stormtroopers infiltrate, etc). Tyranid Warriors need to run up the field...

Tyranid AV still needs to be looked at. I stepped away from the game for a year and nothing was done... Every faction has at least 2 T1 units that can be upgraded to AV units. Tyranids are the only faction that has 1 unit..... And that unit is very unreliable (Warrior Grenades). I think the easy fix is to give Ravs some sort of AV upgrade. Every Jump Infantry as some sort of AV option except Tyranids, so I don't think this won't be a problem.

Another option could be to make Venom cannons an upgrade for Warrior Broods.

-RR
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Dark Riku » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 10:47 pm

RedReVenge wrote:When was the last time you saw someone field this unit in tier 3? I think it can fulfill its role much better in T2.
See it plenty of times. You don't see T3 units often as it's the last stage of the game.

RedReVenge wrote:Tyranid AV still needs to be looked at.
Tyranid AV is just fine.

RedReVenge wrote:I stepped away from the game for a year and nothing was done... Every faction has at least 2 T1 units that can be upgraded to AV units. Tyranids are the only faction that has 1 unit..... And that unit is very unreliable (Warrior Grenades). I think the easy fix is to give Ravs some sort of AV upgrade. Every Jump Infantry as some sort of AV option except Tyranids, so I don't think this won't be a problem.
The game is asymmetrically balanced. You can't just only look at the AV section alone, especially only to one part of it.
Warriors have plenty of ways to get in. They have above average speed already, the upgrade grants a speed buff and towers only aid into that further.
Giving ravs AV damage sounds like a really bad idea to me.
RedReVenge
Level 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:30 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby RedReVenge » Tue 17 Apr, 2018 11:09 pm

Dark Riku wrote:
RedReVenge wrote:When was the last time you saw someone field this unit in tier 3? I think it can fulfill its role much better in T2.
See it plenty of times. You don't see T3 units often as it's the last stage of the game.
I'm referring to 2v2 and 3v3 matches. Yes, I know the game is "supposed" to be balanced for 1v1 play.

Dark Riku wrote:
RedReVenge wrote:Tyranid AV still needs to be looked at.
Tyranid AV is just fine.
Care to give details? Venom Broods are pretty awful and Warrior Brood grenades bug out all the time. Without a reliable snare, vehicles can easily maneuver around Tyranid AV.

Dark Riku wrote:
RedReVenge wrote:I stepped away from the game for a year and nothing was done... Every faction has at least 2 T1 units that can be upgraded to AV units. Tyranids are the only faction that has 1 unit..... And that unit is very unreliable (Warrior Grenades). I think the easy fix is to give Ravs some sort of AV upgrade. Every Jump Infantry as some sort of AV option except Tyranids, so I don't think this won't be a problem.
The game is asymmetrically balanced. You can't just only look at the AV section alone, especially only to one part of it.
Warriors have plenty of ways to get in. They have above average speed already, the upgrade grants a speed buff and towers only aid into that further.
Giving ravs AV damage sounds like a really bad idea to me.
The big problem with getting Warriors into range is the fact that they are a synapse creature. Naturally, your opponent will focus on them trying to cause synapse backlash. This focus fire hampers their ability to get in close which negates their AV potential. How would giving Ravs an option to be an AV unit be bad?
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Dark Riku » Wed 18 Apr, 2018 12:15 am

RedReVenge wrote:Care to give details? Venom Broods are pretty awful and Warrior Brood grenades bug out all the time. Without a reliable snare, vehicles can easily maneuver around Tyranid AV.
Venom broods are not awful... Warrior brood grenade hasn't bugged out for me yet. I use it rarely though.
You have reliable snares: Warrior upgrade, rippers. Towers can also be used to pathblock.
Try to manoeuvrer around a HT with charge and venom cannon for me :)
Remember, adrenal glands warrior do heavy melee and have reverse synapse on them.

Dark Riku wrote:The big problem with getting Warriors into range is the fact that they are a synapse creature. Naturally, your opponent will focus on them trying to cause synapse backlash. This focus fire hampers their ability to get in close which negates their AV potential. How would giving Ravs an option to be an AV unit be bad?
The fact that they are a synpase creature doesn't make it harder for them to get into range -.-
Position your units properly. You are already above average speed and towers buff this even more.
It would be bad for overal balance. It would be fantastic for Nids though! But Nids don't need any help right now.

What are you scared of? A transport? You can keep it at bay with just venoms alone, never mind if you have anything else around like a zoan, warriors with either gland or thorax. Any hero AV, etc, etc.
Melee walkers are the easiest imo. So much heavy melee at your disposal and again venoms to poke away at their HP.
RedReVenge
Level 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue 17 Apr, 2018 9:30 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby RedReVenge » Wed 18 Apr, 2018 3:48 am

Dark Riku wrote:
RedReVenge wrote:Care to give details? Venom Broods are pretty awful and Warrior Brood grenades bug out all the time. Without a reliable snare, vehicles can easily maneuver around Tyranid AV.
Venom broods are not awful... Warrior brood grenade hasn't bugged out for me yet. I use it rarely though.
You have reliable snares: Warrior upgrade, rippers. Towers can also be used to pathblock.
Try to manoeuvrer around a HT with charge and venom cannon for me :)
Remember, adrenal glands warrior do heavy melee and have reverse synapse on them.


Electroshock grenades bug out about 50% of the time for me. Rippers is something that I haven't thought about so I'll give that a try. Pathblocking with towers is very situational and usually requires some luck. I run RA over HT, so I have CD instead of VC. I'll also take a look at Adrenal warriors. I usually go for the grenade pack, but I hate when it bugs out on me, so maybe this might be a different solution.

Dark Riku wrote:The fact that they are a synpase creature doesn't make it harder for them to get into range -.-
Position your units properly. You are already above average speed and towers buff this even more.
It would be bad for overal balance. It would be fantastic for Nids though! But Nids don't need any help right now. What are you scared of? A transport? You can keep it at bay with just venoms alone, never mind if you have anything else around like a zoan, warriors with either gland or thorax. Any hero AV, etc, etc.
Melee walkers are the easiest imo. So much heavy melee at your disposal and again venoms to poke away at their HP.


It does because your opponent will focus them down and gain more from killing that unit over killing another unit. It disrupts your formation due to synapse backlash, and removes one of your few AV options. Nids have an issue dealing with super heavy vehicles (LR) that are seen in multiplayer games.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Dark Riku » Thu 19 Apr, 2018 9:50 pm

RedReVenge wrote:It does because your opponent will focus them down and gain more from killing that unit over killing another unit. It disrupts your formation due to synapse backlash, and removes one of your few AV options. Nids have an issue dealing with super heavy vehicles (LR) that are seen in multiplayer games.
The first statement holdz true anytime your enemy wants to focus on your AV units first. Minus the Synapse. Don't forget the hige buff synapse is at the same time. Just position correctly.
Nids do not have few AV options -.-
If you really have issues in teamgames with killing enemy vehicles with your SL + blob or VC fexes... Ask your teammates for some help. Shouldn't be a problem though.
newtonia
Level 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu 07 Jul, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby newtonia » Sat 21 Apr, 2018 2:33 pm

Isn't the sight range of the leman was due to the elite tank crew upgrade?
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Torpid » Sat 21 Apr, 2018 4:58 pm

newtonia wrote:Isn't the sight range of the leman was due to the elite tank crew upgrade?


It was yeah, and so I imagine the idea is that now that is incorporated into the starting cost it is fine to drop it since you aren't actively paying for it anymore.

I support the decision as a leman shouldn't be used on the front-lines anyway, as in, it's not a looted tank where you wizz it around flanks and get good burst damage off, snipoe some models then move back. It's a slow moving tank with good sustain damage and good durability but that needs constant infantry support to be used optimally. Therefore your other units should be spotting.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
newtonia
Level 1
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu 07 Jul, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby newtonia » Sun 22 Apr, 2018 12:57 am

Torpid wrote:
newtonia wrote:Isn't the sight range of the leman was due to the elite tank crew upgrade?




It was yeah, and so I imagine the idea is that now that is incorporated into the starting cost it is fine to drop it since you aren't actively paying for it anymore.

I support the decision as a leman shouldn't be used on the front-lines anyway, as in, it's not a looted tank where you wizz it around flanks and get good burst damage off, snipoe some models then move back. It's a slow moving tank with good sustain damage and good durability but that needs constant infantry support to be used optimally. Therefore your other units should be spotting.



If thats the case, could we get a cost reduction for lehmans? Is it unreasonable to ask for a cost reduction following the nerf?
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1343
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Nurland » Sun 22 Apr, 2018 1:37 am

Well Lemans don't really imho need any buffs. It was changed to its current state because it used to be too good.
#noobcodex
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.8 Consensus Changelog (Part 1 of 2)

Postby Torpid » Sun 22 Apr, 2018 4:14 am

newtonia wrote:
If thats the case, could we get a cost reduction for lehmans? Is it unreasonable to ask for a cost reduction following the nerf?


On the latter... Probably because as Nurland says the idea was to nerf it from its previous state. How did we do that? the changes make it'send of economic investment state roughly the same but you have to invest the sunk costs earlier which is always worse as it delays the vehicle hitting the field. And reduced the repair efficiency by changing a damage resistance to hp.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!

Return to “Balance Discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests