@2meBrothers said:
A simple counter tbh would be to allow only 1 Jump. And I feel some extra damage and strength to the turrets and power cores would be a good buff.
yeah 2 jumps plus the leap doctrine is absolutely ridiculous. plus power swords in t1. could they have stacked a single unit type any more?
@2meBrothers said:
A simple counter tbh would be to allow only 1 Jump. And I feel some extra damage and strength to the turrets and power cores would be a good buff.
That's nerfing ASM into the ground OR making the doctrine mandatory to use them at all. ASM need one jump to go in and one to get out, otherwise they're way too expensive. A better option would be for assault leap and regular jump to share charges. So you still have 2, but only one assault leap. Another possible option would be to put a minimum range to their jump so they cannot use both jumps as offense against the same enemy squad. Or nerf the assault leap dmg a bit, as it still provides extra mobility so even with less dmg it would still be useful.
IMHO all units in the game should feel great. Lets not nerf everything into the ground, please. Just nerfing all the squad wipes abilities should be enough IMO.
@2meBrothers said:
A simple counter tbh would be to allow only 1 Jump. And I feel some extra damage and strength to the turrets and power cores would be a good buff.
yeah 2 jumps plus the leap doctrine is absolutely ridiculous. plus power swords in t1. could they have stacked a single unit type any more?
Guardians and their gazillion doctrines say hi Also, banshees with 2x doctrines (blind charge + invulnerable charge) + Hunt from scorpions send their regards as well.
@2meBrothers said:
A simple counter tbh would be to allow only 1 Jump. And I feel some extra damage and strength to the turrets and power cores would be a good buff.
yeah 2 jumps plus the leap doctrine is absolutely ridiculous. plus power swords in t1. could they have stacked a single unit type any more?
Guardians and their gazillion doctrines say hi Also, banshees with 2x doctrines (blind charge + invulnerable charge) + Hunt from scorpions send their regards as well.
huh? so 5 doctrines? ASM's require ONE to be over the top.
If anything, assault leap should just slow everything it passes over for a few seconds. There's no real reason why it should have to do burst damage.
@PrimaGoosa said:
If anything, assault leap should just slow everything it passes over for a few seconds. There's no real reason why it should have to do burst damage.
No real reason?
There's no real reason for any doctrine except for the reasons the developers had in the first place, so I don't understand your point.
Assault Leap should not be altered to be just another form of mobility, Assault Marines already have that. The leap should not be changed to slow down enemies, Banshees have that ability already and it doesn't really fit with the mechanic of the jump as slowing a unit doesn't help if you're passing over it. It now becomes and ability that you use with 1 squad while another squad is chasing down a unit. You can already simply leap passed a unit and cut them off, so the slowing is a little redundant.
In my opinion, it doesn't need to deal damage, but that's the primary design choice. Yes, it can be used to extra mobility, but it was designed to deal damage. If it was designed for mobility it wouldn't deal damage. I think that it needs to do a little more base damage and reduced AOE damage. It does too much damage against large blobs of enemies, it really does. It's a little OP in regards to being used against mobs of enemies. It should do more damage against mobs and it shouldn't be used against individual enemies, but it should have its damage less polarized. It should be less OP against large blobs and less UP against vehicles/heroes.
I think that if the power level of the ASM is something like 10 against mobs and 1 against characters it should be made to like 7 against mobs and 3 against characters. Then, if it is still doing too much damage against Orks and Dire Avengers, it should be reduced in damage.
The Power Sword deserves a place in T2 and to otherwise be left untouched.
The Assault Marines themselves don't need to be messed with. Their jumps need to stay at 2 charges and their doctrine should not be made in such a way that it compromises their default Jump ability. Doctrines do not replace this for that, they simply add this to that.
Additionally, I think that Assault Marines should have another doctrine. Nearly every unit in this game has 2 doctrines at least, except for the Assault Marines who only have 1.
huh? so 5 doctrines? ASM's require ONE to be over the top.
Nope. ASM require:
-Cheap power swords in T1
-Tacts underperforming
-Doctrine
Is the combination of all 3 above that leads to ASM spam. Tweak some/all of the above and the problem is gone without nerfing the unit into the ground.
Haha, I posted that super quick while on a work call, so I can see where it needs explanation.
Nothing really needs to be anything, but I personally think adding damage via doctrine passives/actives is a slippery slope that is more trouble than it's worth. That's just my hot take. The slow would occur as you pass over it, then you land and run back in to fight. Basically it just helps you chase, and it serves as a supporting mechanic where you can have other units shooting as the unit tries to retreat.
Even if damage is its primary design choice, I'm saying I think that is a bad primary design choice. The primary purpose for Doctrines to help keep them feeling flavorful/balanced and not mandatory should be, imo, utility. Shields on Landspeeders is a good example. You take a harassing unit, put a shield on it, and now it can harass more effectively. Great. Or Pin for Devastators. Now you lock down units trying to move around with your heavy bolters, and they have to leap out or otherwise get peeled to escape. Great. Scout grenades adding a blind/silence after the stun duration to help lock units down better. Great. Reducing the cooldown of drop pods to have more drop pod centric play. Great. Reducing the cooldown of the banner for more banner plays. Great.
All of those take the direction of the style and move it along the singular path that helps that style out, but in a way that provides utility over damage. There are plenty of ways to nuke units in this game, especially with Elites, that I don't see the reason for adding even more. Especially when the method for nuking also serves as mobility. For a mobile/chasing/harassing unit, isn't additional mobility/chase potential enough? Does it have to destroy models as well?
I personally don't think so, but if they try to keep their damage increase doctrines, it isn't like I'm going to stop playing. I just think many of the doctrines are cool ways to enhance a style of play, and I think that's a fun, flavorful direction without endangering the unit balance by trying to ensure the doctrines don't make the unit do too much damage, for example. If they tweak the ASM unit in response to the strength of the doctrine, I'm going to be hugely disappointed, because it just cements the doctrine deeper into necessity when trying to use ASMs.
So really, the TL;DR is that I think units should have roles, and right now the ASMs roles are aplenty. Good damage in general, highly mobile, great harass with Power Swords. An all around mensch of a unit. So does it need another active that can just obliterate squads of units? It just feels like more balance complexity making their job harder than it has to be, especially since I'm not sold ASMs really need more damage to fulfill their role.
@PrimaGoosa I agree with your opinions of how the units/doctrines should be designed. I do have one possible disagreement, though, and that's if you take a unit that already has utility and give it a doctrine. ASM come with utility, they inherit utility by virtue of what makes them assault marines, just like how scouts are inherently scouting units. While I agree that adding damage shouldn't be and isn't the standard effect of doctrines, I think that the ASM doctrine is not the only doctrine that provides damage and damage boosting doctrines should exist to compliment things that already have an emphasis on something that isn't damage, such as a utility unit.
Dire Avengers have a doctrine that increases their grenade's damage and reduces the cooldown. While there is some utility here in the form of more frequent grenades, this is clearly a damage boosting doctrine. You have the Fire Prism's focused beam. This is either a damage boost or an alternative damage mechanic, but either way what you have here is a damage enhancing doctrine. There are more of these but I don't need to list them all; the assault marine doctrine is not an outlier in any way.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the ASM doctrine is the kind of doctrine that Relic should try to make plentiful in this game. The ASM doctrine is versatile. It's far from one dimensional. All of the "good" doctrines are like this and that's why they are so powerful. Doctrines that do more than one thing, such as the Webway doctrine, or doctrines that add a large spectrum of options, such as the drop pod doctrine, are ones that need to be replicated.
This is my main point though, and this is what is the most important part of discussing balancing: It is not our place to judge design decisions and it is not in our best interest to suggest changes in a way that changes the design of the thing we are hoping will change. The ASM doctrine is powerful, perhaps over powered. We want it changed. We want it changed firstly because other races are struggling to compete against it and secondly because space marine units are being forsaken due to the ASM's superiority. Both of those "need" to be changed, in the eyes of the community, and their doctrine is one of the main features that is blamed for the ASM "problem." It would be wise, in my opinion, to discuss changes and suggestions in a way that keeps the ability as similar as it currently is as possible. This is because the most attractive changes to a software developer is a change that is the least different from the current set up and also because in their initial design they have chosen many, many, many things to be a certain way for many, many, many reasons. It's simply a better idea to stay simple and to not get creative.
Would making the ASM leap cause slow instead of damage make the unit more evenly balanced? Yes, absolutely it would. But it's definitely more complicated than lowering damage, which in itself might not be that big of a deal, but when combined with the assumption that the doctrine was intentionally designed to deal damage it might be a change that is just not practical, or doesn't "fit" within Relics design. I think it's better to be clear about an issue and to use simple solutions. The problem is that the ASM doctrine does too much damage. The solution should be to cause it to do less damage. Otherwise you risk opening the pandora's box of what ifs and begin traveling down the road of designing your own version of DoW3.
huh? so 5 doctrines? ASM's require ONE to be over the top.
Nope. ASM require:
-Cheap power swords in T1
-Tacts underperforming
-Doctrine
Is the combination of all 3 above that leads to ASM spam. Tweak some/all of the above and the problem is gone without nerfing the unit into the ground.
but buffing tacs alone wont decrease ASM spam, if ASM spam remains more effective. players will use what is effective. first of all, power swords shouldnt be in T1 ideally. it's an upgrade that should make ASM viable in T2 and on. I believe this is how it worked in DoW2. or it should be much more expensive, to severely delay t2. secondly, their leap ability shouldnt be a doctrine. it should be a relatively expensive upgrade that, again, makes them more viable in T2 and on. or keep it a doctrine but halve its damage. the leap deletes most t1 squads and doesnt have a wind-up animation, which is dumb.
T1 units should have a much tougher time taking down gens, including Scorps. ASM's mobility allows them to basically ignore everything and run around the map deleting buildings. and they have way more mobility than scorps.
anyway, im really looking forward to the balance patch.
@nerva2940 Redscare did not say buffing tacticals would solve the problem. He said "some/all" of those options changed will solve the problem. Some/all means more than a single one.
@Kharneth said: @nerva2940 Redscare did not say buffing tacticals would solve the problem. He said "some/all" of those options changed will solve the problem. Some/all means more than a single one.
go back to his initial response to me. he was saying that guardians are made over the top by their 3 doctrines, and banshees by their two. I'm saying the leap doctrine alone (in addition to the baseline ASM unit) makes them OP. you dont need to spend 3 doctrine slots to make them overperform. and honestly, banshees and guards dont even compare. they have a fraction of the ASM mobility and tankiness, even with all their doctrines.
overall though, I agree that solving this problem is multifactorial. I think Relic got themselves in a lot of doo-doo with this doctrine system. not only do they have to balance heroes, units and their upgrades, and the maps. but they also must address how doctrines interact with everything. poor design decision, for real. imo, all ARMY doctrines should be amalgamated somehow into their baseline units, and the hero doctrines should remain in place, if not buffed slightly. this way, heroes truly affect the play style of the player, and we dont have to worry about army doctrine balancing.
and lastly, this whole "unlocking and leveling up" business is so...out of place in a strategy game. everyone farmed XP in the campaign anyway...it was pretty dumb. in an RTS, all the tools must be available to everyone, from the very beginning. every player must be on even ground. but this is an entirely different discussion now.
I see what you're saying, and in general I agree. I was only singling out the ASM doctrine because this is an ASM-centric thread, but the Plasma Grenade doctrine adding more damage also feels unnecessary to me, and I'm not sure how much I like the Scout doctrine that does burst damage out of stealth (I was dancing in and out harassing an SM in a 3v3 who was trying to secure a point, sniping off ASM models and workers/attempts at building gens/LPs with about 4 Scout squads).
On one hand I agree that it would be cool if all doctrines were designed with the same level of versatility as Assault Leap, but on the other I fear that introduces far too many variables into the balance of the game to try to compensate for. I'd personally advocate more one-dimensional improvements that enhance the unit's role in some way.
As far as discussing balance/change, I've always been a fan of Occam's Razor. That being said, I also think Relic's design decisions can and should come under fire if it appears as though the purpose of the design is trying to solve a problem that isn't an actual problem now that the game has more time spent being played. Maybe Relic thought a player who wanted to utilize ASMs more needed the ability to do more damage to those units since they could be kited/etc. It's a perfectly rational idea, but the execution of the idea I feel teeters it on the event horizon of the "nukes do too much unavoidable damage" hole that is causing some distress. So that leaves two questions:
Do ASMs really need an ability that allows them to do burst damage, considering their DPS?
If not, what's the smallest change we could make that still makes this doctrine useful, but doesn't require a completely revamped ability/new animations/etc.?
My personal opinion on #1 is "no", I don't think ASMs need to be able to do more damage to units. I think they perform quite well without, and are highly versatile. So my response based on #2 was to have the same ability, but make it cause slow to any squads under (think of them ducking their heads and stalling when trying to retreat or something), which has the side-effect of allowing more DPS up-time without the sudden nuke damage exploding models.
Anyway, if they start by just lowering damage, that's fine too. Honestly, if it was just a fast leap that didn't do anything else other than provide extra mobility, I'd still take it for sure.
@PrimaGoosa this is sort of the problem I've been facing in terms of the ability.
If they removed the damage complete and added nothing, so it was just a doctrine that gave you 1 extra jump ability, but 1 that was more horizontal and with practically no charging/casting time than I would still take it. Absolutely I would. I would take it and I would save it for escaping combat 100% of the time because it's a superior jump to the default jump in every way except for distance (I think it's shorter).
I think this would be a moderately decent improvement. The problem with this, in my opinion, is it's redundant. As useful as it might be, it's really a dumb option for the game to offer you yet another of the same thing. Even though I acknowledge that I would use it and find it useful, I think that providing a unit with a jump ability while the unit already comes with a jump ability is just a poor feature. If the ability caused a slow effect I would still feel this way. The jump ability that they currently have is two-fold. One, it provides mobility and two, it provides utility (knockback). If they were given an assault leap that slowed the target I would say that it's just too similar to what they already have.
Taking what they already do and applying damage to it is quite different. Maybe they need it, maybe they don't. Maybe if it slowed infantry and stunned vehicles, I'd start to get on board. But that's really just me being biased and wanting a way to kill Falcons and Land Speeders.
I really do think that the Assault Leap is perfectly designed, but might be dealing more damage than is fair. I like the lore of their aerial attack. I like how it fits within their role of being a mobile damage dealing unit. And I especially like how the ability is powerful against large numbers but weak against small numbers. There is so much to appreciate by this individual doctrine.
I do see your point, though, if doctrines are too powerful you run into a situation where any unit that isn't supported by a doctrine is going to be outclassed all the time leading towards armies designed around doctrines instead of the other way around where doctrines should be designed around armies. Like I've said, I think the Assault Leap is more powerful than it should be, but I think the design is amazing and more doctrines should attempt to emulate this design moving forward but while also being very careful because there is a very thin line separating powered and overpowered.
I think a much better idea would've been to make a doctrine that provides moderate damage to their jump ability. So when you jump into battle and cause that knockback affect you'll act like a grenade and also deal damage. You already use this ability to enter combat, so now it's just bonus damage. And it adds the all important question of should I do it again? Or should I save the last jump for an escape option?
Then, they should give ASM a second doctrine. So for those of us who want to spam ASM because we just love the sound of chainswords "wirring" we can actually start stacking doctrines on our favorite unit.
Personally, I'd like a doctrine that provides the ASM with a shield, but maybe that's only fair for SM vehicles? Idk, Nobz get a shield. I'd like a shield to be given to ASM units after they land from their jump. So they jump into combat and are now a pain in the butt because they're tougher. OOOOOH! Or a taunt ability upon landing. I'd prefer a taunt over anything else. I mean, if we're just going to copy other army's abilities (Banshee charge) then why can't my ASM get a taunt ability upon landing.
I actually thought of taunt on landing while I was in the shower. The only potential problem is chain-jumping into a crowd and perma-taunting, but at the very least it's a neat utility-based idea to get the ball rolling.
I think they have two options:
1. Butcher actual damage, which will turn this Leap pretty much into another Jump.
2. Swap doctrines of Ven Dread, so it is activated only on Elite deployment. There are two problems though: Plasma doctrine will become new OP option and Leap will be lost in oblivion.
I don't like early game nukes, they feel cheap and dictate way to much the pace of combat. Now, giving the jump the damage of a nade... that's pretty cool IMO. Not OP while begin decent. I think that should be another ASM doctrine,as they have only one now. Assault leap... The slow or 2s stun or something like that sounds great. But then let's not forget about banshee charge, cos being an upgrade is no excuse for being even worse than ASM leap.
@Stoner said:
I think they have two options:
1. Butcher actual damage, which will turn this Leap pretty much into another Jump.
2. Swap doctrines of Ven Dread, so it is activated only on Elite deployment. There are two problems though: Plasma doctrine will become new OP option and Leap will be lost in oblivion.
1) There is a rather large area between 0 and 100. Their damage doesn't need to be butchered. People are under the belief that if the Assault Leap does damage it's OP, but that's not true. It's OP simply because it does too much damage. All they need to do is de-polarize the damage so it's not so insane against large numbers and not so pitiful against low numbers. Alternatively, they could make it so it only affects the first enemy it affects. Once the first enemy unit is damaged by the Assault Leap it stops dealing damage and simply continues until they land.
2) No. Among other things, that's just simply not fair. Assault Marines have the fewest doctrines of all other units in this game and it would simply not be fair to the unit to lock that doctrine behind an elite's presence.
It really boggles my mind why/how nearly everyone is so against the idea of just balancing the damage. Does it do too much damage against Trukks? Against Macha? Against Nobz, even? Does it do too much damage against Killa Kanz or Vypers? No. It only does too much damage to things like Dire Avengers, Ork Boyz, Banshees to an extent. If you use it against a tactical marine squad it kills 1 of them, I believe. When you use it against an Ork boy squad it kills close to half of them. When against a Dire Avenger squad it depletes the shield, or if they had none it nearly wipes the squad. You could use it against a line of servitors and see that it does not do much damage. They just need to adjust the AOE multiplier, because it is doing too much damage to large squads.
They should make it so that a single unit cannot be take damage from more than a single Assault Leap per second. You shouldn't be able to stack 10 ASM units using Assault Leap simultaneously. Then the damage would be fine. Or, like I've already argued, they should just adjust the AOE so that it does more base damage and less additional damage per enemy.
remember what asm were supposed to be, melee disruption units to force a range army to move and reposition so you could attack a point or harrass behind enemy lines, not straight upfront beating everything in their way.
How about DA spam with all doctrines : outrange you, more CC, more dps, shield, faster, cheaper to build and reinforce ?
Was 2vs2 can't push with 2 iron maw vs 0 elite withtout loosing any squad early on ?
@epIx said:
remember what asm were supposed to be, melee disruption units to force a range army to move and reposition so you could attack a point or harrass behind enemy lines, not straight upfront beating everything in their way.
I don't know why you say that.
There are Chapters of Space Marines that rely very heavily on Assault Marines. Chapters like Blood Angels or Raven Guard will often not have any tactical marines and will use Assault Marines as their standard rank and file. Assault Marines are as powerful as Tactical Marines, they're both equal in their field (melee and ranged). So anything that can be done by Tactical Marines should be also possible with Assault Marines and vice versa.
I'm talkin from a "Game" namely DoW1 and DoW2 standpoint of view - lorewise this game would / could become too complex if you really factored in every single bit of background for each and every unit wouldnt it? - it's still a game that needs to be somewhat balanced and if you look back what asm used to be then you would probably agree, but if you just wanna get off on w40k lore then we dont need to discuss this in the first place
@epIx said:
remember what asm were supposed to be, melee disruption units to force a range army to move and reposition so you could attack a point or harrass behind enemy lines, not straight upfront beating everything in their way.
No argument here, that'd be great, but currently SM has nothing that can dish out any damage aside from ASM... I'm all for such change, but only if it will be made this way for all races, not just SM. Shees and Boyz are pretty good killers too atm.
I mentioned this in another thread, if youre forced to play around a single unit thats not what diverse play is supposed to be but thats just beating a dead horse already and I bet relic knows.
It used to be that you had an army of 2-3 ranged squads + hero (may it be 3 big shootas with big mek or 2-3 tactical with force commander) and then you got 1 or 2 melee squads to augment their power and bind those other ranged squads in melee - thats where skill and pre planning comes into play - and thats exactly what we dont have.
we have a mass of 1 squad maybe it be dire avengers 4-5 squads or 4-5 squads assault marines the result is the same.
one of the problem here is that below a certain level of skill, definitely one I am below, it is easier to use an ability than to use movement and positioning to counter abilities. This makes using abilities fun but facing mass abilities ovwerwheming.
There is also the doctrine grinding issue. Players have done some grinding to get the assault leap doctrine. Now they are locked into a single strategy they know works because they don't want to take the risk and time to unlock different doctrines which may not be effective. While they do this they have to use weaker or less convenient doctrines.
I think this locking into a single branch of strategy is an unintended consequence of the doctrine system.
not sure if its cost effective and you have to plan it out. but trying to bait the ASM in to a trap. set them up with a scout unit with stun grenades. have space marines with grenades and when they engage on the scouts sun them with scouts, stun them with Tactical Marines and use flamers. even good to bait elite units. sometimes i have all the right upgrades and get jumped on and thrown in to disarray but that's my lack of planing and micro not unbalance in game.
@epIx said:
I'm talkin from a "Game" namely DoW1 and DoW2 standpoint of view - lorewise this game would / could become too complex if you really factored in every single bit of background for each and every unit wouldnt it? - it's still a game that needs to be somewhat balanced and if you look back what asm used to be then you would probably agree, but if you just wanna get off on w40k lore then we dont need to discuss this in the first place
Big barrel of nope. That´s when Relic nerfed ASM into the ground in DoW2, to the point that they ONLY had disruption and still costed and arm and a leg. They were only good for "jump in, then jump out before being obliterated" or to tie setup teams in melee. If you want to go the "disruption only" route, then halve the req prize and remove power cost. Cos remember that SM has no other melee unit (and early game is melee centric) and right now Eldar can tie setup teams in melee with a teleporting 50req unit.
In DoW2 ASM were nerfed time after time. They were very good with the Apothecary, then they were OK-isg, then they got min jump range, then they got like 1.5 jumps instead of 2 (cooldowns and all that)... and along the way they lost most of their DPS as well. Their cost was set in stone, tough. I don´t know how did they end in the last versions, this was around the time Chaos DLC was released (that´s when I stopped played, refused to support them anymore seeing the horrible balance).
Menu
Comments
nerva2940
yeah 2 jumps plus the leap doctrine is absolutely ridiculous. plus power swords in t1. could they have stacked a single unit type any more?
redScare
That's nerfing ASM into the ground OR making the doctrine mandatory to use them at all. ASM need one jump to go in and one to get out, otherwise they're way too expensive. A better option would be for assault leap and regular jump to share charges. So you still have 2, but only one assault leap. Another possible option would be to put a minimum range to their jump so they cannot use both jumps as offense against the same enemy squad. Or nerf the assault leap dmg a bit, as it still provides extra mobility so even with less dmg it would still be useful.
IMHO all units in the game should feel great. Lets not nerf everything into the ground, please. Just nerfing all the squad wipes abilities should be enough IMO.
redScare
Guardians and their gazillion doctrines say hi
Also, banshees with 2x doctrines (blind charge + invulnerable charge) + Hunt from scorpions send their regards as well.
PrimaGoosa
If anything, assault leap should just slow everything it passes over for a few seconds. There's no real reason why it should have to do burst damage.
nerva2940
huh? so 5 doctrines? ASM's require ONE to be over the top.
exactly.
Kharneth
No real reason?
There's no real reason for any doctrine except for the reasons the developers had in the first place, so I don't understand your point.
Assault Leap should not be altered to be just another form of mobility, Assault Marines already have that. The leap should not be changed to slow down enemies, Banshees have that ability already and it doesn't really fit with the mechanic of the jump as slowing a unit doesn't help if you're passing over it. It now becomes and ability that you use with 1 squad while another squad is chasing down a unit. You can already simply leap passed a unit and cut them off, so the slowing is a little redundant.
In my opinion, it doesn't need to deal damage, but that's the primary design choice. Yes, it can be used to extra mobility, but it was designed to deal damage. If it was designed for mobility it wouldn't deal damage. I think that it needs to do a little more base damage and reduced AOE damage. It does too much damage against large blobs of enemies, it really does. It's a little OP in regards to being used against mobs of enemies. It should do more damage against mobs and it shouldn't be used against individual enemies, but it should have its damage less polarized. It should be less OP against large blobs and less UP against vehicles/heroes.
I think that if the power level of the ASM is something like 10 against mobs and 1 against characters it should be made to like 7 against mobs and 3 against characters. Then, if it is still doing too much damage against Orks and Dire Avengers, it should be reduced in damage.
The Power Sword deserves a place in T2 and to otherwise be left untouched.
The Assault Marines themselves don't need to be messed with. Their jumps need to stay at 2 charges and their doctrine should not be made in such a way that it compromises their default Jump ability. Doctrines do not replace this for that, they simply add this to that.
Additionally, I think that Assault Marines should have another doctrine. Nearly every unit in this game has 2 doctrines at least, except for the Assault Marines who only have 1.
redScare
Nope. ASM require:
-Cheap power swords in T1
-Tacts underperforming
-Doctrine
Is the combination of all 3 above that leads to ASM spam. Tweak some/all of the above and the problem is gone without nerfing the unit into the ground.
PrimaGoosa
@Kharneth
Haha, I posted that super quick while on a work call, so I can see where it needs explanation.
Nothing really needs to be anything, but I personally think adding damage via doctrine passives/actives is a slippery slope that is more trouble than it's worth. That's just my hot take. The slow would occur as you pass over it, then you land and run back in to fight. Basically it just helps you chase, and it serves as a supporting mechanic where you can have other units shooting as the unit tries to retreat.
Even if damage is its primary design choice, I'm saying I think that is a bad primary design choice. The primary purpose for Doctrines to help keep them feeling flavorful/balanced and not mandatory should be, imo, utility. Shields on Landspeeders is a good example. You take a harassing unit, put a shield on it, and now it can harass more effectively. Great. Or Pin for Devastators. Now you lock down units trying to move around with your heavy bolters, and they have to leap out or otherwise get peeled to escape. Great. Scout grenades adding a blind/silence after the stun duration to help lock units down better. Great. Reducing the cooldown of drop pods to have more drop pod centric play. Great. Reducing the cooldown of the banner for more banner plays. Great.
All of those take the direction of the style and move it along the singular path that helps that style out, but in a way that provides utility over damage. There are plenty of ways to nuke units in this game, especially with Elites, that I don't see the reason for adding even more. Especially when the method for nuking also serves as mobility. For a mobile/chasing/harassing unit, isn't additional mobility/chase potential enough? Does it have to destroy models as well?
I personally don't think so, but if they try to keep their damage increase doctrines, it isn't like I'm going to stop playing. I just think many of the doctrines are cool ways to enhance a style of play, and I think that's a fun, flavorful direction without endangering the unit balance by trying to ensure the doctrines don't make the unit do too much damage, for example. If they tweak the ASM unit in response to the strength of the doctrine, I'm going to be hugely disappointed, because it just cements the doctrine deeper into necessity when trying to use ASMs.
So really, the TL;DR is that I think units should have roles, and right now the ASMs roles are aplenty. Good damage in general, highly mobile, great harass with Power Swords. An all around mensch of a unit. So does it need another active that can just obliterate squads of units? It just feels like more balance complexity making their job harder than it has to be, especially since I'm not sold ASMs really need more damage to fulfill their role.
Kharneth
@PrimaGoosa I agree with your opinions of how the units/doctrines should be designed. I do have one possible disagreement, though, and that's if you take a unit that already has utility and give it a doctrine. ASM come with utility, they inherit utility by virtue of what makes them assault marines, just like how scouts are inherently scouting units. While I agree that adding damage shouldn't be and isn't the standard effect of doctrines, I think that the ASM doctrine is not the only doctrine that provides damage and damage boosting doctrines should exist to compliment things that already have an emphasis on something that isn't damage, such as a utility unit.
Dire Avengers have a doctrine that increases their grenade's damage and reduces the cooldown. While there is some utility here in the form of more frequent grenades, this is clearly a damage boosting doctrine. You have the Fire Prism's focused beam. This is either a damage boost or an alternative damage mechanic, but either way what you have here is a damage enhancing doctrine. There are more of these but I don't need to list them all; the assault marine doctrine is not an outlier in any way.
Personally, I am of the opinion that the ASM doctrine is the kind of doctrine that Relic should try to make plentiful in this game. The ASM doctrine is versatile. It's far from one dimensional. All of the "good" doctrines are like this and that's why they are so powerful. Doctrines that do more than one thing, such as the Webway doctrine, or doctrines that add a large spectrum of options, such as the drop pod doctrine, are ones that need to be replicated.
This is my main point though, and this is what is the most important part of discussing balancing: It is not our place to judge design decisions and it is not in our best interest to suggest changes in a way that changes the design of the thing we are hoping will change. The ASM doctrine is powerful, perhaps over powered. We want it changed. We want it changed firstly because other races are struggling to compete against it and secondly because space marine units are being forsaken due to the ASM's superiority. Both of those "need" to be changed, in the eyes of the community, and their doctrine is one of the main features that is blamed for the ASM "problem." It would be wise, in my opinion, to discuss changes and suggestions in a way that keeps the ability as similar as it currently is as possible. This is because the most attractive changes to a software developer is a change that is the least different from the current set up and also because in their initial design they have chosen many, many, many things to be a certain way for many, many, many reasons. It's simply a better idea to stay simple and to not get creative.
Would making the ASM leap cause slow instead of damage make the unit more evenly balanced? Yes, absolutely it would. But it's definitely more complicated than lowering damage, which in itself might not be that big of a deal, but when combined with the assumption that the doctrine was intentionally designed to deal damage it might be a change that is just not practical, or doesn't "fit" within Relics design. I think it's better to be clear about an issue and to use simple solutions. The problem is that the ASM doctrine does too much damage. The solution should be to cause it to do less damage. Otherwise you risk opening the pandora's box of what ifs and begin traveling down the road of designing your own version of DoW3.
nerva2940
but buffing tacs alone wont decrease ASM spam, if ASM spam remains more effective. players will use what is effective. first of all, power swords shouldnt be in T1 ideally. it's an upgrade that should make ASM viable in T2 and on. I believe this is how it worked in DoW2. or it should be much more expensive, to severely delay t2. secondly, their leap ability shouldnt be a doctrine. it should be a relatively expensive upgrade that, again, makes them more viable in T2 and on. or keep it a doctrine but halve its damage. the leap deletes most t1 squads and doesnt have a wind-up animation, which is dumb.
T1 units should have a much tougher time taking down gens, including Scorps. ASM's mobility allows them to basically ignore everything and run around the map deleting buildings. and they have way more mobility than scorps.
anyway, im really looking forward to the balance patch.
Kharneth
@nerva2940 Redscare did not say buffing tacticals would solve the problem. He said "some/all" of those options changed will solve the problem. Some/all means more than a single one.
nerva2940
go back to his initial response to me. he was saying that guardians are made over the top by their 3 doctrines, and banshees by their two. I'm saying the leap doctrine alone (in addition to the baseline ASM unit) makes them OP. you dont need to spend 3 doctrine slots to make them overperform. and honestly, banshees and guards dont even compare. they have a fraction of the ASM mobility and tankiness, even with all their doctrines.
overall though, I agree that solving this problem is multifactorial. I think Relic got themselves in a lot of doo-doo with this doctrine system. not only do they have to balance heroes, units and their upgrades, and the maps. but they also must address how doctrines interact with everything. poor design decision, for real. imo, all ARMY doctrines should be amalgamated somehow into their baseline units, and the hero doctrines should remain in place, if not buffed slightly. this way, heroes truly affect the play style of the player, and we dont have to worry about army doctrine balancing.
and lastly, this whole "unlocking and leveling up" business is so...out of place in a strategy game. everyone farmed XP in the campaign anyway...it was pretty dumb. in an RTS, all the tools must be available to everyone, from the very beginning. every player must be on even ground. but this is an entirely different discussion now.
PrimaGoosa
@Kharneth
I see what you're saying, and in general I agree. I was only singling out the ASM doctrine because this is an ASM-centric thread, but the Plasma Grenade doctrine adding more damage also feels unnecessary to me, and I'm not sure how much I like the Scout doctrine that does burst damage out of stealth (I was dancing in and out harassing an SM in a 3v3 who was trying to secure a point, sniping off ASM models and workers/attempts at building gens/LPs with about 4 Scout squads).
On one hand I agree that it would be cool if all doctrines were designed with the same level of versatility as Assault Leap, but on the other I fear that introduces far too many variables into the balance of the game to try to compensate for. I'd personally advocate more one-dimensional improvements that enhance the unit's role in some way.
As far as discussing balance/change, I've always been a fan of Occam's Razor. That being said, I also think Relic's design decisions can and should come under fire if it appears as though the purpose of the design is trying to solve a problem that isn't an actual problem now that the game has more time spent being played. Maybe Relic thought a player who wanted to utilize ASMs more needed the ability to do more damage to those units since they could be kited/etc. It's a perfectly rational idea, but the execution of the idea I feel teeters it on the event horizon of the "nukes do too much unavoidable damage" hole that is causing some distress. So that leaves two questions:
My personal opinion on #1 is "no", I don't think ASMs need to be able to do more damage to units. I think they perform quite well without, and are highly versatile. So my response based on #2 was to have the same ability, but make it cause slow to any squads under (think of them ducking their heads and stalling when trying to retreat or something), which has the side-effect of allowing more DPS up-time without the sudden nuke damage exploding models.
Anyway, if they start by just lowering damage, that's fine too. Honestly, if it was just a fast leap that didn't do anything else other than provide extra mobility, I'd still take it for sure.
Kharneth
@PrimaGoosa this is sort of the problem I've been facing in terms of the ability.
If they removed the damage complete and added nothing, so it was just a doctrine that gave you 1 extra jump ability, but 1 that was more horizontal and with practically no charging/casting time than I would still take it. Absolutely I would. I would take it and I would save it for escaping combat 100% of the time because it's a superior jump to the default jump in every way except for distance (I think it's shorter).
I think this would be a moderately decent improvement. The problem with this, in my opinion, is it's redundant. As useful as it might be, it's really a dumb option for the game to offer you yet another of the same thing. Even though I acknowledge that I would use it and find it useful, I think that providing a unit with a jump ability while the unit already comes with a jump ability is just a poor feature. If the ability caused a slow effect I would still feel this way. The jump ability that they currently have is two-fold. One, it provides mobility and two, it provides utility (knockback). If they were given an assault leap that slowed the target I would say that it's just too similar to what they already have.
Taking what they already do and applying damage to it is quite different. Maybe they need it, maybe they don't. Maybe if it slowed infantry and stunned vehicles, I'd start to get on board. But that's really just me being biased and wanting a way to kill Falcons and Land Speeders.
I really do think that the Assault Leap is perfectly designed, but might be dealing more damage than is fair. I like the lore of their aerial attack. I like how it fits within their role of being a mobile damage dealing unit. And I especially like how the ability is powerful against large numbers but weak against small numbers. There is so much to appreciate by this individual doctrine.
I do see your point, though, if doctrines are too powerful you run into a situation where any unit that isn't supported by a doctrine is going to be outclassed all the time leading towards armies designed around doctrines instead of the other way around where doctrines should be designed around armies. Like I've said, I think the Assault Leap is more powerful than it should be, but I think the design is amazing and more doctrines should attempt to emulate this design moving forward but while also being very careful because there is a very thin line separating powered and overpowered.
PrimaGoosa
@Kharneth
Yeah I feel you. I actually laughed out loud when you highlighted how dumb it is if Assault Leap is simply turned into another jump.
"Hey designers, what active can we give Assault Marines as part of a doctrine?"
"How about... ANOTHER. JUMP."
Anyway, I'm very curious to see what they are going to do with it.
Kharneth
I think a much better idea would've been to make a doctrine that provides moderate damage to their jump ability. So when you jump into battle and cause that knockback affect you'll act like a grenade and also deal damage. You already use this ability to enter combat, so now it's just bonus damage. And it adds the all important question of should I do it again? Or should I save the last jump for an escape option?
Then, they should give ASM a second doctrine. So for those of us who want to spam ASM because we just love the sound of chainswords "wirring" we can actually start stacking doctrines on our favorite unit.
Personally, I'd like a doctrine that provides the ASM with a shield, but maybe that's only fair for SM vehicles? Idk, Nobz get a shield. I'd like a shield to be given to ASM units after they land from their jump. So they jump into combat and are now a pain in the butt because they're tougher. OOOOOH! Or a taunt ability upon landing. I'd prefer a taunt over anything else. I mean, if we're just going to copy other army's abilities (Banshee charge) then why can't my ASM get a taunt ability upon landing.
PrimaGoosa
I actually thought of taunt on landing while I was in the shower. The only potential problem is chain-jumping into a crowd and perma-taunting, but at the very least it's a neat utility-based idea to get the ball rolling.
Stoner
I think they have two options:
1. Butcher actual damage, which will turn this Leap pretty much into another Jump.
2. Swap doctrines of Ven Dread, so it is activated only on Elite deployment. There are two problems though: Plasma doctrine will become new OP option and Leap will be lost in oblivion.
redScare
I don't like early game nukes, they feel cheap and dictate way to much the pace of combat. Now, giving the jump the damage of a nade... that's pretty cool IMO. Not OP while begin decent. I think that should be another ASM doctrine,as they have only one now. Assault leap... The slow or 2s stun or something like that sounds great. But then let's not forget about banshee charge, cos being an upgrade is no excuse for being even worse than ASM leap.
Kharneth
1) There is a rather large area between 0 and 100. Their damage doesn't need to be butchered. People are under the belief that if the Assault Leap does damage it's OP, but that's not true. It's OP simply because it does too much damage. All they need to do is de-polarize the damage so it's not so insane against large numbers and not so pitiful against low numbers. Alternatively, they could make it so it only affects the first enemy it affects. Once the first enemy unit is damaged by the Assault Leap it stops dealing damage and simply continues until they land.
2) No. Among other things, that's just simply not fair. Assault Marines have the fewest doctrines of all other units in this game and it would simply not be fair to the unit to lock that doctrine behind an elite's presence.
It really boggles my mind why/how nearly everyone is so against the idea of just balancing the damage. Does it do too much damage against Trukks? Against Macha? Against Nobz, even? Does it do too much damage against Killa Kanz or Vypers? No. It only does too much damage to things like Dire Avengers, Ork Boyz, Banshees to an extent. If you use it against a tactical marine squad it kills 1 of them, I believe. When you use it against an Ork boy squad it kills close to half of them. When against a Dire Avenger squad it depletes the shield, or if they had none it nearly wipes the squad. You could use it against a line of servitors and see that it does not do much damage. They just need to adjust the AOE multiplier, because it is doing too much damage to large squads.
They should make it so that a single unit cannot be take damage from more than a single Assault Leap per second. You shouldn't be able to stack 10 ASM units using Assault Leap simultaneously. Then the damage would be fine. Or, like I've already argued, they should just adjust the AOE so that it does more base damage and less additional damage per enemy.
epIx
remember what asm were supposed to be, melee disruption units to force a range army to move and reposition so you could attack a point or harrass behind enemy lines, not straight upfront beating everything in their way.
Fortheweak
How about DA spam with all doctrines : outrange you, more CC, more dps, shield, faster, cheaper to build and reinforce ?
Was 2vs2 can't push with 2 iron maw vs 0 elite withtout loosing any squad early on ?
Kharneth
I don't know why you say that.
There are Chapters of Space Marines that rely very heavily on Assault Marines. Chapters like Blood Angels or Raven Guard will often not have any tactical marines and will use Assault Marines as their standard rank and file. Assault Marines are as powerful as Tactical Marines, they're both equal in their field (melee and ranged). So anything that can be done by Tactical Marines should be also possible with Assault Marines and vice versa.
epIx
I'm talkin from a "Game" namely DoW1 and DoW2 standpoint of view - lorewise this game would / could become too complex if you really factored in every single bit of background for each and every unit wouldnt it? - it's still a game that needs to be somewhat balanced and if you look back what asm used to be then you would probably agree, but if you just wanna get off on w40k lore then we dont need to discuss this in the first place
Stoner
No argument here, that'd be great, but currently SM has nothing that can dish out any damage aside from ASM... I'm all for such change, but only if it will be made this way for all races, not just SM. Shees and Boyz are pretty good killers too atm.
epIx
I mentioned this in another thread, if youre forced to play around a single unit thats not what diverse play is supposed to be but thats just beating a dead horse already and I bet relic knows.
It used to be that you had an army of 2-3 ranged squads + hero (may it be 3 big shootas with big mek or 2-3 tactical with force commander) and then you got 1 or 2 melee squads to augment their power and bind those other ranged squads in melee - thats where skill and pre planning comes into play - and thats exactly what we dont have.
we have a mass of 1 squad maybe it be dire avengers 4-5 squads or 4-5 squads assault marines the result is the same.
KanKrusha
one of the problem here is that below a certain level of skill, definitely one I am below, it is easier to use an ability than to use movement and positioning to counter abilities. This makes using abilities fun but facing mass abilities ovwerwheming.
There is also the doctrine grinding issue. Players have done some grinding to get the assault leap doctrine. Now they are locked into a single strategy they know works because they don't want to take the risk and time to unlock different doctrines which may not be effective. While they do this they have to use weaker or less convenient doctrines.
I think this locking into a single branch of strategy is an unintended consequence of the doctrine system.
Omen_Black_Dragon
not sure if its cost effective and you have to plan it out. but trying to bait the ASM in to a trap. set them up with a scout unit with stun grenades. have space marines with grenades and when they engage on the scouts sun them with scouts, stun them with Tactical Marines and use flamers. even good to bait elite units. sometimes i have all the right upgrades and get jumped on and thrown in to disarray but that's my lack of planing and micro not unbalance in game.
Omen_Black_Dragon
Plus if you win that trade they are out of money ASM are expensive
redScare
Big barrel of nope. That´s when Relic nerfed ASM into the ground in DoW2, to the point that they ONLY had disruption and still costed and arm and a leg. They were only good for "jump in, then jump out before being obliterated" or to tie setup teams in melee. If you want to go the "disruption only" route, then halve the req prize and remove power cost. Cos remember that SM has no other melee unit (and early game is melee centric) and right now Eldar can tie setup teams in melee with a teleporting 50req unit.
In DoW2 ASM were nerfed time after time. They were very good with the Apothecary, then they were OK-isg, then they got min jump range, then they got like 1.5 jumps instead of 2 (cooldowns and all that)... and along the way they lost most of their DPS as well. Their cost was set in stone, tough. I don´t know how did they end in the last versions, this was around the time Chaos DLC was released (that´s when I stopped played, refused to support them anymore seeing the horrible balance).