Dawn of War Codex

Everything is counter-intuitive when you know next to nothing about it.

The fact you get thrown off by Warriors being called Warriors and having power melee shows you have never played with them before, and yet demand huge changes to them to suit your opinion, disregarding pretty much every other beginner in this game who just keeps playing to get better.

Narcolepsy wrote:What I noticed about your play in our game was there was the HT plus two or three warrior units. As the warrior buffs don't stack, it seemed a bit excessive

Right. Well if I was getting them with the thought of "I gotta get synapse" it was excessive. But if I was getting them with the thought of "my opponent is spamming ranged heavy infantry, so let me spam the counter" it wasn't. The problem was, it wasn't the counter, as I have learned here. The joke's on me! Good troll, got me! Haha!

The design for the unit is non-intuitive, and highly misleading. I've tested it by showing it to other RTS players who don't play this game. After explaining the mechanics of things like heavy armor, power weapons, etc. I showed them the roster. They instantly picked the warrior as the "heavy infantry melee counter." WRONG.

when you could have been putting out ravs (better in melee and ranged)...

You sure? If so, yet another misleading unit. I pored over the codex before deciding what units to use and when. Raveners have normal armor, and their melee dps looks lower than warriors' melee dps. Plus, their HP is lower and they are more expensive to boot. So it seemed an easy decision to say "make warriors for general melee anti-HI, make raveners for niche things like countering set-up teams, etc."

Also if you're HT, the brood nests are awesome.

If it's the game I'm thinking of, I made, and lost, at least 2 brood nests. Or certainly in another game around the same time

hiveminion wrote:Everything is counter-intuitive when you know next to nothing about it.

Is it that it is counter-intuitive because I know next to nothing about it, or is it that I know next to nothing about it because it is counter-intuitive and nearly impossible to get the knowledge without either playing 1000 hours of trial and error, or leaving pages of posts on forums?

That's two different things, you see.

The fact you get thrown off by Warriors being called Warriors and having power melee shows you have never played with them before,

The fact that you don't see it as obviously confusing and counter-intuitive, and choose to attack me instead of seeing the truth, is interesting to say the least.

and yet demand huge changes to them to suit your opinion, disregarding pretty much every other beginner in this game who just keeps playing to get better.

Logical fallacy detected: bare assertion regarding "every other beginner in this game."

Look, if you think the design is intuitive and easy to understand, and you want to defend it for whatever reason, then I can't help you, and we'll just agree to disagree.

There are beginner friendly factions, anad not so beginner friendly factions.
Spacemarines are straightforward and intuitive.
When other Factions were made, the goal was to get interesting gameplay and not only copys of SMs. Thats what I love about DoW2. All Factions feel so different from each other.
If you come in as a not already Warhammer40k fan, it will be most certainly confusing.

But that doesn't mean we should make all units boring and bland. Which a Warrior that only stands behind your army and never gets into fights definitly would be. The point of Tyranid Synaps is Risk vs Reward. When your expensiv synapsmodels die, you get a backlash, all units that benefited from the synapse get damaged and knockedback. They have good melee damage and that knockback, so that you have to risk them somewhat to make them worth their money.

I already knew some stuff about Warhammer 40k when I came in, especially about the Race I wanted to play. I also had experience with CoH with teaches the same mechanics like positining buildings and squadplay. So I don't think I can put myself really into your shoes.

On the other Hand, I also made alot of use of the Codex, its the way I like to learn games. I look at the stats, calculate who wins, who is more cost efficient. I also fell in some traps. Some parts in the Codex you easily overlook (meleeskill^^). But even if you use the Codex alot, my suggestion is to first play a game against something /with a unit, and then revisit the codexpage about that unit if something didn't add up. Look first whats happening in the game, then go to the Codex to find out why it happened and what you could do next time.
I guess its a bit unintuitive that the Avatar is to be used as a Support unit. Something that would definitly help would be buff tooltips ingame like in WoW or something. But if you look at the Eldar on the TableTop, the Avatar has supportbuffs and is represented pretty good in DoW2.

Yes, maybe some things are unintuitive, but your Solution was not very good Maybe a better Solution would be to give them an additional gameplay/meta relevant discription in the codex, but thats quite a bit of work. And as you can guess, not everyone agrees on exactly the same description and what needs to be in there.

Edit: Also don't want to say that Warriors are not Intuitive. Its more like you have to understand the Tyranidconcept first, then it is intuitive.

I'm not attacking you, just pointing out what you've stated yourself so many times, that you're new to this game. You also reject a peripheral argument of mine as a fallacy when you pile them up yourself in your posts all the time:

1. "How are gaunts supposed to be used so that they don't suck?" - False assumption
2. "I never see melee squads vs marine variants (at least not in T1), except heretics." - Personal bias
3. "Last game I had several units out capping and was trying to switch between them all as fast as I could, and lost an entire gaunt squad (not a single model left) to a single marine scout grenade." - Anecdotal fallacy
4. "I think the answer is that people play these marine-variant armies for a reason: they are 'OP' at my skill level." - False assumption
5. "One certainly won't do it, and it isn't as if you can build multiple ones - they cost too much." - False assumption
6. "I played several times against a guy today." - Anecdotal fallacy
7. "However, if we just went on the results of the non-controlled environment" - Unwarranted extrapolation
8. "IT SHOULDN'T BE CLOSE, RIGHT?" - False assumption
9. "I also discovered another thing" - Anecdotal fallacy
10. "Unless there is a good reason for this I hadn't considered, that is categorically insane." - Arguing from incredulity
11. (In response to a claim that Warriors are a supporting unit) "They don't beat a hybrid squad in melee that costs only req, that doesn't have power weapons to cut through the heavy armor warriors have, and that have heavy armor susceptible to power weapons of tyranid warriors." - Arguing beside the point
12. "Well what's the argument that tyranid warriors should lose to strike squads in melee?" - Shifting the burden of proof
13. "The first rule of anything is that things should be intuitive. " - Raising the bar AND a false assumption
14. "Sometimes, I think things are designed a certain way just to troll people. Somewhere, someone is rolling on the floor laughing." - Ad hominem
15. "Would be nice if the tooltip said, in big red letters - "NOT A DEDICATED MELEE UNIT." - Ridiculization
16. "I've spent decades analyzing balance of various games, and I build mathematical models in my line of work." - Claiming authority
17. "I'm not arguing balance per se (...) What I am arguing is that things should be intuitive and make sense on a basic level" - Red herring
18. "Look, it isn't a bad thing to make a mistake - it's human. The bad thing is defending the mistake when it's pointed out, clinging to the mistake in some stubborn attempt to "be right," and attacking the messenger." - Ad hominem
19. "Yet I played tyranids for weeks and never figured any of this out. How much do you think a new player coming in will ever figure out, and if he ever does figure it out, how much time do you think it will take?" - Personal bias and generalizing
20. "A few posters on this forum can learn from your example" - Ad hominem
21. "The design for the unit is non-intuitive, and highly misleading." - False assumption
22. "I've tested it by showing it to other RTS players who don't play this game." - False authority
23. "The fact that you don't see it as obviously confusing and counter-intuitive, and choose to attack me instead of seeing the truth, is interesting to say the least." - Misrepresenting my position, then claiming a false ad hominem, AND falsely assuming your position is the 'truth'

Not to mention that rejecting my statement as a whole because a supporting argument was a fallacy is in itself fallacious.

And yes I have absolutely nothing to do today.

Hiveminion, that... that was beautiful.

hiveminion wrote:It emits Basic Synapse, too.

No. Don't you dare talk about basic synapse. Nobody in this thread gets to mention basic synapse.

Hellstar wrote:I was able to conduct a test under controlled conditions after my initial post regarding this. Warriors lose, I can post the results if needed.

I know they do. I said they should. But not by a huge margin. The risk is putting them into melee combat in the first place because of their synapse bombs.

Hellstar wrote:The point is, we have no fundamental disagreement here, the difficulty was the confusion over what this stupid thing is supposed to be.

That is a fundamental disagreement. The purpose of the unit is the whole point. And like I said before, the Synapse it gives out should indicate part of its purpose. And they are good in melee when backed up by the rest of the swarm. Especially with the recent buff to Adrenal Glands, which also reinforces the idea of bunching them up with other small gaunts.

Hellstar wrote:How much do you think a new player coming in will ever figure out, and if he ever does figure it out, how much time do you think it will take?

How did anyone ever figure it out? Part of it was probably by playing the campaign, I assume, which you shouldn't have to do to understand the multiplayer, I know. No one knew how to play any race at the start, but it comes through trial and error. And there was even less information on what things did then. After the balance and the bugs, if there was one thing Relic was terrible at doing, it was informing the player. The old tooltips were proof enough of that.

Hellstar wrote:The design for the unit is non-intuitive, and highly misleading. I've tested it by showing it to other RTS players who don't play this game. After explaining the mechanics of things like heavy armor, power weapons, etc. I showed them the roster. They instantly picked the warrior as the "heavy infantry melee counter." WRONG.

Well assuming you've explained it like you have here, it isn't a surprise. The information you gave them was likely skewed to what you know, which is true for everyone. And that information is incomplete.

Hellstar wrote:You sure? If so, yet another misleading unit. I pored over the codex before deciding what units to use and when. Raveners have normal armor, and their melee dps looks lower than warriors' melee dps. Plus, their HP is lower and they are more expensive to boot. So it seemed an easy decision to say "make warriors for general melee anti-HI, make raveners for niche things like countering set-up teams, etc."

And you didn't recognize the benefit of their burrow strike? If you're going up against a lot of heavy armored, ranged infantry, Raveners would be great. Ranged infantry isn't normally great in melee, as their description would imply I guess, and having a Ravener Squad, which has power melee damage, disrupts in a large AoE, and can grant you the opportunity to charge in with the rest of your army to tie them up, is great on a race that can capitalize so well on that sort of thing. Get a Ravener Brood to jump in, and a Warrior Brood to support the rest of your gaunts and charge in. Without a melee squad to counter-initiate your Raveners or Warriors, the opponent's army should have to pull back. Armor and weapon damage aren't the only things to take into account, as I'd hope you can see by now. You can't just base your choices on those and disregard their utility.

Hellstar wrote:Is it that it is counter-intuitive because I know next to nothing about it, or is it that I know next to nothing about it because it is counter-intuitive and nearly impossible to get the knowledge without either playing 1000 hours of trial and error, or leaving pages of posts on forums?

Seems like it's only taken one or two pages, to be fair. Could easily be explained over a Steam chat with friends as well. When they die, they hurt every other Tyranid thing around them, making putting them into melee with other melee squads a risk. The in-game actions and reactions of the units make it easier to understand, I think. Trial and error, just like most RTS games.

Hellstar wrote:I'm not arguing balance here per se (I'm qualified to do it, but it's another discussion).

From everything that I saw here. No, HELL NO, you are not qualified to argue about balance.

Hellstar wrote:I mean yeah, I was arguing balance when I was under the misguided notion that a tyranid warrior's role was melee anti- heavy infantry (hmmm... wonder where I could have gotten that idea?).

You were not misguided at all. You misunderstood/made a mistake.

Hellstar wrote:What I am arguing is that things should be intuitive and make sense on a basic level, and somebody coming in from the outside should be able to figure out roles and such pretty quickly by just looking at units.

Things are intuitive. More so than in certain other RTS's imo.

What is all this nonsense about their name? They are Tyranid Warriors, it's the name GW gave them.

Hellstar wrote:You want a "support" unit? Here's your support unit: ...

DONE, and it took me all of 3 minutes. No charge - it's a free service. You guys figure out the numbers, but there's your basic concept for a support unit. What worries me is how many more units across how many more races I no doubt need to redesign in order to make sense.

Go somewhere else with your "service"

Hellstar wrote:Look, it isn't a bad thing to make a mistake - it's human. The bad thing is defending the mistake when it's pointed out, clinging to the mistake in some stubborn attempt to "be right," and attacking the messenger.

Why are you defending your mistakes then °_O

Hellstar wrote:I'm not a dumb guy I can promise you. Yet I played tyranids for weeks and never figured any of this out. How much do you think a new player coming in will ever figure out, and if he ever does figure it out, how much time do you think it will take?

I don't believe you and a new player should figure it out in about a day.



This is one frustrating, face palming mess. My god man.

Torpid wrote:Fucking frustrating work reading these forums these days.

DOW is so fucked... Never once did we get a proper, high level, community going for this game. Nobody cared enough

Eh, DoW2 vanilla would argue otherwise. Gamereplays was also extremely flooded and active, and we had guides going in and out, as well as expert players who had internal discussions and etc etc.

Caeltos wrote:

Torpid wrote:Fucking frustrating work reading these forums these days.

DOW is so fucked... Never once did we get a proper, high level, community going for this game. Nobody cared enough

Eh, DoW2 vanilla would argue otherwise. Gamereplays was also extremely flooded and active, and we had guides going in and out, as well as expert players who had internal discussions and etc etc.

Indeed. We also had a healthy ladder at all levels and tournaments with 64+ entries that had some real high level games from around ro16 onwards.

And when several of those experts told a pompous noob to l2p (often in a very rude manner), the noobs usually learnt their place and actually took the advice. I would know, from experience.

Wise Windu wrote:And like I said before, the Synapse it gives out should indicate part of its purpose.

Sure, it indicates part of its purpose. Health regen on zonathropes indicates part of its purpose. I could go down the roster of every unit for every race, and every ability for every unit would indicate part of its purpose. But that doesn't mean that warriors don't look exactly like units meant to be melee anti-heavy infantry.

Venom broods have auras too - basic synapse, and ranged synapse. Doesn't mean they don't look exactly like anti-vehicle units. Doesn't mean they aren't used as such (or, I should say, at least I use them as such).

Seems like it's only taken one or two pages, to be fair.

Sure. But there's more topics I've made on other units. And I haven't seriously played all races. If started playing a new one tomorrow, would I need to make more topics?

What if this mod became way more popular, by 100 times what it is now? How much explaining would you have to do over and over? Or, EVEN WORSE, most people don't ever post on any forums for anything, so they just quit because they can't figure the game out?

The in-game actions and reactions of the units make it easier to understand, I think. Trial and error, just like most RTS games.

No. The in-game actions and reactions happen too fast, and there's too much uncertainty and too much stuff going on to know what causes a loss. The last thing you think is that your idea of how units work is wrong, because that's easy to grasp in every other RTS. What you end up thinking (as I did) is that the other guy must be way better than you to have wiped you the way he did. You only start to figure out the truth after you have some suspicions growing after a LONG time of playing, and you can get a friend to come into a game with you specifically to do tests in a controlled environment. Then your jaw drops and you leave some post on the forum.

Well, that's the optimistic case. The pessimistic case is that most people would never do any controlled test, they'd just keep playing the game and getting killed, or they'd quit playing.

There's nothing to figure out about any starcraft unit. I can figure out how a zealot works in 2 minutes by reading the documentation and playing with it in-game. Same for a zergling, a dragoon, a marine, whatever. No need to scratch one's head, no need to leave forum posts, no need for any fighting or name-calling or wailing or gnashing of teeth. The same with any other RTS. But not with this one.

I get that this is a small community with limited resources, and the modder(s) are unpaid. So I don't blame them - it simply "is what it is." But again, I do blame people who knee-jerk defend the status quo just for the sake of defending it.

This thread has run it's course. It's pretty evident that it's just jibberish at this moment, and no productive conversation or discussion can be made. I should have seen the warnings earlier.