[DC 1.2] Hellhounds, Psykers, and other Glitchy IG Units

[Jaimas]

There are a number of Imperial Guard units which frankly, do not see any use in DC 1.2 outside of a select few MUs and/or quickstart games. In an effort to address this issue, and to prevent another IG balance threadnaught from spawning and devouring the upper half of this forum for another 4 months, I am choosing to focus on what I consider to be simplistic, easily-fixed or rebalanced bugs or balance issues plaguing 2 units which are near and dear to my hear due to my constant use of them in TT: The Hellhound and Psyker.

Let us begin.

Part the First: The Hellhound
Problem: The Flame Tank's accuracy is too low.
Elaboration: If you've played IG, and if you've used Hellhounds singly at any point, you've seen it: the now-notorious "Hellhound pulls into range and opens fire, but squad doesn't take damage until a good 3-14 seconds after the Hellhound has begun firing" scenario, which has been documented (and openly criticized) by more than a few people. The cause for this seems to be the Hellhound's poor accuracy - a meager 50%; a stark contrast to the guaranteed accuracy of every other flame weapon.
Why This Needs a Fix: Currently, the Hellhound sees very little use outside of IG Mirrors or Quickstart; the former sees a lot of use because Hellhounds are extremely hard for IG to counter, even if the Helly in its current incarnation is rather dubious in its efficiency. The latter is true because Hellhounds are a lot stronger in bulk, much like most flame units are.
Proposed Fix: The simple fix for the Hellhound's chronic accuracy problem is to crank its accuracy to 100%, then ratchet back its DPS to acceptable levels (about what they are now, really).
Why This Isn't Broken: The only thing trading hands here is accuracy; DPS is wholly unaffected due to the cut-back, and the end result is a flame unit that actually works. End result is that Hellhounds once more become viable for automatch use.


Part the Second: The Psyker
Problems: Lightning Arc breaks Psyker and attached squad; Strip Soul is bugged.
Elaboration: 2 seperate issues; both need a fix ASAP. In the case of the Former, Lightning Arc suffers a stupid drawback in that it breaks the Psyker (and his attached squad) when cast. This drawback has absolutely no precedent in-game, and is atop an ability that, in and of itself, is not particularly strong.
As for Strip Soul, its casting time remains too long - in and of itself, not a bug, but it results in 2 casting bugs. The first occurs when the Psyker is casting a spell and then the target dies; the Psyker then casts anyway and wastes Strip Soul. The Second bug occurs when the target moves out of range; the ability then simply fizzles out, often wasting strip soul in the process. The second occurs mainly during battles with jump troops.
Why This Needs a Fix: The Psyker already is a unit that never sees any building from the HQ; ability to attach psykers as spotters for squads could be extremely useful, but with the caster-break and other Psyker-related bugs, there is absolutely no purpose in attaching one unless you like breaking your own squads.
Proposed Fix: Remove the Lightning Arc morale blastback. It never should have been included in the first place. Decrease Strip Soul cast time.
Why This Isn't Broken: Strip Soul's damage has been cut drastically, to the point where the ability's casting time is no longer justified. The Lightning Arc morale blastback is ludicrously stupid and I have yet to hear a single valid argument in favor of keeping it in my entire tenure of being on these boards.

Your thoughts?

[wayfarer]

The morale blastback is bearable in T2. Even if serves as a spotter he won't see much uses. If you have a HQ scanner and a basilisk (Yeah I still use them from time to time but mostly for their sight range and random lucky shoot).

For the hellhound in groups they are monsters. For a single one the trade is Okay but I don't know how they'll work together in groups.

[magicalcarpet]

one thing you have to take into account with the HH is fotm.

units with lower base accuracy suffer a lower DPS drop. Thus, the HH will eat dirt on the move.

[Jaimas]

Yes, which means that the 50% accuracy it normally has is 25% on the move.

Even when standing still, people have seen the aforementioned "firing but really doing nothing" thing repeatedly. In a few cases, such as when it comes to a Helly with a fire dragon squad nearby, this results in fatalities.

[The_Guardman]

(Ho no! Here Jaimas come again! :D )

- Another chance is increase RoF for the helly, and reduce damage according. As result, the lottery gun effect will be smhooted.

- The psyker bugs is also dramatic vs. the already hard eldar MU. You need the psyker to see the Rangers, and he's also a primary target for the FS mind war that >IG officers. However, when you try to return the favor, she just FoF away and you lose the shot. I think I was never able to hit her with a mind blow.
When you build a lone psyker, the morale backslash increase the already difficult MU due to othe eldar morale-hitting things, not last the WL, DR killings and omnipresent rangers.

[Integrity]

Oh noes! Jaimas again! ;)

Totally agree on the Hellhound accuracy. Something that shoots a jet of flame like that *shouldn't* be avoidable. It's like avoiding World in Conflict's Napalm Strikes. It's like avoiding BEING SET ON FIRE, while you're already ON FIRE.

Psykers also need a little reworking, but the problem with balancing them is you can have seven of them, all casting on seperate timers. So, with that in mind:
- Leave SS's casting time, add a debuff (Stripped Soul :() to it (applied to the target), reduce accuracy by 20%.
- Add same debuff back to Psyker when using Lightning Thingy, in exchange for the morale blowback. (Migraines.)

Maybe apply the headache debuff to the Psyker with both SS and Lightning Thingy? Possibly also make him unable to fire off his special disruption attacks while headachey. OTOH, that would actually make this a buff, not a debuff. :D

While we're at it, the Sentinel veh_high damage could be considered buggy, no?

[Slow_Runner]

Increase Strip Soul cast time. Really? :p

[phoenixzs]

Psykers also need a little reworking, but the problem with balancing them is you can have seven of them, all casting on seperate timers. So, with that in mind:
- Leave SS's casting time, add a debuff (Stripped Soul :() to it (applied to the target), reduce accuracy by 20%.
- Add same debuff back to Psyker when using Lightning Thingy, in exchange for the morale blowback. (Migraines.)


About the 7 psykers thing;As far as I know you could recruit 3 from HQ and 4 added to the command squad.Besides the purely obsolute idea of having 4 pyskers in CS (eheh nerd union power :)) as far as I know the strip soul in command squad doesnt get any better.Having 4 psykers doesnt reduce the time for stripsoul so there is (if I am right of course) only 4 stripsoul posibilities at one time not 7.

And giving the fragility of psykers,nerfed cursed of machine spirit and nerfed strip soul (we are still paying same here for the unit)
they better be buffed up.They should probably give some bonus to the squad while attached since it lies in the ideology of having miniheroes(hopefully in the future Ig squads are not so dependant on priests also (Way to go commies :D))

[Varsis]

Oh Jaimas...

Haven't you realized the futility yet? Don't tell me Soulstorm has renewed your optimism that DoW might have something approaching balance. Because with 2 new races that is definitely not going to happen.

In regards to your least used unit choices, the Psyker I can understand, but the Hellhound?! The hellhound is probably the most commonly utilized IG vehicle behind the chim. You're almost guaranteed to see them used against an infantry heavy army or if the IG player has teched faster than the other player (thus eliminating the need for Sents immediately). It's certainly utilized more often than the Basilisk, which almost never sees play.

As for its utility, by itself it's pretty mediocre, but in groups it's beastly. I can offer you the perfect explanation for it's startling differences to other flamers though. Unlike other flamers, the Hellhound is a fast moving vehicle and although there are other vehicles with flamers, none of them approach the speed and utility of the hellhound flamer. If your infantry is being chased by a flamer squad, you can retreat behind an LP2 or your base for relative safety. That's less of an option for a squad being chased by a Hellhound, they'd need an anti-veh unit to deal with it. If its accuracy were to be buffed, its dps would need to be nerfed (obviously, esp. against buildings), and it would probably need to move slower.

As for the Psyker... Ah the Psyker, the bane of my existence. Ya know if they gave priests detection I don't think I'd mind if they removed the Psyker altogether, even with the loss of CotMS.

Anyway, to reiterate what I've said perhaps a dozen times. The Psyker Strip Soul ability has its damage tabulated before the animation hits it. This means that even if you don't see the blue arc strike the target it still damaged it. This is what happens when Strip Soul kills a target. The Psyker will begin casting, 2-3 seconds in the damage is tabulated and the unit dies, the Psyker stops before the final blue arc animation. Those just need to be synced. The fizzling out is a problem too but I haven't seen it occur too often recently. Since it's less useful against commanders then its focus should be against squads, for that it'd be grand if SS did AoE knockback, even if there is no damage.

And as for Lightning Arc, be realistic Jaimas. Relic isn't going to give us anything without some take. You want to remove the morale blastback? Then we're gonna lose something, damage will be nerfed, or morale damage will be nerfed. Relic will take something I assure you. Personally, I wouldn't mind if the Psyker insta-broke its attached squad as long as it was guaranteed to do the same thing to the other squad. How about this? It was an idea I've had for awhile, have Lightning Arc stun the target for a period of time the larger the target squad is. Say 5 members -> stun 1sec, 6-7 -> stun 3sec, 7+ -> stun 5sec. Since those squads will receive mediocre damage from LA then this would add a level of utility by stopping larger squads and forcing units with setup times to setup again, intead of just breaking them (which isn't even assured because of so many morale immune units and units with OMGWTF morale levels).

I'd also like to see the cast-time for CotMS either reduced or removed. It made sense when it worked differently from vehicle stopping units, now not so much (esp. since Stealth Suits do the same thing except with no cast time and with an AoE).

But really this won't affect the Psyker's use outside the CS. Players need a good reason to attach the psyker. Shielding from ranged fire or attribute buffs, something. Even if all these changes occur (they won't) the Psyker will still only see use in the CS when necessary.

And while we're asking Relic to do stuff that they've clearly demonstrated they won't do, Relic I would like a '67 Shelby Mustang with $100,000 in unmarked, nonconsecutive bills in the back seat. Make it happen.

[Vytae]

Relic I would like a '67 Shelby Mustang with $100,000 in unmarked, nonconsecutive bills in the back seat

Me too,except i also want hookers in the seats and blackjack table in the trunk.

Back to topic,im actually rather fond of the HH. The problem is A: the stone research costs almost as much as a damn HH itself and B: Their accuracy is annoying,but i wouldnt want a dmg decrease. They have limited windows of opportunity and taking down their dmg even a little makes those windows smaller. Their costly enough i think its justified giving them a small accuracy boost without nerfing anything else.

If you do a bum rush HH build,you can absolutley rape an ork or necron ( Closely clustered banners/generators respectivley) or that mass of tier 1 troops. They can turn a game around like nothing. But once AV is on the field they are basicly useless,id rather keep them as a tier 2 viable unit and only above that if your rich.

As for the psyker,i give up. The only reason i put a psyker or two in my CS is for detection and late game anti mono/landraider. If they ever nerf curse ill prolly start going all priest.

[Jaimas]

Varsis: Then give a legitimate justification for the existence of Lightning Arc morale blastback. I've yet to hear one.

[carpetfresh]

Just to clear a few things up, the hh's fotm accuracy is 35%, not 25%, so its dps only goes down by 30%, not 50. As it stands now, the hh is incredibly useful against infantry mass and clustered buildings. Coupled with priests (one of the few viable IG bo's), they can really devour just about anything in t2. I do agree, however that the damage it does can be a bit dodgy. Increasing the rate of fire/nerfing damage and buffing accuracy/nerfing damage will both achieve the same thing, so either would be fine imo. Not really sure about this, but I would kind of like to see a buff to the "let it burn" ability. Right now it will deal out 50 damage/sec for the first 3 seconds, and then once every 3 seconds after that for 27 seconds. Honestly noone is stupid enough to sit in the flames for half a minute, I'd rather have the ability last 10-12 seconds and do damage once or twice every second (with an appropriate nerf to damage). Kinda silly that units bathing in flames will only take damage once every 3 seconds (after the first 3).

Now for the psyker. Fully agree, its a terrible unit that is almost never used outside of the command squad. They are the most expensive mini-hero, offer no benefits to squads, and are incredibly fragile. A ranged damage reduction ability has been suggested a lot, which would be a good reason to attach them to squads. A simple buff to lightning arc's morale damage (so it'll actually break smaller high-morale squads) and a buff to CotMS (as it stands its a crappier emp nade) to completely disable jumping and have a shorter cast-time would certainly help. In an extreme case, fanaticism could be renamed to "psychic shielding" or something and added to the psyker's abilities. Whatever they do, they need to change something - the hq psyker is by far the most useless unit IG has to offer.

[Varsis]

I can give you the most likely excuse Jaimas, but you won't like it. Since it's the fact you can have 7 psykers. My best guess is the blowback is Relic's way to try to prevent abuse of the abilities. However, since they included no good reason to attach a psyker they're hardly made to begin with. If Relic was going to remove the blowback at any time, they would've done it at 1.2. Since they didn't, I'm expecting it in Soulstorm.

Ya know carpet, I was gonna mention that the Bassie was pretty useless now. But you're right, the Psuker is even more useless. Too bad we need it for detection...

[Makenshi]

it's the fact you can have 7 psykers

Well... why not a Psyker Squad than? Like the Seer Council, the more members the faster the abilities recharge, but can only be cast once in a while, not once for member. Leave the CS with only military guys like the General and the Comissar. I don't like the looks of the Priest, either. ^^

Edit: With a Psyker Squad, also remove the attachable ones.

[SpArTy]

Currently, the Hellhound sees very little use outside of IG Mirrors or Quickstart; the former sees a lot of use because Hellhounds are extremely hard for IG to counter, even if the Helly in its current incarnation is rather dubious in its efficiency.

Your talking about the bane of IGs t2, I rarely see a player skip them. They are lethal in numbers. Just remove the stone and buff accuracy. Let It Burn needs looking at. It used to be something to fear but now it’s just a warm breeze to most things t3.

[Chris]

The fact that you think the hellhound is difficult to counter and thusly useful in mirror matches damages your credibility in my opinion. IG mirror is probably the matchup I'm least likely to build a hellhound in, simply because CoTMS + Sentinel > all tier 2 vehicles.


Ya know carpet, I was gonna mention that the Bassie was pretty useless now. But you're right, the Psuker is even more useless. Too bad we need it for detection...


and a buff to CotMS (as it stands its a crappier emp nade) to completely disable jumping and have a shorter cast-time would certainly help

CoTMS more useless than the basilisk? Needs buffing? Guh, no. Just no. The fact that CoTMS was "nerfed" in 1.2 doesn't actually make much of a difference considering how much vehicle/building damage priest plasma does (here's a hint; it's way too much). Comparing it to the EMP grenade is pretty unfair since the EMP grenade makes EVERYTHING look bad.

The hellhound is a bit crappy but in fairness you can't complain for 150/150, I think you're expecting too much bang for your buck. Fix the problem where it doesn't appear to do damage for the first 10 seconds or whatever but leave the rest as is. Once the hellhound breaks a squad (very easy if it's a big squad) it can deal enough damage on the move to keep them broken for a very long time) "Let it burn" is pretty crappy however I am strongly opposed to having high damage spells and abilities so I'd prefer it to deal high morale damage instead of just nuking squads to death.

[Varsis]

My comment was in regards to the HQ psyker Chris. Everything you could ever need or want is provided by the CS psyker, thus I feel the HQ psyker is more useless than the bassie.

And I honestly don't think Psyker squads are ever going to happen. First it doesn't make a whole lot of sense in fluff (to my knowledge), and second it's too much a departure from what Relic has set out with the mini heroes.

The most I could see them doing is capping the CS Psyker and HQ Psyker at 1, for a total of 2 psykers, and buffing their abilities.

[carpetfresh]

I wasnt suggesting making CotMS the ridiculous spell it was pre-1.2. Really I'd just like it to disable jumping (ok this is arguable, not sure if the other vehicle-stunning abilities disable this) or just decrease the amount of time it takes to cast. It is definitely up there with execute and fanaticism as IG's most useful abilities, no one was saying it wasnt. Its just that no one ever uses hq psykers, as the CS can pretty much cover you as far as CotMS.

[The_Guardman]

Another option for the Helly is to reduce the morale damage to zero, add a second "invisible"weapon with same stat, target aquisiiton, etc. at the same hardpoint, reduce its damage to zero, add 100% accuracy ever on the move and make it doig the morale damage. This way you always breack sqauds, but keep the lottery gun reguading damage.

[phoenixzs]

Hellhounds should reduce the accuracy of the place they are applying the flame.I mean who could fight in such a place or see actually

[weirwood]

The most I could see them doing is capping the CS Psyker and HQ Psyker at 1, for a total of 2 psykers, and buffing their abilities.

The idea might have some merit, but AFAIK, you can't cap specific unit leaders like the CS members.

[The_Guardman]

It can be done IIRC. Simply, if you cap the CS psyker to 1, you cannot have more than one no matter the amount of CS you field. However, this is a modder's problem, becouse the CS is only one in the DC game.

[Varsis]

Weirwood: That wasn't so much an idea as it was a statement of belief that Relic would go no further than that. And on top of that, I don't believe Relic would go that far. In fact I don't think Relic would institute 1 of the changes suggested in the balance forum unless every beta tester endorsed it and it didn't take too much work (i.e. never). I only keep posting here because it's fun to talk about these things and there's a little inkling of hope left in me that wants to believe change might happen.

But I've learned that if you expect nothing, then you won't be disappointed when you get just that.

Anyways, I think the Hellhound is the best it's ever been and not sure why Jaimas singled it out. It's one of IG's 3 useful T2 vehicles, so I don't see why this isn't a thread about the Psyker and the Basilisk...

[Jaimas]

The "best it's ever been" doesn't change the fact that it's a unit with problems. I singled it out because its major problem, frankly, is goddamn easy to fix.

The Hellhound remains useful - especially when massed; it's just the absolutely retarded "lol shooting for 3-10 seconds but nothing happens" that can potentially render this expensive unit - and it is expensive - a liability in a combat situation.

I, personally, have never seen Hellhounds used in automatch except in groups. Chimeras yes, Sentinels, god yes, but never Hellhounds unless the map is especially large.

The change I specified calls for not a change in DPS, or anything; merely an accuracy buff to 100% Stationary and then turning down the DPS to acceptable (read: current) levels - exactly as Chris mentioned earlier in this thread.

Every other goddamn flame unit in the game cannot miss - so why, pray tell, must a flamethrower-equipped tank that shoots a giant fire-hose of flaming liquid at a general location on the ground have to fire on a unit for several seconds without doing anything?

Not only does it look ridiculous - it makes absolutely no sense from a physics or mechanics standpoint. It's something that frankly, should be fixed.

[Troubleshooter]

Psuker
Classic! :D


The hellhound is a bit crappy but in fairness you can't complain for 150/150, I think you're expecting too much bang for your buck.Spent res on units that dont perform is wasted res. Wasted res = GG. If the HH were simply under performing, that would be one thing... but unless you are HH whoring, you're wasting res even researching the stone. 3+ HH are pretty awesome, but by the time you have flaming doom on treads, they have tier 3 LoLing all over your base.

Too much about IG is bundled in the supposed massablility of the race vs. durability. The time it takes to mass, maneuver and execute such builds precludes them from ever functioning as advertised in a truly competitive match. I would say that in team matches, HH are pretty good, but then what about IG doesn't suffer from this mirage. Its unfortunate that you cant get IG off the ground without outside assistance, either from your enemy being a dolt, of from helpful teammates that know how to leverage your units.

[Jaimas]

Spent res on units that dont perform is wasted res. Wasted res = GG. If the HH were simply under performing, that would be one thing... but unless you are HH whoring, you're wasting res even researching the stone. 3+ HH are pretty awesome, but by the time you have flaming doom on treads, they have tier 3 LoLing all over your base.

Which is what I was trying to get across. Missing Hellhound = waste of unit.

[Varsis]

Wow Trouble, have you gone to full lurker status now? It sucks that so many of the classic IG players are much less active now. I hope they come back for soulstorm, we have to maintain the dominance of the IG wine on RN! :D

Anyways Jaimas, I think the issue with the HH is that you want to have your cake and eat it too. The HH is the fastest flamer vehicle with a greater range than any other flamer in the game. Sure it may have a min range, but what else is a non-AV squad supposed to do? It can chase down most squads with its speed and range and if they try to melee it you can just move away. It also has the best building damage of any flamer unit (perhaps with the exception of the Crisis suit, but who in their right mind would compare anything to that?), and it ridiculously still deals the same blanket damage to all building armor with the added benefit of killing any builders trying to repair it.

Now if the HH were to receive 100% accuracy to bring it in line with every other flamer, would you also agree to nerfing its speed, range, and building damage? Just to bring it in line with every other flamer unit of course. :p

There's also the fact that since it has no melee attack it wouldn't be able to be tied up, so it would also need to keep the min range or receive an hp nerf so non-AV squads can handle it.

I'm not saying there is nothing wrong with what Relic wants it to be doing. But I'd say it's definitely doing what they want it to be doing. I.E. require the user to mass it for effectiveness and be one of the best dedicated flamer units in the game when it is.

And it definitely stands mountains above the psyker in terms of utility. Psyker is only good for CotMS and necessary for detection.

[Troubleshooter]

Wow Trouble, have you gone to full lurker status now? It sucks that so many of the classic IG players are much less active now.I try not to get involved in active discussion since I have not seen how tactics or balance shifts have evolved since I quit Multi-player. I'm sure I will play soulstorm, but not until it hits the discount bin at the game store. Dont expect to see me in DoW anytime soon :p

[Jaimas]

Varsis, are you even reading the proposed fix? It calls for increasing the Accuracy to 100% then reducing the DPS to current levels.

[Varsis]

Are you reading what I'm posting? Because apparently I'm forced to repeat myself over and over.

The HH has speed 24, range 25 (min 5), about 35 DPS to all building types, cannot be tied up in melee, has AoE instead of arc, and has 50% accuracy.

For the sake of comparison, let's look at other vehicle flamers:

Wraithlord: damage is 1/3 of the HH and bldg damage is laughable, range 10, speed 20, can be tied up in melee, fires in arc, 100% accuracy.

Dreadnaught: Base damage is slightly better than HH but bldg damage is still laughable, range 10, speed 18, can be tied up in melee, fires in arc, 100% accuracy.

Defiler: Damage is 1/2 that of the HH and bldg damage is laughable, range 10, speed 16, can be tied up in melee, fires in arc, 100% accuracy.

And that's it, those are the only vehicles with flamers. You can't compare a vehicle to an infantry squad but since you've made it a point of comparing it to an SM squad let's look at the stats of their flamer:

SM flamer: Damage is about 1/2 that of the HH but they are capable of having up to 4 but a single HH will still outdamage them against bldgs, range 25 (no min), speed 16, can be tied up in melee, can be broken, fires in arc, 100% accuracy.

And for kicks here's the Crisis suit flamer: Damage better than HH with shorter refire and far more DPS however HH still outdamages it against bldg_hi, range 15, speed 14, cannot be tied up in melee, can be broken, fires in what appears to be an AoE, 100% accuracy.

Do you see where I'm going with this? The only flamer that really compares is the Crisis suit, and we all know how imbashit that is so theres no real basis for comparison.

You want to bring the HH accuracy up to "bring it in line with other flamers"? Then you need to nerf its speed, range, building damage, and have some way for it to be tied up or have a min range. Then it'll be in line.

You're not asking for the HH to be equivalent to other flamers, you're asking for it to be far and away superior.

[The_Guardman]

I miss your point, Varsis. Why, if the DpS remain the same, the accuracy change ask for such a big nerf?

Ho, and the WL have 2 flamers, so double the damage, please ;)

[Zany Reaper]

I don't think the reload time needs to be changed concerning the Inferno cannon. It already fires 2ce every second. I'm really more concerned about the damage & morale damage being a little too low.
You can put it up against even a fire warrior squad, & it'll sure take a while to kill it, or even break it due to the low parameters, despite the large area of effect. Sure, its accuracy is low, but increasing that will also increase the average DPS anyways. It's either the accuracy or the damage that needs a buff, & in my opinion, it needs to be increased by 50%.

[Varsis]

The point Guardman, is that the argument that the HH accuracy should be increased because every other flamer has 100% accuracy is garbage. The HH has an advantage over every other flamer in the game except in accuracy.

How exactly is it fair to increase the HH accuracy and also keep its other advantages? It can run down any squad in the game with its speed and range, a feat almost every other flamer cannot accomplish. Plus it does better bldg damage than any other flamer besides the Crisis suit.

If you're arguing that the HH should be more like other flamers then the advantages need to go too. But if you're arguing that the HH should be better than every other flamer because it is the only dedicated flamer in the game, then that's another argument entirely. It's more of a personal desire than a balance issue.

[The_Guardman]

Are you both forgetting that increasing accuracy actually mean not only 100% when stand still, and 70% on the move (as all flamers in the game), but also a corresponding decrease in damage and morale damage so to not change the effect (DpS/ MDpS) overall?
This mean, that if take (to say) 30 seconds to kill a SM average, this will not change. What will change is the fact that it will do its expected X damage in 10 seconds, instead that working as a lottery gun, where sometime it hit 10 times in a row doing big damage and sometime it miss 10 times in a row doing an (terribly irritating) zero damage.

This is the balance issue proposal.


If we talk about personal taste, I do not see why a gigantic flamer that is mounted on a mobile turret (that is supposed to have some tracking device and target acquisition stabilizer) should be worse than a smaller, infantry-carried one... Generically, I tend to divide my personal taste from the balance discussion, otherwise this forum will be spammed by my personal opinin on how the various races should be re-built, ground-up. It's called compromise :(

[Varsis]

I am convinced now that you are intentionally not understanding what I'm saying Guardman.

Besides the fact that 70% FotM is absolutely ridiculous considering what I've pointed out, you're still dodging the issue of the HH advantages. How exactly can you make the argument that the HH should be more like other flamers but also keep it's superior advantages at the same time (and they are very superior advantages)? How is that balanced?

Ok let's say the HH has 100% accuracy with its current DPS. It goes up against an SM player who doesn't happen to have ML yet (and even if they did fat lot of good it'd do when they're broken). So his SM army breaks, time to run right? Well a broken SM squad moves at speed 20, while the HH moves at 24, and also has a range of 25. With 70% FotM they're dead, simple as that. But assuming they do somehow make it back to their base, then what? Well he wants to start building an armory, but if the HH targets that then not only will the bldg take damage but the servitor will die along with every other servitor that tries to build it. In the meantime the SM player is left with bolters to solve his problem. All this from 1 unit, a T2 unit no less. And that's not even taking into account that the HH is made to spam. Throw in two HH for dedicated ai and base smashing, and a sent for AV-vehicles (perfectly attainable with IG eco) and it's gg. Balanced?

[The_Guardman]

How this will change from the actual set-up, in your opinion? You've described exactly what the actual HH do: damage on the move and decent building kiling.
note also that with a 100% acc. and 70% FotM, it will do less damage on the move in respect to the actual (30% penalty vs. 20% actual penalty).

Anyway, It seem to me that your opinion is that the miss chance is needed to allow units to escape from it in time sometime, while being killed outright some other time. Am I wrong?

[Chris]

His point is very simple. The accuracy can't be too high because the flamer is on a fucking tank.

And it's a very good point.

[Zany Reaper]

Nah, I just think the hellhound overall needs a damage buff. Not really very useful at the moment from whenever I see it used.

[The_Guardman]

Chris, your opinion do not matter because you hate IG :P
Jokes aside, so what about Hammerhead? Skyray ? The freaking necrons destroyers?? Wirlwind absence of offset and friendly fire????
All of those are considerated issues to be discussed, but none of them share the hellhound working and effect, or role.
I'm all for making the hellhound more costly, if the acc change/DpS unchange is demonstrated to be too powerful. IMHO, it is a buff because it will become more reliable, and and a clear nerf in the FotM department.

[Zany Reaper]

I'm in for a cost increase too, in the case of the hellhound provided that it does infact get a decent damage buff (like 50% extra), in addition to a build time nerf to 30 seconds, rather than the current fast 20 seconds (which I think is pretty quick considering what the tank's supposed to do). I don't think a HP nerf would be a bad idea either, seeing as it's fairly fast (it moves at the average speed of a tank, but it does look pretty fast ingame). Should be more of a vehicle that is used as support to deal lots of damage, rather than requiring a lot of support to deal out lots of damage, ha ha.

This tank after all is supposed to be a legendary vehicle amongst guardsmen & enemies alike, feared for its ability to burn up swaiths of infantry quickly (although it's also easy to destroy too).

[God_Of_Scots]

Hell hounds are used all the time...
If you put their accuracy to 100% then it would be instant morale break+wtfpwned damage. They already break morale at an enormous rate and kill all types of infantry quickly.

[Cyberbob]

Uh, God? Did you miss the part where the damage was toned down to retain the same DPS?

[Jaimas]

His point is very simple. The accuracy can't be too high because the flamer is on a fucking tank.

And it's a very good point.

Best. Post. Ever.


Ok let's say the HH has 100% accuracy with its current DPS. It goes up against an SM player who doesn't happen to have ML yet (and even if they did fat lot of good it'd do when they're broken). So his SM army breaks, time to run right? Well a broken SM squad moves at speed 20, while the HH moves at 24, and also has a range of 25. With 70% FotM they're dead, simple as that. But assuming they do somehow make it back to their base, then what? Well he wants to start building an armory, but if the HH targets that then not only will the bldg take damage but the servitor will die along with every other servitor that tries to build it. In the meantime the SM player is left with bolters to solve his problem. All this from 1 unit, a T2 unit no less. And that's not even taking into account that the HH is made to spam. Throw in two HH for dedicated ai and base smashing, and a sent for AV-vehicles (perfectly attainable with IG eco) and it's gg. Balanced?

All right, I'm under an obligation to dissect this post and point out why you're wrong here. And while there are a slew of mis-statements in the above, I'll focus on the biggies.

First of all, the HH is a 150/150 cost Vehicle that requires a vehicle stone and comes out roughly mid/late Tier-2 unless you're in quickstart or have already secured substantial map control.

Despite arguments to the contrary, a passing Hellhound cannot, and will not instagib an SM squad - or even come anywhere close to doing so. Multiple Hellies are ass-kickers, to be sure, but getting 2 is a walloping 300 power and req; historically when I've made a rush for multiple Hellies, my opponent has rushed to Tier 3 and then taught me a lesson in humility.

Moreover, the timing of the build in your example leaves out the fact that the Hellhound has a fairly short range - as well as a minimum range. Considering that most SM players I've seen go with a Grey Knight/Ivan or Grey Knight/Librarian build in the current metagame, especially when dealing with IG, who frankly get their asses handed to them by such a combination, that minimum range becomes a factor, since Ivan and company can effectively melee the bejeezus out of a Hellhound whilst it is unable to target a goddamn thing.

But I'll humor you. Let's say the dude doesn't have MLs yet. Assuming he wasn't mentally retarded or a complete n00blet, the bright thing to do would be to rush to melee immediately against the Hellhound, where its Flamer would do no harm whilst MLs had the chance to build - especially considering that the Sergeant has good AV DPS, especially upgraded.

Your equation fails to account for commanders as well.

Moreover, your equation fails to account for Rally unbreaking the troops, the fact that broken SM run faster than the Helly does and as infantry, can go a lot of places it can't.

If this isn't enough though, you directly contradict the earlier statement (dude didn't have MLs yet) by stating that he hadn't even built an armory. Honestly, if the SM player doesn't have an Armory by the middle of Tier 2, and indeed is intending on an SM Tac build, and then only had one Squad of Marines when I managed to somehow get 2 Hellhounds out?

Frankly he deserves whatever happens.

[Lomax]

I don't really play competetively, but I think the Hellhound is far from being useless. I remember that the ignite floor ability used to be stronger in vanilla DC, it could really turn around an infantry heavy game, against Orks for example. Now it's still useful as it can avoid the min range problem of Hellhounds a little. I would like if the damage of the ability doesn't get buffed, but if the ability does extra morale damage or something like that.

The HH is still a useful blocker, in absence of any IG CC infantry or even durable infantry except the CS until T3. And 2 or 3 of them tend to focus the enemy's concentration on the banner/generator farms rapidly dissolving, thus giving your main army room to breathe. They are not as useful as a single support vehicle in the field anymore, but even a small group in the enemy's base will probably need full attention. I always liked about IG that few units could win the game by themselves. Very fluffy.

But I fully agree with the Psyker thing. You really need luck to be able to pull the SS off, and I often feel like I'm wasting my time using LA on enemies. I still occasionally get them for CotMS and detection, but they have sunk low on the priority list.

[Varsis]

I am seriously beginning to question people's ability to read in this topic. The only person who understood what I'm saying is Smith who put it a lot more bluntly than I did.

Jaimas, I'm sure you're a very good player, but why exactly you think an IG player can't get 2 HH's quickly is beyond me. I'm a fast techer, and if I eco boom in T1 then I have more than enough to buy 2 HH in T2, it's not hard, I just won't be teching to T3 anytime soon but why would I have to? When HH would end the game for me. And my example didn't even take into account the IG player's other units. You'll still have at least 2 GM squads and the CS if you know what you're doing even a little bit, and no where did I say he'd have 1 Tac squad, frankly it wouldn't matter how many he has. Sure he can CC the HH, because really what else is he gonna do? Broken SM squads move at speed 20 while HH moves at speed 24, yeah they're certainly faster than the HH. If you have 2 HH all they have to do is shoot at each other or a close target and the AoE will still hit the squads.

But since you're "humoring" me and explaining why I'm wrong, why don't you address my post on the second page? Care to explain why exactly the HH deserves to be faster, have greater range, better AoE, better bldg. damage, vehicle armor, and 100% accuracy? Someone has yet to address this. It's fine if you think the HH should be the best flamer in the game, but that's not a balance issue. In every way besides accuracy, the HH is better than every other flamer in the game (besides crisis suit and that's T3). So don't try and say it should have 100% accuracy like every other flamer, if you want it to be like every other flamer then you'd also want it to be slower, shorter range, and piss poor bldg. damage.

It's simply not gonna happen without losing something Jaimas, when are you gonna realize that? Relic seems to think IG is balanced enough because the pros think it's balanced enough. So you're not gonna get something for nothing. More likely you'll lose something for nothing, as the Basilisk knows.

[SubZero]

Ok folks - this is a balance discussion and really shouldn't be taken personally as some people are.

So comments like :

All right, I'm under an obligation to dissect this post and point out why you're wrong here.
and

It's simply not gonna happen without losing something Jaimas, when are you gonna realize that?

are not constructive in this instance.

If you want the Imperial Guard units altered, state realistic and intelligible reasons why - people's stats dont count for this, and neither do hypothetical situations (within reason of course).

[Jaimas]

But since you're "humoring" me and explaining why I'm wrong, why don't you address my post on the second page? Care to explain why exactly the HH deserves to be faster, have greater range, better AoE, better bldg. damage, vehicle armor, and 100% accuracy?

With all due respect, noble Varsis, I didn't address it because I never mentioned a need for it being faster, having a bigger AOE, better building damage, or higher vehicle armor. Actually, I'm fairly damn sure that no one in this thread has seriously called for the Hellhound getting a bigger AOE, or vehicle_high armor.

The only thing currently being called upon is a need to fix the ludicrous 50% Stationary accuracy of the Hellhound. The fix calls for an increase in accuracy to 100% (I.E, in line with all other flamer-type weapons), followed by a reduction in damage and morale damage to the current levels (I.E. Halving the DPS whilst buffing accuracy).

That's it.

The only thing this changes is that the Hellhound doesn't "sputter" when firing on a unit whilst stationary, resulting in 1-3 second no-damage pauses, and the now-infamous "I fire on a unit for several seconds after pulling into range with nothing happening" crap. The DPS remains the same. The Morale damage remains the same. The FOTM remains the same.
The only change - only change - is that the damage is - brace yourselves - consistent, like it is with all other Flamer-type weapons.

Nothing else is being advocated by me. Not a speed increase, not an AOE increase, not a damage increase. Nothing else.

If I said otherwise, then please, good Varsis, point at where in this thread I advocated anything other than the aforementioned accuracy/DPS fix, so that we may discuss it proper.

For the record, it's enough of a discrepancy that Slow_Runner added it to the No-Brainer fix thread. That gives a general indication of its validity, IMHO.

[Slow_Runner]

Varsis, the amount of damage dealt on the move would not change. Nor would the overall damage dealt while stationary. Jaimas is suggesting doubling accuracy while halving damage, amounting to the same DPS but with better consistency and less freakishly high/low damage depending on whether the unit hits or not.

[Varsis]

What I am saying, Mr. Jaimas, is that The Hellhound's AoE, speed, and bldg damage is already greater than any flamer in the game. If I wasn't clear on that then I apologize for not being clearer, this may have been what caused all the misunderstanding.

I really do respect your opinion Jaimas, but I'm just saying that this doesn't seem realistic. With the Hellhound's current stats, it's superior to every other flamer in the game with the exception of accuracy. It's accuracy is the control here. What I am asking is why you're calling for a buff to the unit without it losing anything? This is why I view your suggestion as unrealistic.

If you want it to have 100% accuracy, then what is the control? It has speed 24, faster than any other flamer vehicle (and almost every flamer infantry) in the game, combined with its vehicle armor it is very difficult to outrun or counter with AV and most AV can be tied up, it has 25 range with the standard for most flamers being 10 range, it has greater bldg damage than any other flamer besides the crisis suit and even tops that against bldg Hi, it's AoE is already superior to every other flamer in the game (this may be an opinion but I think an AoE of 10 which is capable of damaging a building and a builder at the same time is pretty damn good), every other flamer (crisis suit an exception) can be engaged in melee stopping the flamer from firing, this is why the Hellhoud has a min range of 5 a range that is still within its AoE so it can still hit units ccing it if it has something else to attack.

This is my contention Jaimas, giving it 100% accuracy would simply make it too good. This is why I stated that if you want it to be more like other flamers then you should be calling for a nerf to its stats as well (not just damage), and it would need them. What would be the control? Why should the Hellhound receive this kind of buff? (and a serious buff it is) A unit players can mass without too much difficulty and seemingly meant to be massed by Relic cannot have those kinds of stats and still be balanced.

Idk why Slow Runner chose to include it in the no brainer fixes, because Relic obviously gave it 50% accuracy on purpose it's a balance issue anyway you slice it.

[Jaigen]

Why i do appreciate the effort Jamaz i don't think the ig will be fixed till soulstorm comes.

[Cyberbob]

What I am asking is why you're calling for a buff to the unit without it losing anything?

What the hell? Read his post, man. He points it out extremely clearly (emphasis mine):


The fix calls for an increase in accuracy to 100% (I.E, in line with all other flamer-type weapons), followed by a reduction in damage and morale damage to the current levels (I.E. Halving the DPS whilst buffing accuracy).

[Varsis]

With all due respect, maybe you should read it more carefully. What he's called for this entire thread amounts to a cutback in base damage so DPS is unaffected. i.e. with 100% accuracy and lower base damage DPS remains the same. Unless Jaimas has decided it needs to do less damage, which even with that I'm not sure it's enough.

It loses nothing.

My primary issue is with Jaimas' argument, he's saying that the Hellhound should be more like other flamers with 100% accuracy. But that won't make it more like other flamers, it'll make it better than other flamers.

[Slow_Runner]

150/150 is also a lot more to pay for the flamer than 40/10 for the tac flamer and it has a different AoE than other flamers.

DPS remains the same. If consistent = buff to you then yes it is a buff. The over-all damage should not be affected by this at all because it'd do the same damage, just a little more consistently. Obviously morale damage would be halved too.

[Varsis]

Yes it is different, it's a superior AoE. And it certainly does cost more than a tac flamer. But why would you even try comparing it to that? The HH is faster than an SM squad by a factor of 8 and has vehicle armor. Even if the SM player gets 5 flamers (which is a lot more than 40/10 btw and takes a lot more time to get) the bldg damage will still be shit poor compared to the HH. It also is not susceptible to morale damage, and can continue firing when engaged in melee (unlike every other flamer besides the crisis suit). And btw, with 100% accuracy and the same morale DPS value it would break a full SM squad in 5 seconds, that happens to be the same as the refire rate of the Tac missile launcher, so the SM player could get off one volley of missiles, break, rally, second volley and then break again, not enough to kill the HH. Now if broken squads have their movement speed increase by 20% then the tac squad would move at about a speed of 20, slower than the HH. Plus with the HH firing range of 25 it can chase them down without much issue.

And there's also benefit for the HH to chase them into their base because it'll rock the crap outta their base at the same time as it's attacking them. So yeah, consistency here is a buff, it's in fact a huge buff. The HH may seem like trash by itself but its piss poor accuracy is balanced by its huge advantages in range, damage, speed, and armor. And no one here has denied that the HH is great in numbers currently. It'd be just as easy to get it with your changes and it'd be potentially game ending with how quickly it breaks squads and damages buildings. A few HH and a sent or two and you've essentially countered everything your opponent can throw at you up to T3.

Sorry slow, but I must disagree on this issue. The HH would need a serious nerf to speed, and bldg damage at least for 100% accuracy to be reasonable.

And sorry about spamming your thread Jaimas, there's not much else to do when one is stuck at home with the flu.

[Makenshi]

"The HH is faster than an SM squad by a factor of 8 and has vehicle armor"

Add a cheap and fast Rhino (75/70) that, by the way, cost no pop cap, and your speed problem is over as well as the veh_armor. Rhinos are a must today and come faster than HH, because IG needs a fast chimera and a sentinel (at least one of each). There's no fast tech straight to Hell Hound. Not a winning one, as Jaimas said before.

[The_Guardman]

Varsis, the amount of damage dealt on the move would not change.

Or stationary either. Varsis seem immune to this side of the discussion:

100% dmg (and morale damage too) + 50% acc./ 35% FontM actual = 50% dmg (and morale damage too) + 100% acc/ 70% FotM proposed.

Result: The DpS (ie. average DAMAGE PER SECOND) do not change.

What will change is that it will become reliable (as all flamers) in the fighting, instead that having a gun that sometime do not hit for 4 seconds and do zero damage, and sometime hit for 4 seconds in a row doing big damages. The new hellhould will always do average damage in any timespan.

Better than this, I do not know how to explain it. But I assure you, Varsis, this is not a damage buff (hence you SM tac will not die faster) it is a buff of sort in the sense that the hellhould will become more easy to predict in his damage output, because it will become lot more stable, but with an average damage output not higher than the actual average.

It seem to me that we all speak a different language than you (no pun intended), so I hope this will at least make you understand that nothing dangerous or OP can come from the proposed change.

[Varsis]

Guardman, I really don't know what to say to you I haven't already said. You've consistently shown your refusal to understand my argument so I refuse to address yours.

What people seem to be consistently (no pun intended, hurr) overlooking is the Hellhound's stats besides accuracy. When you look at these alone and omit Accuracy then the Hellhound is superior, SUPERIOR, to every other flamer unit in the game (even the crisis suit). And you want to buff that? Not gonna happen, it's gotta lose something more than just damage. My argument is the argument of realism, Relic altered the HH in 1.2, it stands to reason that if they had a problem with the 50% accuracy they would have addressed it then. They did not, why? Because the HH really does have a lot going for it, but IG is balanced by huge strengths in some areas and great weaknesses in others. The accuracy is the control on the HH, how can you ask for that to be increased using the argument "because other flamers have it" while the HH tops every other flamer in the game in other areas?

Makenshi: True the SM player could load up into a Rhino, but a Sent will take out a Rhino in short order and if the HH move to the SM base then he has to respond somehow. There is a fast-tech to Hellhounds, but you're right it is not a winning strat currently. If the Hellhound had 100% accuracy with the same DPS (Damage Per Second, the same ones as now which is what I believe Jaimas is arguing for) values as it has currently it would be game ending having two or three of them, which is not hard to do. (And why wouldn't everyone want a unit with an AoE that can hit every member of a squad thus breaking them remarkably fast because it is now a guaranteed hit?) The thing is people don't do that now because it's better to just tech to T3. But the HH is made to be massed, and with those kinds of stats it would be and that would be game ending.

[Spekkio]

If HH had 100% accuracy with no other nerfs than 50% dmg then all you'd see is fast tech to HH spam burn everything gg no re.

Btw, rhinos can't kill HH. The missile tacs have to get out to actually shoot it, and as soon as they do they're gonna be insta-broken. So yea, how does that help?

[desocupado]

I kinda of agree with varsis. While the Damage would be the same, it would be a buff. And a nerf at the same time.

Think like this: It increases the reliability of the HH.

Let´s say you have a squad of missile tacs, and they are recharging and going to shoot your only Sentinel. You move your HH to break them before they can shoot (Sure, the HH can´t break a squad in 4 seconds, but let´s imagine that it can). You get there, and start firing on him. Now, the AVERAGE damage is enough to break the squad, but thanks to the low accuracy you only hit 2 times of 5, not breaking the squad.

Yes you MIGHT hit 4 of 5, and break the squad more quickly even if you halved the damage and boosted the accuracy. But you also MIGHT NOT.

So in this situation, the HH is unreliable. You can´t know it will do damage close to his dps. It will vary wildly, both to more and to less. So boosting accuracy makes the damage the HH does reliable.

The way it is now, It may break a squad and do good damage or may not break a squad and do pitiful damage in a short amount of time.

With 100% accuracy, it will do less than the present maximum and more than the present minimum damage, BUT IT WILL ALWAYS DO THE DAMAGE.

So, finishing it, at the present a HH might butcher the marines, or make them a bit hot, like near a barbecue.

With 100% accuracy and halved damage, it will not be a massacre, but they will always feel the hit.

I hope it helps, I don´t think I can explain it more clearly than this.

[IG_Emperor_Ben]

Ah I totally agree with Jaimas, I would would like to see the HH fixed im sick of it sitting there for half a minute doing nothing thinking WTF I SPENT MONEY ON THIS !!! I once used the HH against the crons 1st time it did crazy damage and they all died in mere seconds then next time it got owned by 1 squad and didn't even hurt them also psyker bugs make me have 1 emergency 1 in CS and wat is wrong with bassies tell me

[KotCR]

Why i do appreciate the effort Jamaz i don't think the ig will be fixed till soulstorm comes.
Nothing will be fixed until SoulStorm comes out.
Then they will ignore all our posts because they will probably be completely redesigning the game...again.

[Jaimas]

And that, good KotCR, is where you are mistaken.

The hellhound fix is enough of a discrepency that it's on the No-Brainer fix list, which Soulstorm's development crew, according to Buggo, is paying attention to.

How much, exactly, this comes to is a matter of conjecture, but we'll see.

[Varsis]

I think it would be safer to follow KotCR's advice and not get your hopes up Jaimas.

I've come to realize that if your auto score isn't at least 1600+ then Relic probably doesn't care how you think the game should be balanced. And I wouldn't invest too much hope in Slow's thread, while I'm sure some of those things may have been overlooked in the past, I'm quite certain others (such as the Hellhound) are quite intentional.

But this is an area I would be more than happy to be proved wrong in. :D

[KotCR]

The hellhound fix is enough of a discrepency that it's on the No-Brainer fix list, which Soulstorm's development crew, according to Buggo, is paying attention to.
They probably are, but not using the list as a guide of what to change, more likely using it as a guide of what mistakes to avoid making again this time around, seems the game is most likely going to be completely redesigned again.

Infact, with the inclusion of air units, I can't see how they could get away without giving the game a pretty drastic redesign. It could very well be a bigger redesign than the last two, though I suppose that isn't neccessarily a bad thing.

Let's hope we have no pre-patch Summoning Core, or post-patch Chaplain melee type bugs this time around.

[Troubleshooter]

@Varsis. I tend to agree that increased reliablity and performance is in fact a buff. As such, I think a slight bump in price would be generally acceptable. However, if such is the case, would it not stand to reason that units that are nerfed should get a similar price cut. The way I see it, given the Bassies present state, and Sentinels being usless unless standing still for far longer than it was designed to due to FOTM effectively nullifying its speed advantage, should they not get a price reduction from their former state? Furthermore, the Assassin got more expensive while also nerfed. (I'm actually not sure that he should even be called the assassin anymore, given his inability to do an actual assassinat'n... maybe he should be renamed to something more descriptive, like "shooty-ninja-res-whore.") If the design decisions that went into the 1.2 balance are any indicator of what relic wanted, it was to emphasize infantry over armor, and by application of blanket FOTM reaming of IG's best mobile assets coupled by systematic overnerfing its static assets, all IG is left with is infantry-centric builds. It has the effect of making a one dimensional army even more predictable and less able to react to shifting tactics by the enemy. IG are almost totally flat footed in terms of strategic agility due to constantly sacrificing ability at the altar of balance while gaining nothing but "creds" for being good with them in Automatch (if you actually are).

Once more, what does IG do well? I mean, not the fact that they scale better than everyone else, because scaling only counts if you can live long enough to actually make it work for you - which a working hellhound or psyker might actually facilitate. (Cotms is fine, but strip soul is worthless and only gets your CS killed for trying... it was better when it had a chance to smoke the psyker because at least then you KNEW you were risking your CS by design rather than losing them to the "stand around and pick your ass while the psyker calls forth the almighty sneeze of dooooooom" animation)

Disclaimer : My participation in this thread is purely for entertainment purposes and is not intended to endorse any actual position about anything. As with all investments, (in the forums) there is the risk of loss. Please post wisely, and dont spend too much time here thinking about things. SS will likely crush all previous balance decisions (except for IG) by revamping everything (except IG) while carrying over the best balance design from previous versions... like Ork banners, generators, and keyboard+mouse support. I am sure that the best elements of IG design are being carefully ported to the new game while the worst elements are being thoughtfully removed with surgical precision. Like, I love the IG squad tax soo much, I am going to buy 3 copies of Soulstorm, and then wait a whole year until I install it, just to show my loyalty to IG design. See ya in 2009! :p

[Vytae]

I've come to realize that if your auto score isn't at least 1600+ then Relic probably doesn't care how you think the game should be balanced.

Which is largely why the game currently as it is.

Listening only to the ideas of your most hardcore/high leveled fanbase means that only they will play it. Your casual joe wont,and the game wont be a finanical success. This aint the right post for this thread,but i had too.

[Slow_Runner]

Yes because if you ask anyone with 1600+ autoscore they will tell you that the game is perfectly balanced and just the way they like it. :rolleyes:

Let's not go down that road, ok?

Ok, Varsis, yes, it has differences to other flamers in the game. Different AoE, different platform, different cost (which I was getting at with the Space Marine flamer example, and since you're intent on picking a random stat to compare the flamers on, 5 tac flamers with targeters will outdamage the Hellhound against buildings any day; 85 dps against building_low and 50 against building_med vs 35 against both).

I still don't understand why that invalidates the suggestion. The Hellhound wouldn't kill things faster than it is killing them now. I said that morale damage should obviously be halved as well so it wouldn't break units faster either. The buildings wouldn't burn down any faster. There wouldn't be more damage on the move. The damage would be more consistent. Yes, that's a good thing. Seriously, the damage potential would go down with this change because it couldn't hit 5 times in a row, causing 50% more damage than what it would with the 100% accuracy and halved damage stats. It would also not sit around for periods of time, drowning enemy units in torrents of flame while doing absolutely no damage to them.

Consistency is positive thing, but not necessarily a buff.

[Jaimas]

Duly noted, good KotCR; and here's hoping for the best. I am anxious, but dimly hopeful, on what Soulstorm may offer, and fixes like this are a good example of steps in the right direction.


@Varsis. I tend to agree that increased reliablity and performance is in fact a buff. As such, I think a slight bump in price would be generally acceptable. However, if such is the case, would it not stand to reason that units that are nerfed should get a similar price cut. The way I see it, given the Bassies present state, and Sentinels being usless unless standing still for far longer than it was designed to due to FOTM effectively nullifying its speed advantage, should they not get a price reduction from their former state? Furthermore, the Assassin got more expensive while also nerfed. (I'm actually not sure that he should even be called the assassin anymore, given his inability to do an actual assassinat'n... maybe he should be renamed to something more descriptive, like "shooty-ninja-res-whore.") If the design decisions that went into the 1.2 balance are any indicator of what relic wanted, it was to emphasize infantry over armor, and by application of blanket FOTM reaming of IG's best mobile assets coupled by systematic overnerfing its static assets, all IG is left with is infantry-centric builds. It has the effect of making a one dimensional army even more predictable and less able to react to shifting tactics by the enemy. IG are almost totally flat footed in terms of strategic agility due to constantly sacrificing ability at the altar of balance while gaining nothing but "creds" for being good with them in Automatch (if you actually are).

Whilst I've handled the application of this gently in this thread, our friendly local Happiness Officer brings up an excellent point. It seems like every time the Imperial Guard have a unit that needs some sort of fix to be a bit more viable, the fix comes with some kind of slap to the face. As examples, courtesy of the Psyker:

The suicide chance for Strip Soul was removed, but Strip Soul was toned down so dramatically that it no longer is even remotely worth it. What was once a reasonably powerful commander-killing ability is now a spell better-suited to targetting individual units - but it can't do this well, since the rest of the CS can do all of jack and shit when he's casting it! As if this isn't enough, the original intended targets - commander units - suffer naught but a slap on the wrist from this otherwise-potent ability.
This is an even harder slap in the face when you ponder that any IG player worth his Q key never suffered the suicide in the first place.

What further accentuates the original point of the above is that the units that the IG fields that are strong and/or viable seem to consistently get nerfs. Chimeras are getting flooded because they're the only viable T-2 vehicle? Hardcap 'em. (A change which, mind you, has yet to curtail actual Chim-spamming; it's merely slowed it somewhat). Basilisks allow IG to smash open turtles? Nerfed to hell. Assassin makes the Tau Commander cry? Nerfed to hell.

I'm not saying changes didn't need to be made; far from it. I want to know why it is that every other race can get bugs and stupid mechanical issues fixed lickety-split, or recieve sweeping, direct changes in some area or another (Yes, Chaos, I am looking right at you), whilst the Imperial Guard has to work like 90 times as hard just to get simple consistency out of units.

I mean, to this day, I hear people refer to playing DC+DOW (Sans WA) as "playing Automatch with no risks."

It really shouldn't have to be like this. It really, really shouldn't. Must we continue to suffer for the sins of Commie-Spam of old? Can we please get a little bit of love for the race which is suffering the most right now...?

Why is it we have to give something back when doing a fix that restores basic functionality to the Hellhound? Considering the damage average is likely to go down, as Slow mentioned, from the change, I fail to see why people are so convinced that the change will result in the likes of Hellhounds overrunning every base in automatch.

[KotCR]

Hehe, your awfully polite Jaimas, it's a nice breathe of fresh air compared to some of the other people you find on the forums :).

Anyway, I definetly see what your getting at, but the way the Imperial Guard is treated is probably in no small part due to the fact that the best player on the balance team's race of preference is the noted Imperial Guard, so Relic assume they are strong because they consistently beat the other sides, when the reality is the guy is just that much of a better player than his fellow testers.



Yes because if you ask anyone with 1600+ autoscore they will tell you that the game is perfectly balanced and just the way they like it
Hehe, that's because they all play Chaos, Eldar, and Necrons. :p

[Varsis]

Ah well my dear Trouble, that would make sense wouldn't it? That a unit which has abilities removed should thus also receive a price cut. However, this has never appeared to be a trend with the IG, quite the contrary really. And I can only assume one conclusion, that many of those units were/or thought to be, OP. I know some IG fans get a bit mad when someone mentions IG and OP in relation to each other but hear me out.

Now obviously the Psyker's first CotMS was horribly overpowered. Anything that let's you destroy a T3-4 vehicle in a few shots with the assassin needs some looking at. And one could argue that the nerf to Strip Soul was due to the removal of PotW in order to stem possible abuse (although in my entire history of playing DoW I have never witnessed such feared abuse).

With the basilisk I've heard that pro players hate long range artillery that doesn't require much micro (hence the refire nerf and the relegation of the WhirlWind to T4). I feel that was an overnerf, esp. without any kind of damage buff to pick up the slack. But now it seems that the bassi works as all IG vehicles are supposed to, in numbers. It's just much more costly than fielding the others.

Does anyone really want to argue that the Assassin was OP? I mean it made back it's cost in 1-2 shots usually, that's roughly 14 seconds and few units can claim such success. Although I feel it would have done fine with a damage nerf, Relic seemed to want to standardize infiltrating units with a required research. The reason this fails miserably with the Assassin is because its research is woefully overpriced, and unlike other infiltrators the Assassin absolutely must have infiltration to survive. So the only possible conclusion is that units that lose something without gaining anything is because they were/or viewed as, being OP. This may have led to an initial overnerfing but in most scenarios, subsequent patches find a balance (not the case when there is only one patch, which obviously will have some flaws).

And you also make a good point with IG's current builds trouble. They now do emphasize infantry over armor. But think back, really back. At the time of the patch, do you know what the most popular IG build was? IG fast tech existed, but it wasn't nearly as popular as the Das-Gmen build (still one of the more popular builds even though it is less effective). Technically, since IG armor is T2, one could argue that IG never had a stronger emphasis on armor than infantry. The way it was before, armor augmented an already strong infantry. Balance-testers apparently took issue with this and altered it so because of cost the player had to choose to upgrade his infantry or go heavy on vehicles. With abilities like fanaticism and weak-ass, meant to be massed, cheap but inefficient vehicles that IG has, which do you think is more preferable?

So what does IG do well? Well they can turtle ok, they have one of the best eco's in the game, and most important, they have the strongest T3-4 in the game imo. This is the global control of the IG. They have probably the worst T0-2 with fragile units that depend heavily on just a few to survive, but this is balanced by an incredibly strong T3-4 force. This is why I do the :rolleyes: whenever people complain how weak IG is. People who make those claims are looking too heavily at T0-2 and not enough at the imbafest that is IG T3-4. They may say "but you have to survive to reach that," yeah? So? It's not that difficult if you know what you're doing. I can unequivocally say that if I am facing an opponent of my skill level and they are SM, Chaos, or Tau, then I am almost certainly going to beat them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Eldar and Necron were removed from the auto pool then I would be much higher in auto score (make it happen Relic, ;) ).

And I apologize Slow, sometimes the frustration with the R-team's perceived practices comes to the fore. I know it's probably more complicated than that, but it helps to vent sometimes. And it's apparent we have vastly different views of the Hellhound, just by looking at how we refer to it and not by our stances. Whereas you continually refer to the Hellhound as "different" from other flamers, I continually refer to it as "better" than other flamers when accuracy is ignored. To me, this seems obvious. It's currently: faster (by a fair margin), does better bldg. damage (I don't know how you calculated the SM flamer dmg since it doesn't seem that way from calculating the DPS, but I'll take your word for it. I'd certainly hope they'd perform better with costing nearly twice as much and taking nearly 3 times as long to assemble than 1 HH, and still having the drawback of slower speed and morale), far better range (with the standard of most flamers having 10 range), Better AoE (how an AoE that can potentially hit every member of a squad or hit a building and a builder regardless of the builder's orientation [I]is not viewed as better than an AoE that only hits targets within an arc is honestly beyond me), the ability to continue to fire when engaged in melee (no other flamer besides the Crisis Suit can claim this, the min range is a joke since it's within range of the AoE), and obviously vehicle armor (I don't ever see anyone try to compare it to other vehicles with flamers). So yes it is different, and I continue to assert "Better".

I'm not saying it shouldn't be more consistent, I'm saying the argument that it should be more like other flamers is a joke and you'll have to be willing to give up more for that consistency. Because it is inconsistent, it is superior to other flamers in almost every way besides accuracy. This is esp. the case since Relic does not seem to want IG to have individually effective vehicles (perhaps with the exception of the BB, but there's only one of those). What makes you think they'd want a Hellhound which would be individually effective? (which a consistent one would be)

And Jaimas, I must say you're exaggerating. IG may appear weak but it certainly isn't "suffering the most". I'd say that honor would go to SM and to an extent Chaos (not because they're ineffective but because they currently have to fast tech to be successful). I admit the IG v. Cron/Eldar MU is garbage, but so is the IG v. SM/CSM MU albeit to a lesser extent (because they can win if they do it before T3). Tau tends to depend on the map but usually favors IG and Ork is a toss-up. That's half the races I stand a good chance of beating. If I lose to SM/CSM/Tau/Ork, I don't say "Man, IG is so UP I don't stand a chance," no I say "Man, I played sh!tty" and that usually is the case. You can chalk up IG's ability to beat those races to the skill of the player, but if a player's skill can overcome these overwhelming imbalances you're perceiving then where is there a problem? If that's how you feel then you want it to be easier for you to win and not invest the time and practice to do so. Or you could subscribe it to some innate talent these players have which you cannot reach, which is also garbage because no one was born to do anything but work and die. If you want to be as good as players like Serv and Santi then you can be, it just might take longer to get there than they did. But just saying you can't is a defeatist attitude. I'm telling you, I can beat those races and I think we both agree that I am not a pro, so there is no reason you can't.

Wow, I said a lot. Sorry. :rant:

With that said though, my personal recommendation for the Hellhound and Psuker:

HH: consistency would be nice so boost it to 100%, BUT reduce speed and range to 20, reduce size of AoE, reduce damage to 2/3 of the current DPS, and halve morale dps. This should make it more consistent but less effective by itself, it'd still arguably be a demon when massed and successfully augment your troops.

Psuker: Cap HQ psyker at 1. Buff abilities and remove morale blowback while providing it with some kind of benefit to squads. Bring it more in line with the Commie by removing the stone and having it require the tactica. Make no changes to the CS psuker. Since it is capped at 1 then there should be no fear of this imaginary abuse and it might finally see some use with those changes.

My :twocents:

[warhawk08]

While I do appreciate the effort Jamaz i don't think the ig will be fixed till soulstorm comes.

Nah, it will be broken again, in all new ways. But if it's any consolation, so will the other races.

lol

[Chris]

Once more, what does IG do well?

Dedicated rush builds and dedicated tech builds? :p


I can unequivocally say that if I am facing an opponent of my skill level and they are SM, Chaos, or Tau, then I am almost certainly going to beat them. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if Eldar and Necron were removed from the auto pool then I would be much higher in auto score (make it happen Relic, ;) ).

Hehe yeah. Tau used to give me a bit of trouble but I think I've worked the kinks out of that matchup. SM is basically a free-win on most maps, Chaos and Tau are very beatable on most maps, Orks are probably the closest thing to a 50/50 matchup that IG has.

[Jaimas]

I should not have laughed at Warhawk's comment as much as I should have. :rolleyes: Regardless, a lot of good points made today.

That said.

Gentlemen, if I may point at the next topic on the stack:
The Psyker. How do we fix this crazy sonuvabitch?

[Troubleshooter]

@Varsis : Late game IG is fantastic... anyone who thinks otherwise is just not using it very well. The problem is in AM, most of the action focuses on the weakest stage of IG play - and so as Chris points out, every match is typically decided by catching the other guy not paying attention by uber rushing him or hitting tier 2 with most/all your units intact (and early). Why the Hellhound needs to be more consistant out of the box is simple, if you go the vehicle route, you are taking up precious time building them instead of priesting up your squads and buying plasma. When the first HH hits the field, it IS your heavy weapons investment, and it is the only thing that is preventing your infantry from being overrun in tier 2.5 in a stalemate scenerio. It then has to travel to the line through bottlenecks and squads, Stop, rotate turret, and open fire... if it wastes 2-3 seconds trying to score a hit, you may well lose 100's of req in infantry or HH health. This is why you almost always have to hold it back until you have 2 of them, and that makes holding any sort of line very hard to do, and pushes the limit of your ability to stall without upgrading your squads. The trade off is just too much for the time frame that they are expected to take the field vs. the average game length in AM.

As is always the case with IG, put them in a larger game, with more support, and watch them shine. Nothing is quite as cool as having the BB roll into the fray backed up by invul. Kasyies and Chimeras holding 2-3 squads of maxed out squads... but ever since 1.5 IG has had to take the role of stuffed in AM for results in Team matches. It's also something of an unfair hamstring in 2v2 when the enemy decides to rush or spam tier 1 CC units.

As for the "always emphasised infantry"... thats not quite true though. There was a time when you could use sents to provide AV cover rather than go COTMS, or you could use HH to support commied up infantry mass because of the damage multiplier and AOE of Execute... but now everything costs more by way of blanket game design decisions unfairly impacting IG due to the legacy design of certain units. Sentinals are a good example - FOTM kills them... Commies now require more than one to be truely useful, and Psykers can no longer provide anti-hero support in tier 1 when you really could use it.

About the assassin... I dont have a problem with upping his price, but what was lost was simply an over nerf. Bassilisks may finally have a design that the pros can live with, because now theres no reason to build them - hence they may as well be tier 4 along with the WW and forgotten entierly from AM.

[Varsis]

The problem with that thinking Trouble, is Relic and the nature that they've designed for IG vehicles. As I've stated the Hellhound, and all IG vehicles, were made to be massed to be effective. Pre-1.2 the Bassi was an exception so it cost more I assume, that's no longer the case. And I'm leaving out T3 vehicles onward just because there's obviously no disagreement about IG T3 onwards.

The mistake you're making though Trouble, is wanting a single Hellhound to be effective at doing what you want it to do out of the box, while admitting that it does this when in numbers. And that's simply not something Relic is going to do, because of the imagined fear of abuse. If the Hellhound is useful in numbers now, and then it is made to be useful by itself, then what happens when that useful Hellhound by itself is used in numbers? The logical conclusion is OP. Will we know this for sure? I doubt it, because I believe that is Relic's conclusion, which is why I doubt we'll ever see that. It sucks, but no amount of argument is going to change that view. As I stated above, it'll take some serious nerfing of the HH so as not to make it useful by itself before we see it with consistency. That's balance.

Besides that I'm not sure what you're talking about, there are better things to do now than build a HH. And I don't recall Chris saying your opponent has to not pay attention. I disagree, your opponent can be paying attention, you just need to make sure it's to your CS and not your base. It takes me roughly 8-10 minutes to reach T3 as IG depending, and I usually win a few minutes after that if I played right. That's more due to the merits of IG than the skill of my opponent I'd say.

And as for my comment on IG "always emphasizing infantry," you didn't really provide much to counter that conclusion. True you could mass Sents for AV... But you do that anyway... It's IG's only AV unit and nobody uses HWT lascannons. But pre-1.2 you had the option not to since CotMS turned every unit into an AV unit, the only reason you would do otherwise is against Vehicle mass and to avoid the piss poor psuker. Then you said:


or you could use HH to support commied up infantry mass because of the damage multiplier and AOE of Execute... but now everything costs more by way of blanket game design decisions unfairly impacting IG due to the legacy design of certain units.

Ok... How does this differ from where I said:


The way it was before, armor augmented an already strong infantry. Balance-testers apparently took issue with this and altered it so because of cost the player had to choose to upgrade his infantry or go heavy on vehicles.

I mean from my PoV these two views seem almost exactly the same, so I don't see how you reached a separate conclusion from me. Now the IG player must choose to go upgraded Gmen first or vehicles first instead of both at the same time. That makes a certain degree of sense from a balance perspective but I will neither defend nor attack it since I cannot express enough disdain for Gmen. The only exception to this in my view is chim spam which is usually more an act of desperation now than a useful tactic as it once was.

Honestly Trouble, you've read enough of my posts to come to realize my overarching argument is that IG was designed to never have 1 effective unit outside the CS and the BB. Even the CS kinda conforms to this rule by not exactly being 1 "unit" but a squad. I've yet to see someone disprove that theory. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying disprove it.


About the assassin... I dont have a problem with upping his price, but what was lost was simply an over nerf. Bassilisks may finally have a design that the pros can live with, because now theres no reason to build them - hence they may as well be tier 4 along with the WW and forgotten entierly from AM.

Now we're finally starting to see eye-to-eye. What was the point of this might I ask? I don't recall disagreeing. Mind you, I'll provide my best guess for why I think certain decisions are made, but I try to be clear on whether or not those decisions were correct. The assassin and bassi not being one of them.

What I'm trying to do is reach a level of balance within the bounds that Relic has established for the IG. This is what I view has the best chance of actually happening.

And Jaimas, you have my recommendations for the psyker. But I don't see why you're trying to move on since Chris, Spekkio, and I are clearly unconvinced of the changes you propose for the hound. Unless of course you think that low of our opinions that we do not need to be convinced or compromised with, in which case I would challenge the validity or point of this as a balance "discussion" (whereas I view this sort of discussion as usually a forum for which multiple views are put forward and considered until a solution is met, usually by compromise). I'm more inclined to view it as an oversight and desire to avoid further argument on your part instead since I have respect for your opinion and would expect the same from you. (And for reference, I do not view "because other flamers have it" and "because Slow_Runner agrees with me" as valid arguments, if I haven't established that already).

[Troubleshooter]

I think the problem I have is that you assume that there were balance decisions that constructed IG as we have them, I postulate that IG has been ported from version to version and adjusted downward to ensure that their design (always delicate) changes minimally while making sure that they must always accomodate the races around them. IG dont every control a situation, have no way to force the enemy into a tactical trade off (until late tier 3 when all the toys are out and in force), and cant take the initiative unless they to a stovepiped build that, if detected = GG no re.

The difference between how IG "was" and how IG "is" regarding Infantry vs. Armor trade offs, is that before you had more potent infantry with fewer investments in heros, weapons, and upgrades. You had a middle ground where you could go heavy on Plasma and trasports, or you could rely on execute and HH/Sents, or you could go light on infantry and turtle/bassy your way to tier 3/4. Then there were side Hero builds on the table, though less effective. The point is, now you can't go with a middle of the road infantry build with HH as support because the Infantry wont be there to support if you are waiting on 2 HH before you bring them to the fight... the infantry require too much investment and time to scale to the point where HH are useful UNLESS the HH gets "lucky" and does large damage on the first shot. I have done this many, many times... scraped through tier 1, managed to get a HH out, rush it over to the heavy cover to support my retreating infantry, then watched as it did ZERO damage to the enemy as they finished off what was left of my squads - litterally ignoring the HH. The only time I have ever had HH work in auto was vs. IG and when I did some fast-tech-hard-hh-mass builds, because IG die in hoards to HH and because massed HH are insanely powerful (on par with 1.0 LS rushing if done right).

Now, if the HH were able to instantly get the enemy infantries attention by actually doing damage from the initial blast until that enemy forced the HH to move and suffer FOTM problems, the infantry (mind you, un-upgraded with maybe a commie attached) would actually be able to fight back at this point... and having 2 HH would force the average player to actually buy AV in advance to prepair for a possible HH mass rather than just simply CC the tank to get inside its minimum range while using light mechs to hunt/kill the GM units.

The problem is that HH are unreliable, beyond what could be considerd good design. You really think they were paying attention to FOTM problems with Sents when they stuck that to them? No, IG is a victim of either neglect or bias, either way, the paradigm of cheap/replaceable/scaling units does not work well in a game desiged to end between 6-8 minutes and where combat routinely begins before 1 minute into the game. Cheap and replaceable (but taxed) in a match with near constant enemy contact just forces the IG player to burn res faster than the game design allows while demanding greater mass to compensate for weaker units. Its a damn catch 22 - you need lots of units, but they die fast, and are taxed to prevent them from showing up in large numbers, or underperform or are highly specialised so that they can be "gamed" into non-performance.

Ps. You know why good IG players win in AM? Its through manipulating armor types and enemy movement patterns so that GM are never the focal point of the enemy - but its rather the CS, a TP, or a Turret. IG dont win through tactics, just manipulation and bravado. I for one would rather get IG to a point where they have fewer mechs, but the mechs actually do something to cause the enemy to respond to your moves rather than yawn and continue teching on scheduel - knowing that so long as IG is building mechs in tier 2, they are hopelessly lost to tier 3 anything.

[Varsis]

I have a class so forgive me for being brief.

Obviously our ideas on Relic's methodology differ somewhat Trouble. I do believe Relic has a rough framework or balance plan to which they wish to maintain the IG. I do believe this plan involves cheap but inefficient units. This is based solely on my observation of their small changes over the years and how they were initially set up.

I've personally never met an opponent whose attention I did not grab with a Hellhound, whether or not it will hit is a risk we both assume since he's taking just as large a chance leaving his troops to get shot at as I am shooting at them. I have also never met an opponent who has seen one of my vehicles and decided not to respond with AV, even against just 1 chim. I think you mean your opponent should plan on seeing vehicles and thus build AV in advance, but honestly, who does that? There are so many factors that if you miscalculate and go AV where there is none then it can be a huge waste. There really isn't many vehicles in T2 where you have to build AV in advance of them, the necessity for this to be done against a HH would somewhat assert to it as imba. But to be honest I agree the HH isn't too effective in auto, it's better to tech. I view IG as a race where you must balance their weaknesses with their strengths, make your opponent pay more for their loss than you. It sounds like you want IG to work more like other races but every race is fairly unique.

I also don't quite follow your PS. What exactly do you view as a tactical decision? How is utilizing the CS to keep your opponent off balance and away from your base not a tactical decision instead of using him to fight your opponents harrassers? How is finishing the cap on a point while losing a few GM not a tactical decision? I think you'll have to clarify for me. I'm not seeing how they're any less tactical than any other race. It kinda sounds like you're saying they depend more on your opponents lack of skill than yours, to which I'd disagree with if that's what you mean.

I'm not saying the HH shouldn't be changed, I'm saying it should be balanced. The only suggestion on this thread is that it should have its accuracy increased with its damage decreased so DPS remains the same. That's a buff, it's a better unit than before. People are ignoring what it already has going for it. You admit it is great in numbers but don't acknowledge what this would mean if it was already useful by itself and then used in numbers (potentially OP). I'm not asking for no change, I'm asking for balance.

[Zany Reaper]

I'm not saying the HH shouldn't be changed, I'm saying it should be balanced. The only suggestion on this thread is that it should have its accuracy increased with its damage decreased so DPS remains the same.I am assuming of course that morale damage is effectively doubled from this right? The hellhound for what it is doesn't do that great a morale damage at the moment. It isn't much better than flamers.

[The_Guardman]

Actually the proposal is to let both morale and "true" DpS unchanged. Just change the accuracy. So, it will still no breack a SM unit before the first dead man.

[Tawa]

I am assuming of course that morale damage is effectively doubled from this right? The hellhound for what it is doesn't do that great a morale damage at the moment. It isn't much better than flamers.

I read a propose in this thread that morale damage (per second) should also be halved as well as the damage if accuracy would be changed to 100%. Currently because of the nice AoE the HH flamer has, it can (if it hits that is) deal very good morale damage to medium sized squads (4-6 members) and break large/maxed squads very quickly (morale damage * members hit).

I'm currently against increasing accuracy to 100% without the hellhound losing something else, and here is why (well, after the mathematics);

Assume that the hellhound would break one type of squad on average when it hits X times with the flamer.
Since it has a refire rate of 0.5sec and 50% accuracy it would break that squad on average about X seconds (X misses and X hits).
At best the squad would break in X/2 sec, and in fact we wouldn't really know what the worst scenario would be, but assume it would be around (X + X/2) sec (probability is lower than breaking the squad in X/2 sec).
However, it's not guaranteed that the squad would break either because you could still miss for longer, but assume that would be the worst case.
Then the HH would break this type of squad in X sec +/- X/2 sec.

If DPS would remain the same with 100% accuracy and also the morale damage/sec, that kind of squad would always break at X seconds and dealing the same damage as before (according to DPS). This conclusion has probably already reached all of you long before this post.

Now if this kind of flamer would be on a turret or something that were stationary, I would see no problems with this change to consistency.

But, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread; the Hellhound is a tank with a flamer. Compared to other flamer units stats the HH is tougher, faster, has better DPS, greater range, greater aoe, greater total cost for the unit itself (the stone + the hh) when comparing to infantry flamers and it is less expensive than other races' walkers with flamers.

One issue if about the HH would imo be the great aoe and range.
For example, if we know that it deals proper morale damage and normal damage (if we have 100% accuracy). In this scenario there is a HH facing multipile infantry squads staying kind of close to each other. The probability is a higher that you break (and deal damage to) all squads faster if they are close to each other than if you were in the same situation with the lottery gun. The range of the HH would also be troublesome for enemy infantry because you can break them at great distances.

If the HH had AoE enough to only hit one squad at a time, I would see no problem with this change.

For now, I would like to say that the aoe and/or range would have to be reduced if the HH would gain 100% accuracy. I can't really estimate to which numbers, but perhaps the aoe could be as low as 6 or 5 and then the range wouldn't need a change.

[Jaimas]

Just as a reminder to those that have forgotten: The Hellhound's changes are as follows:
1. Increase stationary accuracy to 100%.
2. Leave FOTM penalties in place.
3. Lower DPS to current levels.
4. Lower Morale damage to current levels.

What improves:
1. No more "lol, no hitting for several seconds" moments.
2. Reliability and consistency.

What takes a hit (and a notable one):
1. The in-game actual potential damage takes a notable hit in exchange for consistent damage. In the current example, each burst of flame from the Inferno Cannon is a coin-flip if it hits or not; the upgrade will cause the damage ON a successful hit to be halved, in exchange for making it always hit.

[IG_Emperor_Ben]

Why cant the IG have a unit that is better than everybody else, we are short on them

[KotCR]

Erm...like what exactly?

You'll need to be more specific with what you mean by "better", because there is many factors to take into consideration.

[Troubleshooter]

I'm not asking for no change, I'm asking for balance.But you're also assuming that the HH is "balanced" as-is. Buffing an underpowered or underperforming unit without a price increase is achieving balance, not upsetting it.

Now, as I already pointed out, I would be ok with a price increase for the new/better HH following changes, but if thats the case, I want a price cut on other units that currently underperform due to game play changes that made them less effective accross the board. Theres a good reason for this too... making the HH the most effective default vehicle platform in tier 2 all the way to tier 4 makes all other currently over priced (or underperforming) units obsolete... such is the case in all such internal imbalances within a force list. In order to restore internal balance, and to discourage mono-unit spam fests, other units have to be more attractive - either through similar capability buffs to match price/effectiveness ratios, or by cutting price to achieve the same. Price, btw, could mean faster build times, stone requirements waved, or other non-economic changes. (like the magical 5th man change in 1.51)

A good portion of my disgust with IG is that the race "evolved" out from under my feet... I saw my ability to play them steadily move backward from the time I started using them (well, except for the wasteland of 1.5!), while the Pros like Servant continued to say "lolz-IMBA". So, take my version of reality with a grain of salt... I know that IG can be powerful in the right hands, but it would be nice if the average player got a taste of superiority once in a while due to having an army that matches its intuitive play style rather than manipulating the game mechanics like FOTM and commander armor damage sponges.

[warhawk08]

A good portion of my disgust with IG is that the race "evolved" out from under my feet... I saw my ability to play them steadily move backward from the time I started using them (well, except for the wasteland of 1.5!), while the Pros like Servant continued to say "lolz-IMBA". So, take my version of reality with a grain of salt... I know that IG can be powerful in the right hands, but it would be nice if the average player got a taste of superiority once in a while due to having an army that matches its intuitive play style rather than manipulating the game mechanics like FOTM and commander armor damage sponges.

I'm sorry to hear that. I feel like I am late to the party since I never played them in WA or pre DC 1.2 , but as someone who has only recently started playing IG I have to say, I love them! IG scale very well; they have an awesome T3 and T4. They tech fast. They don't seem particularly micro intensive (I'm used to eldar and sm).You only need to learn a couple of different build orders. They can compete with Orks on an even footing, with a bit of practice you can defeat the dreaded vespid rush. You can smoke sm--(talk about a race that has slid backward).
IG have trouble with Nec and Eldar, but thats a problem that is hardly unique to IG. Finally, they get props for comedic value; executing your guys with a commissar to improve moral is just lol. A pyscho, chainsaw wielding priest is pretty funny too.

I dunno, I guess not having played them prior to 1.2 I am simply not missing what I haven't experienced. However, I'm starting to think thats a good thing.

[Varsis]

I'm limiting my posting to responding to you Trouble, since Jaimas has made it clear he cares nothing for the opinions of dissenters, this is no discussion.


But you're also assuming that the HH is "balanced" as-is. Buffing an underpowered or underperforming unit without a price increase is achieving balance, not upsetting it.

The only thing I've ever done is explain how I believe the Hellhound is balanced. Surely Relic believes or believed the unit is balanced when they designed it at the time. What I explained is that the accuracy is its control, to balance against its superiority in speed, armor, range, damage, and abilities. Accuracy currently means it has the potential to underperform, but also the potential to overperform. This risk is why it has so much going for it. Buffing accuracy will cause it to woefully overperform and essentially become the only unit used by IG for ai until they hit T4.


I would be ok with a price increase for the new/better HH following changes, but if thats the case, I want a price cut on other units that currently underperform due to game play changes that made them less effective accross the board. Theres a good reason for this too... making the HH the most effective default vehicle platform in tier 2 all the way to tier 4 makes all other currently over priced (or underperforming) units obsolete... such is the case in all such internal imbalances within a force list. In order to restore internal balance, and to discourage mono-unit spam fests, other units have to be more attractive - either through similar capability buffs to match price/effectiveness ratios, or by cutting price to achieve the same. Price, btw, could mean faster build times, stone requirements waved, or other non-economic changes.

Besides the point that only a buff is suggested in this thread, that's not the topic of your point. What I've bolded and italicised is what I believe to be your topic, so I'll address that. First I disagree. What you apparently want is another necron race, which has already demonstrated that it doesn't work (even with a long list of attractive effective units, the most efficient is spammed). The only solution to stopping mono-unit spam fests is to make other units necessary not attractive. Buffing everything just means the race will be OP or that you have to buff all the other races and are back to where you started. Unit spam is so prevalent in DC because there are certain units which are anti-everything. They'd have to reintroduce hard counters to stop it completely, which isn't going to happen in DC.

I can understand you're a bit indignant with what IG has gone through since you've apparently invested a lot more time in them than I have. I've only played IG casually in WA then gotten slightly more serious in DC. But you seem to want a complete overhaul of the race with this post, which may in fact happen in SoulStorm. It'll be interesting to see how well my theory of Relic's balancing of IG around cheap but inefficient units holds up in Soulstorm. But those kinds of changes aren't going to happen in DC. Sure it'd be nice if IG experienced a taste of superiority outside of T3, but I find it appealing that the race is the underdog. It's just average joes in a universe of aliens, monsters, and superhumans. Really would having an OP unit that everyone uses and almost guarantees you a win in T1-2 make you feel better? If you really felt that way then you would be playing necron.

[Troubleshooter]

The only solution to stopping mono-unit spam fests is to make other units necessary not attractive.This is correct, but you're overlooking the fact that to dismantle IG, other races dont have to make trade-offs in the same way. For example, SM can spam ASM all day long, hit tier 2, get meltas, and then dismantle the IG economy without exposing the bulk of their force to IG defensive measure. Preventing IG tier 1 from taking off, and shutting down IG tier 2 before Plasma comes out is all the average player has to do... its really not that hard... which is why Tau just do the TC/Vespid tango until skyrays roll off the line and obliterate IG formations.

So while IG has to make "nessecary" trades to find effecient ways to deal with what ever the enemy is doing, the enemy only has to focus on getting a certain number of units with a certain capability that enables them to kill/delay IG 'just a bit' to knock the scaling-massing paradigm back by about 20 seconds. The time to scale/mass IG to a point of ubiquitious and flexable tactical versatility (putting them on par or ahead of the enemy) is always behind the enemy by design... the key to beating IG is to simply delay that point by just a tiny bit, to ensure your (harliquin, GK, LS, Destroyer, WS, Gitz... yadda yadda) hit the field before IG has even the chance to counter. While this might be true of all match ups, only IG has the race design that punishes the IG player for any deviation from the time line - walk a squad past an LP2, lose 100 req, delays priest, lose squad in early tier 2 for lack of priest hp scaling required to deal with early tier 2 anti-infantry HW built into enemy squad. Any other race has a built in buffer between their mistakes and all out tragedy... usually tactical flexability, but sometimes simply having heavy infantry claim heavy cover to overcome an early setback (IG perform worse in cover because they can not melee anything in cover and win due to the unequal scaling of cover bonus between GM and everything else.)

So, how do you overcome this without a total overhaul of the IG (which, yes, I do want)??? Heres a simple solution (I got 1,000,000 of em :p) -
Buff the hell hound, make it a fearsome monster of epic burny-ness. Slow production by 10 seconds, increase price to 200/225, and buff morale damage while fixing accuracy, AOE, and the high : low ratio of damage to make it a consistant platform for scaring the crap out of an enemy... then do away with the minimum range to ensure that CC spam is punished along with all other forms of spam. Lastly, put in some friendly fire - not alot, but enough that a HH can burn it self to death and cant be spammed into an IG line without consequences.

Now, you wont have spammed HH because they would just as likely nullify your infantry as fast as they deal out damage to the enemy, and leave you wide open to light mech spam. The IG will have a credible fall back in early tier 2 that allows for breaking the addiction to priesty-plas, and facilitates non-infantry centric tier 2 builds - without speeding up tech to tier 3 by any game breaking margin.

Oh noes, what about sents and Bassies? Well, glad you asked. ;) Speed up production time on bassies if you have to, or just dump them in tier 4 and gimme tier 2 LRs with apropriate stats and balance them in the same way chaos preds are balanced. Sents are perfect as they are, but suffer badly from FOTM. Make their weapon non-move and fire, and speed up the ROF by a touch to compensate for loss of mobility, and its fixed. Now IG has an infantry support platform (HH), anti-vehicle (sents), mass/turtle busters (fast apearing bassies as a threat from tier 2.5 onward as a check against enemy complacecy... and IMO, fluffy representation of IG calling down ARTY support 'as needed' but putting the model on the table to give the enemy a chance to counter.) OR tier 2 damage sponges for breaking turtles open for exploitation or simply hardening a line/position.

You barely need to tweak IG to get a whole new tactical paradigm, theres soo many small ways to fix them without revamping the whole army. I would like to see them rebuilt from the ground up to make thinks like Eldar and Nex into more equal tests of skill rather then one sided spam fest/free wins... but I would settle for simply having a fast tech solution away from these problem MU's as a cheap solution that gets the job done with hammer and tongs rather than real game design finess.

Man, this is just one thread, and just one solution... go back and see what I wrote about IG at the time I quit multi-player... the ways to improve IG without breaking them are many and varied... but one thing remains consistant - the game is designed to favor tightly concentrated mass of high damage units over dispersed anything - this makes IG doubley screwed due to LOS limitations, weapon range inconsistnacy, and a total lack of core units that dont die-on-contact with just about anything in the same tier (or lower) without requiring MORE time than their natrual enemies to achieve parity let alone superiority. Fielding a tank should feel like fielding a tank, but for IG fielding a tank feels like you are only half way to fielding anything, and losing one due to the cheap-weak paradigm cuts your capacity to deal damage in half. Remember, thinks like LS and Hellfire dreads are still 100% effective till they pop, losing half your investments in hellhounds or anything else reduces your actual fielded capability by a similar amount - making sustainment of a fight not clearly in your favor a guaranteed loss no matter how lucky you get with wonky damage results from some of your units.

[Varsis]

Idk Trouble, I like the idea but I think Relic really wants IG to be a massy race. And I really haven't hit the kind of stone walls you've seemed to yet. So far SM MU feel like a free win since I tech so woefully faster than they do and kassies laugh at tacs. I've been trying to emulate servs style which I know is ambitious but it's not really that difficult with practice, it's just that I'm still prone to some micro or macro mistakes and don't know all the CO/BO for every map and MU. But CSM/SM/Tau MU's are the one's I have the most confidence in winning, which I know I can win if I play well. Ork is 50/50 and cron/elder is sh!t so I just Turret rush and hope for the best.

Maybe I feel it's just their style of play to sacrifice units, but it doesn't bother me. Certainly losing a priest or CS at a certain point in the game can ruin you, but you roll with the punches and adapt and push enough that maybe he'll make a mistake. And there are certainly units other races can lose that will set them back about as much (grey knights, TC, NL, etc.) IG's frailty just makes it seem that they'll lose theirs much more frequently.

But I perfectly understand where you're coming from. I've just gotten used to this with IG as "their style". But I have more than my fair share of losses to know what you're talking about. I'm actually considering playing cron for awhile just to reach 1400, does that make me a bad person? :(

I just don't expect a huge overhaul with Soulstorm. Maybe Relic has jaded me? If I expect little then hopefully I'll be happy with what I get.

[Troubleshooter]

I just don't expect a huge overhaul with Soulstorm. Maybe Relic has jaded me? Ditto.


If I expect little then hopefully I'll be happy with what I get.Heh, didnt work for me past 2 months with DC 1.2, I had low expectations, was supremly happy for about 45 days, and then the wheels came off the wagon as players settled into anti-IG builds that just crippled me. Granted, I had some other issues holding me back too, but I found that switching to Chaos for a while demonstrated how easy it is to play other races and just broke my will to go online.


Ork is 50/50 and cron/elder is sh!t so I just Turret rush and hope for the best.Lol, thats half the non mirror matches, and I had quite a bit more trouble with orks once my auto score reached 1300... big shootas and TBz ftw!

If you want to see the low point for me, my last batch of replays shows the waning days of my time on line. Interestingly, when I would play team matches, no one would stay in our games because they were intimidated by my teams stats, and playing IG in team matches was a whole other set of rules, rules where by I dominated my oponents most of the time because all it took was a single tac squad, or some cult-nades in support at the right moment and I was a GOD! (not to mention getting to tech on time - every time.)

Really, IG needs to have more front end balance in tier 0-2.5 , and adjust tech times to simulate the scaling factor that relic was shooting for. Like stock WA eldar, having all of a races power loaded in the tier 3/4 portion of the game makes a race very hard to play in AM, and entirely too predictable in team matches, though 7 FP's were a bit more imba than the BB/Kasy combo.


Maybe I feel it's just their style of play to sacrifice units, but it doesn't bother me. Certainly losing a priest or CS at a certain point in the game can ruin you, but you roll with the punches and adapt and push enough that maybe he'll make a mistake. The key here is that once the game is in tier 2, in a 1v1 game, its close to the end. Game turning mistakes dont happen once you have the upper hand in most 1300+ matches, especially when vehicles are on the field. All that can save you then is teching to a cheaper - more effective unit and hoping for the best. Kasies with priests are a good example of a fail-safe unit, but they come out later than they should and require the one building votes most likely to already be blown up due to your tier 2 fall back to even be built in the first place - then needing the barraks, reinforcements and upgrades to include special weapons is just asking too much of IG in terms of flawless execution and tech-timing in my opinion.

Somewhere, in some part of the tier 1 or 2 order of battle, IG needs something other than the CS to perform as an anchor for your forces. Fluff wise, it should have been vetrans or lemans, but if thats not going to happen, some unit's characteristics are going to have to change from the present model to create that center of gravity that IG lacks. HWT's would have made a good stand in, but bugs and design decisions are currently preventing them from stepping up.

[KotCR]

I think Leman Russes would be great in T2, so long as they were scaled down to T2 standards, like the CSM Predator, and scaled up later to T4 standards. Could increase the effectiveness of the Basilisk then, and swap it's place with the Leman in the techtree...seems apparently the design team don't like Artillery before the end of a game.

It just seems odd an I.G. force would fight without a Leman Russ by it's side as soon as they had access to vehicles.

Not really a balance design decision though, more of a cosmetic one.

As far as HWT's are concerned, I only see two problems with them;
1.) Build time is much too long
2.) They never deploy facing the way you want them too, and then take ages to turn around to face their target. One of the reasons Broadsides are so much better IMO, is because they don't have this design flaw.

Please give them a bigger backpack though, I bet the gunner gets really claustrophobic stuck in the loader's backpack when they are undeployed.

[IG_Emperor_Ben]

I think we should get Baneblade 1st tech!!!!

nah seriously IG can be a real pushover against an experienced player and we got no leman russ untill after mars pattern, fair enough for the BB but russies are to late and are swamped by AV if you aren't dead yet and I need more Kassies perhaps even Ogryns. maybe all could be fixed by upping Guardsmen stats there are so many underpowered units so upping a couple cant be to bad

[Chris]

Lol, thats half the non mirror matches

Well SM is 95/5 (outer reaches is the only map I've ever struggled vs SM on), Chaos and Tau are 70/30 on most maps ork is 50/50 on most maps...

I really don't see the balance issues with IG tier 0-1 except obviously vs eldar... 99.9% of IG complaints can be contributed to the fact that the race is designed to play one way but people want to play them another. EG. "I don't want to have to micro I want to sit behind turrets and tech to vehicles for great justice" (Irony - this actually does work if you're good enough). We can either sit here and dream about how we want Relic to change IG to fit our own personal ideas or we can wake up and realise that the player is the one who has to change.

Making the point that IG doesn't play how they're "supposed to" may have been a valid one back in the early days of WA but I think Relic have made it very clear how they now want IG to play through what they have (and havn't) changed. The argument that IG is too micro intensive for low ranked players doesn't even hold up anymore in my opinion. From my personal experience of being in and out of competitive activity, playing IG to at least a 1400 level is all about common sense and reading your opponent and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a 1400 rank. It only takes a week of inactivity for my micro to go completely to shit but that doesn't really matter cuz common sense (knowing when to fight and when to run) carries a lot of weight.

I gotta say a lot of IG players just seem to lack common sense, I see so many people teching when they should be aggressive, being aggressive when they should tech, teching without any specific goal, investing in guardsmen without upgrades... the list goes on. Seriously, common sense and basic game knowlege goes such a long way when playing IG and part of that common sense is knowing what your race is and isn't capable of.


I dunno, I guess not having played them prior to 1.2 I am simply not missing what I haven't experienced. However, I'm starting to think thats a good thing.

In the grand scheme of things IG have had more highs than lows.

WA release - IG bayonette rush is unstoppable vs everyone except Orks, because Orks are also hideously imbalanced.

WA 1.41 - IG remain imbalanced while Orks got nerfed, ergo they become top dog by default.

WA 1.5 - IG get knocked down a couple of pegs due to simultaneous nerfing/buffing of other races.

WA 1.51 - IG climb back up a peg and are competitive without being massively broken.

DC release - IG are extremely strong due to turret imbalances and tier 3 teching speed.

DC 1.1 - No change IIRC

DC 1.2 - Are perfectly capable of beating SM/CSM/TAU/ORK and only struggle vs CRON/ELD which is not a unique problem for IG.

[KotCR]

99.9% of IG complaints can be contributed to the fact that the race is designed to play one way but people want to play them another.
This is a common problem with many RTS'. Recently I've been getting annoyed with this sort of moronic player in the C&C3 forums. Typically, it's the Nod ones who complain that Nod Tanks can't stand up to GDI or Scrin tanks in a stand-up fight...the truth is that is the intentional way the race is designed, if you want an attack-move hammer you should be playing GDI, Nod requires finessé.

Yet despite being a Nod player myself many people don't listen (even with the facts in front of their eyes that Nod Scorpions have almost identical HP/DPS cost ratios to GDI Predators) :(.

The point is; Many players want to play their favourite race in the way they want, but unfourtunetly the game doesn't work like that, and different races are designed to be played in different ways. Even taking a look at the basic capping units of each side gives strong hints to how the race is intended to be played in DoW.



nah seriously IG can be a real pushover against an experienced player and we got no leman russ untill after mars pattern, fair enough for the BB but russies are to late and are swamped by AV
How is this any different from the same case with everybody else's T4 Tanks?
I mean sure the Leman Russes aren't the most resilient, but they're not the least resilient either and are more than adequete enough at what they do.
If the Leman Russes were ever brought down the techtree they would need some appropriate nerfs applied.

[Varsis]

Why does it sound so much better when you guys say it? Maybe I've just been repeating it so much people have tuned it out...

[KotCR]

They are probably just re-affirming your opinions, mate ;).

[Troubleshooter]

99.9% of IG complaints can be contributed to the fact that the race is designed to play one way but people want to play them another.Au-contraire!

For me this is exactly the opposite. When WA came out, I was excited to get to play a defensive "buildy" race.... I was especially looking forward to DoW style vehicles in IG hands... Think of what a DoW style Bassilisk would have looked like (drools).

Instead, it was quite a bit different. But I had hope, and I had never seen a 1v1 match, so in my world all was still good. I literally didn't know that commissars did anything for tier 1 units, and rarely ever built them. Instead, I worked all the non-conventional builds... like bunker rushing, bunker/turret rushing, Bassy spam, and dedicated tier 2 team defense. Life was good. Occasionally I did a 5 squad build and rushed my ass off, but almost never invested in GM for much except capping and manning bunkers.

As my crew started running up against better and better teams, I found that by 1.5, I had to seriously step up my 1v1 skills, and asked SMJ to teach me the ways of commie-fu. I still did not grasp the fundamentals of non-gimmick builds and tactics until late in 1.5, and only started to get good at AM in 1.51... when I still had to rely on 17 second turrets to overcome my natural aversion to GM massing in tier 1.

Ultimately, I realised that to get over 1250 on the ladder, I was going to have to knuckle down and learn how the best IG'ers played. I watched some replays, and decided that Das had (IMO) the most dominating style without the use of turrets, and so I focused on emulating his style as best I could, and tried to swear off turrets and all things "buildy".

The result was that the further I got from my natural play style (spawn camping and non-linear tactics.) the more success I had, but at a cost. See, I dont have Das's talent, and I dont have your common sense, Chris. As I beat those GM + CS builds to death, I found that I was stuck on a treadmill... trying to get IG to work with a core build routine and cap order when all my instincts say to be unpredictable and asymmetric. In the end, I wound up failing to the same 'cheese' builds that I not only predicted, but that players actually executed against me over and over again. I lost to one SM player on a map that I had beaten him on 7 times, but while he was able to adapt to my tactics and builds, I was totally stagnant... theres just not that many ways to execute the same BO/cap order before they catch on and beat you with it. (in his case, he just realised that he needed to not try to scout rush me and turtle up against the CS.) Once he knew how to beat me, I was stumped on how to adjust my tactics to regain the initiative.

This is primarily why I dont blame IG for my 1.2 frustrations, becuase I can watch replays of others having success with them and realize that I have issues with competitive play that keep getting in the way (cap orders... whats a cap order?!?). Thats not going to prevent me from analysing IG according to the experience I do have though... one that most IG'ers I know of tend to agree with - IG are too hard to play in 2v2 and 1v1 due to counterintuitive design and simple game mechanics. Some people have said that IG should never have been included in the game because they are too weak and the game mechanics dont fit an IG paradigm. I think sometimes they are right... even after having some success with them, they just dont feel like IG to me.

Ah well, no matter I suppose... they play just fine in single player. :p

[SubakuGaara]

IG has no real identity as a race. they're not shooty, not the most defensive, not melee based... really without the ultra powerful baneblade, IG just doesn't really make any sort of statement. But what can you do? Maybe call IG a failure and drop it as a race all together? Maybe merge them with another race such as making them part of chaos or part of SM? i dunno... I just see the lack of identity playing vs IG.

[Troubleshooter]

Its true, they dont stand out well, but their appeal has always been in the status of the under-dog. Normal humans fighting against the odds and winning through sheer grit and stubborness. I think IG was just rushed out a bit too fast for WA, and never really got the attention afterwards to give them the right feel/presence in the game.

They really need to be hard core mass infantry, or loaded with armor and arty... neither of which fit the core game design of DoW very well. I've not played CoH, but I imagine that the tank doctrine in that game would translate well to DoW.

[Vytae]

99.9% of IG complaints can be contributed to the fact that the race is designed to play one way but people want to play them another.

Thats both correct and incorrect. The problem is,IG at high levels of play only work one way . Sure you can bumrush someone with a gimmick build and win through superior skill or pure surprise factor but more often then not a an equally skilled player will hand you your head if you dont follow the core build ( 3gm/cs).

You can't blame people for wanting to be a massed turtle race when that was what they were marketed as for WA.

I agree on the common sense thing though,Ig dosent require alot of micro unless you plan unwisely and let your GM squads get stuck in bad pathing (and mowed down). And Tau will absolutley own the face of an IG. Agressive and wise use of vespids/TC (flamer) with FW and tech to SS owns everything IG very badly untill t3. Yes,sometimes you can 3squad rush them,but only because most Tau never suspect an IG to actually rush THEM! ( The temerity of it!).

The ironic thing of it is,that IG units ARENT underpowered,its just the way the race was put together. Its 'flow' is choppy,so an IG will be rolling smooth one second,then a GM squad gets stuck on a wall and all the mechanics behind the GM squads rise up to haunt the player and its a slide downhill.

Simple bug and common sense fixes,with a few build time tweaks and *very* minor tier power shifting (ie,spread some of that upper tier love down to the earlier tiers in some form) would go miles and miles to making IG what it should be.

And IG should NEVER be removed from the game,it shouldve been in the original DoW for that matter. IG is one of the core factions from fluff with immense flavour and variety.

[Varsis]

I played a little IG in TT but mostly just read their codex (too expensive). I like massy races so I played Tyranids instead. It sounds like you expected them to be more of the TT race they are; massy, vehicle oriented, dudes operating under mostly defensive doctrines.

But I have no problem with how Relic implemented IG. I don't envy their task of trying to translate these races while simultaneously balancing them and trying to please GW. It can't be easy.

My only real problem with IG is their lack of variety. The most diverse organization in the universe? Yeah, right with one core infantry until T3. I don't even want that much variety, just to the same level as other races which almost universally can choose from dedicated cappers, dedicated infantry, dedicated melee specialists, specialist units, jumpers, etc. All in T1-2! On the other hand IG's way of "mixing it up" is building 2 GM or 3 GM squads. :wtf2:

But I digress.

I don't like how you referred to Das' ability as talent when it's skill. Players like Das_Capn weren't born to play RTS' (and if they were I would say that it'd have to be one of the dumbest talent's a person has ever been born with. That and rolling the tongue). And the thing with all skills is that you can attain it with enough practice, saying you can't is just an excuse for not wanting to put in the effort. I have the desire to gain the skill, I lack the time to gain it, but I have no doubt that I could (although I'd much rather have Serv's skill with IG than Das').

I dunno Trouble, I agree 100.1 percent with Chris on this. You have to play the race as Relic wants you to play them or play something else. It's obvious you're not satisfied with Relic's treatment of them but honestly they're not going to do anything in DC that will make you happy. Even if they instituted your changes to the HH as you want them the IG would not be the tank oriented, turtle race you want them to be, and there would still be whiners clamouring that your version of the Hellhound shouldn't do friendly fire for "consistency with other flamers". Really, I am very critical of Relic's handling of DoW, but I understand they can't please everyone (just me is enough thanks :D) and if you don't like how they designed the race then there's really no way they're going to please you, because we're not going to see a serious revamp at least not in DC.

Maybe you'll get lucky in Soulstorm though. I wouldn't get my hopes up, but maybe. I personally don't have much choice because although I am loathe to Relic's handling of the game it is still my favorite game that no degree of funness World in Conflict provides can distract me from. So I pretty much have to get Soulstorm, even though I expect the same level of lack of polish, imba-strats and units, and an abundance of bugs. But who knows... I have a little hope... Maybe I'll get lucky... ;)

[The_Guardman]

IG can be a real pushover against an experienced player and we got no leman russ until after mars pattern
It does not require the Mars Pattern, "just" the T4 research + stone. (2 researches for 1 tank and 1 building that, if you have a relic, can build another tank. Nice idea guys.)

Varsis, I finally start to see your point :) I agree with you on many points, but I'm also with Truble when he say that IG is not enough "IG" to be... Itself. While my main line is that IG need to be reworked from scratch, I know this is not possible, hence my participation on this and many other IG discussion around. I play TT IG by 20 years, and I had seen all of its TT incarnation and many in games. I also tryed any possible TT variation on it. And the DoW version is one of the least appealing. But, I simply do not feel like playing other races (while I had success with DoW Orks, all version's SM and recently stated to get a knack on Tau).
IG is my race, my hearth and what I like to play, weak or OP do not matter. It's not like I'm a baby crying for any defeat. But, seeing it properly balanced is a thing I would like to see.

Now, on IG in DC. It have a thing that, since WA, have puzzled me the most: infantry "unmassness", ie. it is supposed to drown people in weakling swarms, but it do not do it. This because:
A) Pop cap: proportionally, there is no sense in have IG payng the same cap of other races per unit.
B) Stats: too low for cap.
This brought up that IG infantry need a buff, or need a cap decrease. I will not go deeper into this, because we all know how many imbalance this will brought to us. Anyway, scaling trough direct stats buff researches is not the right response IMHO, because it happen in a multiplicative factor, a thing you do not wish to see in a swarm race.

The second issue is the, as Truble's noted, absence of infantry options in T1-T2. Ogryns could have been brought down one tier, nerfed and we at least will have another option. Also, special weapons teams (as in TT) with various weapons choices and so versatility, would add flavor and tactics.
And tanks are also enough screwed.

Say'd this, the Relic hould truly considerate to re-work IG from scratch, and use the opportunity given by the expansion to add the "missing link", the unit that can allow IG to become flexible and useful trough the Tiers without being OP here and UP there.

It also merit a mention that IG is screwed since his inception, the proofs are all around in the code and the models. It was started to work into one direction ,changed and rushed halfway, re-balanced to fix errors, changed here and there to be balanced there and here... It is clearly visible. The ending result is something that more or less work, but it is not a success. It is in fact just a patchwork of fixes. This explain why I think that IG should be redone from ground up.

[Slow_Runner]

Right, and all this relates to Hellhounds and Psykers how again?

[KotCR]

The Imperial Guard is a swarm race that is designed to be massed and is only effective in numbers. This includes the way the Hellhound works, with it's lottery gun...not a problem if there is lots of Hellhounds, one is bound to hit. A problem if you are only using one.

However, despite the swarm race mentality, that affects the Hellhound, because of the way the game is designed, it's not quite as practical as it should be.

Alright Slow_Runner? :)

[The_Guardman]

Slow, it is my opinion that any issue the IG suffer is directly linked to the race as whole, and its bad realization since inception. So, to deeply understand the problem (and start to try to fix it), first we have to know where it come from.

Now, the HH: I understand (finally... lol :D ) the preoccupation of Varsis. The proposed change and resulting increase in efficiency will make the HH on par with other armies tanks in reliability. And this brought up the sulution proposed by Truble: make it a decent tank (including HPs), with the proposed augmentation, augmented cost etc. so it become comparable to others. I have no problem in having it on par with a CSM predator (pre-T4 research), to say, if it work. Limit it to 3 if too powerful.

Anything would be better than losing or winning a battle on a 50% roll due to the random effect it have (when not spammed) on the field.

IG tanks are not mean to be spammed, with notable exception of Sent and Chimera, at least from fluff wiewpoint. The Sent itself was clearly designed to be a T0-T1 vehicle, and changed halfway during WA production, and now suffer from its loked position and role changed on the fly.

[KotCR]

I don't think the Sentinal was ever intended to be a Tier 0 or Tier 1 vehicle.

Sure, Relic make some bad decisions and have some poor ideas, but they are not that stupid.

[Troubleshooter]

I would have loved an 'open top' tier 1 sentinal with heavy_inf armor, with a tier 2 upgrade (enclosed crew compartment) that brought it up to Veh_Light... with accompanying weapon options to customize it in both tiers.... and it would also have solved the "WTF happened to my HWTs?!?!" in WA. Alas, twas not to be.

@ slow : Sorry, I tend to derail IG balance discussions because my problems with IG run through the core design of the race as it relates to the game mechanics. The problem is not with Hell hounds, or psykers, or tech speed, or the assassin... its with any/all of these things being broken in relation to each other AND how they interact with the enemy. Fixing IG could be a tweak-fest for another 5 patches to get them right, as they almost were in 1.51... but with a derth of patches, and questionable balance decisions in the ones that do get out, I have to make it known that "fixing" IG by tweaking certain units is possible, but unlikely to actually sove the underlying problem with the race as a whole. IG has the distinction of being one of the best 'internally' balanced armies in the game, with no one unit outshining the rest to the exclusion of another unit in all cases (with the exception of HQ psykers) but as a result, they are a well polished lemon. So, like I advocated a quick fix to the Hell hound so solve a tier 2 vehicle + infantry problem, it would also create a faster tier 3 and earlier kas/assassin because a lone HH might actually buy more time than IG currently gets with 2 HH's, and the result would be to unbalance IG fast tech to Bias IG more than nessecary - but because tech speed and scaling are fine tuned to allow IG to outperform anyone in the same tier with more time-on-tier, you might have to tweak kas/ogs/assassin to come out later as a balance solution. Wonderful, until you find out that the HH changes cause, due to some unrelated issue like pathing, a lesser impact than was projected once players learned to game the system, that IG is even more hamstrung than before because they "bought" a better HH at the expense of an earlier tier 3... The tweaks have to stop! If you dont get a tweak right, you botch the race for 6+ months (or forever in the case of DC) and leave them only playable by top tier gamers. Not fun, not right.

IG needs to get back to its origional design concept, or it needs a new design paradigm that more closely matches how the game works. Meaning, core infantry + cappers in tier 1, not a single unit to do both. Scaling that keeps pace with other races, to include tech options. Smaller base footprints or cheaper defenses to guard all that real estate. Mobile infantry + a CC specific infantry option no later than tier 2. And some way to contest a large map where the middle of the map contains more than a single - contestable - SP. In short, stock IG worked, but were overdone, the tweaks to fix the design concept subverted IG's ability to play the game as it was designed but handed IG other capabilities as compensation - but they only really shine in team games with 6 players or more.

Sorry, I am not trying to drag IG balance discussions off topic, but the reality is that, IMO, you simply can not focus on one or two units in the IG force list and try to fix them with the hope that it makes the race accessable again... its that kind of thinking that continues to override what needs to be done - overhaul IG!

[Chris]

Thats both correct and incorrect. The problem is, IG at high levels of play only work one way .

Hmm I might be inclined to agree with you however I'm not sure if it's relevant. After all, how many people who make and post in these threads are actually playing IG at a "high level"? Most IG players on this forum (including myself at the moment) don't often get much higher than 1400 on the ladder but at that level there are still a reasonable amount of options. People should have no trouble getting hellhounds to work at that level.


IG needs to get back to its origional design concept

In fairness when exactly did IG play in the style of their 'design concept'? I don't think they ever did, I don't think I've ever seen IG playing how they were "designed" to play. The more I think about it the more I realise how similar my WA 1.41 playstyle and DC 1.2 playstyle are. The pacing might be different (specifically the tactica control) but besides WA 1.5 I don't think I've really ever had to drastically change my style.

[warhawk08]

As I read these posts I think Chris is right; you guys want IG to play in a specific fashion that is at odds with how they are designed. Personally, I really like the manner in which they play and couldn't care less whether or not it follows their advertised design.

I think in situations like this you can either beat your head against the wall or switch to another race that better suits your play style. I did. I wanted SM to be the jack of all trades master of none race thats able to counter every situation albeit not necessarily have the best counter for every situation. Alas, thats not what SM is currently.

[Troubleshooter]

Thats probably why you continue to have reasonable success with IG while I took a nose dive in 1.2.


In fairness when exactly did IG play in the style of their 'design concept'? I don't think they ever did, I don't think I've ever seen IG playing how they were "designed" to play. Perhaps my experience with IG is uniqe in that regard, since I didn't play IG in auto until much later, and didn't even know what a commie rush or 120 armor was until SMJ and others were harping on how OMG IMBA it was. When I played IG in stock WA, I probably built a grand total of 10 commisars, 5 of which were in a goof-ball "hero only" spam build I played around with. So, for me, the IG design concept worked because I was playing them at less than IMBA capacity.

Thats not to say that they were not horribly imba, they certainly were. I remember marvleing at Stephans replay of the bayonette rush, thinking to myself, how in gods name does anyone find that GM units do crazy CC damage to buildings... not realising that people were just picking through the DPS charts and finding quirks for exploitation.

Things like having to micro every volly of bassilisk fire seemed natural to me. Having 3 working squads of GM that could hold their own in a stand up fight seemed natural to me, and having a 4th squad for capping purposes was still expensive in my eyes. Not using commisars, or knowing about FOTM @100% made me rely more heavily on IG's IMBA-Economy and forsake the center of the map in favor of a more blanket defensive style and providing anti-imba cover for my allies.

In short, stock IG design worked when you didn't know the exploits, and now IG wont work unless you know the exploits. :p I remember having a super heated arguement with someone here about bassilisk auto-fire bugs, because when I said "what bug, just target the ground where you think the enemy is moving to..." the other guy thought I was being sarcastic :D Ohhh to be a noob again.

When I say "go back to the origional design" I am essentially saying, go back to the paradigm of Commie+GM ~= Tac squad, account for IG's lack of mobility and CC punch on large maps by compensating them with tougher/cheaper defenses or some economic boost (not IMBA-Econ!) and let them have something uniquely IG and good, rather than uniquely IG and massy. IG had a good design concept for WA, it was the execution that was botched... but the concept was sound IMO.

[KotCR]

IG needs to get back to its origional design concept, or it needs a new design paradigm that more closely matches how the game works. Meaning, core infantry + cappers in tier 1, not a single unit to do both
Actually, I do not think that change is needed. It is possible to have a working, formidible race, using the same unit for capping as it does for combat.

You may think it is a poor example, because Eldar do have so many other options, but it isn't, it is right on the money - Eldar Guardians.

They are capping units, that are more than capable of being your entire (and formidible) army until about T2.5, when their combat abilities will finally be totally outclassed by infantry which scale better unto the end of T2 and sometimes into T3.

The truth is; Eldar would be no less formidible in T1 than they are now if all they had availiable to them were Bonesingers, Guardians, and the Farseer. Not too disimiliar to how Imperial Guard are right now, except with them it fails to be as formidible.

So if the way Guardsmen scale, work, and improve, was more similiar to that of the curret Eldar Guardians, with Imperial Guard getting a new proper (HWTs don't count) infantry option in T2.5 (typically scaled down Ogryns or Kasrkin), with Guardsmen effective scaling also stopping at around T2 (about the same time Guardian effective scaling stops right now), having them as both the capper and the basic combat unit in T1 could still work well.



I am essentially saying, go back to the paradigm of Commie+GM ~= Tac squad
I disagree with this in a way, in the current state of things, for the sake of the SM. Though this is not really the fault of the Imperial Guard, rather an issue with how badly designed SM T1 has been ever since Winter Assault. After all, we know what the Guardsmen did to them at the start of that, when Commie+GM ~= Tac Squad was exactly what the case was.

[Troubleshooter]

After all, we know what the Guardsmen did to them at the start of that, when Commie+GM ~= Tac Squad was exactly what the case was.Acutally, GM+Commie >>>> Tacs in stock WA, which is why it was broken. What was needed was to get the balance right, not scrap the concept. Tacs would still have the option of siezing the upper hand with a single flamer in the squad, or CC'ing the GM, or going ASM to bypass GM's scaling option - GL's. This is how SM tacs are balanced against CSM, I dont see why the paradigm would not work with IG.

Re: Guardian as a model for GM. That would be fine, but Guardians still come with FoF for making rapid map control possible while still posing a formidable offensive punch + Lock abilities... GM would need tier 1 Chims to have the same traits. Anyone for tier 1 vehicles? Didnt think so ;)

I know it's possible to get the balance right, but IG on a large map are always going to be screwed agaist a faster or more flexable foe. To balance this out requires giving IG some out-of-bounds advantage, like IMBACONOMY like necroconomy or faster capping like sluggas, or faster teching/scaling which is an imba-sandwitch. I'm afraid that the only way to keep IG in the running at low-mid level play is to add more tier 0-1 punch while taking back some of the late game punch, but with the present paradigm, I am afraid that the result will be botched and leave IG totally incapable for loss of what works in the late game as a trade for a possible balance fix in the early game. Tweaks to IG have just not going well since 1.41, I think the race needs a fresh look at it to decide if they are going to be an AM viable race, or just a support race. I'd be fine with the support role if this were TF2, but its not, each race should have more closely tracking ability in 1v1 as well as other game variants.

[Makaris]

Call me crazy, because I've not taken much of a part in the IG discussions and probably don't have much of a point, but I like where Trouble is going with this and I have something I'd like to add.

He mentioned that a problem with IG might be the whole capper/combat unit being one and the same is an issue. Why not give the IG a hard cap 2 unit of Ratling snipers that would act like scaled down Rangers? The hard cap would be in place so spamming wouldn't be possible and you'd still be forced to use GM as the backbone of your army, and in fact you should have the option of still building GM from the HQ, to give IG more variety.

Give the ratlings a low damage / decent morale damage weapon, above average walking speed and a research to get infilitration. Make commander unattachable to them, so GM are even a more attractive option. The point isn't to replace GM, but give the IG a fiercer/cheaper edge on capping. And having a unit that actually does some morale damage would be useful to... Altogether, it could only add more variety to the IG without tipping them over to IMBA. That can only be good. That'd be sufficient to help the IG out in low tiers, I think.

I couldn't say if that would be all you need to do, or if a nerf to tier 2.5/3 would be in order, but there you have it.

[The_Guardman]

He mentioned that a problem with IG might be the whole capper/combat unit being one and the same is an issue. Why not give the IG a hard cap 2 unit of Ratling snipers that would act like scaled down Rangers?

Unless Ratlings where pick as the new IG unit in SS, no model will be added for a patch, no matter how much the balance ask for it.
And, if you look at the pool, people ask for lot more stupids things, like Steel Legion and Demolisher (both very useless and utterly redundant). However, Relic already has shown us that they prefer popular maneuver instead that useful ones, and will most probably ship us with an overlapping unit instead that what we need, just becouse the majority ask for it.

As the old say'ng goes: "Beware of what you wish, because you could obtain it."

[Makaris]

I knew that'd be the case. Just idle thoughts.

They don't neccassarily have to make Ratling snipers; extremely minor reworking of the current GM model could be used to create a scout variant.

[Slow_Runner]

If we want to keep it realistic we can't start adding new units into the game. And as DC showed, reworking the entire race isn't too likely to happen either.

So please, pretty please, try to fix the work out specific problems.

[KotCR]

That would be fine, but Guardians still come with FoF for making rapid map control possible while still posing a formidable offensive punch + Lock abilities... GM would need tier 1 Chims to have the same traits.
Nah they wouldn't. Remember, Priests increase the speed of Guardsmen squads!

Make all the Imperial Guard Mini-Heroes availiable in Tier 1 (Priests, Commissars, Psykers - with some fixes to him to make him a better squad leader), tweaking them to not be overpowered, but also affordable, for the Tier, and use them to customise the squads.

You want speed and damage? Attach a Priest (ie. FoF/Warlock DPS boost = Priest Speed Boost/Priest DPS Boost).
You want resilience? Attach a Commissar (ie. Conceal/Embolden = Commissar Health Regen Boost/Commissar Morale Boost)
You want special abilities? Attach a Psyker (ie. Entangle/Plasma Grenades = Soul Strip/Lightning Arc)

All should be availiable to you in T1 after the RAX is up (no Tactica or Stone BS), and would give the Imperial Guard a discreet kind of variety.

Each hero could only provide one ability at first, with you having to perform a separate, moderately priced, research to unlock each of their other abilities (The same way the Guardians need to research FoF, Mysticism, and Plasma Grenades, to unlock the squads' other capabilities).

Remove the mini-hero units' Commander-armour (give them heavy_med or something) too, that way you could remove the superior cost-effectiveness of the Guardsmen w/Commander's attached during a battle by killing the squad commander (forcing the Guard player to pull the squad out till they can replace them when up against RAX units); The same way it works with the death of the Warlocks being the achilles' heel of Guardian squads to stop them being overpowered.
It would also make it undesirable to leave the heroes unattached (most relevant to the Psyker, seems he could use his abilities without being attached), as they would be vulnerable. Maybe also give all the Commanders the ability to add +15hp to each squad member or something by default, to encourage the attachment of any Psykers you have more.

Seriously, I think if it's an idea that is done right it could really work well.



GM+Commie >>>> Tacs in stock WA,
Nah, mass Tacticals could take them. The only problem was that it was much harder and took much longer to mass Tacticals than it was to mass the Guardsmen/Commies, so what you did have would get overwhelmed before you had enough.

[Makaris]

I apologize Slow. Topic was veering and I jumped on board.

How about allowing IG access to a muchly-nerfed Priest earlier to help out there early game? A big problem with them seems to be that it takes to long to get the GM rocking (but when they are ready, they are practically OP). Earlier but weaker Priests would let GM start competing with other units quicker, but would also take the edge off of the uber GM+Priest+Plasma mass.

I know, small tweaks aren't what are called for, but since that is likely what we're going to get we might as well be ambitious with them.

Edit ^^^^^ Totally lol, I basically just repeated KotRC's post.

So yeah, that.

[KotCR]

How would allowing IG access to a muchly-nerfed Priest earlier help them out? A big problem with them seems to be that it takes to long to get the GM rocking (but when they are ready, they are practically OP).
It wouldn't be a nerf - it would be a reworking altogether.
That is something a bit different.

Abilities which you deem currently inefficient, could be tweaked to be efficient.



Earlier but weaker Priests would let GM start competing with other units quicker, but would also take the edge off of the uber GM+Priest+Plasma mass.
Is that a bad thing? GM+Priest+Plasma+Chimmie Mass could be considered overpowered right now anyway.

Besides, it could be the Mini-Heroes that effectively scale up through the Tiers, not the Guardsmen (who as mentioned would only be sufficient for your entire army until T2.5, then you would get another infantry unit and/or vehicles to assist them).



Edit ^^^^^ Totally lol, I basically just repeated KotRC's post
Hehe and sorry, I didn't refresh for a while, and didn't know there was a reply. Was busy tweaking my post :).

[Troubleshooter]

@KotCR :Guardman proposed unit differentiation via hero attachment some time ago, most people agree that this would be a good thing. It would also require a heavy rebalance move... but hey, I'm on board for it! Priested GL's in early tier 2 would be a serious contender for IMBA unit of the year though :p

@Makaris: Morale sapping units in tier 0-1 would be a major advantage to IG due to the fact that, in general, IG outnumber the enemy. Enemy forces generally come out with fewer squads, and having IG outnumber them is how its all balanced out for DPS as it stands, it would be pretty scary for a persuing force of sluggas, for example, Sluggas chase GM squads into a ratling trap, break, and get wiped out by 2 squads of GM. with next to no IG casualties.

Getting IG a capping unit is not too hard to pull off actually, just reduce GM stats slightly, dramatically cut GM cost, and make commisar attachment a major boost to the squad. (increased regen, reinforce, DPS, morale.) 3 commies = 3 core units, extra squads = cappers... Oh, and Commies would have to cost more.

[Guardian X]

I don't see why the original icons and voice samples for the Guardsmen in the original DoW couldn't be used for a capping unit in Dark Crusade (i.e., something like conscripts).

Yes, the guard are in need of a meatshield/capper unit. Right now Guardsmen are just stretched too many ways, with too many glitchy units to boot.

[KotCR]

Priested GL's in early tier 2 would be a serious contender for IMBA unit of the year though
True, but it would be possible to have the Priest's Speed Boost not bring the squad up to FoF standards (I don't think it does anyway, does it?). Scout speed (20) would be enough. Eldars with FoF would remain at 24.

That way the other races all have jump infantry they could use to counter (ASM, Raptors, Vespids, Stormboyz), except Eldar who would have the faster moving infantry anyway. Oh and Necrons...but they have Wraiths, so.

[Makaris]

I agree. I must of sounded like I was opposed to it, but what I meant was that I would exchange (I WANT) an earlier priest (and hey, a psyker too) to get my GM squads combat ready quicker and more effeciently, even at the expense of weaker tier 3 GM+Priest+Plamsa+Chim, which is OP anyway.

Also, giving IG the ability to actually have options for their early game is a nice cake to have and eat, too. Having the ability to tweak your opening by using the different attachable heroes... that's just cool.

Edit-

Also, my little idea about the Ratling Snipers doesn't entail them dealing all that much morale damage... maybe after an upgrade, but intially they'd be nothing but cheap, quick cappers. After upgrades they could be brought up to the level of weaker Eldar Rangers with the recompensation being you can have two of them.

[KotCR]

I know...way past cool ;).

Priests would be perfect for an offensive playstyle, Commissars for a defensive playstyle, and Psykers for support and utility.

I think some reworking of the Psyker's spells would be in order though, to make them more than just damage dealers (because you'd use a Priest if you wanted that anyway). Strip Soul could do a crapload of Morale Damage, and Lightning Arc could cause squad slowdown, or something.

[The_Guardman]

@KotCR :Guardman proposed unit differentiation via hero attachment some time ago, most people agree that this would be a good thing. It would also require a heavy rebalance move... but hey, I'm on board for it! Priested GL's in early tier 2 would be a serious contender for IMBA unit of the year though
Wow :) Someone remember that I am able to have some good idea, sometime :) You're truly my happiness officer, Troubleshooter :D

It worked this way:
- Removal of stones.
- Commy available from start (or with stone to avoid rush)
- Psyker available after Tactica
- Priest available after Imperial Command

common:
- T1: add +50 Hp to all the unit members.
- T2: add +75 Hp to all the unit members.
- T3: add +100 Hp to all the unit members.

Individual:
Commy: add +200 morale to the unit, at T2 can execute. Execute do not improve damage, it is used just for morale.
Priest: add +100 morale to the unit, at T2 add damage buff. Invulnerability for T3 under discussion, IIRC.
Psyker: add +50 morale to the unit, spells as actual (without morale backslash). Add sight range at some tier (discussion open, IIRC).

IG morale also need a rework to return back in line with the other armies. It is ridiculous that it is so much different from them. GU can fight until 2-3 dies in a row, despite the capper status and "little over IG" stats. There is no reason for a main fighting unit to have morale below a capper.

Proposed solution:
IG get 250 morale from start (up from 100), lose 40 at each death (down from 60), regen 6 each second (up from 3), regroup at 150 (up from 30), minimum time broken 10 seconds (down from 12).

This bring them in line with other units, without having "uber" stats. The General can also have an upgrade or basic ability to boost the morale regen or maximal around him, allowing for a real command placement instead that going around playing X-Men.

Seem big changes? maybe, but they would bring IG in line with other fighting units during T1, and allow for a smoother T2. Armour/Hp upgrades should also be re-thinked.

Damn. I'm again off topic, ever if the psyker is present :P Btw, it seem to me to walk circles. Haven't we discussed those topics like, 2 patches ago?

[Troubleshooter]

Well folks, we have thuroughly derailed the thread. Suppose we get back to how we might tweak the Psyker/Hellhound for now, I promise no more thread-jacking. :)

Its probably better to do some "what-if" IG fixes in a general IG rebalance thread or just take it to a mod-forum as a mock-up of a dream IG list.


Wow Someone remember that I am able to have some good idea, sometime You're truly my happiness officer, Troubleshooter <3 you too :p

[Jaimas]

Psyker's been in need of fixing for a long damn time, and his spells are a big part of that. So despite every attempt to drag this thread off-course (a process which I've cheerfully butted out of due to my innate propensity to pour gasoline on flames), we've actually come full circle to discussing the Psyker again.

That. Is. Awesome.

Anyway. What's needed for the Psyker is utility when attached to a squad beyond what his current detection; a sight-range boost helps but doesn't really give much of a buff at all, and his spells are nice, but execute and fanaticism in their current incarnations are infinitely better especially when all other attributes are said and done.

My original concept caused for a negligable resistance (maybe 10% at the most) to ranged damage for the attached squad, since this is where IG squads tend to get horribly raped anyway.

Part of the fix caused for the fixing of Strip Soul and Lightning Arc, as well.

[KotCR]

@The_Guardman

I wouldn't do it that way, in part because different requirements for the different mini-heroes removes some of the customizability.

Don't really have the time to discuss how I would do it now though, just got back from work and I need some sleeps for tommorrow (well, today).

[Troubleshooter]

I suppose you need to define the role the psyker is supposed to have though. Is he a CC disruption machine? Is he AV-Light? Is he Anti-Hero? Is he supposed to be all these things or something else?

Its hard to say what he's supposed to be, since more than any other unit in IGs list, his role has morphed the most since 1.41. I think the high point for the psyker was the 1.51 "turn your dread to flesh" phase, but its easy to say that since it was IMBA. The down grade left him as AV light, but as a good hero sapper in tier 1/2... and for modest squad support via chain lightning. Hes still essential for detecting in some MU's. Overall, he just feels like a support unit thats just not quite good at doing actual support, though Cotms is still good.

I'd say that, assuming no changes to anything else, the psyker would work great if you moved chain to tier 1, and strip soul in tier 2 with its former punch vs. heros. Also, the price in the CS is better than the one in the HQ... its pointless to make Psykers available in tier 1 when theres not a single viable build (NONE!) that includes him... its a senseless distraction at best, and noob-bait at worst. If hes not getting a buff or price cut from the HQ, just disable the unit Icon and give IG something else it can use.

[weirwood]

I think LA would be more useful if IG didn't have the problem that almost all weapons deal zero morale damage. You can break a squad fine with LA, the problem is, to keep it broken you need either a hellhound or fully plasma'd-up GMs. If you don't have either, the squad unbreaks after a couple of seconds, and you're left sitting on a 3 minute cooldown.

The problem with psyker attachment is, that you won't have any squads to attach him to, even if he gave some minor bonus. I don't think it's realistic to have more than 4 GM squads. 1 gets the mandatory commie, and the other three are much better off with priests, anyway you turn it. I don't think there are any viable priest-less IG infantry builds.

I once threw out the suggestion of making the psyker unattachable, but giving him GM bodyguards, similarily to CS squad members. Just 2 regular guardsmen, with the purpose to prevent focus fire from taking out the psyker before he gets his spells off.

Psyker attachment, even if it gave some slight bonus, would only make sense in T1, but the problem with T1 psykers is time. You need the tactica, the psyker stone and the psyker himself, while during all this you should be teching to T2 but can't since the HQ is preoccupied. Tweaking psyker and psyker stone costs and build times slightly should be done, (telepathica temple to 15 seconds like the ministorum, maybe reduce price, psyker to 80/40 like the CS psyker) but that doesn't address the problem that you need to wait for the tactica to be built, and then for the psyker(s) to finish, before you can tech.

Actually, trouble, your question to the psyker's role is very good. The theoretical role of the psyker is as a force multiplicator for one engagement. You use his spells in rapid succession to break one ranged squad, neuter one vehicle, damage/kill a hero or key squad member (warlock, frex), and then maybe send him to melee disrupt something, while you now have temporal force superiority over your opponent.

Now we can identify what prevents him from working like that, hopefully.

[Troubleshooter]

Well, Subakugarra (SP?) pointed out once while we were sparring, that IG lacks any spell or unit that stuns an enemy. Think Chains of torment, or Frags on Tacs. For the psyker to perform this duty, you could make either of his spells have a slow or stun effect along the lines of the Chappy yell or something. That would be a real force multiplier.

[KotCR]

Soul Strip as is + 200 morale damage.
Lightning Arc as is + 50% speed decrease for 5/6 seconds.

Morale Damage and no Snare problems solved.

[Makenshi]

Hmmm...

Chains do damage AND binds in place
Ivan's shout breaks morale AND slows

So why Lightning Arc can't do damage AND slow or break morale? Considering the HQ psyker being capped at 1, like Varsis (or was it Jaimas?) suggested.

Let Strip Soul be like Tau Commander's Target Acquired.

[KotCR]

Only if the Psyker was capped at one.
Of course, that's assuming the current Imperial Guard design stays in place.

If hero-customizability for squads was a fully implimented feature, multiple Pyskers would have to stay, making the Psyker's Spells any more powerful than what I suggested would be way out of line.

As it is, if you were going to make the Psyker's abilities as strong as the Chaplain's and Sorceror's, you would have to remove the ability to put Psykers into the Command Squad, or at least leave the Command Squad Psyker's abilities as they are, only buffing those of the individual Psyker (whom you would cap at 1).

[Zany Reaper]

Let Strip Soul be like Tau Commander's Target Acquired.Oh no! We can't make it as weak as Target aquired! Strip soul deserves to be powerful considering the low durability of the psyker himself.

I still fail to see what's wrong with giving the Hellhound either a damage or morale-damage buff however. The tank is a failure at the moment, doing barely anything most of the time. It even has trouble killing damned Tau fire warriors, which it should be pretty good against.
I see nothing wrong with a slight accuracy buff here as a comprimise in between better morale & HP damage. This thing seriously needs to be improved, coz I've almost never seen it been useful.
More often than not, it's the commissar-supported guardsmen squads that do the real damage. The Hellhound is just a novelty paper-weight in most cases. Definately a poor choice for a assault tank... It barely even does that much damage to buildings (only slightly better than that of 2 single Necron Immortals) either.

[Makenshi]

@You're right Zany, but relax; I was just giving an example, because TC's TA is efficient for him. Adapt that to the Psyker's SS and it's fine.

[IG_Emperor_Ben]

I agree with Makaris and his new units

but back to topic I think we should get the old COTMS back, (BYE BYE MONOLITH MUHAHAHAHAHAHA) and the Hellhound needs more accuracy even if it does less damage im happy. Guardsman are to expensive so are HWT

[Zany Reaper]

"You're right Zany, but relax; I was just giving an example, because TC's TA is efficient for him. Adapt that to the Psyker's SS and it's fine."

I don't honestly think either of these abilities need to be changed, even if Target aquired is weak. Just gives that little edge for tau.

As for Hellhounds, statistically halving the damage & doubling the accuracy is no buff, but merely takes away the lottery factor. It does however make it less effective, whereas it is made more reliable as a consequence.

really, I just think it needs its accuracy boosted to 75% rather than the current 50%. It just makes it more worth using.
OR a research of some sort can buff the hellhound's inferno cannon. That'd probably be better.

[Jaimas]

My thoughts on Psyker fixing:
1. Remove Morale Blastback.
I'm sorry. It's stupid, has yet to be justified, and is clearly a holdover. Remove it. No other caster breaks itself, and the Psyker shouldn't either.

2. Strip Soul and Lightning Arc:
I agree that their positions should be reversed. I want to see Strip Soul actually - brace yourselves - do what it's supposed to do. Further, Lightning Arc is horrendously UP for a tier-2 ability, self-break notwithstanding.
I also agree that Lightning Arc should have a slow effect, and that Strip Soul should do morale damage. This should be true of both HQ and squad Psykers.

3. COTMS
In its current incarnation, COTMS is basically a glitchy EMP grenade with a long cast time. Fix the bugs and tone down EMP grenade, and it probably would be fine.

4. Psyker Utility
There needs to be some incentive other than spells+detection to add a Psyker to a squad, or they will continue to simply not be used. In the IG Test Patch, we pondered Psykers giving a slight resistance to ranged attack damage, which made the attached squad more survivable and saw some truly epic battles between my Kasrkin Squad and Stuffman's Necron Warriors, so I think it makes for a pretty good option. Obviously, it would need to be set so that multiple Psykers in a CS would not have an overlapping resistance aura.

[Makaris]

You might want to have the Psuker actually add something to his attached squad... I know attachment is a privledge in itself, but IG are about their mini-heroes, so...

Something small like 50 bonus morale?

[Spekkio]

No to SS buff. We don't need the CS insta-gibbing commanders again.

[Jaimas]

SS never insta-gibbed any commander - save maybe IG commanders. At best, it was a punch in the crotch. The main reason it was nerfed in 1.2, presumably, is because the Tau have relatively fragile commanders and the NL is kind of weak until multiple Monoliths are up.

Conversely, Strip Soul was originally put in specifically so the Imperial Guard could punish the inevitable early-game commander harass.

Of course, that opens up a new bag of worms; Namely the fact that other abilities that are equally strong in Tier 1 saw no change whatsoever. *coughVespidscough*

Considering SS would be moved to tier 2 and the damage set back to where it was, I fail to see how this is uber-imba, Spekkio.

Contrary to your earlier statement, no commander's getting one-shotted by it unless they're already low on health or are an IG Commander (once again, IG excels at killing itself).

In the current environment, Strip Soul is utterly worthless for its intended use against commanders, since the squad sits around with their power fists up their asses whilst the Psyker casts as is.


Also, again, my proposal for the Psyker's benefits for a squad are as follows:
1. Improved Sight Range
2. Detector
3. Cuts ranged damage the squad takes slightly

[KotCR]

Strip Soul is utterly worthless for its intended use against commanders
Come on that isn't true.
Any direct spike damage against a Commander is a very useful thing to have in T1, despite the inconvieniences of using it.
Wanting to make it more worthwhile is understandable, saying it's totally worthless/useless isn't.

[Jaimas]

All right. It's not entirely useless against commanders. It's just ludicrously ineffective and horrendously inefficient.

Seriously, get a CS into combat against a unit, and it'll do more damage to Commander Armor than the Psyker can with Strip Soul. It's silly.

That's not to say Strip Soul is entirely without merit; it still pokes individual soldiers pretty nicely, but looking at the drawbacks it's kind of a lop-sided equation.

[Spekkio]

SS never insta-gibbed any commander - save maybe IG commanders. At best, it was a punch in the crotch. The main reason it was nerfed in 1.2, presumably, is because the Tau have relatively fragile commanders and the NL is kind of weak until multiple Monoliths are up.

Conversely, Strip Soul was originally put in specifically so the Imperial Guard could punish the inevitable early-game commander harass.

Of course, that opens up a new bag of worms; Namely the fact that other abilities that are equally strong in Tier 1 saw no change whatsoever. *coughVespidscough*

Considering SS would be moved to tier 2 and the damage set back to where it was, I fail to see how this is uber-imba, Spekkio.

Contrary to your earlier statement, no commander's getting one-shotted by it unless they're already low on health or are an IG Commander (once again, IG excels at killing itself).

In the current environment, Strip Soul is utterly worthless for its intended use against commanders, since the squad sits around with their power fists up their asses whilst the Psyker casts as is.


Also, again, my proposal for the Psyker's benefits for a squad are as follows:
1. Improved Sight Range
2. Detector
3. Cuts ranged damage the squad takes slightly No, they didn't get 1-shotted by it, they got 2-shotted by it. The TC has 1k HP; the Mek and Farseer have ~1300 HP. The sorceror has 1k HP, and many secondary commanders do as well. A dual SS would do 800 or 900 damage, can't remember which, in 1.1. Hell, a dual SS right now would do ~650 damage to a commander. The thing is, it's not worth giving up imba priest speed bonus + building raping to take away 1/2 - 1/3 a commander's HPs. Still, I fail to see what's so "utterly useless and inefficient" about being able to zap away 330 HPs of commander armor.

A dual psyker CS either practically insta-gibbed the TC in 1.1, or put the Farseer/Big Mek out of the game. We don't need that again. If you want to buff SS at all in terms of damage output or speed of effect, then it needs a global cooldown to compensate.

[KotCR]

As mentioned, leave it with current HP damage to it's target, but change it so the Psyker doesn't do Morale Damage to himself when casting it, but that he does that Morale Damage to the target instead.

That's enough of a change to make it nice utility against any infantry squads, aswell as it remaining a decent way of spiking Commanders for some alright damage.

Also fix it's casting sequence, so if the target moves out of range after casting it, the Psyker doesn't have to stop, move closer, and start casting it from scratch again, the affect will occur anyway - so long as the Psyker doesn't get disrupted while in the casting animation (knocked-back or something).

[Guardian X]

Yes, a Global Cooldown on Strip Soul (moved to T2) would definitely help, as would ranged damage reduction from the Psyker.

A momentary slowdown added to Lightning would also help to alleviate the problem of melee rushers, since Grenade Launchers can be costly and the Guard have nothing like the Tau's pathfinders to keep slowing advancing enemies down.

But what advantage would be best added to the Command Squad's Psykers?

[Jaimas]

CS would take less damage from ranged attacks like attached squads would. Much as the case should be for Commissars, individually the protection is quite low, but with multiples in a squad, it can get solid protection (or solid regeneration for the CS Commie).

That's the way it SHOULD work, anyway.

[Guardian X]

So you're saying that for your ideal CS with multiple psykers, the ranged protection bonus should stack, but with the squads, the protection only overlaps and does not stack if a squad happens to be within the protection aura of two psykers?

To keep "unintended consequences" from spiralling out of control (I was never a fan of a Command Squad being invulnerable for 40 straight seconds, anyway), might a CS psyker's powers be limited by having a hardcap of 2 of each type of advisor in the squad? It would make sense to me, coupled with a global cooldown for Strip Soul.

Sure, Perils of the Warp looked nice, but it would have been even better if it summoned some hostile-to-everyone Chaos Horrors as well.

[Troubleshooter]

Still, I fail to see what's so "utterly useless and inefficient" about being able to zap away 330 HPs of commander armor. Opportunity costs. 330 Hp's of enemy commander armor costs, on average, 60 req and perhaps a peppering of energy, all of which will regenerate unless your hero is one that doesn't. Furthermore, any commander that can attach, will attach, if this threatens his hero unit. Lastly, by casting the spell... which is easily avoided by most good players who know how long it takes to cast and the range it has... you are exposing your WHOLE CS to counter-fire, wich can easily cost you more than 60 req in health and which only regerates at the cost of replacing the mini-hero.

Just because something does damage, does not make the damage done "valuable" when the drawbacks to using it out-weigh the positives. Remember, just including a psyker in the CS is ham-stringing its ability to do offensive moves, like deep harrassment or damage soaking for squads... if you're going to have a psyker, it's got to be cost effective - nothing but the CS is cost effective (when configured correctly) until tier 2, theres no room for psykers in the mix right now, which is where they were in 1.11 due to PoTW. At least with PoTW you had an option to risk you psyker to trade for an enemy hero - now you dont even have the tactical trade-off option. As bad as it was in 1.11, it was better than it is now. *sigh*

[carpetfresh]

I dont really mind SS as it is right now. The CS is definitely capable of dealing with other commanders in t1, SS just makes it so you can pick off a retreating enemy commander that you have been beating on for a while. You cant really increase its cmd damage without making it broken vs. Tau, Eldar, Ork, and IG. I'd be for a cooldown decrease if anything, as 3 mins is pretty long for such a small ability. Barring that, maybe make it slow the target for a few seconds?

In regards to the psyker changes, I agree with Jaimas. A passive 10% ranged reduction would go a long way toward making the psyker useful. Increased sight range would also help out a lot - no more waiting for the hq scanner to cool down or risking your CS running into a hb wall.

[Jaimas]

I, for one, love KotCR's fix for Strip Soul. A big fat morale blast like that is a nice advantage and can really help the guard out. Further, it makes sense from a fluff standpoint.

Jaimas approves. :banana:

[fuggles]

What would be great is if the number of psykers affected how much damage the SS did in the command squad, but you only get one SS before recharge.

[Jaimas]

Your methods intrigue me, fuggles, and I wish to know more.

[Tawa]

What would be great is if the number of psykers affected how much damage the SS did in the command squad, but you only get one SS before recharge.

Or perhaps that you get one SS, but the cooldown decreases with every extra psyker.

[Hiroshi_Tea]

i doubt that the game can code that
it's a nice idea though

[KotCR]

It can code it; Look at the global timer on the Force Commander's Orbital Bombardment, or the Necron Lord's abilities.

[Tawa]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that the case with the eldar Seer Council, that their abilities' cooldown decrease with every extra warlock in the unit?

[KotCR]

I think so, not sure if their abilities are on a global timer though (i.e. if you deleted the Seer Council and made a new one they would still be recharging...I'm guessing not though).

[-Str!ker-]

You probably have to cap CS psykers at some point, or create a ceiling to the max amount of damage. Overall the idea does sound like a good one and will make the psyker a good investment to have but I would prefer the morale boost, I've lived long enough with out SS but always run into the problem of morale lacking GM.

[Arcinatus]

i think when psykers are attached to squads they could give that squad some cover bonus, or something (psychic shield anyone?) and take away the morale blast back. i'd use single psykers alot more if that was the case. (commies / priests are still the superior ass kickers though, haha)

[Hephaestus]

Hellhounds is pretty awesome, and 2X more awesome when you have 2 hellhounds, it's just that it takes down infantry sooo fast! Even if they try to run, you shoot them on the run and they keep dying!

[Ordo Mallius]

change it so the Psyker doesn't do Morale Damage to himself when casting it, but that he does that Morale Damage to the target instead.

Really bad for fluff, if when you did something, if you had a chance of exploding in eldritch forces, wouldn't that make you feel a bit demoralized, good doing morale damage to others though
I reck they should leave SS, and give LA after damage and slow movement speed, but if two squads are tied up in melee, it affects both. :idea:
It would be cool if they could add fire effects on units, i.e. when killed by flamers they get blackened and burn. (They probably can't.)

[SpArTy]

I think hellhounds are fine. Perhaps a hp boost with t3 would be nice scaling. As for psykers :3 I think turning them into a t2 squad would be sweet with a hp buff and some bonus of some kind to surrounding troops. I'm not sure how many members/cost though, could be pretty imba.