Snipers in T2/T3

[Sub_Zero]

So the recent change made them balanced in T1 but I feel like they don't perform well enough in later tiers.

All units evolve throughout the game. Basic melee and ranged units become deadlier and more durable. Setup teams can equip an AV weapon which makes them invaluable against vehicles. But snipers remain the same. It is like a pupil of 1st grade against pupils of 3rd grade. They are basically outclassed. They do not have their damage increased, they do not have their mobility enhanced, they do not have their health enlarged. It is so much harder for them to cause casualties, it is so much easier for them to die. As it stands now the only window of their relevance is T1, they do not evolve, as you all know what doesn't evolve ought to die.

Do you feel like there is an issue with their performance in later tiers? Or do you prefer to use them in masses and by doing so compensate their impaired lethality? 2 snipers cost somewhere about as a jump unit and are a less riskier way to deal with basically anything. I agree with that too but we may consider changing them somehow.

There could a T2 upgrade to improve their mobility, there could be a T3 upgrade to straight up improve their statistical numbers. I see such solutions. I don't want to go in detail right now about that because if nobody agrees it will just fall on deaf ears.

P. S. Artillery spotters become better and better with every tier (I could see them being useful in all tiers just in their default T1 form), why would snipers remain the same throughout the whole game?

[saltychipmunk]

No, god no, hell no.

the way i see it is that snipers are early game harassment that can be heavily invested in to cause serious bleed. but i feel the over investment into snipers should be something that is punished and not encouraged. especially with how annoying they can be.

they are after all t1 units, and t1 light units at that. they aren't supposed to be around once the really big things hit the field. well, atleast if i were them i would not be.

that being said , i am not entierly against boosts in otherways outside of damage per shot , damage per second or just stats in general. As i said before they are light units and light units get destroyed in late game. and as you pointed out their damage is lacking in late game as well. So really once t2 hits i see no reason for them to be setup units. perhaps t2 removes their tear down and t3 removes their setup?

[Cheekie Monkie]

The only scaling I possibly want to see in regards to snipers may be the scout sergeant giving the rest of the squad the longer ranged stalker pattern bolter or something (+4 range?)

It's always irked me how both the AC and the scout sergeant is bordeline useless in grenade and sniper builds respectively, though I might understand it from a balance POV.

[Adeptus Noobus]

Scouts by no means become useless in late game. They are your repair units, they can infiltrate and scout out the enemy lines (though detectors are easily available in late-game), they can go for ninja caps, etc. Their dmg may not play a big role but iirc one lvl 4 Tac model still looses 25% of its health (466 health) per sniper shot (90 dmg but 117 dmg for HI/SHI), from a unit that is chilling out in a backline that is not easy to reach since you have T2/T3 SM units guarding them.

[DarnedDragoon]

Scouts have all available upgrades in tier 1 that's why they don't get anything else in tier 2 or 3. They also level giving them boosts in all stats and you shouldn't be relying on them as your main force, they are light infantry and support units. Not only that but they are cheap. Giving them a buff in the damage is just going reward people who like to spam them. Artillery spotters are not as mobile not as versatile and not as deadly.

[Dark Riku]

Just brainstorming here.

For their current form:
What if rangers, and scouts when purchasing snipers, start with a weaker infiltration form?
One that drains their energy way faster and maybe has a higher activation cost?

Another possibility for snipers would maybe be to take the opposite route Caeltos took?
Making snipers do higher damage per shot again but also have a way higher reload time?

[Atlas]

Scout sarg used to be a big deal in sniper wars since he wouldn't be one-shot by rangers/other scouts which meant that when you traded shots the enemy would lose a model and you wouldn't.

Nowadays, with the new sniper changes, yeah I would get elite training first almost every single time. If anything, I would get sarges in t2/t3 just so that scouts don't get volleyed off the field and you have that buffer in case of some mistake.

[Asmon]

High burst damage is a bad mechanism in nature for dow2. To decrease snipers' damage per shot was the right way to go. Now they just need an extra something to be worth the cost. To improve allied unit range or decrease incoming ranged dmg in a area for instance. Upgraded rangers remain relevant in late game thanks to their abilities, they're merely still a bit expensive.

[Black Relic]

How about a sight increases with the sniper upgrade while they are in cover (or stationary for a few seconds) so they can use their range without relying on a spotter? Id take that over damage or a range increase for the other members.

[egewithin]

I personally do not use snipers in my games because I hate them. Not a fair way to fight. Yeah, go untill you see the capping squad, SWISS! lost 2 models already and 1 remain. Better you reatreat dudeee!..

I have fighted against 8 spiners in a 2v2. It was painfull. If there will be any buff to those snipers, I will always drop whenever I see more than 2 Scouts. And I never drop unless I have to. Eg: Player afk, can not surrender / Internet connection / etc.

Also, snipers can still hurt infantrys pretty well in late game. Full damage to every infantry armor type, what else do you want? I sometimes giving my Scout a sniper and ordering it to babysit my Razorback or Predator. About Rangers, well damm it! They have nasty infiltration skills and knockback ability. If you will add more damage even with these abilitys, they might be OP.

[DarnedDragoon]

See sniper spam is so toxic for this community, and any increase of their stats would just make it worse.

[saltychipmunk]

not really a mystery why , dawn of war as a game really is not built for cowardly tactics. even when it is intended it feels cheap and dirty , more often than not itcan end a game instantly with the opponent not getting any time to retaliate leaving both sides feeling unsatisfied.


like web ways or to a lesser extend ravener holes being able to transport a whole army in team games to double up on a given opponent without leaving a side of a map exposed long enough to matter. or hell even a tansport gen burner combo. things like that and snipers (while a viable strategy) just feel out of place in a sense in a game where most units and races are by in large built around hoofing it on foot and engaging enemy lines in bloody mosh bit brawls and rock, paper scissor counter play.

this is very much a game of spectacle and the above strategies are ugly at best.

[Torpid]

not really a mystery why , dawn of war as a game really is not built for cowardly tactics. even when it is intended it feels cheap and dirty , more often than not itcan end a game instantly with the opponent not getting any time to retaliate leaving both sides feeling unsatisfied.


like web ways or to a lesser extend ravener holes being able to transport a whole army in team games to double up on a given opponent without leaving a side of a map exposed long enough to matter. or hell even a tansport gen burner combo. things like that and snipers (while a viable strategy) just feel out of place in a sense in a game where most units and races are by in large built around hoofing it on foot and engaging enemy lines in bloody mosh bit brawls and rock, paper scissor counter play.

this is very much a game of spectacle and the above strategies are ugly at best.

How on Earth is it a game of spectacle? Tiny amounts of units, no huge-ass cross-map attacks, the nukes themselves aare pretty damn small. So on and so on. It's clearly a game of tactics, it isn't even that strategic. It's all about predicting how the foe will perform in each individual battle rather than the grand scheme of things. You can't look too far ahead accurately.

I agree that snipers are lame to fight against but everything else I disagree with.

[DarnedDragoon]

"Sniper spam ftw!"

[The extension jpg has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

And so it begins. . .

[The extension jpg has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

Sniper spam in its final form

[The extension jpg has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

Beginning of the end. . .

[The extension jpg has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

The End, so satisfying

[The extension jpg has been deactivated and can no longer be displayed.]

[saltychipmunk]

not really a mystery why , dawn of war as a game really is not built for cowardly tactics. even when it is intended it feels cheap and dirty , more often than not itcan end a game instantly with the opponent not getting any time to retaliate leaving both sides feeling unsatisfied.


like web ways or to a lesser extend ravener holes being able to transport a whole army in team games to double up on a given opponent without leaving a side of a map exposed long enough to matter. or hell even a tansport gen burner combo. things like that and snipers (while a viable strategy) just feel out of place in a sense in a game where most units and races are by in large built around hoofing it on foot and engaging enemy lines in bloody mosh bit brawls and rock, paper scissor counter play.

this is very much a game of spectacle and the above strategies are ugly at best.

How on Earth is it a game of spectacle? Tiny amounts of units, no huge-ass cross-map attacks, the nukes themselves aare pretty damn small. So on and so on. It's clearly a game of tactics, it isn't even that strategic. It's all about predicting how the foe will perform in each individual battle rather than the grand scheme of things. You can't look too far ahead accurately.

I agree that snipers are lame to fight against but everything else I disagree with.

you equate scale to the value of a spectacle? how is this game not about spectacle , it has an entire game mechanic dedicated to being nothing but eye candy (sync kills) which have some of the most interesting and memorable animations in the series. sure the game is small scale . but at the same time it feature some of the most detailed graphics and rich detailed mechanical interactions of the late 200Xs and early 20XXs. combat is over the top with assault units making craters as they land knocking blobs of units around like pinballs. huge effort was clearly placed on making every sound feel authentic with heavy boomy sounds.

most or all of this is centered around units that engage in conventional ranged combat or melee.

there is a fundamental difference between having quality spectacle and just being a Michael bay explosion fest.

everything about dawn of war 2 screams of presentation , quality over quantity .

[Crewfinity]

maybe but shit looking cool doesnt really relate to gameplay balance at all. DOW can have high quality models, textures, and overall presentation while the gameplay is still focused on smaller scale engagements and tactics.

I agree that DOW2 looks awesome and is a great game to watch for the spectacle, but i'm not sure why that's relevant XD

[Adeptus Noobus]

not really a mystery why , dawn of war as a game really is not built for cowardly tactics. even when it is intended it feels cheap and dirty , more often than not itcan end a game instantly with the opponent not getting any time to retaliate leaving both sides feeling unsatisfied.


like web ways or to a lesser extend ravener holes being able to transport a whole army in team games to double up on a given opponent without leaving a side of a map exposed long enough to matter. or hell even a tansport gen burner combo. things like that and snipers (while a viable strategy) just feel out of place in a sense in a game where most units and races are by in large built around hoofing it on foot and engaging enemy lines in bloody mosh bit brawls and rock, paper scissor counter play.

this is very much a game of spectacle and the above strategies are ugly at best.

But knowing about the threat is half the solution. Now you just need to act on it. The Eldar faction for example is built around sneaky (or in your words cowardly) gameplays (infiltration, hit and run, teleportation, range, etc.). You just have to deal with it appropriately. Snipers may be a pain in T1 but less so in T2, because you will just get a vehicle and laugh from inside the vehicle at all the sniper shots not doing anything to you (unless you are Chaos - still - Bloodcrusher, Letters, etc).
Ratting is in fact a very viable tactic in the game, even more so in 1v1s. Bide your time and when the moment is right, inflict maximum possible damage.

It basically comes down to what Crewfinityd said:

[...] while the gameplay is still focused on smaller scale engagements and tactics.

[Torpid]

you equate scale to the value of a spectacle? how is this game not about spectacle , it has an entire game mechanic dedicated to being nothing but eye candy (sync kills) which have some of the most interesting and memorable animations in the series. sure the game is small scale . but at the same time it feature some of the most detailed graphics and rich detailed mechanical interactions of the late 200Xs and early 20XXs. combat is over the top with assault units making craters as they land knocking blobs of units around like pinballs. huge effort was clearly placed on making every sound feel authentic with heavy boomy sounds.

most or all of this is centered around units that engage in conventional ranged combat or melee.

there is a fundamental difference between having quality spectacle and just being a Michael bay explosion fest.

everything about dawn of war 2 screams of presentation , quality over quantity .

That's all true but I didn't think that's what you were saying...

How does all that ^ mean that DOW balance ought to nerf ninja-bashing, sniper plays and the like?

[saltychipmunk]

simple what many consider an unfun mechanic , regardless of how technically balanced it is , can often still lead to it being redesigned or nerfed.

it has happened many times before and this can be influence by what players take the game as.

snipers are just an obvious topic, technically there were always counters to snipers. aggressive tactics with detectors , light vehicle rushes , gen bashing because snipers have no real field presence. point being they had counters .. it is just that they were so ridiculously unfun with how they played out against opponents that cael felt the need for a drastic overhaul.

part of it was for balance of course but one cant deny the literal tsunami of hatred the community created over snipers. now the resulting unit is actually kind of inconsequential, not broken or useless by any means . but it is an obvious neuter job.

as for why i even mention spectacle in the first place. well it kind of does effect balance , until recently sync kills were a huge annoyance for trying to get sync kills

admittedly dawn of war 1 was more in line with this with the slower paced battles than dawn of war 2 is. a game can be both about spectacle and tactics , neither are mutually exclusive.

[Torpid]

simple what many consider an unfun mechanic , regardless of how technically balanced it is , can often still lead to it being redesigned or nerfed.

it has happened many times before and this can be influence by what players take the game as.

snipers are just an obvious topic, technically there were always counters to snipers. aggressive tactics with detectors , light vehicle rushes , gen bashing because snipers have no real field presence. point being they had counters .. it is just that they were so ridiculously unfun with how they played out against opponents that cael felt the need for a drastic overhaul.

part of it was for balance of course but one cant deny the literal tsunami of hatred the community created over snipers. now the resulting unit is actually kind of inconsequential, not broken or useless by any means . but it is an obvious neuter job.

as for why i even mention spectacle in the first place. well it kind of does effect balance , until recently sync kills were a huge annoyance for trying to get sync kills

admittedly dawn of war 1 was more in line with this with the slower paced battles than dawn of war 2 is. a game can be both about spectacle and tactics , neither are mutually exclusive.

There were no legitimate counter to snipers, that's just wrong. If that was true htye wouldn't have absolutely dominated all 1v1 (as eldar), and all team-games with double snipers of the eldar of SM variety. Sure in theory those worked, but in practice it was always sub-optimal and the sniper player could easily counter it. You would always be on the backfoot, they were just OP. I think the only reason they weren't employed more is because they are rather boring to use as well as fight.

The new scout snipers are amazing in 1v1, I dunno elsewhere. Rangers under-perform I feel. Don't how to solve the ranger thing.

Gameplay is clearly, in the elite mod, not designed around spectacle. This is at heart a balance mod, with lofty ambitions. They haven't tried to adapt the graphical prowess of the game or anything like that. It has been able balance changes. Tactics are far more important than spectacle. I really don't know what your point is - why on Earth would be nerf snipers just because they undermine the spectacality of DOW - who said spectaclity is more important than balance, why would you even bring that up?

[saltychipmunk]

exactly , they were boring. but more over elite mod is still just that, a mod, and unless they go for a total conversion the game's soul is still the image relic had for it.

spectacle contributes to fun. snipers sucked because they were boring and op, if they were just op a simple stat nerf or minor change would have been enough. but instead we got a total redesign.

you can claim it was all for balance , but deep down everyone knows the fact they were a boring mechanic played more than a minor role in all of this.

my point never was spectacle > balance , my point was in dawn of war case spectacle + balance = fun. they both influence the end result of the game.

otherwise id just play star-craft which has about as much spectacle in it as watching a group of ants build their hill.

[Sub_Zero]

So really once t2 hits i see no reason for them to be setup units. perhaps t2 removes their tear down and t3 removes their setup?

This is something I had in mind when I was talking about enhancing their mobility. But here I think it would be more fair to tie it on upgrades with a pretty small cost (25 req?). The conception when you get something just by reaching a new tier doesn't seem cool (hi, painboy). Every improvement must require a cost.

It's always irked me how both the AC and the scout sergeant is bordeline useless in grenade and sniper builds respectively

I would discuss this aspect, I do think too that they underperform.

Another possibility for snipers would maybe be to take the opposite route Caeltos took?
Making snipers do higher damage per shot again but also have a way higher reload time?

I thought about that. T3 would be a good place for that. Just seeing how badly chaos terminators destroy any ranged SM unit I more and more want to see the previous damage back.

Upgraded rangers remain relevant in late game thanks to their abilities, they're merely still a bit expensive

I am concerned about their DPS. Here are their old stats:
Damage - 160
7.5s between shots
and the new ones:
Damage - 80
5s between shots
Scouts' DPS was almost unchanged. Rangers' DPS was nerfed and that is not fair. Giving them 95 damage per shot would be a right step. Why? Because they are basically Eldar's only offensive tool (the one that is not countered by suppression, like a jump unit, this is what I mean) in T1. Damage to light infantry is underwhelming, these +15 extra will help.

[Dark Riku]

Scouts' DPS was almost unchanged. Rangers' DPS was nerfed and that is not fair.

Not really...

DPS Chart
VS commander
old Sniper 8.5 --- 13.8 new
old ranger 12.8 -- 16 new
VS (S)HI
old Sniper 14.1 --- 18 new
old ranger 21.3 -- 20.8 new
VS Infantry
old Sniper 14.1--- 13.8 new
old ranger 21.3 -- 16 new

[Sub_Zero]

old Sniper 14.1--- 13.8 new

I had this in mind. Didn't become significantly worse, did it?

old ranger 21.3 -- 16 new

And now it is significant, isn't it?

Damage to light infantry is underwhelming

In my post I refer to this problem.

[Dark Riku]

That is still not what you said. Your statement was in general, not just versus infantry.
And giving them extra damage will affect the other targets too you know -.-

[lolzarz]

So everyone is complaining about snipers because they'd rather hit each other with swords and axes and shit.

Why else do you think we're playing Warhammer 40000?

[saltychipmunk]

Thank you , see he gets it. plus dps on snipers is not what matters. its damage per shot that matters.

high dps ./ low damage pershot weapons are very much inferior to lower dps much higher damage per shot weapons . this pretty much the entire basis of how the nerf to snipers actually works . cael and company did not need to change the dps, or damage mods on snipers at all to really address them in a meaningful way. the simple act of lowering their damage per shot and increasing their rate of fire is a significant nerf unto itself.

hell if you reduce their damage per shot to say 99 from 100 , well now every 100 hp model takes twice as many shots . a 1% change is in reality a 50% drop in efficiency. a very useful tool indeed and it can be seen everywhere with the new damage numbers used.

[Caeltos]

It actually really depends. For say, if a faction struggles with melee tanky commanders - the ranger changes are far more beneficial, since you have a more consistent ranged damage output that helps put pressure on the unit. The changes are overall more beneficial for continous streams of fire (which is one aspect of the strong eldar aspect, since they have strong transitional, and overall defensive capabilities).

The changes on the snipers sort of panned out the exact way that I wanted, and overall the results are far more tolerable then the previous iteration, which was fairly toxic for the overall gameplay in alot of fronts. Those things that I'm considering are, the cost vs effiency, synergy within the army composition, and the counterplay elements for the opposing players, and of course - the overall useage of the unit itself.

I really believe some people are underestimating the damage increase towards commanders, forcing commanders off as an Eldar is a godsend, since the units otherwise tha would deal with them, would be Dire Avengers/Exarch, and both those units are units that are quite suspectible to bleed. For an ex. Chaos Lord with Combi-Flamer is the go-to strat almost for every Chaos in the Eldar matchup, with Rangers - you're not putting yourself in the position to be bled in the early-game from the Combi-Flamer. If you force him off, your Banshees are in a much more comfortable spot, as well it frees up your Dire Avengers to do as they please.

If the situation presents itself as well, the Eldar is not the one to initiate the engagement against the Chaos, since Chaos in the T1 often more or less is the faction that asserts the agression, whereas Eldar is the more reactive out of the two. Apply this to the Tyranid matchup as well + Orks. Whereas in the IG/SM matchups it's more of a stalemate of constant jabbing each other left & right. If ASM's are present, then it's more pressure-based SM playstyle, whereas orks with non stormboy is a jabbing type of play. /2x Shoota + misc painboy/loota optional build routes.

Also on ending note, the Kinetic Shot also deals some AoE damage, which of course - the Space Marine Sniper Rifle does not. They both have their distinguishable differences that makes them both unique in their own regard. The Space Marine Sniper Rifle is more specialized with it's raw damage, whereas the Ranger squad offers you more utility and flexibility.

[Sub_Zero]

That is still not what you said. Your statement was in general, not just versus infantry.

I am saying you right now that this is what I had in mind when I was typing that message. It sounded like a claim about their performance against all targets, indeed! But I am correcting myself now and explaining what I really meant.

And giving them extra damage will affect the other targets too you know -.-

I am perfectly aware. But this is solved really easily. Just change the modifiers so the damage against LI is higher and the damage against other targets remain unchanged.

I still think that even if we don't apply any changes to all snipers, we have to increase rangers' DPS against LI to the previous level. A nerf to their performance against LI wasn't needed, was it, Cael?

P. S. When I see a Chaos Lord against me my first purchase is a shuriken platform, only that thing will keep this beast at bay and force him to either buy a counter-unit or to take tremendous damage and attack it head on. All in all a winning situation for Eldar. Rangers against him? No way, dude. Against a Mekboy with a deffgun I would buy rangers any day, this is an example of a hero the new snipers perform really well against, isn't it?

[saltychipmunk]

yeah.. i dont get the cl example either.

rangers at best are good at picking off medium hp commanders that are more defensive in nature or commanders that are capping points. but a cl ? especially one under tic worship? you are lucky to get maybe 2 shots off before that fella is well into some poor guardian's innards with his sword.

I mean isnt that the whole point of a line breaker commander as a perk? to break lines of setup units?