Acid Splatter

[Kvek]

This thing was already great against Orks, Eldar, Chaos (tics)
And it got buffed by changing the weapon-family to power melee which made it great against all races (expect for SM)
Why it got buffed ? It was already powerful, there was no reason to buff it.

[Indrid]

It's only good now because of all the other buffs the Rav's wargear has got, melee Rav is still easy to disrupt and suppress though. It's fine imo. The ranged weapon is so good there needs to be a compelling reason to go melee with RA, a melee_pvp weapon with a little splash in T2 wasn't it.

[Torpid]

Indrid that's a poor line of reasoning. Eldar webway gates cost 50 red and are extremely powerful, therefore crack shot must be buffed,and the warp spider call-in-global should be decreased in red, to at least encourage using them as an alternative.

With his second armour the RA cannot be knocked down and so controlling him is pretty hard, besides the tyranid ranged blob is mighty, and usually the greatest threat to it isn't ranged control, but melee, especially jump units, the acid splatter RA is extremely powerful against jump units like raptors/asm at the moment, too good. Then to make matters worse he can get that sinew accessory for additional speed and he ends up killing everything on retreat when combined with the capillary tower speed buff...

[Kvek]

Had a game as RA, Lost my double termas early to a blight nade, then i came back due to Acid Splatter+Toxic Miasma wiping out 2 AC tics. I have the replay also.

[Ace of Swords]

It's only good now because of all the other buffs the Rav's wargear has got, melee Rav is still easy to disrupt and suppress though. It's fine imo. The ranged weapon is so good there needs to be a compelling reason to go melee with RA, a melee_pvp weapon with a little splash in T2 wasn't it.

He has an armor that makes him immune to knockback and his standard tunnels can be used as a supression team counter if needed, how is it easy to stop? Especially when coupling the acid splatter with the speed increase, power melee can stay for me
though splash damage has to go.

I forgot to mentitioning that you can also add the 1.5 speed increase which when is stacked with towers can make the RA outrun retreating units, and obviously go for easy kills with how insane the spaltter is atm.

[Indrid]

Indrid that's a poor line of reasoning. Eldar webway gates cost 50 red and are extremely powerful, therefore crack shot must be buffed,and the warp spider call-in-global should be decreased in red, to at least encourage using them as an alternative.

That was not my reasoning, Acid Splatter didn't have much of a place before. Why give up a plasma weapon and soft AV ranged weapon for Acid Splatter before? There were other more cost-efficient and less risky ways to deal with melee. I always thought it should be rebalanced and moved to T1, but it got power melee and a damage buff instead.

With his second armour the RA cannot be knocked down and so controlling him is pretty hard, besides the tyranid ranged blob is mighty, and usually the greatest threat to it isn't ranged control, but melee, especially jump units, the acid splatter RA is extremely powerful against jump units like raptors/asm at the moment, too good. Then to make matters worse he can get that sinew accessory for additional speed and he ends up killing everything on retreat when combined with the capillary tower speed buff...

Big deal, Warlock can jump all over the place and Warp Throw you into wipes, Chaos Lord can WTF-pwn all infantry with Claws, FC can disrupt the entire universe with his Hammer, HT and LA can both rape face with their melee options. If you talk about all the things a comm *might* be able to do then they all sound great. Now the RA has melee weapons that are actually attractive to get.

All power melee comms are powerful vs Raptors and ASM, even the Painboy/Autarch with spear are pretty damn nasty to them, and remember that the splash itself is not power melee.

@Kvek if it wiped double Tics then the opponent obviously wasn't expecting an AS + Toxic because it's not an often-seen combo, and they didn't judge the engagement quickly enough to retreat the heck out. Play 10 games with Acid Splatter and still see if you think it is overperforming, not a single good one and ask for nerfs.

[Kvek]

Already played,OP.

[Indrid]

In all the replays and lobbies I've had with you I've never even see you play Nids in them, now you're saying you've played 10+ with a specific Nid comm using a specific build?

If so, you should start sending in the reps, because I love seeing melee RAs.

[Kvek]

Okay, i will try to get some RA plays.

[Torpid]

Firstly it makes no difference how powerful his other wargears are when considering whether or not one individual one is OP. Obviously you do have to take into consideration the role of the hero, which in the case of the RA is a support/utility hero with great mobility, making him an extremely vicious counter-initiation tool imo is too effective.

Secondly you're making the mistake of comparing commanders again Indrid. The other commanders belong to different armies so they fulfill a different role. Yes some defensive chaos lord play can be annoying to deal with but then you just get artillery don't you. What happens when you get artillery vs nids? Yeah, they get zoans. The tyranid ranged blob is fundamentally strong vs other ranged damage and weak to jump units such as ASM/letters, this acid splatter though is better than the hive tyrant's rending talons in terms of counter initiation through sheer dps, and then add to that the fact that he can get so many retreat kills/have his damage synapse/provide utility via tunnels/nodes.

I don't take the big deal x can x argument very well. You could easily use that to argue that the hive tyrant's charge knocking over on retreat was fine, or that warp throw is fine, neither are, both are ridiculously OP just because they cannot be countered in any meaningful way, similarly the acid splatter RA, when played defensively, with the right build cannot be countered in any significant way. It works best in 2v2 where you can initiate this steamroll build without worrying about losing map control, or vehicle rushes due to your teammate.

Why is the CL so damaging and durable? Because his army pretty much forces him to be aggressive, get shot up and tank damage, the RA doesn't have to do that though when he can hide behind a BSWB + 2x terms + 2x zoans + venom. Why is the FC so powerful? Because something has to make space marines competitive, and he covers their weaknesses of melee dominance and tankiness in melee. No argument could ever justify the warlock having warp throw though...

[Indrid]

Of course wargear should be judged on their own, but the old Acid Splatter before the damage buff and damage type change was very underwhelming. Maybe it has been one buff too far combined with all the RAs other buffs, but it's not something I've personally had trouble with, and I'm not exactly the best player ever. I just keep my Raptors the heck away from him and try to keep him suppressed. Perhaps this is easier for me with PC.

I wasn't comparing comms either, at all, I was just pointing out that talking about all the great things a comm can do can make them all sound OP and unstoppable.

Initial DERP: Hit edit instead of reply.

[Codex]

Firstly it makes no difference how powerful his other wargears are when considering whether or not one individual one is OP.

Perhaps not the way Indrid was doing it: comparing rival mutually exclusive wargear. But the principle exists: we need to consider how powerful FC teleporter pack is (e.g. cost and cooldown) when considering power fist because of the synergy. Similarly it's important to consider Acid Splatter+ Strengthened Sinew/Toxic Miasma/etc. But really that is an aside.

Personally I haven't had all too many problems against Acid Splatter. Yes it's really great at dps, but his acid splatter is nowhere near what it was in original beta and really the AOE OP fuckfest that was acid splatter and toxic miasma is still potent but you can still retreat out of it. Originally you would see a melee squad disappear in about 3 seconds with no recourse. Lulz.

[Indrid]

Comparing mutually exclusive wargear is not completely without merit guys; you are comparing two different roles yes, but more so how efficient they are on the same entity. If one build is much more efficient than another, the natural course is to call the inefficient build underpowered.

[Torpid]

Comparing mutually exclusive wargear is not completely without merit guys; you are comparing two different roles yes, but more so how efficient they are on the same entity. If one build is much more efficient than another, the natural course is to call the inefficient build underpowered.

No. It would only make it underpowered in comparison to his other wargears, but holistically it may still be balanced if his other wargears which make his original one look underpowered, are themselves overpowered.

[Indrid]

Wat

Stop arguing semantics. Your example would be the opposite way of saying the exact same thing; still a balance issue is observed "other wargears are overpowered" brought about by comparing the wargears/roles in the first place, hence it is not completely without merit.

[Torpid]

Wat

Stop arguing semantics. Your example would be the opposite way of saying the exact same thing; still a balance issue is observed "other wargears are overpowered" brought about by comparing the wargears/roles in the first place, hence it is not completely without merit.

No. It isn't brought about through comparison to other wargears that you conclude that one is overpowered. You derive that one wargear is OP by studying it in the ways that you would expect, independent of the other wargears. As mentioned before obviously some wargears synergise extremely well together and that has to be took into consideration, but with two weapons they are mutually exclusive so they really don't need to be took into account at all when deciding whether one is too good. If the chaos lord could get a power fist in t1 which did 150dps heavy melee for 100/30 then it would be deemed OP not because it outshines all his other wargears (Although it would as an exemplification of its OPness), but because of aforementioned reasons.

[Indrid]

You're misunderstanding me. I am comparing roles and efficiency within a commander. Pre-buff Acid Splatter was not worth the resources (IMO), when you can spend a bit more and get a great ranged weapon and fulfill a different role better with a different build of wargear.

I'm not saying that you directly compare two different types of wargear, that is obviously pointless, but you compare it to other wargear in terms of how useful/efficient it is combined with others to fulfill a role.

For a real example; I personally think the HT's Venom Cannon is UP (or "not as useful" or "does not synergise as well") because I'd rather counter vehicles another way (his Claws for example!) or just spend that 140/40 (or whatever it is) using the HT to fulfill another role. So in a roundabout way, his VC is underpowered compared to the other things he can do (again, IMO). Even though it is a high DPS armour-piercing weapon that is obviously powerful. So in it's own right it might be balanced in the grand meta, but in the microcosm of the HT it might not be.

I'm not saying this is the only way you measure a wargear's worth, and there are obviously many factors involved, but "why would I get X when I can get Y and do Z better?" is surely one of them.

Anyway, let's try to stick to the topic from now on. Looks like at least 2-3 of you think Acid Splatter is overperforming atm but I'd love to see a replay of it.

[FiSH]

in order to have a good melee build, you have to give up both damage synapse as well as ranged av option, both of which are very powerful wargears. besides, i am fine with having acid splatter as a strong melee option so that ra can finally be not so boring.

[Torpid]

Indrid I don't understand why you aren't getting my point. The venom cannon cannot be UP just because it isn't as good as the crushing claws because the claws might not be balanced in the first place, therefore basing any balance decision off of a comparison of them two wargears is absolutely 100% pointless until you establish the balance status of the other wargear, but again, you can't decide that based on the OTHER wargear otherwise you are using circular logic. I apologise for any lack of eloquence here, but I fear I have no other way to express myself. P.S the venom cannon is fantastic

If I ever get a good gameplay with the splatter I shall be sure to upload it.

[Indrid]

No, I do understand what you mean. I guess we just see things differently. I am perhaps just plain wrong but I can't believe you do not consider other wargear at all when considering balance.

Maybe you can get me a replay of the VC wrecking stuff as well while you're at it.

[Codex]

Okay, I'm gonna just put in a definitive post because there's a lot of back and forth, and very little progress being made.

Simply put, balance has more than one interpretation, one being absolute and one being relative.

In the relative sense, balance is relative to the metagame, i.e. what people choose to use and how they choose to use it. For example, nobody uses venom cannon on the HT, compared to his other two weapons, so that weapon is UP. However, nobody is really qualified to say whether it is UP or OP because nobody uses it and hence nobody has seen it in action enough.

Consider spore mines. Spore Mines are good against garrison counters, but are far stronger when they are attacking units out in the open. Do you judge its balance by how it's achieving its role (i.e. according to design), or how it is used in the metagame (i.e. as early melee and ranged counters)? I presume a mixture of both, which shows the principle that metagame affects balance. This is the sense of balance that Indrid refers to.

On the other hand, the absolute sense of balance would argue that something has to be objectively balanced. Of course we would want to achieve that, it is ideal yet idealistic. Nobody denies that they would want balance to be objectively done and absolutely balanced. But it is not easy to see objective balance until we see what the metagame has molded the balance into, over multiple iterations of the game as pieces slide back and forth. And only after a wargear/ unit has been brought back into the metagame can we really see its true effectiveness.

For that reason, we use the metagame to guide our choice in rebalancing. Absolute balance may be ideal, but relative balance is more practical.

[Wurgl]

basically nobody is qualified to say if anything is op or up in dow atm because we dont nearly have the needed basis of proper games to back up any judgement.

90% of the games i play and watch id say are no measure for balance at all because either opponents are not comparable skillwise or one of them does a huge fuckup (e.g. caps in a way so that he loses all map control in 20 sec or loses a squad needlessly).

so you either need

- a huge load of games and hope that the mistakes even out (e.g. a ladder where u see race winrates across different players)

- a game with very few mistakes of two players compareable in skill (preferrably very high skill) with very few mistakes made that many different people can discuss (thats usually tournament games. for example, vindicare won a game vs hammer on OR in some final where he was absurdly far behind and ended up spamming devs on t2 vs hammers t3 (he was ork). people agreed that hammer really couldnt have done shit about that and that led to frenzy and kommandos getting buffed (people also remembered they have to ban that map in some matchups)

since we have no ladder atm, imo any balance discussion here should be based on a replay where said issue is displayed. and coming up with such a rep where neither skill nor fuckups overshadow any balance issue is hard.

[Codex]

That's a slippery slope argument.

As you said, you don't need a perfect example of a game to see how things are balanced. You just need a lot of trials, where you see a lot of variation of how unit A performs in situation X, Y and Z, and then you do more trials. Each one gives you more information, which feeds into your idea of balance. So this is your first option.

When a game comes out, people are still discovering ways to use the units. Thus it is impossible to speak about balance in any holistic way. You might (and that's a big might) be able to pinpoint certain things that are dead-set OP, but that's about it. The reason for this being that the metagame is still evolving and has yet to pinpoint how this unit will be used.

This principle extends to units that are just not used. What practical difference is there in discussing a unit that is completely new to Elite Mod and one that is not used at all? Not much.

But the key question is, IS there a difference between balancing DOW2 when it came out, and our current state of DOW2: Elite?

Well, yes. The difference is that we already have a framework in which to work. Overall as a community we already have a good understanding of the game, how it works, how it could develop, what needs balancing. It's not like Relic whose balance team appeared to understand DOW2 as much as the average shrew. This is the point of using a forum. Whereas Relic clearly needed a helping hand from the community to understand their game, we've got a core of players who probably know more than they put together.

Yes, you could argue that the balance discussions here are crap due to low player pool etc, but the fact of the matter is that the balance discussions here are really similar to every balance discussion I've seen about dow2.

Even on relicnews, where the quality of posts was moderated to be high, the quality of balance discussion was often interspersed by unhelpful contributions, sometimes devolving into pits of flamewar and rage. Balance discussions haven't changed from when we were on ladder.

Why? Because almost everyone on those forums cite at most a few replays and draws from their relatively narrow experience. We're all biased at our core, insofar as we don't/can't know everything.

TL;DR:

At least the information being fed into this forum is being read by people who know a damn about the game rather than derpy Reric balance teams.

[Wurgl]

i agree with you pretty much.

its just much easier from a practical point of view to let people prove their own conclustions (how does unit x acti in situation x, y and z) instead of arguing and theorycrafting back and forth for ages. with prove i mean provide a replay as a basis.

is that so much so ask? if a balance issue is really a big problem, it should be easy to reproduce, no?

[EBA]

That's a slippery slope argument.

As you said, you don't need a perfect example of a game to see how things are balanced. You just need a lot of trials, where you see a lot of variation of how unit A performs in situation X, Y and Z, and then you do more trials. Each one gives you more information, which feeds into your idea of balance. So this is your first option.

When a game comes out, people are still discovering ways to use the units. Thus it is impossible to speak about balance in any holistic way. You might (and that's a big might) be able to pinpoint certain things that are dead-set OP, but that's about it. The reason for this being that the metagame is still evolving and has yet to pinpoint how this unit will be used.

This principle extends to units that are just not used. What practical difference is there in discussing a unit that is completely new to Elite Mod and one that is not used at all? Not much.

But the key question is, IS there a difference between balancing DOW2 when it came out, and our current state of DOW2: Elite?

Well, yes. The difference is that we already have a framework in which to work. Overall as a community we already have a good understanding of the game, how it works, how it could develop, what needs balancing. It's not like Relic whose balance team appeared to understand DOW2 as much as the average shrew. This is the point of using a forum. Whereas Relic clearly needed a helping hand from the community to understand their game, we've got a core of players who probably know more than they put together.

Yes, you could argue that the balance discussions here are crap due to low player pool etc, but the fact of the matter is that the balance discussions here are really similar to every balance discussion I've seen about dow2.

Even on relicnews, where the quality of posts was moderated to be high, the quality of balance discussion was often interspersed by unhelpful contributions, sometimes devolving into pits of flamewar and rage. Balance discussions haven't changed from when we were on ladder.

Why? Because almost everyone on those forums cite at most a few replays and draws from their relatively narrow experience. We're all biased at our core, insofar as we don't/can't know everything.
.

I know what we could do!

So I've been archive binging all the DoW2 elite podcasts because I currently have copious amounts of free time and a mortal terror of actually playing a game I might loose, so, I could put together a code sheet and start analyzing who the best races are, why, and what units are OP and need nerfing!

The answers will be: Nerf eldar, buff guard.

[Torpid]

We've already derived such an equation for 1v1:
IG = SM < chaos < eldar < orks = nids I derive this purely on how many good MUs each race has with its three leaders. It's interesting really though because orks and nids dominate sm/eldar/chaos but IG's best two MUs are orks and nids, whereas the two races closest to it (sm/csm) are the ones they struggle the most dealing with.

I would say the lictor alpha probably has the most favourable match ups atm (all sm/eldar heroes, sorceror, warboss) and his his only poor match ups are the IG heroes and maybe the mek, maybe, but boy does he fall down hard when he meets a LC/LG.

[Wurgl]

We've already derived such an equation for 1v1:
IG = SM < chaos < eldar < orks = nids I derive this purely on anecdotical evidence

ftfy ur welcome

[MyMe]

We've already derived such an equation for 1v1:
IG = SM < chaos < eldar < orks = nids I derive this purely on anecdotical evidence

ftfy ur welcome

This. Just because one or two people make some bs little "equation" doesn't mean that it can be quoted like it's some kind of fact.

[Tex]

I was surprised to see in that equation that Chaos is listed as stronger than SM. And even more surprising that IG is listed at the very bottom.

Where did this piece of unexplainable crap come from?

[Dark Riku]

I was surprised to see in that equation that Chaos is listed as stronger than SM. ....

I'm not.