I'm done until rangers / snipers are nerfed

Darkstirling

That's it, I'm finished with dow3 for a bit. I was willing to tolerate the long queue times when I enjoyed the game, but I am getting absolutely zero enjoyment when every 5-10minute wait for a game is proceeded by some asshat SM or Eldar (but usually Eldar) spamming snipers. 3v3 has been completely ruined by it, and I refuse to spam them back to counter it, because it is clearly overpowered, and not at all thematic of the type of eldar army that I want to field. This is by a large margin the worst state the game has ever been in, all because of two units.

Just wanted to vent, but I hope something changes soon, this deserved an emergency patch imo, but I hope something changes in the February update.

Amoc

There haven't even really been balance tweaks for awhile. I think the changes coming in February are going to be big, and by changes I mean actual changes rather than just balance tweaks or additional content.

Jazz_Sandwich

@Amoc said:
There haven't even really been balance tweaks for awhile. I think the changes coming in February are going to be big, and by changes I mean actual changes rather than just balance tweaks or additional content.

My understanding of the situation based on Ben's posts is that February is going to be a content patch, but fundamental changes are being worked on and we will be kept in the loop when a workable build is made, which will not necessarily be in February.

@r_benb said:
Where content additions are being planned, we'll tease and share specifics more closely to their release. But, we're anticipating our next content drop will be in February.

Where more complicated changes are concerned, being able to loop players in to test, share feedback, and help us take it over the finish line is top of mind for us. That effort would make it easier for us to show exactly what we're talking about, how it feels to play, and the impact it has on the game, compared to say, 'here's what we're thinking' and leaving it open to interpretation.

For example, we have an idea in the pipeline that we're holding onto until we know 100% that we can get it to a state where we can work together on it. We sure hope it happens, but we also know that it might not -- we still have some obstacles to overcome. But, if all goes well, we know it'll take working with you in the new year to get it right.

Edits in bold to emphasise the parts of interest. I'm reading this as a 'TBA' for the design changes.

As for the main posts of DarkStirling's, my response is that it really has been the unfortunate case of this game where every couple of months we get a cul de sac in the meta until a patch shakes it up and makes the game enjoyable again. Assault leap ASM spam, suicide bomb trukk spam, tac spam, sniper spam.... I guess one possible solution would be to play in the community 'game nights' that are now starting, and trust people to abide by gentleman's agreements made prior to a game. Very little that can be done for ranked atm of course.

None of us know what proportion of the dev team are fixated on design/content changes but I can only surmise that the staff involved with the design changes/testing are also (or at least in part comprise of) the balance team, which would explain the absence of a balance pass in November and December (and likely January).

Amoc

Yeah you're probably right. I don't think folks should expect new races or an expansion announcement in February though. If there's going to a more comprehensive set of changes, I don't think they're going to want to balance a new race amidst that.

Martin

Endless war update included some balance changes as well, so I think it is likely that Feb update will also.

S4ngetsu

As long as they announce a new race in february and tell about their future plans im happy.
They don't have to rush a race. New maps and meta- / ballance changes are appreciated as well.

Draconix

@S4ngetsu said:
As long as they announce a new race in february and tell about their future plans im happy.
They don't have to rush a race. New maps and meta- / ballance changes are appreciated as well.

Not sure if in February, but if they will have new races in plans then I'm willing to wait longer. Still I don't expect a new race soon, but to be honest would be nice if they have it still in plans.

vindicarex

Imo, Ranger spam isn't that OP.

It's one of those builds that are Easy to Execute - Hard to Counter.

For example, I do not have much problem dealing with ranger spam, but that's because I can execute the appropriate counters quickly where your average player will fall into the trap of "try to fight it normally."

Rangers/Snipers have been nerfed several times since the beta - I would be hesitant to keep nerfing Rangers/Snipers any more for fear they would in fact become useless.

Katitof

@vindicarex said:
Imo, Ranger spam isn't that OP.

It's one of those builds that are Easy to Execute - Hard to Counter.

For example, I do not have much problem dealing with ranger spam, but that's because I can execute the appropriate counters quickly where your average player will fall into the trap of "try to fight it normally."

Rangers/Snipers have been nerfed several times since the beta - I would be hesitant to keep nerfing Rangers/Snipers any more for fear they would in fact become useless.

+1 to that.

Sorry, but competitive gaming doesn't really cater well to the "everyone is a winner" millenial philosophy, there comes a point where units can't get nerfed any more and you just have to git gud.

Just because YOU hate to fight against something or YOU can't counter it isn't an indicator that the particular thing in question is imbalanced. Sometimes(way more often then you'd wanted to admit) its not unit that is overpowered, but YOU who are underpowered.

vindicarex

DadokisinX and I fought against it against a couple good teams using it @Bigamo

And their buff last patch was in correspondence to the line-unit HP - they are in fact still slightly weaker than they were before the "buff" iirc

To nerf rangers, you either want to give them value in an area that isn't "do damage" (i.e. support) while bringing down their DPS OR nerf/change the aspect of the (meta)game that makes them so powerful (say, for example, reducing HQ income or removing reward on shield generator - meaning it can stall the rangers free-of-cost)

S4ngetsu

Ranger spam itself is not op, especially not in 1v1, but here comes VIGOR, RANGER FOCUS and Ronahn.
So if you have this combo and about 4 rangers, -> good micro u never lose them, you deal permanently insane damage for the rest of the game.
So yeah i think for 3v3 they are a little bit broken, just the doctrines tho.

CANNED_F3TUS

@S4ngetsu said:
Ranger spam itself is not op, especially not in 1v1, but here comes VIGOR, RANGER FOCUS and Ronahn.
So if you have this combo and about 4 rangers, -> good micro u never lose them, you deal permanently insane damage for the rest of the game.
So yeah i think for 3v3 they are a little bit broken, just the doctrines tho.

Thats the real struggle with RTS games. Cant really balance for 3 v 3

Katitof

@CANNED_F3TUS said:

@S4ngetsu said:
Ranger spam itself is not op, especially not in 1v1, but here comes VIGOR, RANGER FOCUS and Ronahn.
So if you have this combo and about 4 rangers, -> good micro u never lose them, you deal permanently insane damage for the rest of the game.
So yeah i think for 3v3 they are a little bit broken, just the doctrines tho.

Thats the real struggle with RTS games. Cant really balance for 3 v 3

This.

Best thing to balance 3s is to limit either pop cap or economy.
Economy was limited in DoW2 and it had almost no effect at all, you still had more resources then in 2s and 1s, we have same thing in DoW3.

It will always be impossible to balance larger team games without artificial limitations over 1s and 2s as on top of spam being incomparably more viable you also have synergies and spam force multipliers(for DoW3 its doctrines, but without them there still would be issues so removing them will fix nothing and take away important feature).

Inb4 someone mentions starcraft 2 team games - no.

ParanoidKami

My ASM spam was countered by Tacs with Dev support so I sniper spam. Most people don't counter it correctly or at all so I've been having a lot of success.

vindicarex

@ParanoidKami said:
My ASM spam was countered by Tacs with Dev support so I sniper spam. Most people don't counter it correctly or at all so I've been having a lot of success.

Imo,, it's very similar to DoW1 and DoW2 sniper spam. Both pretty powerful in those games.

Spirit

Sniper and ranger spam is surely powerful but its nothing that cannot be countered or dealt with. As sm you can rush terminators and set up traps, you need to play different and go for a distractive kinda playstyle and not go for open fights. You can use bolter scope too or the librarian with the magic wall, i prefer terminators tho. Mostly ranger spammer are not able to accomplish a whole lot cause they just build rrangers, they cannot hit the objecitives properly.

As eldar you can falcon fast tech or do other things like quickstrike ambush attacks. Orks can go for trucks and later on copters and do some combos with their elites. Snipers and rangers is nothing that makes a game a auto win its just annoying to playing against but thats the mechanics of snipers in any game also in shooters.

I for one am not losing to this. Maybe i can save some future replays to show how i deal with it.

Achernar

Yeah, fast tech to Falcon, it will cost you a mere 585 power. One unit should not counter the entire T1, it's just a poor game design/balance, especially in 2v2 and 3v3 where the enemy's ally will help with delaying your "fast" tech.

Katitof

@Achernar said:
Yeah, fast tech to Falcon, it will cost you a mere 585 power. One unit should not counter the entire T1, it's just a poor game design/balance, especially in 2v2 and 3v3 where the ally will help with delaying your "fast" tech.

I can assure you that eldar would use much more variety if DAs and Banshees were actually cost effective.

DAs are only 20% cheaper then Tacts but have 60% EHP less, that makes them inefficient in combat, because you're always at disadvantage.
Same applies to banshees vs ASM, but in that case we additionally have mobility issue, with ASMs having an actual gap closer that does not rely on presence doctrine and isn't countered by 50 req unit.

Reapers themselves are solid, but you're not going to go far with just them as due to lack of suppression you can simply bum rush them, throw a nade and bind them in melee unless you have a critical mass, in which case elites will counter them instead.

That leaves rangers as the only T1 unit that is capable of inflicting more bleed then they themselves receive.

Draconix

@Bigamo said:
the worst part is people defending this game... This game is almost as fun as having cancer.

Maybe because that these people really like this game? And they want to point their opinions or facts about it?

Achernar

@Bigamo said:
the worst part is people defending this game... This game is almost as fun as having cancer.

I like the game, 2v2 and 3v3 is where the fun is at IMO. Just because it has some balancing problems doesn't mean it's bad, even Blizzard games suffer from those.

jonoliveira12

Eldar really need Swooping Hawks, as counter to Sniper/Rangers.

Stoner

Something big that we have not a slightest clue about, and most importantly Relic don't know themselves if that will even work...

Hibou

So, there we can see some dow 3 "pros" said sniper isn't op. Of course, it isn't op when you are facing a bad player.
Fast tech to t2 ? np, you will be killed before you reached t2 due to shitty economy

Dullahan

@Katitof said:

DAs are only 20% cheaper then Tacts but have 60% EHP less, that makes them inefficient in combat, because you're always at disadvantage.

To be fair here on release Tac's were massively outclassed in damage by their squishier counterparts at first. Tac damage was buffed with little consideration to anything else except making Tac's compete with ASM spam. imo ASM were the unit that needed the nerf more than anything.

Dire Avengers are also cheaper on requisition too which is another factor.

Katitof

@Dullahan said:

@Katitof said:

DAs are only 20% cheaper then Tacts but have 60% EHP less, that makes them inefficient in combat, because you're always at disadvantage.

To be fair here on release Tac's were massively outclassed in damage by their squishier counterparts at first. Tac damage was buffed with little consideration to anything else except making Tac's compete with ASM spam. imo ASM were the unit that needed the nerf more than anything.

Dire Avengers are also cheaper on requisition too which is another factor.

Well, we don't have release balance right now, do we?
Sorry, but it couldn't matter less what happened on previous balance patches, because they no longer exist and hold any argument value.

And I've mentioned that DAs are cheaper, but its not a problem.
Problem is, tacts are 20% more expensive and 60% more durable with exact same DPS.
If you could very rapidly disengage and regen shields, it would be somewhat OK, but you can't, can't in early game and DAs become obsolete in late game, contrary to tacts who scale well thanks to their initial huge hp poll.

Dullahan

@Katitof said:

@Dullahan said:

@Katitof said:

DAs are only 20% cheaper then Tacts but have 60% EHP less, that makes them inefficient in combat, because you're always at disadvantage.

To be fair here on release Tac's were massively outclassed in damage by their squishier counterparts at first. Tac damage was buffed with little consideration to anything else except making Tac's compete with ASM spam. imo ASM were the unit that needed the nerf more than anything.

Dire Avengers are also cheaper on requisition too which is another factor.

Well, we don't have release balance right now, do we?
Sorry, but it couldn't matter less what happened on previous balance patches, because they no longer exist and hold any argument value.

And I've mentioned that DAs are cheaper, but its not a problem.
Problem is, tacts are 20% more expensive and 60% more durable with exact same DPS.
If you could very rapidly disengage and regen shields, it would be somewhat OK, but you can't, can't in early game and DAs become obsolete in late game, contrary to tacts who scale well thanks to their initial huge hp poll.

My point is that Tac's were balanced in relation to Dire Avengers at one point, but people whined and it got changed. I recall saying at the time that giving Tac's the same DPS as Dire Avengers was a stupid idea because of the exact argument you're making now: they have way more hitpoints. Tacs were released in a balanced state in relation to Dire Avengers and Shootas.

I would fix it by reducing the damage again, personally. Otherwise we're going to start buffing damage on Dire Avengers and start leading to power creep.

Draconix

@Dullahan said:

@Katitof said:

@Dullahan said:

@Katitof said:

DAs are only 20% cheaper then Tacts but have 60% EHP less, that makes them inefficient in combat, because you're always at disadvantage.

To be fair here on release Tac's were massively outclassed in damage by their squishier counterparts at first. Tac damage was buffed with little consideration to anything else except making Tac's compete with ASM spam. imo ASM were the unit that needed the nerf more than anything.

Dire Avengers are also cheaper on requisition too which is another factor.

Well, we don't have release balance right now, do we?
Sorry, but it couldn't matter less what happened on previous balance patches, because they no longer exist and hold any argument value.

And I've mentioned that DAs are cheaper, but its not a problem.
Problem is, tacts are 20% more expensive and 60% more durable with exact same DPS.
If you could very rapidly disengage and regen shields, it would be somewhat OK, but you can't, can't in early game and DAs become obsolete in late game, contrary to tacts who scale well thanks to their initial huge hp poll.

My point is that Tac's were balanced in relation to Dire Avengers at one point, but people whined and it got changed. I recall saying at the time that giving Tac's the same DPS as Dire Avengers was a stupid idea because of the exact argument you're making now: they have way more hitpoints. Tacs were released in a balanced state in relation to Dire Avengers and Shootas.

I would fix it by reducing the damage again, personally. Otherwise we're going to start buffing damage on Dire Avengers and start leading to power creep.

Hmmm. Interesting suggestion.

Personally I prefered to buff Dire Avenger's damage, but yours isn't a bad idea either. But question is, does nerfing Tactical's damage won't cause that SM players start spam Assaults again just like was at release? Not against yours idea, but I just giving a possibility of change.