Page 1 of 7 1234567 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 318

Problem with TACS and how to fix them

  1. #1

    Problem with TACS and how to fix them

    Well, we all have seen that some changes to tacs have led to the blobbing again.
    At first, i was more concerned about what was letting to this tac blobs to form again in 1.4.2 but after some looking at numbers and their performance, i have noticed that the tweaks to balance them should be done with a silk glove, instead of a nerf hammer.

    First lets take a look at what happened in the process.
    As we all knew, their functionality was hampered in 1.4.1 because of the so many counters to heavy armor, making it more of an annoyance than an aid AND their dps was below par taking in consideration that they are above average ranged infantry capable of besting MOST of the ranged enemies, and yes i said most like the game itself suggest, but not all. The problems lies in :

    1-the TACS ability to nullify by a big margin ranged damage,
    2-AND something that seems to being overlooked by everyone, their melee damage, yes their melee damage.
    When you combine this 2 factors and add to the equation their ability to decimate enemies before their reach the tacs (this should be this way btw), is when the problem shows.....their durability.

    Let me elaborate;

    In the 1,4,2 numbers were reverted, and their armor and dps was buffed... but their hard counters damage were diminished....(altho slugga and shees needed some tweaks to be honest, i think they are fine now). Most of their counters now suffer heavy loses on the proces of getting into melee to them, but well thats understandable. What happens is that when melee units reach them, the tacticals which are dedicated ranged units, can do a big amount of melee damage to this units(Sarg not ncluded), even when they are hitting them with the guns itselfs. And their attacks per second combined is nothing to be laughed at. As a result, fragile but hard hitting melee units still take a lot of damage in a melee battle against tacs.

    Note: Some counter-argument suggest that they cost 500 req, yes is expensive, but this unit is the only unit in game capable of adjusting to any battle with their equipment. Thats a luxury only the TAcs have. Their durability ensures they will not suffer a lot of loses also, so the req of 500 is well a worth investment in the long run. What happens here is those cheap units of other races on the long run end being a lot expensier to the other players because of the heavy loses the tac inflict, while the tacs 500 reqs just get paying more and more. If you kept ur tacs alive(is not difficult to do), by the end you have a unit capable of reaching 2k hp, with uber DPS , and capable of dealing with everything u throw at them and all that from 500 req. Please take this into account.

    Now, ill post 2 videos to show what im tryingt to say.

    Video 1: In the first video you will see a fight between vanilla Tacs and their supposed hard counter, vanilla banshees. What happens is that Tacs inflict good damage on the banshees while ranged, but notice how the banshees start to lose members once engaged to the tacs on melee. In the end, the vanilla shees survive with 168 HP and 2 models. Its pretty basic but you can clearly see what is happening.

    Video 2: In the second video you will see vanilla tacs fighting against a vanilla warboss. Warboss description says that he is the strongest of orcs and excels on melee fights.
    In the fight you will also see the warboss using his stomp ability to make it more real.
    As you can see, the boss survives with 17 HP, yes 17. He does not have a power weapon but anyways, a very strong melee unit like him, cannot be weathered down like that by ranged specialist units meleing with his guns.

    Video 3: There were also experiments with stormboys and stikkboomas. Stormboys won with half hp and all models but take into account that im paying power cost for them. They jumped of course to close the distance.
    Stikkbommas won with 50 hp and one model. But i think this has more to do with the boomas melee dps which is suspicious , but it could have been because of their melee bomb animation attack, if thats the case, then is completely understandable.Notice the tacs dodging the initial bombs to make it more realistic.

    Sluggas were beaten on melee in another video i was not able to record.

    There was a fourth video but i was not able to save it. It was vanilla warp spiders vs vanilla tacs in a ranged duel. The Tacs were not in cover and most of the spiders teleported on firing range and took cover. The battle ended with the Tacs winning it by a small margin. The spiders are a dedicated tech 2 ranged unit with a fearsome dps, and cost 440 req and 40 power, considerably more than vanilla tacs but even on cover were not able to win. If tacs are specialized on defeating most of ranged enemies, definitely warp spiders should be one of the exceptions if not the only one, being so elite eldar ranged units. IM sure you can recreate it if needed. It was on teh same map and location of both previous videos.


    As you can see the trend, what happens is that tacs still do the job when being meleed. A specialized ranged infantry unit cannot be doing this amount of damage to specialized melee unit, in a melee combat. They should have a sarg to defend them but as you can see, they fare very well meleeing with their guns.

    Now, what i suggest for a change, to put tacs were they belong:

    • Increased the Autocannon damage against heavy armor from 100% to 125%
    • Increased the Explosive damage against heavy armor from 100% to 120%
    • Increased the Piercing_pvp damage against heavy armor from 0.6 to 0.7 0r 0.8
    • And of course the reduction of their melee damage, with the exception of the sargeant which needs to receive buff if necessary.

    Bolter Damage by TACS is strong and is fine.

    Also, this tweaks are directly related with assault marine price decrease. The Assault Marines which must have a slight power and requisition decrease to be able to help on melee the TAcs while the tacs fire support. This will mess up platforms and HWT ingeneral but that is another problem that is related more to the HWT than the ASM themselves.

    I even think that TAcs should have a slight power cost. But this should be on par with ASMs power cost decrease considrably and of course devastator price drop.


    Well, i hope you enjoyed the read and feel free to discuss.


    VIDEOS HERE:
    http://www.gamereplays.org/community...owtopic=511843
    Last edited by Todehy; 12th Jul 09 at 12:50 PM.

  2. #2
    Banned AneasPK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Stuttgart
    the game is broken.
    u cant play any more ranked. me and my friends come vs triplle sm and loose to ts 20 newbys they had not only 1 other unit than tacticals.

  3. #3
    Member Rhodri2311's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Blind drunk in a ditch
    I wouldn't say it was unstoppable, just very very strong. I'm mainly a WSE player and find that large TAC mass is a bit of a headache but is counterable using combined arms (rangers, spiders and GU's work wonders when used in tandem at cutting down TAC mass).

    However I do agree they could use a few light tweaks to make them more managable. Healthwise and durability I think is spot-on, and ranged dps should be near where it is, if maybe very slightly reduced. However as you say having them do such strong melee makes no sense, and could use a significant nerf - at the same time ASM's should receive a buff to try and make them more viable in a BO.

  4. #4
    Member Zakarius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Front Lines
    at the same time ASM's should receive a buff to try and make them more viable in a BO.
    Couldn't agree more.

  5. #5
    To be honest, I'm not sure why Heavy Armor's damage table reads as 130% from power weapons and 150% from plasma weapons if the only real plasma weapons to be fielded against tacticals are wielded by tacticals.

    Then again I'm not sure it wouldn't throw balance back to 1.4.1 levels of tacticals being stomped by melee...one step forward and two steps back and all that.

  6. #6
    I dont think it would throw balance off.

    In 1.4.1,, tacs were receiving like some unreal damage against everything, and they were very weak in DPS. That was totally off.

    And well, their melee dps should not be the way it is now. I mean they are hitting things with the back of their guns, but do really good damage like if it was a knife or something. When a warboss wins a melee fight against ranged tacs with 17 hp, i think something is wrong.

  7. #7
    nbates66
    Guest
    I even think that TAcs should have a slight power cost. But this should be on par with ASMs power cost decrease considrably and of course devastator price drop.
    you do realise that TACs are the ONLY SM unit in teir 1 that DON'T cost power other than scouts? if you make TACs cost power as well then SM players will be reduced to a bunch of scouts early game until they get power, and such power may be used for shotgun upgrades rather than TACs> scout spam again...

  8. #8
    That is the least important of my suggestions in temrs of priority,and because of that i leaved it in the end, so focus on the whole thing and not that little detail . If you dont agree, is fine,is just a suggestion but the other things i mentioned are very important i may say.

  9. #9
    nbates66
    Guest
    very well then, i must admit i never noticed how powerful TACs are in melee, so they probably do need a melee damage cutback, i tended not to notice because most players would hammer my TACs with ranged units while they got diced up by a melee distraction (most recently banshees) maybe my mistake is actually telling them to retreat... (retreating units take extra melee damage right?)

  10. #10
    J-Mon
    Guest
    Somewhat new to the forums, but after reading this I felt I had to say this. In fact i Registered in order to say this. Also for the record, I play almost exclusively Tyranid so I might be slightly biased. This is also assuming this is 1.4.2 beta your talking about.

    I mostly agree with your suggestions as I hate tact spam as much as the next guy. However, I feel it needs to be said that the changes your proposing for heavy armor, are BLANKET changes, therefore ALL heavy infantry will be affected. I might be worrying about nothing but I believe you should take this into account.

    Regards
    Last edited by J-Mon; 12th Jul 09 at 1:28 AM.

  11. #11
    If the changes are not anything near to the 1.4.1, im very sure tacs will be alright.. they still will be durable but ull have to take care of them for sure.

    1.4.1 Tacs were simply made of paper, and is not the purpouse to overnerf them that way.

  12. #12
    Member D-coy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    In a sense Tacs cost power, too. In 1v1, you need power fast to not get gimped, thus you spend 125 req on a node and 100 on a gen almost before anything else. Maybe you can afford one scout squad beforehand. All in all, this makes Tacs essentially cost 700+ req (because before you have that much, you ought to not build them). Ys, you could make this analogy for all Tier 1 units, but Tacs are the most expensive standard Tier 1 units req wise in the entire game. Give them some slack.

    Also, testing units in a vacuum is unneeded and counterproductive. Yes, a Tac might almost beat a WB in melee, but your WB was free, and the SM had to sacrifice fast power for early tacs. Another thing is that this scenario will never happen. When would you send in your WB or your Tacs alone to fight? The WB will most probably have sluggas with him, which lock down Tacs if a hero is not around to tank for them.

    They are slow, can get swamped in melee fights which they won't win, so try to outmanuever them. They're rock solid where they stand, go elsewhere if you can or use superior melee.

    I haven't played a lot of games in this beta, but I'd say they're fine now. Previously, they were ludicrously underpowered.
    Last edited by D-coy; 12th Jul 09 at 2:30 AM.
    GFWL gamertag/ LoL name: ReadInPeace

    Just call me Readin'

  13. #13
    To say that sceneario will never happen in a game is a lie. It can happen and very easy. Its just a couple of factors that need to intervene for it to happen.

    leaving a boss in 17 hp, by meleeing him is insane for a ranged unit. Theres no 2 way about it, and it clears shows that something is fishy there.

    Theres nothing wrong in testing with squads alone. We all know they will have support in a fight, but even then... their melee dmg output is above average for a ranged unit.

  14. #14
    Member D-coy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Again, your free WB just beat a squad which costs a whole power farm to build. What is there to complain about?

    I'm sure if you get at least one wargear for him, he'll beat Tacs fair and square.

    Their melee is superior to any other ranged unit, yes. And they have 1/3 more HP, too. However, they cost almost twice as much as every other ranged unit.

    You never really beat Tacs by killing them outright. You beat them by nullifying their awesome ranged potential.

  15. #15
    Member Borrish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    London
    If you made them a lot weaker in melee then they'd have a reason to build ASMs. I had no idea they were THAT good in melee....that's kind of silly.

    One thing i find with space marines is that i often get them to really low HP values without any of the squad actually dying. I've had them get down to around 300hp with no losses. It means it's very easy for the marine player to keep his units alive so he can afford to build more TACS.

    Really the game speaks for itself. With the current beta patch i rarely see anything other then tactical marines. If they're not building any of the other tier 1 units no mater what i do then something is clearly broken.

  16. #16
    Member D-coy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    Yes, you'd have a reason to build ASM, but would you really do that? They cost 50 power and 500 req, same as another Tac squad. They set you back way much in teching.

    I assume that every race has some units that are more viable in 1v1 than in team games. Maybe this has something to do with that.
    Last edited by D-coy; 12th Jul 09 at 4:02 AM.

  17. #17
    Member Pocktio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    MICHAEL KORS WATCHES
    Warp spiders hose down tacs. However they are fragile and cost an arm and a leg.
    Knife King of Doltland

    I'm not surprised. Anything within three feet of you seems to end up full of knife shaped holes.

  18. #18
    I think there is a big problem with marines as a whole. According to fluff Tacs are supposed to be all-rounders, so they definitely should wipe the floor in melee with guardians and shootas, which they do. And I don't really think your first example is meaningful or supportive of your argument at all. 400 req costing banshees kill 500 req costing tac marines. Sure, they take some losses, but the marine player is the one hurting, he has to pay 500 req to recoup his losses, while the Eldar player gets away with considerably less req.

    Maybe we should consider tacs in a different light than just as a ranged unit, but rather as all-rounders, capable of doing different things at different times. Maybe instead of taking away from their melee damage we should take a small bit away from their ranged DPS, both upgrades and bolter to account for their flexibility. Like someone said, Tacs are one of the only units in the game that can become a hard counter to most of the things they face, and you should pay some price for that advantage (besides the 500 req).

    Giving them a power cost would be a mistake though, because right now the tacs are really really dependant on their player getting to T2 as fast as possible, with most of their upgrades stuck there. Vanilla tacs are useful, yes, but they don't really hold their own until you get them launchers or plasmas, just like the banshees would have wiped the tacs in the first video if they had had the shouts.

    But back to the trouble with the marines I mentioned in the first paragraph, I would say most of it comes from the troubles marines have with melee. As in marines have no real melee units besides the walker and assault termis. I think that is a real problem, since with every other army in the game you have the choice of going for an all-melee or all-ranged build where as with marines it is just a question of whether you go for scouts or tacs as the first few tier units that you spam.

    Yes, I know ASM are not supposed to be "melee specialists" or whatever you called them, but I guarantee you that you would see more FCs and less tac spammers if you would just make ASM a viable unit in melee. Whether it is done by just making them capable of hurting the enemy, or taking away their power cost, or maybe making their jump packs an upgrade, I don't know and frankly don't really care how you do it, but I believe it would alleviate some of the problems. Right now there isn't really any reason to use ASM squads in T1 at all, and they only get worse as the tiers progress.

    Giladas
    Live ID: Giladas
    Quote Originally Posted by Troubleshooter
    HQ destruction is akin to punching people in the testicles and then challenging them to a 50 yard dash... you're not going to win the race no matter how light you are on your feet.

  19. #19
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    If you made them a lot weaker in melee then they'd have a reason to build ASMs. I had no idea they were THAT good in melee....that's kind of silly.
    Yeah it's not so much how strong they are as how much damage they did with their guns on the way in combined with their huge HP's.

    TBH I predicted this very phenomanon in a post just a couple of hours before 1.4.2 was announced. Nerf melee units damage and one or more ranged units was suddenlly going to be able to beat them off in melee.


    Realisticlly the long and short of the whole problem here is:

    Tacs are supposed to counter ranged.

    Tacs are supposed to be countered by melee.

    Right now the tacs can counter melee. Ergo we have a balance issue.

    The whole issue is a combination of melee units getting a damage nerf, (and Tac's not reciving one as well to componsate), and the buff tac's got to their damage. I know that might sound silly, but Tac's have a lot of HP's and got a buff to their armour vs. other ranged units. They just didn't need the buff to their damage, they can outlast any other ranged unit in a fight ATM, high level damage iosn't a requierment.


    Of ciourse as soon as you revert the damage buff and nerf their melee damage we'll be back a 1.4.1 where melee forces all tac's off the feild because a couple of scout squads can't, (with good play), keep a pure melee spam off a couple of tac's squads, (thus forcing the enemy to get somthing to deal ith the scouts before they send their melee units in). Still it could be worse i guess...
    I don't know what i'm talking about, ignore me.

    Thousands of years ago, Egyptians worshipped what would become our ordinary housecat. The cats have never forgotten this.


  20. #20
    Yes, exactly. Scouts can't really hold the melee away from the tacs, so maybe marines need a new type of melee counter, say ASM squads that can tie down banshees and sluggas long enough for tacs to shoot them out ? Once again in the first example that the OP posted I fail to see the full significance of what he meant. 500 req worth of tacs died to 400 req worth of shees, with shees taking casualties, what is wrong with that ? I don't really see that as tacs countering melee, after all they are the ones that were wiped out, now weren't they ?

    Giladas

  21. #21
    Member D-coy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    I love how you guys complaining about Tacs being imba only reinforce the ones who agree with you, yet, you totally ignore all the counter arguments...

    If Tacs were constantly forced to insta retreat without inflicting any casualties, they'd lose their gen farm and would be outteched most of the time. Talking 1v1.

  22. #22
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    Yes, exactly. Scouts can't really hold the melee away from the tacs, so maybe marines need a new type of melee counter, say ASM squads that can tie down banshees and sluggas long enough for tacs to shoot them out ? Once again in the first example that the OP posted I fail to see the full significance of what he meant. 500 req worth of tacs died to 400 req worth of shees, with shees taking casualties, what is wrong with that ? I don't really see that as tacs countering melee, after all they are the ones that were wiped out, now weren't they ?

    Giladas
    The problem ATM is that Shee's are a hard counter (supposedly), to ranged units such as tac's. I.e. Shee's are supposed to beat tacs for significantly less cost than the tacs. In the example given by the OP the effective reinforce costs for both sides would mean the shee's beat the Tac's for barely less than what the Tac's lost. Thats barely even a soft counter, let alone a hard counter.

    I love how you guys complaining about Tacs being imba only reinforce the ones who agree with you, yet, you totally ignore all the counter arguments...

    If Tacs were constantly forced to insta retreat without inflicting any casualties, they'd lose their gen farm and would be outteched most of the time. Talking 1v1.
    *sigh* I'm tempted to tell you to just go find the post where i predicted this issue and let you work it out for yourself, but i doubt you'd be able to understand it without careful explanations.


    1.4.1 Tac's had minimal issues in T1-T1.5, (maybe they needed a littile buff vs. the units they where supposed to counter, i never could tell). What was a problem was the inability of scouts to easilly shut down a melee spam, (i.e. if the enemy had more melee units than you had scout squads, you where in trouble), combined with the fact that Tac's evaporated so fast in melee that it was impossibble to counter the enemy once they hit melee you where borked.

    In effect in mixed Tac+Scout armies your scouts whern't powerful enough to counter the enemy melee spam before it hit melee range with the Tac, but they also couldn't counter the enemy once they hit melee with the Tac's because the Tac's didn't last long enough to give you time to counter the enemy melee. You where cuaght between a rock and a hard place.

    What is needed is a MAJOR, (like 60% minimum), reduction in the melee damage of ALL UNITS IN GAME. That would make shee's vs. Tac's fights last a LOT longer, that would give scouts time to counter any enemy melee that did reach melee range.

    But i doubt we'll see that happening.

  23. #23
    Well, duh, of course they can outlast any ranged unit right now. They better damn well outlast any ranged unit, because right now my Tac costs 500 req and GU/Termagants/Shootas cost like half that.

    They're easily counterable by melee units. Banshees with that howling thing, sluggas with waagh, and the upgrade on the hormogaunts which I can't remember right now can slaughter tacs in melee with almost no losses. The only reason tacs are being spammed right now is because SM don't have any other good T1 unit, and Tacs can last into T2 or T3 with upgrades. ASM are way too expensive for their role, scouts shotgun got a big nerf and were only really good because Tac sucked so much in 1.41, and T2 is a long way off.

    Yes, I know ASM are not supposed to be "melee specialists" or whatever you called them, but I guarantee you that you would see more FCs and less tac spammers if you would just make ASM a viable unit in melee. Whether it is done by just making them capable of hurting the enemy, or taking away their power cost, or maybe making their jump packs an upgrade, I don't know and frankly don't really care how you do it, but I believe it would alleviate some of the problems. Right now there isn't really any reason to use ASM squads in T1 at all, and they only get worse as the tiers progress.
    This needs to happen. SM need another unit that can make sheer tac spam look less viable, and a damage decrease on plasma guns.

    The changes mentioned by OP would break tacs again, and are a step in the wrong direction. The problem with tacs isn't their resistance to damage, its that they scale so well and can be massed easily with no power cost. Adding a power cost would break the SM game, changing their scability and adding in other units to the SM lineup would fix that.

  24. #24
    Member D-coy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Budapest, Hungary
    @ Carl

    I suggest that you wait and see what I respond before you imply that I cannot cope with your explanations, nor can I grasp simple concepts. Thank you.

    I'm aware that tacs were only gimped because scouts couldn't do their work, that is keeping melee off your tacs, but making all units take less damage from melee would most probably result in melee units getting hung up on ranged units, tickling them while other ranged units pick them off from behind the units you engage them with. Or they will just insta-retreat the moment they see your superior melee force, in that case, nothing would change.

    I agree more with Sabulum and Giladas. In order to see less tacs, you have to make other choices more viable instead of nerfing them again. ASM could have their req or power cost decreased, or could get a shorter cooldown on jump. Nerfing plasma a bit could also work. The goal is to nerf tacs without decreasing their tier 1 potential, so you don't get overrun so easily if you build one early. The other goal is to encourage diversity, this you can do by making other choices less worthless. Of course after adjusting the game so that ASM are more useful, tac ranged damage could use a slight nerf.

  25. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #25
    Dominatrix Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    Increased the Piercing_pvp damage against heavy armor from 0.6 to 0.7
    • Increased Bolter damage on heavy armor from 0.6(current) to 0.7 or 0.8
    You know that the piercing_pvp damage value is the exact same thing as the "bolter" damage value? "Bolter" weapons draw their damage tables directly form the "piercing_pvp" file.

    Anyways, I think that Tacs should simply take a higher upkeep value. A higher upkeep value would have minimal effect in T1 - T1.5, where Tacs NEED to be strong to hold out against powerful melee builds. When Tacs started hitting a critical mass though (3 - 4 tacs), then the high upkeep would start going into effect and start draining the income of the SM player.

    Oh, and buffing ASMs is good too. There's already a thread for that though: http://forums.relicnews.com/showthread.php?t=229523

    It's not that Tac Spam is undefeatable, it's that casualties ultimately mean nothing. If there was a much higher upkeep on Tacticals, then it would be MUCH harder to replace casualties when the nut is cracked. Making ASMs stronger also gives more incentive to build something other than Tacs anyway.
    "You must be swift as the coursing river, with all the force of a great typhoon, with all the strength of a raging fire, mysterious as the dark side of the moon."

  26. #26
    You know that the piercing_pvp damage value is the exact same thing as the "bolter" damage value? "Bolter" weapons draw their damage tables directly form the "piercing_pvp" file.
    Yeh i noticed in other thread my bad ill fix that.

    Anyways, I think that Tacs should simply take a higher upkeep value. A higher upkeep value would have minimal effect in T1 - T1.5, where Tacs NEED to be strong to hold out against powerful melee builds
    With sargeant!!! im kudos for it. but the 3 vanillas guys alone cannot be doing that much melee damage! they pose a threat against specialized melee infantry with their bare hands. Is not fair taking in consideration they are the only ranged unit capable of doing that. I know they must be good in all departements (even on melee witha sarg definitely).... but to this extent is overkill.

  27. #27
    Member Saunders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Simsbury, CT
    Just for the record, the solution to an issue with one unit combination being overtly effective (such as tac spam) is not making another combination more powerful. Perhaps by making another combination viable it will diversify, but the original issue would still remain.
    DoW II - Saunders
    CoH - CommanderNewbie

  28. #28
    Because of that, the synergy bewteen them and the assault marines should be more natural.... ASM deserve a cost reduction to 20 or 25.... because now they are too expensive nd they are supposed to cover the tacs on melee while the tacs do their work in dps. This should be no par with the tacs changes of course.

  29. #29
    I think tacticals melee performance should remain unchanged, in TT, I believe they're described as wielding swords. Not chainswords or power weapons, just really sharp swords.

    Their enemies should have better hard counter options. I'm pretty sure marines are the only ones with a real plasma weapon, which is what you need to kill tacs.

    But everyone's got power weapons. Lots.

    Increase power weapons a bit, downgrade plasma a bit. 1.4x damage from each would be ok...I think?

  30. #30
    Member Saunders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Simsbury, CT
    Unfortunately, Relic moved away from that direction with the 1.4.2 patch.

  31. #31
    @ Carl

    Um, to get back to the starting point the banshee player has to reinforce his squad by 3 members (if I remember correctly banshees have 5 members in a squad) while the SM player has to buy a whole new tactical squad. Yes, it took the banshees maybe 500 req in the end (the original cost + reinforcing costs) but they still killed 500 req worth of marines and if the marine player intended to use that tac squad for something he is going to have to buy a new one at 500 req.

    I ask again, is that not fair ?

    @ Saunders

    Yeah, obviously the fix to ASM would also have to be matched by a small hit on the tac DPS. I would say a small hit on the plasma gun DPS would be best, the missiles are pretty fine right now in giving marines some early T2 AV firepower that is mobile, the flamer is ok for what it does and I don't really think the basic bolter DPS is an issue, although it can go too if people insist.

    @ Todehy

    Look, marines cost 500 points and 15 from the cap. For those points and cap that you invest in them they have to do something. Relic has chosen (in my opinion wisely) that all those points are not "spent" in making the marines deal obscene amounts of damage with their bolters, but instead they do good damage with their bolters and can do some damage in melee. Essentially making them a jack of all trades unit to some extent. If we were to destroy their ability to deal damage in CC then you would have to give them an even bigger buff for ranged damage, thus making the blobbing even more effective. Nobody wants that.

    @ Buguba

    A really intriguing idea, but I wouldn't penalize only marines for hitting the cap. How about making the HQ healing scale with cap ? The more cap you have, the slower the healing is. Thus marines wouldn't be penalized in the early game where they are somewhat at a disadvantage, but in the late game running them away wouldn't mean that they are back in under a minute in full health, with only the enemy taking casualties.

    Giladas

  32. #32
    Chappy FooF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    On the brink of insanity
    I made a massive thread that deals with this on the official forums.

    No need to re-post it here but give it a read (it's long) if you want to see how I'd tackle Tac spam.
    Dawn of War 2 Moderator
    Forum Rules___________PM FooF

  33. #33
    Look, marines cost 500 points and 15 from the cap. For those points and cap that you invest in them they have to do something. Relic has chosen (in my opinion wisely) that all those points are not "spent" in making the marines deal obscene amounts of damage with their bolters, but instead they do good damage with their bolters and can do some damage in melee. Essentially making them a jack of all trades unit to some extent. If we were to destroy their ability to deal damage in CC then you would have to give them an even bigger buff for ranged damage, thus making the blobbing even more effective. Nobody wants that.
    But tell me, why that melee option could not be the sargeant?
    Thjey are already a jack of all trades with their wargear and their bolter dps. Their bolter damage is nothing to be laughed at, i dont know why suggest to imprive it.
    The sargeant must be their melee unit, they use ranged weapons, please understand this, they were not meant to infclt that much damage on melee with ranged weapons. I think is pretty clear and i think im being very logical with my observation. If the sargeant deserves a buff to aid them on melee, then im totally approving that buff, but again, ranged units, evenw hen they are a "jack of all trades" cannot do this much melee damage.

    And is not that im negating all of their melee damage, you would still have the option to melee, in the form of the sargeant, and that IMO is how it should be. And they will still be a jack of al trades-

  34. #34
    @ Todehy

    And I am saying that the basic damage of a tac squad shooting with no upgrades is not worth 500 req, even with the buff to the DPS of a bolter. When it is combined with their health and resistance to damage it is better, but the damage is still not up there. When it is combined with the fact that they do some damage in melee, I believe it is about right, although would appreciate some nerfs to Plasma gun damage with a solution to the ASM problem.

    And yes, the damage tacs do with their bolters is not bad, no. But it isn't worth 500 req, which is kinda my point. But instead of wanting a buff to the damage that the tac squad does by shooting, I would rather have them keep the damage they do in melee. If we increase bolter DPS even more we end up with even more effective blobs, and banshees are in even worse trouble.

    In your example number 1 the banshees win, the SM player loses 1000 points of req while the Eldar player loses around 500 (not sure about the req costs of reinforcing banshees). If that is not being a hard counter to tacs, I don't know what is.

    In your video number 2 the SM player loses 500 points while the ork player loses nothing, nada. I didn't watch your video 3, but again, the SM player loses a lot of points with a dead tac squad, while the ork player doesn't need to take the queue in his HQ to bring down a new squad and he only needs to reinforce.

    Giladas

  35. #35
    Sorry but he is supposed to be the strongest hero on melee. Even when the tacs lose, their are a ranged squad meeleing to death a melee spacialist. Please note this.

    And the req cost of the tacs is not that u are paying it to bolter till the end of the game, as i explained before, you are paying 500 req for a squad that can evolve into waherevr you want; anti tank, anti melee, ranged and even some melee. Combine it with ur HP and resistance, and there you have it. Totally worth those 500 req if you ask me.
    Last edited by Todehy; 12th Jul 09 at 2:39 PM.

  36. #36
    @ Todehy

    Doesn't make a difference whether he takes lots of damage or not. The end result is that the sm player is down 500 req, the ork player zero. Also, how about commenting on the other questions about your videos besides that one totally based on fluff text ?

    About the other question you had, well, the SM are unique. Tacs are our only "normal" infantry unit, across all tiers. Others are infiltrators, have set-up time or are jump troops. Or require zeal. Let that sink in for a moment. Tacs are the only SM infantry unit. Every single army has infantry in the higher tiers, whether it is specialized glass cannons (WS), melee monsters (Nobz) or specialized AV (Venom Brood), every other army has infantry in the higher tiers, often specialized to a specific role from the start, but performing it well (arguably in case of the Venom Brood ;-)).

    So why shouldn't tacs be adaptible and multi-purpose, with their high cost in T1 combined with the high cost of their upgrades ? (Not to mention the fact that you can't change the upgrades once you have them, something that I don't think is seen for the issue it is for SM players.)

    Giladas

  37. Modding Senior Member Dawn of War II Senior Member  #37
    Dominatrix Buguba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Mount of Olives
    A really intriguing idea, but I wouldn't penalize only marines for hitting the cap. How about making the HQ healing scale with cap ? The more cap you have, the slower the healing is. Thus marines wouldn't be penalized in the early game where they are somewhat at a disadvantage, but in the late game running them away wouldn't mean that they are back in under a minute in full health, with only the enemy taking casualties.
    Upkeep is individual to squads. You could easily make Tactical Marines have a high upkeep and all other units normal.

  38. #38
    Yeah, I know, just thought that tying the healing to the amount of cap you are using could do the job better and work for all armies involved. One other alternative is making all tac squads have the same health and same overall DPS but giving them 1 additional squad member, thus they achieve the same things as they do now but they get their first casualty earlier.

    Giladas

  39. #39
    And the req cost of the tacs is not that u are paying it to bolter till the end of the game, as i explained before, you are paying 500 req for a squad that can evolve into waherevr you want; anti tank, anti melee, ranged and even some melee. Combine it with ur HP and resistance, and there you have it. Totally worth those 500 req if you ask me.
    Seriously I wish people would stop bringing up the issue that they cost so much. They can fill several different roles so it's completely justified to pay a little more req for them compared to more single-role oriented opponents.

    I agree with some other posts in here that plasma damage should be taken down a bit, and their melee capability reduced. It's completely ridiculous that they get a Warboss to 11hp with mostly melee attacks.

  40. #40
    Exactly....
    500 req is more than justified.
    They are 100 req more for example, than a banshee....and altho they definitely cannot melee like a banshee.. they are so versatile that 500 is a bargain, taking in consideration their hp and defense.

  41. #41
    Member Carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Crossroads of Inertia
    @ Carl

    Um, to get back to the starting point the banshee player has to reinforce his squad by 3 members (if I remember correctly banshees have 5 members in a squad) while the SM player has to buy a whole new tactical squad. Yes, it took the banshees maybe 500 req in the end (the original cost + reinforcing costs) but they still killed 500 req worth of marines and if the marine player intended to use that tac squad for something he is going to have to buy a new one at 500 req.
    I was talking generally basing my reply off his description and a couple of replay's i';ve seen of Tac's in melee vs enemy melee. Generally if they time their retreat right, (admitedly not easy), they can get a hefty amount of damage in on the melee squad for only 1 dead tac. They don't have to kil a lot of Shee's or Slugga's to make back the reinforce costs of getting the tacs on the feild. A melee squad will generally still end up paying a significant fraction of the cost of the Tac squad in reinforcments to get back to full strength. Thus the Tac's only end up costing sluightly more than the banshees/slugga's to use as a melee squad despite being a ranged unit, not a melee unit.

    Realisticlly Hormies, Shee's, and Slugga's shouldn't lose more than 1 model per Tac squad member killed if they want to be genuine hard counters to tacs, (as they're SUPPOSED TO BE).

    but making all units take less damage from melee would most probably result in melee units getting hung up on ranged units, tickling them while other ranged units pick them off from behind the units you engage them with.
    If it was Tac's with their damage reverted back to 1.4.1 levels shooting from behind it would be a lost cuase, they'd never do enough damage before the melee chomped the first Tac down, (remember i'm talking 60% of 1.4.1. melee unit damage values, so we'd be talking 60% of Slugga's with Nob et al).

    If the supporting unit is shottie scouts, well yeah they would DECIMATE your poor melee unit. But thats how it's supposed to work. You send your anti-tac unit in, but i have my counter to your anti-tac unit in place so you lose. if you want to send your anti-tac unit in you have to eliminate my anti-melee unit, (or drive it off or keep it out of contention), in turn i then have to worry about your anti-scout counter and try and counter that, (probably with fast reacting tie up ASM), and so the cycle goes on. Ultimutly the outcome would be decided by who implements their counter best, (not easy given the wide selection of diffrent units and abilities avalibile to complicate everything), not by who brings the better army to the fight.

  42. #42
    Nerf tacs! buff shee's! Rabble rabble rabble! (Actually I don't think anybody said buff shee's)

    Or they could just make suppression teams not so godamned overpriced and useless/unwieldy. Suppressed tacs would be easy picking for melee, and would actually force the marines to build jump troops to counter the platforms. Or build their own platforms to backstop their tacs with to cut down the charging melee. Army diversity! Wooo.

    Should probably change up ATSKNF so said changes aren't just made instantly obsolete with a couple of sarge's mind you.

    But at the end of the day, I don't care how hard your counter is; if you charge at a bunch of guys with guns across an open field, wielding little more than pointy knives, you should be happy that you lived long enough to get your head caved in with a rifle butt.

  43. Dawn of War II Senior Member  #43
    Senior Member whatsleft's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    But at the end of the day, I don't care how hard your counter is; if you charge at a bunch of guys with guns across an open field, wielding little more than pointy knives, you should be happy that you lived long enough to get your head caved in with a rifle butt.
    exactly. if u are rushing in head first into tacs, i suggest u re-plan ur attack, unless u are orks and activated call da boyz, then you should win.

    because banshees are melee and counters ranged, doesnt mean they should win when they have 1/2 hp left on the way to slicing da 'umies.

    however, tac spam is a real problem, they hard counter everything once they reach critical mass. i believe this problem is mainly caused by missile launchers. might sound strange but its because tac squads only lose a single gun when they upgrade with missile launchers. a single tac has around 15.5 dps, so a full squad will have around 46.5 dps, losing a gun drops the collective squad dps to 30dps, which is still pretty good dps and doing awesome damage to vehicles(160damage per shot).

    then here's the problem, ML tacs do not lose enough dps for their AV potential. this is also further multiplied by plasma gun upgrade, the upgrade basically doubles the dps of a single model, pushing the dps of the whole squad to 62. this easily covers up the single gun that ML tacs lost.

    so in the end, in a typical tac spam, 2x ML, 2x plasma, the total dps totals up to 15.5*(4*3)=186 ranged dps and hard countering all vehicles except well microed and well supported fireprisms. couple this with their durability, we have an extremely powerful spam in our hands gentlemen.

    i will only suggest a single change that can lower the massive dps they put out. half the damage of missile launcers, give tac squads 2 missile launchers per upgrade. make them lose 2 guns instead of 1, lower their anti infantry dps to a pathetic degree, while doing awesome anti tank damage.

    tac spam cannot be nerfed unless there is a drastic change; mainly because of the pathetic design space marines have, they totally rely on missile launchers for anti tank, we cannot nerf ML because its their only weapon against vehicles, or else races will walk over them with armour then SM will be UP.

    all the numbers are rounded figures so its easier for me to type.

  44. #44
    Member Goodlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    ENCIMA DE TU CABEZA!!!
    Units should not be balanced just because one unit beats another 1v1. I can't believe no one has said anything about this already, but most fights are with MULTIPLE units, not that warboss vs a tac squad. What must be factored in is how units work with eachother. You must have shit a brick to react the way you seem to be when a warboss barely, but STILL, beat a tac squad 1v1. Tacs are expensive. An ork can very nearly afford 2 EXTRA slugga squads for you to field that 1 tac. Lets think. An engagement where everything is still vanilla, with just a little micro, even against a good opponent, do you think one would be able to beat a commander+scout+tac with 3 sluggas and a warboss? DAMN STRAIGHT. Warboss melee tacs first, stop range fire on sluggas, 1 slugga for scouts and 1 for commander, and last slugga either on tacs or commander, whichever is losing health slower. Factor in waaagh, and sm gets raped. For 100 req more. Is THIS fair? Maybe we should nerf sluggas. Beating tacs. Pfft.

  45. #45
    FooF post is where is @
    tacs are fine now, hell, i would even say increase their melee dps a bit
    while other races have their starting unit + 2 new built units the sm player have the starting scout + 1 tac squad, then maybe another scout, or a gen farm, so i dont see the point in messing with tacs stats, dont make them useless like in 1.4.1, and im not a SM fanboi, i play mostly ork and nids, so dont say im biased.

  46. #46
    hard countering all vehicles except well microed and well supported fireprisms.
    Or numerous and inexpensive Looted Tanks. Lets not forget those.

    And on a slightly different note...

    500 req is more than justified.
    They are 100 req more for example, than a banshee....and altho they definitely cannot melee like a banshee.. they are so versatile that 500 is a bargain, taking in consideration their hp and defense.
    'versatile' as in they can choose to upgrade once, and be locked in to that role forever?

    Seriously, the only difference between having build options at the HQ in tier 1 for 'Tactical marine w/ bolter' and 'tactical marine w/ flamer', along with tier 2 options to build 'tactical marine w/ plasma' and 'tactical marine w/ missile launcher' is that just having the upgrade options takes up less space in the build menu.

    They stop being versatile as soon as you pick an option, and if you pick two plasma and two missiles by default, their versatility lies in the fact that you in effect built two good anti infantry units, and two good anti vehicle units.

    The missile crew retains a fair bit of their anti inf (2/3rds as whatsleft points out), but they're still not going to stand up well to any other ranged squad in a shoot out, so you can't just build missile tacs.

    I stand behind my statement that the problem with the tac blob, especially in it's current incarnation, is the lack of effective and inexpensive ranged suppression. A suppressed tac blob is useless. And by 'effective' I mean 'does not rely on your opponent being an idiot and walking head first in to it'. And by 'inexpensive' I mean 'buying 1 will not cost you the tech race'.

    *Edit: And banshees are a horrible example, since once you have all their upgrades they're effectively anti-anything. Also worth noting I'm not arguing the price on tacs, just saying touting their 'versatility' is at best a red herring.

  47. #47
    Khaunshar
    Guest
    A decent nerf to melee damage of tacs, a buff to ASMs, and a minor adjustment for heavy armor to be a bit more susceptible to explosive (like 120% or so) should do the trick. A major, MAJOR issue with Tac-Spam, however, is how easy they are to use. I think thats what SMs generally are so popular for... its probably the easiest race to use, because of least units, most resilient units, many allrounders and simple, straightforward tactics. Aside from the Techmarine in some few cases, the SMs are far easier to play at a decent level than any 1.4+ race/hero combos.

    Tac-Blobs will be popular as long as they are somewhat viable, because they take so little effort to use. And at that point, the question pops up whether we really should allow one race to be easier to play than the rest, and not have them pay for it.
    My suggestion, in addition to the above, would thus be to increase upkeep drastically for every unit of the same kind beyond the 2nd. You got 3 Tacs? BAM, you pay upkeep for 4. You got 4 Tacs? BAM, you pay upkeep for 6.
    That would help with a lot of spam power, and reward any race who uses mixed units and arms, and not just brute-force rightclicks through the game.

    Even if Tacs were slightly inferior in power to a cleverly used, complex combined force, the sheer ease of use will make a lot of people play them. And thats just not fair to the low-to-mid-skill segment of players, who will then face tacblobs all day long with little chance, even though the top 10% players can counter them.

    Balance must work on all levels.

  48. #48
    Member The Deciever's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Earth Tomb World
    To be honest, I'm not sure why Heavy Armor's damage table reads as 130% from power weapons and 150% from plasma weapons if the only real plasma weapons to be fielded against tacticals are wielded by tacticals.
    Doesn't the WL's starting ability do plasma damage?
    All bow to the might and glory of Me and my Brethren

  49. #49
    I didn't read every post, but I'm just going to say somethings in response to the OP.

    Your examples and videos don't mean shit. First of all, they are in an entire vaccum and would never happen in real life, and second, your examples pretty much support the fact that Tacs are fine. Remember that Scouts shotguns were nerfed pretty heavy in damage, so they do worse in keeping melee off Tacs.

    Tacs against Banshees and Shees win with two members, and your complaining? What the hell do you want, Shees to win with all members left at half health? Your taking a T1 unupgraded 400 req unit against a T1 unupgraded 500 req unit, it is winning, and it only has to make up req costs of 3 members vs. 500 req, and you are complaining? Do you see how this doesn't help your argument?

    And a vanilla, level 1 Warboss barely beating a single squad of Tacs proves what exactly? Why should a vanilla Warboss beat a squad of Tacs when most heroes can't even beat a squad of Gaunts/Sluggas? Did you use the Warboss ability?

    Stickbommas shouldn't even beat Tacs, they are supposed to be a support unit now, although they are still good in melee. I think Stormboyz should, and I can see Stiks too, but neither should win by a huge margin.

    I think people are too stuck in these "hard counter" roles and that bullshit, and frankly I am kinda sick of this talk since 1.4. Yes, there are counters and such, but units aren't always confined to certain roles. The races are designed too differently. Do you honestly expect that whenever a basic melee unit engages a Tac squad, they should automatically win with no losses because melee counters ranged? Tacs should always beat Sluggas, Guardians, and Gaunts and Gants 1v1 by virtue of them being 500 req and motherfucking Tactical Space Marines, not pansy pushover little bitches.
    Ruthless at Heart

    "They have seen hundreds of battles. I have seen thousands." ~ Autarch

  50. #50
    I didn't read every post, but I'm just going to say somethings in response to the OP.

    Your examples and videos don't mean shit. First of all, they are in an entire vaccum and would never happen in real life, and second, your examples pretty much support the fact that Tacs are fine. Remember that Scouts shotguns were nerfed pretty heavy in damage, so they do worse in keeping melee off Tacs
    Orly¿
    dont mean shit? please dont be so mean really. Ill get sad.

    The fact that we know they will be fighting with other units cannot justify those guys kicking the ass in melee like they do.
    If you dont wanna see it and come with arguemnts like " it will never happen" when we are focusing on the stats of the utnis shown ina video, then u are being evasive in what i presenetd on the first post.

    They will not be alone in a lot of situations, but the fact that this guys kick ass on melee is there. Talk all what uw ant. Just look at the videos, even when they are pretty silly examples.. you can do the math and see the numbers by urself regarding the tac performance against other units.

Page 1 of 7 1234567 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
  •