Project Balance: Eldar section

[David-CZ]

The idea of the Eldar platforms being separate and slightly better than the other races' equivalents seems good since Eldar are supposed to be specialized in each field. Plus they certainly have enough AV even without Brightlance. On the other hand it wasn't as much used back in retail as it is now. Plus were would it go in the raster?

@Arbit:
A good idea indeed.

[Lucidic255]

OK first thing I wanna say is that reapers and falcons are NOT effective av. Yes I understand that they are capable of dishing out some dmg to light vehicles, but if you allow your opponent to use them in such a way to where they are viable av, that fault lies on you. Reapers bleed and are easy to tie up. You have sufficient time to deal with them before they do any significant hurt to a vehicle. Same with a falcon. It has fast movement and sustainable (not burtsy) av but it is dangerous to pursue because it can be easily ambushed and destroyed. If you stick around either of these units long enough to be a problem to your vehicle, there is a problem elsewhere with your strat.

Next regarding web ways:
I strongly do not feel that a red increase is what these need. Its not going to make them any more or less effective, it simply changes the investment level. IMO, what should be tweaked with gates is their health. Invisibility is their protection, if you find them taking them out should never be the issue. Health should be cut in half maybe. Additionally while I don't think a long CD is necessary I think one on the matter of 10-15 would be appropriate. An elder player should never just be allowed to throw down gates willy nilly whether is purely as a distraction, or because they didn't think ahead with their gate placement/needs. This would be a good "tweak" I think, but we would still need to see how this changes gameplay before deciding if its enough/too much

Previously you could punish Eldar early T2 with a fast vehicle (a loooooongass time ago) to compensate for the whole of the other game where Eldar manoeuvrability and killiness gives them an edge, now this is gone. So where is Eldar vulnerable? Nowhere, they're pretty damn near a perfect race. Seriously what do they suffer against? What weaknesses do they have?

The game has changed, and the old BC rush strat is not as effective, but it does not mean that this unit is useless, and it definitely does not mean that eldar Is a perfect op race. Regarding the crusher, its obviously at its strongest when keyed with worship. Not only does it get crazy regen of vehicle armor, but it also moves faster or goes invis. Nearly every chaos unit aside from tacs can do something against setup teams. What's more, if the shuri is upgraded to BL then the eldar players is gonna lose the protection the suppression provided from mass tics or w/e.

Trukk (key for a lot of ork plays) = useless vs BL.

Again I can't tell you the number of times a truck has driven around my BL, deployed the boys and wreaked havoc. Its not a dead strat.

And then WL BL has 100% fotm...
And fire dragons...why were they needed again? Eldar AV is so strong as is.
etc..

This is the only time I'd actually advocate removing a unit from the game.

I'm not sure how I feel about WL BL yet. But what I can say helps keep it in line is the target prioritisation. If can fotm, but if your vehicle is retreating through units, and WL is moving, then its not going to shoot the transport over the units unless its specifically told to in which case it stops.

Regarding fire dragons and why they are needed:
Before elite, eldar had no mobile av, or really any hard av other than the BL. The most reliable strat for dealing with vehicles was the old WS nade + banshees combo. Fire dragons fill this gap obviously, but they still suffer from the main weakness of eldar. Which ill cover in a sec. Additionaly to be succesful they need to synergize with other squads (like all eldar units). If I don't throw a WS nade at a dread, or have banshees to tie up other units, those fire dragons are gonna be toast. I can't help but notice you posted this after our game today where my dragons killed your BC. I'm this case they had guide and BC had doom. Things like this make them look op, but its part of the commander too.

The weakness of eldar is their squishyness, and the req bleed as a result of that. If you are not entering an engagement that you will benefit from, then its going to hurt your eco a lot. Any eldar who has fought sm late game knows futility that can be felt as your models get gunned down before they even get into combat and they lose nothing. That's why guerilla tactics and mobility must be used for success.

[Dark Riku]

OK first thing I wanna say is that reapers and falcons are NOT effective av.

You clearly haven't labbed reapers vs transports like I did then.

Reapers bleed and are easy to tie up.

In what universe are they easy to tie up?
A universe where the Dark reaper squad charges your army solo?

Next regarding web ways:
I strongly do not feel that a red increase is what these need. Its not going to make them any more or less effective, it simply changes the investment level.

By that logic let's make tics 100 req.
I mean it doesn't change their effectiveness only their investment -.-

Additionaly to be succesful they need to synergize with other squads (like all eldar units).

This goes for pretty much every unit in the game.
Additionally Elder units do this tremendously well.

[Lucidic255]

Well the difference is that one is a unit that can cap etc... But what I mean is that what pisses people off is that eldar can teleport around the map instantly and the gates can be hard to find. Changing red cost in no way affects the heart of this problem other than making it occur less frequently to begin with. That's not the right approach here I feel.

I'll admit I haven't labbed reapers rear hitting a Rb per se, but they are a relatively slow squad that lacks fof whose survivability comes from their heavy armor.

As an eldar player ive found that when t2 comes if i crank out reapers it can be very risky because you then forego WS (which reduce bleed from coutnering vehicles cause of nade) or any other av choice. If your opponent then brings out a dread, your kinda fucked until you can get another unit on the field

[Bahamut]

Changing red cost in no way affects the heart of this problem other than making it occur less frequently to begin with. That's not the right approach here I feel.

If increasing the red cost doesnt affect the outcome of the gates then why argue against it? Let's make them 200 red each! it wont change anything after all, right?

I second Tex suggestion, 75-100 red per gate and 30-60seconds cooldown seems pretty good to me.

[Ace of Swords]

Changing red cost in no way affects the heart of this problem other than making it occur less frequently to begin with. That's not the right approach here I feel.

If you picture only gates, one could say that they are fine as they are, the problem comes out when you are able to field gates , swift movement, autarchs, eldrich storms etc without any red problem, increasing the cost of gates will automatically reduce how often you can use the other globals or the same number of other globals but with less gates popping up around the map.

[Cyris]

If you think the cost/benefit ratio of anything is off then there are really only two ways to address this: Change the cost or change the benefit. I'm often impressed with Caeltos reasoning, but this thread is throwing me for a loop.

It doesn't matter if we bump up the price to 50 to 75, or to 100. Someone is going to make it work regardless, and will have the exact same result and pay-off, if not better if he utilizes it better. The player has no idea how much red was put down onto the red, and how much he has accumulated, and will completely ignore the investments made into it. He webway gates, gets a squad on retreat, he webway gates, kills your gen-farm. All profitable actions that doesn't get solved by upping the price or not.

I'll use his example here. If you get your webway to wipe a full gen farm you traded 100 red (and unit time) for 425 req and the red you gain from the kills. If the red cost of Webways goes up, then you've traded 200 red for this. This feels like a thoroughly reasonable way to re-balance the ability without nerfining it's functionality at all. I don't think Tex or a lot of reasonable people in this community are saying to change how Webways work. The existence of Webways don't need to be "solved", they just need to have a cost closer to their benefit.

To me, the question isn't "how can Webways be changed so that good players can't utilize them in infuriating ways". The question is "does the cost match the benefit when taken in context with the faction, other abilities, other factions etc." From my flawed and limited human perspective, it's a clear "No."

IMO, up the cost to 75 or 100 and the CD to 10s.

EDIT:

Well the difference is that one is a unit that can cap etc... But what I mean is that what pisses people off is that eldar can teleport around the map instantly and the gates can be hard to find. Changing red cost in no way affects the heart of this problem other than making it occur less frequently to begin with. That's not the right approach here I feel.

Missed this. I disagree that the heart of the problem is what Webways can do. The heart of the problem is that they do these particular things for rather cheap with no cooldown. If the heart of the problem really is the potency and the cost / CD is fine, then just get rid of invisibility or the abilities.


And I think Dark Reapers are fine.

[Torpid]

The heart of the problem is what webways can do, alongside what IG/GK can't do and what warp throw can do.

Let's face it Relic weren't intending to make the next starcraft-e-sport type of game,they designed some things and some races (namely IG) really poorly. Webways are a stupid featureas is the ability warp throw and the ability time field, purgatus, termie FC w/ flamer...

However, we've got them and so we have to deal with them and the best we can do without removing them (which I think would just cause more hassle than it's worth) is to reduce a player's access to them, by either increasing their req/power/red cost, or their tech requirement, or their pop cost. That's the best we can do. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to deem them inherently imbalanced and then not change anything. Even if it isn't perfect to have them at 75 red it's more balanced than having them at 50 red.

[Forestradio]

DOW2 is all about putting your units in the right place and activating their abilities at the right time. That's how you win engagements.

Warp Throw allows your enemy to control where your own units are. That's devastating for obvious reasons.

Webways allow you to put your stuff exactly where you want it for very little cost.

That's the problem in a nutshell.

[PePPeR]

I saw a guy one day on Indrids channel saying as an suggestion -- eldar allowed a dual gate system, 2 gate maximum, one entry & one exit per player, 70 red cost, build time 5 seconds, they have ability to reclaim either gate to move it @10 seconds reclaim time at a cost of 35 red, then the player can relocate it elsewhere, if gate is destroyed in reclaim or building process then new gate @70 red.

I was thinking instead like he said buying one and then the other maybe have the enitial purchase for both the gates for 150 red and let the player put the 2 gates down?.

I thought his suggestion was a good one indeed (maybe set your build reclaim times), build can be same for the Nids.... here comes the ne-sayers

[Flash]

What do you mean same as nids? Tunnels? And are you always this confrontational?

[Lesten]

Hey.
Thought I'd share my opinion in this matter as a long-time Eldar player.

DETECTORS
I know this has been discussed before but I'm gonna bring it up again because I believe it is what Eldar needs the most - ANOTHER DETECTOR UNIT. Either an upgrade to an existing unit or a whole new unit (striking scorpions anyone? ) Other factions have two options, more versatile detector units or comparatively cheap upgrades to units that you pretty much always have.

Rangers are good, but they are also:
- situational. You may have to spend 300/30 just for the detection and not being able to do much else vs some factions or builds.
- one of the squishiest units in the game.
- basically a set-up team and slow without fleet of foot. Can really only be used as detectors defensively.
- hard to use. At least for non-pro Eldar players (like me).
- not for everyone. They don't fit everyone's builds and playing styles and ONE measly extra option would really help a lot to allow some more variation in builds.

WEBWAY GATES
My suggestion would be:
- Increase cost to 60-75 red.
- If cost is increased, reduce build times again.
- Max 3 (or 4) gates per player. This way you can still support your front line and perhaps have one gate in sneak position or in an ally's base.
- Keep in mind that at least non-pro Eldar players don't always have that much red. For me I usually can't get anything else with red-cost if I get a few gates, until very late game.
- Generally I agree that gates are too common right now.
- Also, I hope we're not forgetting that Eldar are supposed to be sneaky and "ambushy".

DARK REAPERS
I've used them quite a lot and like doing so.
- I think they are fine the way they are.
- Unless you bumrush them head on with slow, heavy infantry they are pretty easy to tie up.
- Never been able to do any serious damage to vehicles with them.
- Cost seems okay. Seeing as they can easily be tied up and killed, they can really bleed you a lot.

OTHER THOUGHTS
- Bright lance platform as an upgrade is better than a separate unit IMO.
- Wraithlord bright lance is a good upgrade that I often get but the 100% accuracy on the move is really only useful if the Wraithlord decides on its own to attack a vehicle when it's moving (and it rarely does).
- Wouldn't it be interesting with some kind of weapon upgrade/variant for the Falcon (like starcannon or Eldar missile launcher)?

[Dark Riku]

The only race that gets 2 detectors in T1 is IG.
All the other races have only 1 detector available in T1.
Then we have Nids that get detection on their core synapse units
Some other races get 1 more come t3 ... (Orks, Nids)
You already should have detectors on the field anyways if you needed them by T3

25 power is not cheap. The only cheap ones are the GK storm troopers. Nids can be argued to be cheap since it comes on units you usually need because of synapse.

Rangers have the highest sight and detection range in the game and can provide help to nearby allies with the upgrade. Something shared with Tics only. And they standard come with a great crowd control ability. You can't base a balance suggestion on your personal abilities. You said it yourself. Other people use them to great effect.

[Torpid]

There isn't one matchup where rangers aren't worth their cost imo, I get them in every matchup except mek and sometimes CL.

Even if they don't contribute highly to combat because you can't pull off kinetic pulse -> nades every second, the very fact that they are on the field means you get a massive boost in awareness since they have such a great sight radius. As eldar knowing 100% where your enemy is at all times is completely invaluable. So long as they fight on your terms all the time you can ensure you bleed them more than they bleed you.

Rangers are a great unit and as much as I would like to grant eldar a second detection, there aren't really any other options than to make it an extra 20 power upgrade on a dire avenger squad, otherwise it would be OP.

IG get two detectors because catachans cost 60 power, bleed a lot and can really screw up your economy if you are forced to get them alongside other t1 choices, hence it was made so you only need either cats or spotters.

[Forestradio]

There isn't one matchup where rangers aren't worth their cost imo, I get them in every matchup except mek and sometimes CL.

Even if they don't contribute highly to combat because you can't pull off kinetic pulse -> nades every second, the very fact that they are on the field means you get a massive boost in awareness since they have such a great sight radius. As eldar knowing 100% where your enemy is at all times is completely invaluable. So long as they fight on your terms all the time you can ensure you bleed them more than they bleed you.

Rangers are a great unit and as much as I would like to grant eldar a second detection, there aren't really any other options than to make it an extra 20 power upgrade on a dire avenger squad, otherwise it would be OP.

IG get two detectors because catachans cost 60 power, bleed a lot and can really screw up your economy if you are forced to get them alongside other t1 choices, hence it was made so you only need either cats or spotters.

catachans are only 40 power to my knowledge. Their demo man is another 20, but he isn't required to detect.

Make the dire avenger upgrade cost around 20 power, like Torpid said, but perhaps a smaller detection radius than usual to make sure it doesn't go overboard on the starting unit.

[Torpid]

They are 40 power, but without the demoman they have less hp than guardsmen and the models blob more. This basically means any grenade will insta kill them alongside any artillery, also flamer will kill them in a few seconds, or some melee special attacks.

Basically the demoman is a necessity as soon as they get into combat, I mean come t2 catachans are best off capping anyway since they will die very quickly in straight up combat if you lack a tech lead, but in 1v1 combat they beat most units in the game and they can IED up all the periphery points too.

[PePPeR]

What do you mean same as nids? Tunnels? And are you always this confrontational?

Ravener tunnels should have some applicability to the eldar suggestion....

and yes, i am. Im a confrontational mofo from outer space!.

[Lesten]

I'm not trying to argue for some op detector, just an alternative. A 20-30 power upgrade to Dire Avengers sounds reasonable. If that's still too powerful... make it a T2 upgrade for the Exarch, or make it more expensive or allow only 1 per player...

And I'm not saying rangers aren't great. It's an awesome unit for sure. I often use them (sometimes they don't even die horribly). But it is a high maintenance unit that you have to keep your eyes on constantly, I'd say more so than most other units, especially with all the great counters to set-up teams (artillery, jump troops, all the sneaky commanders (with things like sigil of the rift, flesh hook or those pesky ork grenades)).

Maybe we have different playing styles but I do like builds without rangers AS WELL as builds with them. I don't see them as mandatory, or at least I don't think they should be.

But that's just my two cents of course. It's fine-ish as it is, but it could be fine-er!

[ThongSong]

how about making wraith guard's warlock a detector unit?

[Tex]

Some more replays have been posted. Links are on original post. Keep in mind the best is yet to come. These are still largely illustrative replays.

[sk4zi]

i think Eldar should remain at least one waekness.
they lost their early T2 vehicle weakness and their weakness vs. vehicles in general since they have that really strong WL brightslance and Shurrican-upgrade for Brightlance and even the Fire dragons.

its enough buff now.

it should take some effort to get detectors!

[Asmon]

Some more replays have been posted. Links are on original post. Keep in mind the best is yet to come. These are still largely illustrative replays.

Gonna watch.

[Lost Son of Nikhel]

Following this argument, why no make Chaos Shrines cost no pop, for example? Or Bunkers? Or the Teleport Beacon? Or any kind of structure which gives/helps to retain map control, as Eldar Webways does?

We did try a Chaos Shrine pop cost reduction to nil and then swapped it around abit. The upkeep and additional units in conjunction with the shrines was abit downright silly and too much to deal with. Similiar principles apply to the Bunkers and Beacon. The pop is there to ensure there's no overbundance of synergy and units around.

Yeah, but Chaos Shrines already have a maximun per player limit of 3. Not mention the other changes, like giving double XP and almost double Red resource when you destroy one. Not mention that they aren't cheap in req cost.

Seriously, that's a weak argument, and more if you see how much limitations Shrines have and seeing the Chaos design.

[Tex]

This is not a chaos thread! STOP IT! Ahhahahhaahha.

But Nikhel you are kinda right.

[Caeltos]

Following this argument, why no make Chaos Shrines cost no pop, for example? Or Bunkers? Or the Teleport Beacon? Or any kind of structure which gives/helps to retain map control, as Eldar Webways does?

We did try a Chaos Shrine pop cost reduction to nil and then swapped it around abit. The upkeep and additional units in conjunction with the shrines was abit downright silly and too much to deal with. Similiar principles apply to the Bunkers and Beacon. The pop is there to ensure there's no overbundance of synergy and units around.

Yeah, but Chaos Shrines already have a maximun per player limit of 3. Not mention the other changes, like giving double XP and almost double Red resource when you destroy one. Not mention that they aren't cheap in req cost.

Seriously, that's a weak argument, and more if you see how much limitations Shrines have and seeing the Chaos design.

Chaos shrines are 150 xp , similiar to Webways.

They're also dependant on defending themselves partially, as well as provide buff to nearby units. Webways are not quite the same as shrines regardless.

Even without providing buffs nearby, the 3 pop shrines/0 pop would mean that if you had a good maintain of unit preservation and tech up, you can effectively field +1 unit (15x pop vs 9 pop, depending on pop changes ) or 1x vehicle/1x heavier unit. Those +1s makes an awful lots of difference, and this is excluding upkeep values with the smaller pop changes, meaning that the timings in future production after shrines are produced, are accelerated. Which was partially an issue with less pop on those structures.

[Toilailee]

How about we just remove the heal from heart of darkness? Jedi was alredy tanky enough without it.

And I know you want to see heart of darkness used without the bubble but that's just not going to happen, the heal is only making jedi more op.

[Ace of Swords]

It should get a complete rework, that build is too tanky overall.

[David-CZ]

What about making the Heart of Darkness work the way WSE heavy filament does. As long as the ability is active he'd get HP from hitting stuff.

[Asmon]

That would turn it into a very weaker version of IoK. It sounds poorly.

It should get a complete rework, that build is too tanky overall.

It is not too tanky. Much less tanky than anything FC, CL, BC or even LA can do. And with less DPS.

A complete rework could be an accessory that reduces ability energy costs.

[Nuclear Arbitor]

and result in more complaints about warp throw/destructor/etheral slash? it's not a bad idea but given how much people hate warp throw in particular i don't see anything that causes it to happen more often being accepted.