@ReubenUK
It's supposed to have an impact but not such a ridiculous impact it takes away your options. I would expect the price of a doctrine to be 5-40 power, perhaps a req cost as well. I would only go higher for individual doctrines that are OP and need the cost for them to be fair. It should be no problem to get a single doctrine early on, but once you get 2 it may start to hurt a bit and 3 that's a big commitment you need to get something done with.
@S4ngetsu said:
But what about Power Core ? I think in generall its a good mode. I doubt that more players would join the game just by making anihilation the dafault ranked mode...
You're right, but that's not really the problem by itself. If you take me for example, my issues with the game go beyond PC. My issue is with what the gameplay and combat emphasizes - which is the elite units and active abilities. To me, the rhythm of the game feels mo (sare like I'm playing a MOBA what with the twitchy aiming/dodging/baiting of active abilities and your success or failure with many of your matches will revolve around that. Power Core is sort of insult-to-injury if you're not keen on the MOBA influences, because it's very much a MOBA game mode and it only serves to symbolize the complaint.
I think the emphasis on active abilities can be changed rather easily by nerfing those abilities across the board/further increasing unit HP/reducing the availability to CC/nukes on line units (say, a shoota boy blob can only throw 3 stikkbombs before it goes on global CD for a few seconds or something).
some abilities, like Trukk taunting enemies when they throw units on you, should probably be replaced with some other utility function tbh. CC/nukes are extremely powerful in this game which doesn't align with their ease-of-use and high availability (meaning you invest very little in getting those abilities out and using them as compared to the very high reward of killing everything). If that cost-vs-reward was more present, perhaps people wouldn't have so much of a problem when their stuff is locked down by CC, because it would be harder for the player to do so and therefore more skillful - fair.
Or maybe require all line units to buy a small wargear upgrade to access the ability (would have to change what scrap does for shootas tho - maybe give them big shootas?).
There are plenty of avenues to go down to change the activate-ability meta style of gameplay.
@vindicarex said:
I think the emphasis on active abilities can be changed rather easily by nerfing those abilities across the board/further increasing unit HP/reducing the availability to CC/nukes on line units (say, a shoota boy blob can only throw 3 stikkbombs before it goes on global CD for a few seconds or something).
I think you're probably right, and hopefully the result would feel good still. We'll have to wait and see.
Yes that doctrine, like a lot of others, needs another look...
IMO - Relic should really just take the design principle of not allowing doctrines to be powerful (say, only as powerful as Ablative armor - which is OK but nothing to write home about).
From that principle, I think doctrines will have a far lesser impact on metagame than they currently do now (any1 can see that some doctrines are obviously way better than others), and doctrines like fire on the move, tons o bombs, and ranger vigor should be redesigned with that in mind,
Doctrines should give slight changes to playstyle of utility (tip of the spear is a good example - it can be useful, but its nearly OP because of the requirement you be out of combat for 20 seconds to utilize it).
People will also be a lot less mad at doctrines since they will not be the reason why they lost, so to speak:
"you only won cuz you stacked 3 TSM doctrines" sort of mindset will be reduced as it will no longer be a major factor that it is now. Therefore, I think it will also address the issues of feeling pressured to utilize doctrines/ not deviating from that build.
Maybe an interesting way to work around the whole doctrines situation would be to open them all up and hide them behind tech and "research cost" barriers, where you can only have one per-unit or something like that. Then there's an active unfolding strategy emerging as you play each match rather than going in with some pre-set crap with no cost associated or anything like that.
@WreakingHavoc17 said:
Maybe an interesting way to work around the whole doctrines situation would be to open them all up and hide them behind tech and "research cost" barriers, where you can only have one per-unit or something like that. Then there's an active unfolding strategy emerging as you play each match rather than going in with some pre-set crap with no cost associated or anything like that.
That would make stacking even worse as you can now stack literally everything, plus there is no clear or balanced way to put randomly over 30 additional upgrades that can flip the gameplay upside down.
Having a cost on doctrines would mean that you cannot have 4 tacts all with Tireless, grenades, and Fire on the Move at the start of the game, though. Perhaps the cost should be 1 EP or something.
Literally any system where units don't come right-out-the gate immediately with all these doctrine buffs will probably be better than what we have now - be that hard capping doctrines to 1 per unit, attaching a cost, or unlocking them over escalation phases.
@Amoc said:
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.
So you think maybe presence doctrines should stay and doctrines be removed?
@S4ngetsu said:
Ok lets start with Doctrines - i think 90% of people in DoW3 agrees with a rework. Right ? Me too.
But what about Power Core ? I think in generall its a good mode. I doubt that more players would join the game just by making anihilation the dafault ranked mode...
I think the doctrine system is fine, but then again I hated the Bulletin system in CoH2 because it was worthless and Doctrines are exactly what I thought Bulletins should have been instead.
Just because people favour certain doctrines in their playstyle doesn't mean they're OP or not balanced with other doctrines. All the doctrines are useful, in their own way. I think a few like Healing Scrap should be moved to a regular upgrade simply because they're too impactful on the entire game, but most doctrines only affect one unit and often just open up new playstyles. But an overhaul of the system is very unnecessary in my opinion, it works as intended.
The other thing I would want is something else to spend elite points on. I'm mainly thinking of those situations where someone takes a light elite point loadout and halfway through the game they keep generating elite points but have nothing to use them on. Perhaps allowing players to exchange elite points for more global abilities that aren't nukes would be interesting.
There are plenty of avenues to go down to change the activate-ability meta style of gameplay.
Why change it?
I would perhaps opt to reduce unit build time instead so that if you lose a couple units to some active abilities, if you're producing them right away it's possible to defend and stay in the game. I think the production times are too similar to say, DoW2 or CoH2, where units are much more survivable. Making units easier to replace is better for the existing gameplay structure than making them more survivable and reducing the impact of Elites. I still rarely see people come close to maxing out popcap in many games and I think reduced build times would help with that.
@S4ngetsu said:
But what about Power Core ? I think in generall its a good mode. I doubt that more players would join the game just by making anihilation the dafault ranked mode...
You're right, but that's not really the problem by itself. If you take me for example, my issues with the game go beyond PC. My issue is with what the gameplay and combat emphasizes - which is the elite units and active abilities. To me, the rhythm of the game feels more like I'm playing a MOBA what with the twitchy aiming/dodging/baiting of active abilities and your success or failure with many of your matches will revolve around that. Power Core is sort of insult-to-injury if you're not keen on the MOBA influences, because it's very much a MOBA game mode and it only serves to symbolize the complaint.
Yeah it's defenitely true that because of all those active abilities, superior Elite and power core mode the game feels like a moba. I've played League of Legends for quite a while so i know.
DoW1 didn't feel like a moba because there were less active abilities so i agree with that.
I still don't know any solution for this problem, removing a lot of active abilities could end in a boring and to easy game.
Increasing HP of line units again like @vindicarex said might be better...
There are plenty of avenues to go down to change the activate-ability meta style of gameplay.
Why change it?
I would perhaps opt to reduce unit build time instead so that if you lose a couple units to some active abilities, if you're producing them right away it's possible to defend and stay in the game. I think the production times are too similar to say, DoW2 or CoH2, where units are much more survivable. Making units easier to replace is better for the existing gameplay structure than making them more survivable and reducing the impact of Elites. I still rarely see people come close to maxing out popcap in many games and I think reduced build times would help with that.
It doesn't address the main issue however, it doesn't even diminish it as you still have massive CC bloat on 2 out of 3 factions.
CC is fine, but hard CC should be either on very long cooldowns or on elites, while soft cc and not 15 forms of it should be on line units.
Suppression, banshee scream, vyper mines - these are good forms of soft CC.
Whirlwind barrage, big trakk arty mode shots, wraithblades taunt - these are good forms of hard cc on line units.
Grenades with massive damage on 45 sec cooldown and separate cooldown for the same autocast grenades, grenades on tacticals - these are forms of imbalanced hard cc which allows you to counter your own counters (why I haven't mentioned Eldar DA here? Because non doctrinally their nades are on 90 second cooldown and because they way they function prevents them from becoming new tac or shoota blob as they lack both, durability and firepower for that, also DA nades are 50% of hard CC eldar line units can have, another 50% of WB taunt, everything else is soft CC that lets you control your units).
Its not about replenishing loses, its about the way you get these loses.
@vindicarex said:
Yes that doctrine, like a lot of others, needs another look...
IMO - Relic should really just take the design principle of not allowing doctrines to be powerful (say, only as powerful as Ablative armor - which is OK but nothing to write home about).
From that principle, I think doctrines will have a far lesser impact on metagame than they currently do now (any1 can see that some doctrines are obviously way better than others), and doctrines like fire on the move, tons o bombs, and ranger vigor should be redesigned with that in mind,
Doctrines should give slight changes to playstyle of utility (tip of the spear is a good example - it can be useful, but its nearly OP because of the requirement you be out of combat for 20 seconds to utilize it).
People will also be a lot less mad at doctrines since they will not be the reason why they lost, so to speak:
"you only won cuz you stacked 3 TSM doctrines" sort of mindset will be reduced as it will no longer be a major factor that it is now. Therefore, I think it will also address the issues of feeling pressured to utilize doctrines/ not deviating from that build.
I'm against doctrines being weak. Reduce CC - fine, the effort/reward ratio is kinda off right now. Forbid doctrine stacking - even better, but if you nerf doctrines it would make stacking even more important. Think about it, you either have 6 doctrines that do basically nothing or you stack them to get a meaningful (and free) buff to a unit that you will just spam.
Doctrine stacking is the cause of most balancing issues IMO. First, it makes balancing doctrines with one another a real headache because opportunity cost plays a much bigger role. Do you pick a doctrine for another unit OR for the one you already have a doctrine? The opportunity cost of taking one as opposed to the other is different. And second, it alters the unit's effective cost, a tactical squad without doctrines cost the same amount of resources as the fully stuffed one, of course you're going to spam them, or rangers, or whatever other unit.
There are plenty of avenues to go down to change the activate-ability meta style of gameplay.
Why change it?
I would perhaps opt to reduce unit build time instead so that if you lose a couple units to some active abilities, if you're producing them right away it's possible to defend and stay in the game. I think the production times are too similar to say, DoW2 or CoH2, where units are much more survivable. Making units easier to replace is better for the existing gameplay structure than making them more survivable and reducing the impact of Elites. I still rarely see people come close to maxing out popcap in many games and I think reduced build times would help with that.
It doesn't address the main issue however, it doesn't even diminish it as you still have massive CC bloat on 2 out of 3 factions.
CC is fine, but hard CC should be either on very long cooldowns or on elites, while soft cc and not 15 forms of it should be on line units.
Suppression, banshee scream, vyper mines - these are good forms of soft CC.
Whirlwind barrage, big trakk arty mode shots, wraithblades taunt - these are good forms of hard cc on line units.
Grenades with massive damage on 45 sec cooldown and separate cooldown for the same autocast grenades, grenades on tacticals - these are forms of imbalanced hard cc which allows you to counter your own counters (why I haven't mentioned Eldar DA here? Because non doctrinally their nades are on 90 second cooldown and because they way they function prevents them from becoming new tac or shoota blob as they lack both, durability and firepower for that, also DA nades are 50% of hard CC eldar line units can have, another 50% of WB taunt, everything else is soft CC that lets you control your units).
Its not about replenishing loses, its about the way you get these loses.
So what, is the complaint that there's too many grenades? DoW2 had deadlier grenades and it was manageable. Shoota grenades have big ++heresy redacted++ indicators that tell you exactly where to dodge.
This video describes the appropriate counter to them.
Tac Grenades I admit didn't need a damage buff and were fine before when they did tickle damage but knocked down. Still, don't think they're that problematic.
@S4ngetsu said:
But what about Power Core ? I think in generall its a good mode. I doubt that more players would join the game just by making anihilation the dafault ranked mode...
You're right, but that's not really the problem by itself. If you take me for example, my issues with the game go beyond PC. My issue is with what the gameplay and combat emphasizes - which is the elite units and active abilities. To me, the rhythm of the game feels more like I'm playing a MOBA what with the twitchy aiming/dodging/baiting of active abilities and your success or failure with many of your matches will revolve around that. Power Core is sort of insult-to-injury if you're not keen on the MOBA influences, because it's very much a MOBA game mode and it only serves to symbolize the complaint.
Yeah it's defenitely true that because of all those active abilities, superior Elite and power core mode the game feels like a moba. I've played League of Legends for quite a while so i know.
DoW1 didn't feel like a moba because there were less active abilities so i agree with that.
I still don't know any solution for this problem, removing a lot of active abilities could end in a boring and to easy game.
Increasing HP of line units again like @vindicarex said might be better...
Think they need to take it in increments. First reduce CC and nuke spam. If that helped just slightly increase unit health.
And we should be good.
Id rather see relic do it like that than just start throwing the dials all over the place.
There are plenty of avenues to go down to change the activate-ability meta style of gameplay.
Why change it?
I would perhaps opt to reduce unit build time instead so that if you lose a couple units to some active abilities, if you're producing them right away it's possible to defend and stay in the game. I think the production times are too similar to say, DoW2 or CoH2, where units are much more survivable. Making units easier to replace is better for the existing gameplay structure than making them more survivable and reducing the impact of Elites. I still rarely see people come close to maxing out popcap in many games and I think reduced build times would help with that.
It doesn't address the main issue however, it doesn't even diminish it as you still have massive CC bloat on 2 out of 3 factions.
CC is fine, but hard CC should be either on very long cooldowns or on elites, while soft cc and not 15 forms of it should be on line units.
Suppression, banshee scream, vyper mines - these are good forms of soft CC.
Whirlwind barrage, big trakk arty mode shots, wraithblades taunt - these are good forms of hard cc on line units.
Grenades with massive damage on 45 sec cooldown and separate cooldown for the same autocast grenades, grenades on tacticals - these are forms of imbalanced hard cc which allows you to counter your own counters (why I haven't mentioned Eldar DA here? Because non doctrinally their nades are on 90 second cooldown and because they way they function prevents them from becoming new tac or shoota blob as they lack both, durability and firepower for that, also DA nades are 50% of hard CC eldar line units can have, another 50% of WB taunt, everything else is soft CC that lets you control your units).
Its not about replenishing loses, its about the way you get these loses.
So what, is the complaint that there's too many grenades? DoW2 had deadlier grenades and it was manageable. Shoota grenades have big ++heresy redacted++ indicators that tell you exactly where to dodge.
This video describes the appropriate counter to them.
Tac Grenades I admit didn't need a damage buff and were fine before when they did tickle damage but knocked down. Still, don't think they're that problematic.
I'd say the complaint is, its fine to have abilities on units, but we don't need every singular unit in game to have at least 2 crowd control abilities on them at any time, because its supposed to be RTS game, not Neo vs Smith firearms duel at all times.
What if you don't play perfect and doge the hundreds of grenades being thrown at you @Dullahan ? You basically just lose... not to metion while you're dodging the 4+ free grenades, the ork player is basically getting free damage off of you as he shoots and advances you you dodge the grenades. Forcing your opponent to move his guys can be pretty powerful itself - the grenades don't necessarily have to hit for them to give you an advantage.
And thanks, I'm well aware of dodging grenades, thanks buddy, never thought of that one
Anyone who thinks sm snipers are an issue shouldnt win tournaments, no offens s4 but if u lose to sm sniper spam as eldar u deserve it, eldar snipers are bassically cheaper faster stronger and have free none doctrine invis without a cd not to mention Vigor, there just straigh better and if sm sniper spams u build ur own and auto win if ur evenly skilled, i agree that RANGER spam is an issue but snipers have ez exploitable downsides and cant just kill vehicles and elites with vigor like enough rangers can.
@vindicarex said:
What if you don't play perfect and doge the hundreds of grenades being thrown at you @Dullahan ? You basically just lose... not to metion while you're dodging the 4+ free grenades, the ork player is basically getting free damage off of you as he shoots and advances you you dodge the grenades. Forcing your opponent to move his guys can be pretty powerful itself - the grenades don't necessarily have to hit for them to give you an advantage.
And thanks, I'm well aware of dodging grenades, thanks buddy, never thought of that one
Tonz of Bombz is extremely predictable, they autothrow the grenade on the first target that comes into their range. They're not dangerous to infantry unless you're getting combo'd with some Nobs taunt or a similar tool. It's also a double edged sword if you make use of reflect abilities like Gabriel's Retribution and Banshee Quick Strike with Taldeer's Command because they are easy to predict and bounce right back. It's nowhere near a broken doctrine, it's just an easy one to use and get some benefit out of.
Health upgrades also do a pretty good job of mitigating the effectiveness of all these abilities. Again, I watch a lot of replays and I see most players start to get lvl 1 upgrades halfway through the game. Going for upgrades earlier is my personal playstyle and certainly one I find more effective.
@Katitof
I'd say the complaint is, its fine to have abilities on units, but we don't need every singular unit in game to have at least 2 crowd control abilities on them at any time, because its supposed to be RTS game, not Neo vs Smith firearms duel at all times.
Care to explan how every unit has 2 crowd control abilities? There's a few units like Tac's that can have grenades and flamers or units like the War Trukk that can consistently launch units out for a stun and with Stormboyz Command shoot suicide bommaz, but most don't have it.
@Faith said:
Anyone who thinks sm snipers are an issue shouldnt win tournaments, no offens s4 but if u lose to sm sniper spam as eldar u deserve it, eldar snipers are bassically cheaper faster stronger and have free none doctrine invis without a cd not to mention Vigor, there just straigh better and if sm sniper spams u build ur own and auto win if ur evenly skilled, i agree that RANGER spam is an issue but snipers have ez exploitable downsides and cant just kill vehicles and elites with vigor like enough rangers can.
You are right but snipers are still broken as well. If rangers are going to be nerfed there will be no counter for eldar to beat sniper spam. The only way to counter SM sniper mass as Eldar is to build Ranger. If you can't except that then no offense Faith, but l2p and try to beat that ++heresy redacted++ with Eldar but without Rangers.
In the tournament games i've decided not to build rangers because they are fucked up in ballance. I knew this long time before.
Here is a forum topic i've created about a month ago and you don't have to tell me what is broken and what is not because i KNOW:
Dullahan, your argument comes down to "well just play better"
Yet meta is meta for a reason.
Perhaps one is that it is far easier to let loose a couple of hard CC abilities and potentially annihilate anything it touches vs. needing the constant micro attention to notice it and dodge it. One is relatively easy and one is relatively harder on players to execute)
(, btw, if you watch 1v1 replays I'm sure you've seen tactical use o tonz o bomz - a hard CC -, by getting shootas to target things closer to them, for example, or staggering the affect by splitting the attack order... or maybe using it to clear those ASM of a waaagh-ing tower)
@Dullahan said:
Tonz of Bombz is extremely predictable, they autothrow the grenade on the first target that comes into their range. They're not dangerous to infantry unless you're getting combo'd with some Nobs taunt or a similar tool. It's also a double edged sword if you make use of reflect abilities like Gabriel's Retribution and Banshee Quick Strike with Taldeer's Command because they are easy to predict and bounce right back. It's nowhere near a broken doctrine, it's just an easy one to use and get some benefit out of.
The complaint isn't about abilities being difficult to dodge, or land, or whatever. The complaint is that ability targeting and dodging is the overwhelming focus of the game. There are other games that offer this experience, and IMO they're way better at it.
@Dullahan said:
Tonz of Bombz is extremely predictable, they autothrow the grenade on the first target that comes into their range. They're not dangerous to infantry unless you're getting combo'd with some Nobs taunt or a similar tool. It's also a double edged sword if you make use of reflect abilities like Gabriel's Retribution and Banshee Quick Strike with Taldeer's Command because they are easy to predict and bounce right back. It's nowhere near a broken doctrine, it's just an easy one to use and get some benefit out of.
The complaint isn't about abilities being difficult to dodge, or land, or whatever. The complaint is that ability targeting and dodging is the overwhelming focus of the game. There are other games that offer this experience, and IMO they're way better at it.
Well, unles they simply remove most of the abilities in the game it will stay that way. It is very similar to DoW2, which I personally enjoyed quite a bit. I love the micro dancing that occurs in both games.> @vindicarex said:
Dullahan, your argument comes down to "well just play better"
Yet meta is meta for a reason.
Perhaps one is that it is far easier to let loose a couple of hard CC abilities and potentially annihilate anything it touches vs. needing the constant micro attention to notice it and dodge it. One is relatively easy and one is relatively harder on players to execute)
(, btw, if you watch 1v1 replays I'm sure you've seen tactical use o tonz o bomz - a hard CC -, by getting shootas to target things closer to them, for example, or staggering the affect by splitting the attack order... or maybe using it to clear those ASM of a waaagh-ing tower)
Well yes, playing better is the best solution to the problem.
Just because something is somewhat easier to utilize than it is to counter does not mean it needs to be nerfed. Tonz of Bombs is one of the few doctrines that could stand to be moved to a Presence ability though, perhaps exchanging the Stormboyz presence ability for Tons of Bombs would improve the game since if you wanted to take advantage you would have to keep your Stormboyz alive. (And use them in the first place.) I think Stormboyz Presence to be the weakest Elite Presence ability in the game, honestly. (Mostly because it's an early game elite with a vehicle focused doctrine that isn't relevant until 20 minutes later. ) Much better suited to being a doctrine I think. What do you think? It would also mean you couldn't use Tons of Bombz with Stormboyz Command without also consuming a doctrine slot, so you'd have to choose between Bomma Trukks or Shoota's with free grenades.
@Dullahan said:
Well, unles they simply remove most of the abilities in the game it will stay that way. It is very similar to DoW2, which I personally enjoyed quite a bit. I love the micro dancing that occurs in both games.> @vindicarex said:
DoW II was a squad-based tactical game set at a much smaller scale and abilities were nowhere near as prevalent. You had far fewer units under your control, a lower proportion of units with targeted abilities, longer cooldowns on the abilities and less CC in general. Add the retreat mechanic to that and it was much harder to achieve an instant squad-wipe in DoW II. These two games are so different the comparison doesn't really stand.
@Dullahan said:
Well yes, playing better is the best solution to the problem.
Not if the problem has nothing to do with the outcome of your matches. If you dislike parts of the game design, how does playing better solve that? Pretty poor reasoning there.
Menu
Comments
Martin
@ReubenUK
It's supposed to have an impact but not such a ridiculous impact it takes away your options. I would expect the price of a doctrine to be 5-40 power, perhaps a req cost as well. I would only go higher for individual doctrines that are OP and need the cost for them to be fair. It should be no problem to get a single doctrine early on, but once you get 2 it may start to hurt a bit and 3 that's a big commitment you need to get something done with.
vindicarex
I think the emphasis on active abilities can be changed rather easily by nerfing those abilities across the board/further increasing unit HP/reducing the availability to CC/nukes on line units (say, a shoota boy blob can only throw 3 stikkbombs before it goes on global CD for a few seconds or something).
Or maybe require all line units to buy a small wargear upgrade to access the ability (would have to change what scrap does for shootas tho - maybe give them big shootas?).
There are plenty of avenues to go down to change the activate-ability meta style of gameplay.
Amoc
I think you're probably right, and hopefully the result would feel good still. We'll have to wait and see.
vindicarex
Yes that doctrine, like a lot of others, needs another look...
IMO - Relic should really just take the design principle of not allowing doctrines to be powerful (say, only as powerful as Ablative armor - which is OK but nothing to write home about).
From that principle, I think doctrines will have a far lesser impact on metagame than they currently do now (any1 can see that some doctrines are obviously way better than others), and doctrines like fire on the move, tons o bombs, and ranger vigor should be redesigned with that in mind,
Doctrines should give slight changes to playstyle of utility (tip of the spear is a good example - it can be useful, but its nearly OP because of the requirement you be out of combat for 20 seconds to utilize it).
People will also be a lot less mad at doctrines since they will not be the reason why they lost, so to speak:
"you only won cuz you stacked 3 TSM doctrines" sort of mindset will be reduced as it will no longer be a major factor that it is now. Therefore, I think it will also address the issues of feeling pressured to utilize doctrines/ not deviating from that build.
WreakingHavoc17
Maybe an interesting way to work around the whole doctrines situation would be to open them all up and hide them behind tech and "research cost" barriers, where you can only have one per-unit or something like that. Then there's an active unfolding strategy emerging as you play each match rather than going in with some pre-set crap with no cost associated or anything like that.
Katitof
That would make stacking even worse as you can now stack literally everything, plus there is no clear or balanced way to put randomly over 30 additional upgrades that can flip the gameplay upside down.
That horse have been beaten to death already.
vindicarex
Having a cost on doctrines would mean that you cannot have 4 tacts all with Tireless, grenades, and Fire on the Move at the start of the game, though. Perhaps the cost should be 1 EP or something.
Literally any system where units don't come right-out-the gate immediately with all these doctrine buffs will probably be better than what we have now - be that hard capping doctrines to 1 per unit, attaching a cost, or unlocking them over escalation phases.
Martin
Maybe not exactly at the start of the game but you could probably have them all out after 3-6 minutes depending on what their individual costs are.
CANNED_F3TUS
So you think maybe presence doctrines should stay and doctrines be removed?
Dullahan
I think the doctrine system is fine, but then again I hated the Bulletin system in CoH2 because it was worthless and Doctrines are exactly what I thought Bulletins should have been instead.
Just because people favour certain doctrines in their playstyle doesn't mean they're OP or not balanced with other doctrines. All the doctrines are useful, in their own way. I think a few like Healing Scrap should be moved to a regular upgrade simply because they're too impactful on the entire game, but most doctrines only affect one unit and often just open up new playstyles. But an overhaul of the system is very unnecessary in my opinion, it works as intended.
The other thing I would want is something else to spend elite points on. I'm mainly thinking of those situations where someone takes a light elite point loadout and halfway through the game they keep generating elite points but have nothing to use them on. Perhaps allowing players to exchange elite points for more global abilities that aren't nukes would be interesting.
Dullahan
Why change it?
I would perhaps opt to reduce unit build time instead so that if you lose a couple units to some active abilities, if you're producing them right away it's possible to defend and stay in the game. I think the production times are too similar to say, DoW2 or CoH2, where units are much more survivable. Making units easier to replace is better for the existing gameplay structure than making them more survivable and reducing the impact of Elites. I still rarely see people come close to maxing out popcap in many games and I think reduced build times would help with that.
S4ngetsu
Yeah it's defenitely true that because of all those active abilities, superior Elite and power core mode the game feels like a moba. I've played League of Legends for quite a while so i know.
DoW1 didn't feel like a moba because there were less active abilities so i agree with that.
I still don't know any solution for this problem, removing a lot of active abilities could end in a boring and to easy game.
Increasing HP of line units again like @vindicarex said might be better...
Katitof
It doesn't address the main issue however, it doesn't even diminish it as you still have massive CC bloat on 2 out of 3 factions.
CC is fine, but hard CC should be either on very long cooldowns or on elites, while soft cc and not 15 forms of it should be on line units.
Suppression, banshee scream, vyper mines - these are good forms of soft CC.
Whirlwind barrage, big trakk arty mode shots, wraithblades taunt - these are good forms of hard cc on line units.
Grenades with massive damage on 45 sec cooldown and separate cooldown for the same autocast grenades, grenades on tacticals - these are forms of imbalanced hard cc which allows you to counter your own counters (why I haven't mentioned Eldar DA here? Because non doctrinally their nades are on 90 second cooldown and because they way they function prevents them from becoming new tac or shoota blob as they lack both, durability and firepower for that, also DA nades are 50% of hard CC eldar line units can have, another 50% of WB taunt, everything else is soft CC that lets you control your units).
Its not about replenishing loses, its about the way you get these loses.
Achernar
I'm against doctrines being weak. Reduce CC - fine, the effort/reward ratio is kinda off right now. Forbid doctrine stacking - even better, but if you nerf doctrines it would make stacking even more important. Think about it, you either have 6 doctrines that do basically nothing or you stack them to get a meaningful (and free) buff to a unit that you will just spam.
Doctrine stacking is the cause of most balancing issues IMO. First, it makes balancing doctrines with one another a real headache because opportunity cost plays a much bigger role. Do you pick a doctrine for another unit OR for the one you already have a doctrine? The opportunity cost of taking one as opposed to the other is different. And second, it alters the unit's effective cost, a tactical squad without doctrines cost the same amount of resources as the fully stuffed one, of course you're going to spam them, or rangers, or whatever other unit.
Dullahan
So what, is the complaint that there's too many grenades? DoW2 had deadlier grenades and it was manageable. Shoota grenades have big ++heresy redacted++ indicators that tell you exactly where to dodge.
This video describes the appropriate counter to them.
Tac Grenades I admit didn't need a damage buff and were fine before when they did tickle damage but knocked down. Still, don't think they're that problematic.
CANNED_F3TUS
Think they need to take it in increments. First reduce CC and nuke spam. If that helped just slightly increase unit health.
And we should be good.
Id rather see relic do it like that than just start throwing the dials all over the place.
Katitof
I'd say the complaint is, its fine to have abilities on units, but we don't need every singular unit in game to have at least 2 crowd control abilities on them at any time, because its supposed to be RTS game, not Neo vs Smith firearms duel at all times.
vindicarex
What if you don't play perfect and doge the hundreds of grenades being thrown at you @Dullahan ? You basically just lose... not to metion while you're dodging the 4+ free grenades, the ork player is basically getting free damage off of you as he shoots and advances you you dodge the grenades. Forcing your opponent to move his guys can be pretty powerful itself - the grenades don't necessarily have to hit for them to give you an advantage.
And thanks, I'm well aware of dodging grenades, thanks buddy, never thought of that one
Faith
Anyone who thinks sm snipers are an issue shouldnt win tournaments, no offens s4 but if u lose to sm sniper spam as eldar u deserve it, eldar snipers are bassically cheaper faster stronger and have free none doctrine invis without a cd not to mention Vigor, there just straigh better and if sm sniper spams u build ur own and auto win if ur evenly skilled, i agree that RANGER spam is an issue but snipers have ez exploitable downsides and cant just kill vehicles and elites with vigor like enough rangers can.
Dullahan
Tonz of Bombz is extremely predictable, they autothrow the grenade on the first target that comes into their range. They're not dangerous to infantry unless you're getting combo'd with some Nobs taunt or a similar tool. It's also a double edged sword if you make use of reflect abilities like Gabriel's Retribution and Banshee Quick Strike with Taldeer's Command because they are easy to predict and bounce right back. It's nowhere near a broken doctrine, it's just an easy one to use and get some benefit out of.
Health upgrades also do a pretty good job of mitigating the effectiveness of all these abilities. Again, I watch a lot of replays and I see most players start to get lvl 1 upgrades halfway through the game. Going for upgrades earlier is my personal playstyle and certainly one I find more effective.
Care to explan how every unit has 2 crowd control abilities? There's a few units like Tac's that can have grenades and flamers or units like the War Trukk that can consistently launch units out for a stun and with Stormboyz Command shoot suicide bommaz, but most don't have it.
S4ngetsu
You are right but snipers are still broken as well. If rangers are going to be nerfed there will be no counter for eldar to beat sniper spam. The only way to counter SM sniper mass as Eldar is to build Ranger. If you can't except that then no offense Faith, but l2p and try to beat that ++heresy redacted++ with Eldar but without Rangers.
In the tournament games i've decided not to build rangers because they are fucked up in ballance. I knew this long time before.
Here is a forum topic i've created about a month ago and you don't have to tell me what is broken and what is not because i KNOW:
https://community.dawnofwar.com/discussion/15540/rangers-and-ballance
And for snipers - they are broken as well. There is no counter to them except building snipers/rangers as well.
vindicarex
Dullahan, your argument comes down to "well just play better"
Yet meta is meta for a reason.
Perhaps one is that it is far easier to let loose a couple of hard CC abilities and potentially annihilate anything it touches vs. needing the constant micro attention to notice it and dodge it. One is relatively easy and one is relatively harder on players to execute)
(, btw, if you watch 1v1 replays I'm sure you've seen tactical use o tonz o bomz - a hard CC -, by getting shootas to target things closer to them, for example, or staggering the affect by splitting the attack order... or maybe using it to clear those ASM of a waaagh-ing tower)
Amoc
The complaint isn't about abilities being difficult to dodge, or land, or whatever. The complaint is that ability targeting and dodging is the overwhelming focus of the game. There are other games that offer this experience, and IMO they're way better at it.
Dullahan
Well, unles they simply remove most of the abilities in the game it will stay that way. It is very similar to DoW2, which I personally enjoyed quite a bit. I love the micro dancing that occurs in both games.> @vindicarex said:
Well yes, playing better is the best solution to the problem.
Just because something is somewhat easier to utilize than it is to counter does not mean it needs to be nerfed. Tonz of Bombs is one of the few doctrines that could stand to be moved to a Presence ability though, perhaps exchanging the Stormboyz presence ability for Tons of Bombs would improve the game since if you wanted to take advantage you would have to keep your Stormboyz alive. (And use them in the first place.) I think Stormboyz Presence to be the weakest Elite Presence ability in the game, honestly. (Mostly because it's an early game elite with a vehicle focused doctrine that isn't relevant until 20 minutes later. ) Much better suited to being a doctrine I think. What do you think? It would also mean you couldn't use Tons of Bombz with Stormboyz Command without also consuming a doctrine slot, so you'd have to choose between Bomma Trukks or Shoota's with free grenades.
Amoc
DoW II was a squad-based tactical game set at a much smaller scale and abilities were nowhere near as prevalent. You had far fewer units under your control, a lower proportion of units with targeted abilities, longer cooldowns on the abilities and less CC in general. Add the retreat mechanic to that and it was much harder to achieve an instant squad-wipe in DoW II. These two games are so different the comparison doesn't really stand.
Not if the problem has nothing to do with the outcome of your matches. If you dislike parts of the game design, how does playing better solve that? Pretty poor reasoning there.