@S4ngetsu said:
But DoW1 didn't need doctrines and has also diversity
There are several builds viable and in DoW3 1v1 there is only mass T1 viable, that's pretty mutch fact.
And if you know T1 is the most important then you go ofcourse for 100% T1 doctrines.
If relic is not going to remove doctrines ( i believe they won't) they should at least give doctrines a restriction that you can't stack them for 1 single unit.
I think its pointless to discuss that doctrines should be removed, obv. they wont.
How did you like the "armory idea" , I think that would add some spice due to playing infantry with a different approach: less units can fight off stuff in sheer numbers, or give them a decent fight, so you can choose: massing or upgrading, bbboth should be more or less viable then. this way, spamming is not the only appproach to the game.
Also expanding upgrades to 4-4 would be something Id like to see to add some more mid / late-game depth according to the strategy..
Finally BaByuByu posted. He's literally top 1 with all races with !regions unlocked! That's literally the only dude whose streams I really enjoy, he wins usually in 8-10 min mark, more so post last patch.
There are many completely right proposition in this post, but this I want to highlight in particular: first, remove all doctrine! this may sound quite excessively,but it is necessary for the future of the game
This system DOES NOT WORK, balancing or fixing it will take FOREVER, it's just too messy and considering Relic's ability and time it takes for them to balance or make any content, we can certainly say this system will never be brought into shape. Many different players have been saying that Doctrines will be a nemesis for this game since launch.
Just remove doctrines, add some as abilities to units by default, add other ones as armory upgrades and the rest can by unlocked by going T2>T3 or with purchasing some buildings, so you can make decisions in-game, not before match starts. That's an issue and needs acknowledgement. There's no need for developer to be so arrogant and grasp at it to the last. If something doesn't work, recycle it, it's simple and will do more good than bad.
@Wikkyd said:
It's a bad thing because every race has multiple squads available to them in the beginning of the game, but it's almost always better to just spam your HQ unit or in orks case go for shootas. That's boring and if it's able to beat a diverse army (most of the time) then something is wrong.
Players will not need to build more diverse units, they will need to build better units, right now the second sm can get lascannons in tier 2 those are thrown into the tactical mix, just like wraithguard for eldar, and nobz for orks. With the occasional vehicle thrown in because vehicles are hard to come by in tier 2.
Boring why though? The opening sequence is always boring in RTS. Why does building a Tac instead of a Sniper make the game boring? It just doesn't make sense from a systems perspective. The actions are the same. I think there comes a point when variance can occur and you can take a different build path. If this is true then what's the issue? What makes you think it should be viable to avoid the core units? Building 3 or 4 Tacs takes almost no time at all and from that point I think you can start to diverge and shape your army how you want because you have a line that can protect Devs, for example.
We aren't getting anywhere like this. Lets be more specific. In SM vs SM, you're telling me that it's never a good idea to mix a Heavy Bolter into your army? I find that hard to believe. The AoE seems quite valuable once armies start to turn into extra juicy blobs. I'm pretty sure there is a point when one player would do better to start mixing in these more specialized units. Why would you get Lascannons when your opponents army is mostly infantry? If player 1 builds Bolters and player 2 builds Las on equal economy with all tacs in their armies prior to that point who will win under ideal circumstances? Bolter guy right? I think it's a matter of how, when, and where one chooses to engage in battle. This varies depending on the map. Can you be more specific please. I'd like to view some replays and make a discussion around those possibly, but abstract conversation is fine too.
@Wikkyd said:
Very good post, I think the doctrines should be removed as well and put in as upgrades, obviously this will be hard to balance, but we might as well start trying to balance it instead of not doing anything.
I never really liked the doctrine system but I understand why it was put in, to add diverse play styles and mix up the game. All it really did was make the game very tedious and some doctrines are almost widely used by all players. They're more limiting instead of creating diversity in gameplay.
In both DoW's unit conservation mattered and you could be spammed but there we're many strategies in dealing with spams and rushes. There were many different build orders people could do, in DoW3 it just feels like the only way to win is to spam 1 or 2 units and hold points, the person with the larger army will typically win because there's extremely little one can do to be effective on the defense.
Also unit intimacy is so low compared to the other DoW's, the majority of units could be given upgrades purchasable on the squad, and throwing them at the enemy in an A+move matter was most of the time a bad idea. Here only tacticals have upgrades on their squad as far as I know.
It would be impossible to balance hundred docs as upgrades... Relic would literally have to start from the ground up and pick only a select few docs (5 or 6 docs each race) that they want in the game and have to make them impactful enough.
I think Relic should just remove all resource bonuses from Shield Generator, or make it twice as hard to kill. The risk reward for taking it favors aggressive play too much still.
500 Req, 50 power, and especially 1 EP, are huge boosts to your economy. Particularly, the 1 EP more is usually an extra 33% to your total, and can easily catapult you to your next elite very soon to keep up the aggression and seal out the game. This also dis-incentives players from forgoing early game elites for late game ones since they can take early game ones to, essentially, gather more EP's on the map.
I disagree that the problems lie in the economy. Overall, there are no too many units on the field at any given time in E1 typically. The main issue remains map design and the bonus resources from the shield gen. The small map designs make too easy to blob entire armies and A=move to the enemy base which is 10 steps. Maps should honestly be twice as big in 1v1 (the size of team game maps). Considering how much this game functions like starcraft, I'm surprised Relic didn't do this to begin with. Too often the dominant strategy is build a forward rax in the center, and constantly harass opponent's natural nodes/shield gen. This also simultaneously functions as defense since the maps are so small.
If maps were bigger, there would be more time, risk, and decision making involved in attacking your opponent's shield gen/natural points. An extra 30sec-1min could mean the difference between an Elite or an extra squad. Maybe it opens up your opponent to a trap or harassing his back points easier.
While OP is right in that aggressive play remains dominant, I don't think changes in Economy (unless they are DRASTIC,) will solve this problem. Relic needs to adopt significantly larger maps as well as remove all resources from the Shield gen (which are still quite feasible to kill early game, and maybe even increase building production outside of "base areas" by 100% to make super aggressive play harder to pull off.
You know, i am not nearly good enough in 1on1 to anticipate what larger 1on1 maps would REALLY do to the gameplay. But as someone who has been building levels since DoW1, i would really love to see what happens. And unlike proposals that require a patch by relic or a full blown mod to be tested, testing 1on1 matches on larger 1on1 maps is something that is possible right now. There are a number of larger 1on1 custom maps, AND you could always play some custom 1on1s on official 2on2/3on3 maps and see what happens. I would love to see some replays/streams/videos by top players doing exactly that.
Here is a great example of what I mean when I say no one understands the economy in this game. In Phase 1 income is too low to support the amount of infrastructure Bigamo chose to build. The 1 Improved Listening Post is fine, but the second one on that uncontested point in phase 1 was super greedy and unnecessary. Had that not been built Tacs could have held the line until Snipers and Jonah arrived. That position on Charon's is an ideal place for Bigamo to defend in prep for this overall strategy. If Auni didn't break that position then it would have been good for Bigamo going forward into Phase 2. Escalation yall. It's a thing. Love it or hate it it's not going anywhere so maybe we should try to understand it better and use it in the discussion.
@Martin said:
what do people in this thread think of my idea written in post #14 about keeping doctrines but require buying an upgrade before it can be used?
Then you can just remove all doctrines, make the important docs available as uprade ingame and a few avaiable instantly for example the buildable turret doctrine or the bonesinger shieldwall.
Like this we would have more "diversity" overall and this would also fix the problem that certain units being too strong in the early game by stacking free doctrines.
On top of this some small economy optimizations and the game/ fun / ballance will be great.
1 edit and my entire post is gone. @Gorb please fix this stupid "flood prevention"
TL:DR: Starcraft had this same small map problem on launch, but Blizz added larger maps and rushes became increasingly riskeir and harder to pull off. Larger maps will buff mobile races like Eldar and indirectly nerf races like Ork who can set up a base and get the best of both worlds via defense and offensive WAAAGHs!.
@Wikkyd said:
It's a bad thing because every race has multiple squads available to them in the beginning of the game, but it's almost always better to just spam your HQ unit or in orks case go for shootas. That's boring and if it's able to beat a diverse army (most of the time) then something is wrong.
Players will not need to build more diverse units, they will need to build better units, right now the second sm can get lascannons in tier 2 those are thrown into the tactical mix, just like wraithguard for eldar, and nobz for orks. With the occasional vehicle thrown in because vehicles are hard to come by in tier 2.
Boring why though? The opening sequence is always boring in RTS. Why does building a Tac instead of a Sniper make the game boring? It just doesn't make sense from a systems perspective. The actions are the same. I think there comes a point when variance can occur and you can take a different build path. If this is true then what's the issue? What makes you think it should be viable to avoid the core units? Building 3 or 4 Tacs takes almost no time at all and from that point I think you can start to diverge and shape your army how you want because you have a line that can protect Devs, for example.
We aren't getting anywhere like this. Lets be more specific. In SM vs SM, you're telling me that it's never a good idea to mix a Heavy Bolter into your army? I find that hard to believe. The AoE seems quite valuable once armies start to turn into extra juicy blobs. I'm pretty sure there is a point when one player would do better to start mixing in these more specialized units. Why would you get Lascannons when your opponents army is mostly infantry? If player 1 builds Bolters and player 2 builds Las on equal economy with all tacs in their armies prior to that point who will win under ideal circumstances? Bolter guy right? I think it's a matter of how, when, and where one chooses to engage in battle. This varies depending on the map. Can you be more specific please. I'd like to view some replays and make a discussion around those possibly, but abstract conversation is fine too.
What do you mean why, it's boring because you're just doing one strategy, to overwhelm the enemy with units and win the attrition war. The beginning of an RTS game is not always boring, it especially wasn't in the other DoW games that is for sure. There is a point where variance can occur, it's just up to the player to decide on that. I never said it should be viable to avoid core units, I said it's bad that spamming only 1 core unit is usually able to beat a diverse army, nothing wrong with Core units themselves.
No I am not saying it's never good to mix a heavy bolter into your army, I frequently use heavy bolters more than I do tacs, please don't take my words and slightly change them. For example I was in a 3v3 as Sm, it was 3sm for 3 eldar, One eldar spammed rangers, another spammed reapers, and another banshees, and it was stupidly effective. I managed to hold out with tacticals, devs and lascannons, a decently diverse army, until I got predator destructors, I managed to single handedly turn the game around by spamming destructors and lascannon devs (I had the charged shot on my lascannons as to stop enemy walkers from jumping away)
I literally broke through about 4 battles breaking through their lines with some help from my allies, one of our guys had dropped, I was also building more units in base to reinforce my army. My diverse army was able to hold the line, my slightly less diverse army won the game, the eldar's spam army worked really well early and mid game, and then they started using most of their roster and they started to fail, but this was after demolishing about battles.
I'm definitely no pro, but you should not be able to spam one unit and have that somehow win you most of the game.
In an ideal world, researches would not (limit the player). But it isn't an ideal world, researches would not always be balanced corrected. Just like Doctrines. The issue in picking some over others, the issue with them pidgeonholing builds instead of complementing them, is simply a balance issue. Not a design issue.
@DaDokisinX said:
1 edit and my entire post is gone. @Gorb please fix this stupid "flood prevention"
TL:DR: Starcraft had this same small map problem on launch, but Blizz added larger maps and rushes became increasingly riskeir and harder to pull off. Larger maps will buff mobile races like Eldar and indirectly nerf races like Ork who can set up a base and get the best of both worlds via defense and offensive WAAAGHs!.
Nobody should be on that anymore! Message @Kat_RE - I don't have the power to fix it unfortunately.
I like the doctrines so I wouldnt remove them but they could use rework.. instead of creating different builds for different players based on their playstyle you just go with biggest cheese .. maybe more slots or have them as clickable buffs or something .. Idk, they are nice innovative idea but they not finished properly
I fully understand that this game wants to have an identity and for that they use the doctrines, but I think they are generating many imbalances and some become severe.
I like some doctrines and they fulfill their function of personalization of the armies and I think that well balanced can continue to be maintained and in this way to increase the diverse variants of strategies.
On the other hand is the issue of SPAM, which I believe has a simpler solution than we believe and is already invented. The solution goes through the population limits, which should be quite small from the beginning and expandable with improvements, waagh Towers, construction of buildings or climbing of TIER.
Another thing to improve is the resource system. One could use the one that uses DOW 1, that is, that the listening points produce searches only and the power generators could be built in the base, which would lead to more defensive and technological strategies.
The towers should stop being a doctrine and be one more building, that would help to generate a sense of security in difficult moments.
Doctrines could work, maybe, if they weren't so impactful. It would make more sense to, for example, create 3-4 doctrines per race with single slot, which looks something like this (very rough sketch):
1-Firepower Doctrine: slight buffs in damage for all ranged units, tacs get frag grenades, predators get penetrating shot, devastators get x2 suppression, lascannons get focus shot etc, etc.
2-Assault Doctrine: all units get slight buff to hp, ranged troops get small bonus to melee damage, ASM gets Leap, Dreads get Charge, Devastators get shield doctrine by default, Tacs get Tireless by default, etc.
3-Fortress Doctrine: LPs gets Improved, Tip of The Spear and Blessing of Omnissaiah Doctrine, Rapid Droppods and Banner doctrines by default, all buildings get slight hp buff and so on.
Most important about all this is that all abilities and buffs should be seriously toned down not to create single meta-pick with maybe introduced downsides to each doctrine. But that still will be too messy, because it might very well create rock-paper-scissors situation, especially if enemy will see your choice pre-match.
Biggest problem of Doctrines system in any possible form is that it heavily dictates your playstyle and gives away very important info to your opponent for free, without need to scout you. Without doctrines, all players would be able to adapt and improvise in-game. Surely there would be better upgrades and enhancement than others (which will be eventually balanced), but it's still better, because you force your enemy to adapt on the fly and same applies to you. Right now Doctrines give too big edge and they should in no way compensate unit weaknesses as they do now.
I like the doctrines but they suffer from the same problem as card games. People will "net deck" to gain the best results. A lot of the time you see the same elite and doctrine choices because they are proven to work. It might take too long to balance doctrines in a way that there is no clear "winners". They are very impactful and they do funnel your playstyle and make decision making IN-GAME more restricted.
I also dislike that you have to pick/stack doctrines to make certain units remotely usefull or some doctrines are such no brainers that you are shooting yourself in the foot if you don't pick them.
@Bigamo said:
the +80 requisition PLUS LP price increase made the game the super spam it is now, i am talking about it since then.
Eco builds got nerfed to oblivion and spam got buffed, so the only way to play is spaming without any risk...
Reduce base requisition in 80.
Decrease LP cost back to 200.
reduce escalation 1 refund back to 25%
Put power to what it was before last nerf.
The power generator nerf worked inside the way the game plays since the +80 Req from base, the only problem is that since the +80 Req and LP nerf the game plays like ++heresy redacted++.
WOW you can't be serious! Can't we just chill. I think the main problem a lot of players are having is that they are being put into matches against players who are in a vastly different skill bracket. That and people are dead set on trying to execute strategies that are just not viable in 1v1 and will never be because that's just not how the game works ever. You're a high rank player @Bigamo with an above 50% win rate like that seems balanced to me. Also, the difference in skill between rank 25 and rank 1 is actually incredible. It's like a masters Starcraft player against a GM who competes in WCS playoffs. You're in kind of a tough bracket don't you think?
The refund thing is a strange issue. I like it because it keeps the game going so if my army gets hit hard initially I'm not just starring at the screen waiting for income to slowly trickle in so I can start playing the game again. Phase 1 was so slow before these patches in my opinion. LP's are too strong to be 200 req I thought we all agreed on this last patch or the one before. I don't know what else to say. You're on a -2 streak I see FeelsBadMan. I'm starting to decipher your logic here. Eco builds were nerf I guess. In phase 1 only though. Why not plan around phase 2? That's where the game starts to get good either way.
Realistically, defending 1 power gen until phase 2 against a spammer will put you on the same footing tech-wise because the spammer isn't building a bunch of power gens either or if they are they aren't a #TrueSpammer. The spammer is building squads to come destroy you and a second gen is basically another squad. Plus the spammer is likely spending more power on req gens to fuel the spam. 2 req and 1 power is all that's needed in phase 1 in my opinion. 2 webways and a soul shrine and I still start T2 at 10 minute mark off 1 power gen. To be fair, I'm not fighting the same opponents as you are @Bigamo I just got back into playing 1v1 and I haven't run into any of the dreaded Korean Tac spammers. Given my current rank (330 Eldar) I'm probably getting matched against lower skilled players even though my play has improved at lot. Here's a cheeky replay.
Yeah I don't know what to think about that exactly... I was talking to kist93, a Korean streamer, earlier and he was saying SM is in a bad stop right now. Partly because units other than Tacs are too expensive; in Phase 1 at least. ASM specifically I think. He mentioned SM not having melee while other races have melee from the start. Also, SM mobility is tied heavily to ASM so the issue is compounded that way now that I think about it more. I asked him if he thought Tireless was still strong and he said no it's weak but SM needs the mobility to keep up with other races.
@Gorb said:
I think people need to start considering Doctrines a part of your strategy. Of your build order.
Saying that they're "limiting" and that people only pick a few of them is the same argument that can be applied to researches, addons, whatever you want. That's a balance argument; not a design argument. They don't limit you just because they happen to be Doctrines. They limit you because a) that's the point (just like researches limit you) and b) because of their balance (which can be improved).
Opinion post.
^So much this.
People are too thick to understand that doctrines may enhance certain play styles and that's what they do. The only people who say the doctrines are limiting are the people who already are limited themselves, completely unable to see anything else then meta and terrified of tailoring something personal with the new doctrines.
Best example would be that one deffkopta player, who did amazing things with deffkoptas and their doctrines when everyone, relic included, considered them too weak to field.
I would not be surprised if it turned out the people who whine about doctrines most are exclusively 3v3 turtle heroes who want to have full pop and all upgrades before even marching up to the middle of the map with anything.
Sorry, if I'm repeating someone: I read the good part of the thread, but not the whole of it.
Fixing current "issues" may severly hinder new content production. While I will agree with 30-40% of what OP's wrote and with 50-60% of what I have read in this thread, I have to add: some of the people here are longing for effective "turtle" in this game which is yet to come. The whole infantry rampage on EP1 may be stopped with something like slow and cheap turret-like units or your classical "HMG" from other Relic's games (with some sort of weaknesses, of course) and many things over it,
Maybe, Relic will add some new units to exsisting factions\will create a whole new faction with mechanics like extensive unit-upgrade system\veterancy\anything that would exclussively suit you and would allow you to effectively play against others (I think, noone would argue on that Eladrs' micro and Orks's macro possibilities are on the whole different level as comparred with other races).
They need to "finalize" vanilla version before they can go with expansion. While I will agree - yes, there are issues, but they are way less significient in compassion with previous ones, so, maybe, we would give Relic "Passed" on this?
@Gorb said:
I think people need to start considering Doctrines a part of your strategy. Of your build order.
Saying that they're "limiting" and that people only pick a few of them is the same argument that can be applied to researches, addons, whatever you want. That's a balance argument; not a design argument. They don't limit you just because they happen to be Doctrines. They limit you because a) that's the point (just like researches limit you) and b) because of their balance (which can be improved).
Opinion post.
^So much this.
People are too thick to understand that doctrines may enhance certain play styles and that's what they do. The only people who say the doctrines are limiting are the people who already are limited themselves, completely unable to see anything else then meta and terrified of tailoring something personal with the new doctrines.
Best example would be that one deffkopta player, who did amazing things with deffkoptas and their doctrines when everyone, relic included, considered them too weak to field.
I would not be surprised if it turned out the people who whine about doctrines most are exclusively 3v3 turtle heroes who want to have full pop and all upgrades before even marching up to the middle of the map with anything.
I'm sorry, but no Katitof, if the majority of players in this thread alone don't like the doctrine system, they are not thick, you are refusing to acknowledge their points.
Doctrines can should enhance certain playstyles, but instead they limit them to play with one unit maybe two until tanks arrive. I've stated my points in previous comments, as have other people.
@Gorb said:
I think people need to start considering Doctrines a part of your strategy. Of your build order.
Saying that they're "limiting" and that people only pick a few of them is the same argument that can be applied to researches, addons, whatever you want. That's a balance argument; not a design argument. They don't limit you just because they happen to be Doctrines. They limit you because a) that's the point (just like researches limit you) and b) because of their balance (which can be improved).
Opinion post.
^So much this.
People are too thick to understand that doctrines may enhance certain play styles and that's what they do. The only people who say the doctrines are limiting are the people who already are limited themselves, completely unable to see anything else then meta and terrified of tailoring something personal with the new doctrines.
Best example would be that one deffkopta player, who did amazing things with deffkoptas and their doctrines when everyone, relic included, considered them too weak to field.
I would not be surprised if it turned out the people who whine about doctrines most are exclusively 3v3 turtle heroes who want to have full pop and all upgrades before even marching up to the middle of the map with anything.
I'm sorry, but no Katitof, if the majority of players in this thread alone don't like the doctrine system, they are not thick, you are refusing to acknowledge their points.
Doctrines can should enhance certain playstyles, but instead they limit them to play with one unit maybe two until tanks arrive. I've stated my points in previous comments, as have other people.
You are playing into katitoffs points though. You just described a situation where players stack doctrines and limit yourself.
@Gorb said:
I think people need to start considering Doctrines a part of your strategy. Of your build order.
Saying that they're "limiting" and that people only pick a few of them is the same argument that can be applied to researches, addons, whatever you want. That's a balance argument; not a design argument. They don't limit you just because they happen to be Doctrines. They limit you because a) that's the point (just like researches limit you) and b) because of their balance (which can be improved).
Opinion post.
^So much this.
People are too thick to understand that doctrines may enhance certain play styles and that's what they do. The only people who say the doctrines are limiting are the people who already are limited themselves, completely unable to see anything else then meta and terrified of tailoring something personal with the new doctrines.
Best example would be that one deffkopta player, who did amazing things with deffkoptas and their doctrines when everyone, relic included, considered them too weak to field.
I would not be surprised if it turned out the people who whine about doctrines most are exclusively 3v3 turtle heroes who want to have full pop and all upgrades before even marching up to the middle of the map with anything.
I'm sorry, but no Katitof, if the majority of players in this thread alone don't like the doctrine system, they are not thick, you are refusing to acknowledge their points.
Doctrines can should enhance certain playstyles, but instead they limit them to play with one unit maybe two until tanks arrive. I've stated my points in previous comments, as have other people.
You are playing into katitoffs points though. You just described a situation where players stack doctrines and limit yourself.
His point was that they enhance gameplay and do not limit, he also pointed out that a player used doctrines that weren't meta and won. How does my comment agree with his?
@Katitof said:
I would not be surprised if it turned out the people who whine about doctrines most are exclusively 3v3 turtle heroes who want to have full pop and all upgrades before even marching up to the middle of the map with anything.
Its all nice and dandy but I disagree with this part, its actually 3v3 where people mix doctrines, most of the time in 1v1 people go for the "lets win first 5 minutes" builds but in 3v3 it doesnt matter and people often go with interesting combinations ... I dont know when was the last time I saw someone using Whirlwind redeploy in 1v1 and people who run with the tac combo builds are kinda rare
but yea just because others do it doesnt mean you are forced to do it too and there are many OP doctrines people are ignoring
Menu
Comments
HARRYY
I think its pointless to discuss that doctrines should be removed, obv. they wont.
How did you like the "armory idea" , I think that would add some spice due to playing infantry with a different approach: less units can fight off stuff in sheer numbers, or give them a decent fight, so you can choose: massing or upgrading, bbboth should be more or less viable then. this way, spamming is not the only appproach to the game.
Also expanding upgrades to 4-4 would be something Id like to see to add some more mid / late-game depth according to the strategy..
Stoner
Finally BaByuByu posted. He's literally top 1 with all races with !regions unlocked! That's literally the only dude whose streams I really enjoy, he wins usually in 8-10 min mark, more so post last patch.
There are many completely right proposition in this post, but this I want to highlight in particular:
first, remove all doctrine! this may sound quite excessively,but it is necessary for the future of the game
This system DOES NOT WORK, balancing or fixing it will take FOREVER, it's just too messy and considering Relic's ability and time it takes for them to balance or make any content, we can certainly say this system will never be brought into shape. Many different players have been saying that Doctrines will be a nemesis for this game since launch.
Just remove doctrines, add some as abilities to units by default, add other ones as armory upgrades and the rest can by unlocked by going T2>T3 or with purchasing some buildings, so you can make decisions in-game, not before match starts. That's an issue and needs acknowledgement. There's no need for developer to be so arrogant and grasp at it to the last. If something doesn't work, recycle it, it's simple and will do more good than bad.
Spooky
Boring why though? The opening sequence is always boring in RTS. Why does building a Tac instead of a Sniper make the game boring? It just doesn't make sense from a systems perspective. The actions are the same. I think there comes a point when variance can occur and you can take a different build path. If this is true then what's the issue? What makes you think it should be viable to avoid the core units? Building 3 or 4 Tacs takes almost no time at all and from that point I think you can start to diverge and shape your army how you want because you have a line that can protect Devs, for example.
We aren't getting anywhere like this. Lets be more specific. In SM vs SM, you're telling me that it's never a good idea to mix a Heavy Bolter into your army? I find that hard to believe. The AoE seems quite valuable once armies start to turn into extra juicy blobs. I'm pretty sure there is a point when one player would do better to start mixing in these more specialized units. Why would you get Lascannons when your opponents army is mostly infantry? If player 1 builds Bolters and player 2 builds Las on equal economy with all tacs in their armies prior to that point who will win under ideal circumstances? Bolter guy right? I think it's a matter of how, when, and where one chooses to engage in battle. This varies depending on the map. Can you be more specific please. I'd like to view some replays and make a discussion around those possibly, but abstract conversation is fine too.
game replays
Martin
what do people in this thread think of my idea written in post #14 about keeping doctrines but require buying an upgrade before it can be used?
CANNED_F3TUS
It would be impossible to balance hundred docs as upgrades... Relic would literally have to start from the ground up and pick only a select few docs (5 or 6 docs each race) that they want in the game and have to make them impactful enough.
DaDokisinX
I think Relic should just remove all resource bonuses from Shield Generator, or make it twice as hard to kill. The risk reward for taking it favors aggressive play too much still.
500 Req, 50 power, and especially 1 EP, are huge boosts to your economy. Particularly, the 1 EP more is usually an extra 33% to your total, and can easily catapult you to your next elite very soon to keep up the aggression and seal out the game. This also dis-incentives players from forgoing early game elites for late game ones since they can take early game ones to, essentially, gather more EP's on the map.
I disagree that the problems lie in the economy. Overall, there are no too many units on the field at any given time in E1 typically. The main issue remains map design and the bonus resources from the shield gen. The small map designs make too easy to blob entire armies and A=move to the enemy base which is 10 steps. Maps should honestly be twice as big in 1v1 (the size of team game maps). Considering how much this game functions like starcraft, I'm surprised Relic didn't do this to begin with. Too often the dominant strategy is build a forward rax in the center, and constantly harass opponent's natural nodes/shield gen. This also simultaneously functions as defense since the maps are so small.
If maps were bigger, there would be more time, risk, and decision making involved in attacking your opponent's shield gen/natural points. An extra 30sec-1min could mean the difference between an Elite or an extra squad. Maybe it opens up your opponent to a trap or harassing his back points easier.
While OP is right in that aggressive play remains dominant, I don't think changes in Economy (unless they are DRASTIC,) will solve this problem. Relic needs to adopt significantly larger maps as well as remove all resources from the Shield gen (which are still quite feasible to kill early game, and maybe even increase building production outside of "base areas" by 100% to make super aggressive play harder to pull off.
Wargrim
You know, i am not nearly good enough in 1on1 to anticipate what larger 1on1 maps would REALLY do to the gameplay. But as someone who has been building levels since DoW1, i would really love to see what happens. And unlike proposals that require a patch by relic or a full blown mod to be tested, testing 1on1 matches on larger 1on1 maps is something that is possible right now. There are a number of larger 1on1 custom maps, AND you could always play some custom 1on1s on official 2on2/3on3 maps and see what happens. I would love to see some replays/streams/videos by top players doing exactly that.
Spooky
Bigamo vs Auni
Here is a great example of what I mean when I say no one understands the economy in this game. In Phase 1 income is too low to support the amount of infrastructure Bigamo chose to build. The 1 Improved Listening Post is fine, but the second one on that uncontested point in phase 1 was super greedy and unnecessary. Had that not been built Tacs could have held the line until Snipers and Jonah arrived. That position on Charon's is an ideal place for Bigamo to defend in prep for this overall strategy. If Auni didn't break that position then it would have been good for Bigamo going forward into Phase 2. Escalation yall. It's a thing. Love it or hate it it's not going anywhere so maybe we should try to understand it better and use it in the discussion.
S4ngetsu
Then you can just remove all doctrines, make the important docs available as uprade ingame and a few avaiable instantly for example the buildable turret doctrine or the bonesinger shieldwall.
Like this we would have more "diversity" overall and this would also fix the problem that certain units being too strong in the early game by stacking free doctrines.
On top of this some small economy optimizations and the game/ fun / ballance will be great.
DaDokisinX
1 edit and my entire post is gone. @Gorb please fix this stupid "flood prevention"
TL:DR: Starcraft had this same small map problem on launch, but Blizz added larger maps and rushes became increasingly riskeir and harder to pull off. Larger maps will buff mobile races like Eldar and indirectly nerf races like Ork who can set up a base and get the best of both worlds via defense and offensive WAAAGHs!.
Spooky
Choko_Bambus vs a Korean player
Tac spam player loses to diverse Eldar army.
Wikkyd
What do you mean why, it's boring because you're just doing one strategy, to overwhelm the enemy with units and win the attrition war. The beginning of an RTS game is not always boring, it especially wasn't in the other DoW games that is for sure. There is a point where variance can occur, it's just up to the player to decide on that. I never said it should be viable to avoid core units, I said it's bad that spamming only 1 core unit is usually able to beat a diverse army, nothing wrong with Core units themselves.
No I am not saying it's never good to mix a heavy bolter into your army, I frequently use heavy bolters more than I do tacs, please don't take my words and slightly change them. For example I was in a 3v3 as Sm, it was 3sm for 3 eldar, One eldar spammed rangers, another spammed reapers, and another banshees, and it was stupidly effective. I managed to hold out with tacticals, devs and lascannons, a decently diverse army, until I got predator destructors, I managed to single handedly turn the game around by spamming destructors and lascannon devs (I had the charged shot on my lascannons as to stop enemy walkers from jumping away)
I literally broke through about 4 battles breaking through their lines with some help from my allies, one of our guys had dropped, I was also building more units in base to reinforce my army. My diverse army was able to hold the line, my slightly less diverse army won the game, the eldar's spam army worked really well early and mid game, and then they started using most of their roster and they started to fail, but this was after demolishing about battles.
I'm definitely no pro, but you should not be able to spam one unit and have that somehow win you most of the game.
Gorb
@Wikkyd
To go back to your earlier post, sorry.
In an ideal world, researches would not (limit the player). But it isn't an ideal world, researches would not always be balanced corrected. Just like Doctrines. The issue in picking some over others, the issue with them pidgeonholing builds instead of complementing them, is simply a balance issue. Not a design issue.
Nobody should be on that anymore! Message @Kat_RE - I don't have the power to fix it unfortunately.
tritol
I like the doctrines so I wouldnt remove them but they could use rework.. instead of creating different builds for different players based on their playstyle you just go with biggest cheese .. maybe more slots or have them as clickable buffs or something .. Idk, they are nice innovative idea but they not finished properly
PaztheLobster
It's a nice idea to make doctrines researchable. Or even be able to choose 3 in-game. Make it like the commander choices for CoH?
salvasc
I fully understand that this game wants to have an identity and for that they use the doctrines, but I think they are generating many imbalances and some become severe.
I like some doctrines and they fulfill their function of personalization of the armies and I think that well balanced can continue to be maintained and in this way to increase the diverse variants of strategies.
On the other hand is the issue of SPAM, which I believe has a simpler solution than we believe and is already invented. The solution goes through the population limits, which should be quite small from the beginning and expandable with improvements, waagh Towers, construction of buildings or climbing of TIER.
Another thing to improve is the resource system. One could use the one that uses DOW 1, that is, that the listening points produce searches only and the power generators could be built in the base, which would lead to more defensive and technological strategies.
The towers should stop being a doctrine and be one more building, that would help to generate a sense of security in difficult moments.
Thanks for reading and thanks google translator.
Stoner
Doctrines could work, maybe, if they weren't so impactful. It would make more sense to, for example, create 3-4 doctrines per race with single slot, which looks something like this (very rough sketch):
1-Firepower Doctrine: slight buffs in damage for all ranged units, tacs get frag grenades, predators get penetrating shot, devastators get x2 suppression, lascannons get focus shot etc, etc.
2-Assault Doctrine: all units get slight buff to hp, ranged troops get small bonus to melee damage, ASM gets Leap, Dreads get Charge, Devastators get shield doctrine by default, Tacs get Tireless by default, etc.
3-Fortress Doctrine: LPs gets Improved, Tip of The Spear and Blessing of Omnissaiah Doctrine, Rapid Droppods and Banner doctrines by default, all buildings get slight hp buff and so on.
Most important about all this is that all abilities and buffs should be seriously toned down not to create single meta-pick with maybe introduced downsides to each doctrine. But that still will be too messy, because it might very well create rock-paper-scissors situation, especially if enemy will see your choice pre-match.
Biggest problem of Doctrines system in any possible form is that it heavily dictates your playstyle and gives away very important info to your opponent for free, without need to scout you. Without doctrines, all players would be able to adapt and improvise in-game. Surely there would be better upgrades and enhancement than others (which will be eventually balanced), but it's still better, because you force your enemy to adapt on the fly and same applies to you. Right now Doctrines give too big edge and they should in no way compensate unit weaknesses as they do now.
charlando
If allow all doctrines to be researched as upgrades, could we keep the option to take them as a doctrine so one can skip the upgrade?
Guziol
I like the doctrines but they suffer from the same problem as card games. People will "net deck" to gain the best results. A lot of the time you see the same elite and doctrine choices because they are proven to work. It might take too long to balance doctrines in a way that there is no clear "winners". They are very impactful and they do funnel your playstyle and make decision making IN-GAME more restricted.
I also dislike that you have to pick/stack doctrines to make certain units remotely usefull or some doctrines are such no brainers that you are shooting yourself in the foot if you don't pick them.
Spooky
WOW you can't be serious! Can't we just chill. I think the main problem a lot of players are having is that they are being put into matches against players who are in a vastly different skill bracket. That and people are dead set on trying to execute strategies that are just not viable in 1v1 and will never be because that's just not how the game works ever. You're a high rank player @Bigamo with an above 50% win rate like that seems balanced to me. Also, the difference in skill between rank 25 and rank 1 is actually incredible. It's like a masters Starcraft player against a GM who competes in WCS playoffs. You're in kind of a tough bracket don't you think?
The refund thing is a strange issue. I like it because it keeps the game going so if my army gets hit hard initially I'm not just starring at the screen waiting for income to slowly trickle in so I can start playing the game again. Phase 1 was so slow before these patches in my opinion. LP's are too strong to be 200 req I thought we all agreed on this last patch or the one before. I don't know what else to say. You're on a -2 streak I see FeelsBadMan. I'm starting to decipher your logic here. Eco builds were nerf I guess. In phase 1 only though. Why not plan around phase 2? That's where the game starts to get good either way.
Realistically, defending 1 power gen until phase 2 against a spammer will put you on the same footing tech-wise because the spammer isn't building a bunch of power gens either or if they are they aren't a #TrueSpammer. The spammer is building squads to come destroy you and a second gen is basically another squad. Plus the spammer is likely spending more power on req gens to fuel the spam. 2 req and 1 power is all that's needed in phase 1 in my opinion. 2 webways and a soul shrine and I still start T2 at 10 minute mark off 1 power gen. To be fair, I'm not fighting the same opponents as you are @Bigamo I just got back into playing 1v1 and I haven't run into any of the dreaded Korean Tac spammers. Given my current rank (330 Eldar) I'm probably getting matched against lower skilled players even though my play has improved at lot. Here's a cheeky replay.
I defeated a spam.. or maybe I'm the spammer? I mean I built a lot of squads, but I built a listening post too. I'm just trying to understand the problem, honestly. Is it my Eldar privilege?
Spooky
Yeah I don't know what to think about that exactly... I was talking to kist93, a Korean streamer, earlier and he was saying SM is in a bad stop right now. Partly because units other than Tacs are too expensive; in Phase 1 at least. ASM specifically I think. He mentioned SM not having melee while other races have melee from the start. Also, SM mobility is tied heavily to ASM so the issue is compounded that way now that I think about it more. I asked him if he thought Tireless was still strong and he said no it's weak but SM needs the mobility to keep up with other races.
Katitof
^So much this.
People are too thick to understand that doctrines may enhance certain play styles and that's what they do. The only people who say the doctrines are limiting are the people who already are limited themselves, completely unable to see anything else then meta and terrified of tailoring something personal with the new doctrines.
Best example would be that one deffkopta player, who did amazing things with deffkoptas and their doctrines when everyone, relic included, considered them too weak to field.
I would not be surprised if it turned out the people who whine about doctrines most are exclusively 3v3 turtle heroes who want to have full pop and all upgrades before even marching up to the middle of the map with anything.
CANNED_F3TUS
That never will happen.
Ololo111
Sorry, if I'm repeating someone: I read the good part of the thread, but not the whole of it.
Fixing current "issues" may severly hinder new content production. While I will agree with 30-40% of what OP's wrote and with 50-60% of what I have read in this thread, I have to add: some of the people here are longing for effective "turtle" in this game which is yet to come. The whole infantry rampage on EP1 may be stopped with something like slow and cheap turret-like units or your classical "HMG" from other Relic's games (with some sort of weaknesses, of course) and many things over it,
Maybe, Relic will add some new units to exsisting factions\will create a whole new faction with mechanics like extensive unit-upgrade system\veterancy\anything that would exclussively suit you and would allow you to effectively play against others (I think, noone would argue on that Eladrs' micro and Orks's macro possibilities are on the whole different level as comparred with other races).
They need to "finalize" vanilla version before they can go with expansion. While I will agree - yes, there are issues, but they are way less significient in compassion with previous ones, so, maybe, we would give Relic "Passed" on this?
Wikkyd
I'm sorry, but no Katitof, if the majority of players in this thread alone don't like the doctrine system, they are not thick, you are refusing to acknowledge their points.
Doctrines can should enhance certain playstyles, but instead they limit them to play with one unit maybe two until tanks arrive. I've stated my points in previous comments, as have other people.
CANNED_F3TUS
You are playing into katitoffs points though. You just described a situation where players stack doctrines and limit yourself.
Wikkyd
His point was that they enhance gameplay and do not limit, he also pointed out that a player used doctrines that weren't meta and won. How does my comment agree with his?
tritol
Its all nice and dandy but I disagree with this part, its actually 3v3 where people mix doctrines, most of the time in 1v1 people go for the "lets win first 5 minutes" builds but in 3v3 it doesnt matter and people often go with interesting combinations ... I dont know when was the last time I saw someone using Whirlwind redeploy in 1v1 and people who run with the tac combo builds are kinda rare
but yea just because others do it doesnt mean you are forced to do it too and there are many OP doctrines people are ignoring