Snowball Evaluation

[Caeltos]

I'm fiddling with the idea & concept of trying to reduce the snowballing factor, but first & foremost, I need to know that if it's actually a really worthwhile time adjust actually, rather than just change something that's not really fundementally neccasary.

What does this mean?
Primarily, I have some initial goals, which consists of reducing the overall penalty of killing commanders // adjusting some overall requisition pricing/timing things.

Secondary, another goal I touched on before. Is trying to reduce the VP pressure from 3 VP's by a small amount. Which will most likely result in alot of more late-game games in general. This however, begs to ask the question how the general late-game stage feels for all factions, is anyone lacking and would suffer extremely from a change like this, if so - is there a way to maybe make it work?

And lastly, I'm looking at overall power/genfarm wipes and the overall reimburstment you need to make to be able to be on par again with the opposition, after suffering a potential +400 requisition investment, which might have been too difficult to either fend off, or possibly not being able to be at that present location at that time. Of course, the attack should be rewarded nontheless.

What are your thoughts & opinions?

Another note, I'm considering making early-game opening builds more different, but I haven't reached a concensus on the approach.

[Raffa]

This however, begs to ask the question how the general late-game stage feels for all factions, is anyone lacking and would suffer extremely from a change like this, if so - is there a way to maybe make it work?

Two things here:
1. Speaking as a Chaos main - I have no problem with more "late-game" games because I feel my T3 is adequate and I don't feel anyone else's T3 is significantly better than mine now I have Terminators as an option. However there are few people (I am not one) who know other races' T3 inside out besides their main.
2. I'm currently on a break from DoW (talked out of quitting altogether) because I don't feel there are enough good, long games around. 90+% of 1v1 games are won early on (if not strictly "over", the winner is clear by ~10-12 mins max) and it gets really really fucking boring. Which brings me on to your second point...

And lastly, I'm looking at overall power/genfarm wipes and the overall reimburstment you need to make to be able to be on par again with the opposition, after suffering a potential +400 requisition investment, which might have been too difficult to either fend off, or possibly not being able to be at that present location at that time. Of course, the attack should be rewarded nontheless.

I propose a rad idea: make the each gen cost less than the last one you bought, with a cut-off at x req. In other words the first gen you buy costs say (figures for the sake of figures) 120 req, next 110, next 100, etc.. down to 60 and does not go lower than that? This could pose problems in 2v2/3v3 but the game isn't balanced around them and they tend to last longer anyway so you could leave them unchanged.

Primarily, I have some initial goals, which consists of reducing the overall penalty of killing commanders // adjusting some overall requisition pricing/timing things.

Hero buyback cost is a bigger problem the later on in the game you go because a) levelled heroes cost more to rebuy and b) req is harder to come by later on in the game. But you're going to have to be more specific with these two suggestions: I like the sound of them but "some overall requisition pricing/timing things" is a little vague

As for making the early-game builds more different, well the more progressive people I know are playing versions of "Pega style" and it is advancing steadily on its own. Altho I can see how you are sick of seeing the same shit for years.

So yes I'm all for artificially increasing the length of games in a smart way, which it seems is the underlying point you're getting at.

[Orkfaeller]

Primarily, I have some initial goals, which consists of reducing the overall penalty of killing commanders // adjusting some overall requisition pricing/timing things.

May be a bit off topic, but I allways wondered if Sub-Commanders shouldn't be allowed to revive, to both make them feel a bit more like hero units and give players in 1v1 a chance to get their commander back, without dumping a whole lot of rec.

[Nuclear Arbitor]

i suspect the reason they don't is because the engine cannot handle it at this point. the autarch would probably be the easiest to revive because she's a global and not a built unit. that said, this provides an advantage to races with sub-commanders and nothing to those without, which is consider to be nids, chaos, and ig right now. there's also leveling to consider. were you thinking of increasing the level cap at all or leaving them at 4? either way this is increasing the snowball potential for the buffed races and decreasing it for those they play against because wipes don't remove levels. i haven't formed an opinion on that yet though.

i think the economic toll of power bashing could be as much as halved but i don't have a good feel for it. generally a single farm wipe early on decides the game where as late game it's much less severe, especially when you're already sitting on 200+ power which sometimes happens late in team games due to req bleed. currently a complete gen farm wipe is worth more than any t1 unit in terms of req cost which effectively puts you down a squad plus the power equal to the time the gens were down for. reducing it too much just makes it easier to play badly and still drag the game on. it also reduces the value of burning a single gen. i'm not sure it's possible but perhaps reducing the cost of gens for a period of time after one goes down based upon how many went down. say two go down gens now cost 80 for 30 seconds. an idea.

i think with snowballing the thing to really look at is which races do that the most. SM did in retail and i think orks still do. to be honest i'm not sure how you'd address it though, other than making small economic changes, especially to population.

[Landrick]

What game type do you mean Caeltos? 1v1, 2v2, 3v3 or all of them?

[Vapor]

Sub commanders are good enough as it is please don't allow them to revive.

[Arbit]

May be a bit off topic, but I allways wondered if Sub-Commanders shouldn't be allowed to revive, to both make them feel a bit more like hero units and give players in 1v1 a chance to get their commander back, without dumping a whole lot of rec.

I'd wouldn't get behind subcommander reviving. One of the main advantages of subcommanders is economic - they don't bleed and have low upkeep/pop. If you could revive them too they'd just be too strong.

But keeping upgrades upon repurchase would be... OK, I guess. Really, I'd just like the libby to not be so killable.

[Ace of Swords]

The main problem is that some factions have no subcommanders, and some have too many.

[Orkfaeller]

Well, I actually ment to allow sub-commander to revive the REAL commanders.

My bad.

[Kithrixx]

As integral to it is to most tactics now, I've honestly never liked that generators were so easy to destroy and that harassment tactics in general have been so effective. I've won games by just running around and generally being a massive nuisance rather than participating in any sort of straight fight at any point.

If anything, I would say tie generators being operational to the presence of the Power Node and have the generators themselves be invulnerable. It makes denying power income much easier because there's only one structure to destroy, and if you want to go the extra mile you can decap or cap the point as opposed to rolling in and bleeding the enemy of 300+ req.

But that's just me.

[PePPeR]

The main problem is that some factions have no subcommanders, and some have too many.

^Ace said it, short, sweet and to the point.

The VPs, is it possible so when a VP is captured it must remain in a captured state for 15secs after catpure before the score starts to take effect?, i dunno.

The Gens, well i say if the player invested in them carelessly then tough. BUT, would it be possible say when on the gen build screen to have an option to build a regular gen for 100 OR build a gen with heavier armor (more resistant to early weapon fire) for 150?. Same power out put but your extra investment in the armor will give you time to defend it should it come under attack but still can be destroyed, just not as easy.

Maybe thats just a bit far, but its what id do.

[Faultron]

i would not change these things with the hero and power farms
i like short games
if i want to play long ones i can choose to play annihilation , 1000 points:D or team battles

[Ace of Swords]

Slowing down the 3cap could be good as it would permit more come backs, but overall I would say that everything else is fine, modifying the gens cost and/or the hero cost would requires tweaking everything else, unit by unit and the tiers costs.

Most likely the pop and the upkeep aswell and Id say the game isn't really fit for that.

[PePPeR]

Yea both you guys are right, longer game just change higher points and so on, maybe a thing or two needs changing at some point, or does no harm to suggest something. Even might be healthy to change an old formula and try something else.

If its possible without causing a lot of re-balancing then id be up for changing a few things around if it were for the greater good. Keep playing an old formula and at some stage it will get repetitive. Then again if its aint broke, dont fix it.

We are behind you anyways mate, change away, we will call IMBA laters dont worry.

[Bahamut]

I'd say that the easiest way to allow for more late game to kick in would be to up income rather than decrease costs. Has the same effect

But that would be such a big chance way too far into the game. Way too risky IMO, and would also alienate retail from Elite too much

[Tex]

Changing any of the topic items will cause a massive sweeping change in economies and timing. Old fogies like me are always very cautious of change.

In regards to generators, I see absolutely no problem with how the power income system works right now. Putting down too many generators too early opens you up to a power bash. Not pushing hard enough against a fast teching opponent results in punishment by specialist infantry, infantry upgrades or vehicles. The prerogative is on the person who builds generators to do an adequate amount of scouting such that he can intercept lone gen bashers, or put up a good defense in the case of a big push.

Having more late game action requires something that the player base of this game just doesn't have anymore (for the most part): and that would be competitive matchups. There is huge disparity in the level of skill/talent currently and I really feel that matching up appropriately will almost always provide a longer more fulfilling, and challenging game.

And now on the topic of longer games, I absolutely think that slowing down the VP's or taking any of the pressure off is a bad idea. First and foremost, this would completely negate the effects of aggressive play, especially for those who like to jump ahead in the early game. Secondly, there is a distinct aspect of play that really ties directly into the pressure from VP's that makes this game exciting. I would hate to have that be put on the back burner for the first half of the game.

[Raffa]

In regards to generators, I see absolutely no problem with how the power income system works right now. Putting down too many generators too early opens you up to a power bash. Not pushing hard enough against a fast teching opponent results in punishment by specialist infantry, infantry upgrades or vehicles. The prerogative is on the person who builds generators to do an adequate amount of scouting such that he can intercept lone gen bashers, or put up a good defense in the case of a big push.

I don't think any of these will be changed by some adjustments to gen costs as long as it isn't too great.

I'm sure you can see (or I may be terribadly wrong) Cael's looking to extend the average length of games. Now trying to move some pretty key foundations of the game could have very bad results and is of course a delicate balancing act between screwing balance in the A and getting better games out of it.

There is huge disparity in the level of skill/talent currently and I really feel that matching up appropriately will almost always provide a longer more fulfilling, and challenging game.

I totally agree with you. Of course matching up evenly will give more fulfilling games. The situation atm however (I'm sure you'll agree) is even against people you match up quite evenly with you rarely get longer games because one mistake can cost you the game. Some people like this some do not. I for one am bored out of my mind with the lack of good, competitive games stretching into the lategame. I'm not saying changes should be made that let nubcakes take you all the way in ~30+ min games, but between evenly matched players I think it would certainly be better if they could more consistently get longer games.

But look at the 1v1 tournaments man. Even between well-matched players how many longass, epic games did we get? Funny enough I was talking with Tyger and he was like (paraphrasing) "yeah occasionally you get a sweet game...and you love dow..but most of the time..."

[ThongSong]

the majority of my 1v1s tend to last anywhere from 10-17 minutes. rarely do they go over 20 minutes.

heck, even 3v3s struggle to make it to the 30 minute mark in my experience. usually it's 22-26 minutes for me

[Lulgrim]

I have elementary game duration stats available from our logged "serious" games. It's not much but at least there's the objective game length to lean on.

I "could" see how game lengths relate to skill rating difference, but frankly the ratings are not reliable enough yet (RDs are quote high and there is a high proportion of 1500/350 games). They will narrow down eventually although non-tournament matches would speed it up.

We will be examining resource income, reinforcement rate and generator loss (probably per minute of game time by race) shortly.

http://www.dawnofwar.info/index.php?pag ... ats=global

[Orkfaeller]

Could there be a something in between 500 and 1000 point games be implemented?

For stretching the game time for a couple of minutes more without making them taking ages?

[Torpid]

That would be meaningless though, the problem at the moment is that games don't even last till 500 VPs because high level players know by dominating their foe economically via bashes, map control and bleed they will end the game before the VPs fall down to 0. VPs are only relevant in the later game when both players are economically equal and need to stall out for that win, as neither is going to base lock the other.


Also Lulgrim on that database link you posted, what does average tech tier mean in the faction economy section?

Also, subcommanders being able to revive heroes is certainly possible and it happens on Codex edition.

[Lulgrim]

Also Lulgrim on that database link you posted, what does average tech tier mean in the faction economy section?

It's the average tier reached in all included games. E.g. if you played two games and finished one in T2 and one in T3 your average tier would be 2.5. Idk if it stays in the economy section but I put it there for now.

[Broodwich]

If you want to extend the game, make t1 last longer. T2 costing more like 375/150 and taking longer to build would be a good start. Everything starts to get ridiculous t2, between unit upgrades, New units, and especially vehicles, anyone behind is seriously pressured to just keep even. T2 to t3 isn't nearly as big a shift, as most t2 stuff can still at least soft counter t3 units. There is a lot of variety in t1 that you usually don't see because if you buy it your opponent will have a vehicle in your face in no time.

Making Gen bashing a little less effective somehow would also help, perhaps making regular weapons much less effective, so you have to get some weapons that specialize in it, like flamers, to wipe it fast, rather than just a giant blob of dakka that kills everything else too. Probably want to make those flamers more expensive too.

[Cyris]

I'm not really following the thoughts on this thread, but I do want to say that I really hope any changes don't increase game duration. I like the length of DoW matches! More then 20 minutes starts getting draining to me.

[FiSH]

what do people think of gen reclaiming? personally, i think it'd be interesting if the gens could be reclaimed for 50 req or so (and their reclaim price while building adjusted accordingly)

pros: helps with late-game power imbalance, ease the power-bash pressure, allows different teching tactics, serves as emergency requisition, a not-cheesy way to make gens less of a commitment

cons: teching tactics can become cheesy, messes with upkeep and teching meta

[Torpid]

Only if it was limited to occuring once you hit t3.

[Torpid]

Also Lulgrim on that database link you posted, what does average tech tier mean in the faction economy section?

It's the average tier reached in all included games. E.g. if you played two games and finished one in T2 and one in T3 your average tier would be 2.5. Idk if it stays in the economy section but I put it there for now.

I feel that that statistic doesn't provide us with much information as it only has 3 different tech values which ultimately would be influenced more by the strength of the faction as a whole, rather than each faction's dependency on any specific tiers.

Do you think it would be more useful to track the average length of time that each faction spends in each tier? This would then indicate howt1/2/3 reliant each faction is and would share more insight into their economic workings. Might be a bit farcical, I dunno.

[Lulgrim]

I feel that that statistic doesn't provide us with much information as it only has 3 different tech values which ultimately would be influenced more by the strength of the faction as a whole, rather than each faction's dependency on any specific tiers.

It's not great, but easily available. It can indicate the general tendency to tech I guess,

Do you think it would be more useful to track the average length of time that each faction spends in each tier?

Yes, but we don't have that data.

[Asmon]

I wouldn't mind a few changes in order to make more late game matches, however I am reluctant to modify what I perceive as the core of the game. You know what I mean.

But after all, we have the opportunity to beta test everything. I'll be happy to test whatever sounds reasonable.

And as far as 1v1 is concerned, I don't worry about snowballing effect too much. If I had to, I'd check SM, Chaos and Tyranids first obviously.

[SirSid]

I have to agree with Tex post big time on this 1 . Making games last longer with reducing the VP gain or even the tri cap change could have drastic effect and will IMO have much larger effects on some players rather than others.

Being under VP pressure effects games more than most people think. U are forced to react to a tripile cap diffrently than a dual cap and this is a very important part of this game, in fact this is the main reason for many of the panic battels witch make for great games.

Also some races ( as im sure u guys are aware of ) have drastic changes to thare function come late game t3 , Not to say that alowing more players to experince this is a bad thing however it is something to consider.


A good eg. of this is playing as the warlock. Eldritc storms are dangrous we all know this , however we also know that swift movment global is dangrous, however the longer a game lasts the more dangrous swift movment becomes. Also the fact that more units die per battel in late game means much more red for the eldar player alowing more globals to be used .

Another eg. is nids. in a 1v1 it is rare to see a swarmloard on the field .. however if 1 comes out the other player has a HUGE problem. in a 1v1 2 AV units is BARLEY enoughf to deal with a SL in fact more offten than not u will need 3 AV options to deal with it, if late game is extende this and many other things like this will be a maasive problem.

Also 1 more thing i find is that late game can get very messy. This is not a bad thing in many ways becuse the player who controls his large army better has the edge, however thare is a catch to late game. A lossing army can catch a "lucky break" in t3 much eayser than they can in t2 and MUCH more than t1, a good global, a nice flank with a level 3 or 4 unit can drasticly change the game , and time is not on your side at this point. I have been in games whare 1 player or team is 100 % in control of the match however dew to some bullshit luck has lost the game. ususaly this comes in the form of something that is borderline inbalanced like warp throw into a strom or singularity or use your chopas/ardboys on nobs, however also legit things can do this like a good global nuke or something alone those lines.

The goal should not be get to t3 and have a epic battel, it sounds nice on paper but it is not really what the game is about. the game is about good unit use and map control / combos and smart strategic play. forcing late game shananagins with incresed game length will hurt the strategic elemnets of play.

I know iv used alot of eg. but hear is 1 more. Web way gates would be much less use full in t2 dew to the trippile cap potential it gives being "nurfed" however the longer the game last the more anoying they get so in t3 they would be "buffed" letting the eldar use 4 or more gates since red is not a concern. This would fundementaly change thare use instantly.