2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Issues dealing with gameplay balance.
User avatar
Psycho
Level 3
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:08 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Psycho » Tue 13 Feb, 2018 7:32 pm

I'm fairly sure that the reason the fire prism will not do shit against the baneblade is because you're using it alone vs a superunit.
crog
Level 2
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon 05 Dec, 2016 12:30 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby crog » Tue 13 Feb, 2018 9:22 pm

Adeptus Noobus wrote:First of all that has nothing to do with Eldar T3 and everything with IG T3 which being looked into. Next, a Prism alone should never counter a Baneblade....
Also, you pretend that all these units lose their worth once the Baneblade is dead but they will still shit on IG. Eldar habe so much trickery up their sleeves...

Ofc it wont, but i wanted to make a point that prism with it´s low dps vs lemans wont hurt them much even in combination with other units.
And my other point was that eldars AV got Nerfed hard since the last few patches a long.

You see in our 3v3 match today, how easily you lost your 2 sm tanks to IG´s tank , nothing you could have done there. Now consider your tank has only 500 hp and does much less dps ofc you would be frustrated, and i guess the loss of these fully upgraded tanks costed you the game.
So ye after all this AV nerfing, I think some things should get a look again.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Tue 13 Feb, 2018 10:53 pm

First of all, I lost two tanks because I got doubled and there were two armies, one included a Baneblade and two Leman Russes. I can micro but I can't out-micro all the dmg...
Second, I would have never lost a Fire Prism to such a push because a Prism has vastly more range (how many times must I say this). It would have been much easier to deal with what you two had. I would go for a Prism, hero wargear and globals and potentially WG as well, if I have to take the Baneblade on by myself as well. WG are very good vs a Baneblade and they are quite tanky. All Eldar heroes have support wargear for them as well as fantastic globals. Throw in a D-Cannon as well to disrupt repair support and take shots at the Baneblade itself and we have a situation where I can fire at you from miles away and you can't even do shit about it. You are playing FS, you should know this to be true.

Image
Twitch: http://twitch.tv/adeptus_noobus
Youtube: http://youtube.com/adeptusnoobus
Twitter: http://twitter.com/adeptusnoobus

"Ooooohhh fuck. Eat the fucking poison!" - BbBoS
"Extermination is the only cure for heresy!" - Apothecary
"my micro is superior so u think lord is op" - initialmink
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Rostam » Sat 10 Mar, 2018 5:11 pm

What do u guys think about giving Apothecary a range option like a bolter by default? he has lower hp than a TM so might be a good option
I think people are gonna like the Idea of a range apo at the start of the game. wanna here your thoughts about it. what do u think?
User avatar
Psycho
Level 3
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:08 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Psycho » Sat 10 Mar, 2018 5:51 pm

APO DEFAULT BOLTER WHEN
User avatar
egewithin
Level 5
Posts: 1128
Joined: Mon 26 Jan, 2015 7:08 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby egewithin » Sat 10 Mar, 2018 5:57 pm

Apo is probobly the perfect balanced hero in Elite mod. I don't want any new radical changes for him.

BUT : I have a different issue this time. We talked about overwatch option about 1.5 - 2 years ago here. I suggested that we should be able to use overwatch option on our tier up buttons, because we can't do it now. Only argumant came against me was, people should be punished for their bad attention.

In that case, why do we even have overwatch option at the beggining? If it is okay to use overwatch to get units when we have enough resource to buy them, why can't we do the same for tiering up?
Current Name : Sex - Murder - Art
LOCALgHOST
Level 2
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby LOCALgHOST » Sun 11 Mar, 2018 7:05 am

Psycho wrote:APO DEFAULT BOLTER WHEN


APO annoyin' poweraxe back on T1 WHEN? :)

Rostam wrote:What do u guys think about giving Apothecary a range option like a bolter by default? he has lower hp than a TM so might be a good option
I think people are gonna like the Idea of a range apo at the start of the game. wanna here your thoughts about it. what do u think?


I hate it, hands off my melee apo! :)
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Rostam » Sun 11 Mar, 2018 2:08 pm

LOCALgHOST wrote: I hate it, hands off my melee apo! :)

The reasoning u are bringing here is not very sound; u dont want it cuz u dont like it!
also your apo??? lol You having a claim on Apo is like aminion having claim on Chaos Lord :V

its like saying "I dont like Great unclean one,I like Blood thirster instead; lets chang it" it doesnt seem very logical
Last edited by Rostam on Mon 12 Mar, 2018 9:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 5:40 am

Giving the Apo a ranged weapon would drastically change certain matchups (thinking Eldar and Orks here).
The Apo can take on Banshees with Tac support if they were shot up sufficiently on approach. He can’t do it with a ranged weapon. It would also fuck up the Apo v TM matchup in favor of the TM imo. There would be too many issues with this change that change the dynamic of the early engagements.
Twitch: http://twitch.tv/adeptus_noobus
Youtube: http://youtube.com/adeptusnoobus
Twitter: http://twitter.com/adeptusnoobus

"Ooooohhh fuck. Eat the fucking poison!" - BbBoS
"Extermination is the only cure for heresy!" - Apothecary
"my micro is superior so u think lord is op" - initialmink
User avatar
Rostam
Level 4
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed 12 Oct, 2016 8:32 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Rostam » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 5:49 am

Adeptus Noobus wrote:Giving the Apo a ranged weapon would drastically change certain matchups (thinking Eldar and Orks here).
The Apo can take on Banshees with Tac support if they were shot up sufficiently on approach. He can’t do it with a ranged weapon. It would also fuck up the Apo v TM matchup in favor of the TM imo. There would be too many issues with this change that change the dynamic of the early engagements.

Thanks for the feedback
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Nurland » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 9:51 am

I think it would rather help Apo vs TM. I it is hard enough to get him in melee anyway so just pew pewing stuff while healing tacs should work a lot better.

Shees maybe yes maybe no because the damage they take on approach. Esp with shotguns on the field they can be focused super fast. You almost always go bolter vs eldar anyway.

Overall the vanilla bolter would be a buff imho.

It would change the match ups a lot though.
#noobcodex
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 3:23 pm

Please elaborate on how Apo vs TM would be Apo favored? Imo Apo being a melee default hero often is a guarantee for winning the first fight. Apo Tacs stay on the field longer and with ASM it becomes that much harder in T1. T2 is when the TM starts to shine imo.
I am curious though.
Twitch: http://twitch.tv/adeptus_noobus
Youtube: http://youtube.com/adeptusnoobus
Twitter: http://twitter.com/adeptusnoobus

"Ooooohhh fuck. Eat the fucking poison!" - BbBoS
"Extermination is the only cure for heresy!" - Apothecary
"my micro is superior so u think lord is op" - initialmink
User avatar
Psycho
Level 3
Posts: 369
Joined: Thu 24 Dec, 2015 3:08 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Psycho » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 4:37 pm

You'd be counting on RNG for apo to not get chain knockbacked by shee specials, and not end up unfortunate enough to really need the heal right as the apo starts his godawfully slow special. If even knockbacked by shees he still wins due to being a meatshield for shees as tacs shoot them up due to not getting the ranged resistance in melee while running up to the apo getting thrown around, the standard melee dps with a default bolter would do just as well. What dps he'd lose in melee vs shees is dps he'd bring against them in ranged much earlier due to additional range.

It'd be a change that heavily depends on it being a 3v3 or a 1v1, since in the former you have less reasons not to keep him in a murderblob if you're not going for something relying on sanguine.
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3246
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Torpid » Mon 12 Mar, 2018 10:49 pm

Noobus I have no idea why you think the pathetic 25dps apothecary with his measly amount of hp would ever be better than an apo with a bolter vs the initial TM or banshees.

If the apo and tacs both charge into melee vs a TM+tacs the apo wil lget focused down very quick, have to heal himself and be forced off when the TM still has 50% of his hp. Then the tacs of the TM will easily win over the apo tacs with no support.

In contrast with a bolter even a 25dps one you could have him contributing to combat whilst in combat and move away to heal tacs and abuse that regen.

And with shees... Well meleeing them with an apo is literally useless. I can't even believe you'd think that would be better than using a botler apo behind your tacs to contribute dps + his heal to prevent the tacs from losing a model...
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Oddnerd » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 3:14 am

Wouldnt giving apo a bolter destroy the internal balance of SM commanders in the early game? TM does amazing ranged damage, FC is a melee superiority fighter, and Apo provides heal + a degree of melee competence.
User avatar
Nurland
Moderator
Posts: 1267
Joined: Mon 04 Feb, 2013 5:25 pm
Location: Eye of Error
Contact:

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Nurland » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 10:19 am

Welp... Torpid pretty much summed it up.

Apo v Shees in melee is risky as hell. Apo is 5 times as likely to get knocked over there and just die.

Bonter would help him focus the shees on approach and make bleeding DA and heroes so much easier.

Against TM. Well. Torpid said it. Low hp + low dps gets him focused super fast. The bolter is so good for apo because he lacks the hp and damage to do much in melee without sanguine.
#noobcodex
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby boss » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 11:41 am

1 idk why you want a to pick apo vs eldar is like asking for a lose all the eldar hero's rape him stick with tm and fc, they both offer way more than apo ever could.

2 tm always wins vs apo the shit heal don't change anything on this match up and the fact you have to pay 25 power to get a decent weapon just hurts this match up even more,

3 Never send apo vs shess unless you want him to get gang band.

4 if you want to make apo better look at this heal which is one of the worse in the game even tho that his thing his heal should give regen like it did back in early retail the fact you have to get the apo to higher level which is never going to happen for a better heal is just bad cos you already lost by then.
LOCALgHOST
Level 2
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby LOCALgHOST » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 1:49 pm

boss tells me that Whirlwind is useless
Maybe it needs some rework?
I consider WW will be more useful if it could transport units
Maybe not 3 as RB but maybe two. It could bring more fun to get WW in game. Nowadays, I think i'm the only one madman who takes WW..
User avatar
Torpid
Moderator
Posts: 3246
Joined: Sat 01 Jun, 2013 12:09 pm
Location: England, Leeds

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Torpid » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 1:58 pm

I think the WW is strong in 3v3 and get it more often than I get a razorback in all honestly. It contributes a lot more if you have allied with better on-field reinforce options (beacons/bunkers/falcons/trukk/chimera). Constantly knocking models forward so they can be bled at range and preventing SUTs from setting up is amazing.

In 1v1 it is far less viable since power is more scarce and you need less support options and more on the field presence. But it is still good vs nids and orks to punish a foe who goes too much melee/too weak a ranged composition and thus becomes forced to come to you or just get knocked into ranged fire all the time and bled.

If the WW was to get a buff it would have to be a very small one. Perhaps something like more power cost coupled with reduced spread on its attack and slightly lower CD on its attack.

It is expected that it would be a relatively niche purchase given it is competing directly with the plasma devastator which is another form of t2 artillery, that costs no power and have very high wipe potential.
Lets make Ordo Malleus great again!
LOCALgHOST
Level 2
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby LOCALgHOST » Tue 13 Mar, 2018 3:34 pm

...and it's AV rock is EVEN WORSE THAN APO GRENADE!
User avatar
boss
Level 3
Posts: 317
Joined: Mon 22 Aug, 2016 11:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby boss » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 11:14 am

I do think it useless idk why it ever got added in elite for sm it a troll unit that's all anything else sm has is better than a ww
LOCALgHOST
Level 2
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon 15 Jan, 2018 2:48 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby LOCALgHOST » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 12:33 pm

It can be used as a gen basher but his spread makes it lasts for ages to kill a gen

So make it a transport and boost AV rocket speed and it will be much more solid
User avatar
Adeptus Noobus
Level 4
Posts: 950
Joined: Sat 15 Feb, 2014 12:47 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Adeptus Noobus » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 2:56 pm

Because more AV is what SM need...They really don‘t...
The Whirlwind is a massive bonus in teamgames. It’s disruption and ability to finish off vehicles from long-range are no joke at all. It massively fortifies a SM position by making it that much harder to close in all the while you are getting shot to pieces.
Using it to bash is not the best use of it.

I yield on the issue of Apo vs TM. I stand corrected.
Twitch: http://twitch.tv/adeptus_noobus
Youtube: http://youtube.com/adeptusnoobus
Twitter: http://twitter.com/adeptusnoobus

"Ooooohhh fuck. Eat the fucking poison!" - BbBoS
"Extermination is the only cure for heresy!" - Apothecary
"my micro is superior so u think lord is op" - initialmink
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Oddnerd » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 5:31 pm

People are bitching about a unit that does massive, consistent aoe KB with no friendly fire?

You SOBs already have pDevs, a unit that is superior to NM without costing 30 power, and the telespammer. Learn some fucking gratitude.
User avatar
Forestradio
Level 5
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun 13 Oct, 2013 5:09 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Forestradio » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 7:39 pm

pro tip: use the apo in ranged stance in the early gaem, the bolt pistol does a higher dps to infantry armored units with melee resist than his chainsword does and it allows him to make use of cover...
LOCALgHOST wrote:It can be used as a gen basher but his spread makes it lasts for ages to kill a gen
Oddnerd wrote:You SOBs already have pDevs, a unit that is superior to NM without costing 30 power
lolwut
User avatar
Dark Riku
Level 5
Posts: 2939
Joined: Sun 03 Feb, 2013 10:48 pm
Location: Belgium

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Dark Riku » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 9:43 pm

Oddnerd wrote:You SOBs already have pDevs, a unit that is superior to NM without costing 30 power, ...
Yeah, cuz they are also a T1 flamer unit with a disruption ability that will most likely have levels in T2 and has the extra benefit of knocking over everything the projectile moves over.
Ow wait...
Last edited by Dark Riku on Thu 15 Mar, 2018 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Eternal Crusade referral code: EC-OZVT4BVATDHX6 (link)
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Oddnerd » Wed 14 Mar, 2018 11:06 pm

Hmmm, point taken on the T1 bash and CC. Not convinced the knockback with friendly fire is a net-positive. But I almost never buy them so I wouldn't know.
User avatar
Oddnerd
Level 4
Posts: 667
Joined: Mon 27 Oct, 2014 1:50 am

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Oddnerd » Thu 15 Mar, 2018 1:55 am

LOCALgHOST wrote:So make it a transport and boost AV rocket speed and it will be much more solid


What is the specific reason for it needing these things? Are you saying this with regards to 1v1 or 3v3?

In 3v3 at the moment, it is the best unit for providing a steady output of large-aoe disruption. It doesn't have the killing potential of a Pdev or manticore, but it produces a much more steady output of disruption. If you're facing a well-positioned WW, especially as a light infantry race, it can be a nightmare. This means that SM have access to a unit with maximal disruption, and a unit that has insane killing power with reduced disruption.

Even if under-performs in 1v1, these changes would make it far too powerful in 3v3. The missile already does 175 damage and can be fired once per minute - it won't counter vehicles (which it shouldn't), but if an enemy's falcon or bloodcrusher/deff dread is trying to bum rush your WW and your main AV units can't quite take it out, the instant 175 dmg can be the difference between losing your WW and saving it. Also consider how this would affect the internal balance of the SM T2, as it would give the WW a function that the RB already provides. Based on my 3v3 experience, the WW already seems to be the preferred choice, so giving it 2/3 of the transport capacity of a RB would devalue the RB further.

EDIT - It would be nice if every unit could have it's place in all game modes equally, but that often isn't possible. Right now the SM RB/WW have a nice balance in which the RB tends to be the better choice in 1v1 and the WW tends to be the better choice in 3v3.
User avatar
Impregnable
Level 3
Posts: 405
Joined: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 2:58 pm
Location: SEGMENTUM TEMPESTUS

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Impregnable » Thu 15 Mar, 2018 10:08 am

I have had this doubt about Whirlwind for awhile now. Why was it added in Elite? Every other unit had some plausible explanations for it. New units in elite either covers certain weakness of a faction in retail or make is so that build orders are more varied.

Sternguard covers transitional AV weakness of SM.
Vanguards covers missing elite melee unit for SM in T3 so that other 2 heroes beside FC have access to that option.

However, about WW, it is hard to find a clear reason. Does SM have trouble against mass melee and mass ranged blobs come T2 in head to head match ups? AFAIK SM don't have such a match up that forces them to buy WW. If there are more cases where they have hard time against blobs in which they have no other option beside WW, the reason for addition in Elite will be easier to understand.

IMO currently WW is doing harm in team game balance as a better version of Manticore. It is power wise cheaper, upkeep wise lower, faster, way more durable via more health, can defend itself better, has an AV option, fires a constant long range wide area disruption, compared to Manticore. Because it is faster, way more durable and has a chance to defend itself from a ranged unit and even melee if managed right, outflanking and killing it is very difficult. Manticore shots can be dodged, takes longer to land longer the range and cannot disrupt a huge area and more importantly cannot be fired frequently. Manticore is very slow and has such a low health that anything that does some damage to vehicle can take it down in a blink of an eye and also with ease. It has zero chance to defend itself as well once flanked. Just a single addition of WW make the team that has it nearly unbeatable in a pure ranged engagements. It is like having a mobile, vehicle armored, constant wide area disruption version of Artillery Spotter. This is a huge advantage in team games where units inevitably blobs a lot when fighting. The fact that it does not have any friendly fire makes it even better choice. It is also important to note that a lot of KB disrupting units have huge danger of disrupting their own allies in melee. It is a common mishap for Pdevs, manticores, AS, Weirdboy, Noise Marines to knockback their own allies in combat.

Overall, WW seems underused in head to head while being too good in team games.
User avatar
Forestradio
Level 5
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun 13 Oct, 2013 5:09 pm

Re: 2.8 Non-Consensus Thread (Part 2 of 2)

Postby Forestradio » Thu 15 Mar, 2018 12:10 pm

Impregnable wrote:Sternguard covers transitional AV weakness of SM.
no...
sterns were explicitly added to give sm a better AI option on their tacs than retail, hence they used to have both a much higher dps and DoT on the hellfire rounds and they murdered everything even on retreat so they got toned down some in early elite to their current state
their av is meant to be a supplement to switch to, it's only recently it got (quite unnecessarily) buffed

Return to “Balance discussion”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests