Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 51 to 100 of 124

Patch 1.1.3 extra changes

  1. #51
    +1 to keep the rippers like this after the real code patch

  2. Gamers Lounge Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #52
    The One Called Sailor Mun Mokino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canuckistan
    Yes, every pop increase adds a bit to upkeep instead of it triggering at predetermined levels. Instead of a series of steps, upkeep is now a gradual curve which is going to be easier to plan for.

  3. #53
    The 22nd Hyperspace Core Corsix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Oxford
    To show this theorycrafting in graphical form:

    Looking at SM and Eldar, both with a HQ and 2 "full" req points for income, just pumping out squads, in 1.1.2 and 1.1.3 (theorycrafted, not ingame)

    1) SM building scouts, devastators, scouts, devastors, ...

    graph 1



    2) Eldar building guardians, guardians, guardians, ...

    graph 2



    The squads were chosen to start with the race's starting squad, and hit multiples of 30 pop to make the numbers nice. Also note that SM builds 9 squads before hitting pop cap, while Eldar builds 10.

  4. #54
    Chappy FooF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    On the brink of insanity
    It works out pretty even for the non-SM races but SM has a massive Req advantage.

    I wonder which race will be FoTM until the next patch?
    Semi-Retired


  5. #55
    +1 to keep the rippers like this after the real code patch
    This should be considered.
    Hey, you have a live test of this "balance change" right now... see how it affects the game.

    @ Landshark below:
    Did you even read Jager's in-depth post in this thread?

  6. #56
    how could they not see that removing sm upkeep would uneven things. Its not like they werent already badass. the amount of times you can retreat and not lose members but cut down plenty of the enemy. you can bleed them dry with SM. now you can do it and keep more req.

  7. #57
    They didn't just remove SM upkeep...they removed all the old upkeep and added a different kind to all the armies.

  8. #58
    reread what corsix posted. they removed Space marine old upkeep, but the other 3 races kept it and then got the additional upkeep added in.

    i just labbed out some full cap armies

    Space marine at 98 pop cap. 1 pred, 1 dread, 2 scout, 1 tactical, 1 plasma, 1 bolter squad. 1 scout sarge, 1 tactical sarge. if i remember correctly.

    total req income. 182.

    orks 100 pop cap. 2 slugga, 1 shoota, 1 nob, 1 tb, 1 looted. nob leaders for everyone but 1 slugga.

    total req income. 66

    Way to balance things out and properly test it again.

  9. #59
    So on average SM players get roughly around a 1000 req total more than the other players each game?

    Hmm.

  10. #60
    from jager's post it soundslike the other races keeping the old upkeep was not intended?

    =\

  11. #61
    who knows. to me its another blown patch. great pop cap is fixed, but the space marines get a 100 req bonus for the late game, just cause they are so cool.

  12. #62
    maybe they thought that would balance out somehow
    other races have cheap units while space marines have expensive units. maybe the low req but cheap prices even out with the high req expensive prices?
    Acceptance- Seeing how hopefully shitty you are and moving on.

  13. #63
    it doesnt equal out. space marines payed more, but they have more health and damage than other races units.

    its only really noticeable at high upkeep. so that means when space marines are in control, they are still in control. other races dont get the comeback mechanic against them.

  14. #64
    what if you look at it from a quantity perspective. sluggas are more numerous and better in CC than tacs im sure. tacs kill some at range and the sluggas punch em up in melee with the WAAAGH ability. and when the tacs run they lose more to the melee penalties

  15. #65
    not true cadian. tacticals are just that, tactical. they are good in both melee and ranged. they get the same 40% melee damage reduction that melee squads get.

    tacticals will beat 2 squads of sluggas, unless they both waagh.

  16. #66
    the fact 3 tacs can beat 8 sluggas (who are melee focused soldiers) in melee baffles me....

    (im refering to squad size...not 3 tac squads...the 3 tacs in the squad)

  17. #67
    coud
    Guest
    so has anyone actually played the game post patch? or are you just whining cause Corsix posted an awsome excel chart

    theorycrafting is great
    theorycrafting with playtest = awesome

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by LandShark
    who knows. to me its another blown patch.
    Remember, it's a 2 part patch and you're talking about an undocumented change which was only discovered by directly comparing stats between the 2 versions. You should really reserve judgement until the whole solution is rolled out.

  19. #69
    Relic Entertainment
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    SM were not intentionally buffed. As I said in all of my other posts there was not a single permanent balance change in this patch aside from fixing pop-cap -- everything else goes away as soon as the code patch goes live.

    The data-fix was never going to be perfect, we just deemed what we could provide better than the bug itself, until the code fix was live. I think that's something the vast majority of us can agree on.

  20. #70
    yes it is better overall, but in those close games against space marines in 3vs3 are going to be really tough now.

    22 of the top 50 are Space marines for a reason. now its going to be even tougher to unseat them til we get the full fix.

  21. #71
    Chappy FooF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    On the brink of insanity
    Though Jager has said "soon (TM)" on part two (specifically, "this month") of the patch, what we're dealing with is very temporary. We might have to deal with this for a few weeks.

    It fixes a glaring flaw that hurt everyone far worse than SM getting a buff to resources.

    I played a game tonight as SM to see if I could spot the extra income and while perception of income is always a little speculative, I didn't feel that it was horribly out of whack. I did feel I had more than usual in a tight game but not floating a ton of it. I also took a lot fewer losses than usual in the last game so it's hard to judge which was the deciding factor.

  22. #72
    Relic Entertainment
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Quote Originally Posted by LandShark
    yes it is better overall, but in those close games against space marines in 3vs3 are going to be really tough now.

    22 of the top 50 are Space marines for a reason. now its going to be even tougher to unseat them til we get the full fix.
    Understood. Believe me, I more than anyone wishes this bug never got out there. I can't wait until the correct fix is live and the bug is resolved without implications.

    @ ESRFooF, you likely won't notice it playing as SM. You're more likely to notice it playing as any other race vs. SM.

  23. #73
    @ Jager:
    Meh, stop worrying about it. So SM has some more req in their games for the next couple of weeks.

    DOW1 players had to deal with WA's terminator guardsmen with their nuclear bayonets. DOW2 players can deal with this little thing. Don't waste your time with responding to the whines anymore.

    You guys should concentrate on the important stuff now:

    1. Make sure the code-side fix have no bugs.
    2. New DLC maps.
    3. Other DLC things like you promised.
    4. You seriously should look into things like
    -- Stance toggles
    -- Toggle off auto-cover-seek
    -- Selectable mix-n-match MP rank wargear pieces as they become unlocked, rather than a new piece automatically forced over an old piece.
    5. Balance changes.

  24. #74
    Relic Entertainment
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Don't worry I'm posting from home on my free time right now.

    Hmm, maybe you should worry about me.

    In all seriousness though, we have many people working on many different things, and a lot of awesome stuff in the pipe.

  25. #75
    Telur
    Guest
    Thank you Jager

    Really appreciate you replying to our concerns even after hours. Thanx

    We can deal with the Space Marines until the next patch comes out.

  26. #76
    deleted.
    Last edited by netman; 10th Mar 09 at 11:30 PM.

  27. #77
    Member glenn3e's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Malaysia.
    Yeah, thx Jager for the fix!

    @ Telur are you perchance from asia?
    "ALIEN BEANS!!!!"
    "The point is ours, NONE SHALL TAKE IT!!!"
    "You shall not die until I say so, Tyranid."
    "My face is my shield, my furry is my sword!" - Force Commander
    http://1d4chan.org/images/4/49/Angry_Marine_Desktop.jpg - ANGRY MARINES FTW

  28. #78
    Member The Voltr0n's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Relic comes through for us told you it wouldn't take long...

  29. #79
    Telur
    Guest
    @glenn3e: South Africa ^_^

  30. #80
    err, since I guess people haven't realized it, nothing has really changed about Rippers. At all. They've always auto-reinforced, and by reinforcing manually you could cut off maybe 2 seconds on a 1-man ripper squad...

  31. #81
    Great thanks to TASK3R and Jager for elaborating on the subject, good to hear that these changes aren't permanent AND we will be getting a real patch this month as well.
    (Also just thanks for all the community involvement!)

  32. #82
    I am confused.

    Does that mean that SM have got a sesource buff that will removed after the next patch?

    Hmm, I think I dont like this kind of makeshift solutions....


    PS. particulary in 3v3 SM was strong like hell (1.1.2). Didn't see why they got a buff...

  33. #83
    err, since I guess people haven't realized it, nothing has really changed about Rippers. At all. They've always auto-reinforced, and by reinforcing manually you could cut off maybe 2 seconds on a 1-man ripper squad...
    Really? I honestly had no idea that they already auto-reinforced.

    Man, I hate those things!

    I did find something (non-T3) that would destroy them before they decapped a point, though! Warlock's standard AoE power plus Immolate, plus a Guardian grenade! Easy!

    That was sarcasm. The things are in-frigging-sane at point capture.

  34. #84
    SahneYoghurt
    Guest
    Hey nice job Jager. As it sounds fixing an issue with the cap limit is a very serious matter. And thanks for writing in your free time. But dont mess up ur private life man.

    Ehm nothing against ur patch but this made me suspicious about the code base of DoW2. You already said modding is not wanted since the code is so complex. Now it looks like it's so complex that even you guys can't predict on what happens. I dont get the intereference of reqrates, upkeep and cap. It should be seperate so the cap fix shouldnt have had any impact on upkeep in the first place. But it clearly had in the original code. Since you needed to balance back wit req increase.

    Can it be that you did a workaround in a sorta not very well ordered code, investing a lot of hours in just trial and error to get what you wanted and on the way needed to do changes you, when you started never have thought would arrise?
    And can it be that the nxt patch will simply replace large parts of the "messed up" original code handling the cap limit and req rate + unit upkeep?

    Sry I wanted to say this as polite as possible since I myseld would never even handle releasing parts of code for games but my english isnt that good and I miss sensible words.

    I think you should make an official statement about the condition of your code and what you plan to do about it.
    If larger parts of your code are woven like this I m forced into beliving that you guys wont be able to release and rly additional content anymore(something more complex as colors). Its just too much work if you need to change huge parts of code and do lengthy trial and error investigations everytime you add or twist something small to the game.
    How do you want to bring a new race or new maps if you need 3 days for mapping and 3 weeks for finding a way to bring that into the code without unintentional unpredictable changes? I would be very blue eyed if I wouldnt asked those questions right now. They are obvious. I honestly fear that you guys just aren't able to handle your code anymore.

    If you actually replaced the old code with fresh and new for fixing the cap you got my gratitude but still you can't do that for all the other content. What is your strategy here? Or is the rest of your code clean?

  35. #85
    "By that rationale, why even have requisition points? You can have all income from your base and your above observations would be true. But what about the person who is controlling the flow of battle and winning at every turn, shouldn't they gain advanages over the person who is losing?

    The system prior to this change was fine, you could comeback, it has been seen several times before, the whole 'slippery slope' arguement of the requisition has been debunked by several people, several times. Its a flawed arguement by people who, quite frankly, enjoy the idea of watching masses of units clash without much strategic thought. Quick-start from the original Dawn of War put the focus on fighting too, but it wasn't exactly strategic, tactical, or had much variety, was it?"


    A) the rationale about req points is twofold.
    1) give you a slight advantage
    2) give you inteligence about who is crossing your terretory

    B) A person who controls the game from A-Z doesn't need any extra advantages. He will win. But he will win because he was better from start to finish, and not because he won the first battle and throu that gained an advantage, so that he could afford to lose every other battle in the game and still win.

    C) Original DoW was about bases most of the time. DoW2 is different, and you most certainly can't "mass" units at all. You can't tech and win, because losing goes quick, if you only resort to your base. Furthermore tech doesn't win the game, since T3 units will not be able to hold the map alone.
    War does not determine who is right,
    ...only who is left

  36. #86
    Member Jes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    The Phalanx.
    Jager, just a clear-cut question:

    Which PARTS of the 1.1.3 datafix will go away with the code fix?

    I'm looking in the 1.1.3 tactical marine SPB, and I find a new reinforce requirement (fail if min num is squad max).

    Will the code fix remove JUST the upkeep ability found in the non-leader* EBPS as well as other upkeep changes, or will it also remove the kill on fail requirement from the SPB?

    *I guesstimate that the leaders are backups for use with the code fix!?

  37. Modding Senior Member Tabletop Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #87
    Californication . . . Gorb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In the now
    Quote Originally Posted by ViS
    Rippers are a bit easier to keep off the field now, I see.

    =/
    I see that as a good thing

    Props to Task3r for the information, and thanks to Jager for getting things sorted out, as well as explaining the reasoning behind the changes.
    My blog! (updated 18/09/14: Why Java Ain't Bad)

  38. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Jes
    Which PARTS of the 1.1.3 datafix will go away with the code fix?
    He said that. The data patch 1.1.3 is ONLY and ONLY for the pop cap bug. Everything undocumented will be reverted in the codefix.

  39. #89
    Mysterio
    Guest
    Ehm nothing against ur patch but this made me suspicious about the code base of DoW2. You already said modding is not wanted since the code is so complex. Now it looks like it's so complex that even you guys can't predict on what happens. I dont get the intereference of reqrates, upkeep and cap. It should be seperate so the cap fix shouldnt have had any impact on upkeep in the first place. But it clearly had in the original code. Since you needed to balance back wit req increase. Can it be that you did a workaround in a sorta not very well ordered code, investing a lot of hours in just trial and error to get what you wanted and on the way needed to do changes you, when you started never have thought would arrise? And can it be that the nxt patch will simply replace large parts of the "messed up" original code handling the cap limit and req rate + unit upkeep? Sry I wanted to say this as polite as possible since I myseld would never even handle releasing parts of code for games but my english isnt that good and I miss sensible words. I think you should make an official statement about the condition of your code and what you plan to do about it. If larger parts of your code are woven like this I m forced into beliving that you guys wont be able to release and rly additional content anymore(something more complex as colors). Its just too much work if you need to change huge parts of code and do lengthy trial and error investigations everytime you add or twist something small to the game. How do you want to bring a new race or new maps if you need 3 days for mapping and 3 weeks for finding a way to bring that into the code without unintentional unpredictable changes? I would be very blue eyed if I wouldnt asked those questions right now. They are obvious. I honestly fear that you guys just aren't able to handle your code anymore. If you actually replaced the old code with fresh and new for fixing the cap you got my gratitude but still you can't do that for all the other content. What is your strategy here? Or is the rest of your code clean?
    It's too bad you didn't take the time to read the entire thread, since your entire post isn't applicable. As per Jager's previous comments, the code revision to fix the pop cap bug is simple and only took 15 minutes. But since it's a code revision, it requires certification by Microsoft before it can go live. So, in parallel to that revision (as well as other code revisions for other issues), Relic had Jager revise the game's data to minimize the impact of the pop cap bug in the code, which was a massive effort. Data revisions do not require Microsoft certification, which is why it was able to be released shortly after Relic's internal QA blessed it. Once the code revision has been certified by Microsoft, it will be released, thereby obsoleting the data revision previously released to address the pop cap bug.

  40. #90
    Relic Entertainment
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Just to re-iterate, this change has nothing to do with our code base as it didn't touch a single line of code.

    If our population code contained upkeep code I'd be concerned too =P

  41. #91
    Um ripper ben auto reinforce since 1.0 ;p you guys havent notice?
    No qaurter back men, only forward or we will hold this line forever!!!
    [IMG][/IMG]
    Row Row Row Fight the Powha

  42. #92
    Banned SchadeBeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Beyond the Rim
    I think he means that the option to also manually reinforce is gone (until the code-fix is in in a few weeks). I didn't notice that since I always pumped my rippers manually, but if they did auto-reinforce before it was simply untouched.

    I can sympathize, Jager, as to why you said the data-fix is 'messy', seeing it broken down as such it sure explains it. I agree, it's still WAY better to have any of these side-effects than the popcap bug, and since I mostly play SM anyway...lol :P

    EDIT: @SunCircle: Are you just trolling or what? Seriously re-read the thread, it's clearly spelled out in detail why these decisions were made. I mean really, come on dude. There's clearly a reason why these changes were not included in the changelog, and this entire thread explains it all.
    Last edited by SchadeBeast; 11th Mar 09 at 1:53 PM.

  43. #93
    SmackyBob
    Guest
    I'm liking this patch and I'm liking this thread. My thanks to folk who took the time to really get inside the numbers, and to the developers who are taking the time to explain the why of it all.

    On the downside, I tried SM for the first time since beta yesterday and I stink. The fact that I stunk even with extra requisition is disheartening. =)

  44. #94
    Member SpArTy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    That place with the things and stuff.
    Extra change; my campaign = deleted.

    Wp reric.

    No way am I going through the yawn-fest of the first few levels again on primarch setting.

    Fruit this game.
    lol n00b

  45. #95
    Banned SchadeBeast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Beyond the Rim
    No need to troll, sparty. It's like that in every game that has large changes in patches.

  46. #96
    Member MosheLevi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Dallas, TX, USA
    Thank you Jager for your detailed posts.
    It’s nice when the developers take the time to respond to the community.

  47. #97
    Sin Fang Bous
    Guest
    These changes are bollocks. Hope they're fixed, soon.

    SM are the ones who really benefit from the increased req.

  48. Modding Senior Member Tabletop Senior Member Boardwars Senior Member  #98
    Californication . . . Gorb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    In the now
    . . . try reading the thread, Sin Fang Bous. Jager has said multiple times that these changes are only temporary, just to fix the popcap bug.

  49. Dawn of War Senior Member  #99
    As imagined by Octopus Rex... Troubleshooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Surrounded by whitespace
    I'd just like to say : I have no idea what the hell anyone is talking about.

    I don't understand the pop-cap bug, or the upkeep math, and I really don't care as I am still mining SP for all the fun I can extract from it.

    What I do grasp is that this is a temporary fix to a known bug (which incidentally kept me from playing MP first) and that Jager is made of distilled awesome.

    Second, the steath changes to patching is not even a new thing... people like Corsix always had to pick through the patch data to find the undocumented changes. While a nusance, I can at least see why they do it - the change was not easy to document and provide perspective to the community, so it was left off the change log to prevent confusion in the masses. Never fully understood why a DPS here or there would get left off the official change log, but this fix... I almost wish I didn't know it was there
    Ra Owa : AAHHHH!!!! ITS A ROCK!
    Troubleshooter : Wha... oh... Pfffttt... Prove it. :}
    Ra Owa : ... [sputtering] ... o.O ... Its SCIENCE!

  50. #100
    I found this thread in the official forums about unexpected bugs introduced by the 1.1.3 patch.

    http://community.dawnofwar2.com/view...p?f=45&t=15571

    Don't know what devs think about it though.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •