@Bigamo said:
All eldar lovers telling you how bad you are and how easy is to beat ranger spam, still NO ONE provides a replay beating ranger spam
Saya played ranger spam with ronahn and double ranger doctrine against bbb. And when i say spam i mean the REAL spam, like 8x rangers.
She tried about 3 times, didn't win a single time against his SM.
Tho i think she did mistakes and one of those games were winable, but still Saya played very well and lost with it. It's not unbeatable in 1v1, it's just annoying to play against and kinda hard to play against because you can't play too defensive and you can't fight a ranger blob too offensive. Split push and sneak attacks + improved LP's to buy time for higher tier units are the way to go. Well Vindicare explained in his post how to do it...
Anyway ranger spam in 1v1 is not op. In 3v3 it is op.
Not trying to pose judgement on OPness of Ranger spam, but I think it is noticeable that BaByuByu is MUCH better player than Saya. Anyway, if you have a quick link on Replay/VoD on hand, could you please post it?
Sorry she didn't upload those, it was on stream. Yeah let me check if there is a VoD...
Ok i found one - https://twitch.tv/videos/216296640
Watch from 03:24:30. I think this was the best one. Yes she picked Wraithlord and a Titan, but it wouldn't have made any big difference with lower elites because BBB has a 7P as well.
So as you can see BBB obviously out eco's her. She has a pretty high upkeep because of those rangers and not as mutch power gens as BBB cuz rangers can be forced back easily.
He also uses Diomedes to tank lot's of damage and force rangers to run away while he deals damage to objectives.
@Bigamo said:
actually i think you are wrong, Saya is WAAAAAAY better than BBB or any other Korean. She does several diferent builds and don't JUST use cheese/abuse to win. BBB is JUST that. well, all the others are just that imo. Saya is a GREAT player that can play anyway she want, kind of like vindicare. BBB just use timming and cheese.
And yeah, probably Tactical spam with fire in the move works well against rangers. As far as i know its the ONLY thing BBB does.
So if Saya is the better player she should have no problems beating BBB with ranger mass right ? And still she lost several times with it. Prove that Ranger mass is NOT op in 1v1 mate.
I personally preferred to Dire Avengers damage buffed but yours to nerf Tacticals damage isn't a bad idea either. But question is won't cause that SM players will start spam Assaults again just like was at release? Just giving a possibility of that change's consequence.
No it shouldnt if anything it may force SM to mix up army composition.
@Bigamo said:
just to ilustrate my point that ALL this ++heresy redacted++ doctrines should be removed from this game forever, the game feels like abandonware already...
Doctrines give it that bit of customisation though and play style techniques that let you explore different things, you're saying you shouldn't be able to use any kind of buffs? what if you could change some. They've done it already a couple times, I primarily play Eldar and I can say I only use around 30% of them, I WOULD use more if I could make them a bit more useful.
It adds too many extra variables to the balancing equation. Even testing how a lot of the doctrines interact would be difficult. Getting post-release data on it would be even harder considering how active the queues are.
Doctrines are a neat idea in principle, but when you're already doing a lot of customization via your choice of elites, further customization multiples the balancing headache.
Power core mode was a curious choice, especially considering all of the other quirks and MOBA features that went with it. The lane-based maps, the escalation phases, the focus on elites....
It's hard for me to understand what they were thinking.
@Amoc said:
Power core mode was a curious choice, especially considering all of the other quirks and MOBA features that went with it. The lane-based maps, the escalation phases, the focus on elites....
It's hard for me to understand what they were thinking.
Lane based maps are a recurring complaint but I honestly don't see the map design being that divergent from the previous games. Lanes and chokepoints have always been a feature of maps in the series. Many dow2 maps were literally just three parallel lanes, such as Argus desert gate and argent shelf. Dow1 had it's share too such as kasyr lutein and thargorum. And similarly there are less obviously laned maps in all games, Morks mire for instance isn't much different from some classic dow1 maps. Though we could use some variety in player spawning point distribution, certainly.
I don't think very much of escalation phases either, I'm up and down with elites, but the map complaints don't hold water.
@Bigamo said:
just to ilustrate my point that ALL this ++heresy redacted++ doctrines should be removed from this game forever, the game feels like abandonware already...
Doctrines give it that bit of customisation though and play style techniques that let you explore different things, you're saying you shouldn't be able to use any kind of buffs? what if you could change some. They've done it already a couple times, I primarily play Eldar and I can say I only use around 30% of them, I WOULD use more if I could make them a bit more useful.
Na, It just remove customization and makes for super stale meta... With everyone using the new hot doctrine. It is simply impossible to balance.
I suppose that makes sense but it would feel hollow without them even though DOW1 didnt, the only thing I would actually consider is some of the doctrines being available in the armoury, and there potentially being a T3 building for better doctrines, more in game research upgrade purchases as opposed to Call of Duty style set up perks.
Upgrade are as hard to balance as doctrines, it's only the cost that make them easier to balance. But that does not warrant removing the doctrine system when you can just give doctrines costs.
@Bigamo said:
just to ilustrate my point that ALL this ++heresy redacted++ doctrines should be removed from this game forever, the game feels like abandonware already...
Doctrines give it that bit of customisation though and play style techniques that let you explore different things, you're saying you shouldn't be able to use any kind of buffs? what if you could change some. They've done it already a couple times, I primarily play Eldar and I can say I only use around 30% of them, I WOULD use more if I could make them a bit more useful.
Na, It just remove customization and makes for super stale meta... With everyone using the new hot doctrine. It is simply impossible to balance.
I suppose that makes sense but it would feel hollow without them even though DOW1 didnt, the only thing I would actually consider is some of the doctrines being available in the armoury, and there potentially being a T3 building for better doctrines, more in game research upgrade purchases as opposed to Call of Duty style set up perks.
what i know, is that without doctrines the game would be WAY better balanced... All the worst cheeses are related to doctrines, with notable exception of rangers, they would still overperform even without doctrines, but way less anyway. But unfortunally Rangers are just bad designed.
Oh, and removing presence doctrines would make Deathwatch WAAAAY less overpowered.
Sometimes less is more. If you remove doctrines the whole strategy variety would rise.
Sure, some could be upgrades, but anyway, would not be doctrines anymore...
For instance, Tactical Nades should be a TIER 2 upgrade, at tier1 it just makes tacticals anti everything, even hard countering their own supposed counter.
Ok so, they remove Doctrines, Do elites still have use of Doctrines? we would lose all but 2 per Elite only accessible via them as they level up or do you mean gone all together.
You start a game and all units are as they should be.. Why does that seem strange ? would it actually be a better game..
@Martin said:
Upgrade are as hard to balance as doctrines, it's only the cost that make them easier to balance. But that does not warrant removing the doctrine system when you can just give doctrines costs.
First you said that upgrades are as hard to balance than doctrines, then you said that having a cost makes upgrades easier to balance, then you say to put a cost into doctrines, basically making it a upgrade.
What you mean is making doctrines selectable doctrines having to be paid before having effect? Click on it and pay for it before it begin to have effect? I would be ok with that to be honest.
If the way that doctrines were enabled had to be changed (without drastic modifications), I would simply tie doctrines into the elite point system (each doctrine would have a separate elite point cost associated with it to denote its effectiveness and to balance it). The doctrine would stay active for the entirety of the match once purchased with Elite points.
What you mean is making doctrines selectable doctrines having to be paid before having effect? Click on it and pay for it before it begin to have effect? I would be ok with that to be honest.
Yes exactly.
I honestly think the only good thing about doctrines is the fact you are restricted in how many you have, so it becomes personalization of your army which ones you pick and the decision to get a doctrine is a bigger decision because you are not just giving up resources to get it but a doctrine slot. Them being pregame and not having resource costs have pretty much no benefits as far as I can see, so in regards to those they are completely inferior to upgrades.
Making them cost elite points seems like it could have unforeseen consequences and given how the current elite point system gives so much value to a single point if they were to keep it like that some doctrines would be hard to put at a low cost, infact I think many doctrines are simply not worth 1 elite point in the current state of the game. Unless you are looking to do something about the elite point system it seems like a strange decision to do something like this to balance doctrines. Normal resource costs seem like a simpler solution.
Making them cost elite points seems like it could have unforeseen consequences and given how the current elite point system gives so much value to a single point if they were to keep it like that some doctrines would be hard to put at a low cost, infact I think many doctrines are simply not worth 1 elite point in the current state of the game. Unless you are looking to do something about the elite point system it seems like a strange decision to do something like this to balance doctrines. Normal resource costs seem like a simpler solution.
@Martin said:
Upgrade are as hard to balance as doctrines, it's only the cost that make them easier to balance. But that does not warrant removing the doctrine system when you can just give doctrines costs.
First you said that upgrades are as hard to balance than doctrines, then you said that having a cost makes upgrades easier to balance, then you say to put a cost into doctrines, basically making it a upgrade.
What you mean is making doctrines selectable doctrines having to be paid before having effect? Click on it and pay for it before it begin to have effect? I would be ok with that to be honest.
If the way that doctrines were enabled had to be changed (without drastic modifications), I would simply tie doctrines into the elite point system (each doctrine would have a separate elite point cost associated with it to denote its effectiveness and to balance it). The doctrine would stay active for the entirety of the match once purchased with Elite points.
And everyone would just use 2-3-3 elites for having points to get the doctrines too, higher point elites would be EVEN more out meta...
In that case Relic would just need to increase the elite point generation rate as well as the elite point cost to each hero (to fit the doctrines into the gameplay whilst using elite points in order to activate your chosen three doctrines).
(this is just one of the many other ways in which they could theoretically modify how doctrines work).
@Amoc said:
Power core mode was a curious choice, especially considering all of the other quirks and MOBA features that went with it. The lane-based maps, the escalation phases, the focus on elites....
It's hard for me to understand what they were thinking.
DoW1 had line based maps.
DoW2 was the ultimate experience of lane based maps.
Whole CoH series is designed like that with all non open field maps.
And you woke up for that in DoW3?
And about focus on elite, its comparable to that of DoW2, where if your elite was dead too long or killed to soon, you just lost the game and couldn't do anything about it.
Only in DoW1 elites were not strong, but glorified melee tie-up for ranged squads with Tau commander being only actual elite who could do something on its own.
yeah but why would you do it with elite points in the first place when you can just do it with normal resources much simpler.
It would bring more depth into the game (more battles around elite point nodes) and I commonly get into situations where I have many unspent elite points at the end of a match (because people seldom select higher tier elites beyond 6 elite points nowadays).
A lot of people use their regular resources efficiently, so wouldn't tying doctrines into those resources negatively impact how much units you could deploy (when they are needed as well)?
yeah but why would you do it with elite points in the first place when you can just do it with normal resources much simpler.
Normal resources do not allow you to set timings.
Normal resources mean you'll now have LESS line army to fight against elites.
Normal resources give you illusion of choice, where in reality you'd have none, you'd have to get elites ASAP, regardless of opponents line unit comp.
Normal resources do not allow you to create high risk high reward spots on the map to contest and hold.
Menu
Comments
S4ngetsu
Sorry she didn't upload those, it was on stream. Yeah let me check if there is a VoD...
Ok i found one - https://twitch.tv/videos/216296640
Watch from 03:24:30. I think this was the best one. Yes she picked Wraithlord and a Titan, but it wouldn't have made any big difference with lower elites because BBB has a 7P as well.
So as you can see BBB obviously out eco's her. She has a pretty high upkeep because of those rangers and not as mutch power gens as BBB cuz rangers can be forced back easily.
He also uses Diomedes to tank lot's of damage and force rangers to run away while he deals damage to objectives.
S4ngetsu
So if Saya is the better player she should have no problems beating BBB with ranger mass right ?
And still she lost several times with it. Prove that Ranger mass is NOT op in 1v1 mate.
CANNED_F3TUS
No it shouldnt if anything it may force SM to mix up army composition.
0riginal_z0M
Doctrines give it that bit of customisation though and play style techniques that let you explore different things, you're saying you shouldn't be able to use any kind of buffs? what if you could change some. They've done it already a couple times, I primarily play Eldar and I can say I only use around 30% of them, I WOULD use more if I could make them a bit more useful.
Amoc
It adds too many extra variables to the balancing equation. Even testing how a lot of the doctrines interact would be difficult. Getting post-release data on it would be even harder considering how active the queues are.
Doctrines are a neat idea in principle, but when you're already doing a lot of customization via your choice of elites, further customization multiples the balancing headache.
Amoc
Power core mode was a curious choice, especially considering all of the other quirks and MOBA features that went with it. The lane-based maps, the escalation phases, the focus on elites....
It's hard for me to understand what they were thinking.
Jazz_Sandwich
Lane based maps are a recurring complaint but I honestly don't see the map design being that divergent from the previous games. Lanes and chokepoints have always been a feature of maps in the series. Many dow2 maps were literally just three parallel lanes, such as Argus desert gate and argent shelf. Dow1 had it's share too such as kasyr lutein and thargorum. And similarly there are less obviously laned maps in all games, Morks mire for instance isn't much different from some classic dow1 maps. Though we could use some variety in player spawning point distribution, certainly.
I don't think very much of escalation phases either, I'm up and down with elites, but the map complaints don't hold water.
Amoc
They've done a lot to address the map complaints since release. It was one of the easier things to fix and the post-release maps have been better.
That said, a lot of the release maps seemed very lane-based and the way the combat and objectives worked made/make it feel very MOBAish.
0riginal_z0M
I suppose that makes sense but it would feel hollow without them even though DOW1 didnt, the only thing I would actually consider is some of the doctrines being available in the armoury, and there potentially being a T3 building for better doctrines, more in game research upgrade purchases as opposed to Call of Duty style set up perks.
Martin
Upgrade are as hard to balance as doctrines, it's only the cost that make them easier to balance. But that does not warrant removing the doctrine system when you can just give doctrines costs.
0riginal_z0M
Ok so, they remove Doctrines, Do elites still have use of Doctrines? we would lose all but 2 per Elite only accessible via them as they level up or do you mean gone all together.
You start a game and all units are as they should be.. Why does that seem strange ? would it actually be a better game..
ReubenUK
If the way that doctrines were enabled had to be changed (without drastic modifications), I would simply tie doctrines into the elite point system (each doctrine would have a separate elite point cost associated with it to denote its effectiveness and to balance it). The doctrine would stay active for the entirety of the match once purchased with Elite points.
Martin
@Bigamo
Yes exactly.
I honestly think the only good thing about doctrines is the fact you are restricted in how many you have, so it becomes personalization of your army which ones you pick and the decision to get a doctrine is a bigger decision because you are not just giving up resources to get it but a doctrine slot. Them being pregame and not having resource costs have pretty much no benefits as far as I can see, so in regards to those they are completely inferior to upgrades.
Martin
@ReubenUK
Making them cost elite points seems like it could have unforeseen consequences and given how the current elite point system gives so much value to a single point if they were to keep it like that some doctrines would be hard to put at a low cost, infact I think many doctrines are simply not worth 1 elite point in the current state of the game. Unless you are looking to do something about the elite point system it seems like a strange decision to do something like this to balance doctrines. Normal resource costs seem like a simpler solution.
ReubenUK
In that case Relic would just need to increase the elite point generation rate as well as the elite point cost to each hero (to fit the doctrines into the gameplay whilst using elite points in order to activate your chosen three doctrines).
(this is just one of the many other ways in which they could theoretically modify how doctrines work).
Katitof
DoW1 had line based maps.
DoW2 was the ultimate experience of lane based maps.
Whole CoH series is designed like that with all non open field maps.
And you woke up for that in DoW3?
And about focus on elite, its comparable to that of DoW2, where if your elite was dead too long or killed to soon, you just lost the game and couldn't do anything about it.
Only in DoW1 elites were not strong, but glorified melee tie-up for ranged squads with Tau commander being only actual elite who could do something on its own.
Martin
@ReubenUK
yeah but why would you do it with elite points in the first place when you can just do it with normal resources much simpler.
ReubenUK
It would bring more depth into the game (more battles around elite point nodes) and I commonly get into situations where I have many unspent elite points at the end of a match (because people seldom select higher tier elites beyond 6 elite points nowadays).
A lot of people use their regular resources efficiently, so wouldn't tying doctrines into those resources negatively impact how much units you could deploy (when they are needed as well)?
Katitof
Normal resources do not allow you to set timings.
Normal resources mean you'll now have LESS line army to fight against elites.
Normal resources give you illusion of choice, where in reality you'd have none, you'd have to get elites ASAP, regardless of opponents line unit comp.
Normal resources do not allow you to create high risk high reward spots on the map to contest and hold.
Martin
I just need to be sure @katikof
you are aware my post was in regard to making doctrines cost elite points and not elite points in general?