Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Elite (and related) releases.
Atlas

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Atlas » Wed 20 Jun, 2018 8:05 pm

If you mean from way before, Purgations doing anti-everything at all times was a problem and made going all purgs in T2 such a good strategy. So they've been progressively nerfed down to a mostly AI platform that can do AV. Long range AI dps was something the typical OM roster doesn't have in it's infantry outside of the VA (and he's not really a DPS machine). They did have two decent sources of long range AV again in the VA and in the LasRhino. It seemed like a pretty natural fit considering also that AV weapons tend to be more potent when they have spiky damage application and Purgs are anything but spiky.

Interceptors are being tuned towards AV because that was the main role that was envisioned for them when they moved to T3. OM T3 lacks tanks, so it requires other means of dealing with heavy vehicles like tanks and Land Raiders. Again, doing anti-everything all the time was too much. What is in 2.8 is mostly a bandaid fix but it's a start.
User avatar
xXKageAsashinXx
Level 2
Posts: 106
Joined: Thu 19 Mar, 2015 5:34 pm
Contact:

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby xXKageAsashinXx » Thu 21 Jun, 2018 1:09 am

Ah, now it all makes sense once it's put into perspective with all the information. However that begs another question in the form of why interceptors still have melee? Not only is it regular melee, but it's piss poor melee at that when one looks at the tier it comes in, the roster it serves in, and the competition it must face against. It's only use, that I'm aware of that is truly a "use", is to tie units up without committing suicide by attracting the attention of a counter-initiate melee squad, as well as a way of mitigating the bonus to melee damage a unit retreating takes with their melee resistance aura. I understand that the squad needs more work for the reasons you gave, but it looks to me that they'd do their job just as well without having the option to switch weapons. I'm confused as to why that option wasn't removed when their general rework from an early jump squad into late tank hunters was done.
Image
So... I hear you refuse to repent.
User avatar
Shroom
Level 2
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat 12 Mar, 2016 12:01 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Shroom » Sat 23 Jun, 2018 12:53 pm

Black Relic wrote: Swift Movement global cost reduced from 100 to 85.

don't understand this
Black Relic wrote:Use yer choppas red cost reduced from 100 to 75 red.

also don't understand this
Black Relic wrote: Chaos Space Marine Squad:Upkeep cost increased from 1.92 to 2.5

understand this even less than i understand the above
PianoMan
Level 3
Posts: 404
Joined: Fri 30 Jun, 2017 12:40 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby PianoMan » Sat 23 Jun, 2018 1:05 pm

we're buffing op shit and nerfing what's fine
bring back torpid
Hutsy
Level 2
Posts: 85
Joined: Mon 09 May, 2016 11:38 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Hutsy » Sat 23 Jun, 2018 9:43 pm

xXKageAsashinXx wrote:Not only is it regular melee, but it's piss poor melee at that when one looks at the tier it comes in, the roster it serves in, and the competition it must face against.


Fair shout on the melee considering the units they'll be up against through T3. Been noticing it now.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Antandron » Sun 24 Jun, 2018 9:08 am

Shroom wrote:
Black Relic wrote: Swift Movement global cost reduced from 100 to 85.

don't understand this
Black Relic wrote:Use yer choppas red cost reduced from 100 to 75 red.

also don't understand this
Black Relic wrote: Chaos Space Marine Squad:Upkeep cost increased from 1.92 to 2.5

understand this even less than i understand the above


Nearly every unit in T1 has an upkeep value of 2.55 per pop. Currently, CSM are pop 15 and so are Banshees, so CSM are 15x1.92=28.8 upkeep and Banshees are 15x2.55=38.25. This does not make sense if one subscribes to the idea of pop and upkeep being proportional to the strength of the unit.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Torpid » Sun 24 Jun, 2018 10:54 pm

Antandron wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Black Relic wrote: Swift Movement global cost reduced from 100 to 85.

don't understand this
Black Relic wrote:Use yer choppas red cost reduced from 100 to 75 red.

also don't understand this
Black Relic wrote: Chaos Space Marine Squad:Upkeep cost increased from 1.92 to 2.5

understand this even less than i understand the above


Nearly every unit in T1 has an upkeep value of 2.55 per pop. Currently, CSM are pop 15 and so are Banshees, so CSM are 15x1.92=28.8 upkeep and Banshees are 15x2.55=38.25. This does not make sense if one subscribes to the idea of pop and upkeep being proportional to the strength of the unit.


Yeah, yeah, standardisation, except tyranid termagants and hormagaunts are disproportionately expensive per pop and that has not been changed. Therefore if the two are in a disconnect, i.e. one is changed the other isn't. You need an additional justification to exlpain why that is because at present it looks like CSM are being said to be UP; if not why change them but not gaunts?
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Atlas

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Atlas » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 7:17 am

Here's a quick summary of Chaos eco for upkeep and how much the 2.8 CSM upkeep change would affect a typical heavy CSM Chaos build's eco.

Everything in Chaos is standard upkeep except for CSM, CSM Sarge, Raptor Sarge, Chaos Terms, Tanks, LRP and GUO.

CSM, their sarge and Raptor sarge are below standard.
The rest are above standard.

CSM and Raptor Sarges should be 12.75 (2.55), they are 10.8. (2.16)
CSM should be 12.75 (2.55), they are 9.6. (1.9)

Upkeep is charged from highest to lowest. That means Chaos T3 is taxed first, followed by all the rest, then Sarges, then CSM. The "cheapest" 30 pop is free.

A full CSM squad with sarge is 20 pop, a Raptor Sarge is 5 pop. You need over 30 pop of CSM, CSM Sarges or Raptor Sarges before there's even a difference in your upkeep between a standard amount and a boosted amount due to having below standard upkeep units finally exceeding 30 pop and no longer being free.

In the typical worst case build that might take advantage of this quirk in Chaos eco, say you went 1 vanilla tic(8), 2 csm(30) and 1 raptor(15) in t1 into all CSM/Raptor Sarges (+15) right at t2, the difference in upkeep before and after CSM upkeep change is:

2.7.2:
Upkeep charged = (23 x 2.55) + (15 x 2.16) = 58.65 + 32.4 = 91.05
(30 x 1.9) is "free".

2.8:
Upkeep charged = (38 x 2.55) = 96.9
(15 x 2.16) + (15 x 2.55) is "free".

Total difference = 96.9 - 91.05 = + 5.85 req/minute upkeep in 2.8.

Let's just run these numbers through 20 minutes of gameplay. That's 20 X 5.85 = 117 less req between what you would have gotten through those 20 minutes between 2.7.2 and 2.8.

To summarize, you probably won't even notice anything until you go full Clone Army mode with like 3+ CSM Squads. Chaos players will be fine.

--------------------

On "why not Gants/Gaunts".

Changing Gants/Gaunts upkeep would have a more significant effect on Nid economy than the CSM change does because of the nature of the upkeep taxation system. Remember, upkeep is charged from the most expensive to the least expensive. What that means is that Gants and Gaunts are ALWAYS charged because they have the highest upkeep in their army, followed by Fexes and the Lictor subcommander if I remember right.

Therefore, changing Gants/Gaunts upkeep will always have an effect on Nid eco on the condition that the Nid player has over 30 pop which is a fairly easy hurdle to accomplish. Say you made Gants/Gaunts upkeep standard. That would mean the Nid eco would be charged an upkeep rate of -1.275 req per pop of Gants/Gaunts compared to before (depending on the exact units that would fill it, some nid stuff is standard, some is below some is above. Let's not overly complicate this part).

You would need 5+ pop in Gants/Gaunts to surpass the CSM change effect as another reference. Pretty typical nid builds have 24 pop in Gants/Gaunts, so the change would be ~5x more impactful in comparison to the CSM change so long as Nids have 30 pop of anything else. A Warrior and a Venom Brood would do that as an example. I haven't seen a lot of people saying we need to buff nid mid-late game so heavily on the economic front.

This is why I've always preferred to lower the upkeep of other units such as Fexes or Lictor sub or other stuff whenever the question of changing Nid eco came up because at least those effects have a ~24 pop upkeep buffer on the top end from Gants/Gaunts so the conditions where such a change would really make an impact economically are more restrictive. It's a more gradual change from then and now.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Antandron » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 7:57 am

Torpid wrote:
Antandron wrote:
Shroom wrote:don't understand this

also don't understand this

understand this even less than i understand the above


Nearly every unit in T1 has an upkeep value of 2.55 per pop. Currently, CSM are pop 15 and so are Banshees, so CSM are 15x1.92=28.8 upkeep and Banshees are 15x2.55=38.25. This does not make sense if one subscribes to the idea of pop and upkeep being proportional to the strength of the unit.


Yeah, yeah, standardisation, except tyranid termagants and hormagaunts are disproportionately expensive per pop and that has not been changed. Therefore if the two are in a disconnect, i.e. one is changed the other isn't. You need an additional justification to exlpain why that is because at present it looks like CSM are being said to be UP; if not why change them but not gaunts?


It sort of makes sense in a way. Probably should be about 25 however.

e.g.
DA. 270/0. 5*5.1 = 25.5 upkeep
Shootas. 270/0. 5*5.1 = 25.5
Sluggas. 270/0. 6*5.1 = 30.6
Termas. 260/0. 8*3.825 = 30.6
Hormas. 240/0. 8*3.825 = 30.6

But Banshees: 350/0. 5*6.16 = 30.8 so my post above is incorrect if the Codex is accurate.

Rangers: 210/20. 3*5.1 = 15.3. Pleeeease noooo make it stop.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3536
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Torpid » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 8:28 am

Antandron wrote:
It sort of makes sense in a way. Probably should be about 25 however.

e.g.
DA. 270/0. 5*5.1 = 25.5 upkeep
Shootas. 270/0. 5*5.1 = 25.5
Sluggas. 270/0. 6*5.1 = 30.6
Termas. 260/0. 8*3.825 = 30.6
Hormas. 240/0. 8*3.825 = 30.6

But Banshees: 350/0. 5*6.16 = 30.8 so my post above is incorrect if the Codex is accurate.

Rangers: 210/20. 3*5.1 = 15.3. Pleeeease noooo make it stop.


I don't understand what you are doing here?

All those squads can't be compared in terms of overall amount of upkeep because they all have different overall pop costs.

Horms per squad have the same as sluggas, yet one would assume horms are weaker than sluggas hence their 1 pop per model instead of 2 pop per model. And generally ceteris paribus if a tyranid army only has an equal number of squads of gaunts to ork boys, as opposed to an equal pop of gaunts to boys, the nid army loses...
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Antandron » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 2:35 pm

The Codex gives upkeep per model afaik, e.g. Termas = 3.825/model and Sluggas 5.1/model. The numbers I wrote are for the squad upkeep.

Upkeep per model:
DA 5.1
Shootas 5.1
Sluggas 5.1
Termas 3.825
Hormas 3.825

Therefore per squad:
DA 5.1*5=25.5
Shootas 5.1*5=25.5
Sluggas 5.1*6=30.6
Termas 3.825*8=30.6
Hormas 3.825=30.6

Assuming Hormas @260/0 are about the same strength as Shootas @270/0 and Sluggas @270/0 then I agree with you that their upkeep is too high. It would be possible, in a short time, to go through all the T1 units with "wrong" upkeep and correct them before patch 2.8 is out. It is a minor issue that almost no-one notices but it would help balance the game a little.

e.g.
Rangers. 210/20. 6 pop. 3 models. 5.1 upkeep per model = 15.3 upkeep (pop and upkeep too low)
Banshees. 350/0. 15 pop. 5 models. 6.16 upkeep per model = 30.8 (upkeep ok, pop might be better at 10)
Sentinel. 300/0. 15 pop. 1 model. 25.5 upkeep per model = 25.5 upkeep (upkeep ok but pop might be better at 12)
GM. 210/0. 6 pop. 6 models. 2.55 upkeep per model = 15.3 (upkeep too low)
Scouts. 210/0. 9 pop. 3 models. 7.65 per model = 22.95 (ok)
Heretics. 200/0. 8 pop. 8 models. 2.55 upkeep per model = 20.4 (ok)
CSM. 400/0. 15 pop. 3 models. 12.75 upkeep per model = 38.25 (ok)
Tacs and SS same as CSM.
Last edited by Antandron on Mon 25 Jun, 2018 9:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Atlas

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Atlas » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 8:42 pm

Antandron wrote:The Codex gives upkeep per model afaik, e.g. Termas = 3.825/model and Sluggas 5.1/model. The numbers I wrote are for the squad upkeep.

Upkeep per model:
DA 5.1
Shootas 5.1
Sluggas 5.1
Termas 3.825
Hormas 3.825

Therefore per squad:
DA 5.1*5=25.5
Shootas 5.1*5=25.5
Sluggas 5.1*5=25.5
Termas 3.825*8=30.6
Hormas 3.825=30.6


A discussion on rate of upkeep is more salient when discussing economic impact than raw upkeep values. The upkeep listed is the total amount that a model costs, not the rate at which upkeep is charged. You are correct when discussing total raw value of upkeep but those numbers don't really indicate what effect the squads have on the economy relative to other squads. Since upkeep rate is prioritized based on relative rate, the relative rates a squad has compared to other squads in its roster is far more significant.

A Termagant is 1 pop and has a total upkeep of 3.825. Naturally, this means that Termagants are charged upkeep at a rate of 3.825 req/pop.

A Slugga is 2 pop and charged at 5.1. Thus, the rate of upkeep is 5.1/2 = 2.55 req/pop. So Sluggas are charged at a standard level of upkeep for their population.

When you plot rate of upkeep it leads to:
Rate of upkeep per model:
DA 5.1/2 = 2.55 (standard)
Shootas 5.1/2 = 2.55 (standard)
Sluggas 5.1/2 = 2.55 (standard)
Termas 3.825/1 = 3.825 (above standard)
Hormas 3.825/1 = 3.825 (above standard)

Again, you can go further:
Rangers 5.1/2 = 2.55 (standard)
Shees 6.16/3 = 2.053 (below standard) (<- note to self: nurf eldar more)
GM 2.55/1 = 2.55 (standard)
Sent 25.5/10 = 2.55 (standard)
Scouts 7.65/3 = 2.55 (standard)
Tics 2.55/1 = 2.55 (standard)
CSM(2.7.2) 9.6/5 = 1.92 (below standard)
Tacs 12.75/5 = 2.55 (standard)

etc etc etc

Most squads are charged a standard rate of upkeep so that you are not economically incentivized or penalized to slant your composition towards or against most units.

Assigning a unit above standard upkeep is meant to penalize amassing the pricier unit as it is charged first. And obviously charging a unit below average upkeep is meant to encourage amassing that unit (>30 pop) to capitalize on that discount.

Again, that's why moving below standard units to standard upkeep has less impact than lowering the above standard units to standard upkeep.

As an example, you could make a compelling case to increase the upkeep of Rangers to discourage spam while keeping their squad cost the same. Going above standard will kick in as soon as the Eldar exceeds 30 pop, which if they go for like 2 da, 1 shee beforehand they will have already done.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Antandron » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 9:16 pm

I must say I am a bit confused about this. The first 30 pop is free right? Everything over 30 pop is charged at x req/minute. Which units are charged?

e.g.
Hormas. 8 pop. 3.825/pop.
Termas. 8 pop. 3.825/pop.
Termas. 8 pop. 3.825/pop.
Warriors. 15 pop. 2.55/pop.
Total = 39 pop.

What is the upkeep here? If it is the most expensive value then it is 9x3.825 = 34.425 since Termas and Hormas are taxed for upkeep. Is that correct?
Last edited by Antandron on Mon 25 Jun, 2018 9:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Asmon
Level 4
Posts: 890
Joined: Mon 29 Apr, 2013 8:01 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Asmon » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 9:16 pm

The units with the highest upkeep per model are charged.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Antandron » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 9:47 pm

If it is the highest value first there might not be a problem. Let´s say that Shootas @270/0 with a total upkeep of 25.5 is a fair value. Termas @260/0 then deserve to have a similar value to Shootas, but they can´t be 2.55 per pop because that would either be 8x2.55=20.4 if they are 1 pop/model or 8x2x2.55=40.8 if they are 2 pop/model. One of these values is too low and the other is too high. So by making the req/pop 3 and leaving them at 1 pop/model, the upkeep is 8x3=24 which is just a tiny bit lower than the 25.5 upkeep for Sluggas. When the upkeep is taxed on every unit of pop above 30 it doesn´t matter which unit is taxed if their upkeep/pop value is reasonable. Sluggas pay 2.55 per pop because they are 2 pop/model, and Termas pay 3 per pop because they are 1 pop/model. A Slugga is 5.1 per model vs 3 for a Terma because a Slugga model is better than a Terma model.

So changing Termas to 3 pop/model = 24 upkeep for the squad. Hormas to 2.8 per model = 22.4 per squad. Sluggas could be reduced so that they are less than 30.6 upkeep, which is a bit too high for a 270/0 unit.
Atlas

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Atlas » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 10:08 pm

Antandron wrote:I must say I am a bit confused about this. The first 30 pop is free right? Everything over 30 pop is charged at x req/minute. Which units are charged?

e.g.
Hormas. 8 pop. 3.825/pop.
Termas. 8 pop. 3.825/pop.
Termas. 8 pop. 3.825/pop.
Warriors. 15 pop. 2.55/pop.
Total = 39 pop.

What is the upkeep here? If it is the most expensive value then it is 9x3.825 = 34.425 since Termas and Hormas are taxed for upkeep. Is that correct?


Correct. 3.825 is the most expensive upkeep rate so it is charged first. The cheapest 30 population of upkeep based on rate is discounted as free. When discussing the impact of raising or lowering upkeep, discussing them via upkeep rate in comparison to units in their own roster is the cleanest way to do so rather than going across rosters. Long ago, Relic decided that 2.55 was the standard rate that they kept most units to and Elite has done nothing to change that afaik. It is merely the "baseline".

See the Chaos eco example I did a few posts above and you have an idea of exactly how much changing the upkeep values of X unit to Y value will be.

Asmon wrote:The units with the highest upkeep per model are charged.


Per population, but yes. A Scout is 3 pop and is charged 7.65 per model. A Termagant is 1 pop and charged 3.825 per model, but if they were on the same roster the Termagant would be charged first because the rate is higher even if, on a per model basis, it is less per model.

Antandron wrote:If it is the highest value first there might not be a problem. Let´s say that Shootas @270/0 with a total upkeep of 25.5 is a fair value. Termas @260/0 then deserve to have a similar value to Shootas, but they can´t be 2.55 per pop because that would either be 8x2.55=20.4 if they are 1 pop/model or 8x2x2.55=40.8 if they are 2 pop/model. One of these values is too low and the other is too high. So by making the req/pop 3 and leaving them at 1 pop/model, the upkeep is 8x3=24 which is just a tiny bit lower than the 25.5 upkeep for Sluggas. When the upkeep is taxed on every unit of pop above 30 it doesn´t matter which unit is taxed if their upkeep/pop value is reasonable. Sluggas pay 2.55 per pop because they are 2 pop/model, and Termas pay 3 per pop because they are 1 pop/model. A Slugga is 5.1 per model vs 3 for a Terma because a Slugga model is better than a Terma model.

So changing Termas to 3 pop/model = 24 upkeep for the squad. Hormas to 2.8 per model = 22.4 per squad. Sluggas could be reduced so that they are less than 30.6 upkeep, which is a bit too high for a 270/0 unit.


None of this is "wrong" per se but I question the foundation of the logic. I believe it presupposes that units across rosters should all be relatively equal to each other economically and that, if the aforementioned is true, the relative economic strength of each faction will be relatively equal as well.

This presumes that units perform at the expected level that unit of other rosters with similar attributes would perform but that is a false presumption. Factions are asymmetrical in DoWII, with each faction having unique characteristics that shape them. No one would use a Guardsman squad the same way you would use a Tactical squad or a Shoota squad even though they are all "General Ranged Infantry" units in their roster. They occupy a similar role but their attributes are wildly different.

To make this as short as possible, Gants/Gaunts upkeep is charged higher than normal because their population relative to the performance is skewed in favor of the Tyranids. That's the faction design and their asymmetry from the other races. Gants/Gaunts are faster than most units, cost less population and receive substantial buffs from other race mechanics that augment their performance beyond the raw 8 population 240-260/0 squad cost would warrant. Should Gants/Gaunts be transplanted to another roster without any of the other Tyranid support, they would not be nearly as effective and would not warrant their cost in upkeep.

There were a number of ways to make Gants/Gaunts more "expensive" based on their attributes but the ultimate method chosen way back since the age of Relic was to keep their population, squad cost and reinforce cost fairly low but their upkeep above standard. This tells me that they preferred to make Tyranid squad count able to be more numerous and able to suffer losses. I believe this decision to be fine.

You could do other things to achieve an effect in that ballpark but there could be complications to it such as:
a)Raise their pop from 1 to 2, model count from 8 to 6. Adjust damage and hp to match.
This means less squads on the field for the Tyranids in general and less models. Isn't very fitting to the Tyranid themes.

b)Decrease upkeep to standard, lower performance to match.
Has the potential of creating an almost useless T1 roster as it's completely outmatched until Tyranids benefit from their roster bonuses and upkeep is only truly significant starting around T1.5-T2.

c)Decrease upkeep to standard, keep performance as is, weaken roster augmentation capability and/or scaling.
Like a, this takes a lot of flavor out of the roster on the former and the latter pigeonholes the roster into an early aggressive start to try and avoid a weak late game as much as possible.

I'm not saying that it's impossible, only that it's a lot of moving parts to try and make the units on one roster as analogous to units on another roster as possible.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 991
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Mon 25 Jun, 2018 11:09 pm

Whatever happened to all the discussions we had about that topic, Atlas? It is quite obvious why Tyranid T1 upkeep is the way it is. Because upkeep/pop is misleading in this case and its also not taking into account that Synapse greatly improves durability, suddenly turning that low hp - high model unit into a durable nightmare (assuming not amoving everywhere).
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 497
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby boss » Tue 26 Jun, 2018 12:29 am

Well I been posting about this for a long time ever since I found it was not fix in elite still dumb as fuck they have higher than normal upkeep,it punish you the longer they stay alive cos they drain your income more than they should and on basic squads too.

Synapse only lets your stuff stand up for themselves basic synapse that is without it you just need to 2v1 or 3v1 something or they lose 1on1, range synapse and melee synapse lets your squads scale into t2 and above
Forums great more stuff to talk about.
Antandron
Level 2
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat 15 Jul, 2017 11:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Antandron » Tue 26 Jun, 2018 7:41 am

Atlas wrote:None of this is "wrong" per se but I question the foundation of the logic. I believe it presupposes that units across rosters should all be relatively equal to each other economically and that, if the aforementioned is true, the relative economic strength of each faction will be relatively equal as well.


Absolutely. Races are taxed upkeep in proportion to how strong their army is, therefore each unit should be taxed upkeep in proportion to how strong it is.

For every synapse that supposedly causes Termas and Hormas to deserve special treatment, there is a Storm Shield, Sacred Standard, Boss Pole, HP regen aura or some other item or ability that has a similar influence of making lots of units better at the same time.

Option C is simple: edit one or two numbers in half a dozen units. Would take no time at all.
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Dark Riku » Tue 26 Jun, 2018 5:21 pm

Or how about we don't fuck up the game eco and leave CSM and Nid upkeep alone?
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 727
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Oddnerd » Tue 26 Jun, 2018 5:24 pm

Anyone have the installers for older editions hanging around? I feel like the game was in a decent place in the 2.3-2.4 area.
Atlas

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Atlas » Tue 26 Jun, 2018 10:50 pm

Adeptus Noobus wrote:Whatever happened to all the discussions we had about that topic, Atlas? It is quite obvious why Tyranid T1 upkeep is the way it is. Because upkeep/pop is misleading in this case and its also not taking into account that Synapse greatly improves durability, suddenly turning that low hp - high model unit into a durable nightmare (assuming not amoving everywhere).


Hard to remember on the spot. What I can recall is that there was a proposal to buff Gants/Gaunts upkeep that had varying levels of support for reasons already brought up in this thread on both sides. After that, I put in a counter proposal for Nid T3 upkeep buffs but by that point I think we went into production and it just sort of petered out.

Antandron wrote:Absolutely. Races are taxed upkeep in proportion to how strong their army is, therefore each unit should be taxed upkeep in proportion to how strong it is.

For every synapse that supposedly causes Termas and Hormas to deserve special treatment, there is a Storm Shield, Sacred Standard, Boss Pole, HP regen aura or some other item or ability that has a similar influence of making lots of units better at the same time.

Option C is simple: edit one or two numbers in half a dozen units. Would take no time at all.


Not so simple because Synapse is a race mechanic and the counters you mention are mostly wargears. A more comparable contrast would be saying to adjust Slugga and Shoota performance and economy and changing how Orks generate and use Waagh so that Sluggas and Shootas can compete without using Waagh. Could it work? Maybe. But it involves a lot more moving parts to achieve an effect.

If Storm Shield/Standard etc etc is problematic, it's usually easier to adjust them individually than trying to warp the entire roster to accommodate them. This is the same case for Gants/Gaunts.

Oddnerd wrote:Anyone have the installers for older editions hanging around? I feel like the game was in a decent place in the 2.3-2.4 area.


I'm told the Inner Circle has preserved a copy of 2.4 inside the deepest and most holy shrine used to praise and venerate the Immortal Emperor. You can see if they'll give it to you :P
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 3082
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Dark Riku » Tue 26 Jun, 2018 10:57 pm

User avatar
evilmario5
Level 2
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon 26 Oct, 2015 2:34 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby evilmario5 » Thu 28 Jun, 2018 10:59 am

Been ages.... Just had a nice long Read of both this post and General 2.8 update and roadmap, and i gona say Great job by all whom are working on Elite Currently, just my option OM Changes look Solid i will be jumping on 2.8 beta to join the fun again.
yes I play gk/om a bit no hate plz
User avatar
egewithin
Level 5
Posts: 1144
Joined: Mon 26 Jan, 2015 7:08 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby egewithin » Sun 01 Jul, 2018 9:46 am

The BETA link still installs 2.7.2, at least the version beneath the logo shows that. Is that wrong or not?
saludd
Level 0
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun 27 Dec, 2015 3:24 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby saludd » Sun 01 Jul, 2018 10:00 am

egewithin wrote:The BETA link still installs 2.7.2, at least the version beneath the logo shows that. Is that wrong or not?


Atlas wrote:The version number will still say 2.7.2, that's a cosmetic change that we just didn't do for now.
Also, the installer is linked towards a default location. If you've installed somwhere outside of the normal folder make sure to edit the download path!


The Beta installs 2.8
Myrdal
Admin
Posts: 347
Joined: Mon 15 Apr, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Elite 2.8 BETA Link

Postby Myrdal » Sun 01 Jul, 2018 11:09 am

Reg9678 wrote:Thanks for the work guys. One note though: The desktop shortcut is linked to the standard location of the steam folder(C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\Steam.exe), so if you don't use this folder you have to change it manually. It took me some minutes to notice this and as especially new people who are unfamillar with the Elite setup won't think of this at first it would be either nice to change this automatically or mention it in the setup or something.

The installer checks the windows registry for the SteamPath key which should contain the correct install path. So unless you moved steam after installation it should work.

Return to “Releases”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests