Maybe one or two more armor type?

Wikkyd

I think making another armor type would allow some units to perform better, Uber elites and late game elites are easily destroyed by anti vehicle weapons if they're focused it sucks to see a wraithknight just topple over in one salvo in seconds from a focus, or your moving in your assault terminators and they just get destroyed so easily by 3 annihilators. Super heavy vehicles would be resistant to more damage, and heavy infantry could be more resistant as well, it'd probably even make wraithguard/blade better too.

CANNED_F3TUS

No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

Wikkyd

@CANNED_F3TUS said:
No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

I disagree that's the best way to fix a game, dow 2 had multiple armor systems in place and they worked quite well, even dow 1 had a couple systems too and that also worked.

Sure it may complicate the game, but not as horrendously as you make it sound.

charlando

@CANNED_F3TUS said:
No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

I dont disagree with you, but could you link me to the explanation or give me some examples of how armor types lead to abuse in DOW2?

DaDokisinX

@charlando said:

@CANNED_F3TUS said:
No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

I dont disagree with you, but could you link me to the explanation or give me some examples of how armor types lead to abuse in DOW2?

Well, it made Banshees borderline OP vs. SM units. Even under FoF, shees could deal insane damage to retreating tacts/ASM/etc. simply because they were taking increase damage from power melee.

"Abuse" of armor types wasn't really the issue, but more so the implementation of many types of weapons/armor bent the meta often in poor directions. For example, to enable melee units to stand up to tanks/termis and the like, they implemented heavy melee. Eventually this melee type was put on the slugga nob and banshee leader, which combined with globals like Use Yer Choppas, made them pretty much OP and an EZ I WIN button. If anything races that were constrained to 1 type of armor (SM having power armor) and other races having access to early heavy/power melee (Orks and Eldar) made playing races like SM very unforgiving, and races like Ork/Eldar borderline OP at times.

Basically introducing a bunch of new mechanics and stats can lead to a ton of unforeseen consequences, not to mention making balance even harder to achieve. DoW3 is already a pretty hectic game, I don't think adding in more mechanics which will make it more complicated would be doing it any favors.

Wikkyd

@DaDokisinX said:

@charlando said:

@CANNED_F3TUS said:
No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

I dont disagree with you, but could you link me to the explanation or give me some examples of how armor types lead to abuse in DOW2?

Well, it made Banshees borderline OP vs. SM units. Even under FoF, shees could deal insane damage to retreating tacts/ASM/etc. simply because they were taking increase damage from power melee.

"Abuse" of armor types wasn't really the issue, but more so the implementation of many types of weapons/armor bent the meta often in poor directions. For example, to enable melee units to stand up to tanks/termis and the like, they implemented heavy melee. Eventually this melee type was put on the slugga nob and banshee leader, which combined with globals like Use Yer Choppas, made them pretty much OP and an EZ I WIN button. If anything races that were constrained to 1 type of armor (SM having power armor) and other races having access to early heavy/power melee (Orks and Eldar) made playing races like SM very unforgiving, and races like Ork/Eldar borderline OP at times.

Basically introducing a bunch of new mechanics and stats can lead to a ton of unforeseen consequences, not to mention making balance even harder to achieve. DoW3 is already a pretty hectic game, I don't think adding in more mechanics which will make it more complicated would be doing it any favors.

I understand where you're coming from, but I feel there's a lack of armour/weapon types, and because of that, it also makes the game hard to balance.

jonoliveira12

If they were to implement more armour and damage types, I would suggest the following:
-Structure Armour, countered by Siege Damage
-Heavy Infantry Armour, countered by Rending Damage

tritol

I think they could add something like new armour type, for structures like core/turrets/shieldgen .. they are currently too weak and giving them million hp is nonsense and wouldnt fix it anyway, so somehow change they way they are taking damage could actually work, so they cant be taken down by one squad with true damage ...

but honestly messing with new armour or damage types would rather create more problems

CANNED_F3TUS

@Wikkyd said:

@CANNED_F3TUS said:
No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

I disagree that's the best way to fix a game, dow 2 had multiple armor systems in place and they worked quite well, even dow 1 had a couple systems too and that also worked.

Sure it may complicate the game, but not as horrendously as you make it sound.

............

DoW 2 was a cheeze fest because of these mechanics so im going to whole heartedly say you are not right.

As mentioned by someone else and what i been repeating. Damage types have been raping DoW 2s balance since the start and is still doing so. The cheeze you could unleash in that game came in all kind of varieties...

Adding damage types and armor types will not fix anything in the game and never have. Sorry.

Than people come with the argument oooh but it adds depth... It doesnt add anything it just adds exploits that people will use when they discover how OP it is in alot of situations.

Wikkyd

@CANNED_F3TUS said:

@Wikkyd said:

@CANNED_F3TUS said:
No. This has been beatin dead billions of times. Best way to fix what your talking about is to tinker with unit health and the way AV units deal damage. No armor types needed to overcomplicate and possibly break the game

I disagree that's the best way to fix a game, dow 2 had multiple armor systems in place and they worked quite well, even dow 1 had a couple systems too and that also worked.

Sure it may complicate the game, but not as horrendously as you make it sound.

............

DoW 2 was a cheeze fest because of these mechanics so im going to whole heartedly say you are not right.

As mentioned by someone else and what i been repeating. Damage types have been raping DoW 2s balance since the start and is still doing so. The cheeze you could unleash in that game came in all kind of varieties...

Adding damage types and armor types will not fix anything in the game and never have. Sorry.

Than people come with the argument oooh but it adds depth... It doesnt add anything it just adds exploits that people will use when they discover how OP it is in alot of situations.

Dow 2 has an incredible amount of armor and damage types, I'm merely suggesting we add 1 or 2, that doesn't seem like it would destroy balance.

Martin

I am rather confused by this thread, aside from "it worked well in dawn of war 2"(which some posters seem to not agree with) there has been brought no counter argument to the idea of just buffing health if one like the thread maker would want to make it harder to kill super unit's quickly.

Since I made a similar suggestion some time ago in the suggestions forum, I do agree with having a seperate armor type for power core and perhaps turret and shield gen.

Wikkyd

@Martin said:
I am rather confused by this thread, aside from "it worked well in dawn of war 2"(which some posters seem to not agree with) there has been brought no counter argument to the idea of just buffing health if one like the thread maker would want to make it harder to kill super unit's quickly.

Since I made a similar suggestion some time ago in the suggestions forum, I do agree with having a seperate armor type for power core and perhaps turret and shield gen.

The issue with just flat out more hp doesn't solve anything, just flat out means you need more damage output and we're back where we started, if you gave terminators 10000 more hp, well infantry aren't gonna do anything, and tanks will barely be able to kill them now too. A few more armour/damage types would make things resistant and vulnerable in the right ways as well.

Martin

I see your point about infantry(normal damage), if you wanted infantry to remain as effective as they are versus the unit while making the unit harder to kill with armor piercing damage then a new armor type would be able to achieve that while buffing the health would not have been able to achieve it since a health increase affects all damage types.

This alone does not justify more armor types, we also need a case in which it is useful so relic will want to implement it, like the example where thread maker wanted to make super units melt less easily. This thread could use more discussion and information regarding this, I am not really sure about whether super unit's need this health buff; in my experience their health was pretty good, but I need more playtime and also people has opinions you know.

Wikkyd

@Nassir_Amit said:

@Martin said:
I see your point about infantry(normal damage), if you wanted infantry to remain as effective as they are versus the unit while making the unit harder to kill with armor piercing damage then a new armor type would be able to achieve that while buffing the health would not have been able to achieve it since a health increase affects all damage types.

That s a problem . If you buff health, then you ll make the unit better against everything, cause more hp.If you create specific armor types with weapon types as counters, then you can work without the problem of overbuffing

Yeah basically what Nassir said, more discussion is definitely good though.

Bersercker

+1 Something like heavy infantry armor would have been useful for nobz, wraithguard, wraithblades, light vehicles(trukks, landspeeders, vypers, etc) and some elites like terminators and mega armored nobz.

A new damage type like plasma\power melee weapon wouldn't be as useful because we already have true damage type at least, but imo it would still have made a lot of sense for plasma tacticals, banshees, asm with power swords and a lot of the elites that have normal damage type right now but aren't supposed to be very good against vehicles, or have true damage type with low dps just to counter light vehicles.

Azzakye

I always imagined a full range of armour types

• Normal
• Heavy
• Super heavy
• Light Vehicle
• Heavy Vehicle
• Building

Then I imagined the damage types I would use

• Normal
• Armour piecing
• Explosive

Then you can imagine normal damage doing full damage to normal armour and are less effective as you go down the armour list. Armour piecing doing full damage to normal and Heavy armour type then does less damage as you go down. Then there is explosive which is basically your true damage that does like full damage to everything.

I think having lots of armour types is not a problem but as you add more damage types it gets more complex so I think a simple 3 infantry armour type, 2 vehicle armour type and Building type with 3 damage types is a good number. We can then just add bonus damage to certain armour types to supplement the damage types and have basically 18 different damage types without completely confusing everyone.

CANNED_F3TUS

@Nassir_Amit said:

@Martin said:
I see your point about infantry(normal damage), if you wanted infantry to remain as effective as they are versus the unit while making the unit harder to kill with armor piercing damage then a new armor type would be able to achieve that while buffing the health would not have been able to achieve it since a health increase affects all damage types.

That s a problem . If you buff health, then you ll make the unit better against everything, cause more hp.If you create specific armor types with weapon types as counters, then you can work without the problem of overbuffing

The exact same thing happens if you add a new armor type... You buff a specific unit. And now you have to add another damage type just to balance that one unit... You see... You just created 2 potential problems if not even more cause this affects every race in the game.

CANNED_F3TUS

@Wikkyd said:

@Martin said:
I am rather confused by this thread, aside from "it worked well in dawn of war 2"(which some posters seem to not agree with) there has been brought no counter argument to the idea of just buffing health if one like the thread maker would want to make it harder to kill super unit's quickly.

Since I made a similar suggestion some time ago in the suggestions forum, I do agree with having a seperate armor type for power core and perhaps turret and shield gen.

The issue with just flat out more hp doesn't solve anything, just flat out means you need more damage output and we're back where we started, if you gave terminators 10000 more hp, well infantry aren't gonna do anything, and tanks will barely be able to kill them now too. A few more armour/damage types would make things resistant and vulnerable in the right ways as well.

You make it seem like 1 or 2 extra damage types isnt a big deal but it really is.... All it does is screw with balance at a large scale. You end up with races that have a harder time killing other races. Or some races starting out with a huge advantage/or disadvantage over the others. Im not even sure if u played DoW 2 but it was pretty bad how things could get.

CANNED_F3TUS

@Azzakye said:
I always imagined a full range of armour types

• Normal
• Heavy
• Super heavy
• Light Vehicle
• Heavy Vehicle
• Building

Then I imagined the damage types I would use

• Normal
• Armour piecing
• Explosive

Then you can imagine normal damage doing full damage to normal armour and are less effective as you go down the armour list. Armour piecing doing full damage to normal and Heavy armour type then does less damage as you go down. Then there is explosive which is basically your true damage that does like full damage to everything.

I think having lots of armour types is not a problem but as you add more damage types it gets more complex so I think a simple 3 infantry armour type, 2 vehicle armour type and Building type with 3 damage types is a good number. We can then just add bonus damage to certain armour types to supplement the damage types and have basically 18 different damage types without completely confusing everyone.

Armor types actually could and did cause problems in DoW 2 depending on the match up.

Wikkyd

@CANNED_F3TUS said:

@Wikkyd said:

@Martin said:
I am rather confused by this thread, aside from "it worked well in dawn of war 2"(which some posters seem to not agree with) there has been brought no counter argument to the idea of just buffing health if one like the thread maker would want to make it harder to kill super unit's quickly.

Since I made a similar suggestion some time ago in the suggestions forum, I do agree with having a seperate armor type for power core and perhaps turret and shield gen.

The issue with just flat out more hp doesn't solve anything, just flat out means you need more damage output and we're back where we started, if you gave terminators 10000 more hp, well infantry aren't gonna do anything, and tanks will barely be able to kill them now too. A few more armour/damage types would make things resistant and vulnerable in the right ways as well.

You make it seem like 1 or 2 extra damage types isnt a big deal but it really is.... All it does is screw with balance at a large scale. You end up with races that have a harder time killing other races. Or some races starting out with a huge advantage/or disadvantage over the others. Im not even sure if u played DoW 2 but it was pretty bad how things could get.

Well of course it's a big deal, but having to few armour/weapon types is bad for balance as well, in my opinion.

DoW 2 had a so many armour types, but honestly, while the balance in the game is kind of screwy it's not completely broken, far from it.

While adding another armour/weapon type would screw with balance short term, long term I think it'd be good.

charlando

I recall from DOW2.

If you played SM/CSM most of you main units had heavy armor, which was a disadvantage as tech progress and power weapons/plasm became more common.

Martin

I like being able to easily kill buildings without any fancy explosions right now tho.

Martin

Making buildings harder to kill would not make them less expendable, but moreso since you don't need to worry about normal units killing them as much; increasing their cost would make them more expendable; but I like the low cost of buildings making forward bases worth building while them being killable by normal units also adds a level of risk of losing them. Making destroying buildings buildings require explosive damage would make forward bases much harder to fight in t1 before the explosive units come out.

Jazz_Sandwich

I haven't seen it mentioned, but dow1 had even more armour classes still. Infantry_low through to medium and high, heavy infantry the same, vehicles the same, buildings the same (HQ buildings having higher armour than others and things like WAAAGH tower having less still), then daemon medium and high armour, and commander armour. I don't recall seeing anybody complain about the amount of armour types in that game because most of the armour types could be grouped logically and behaved similarly, but with increasing resistances as you go from low to high. This didn't cause tremendous upset because it wasn't obvious, this level of detail wasn't present in in-game tooltips.