Dawn of War Codex

Bet you all were waiting for this one. Man, it's gonna be good. I hope...

Today I want to discuss the nature of the meaning of OP. OP being an acronym for overpowered of course. Now, obviously lots of people throw OP around very very loosely these days but what I want to address is what very high level players, or just people who are serious about understanding the balance of this game actually mena when they claim something is OP.

So, I admit earlier today I said that ogryns are "so OP" when combined with a LC who has the aura of discipline and sent around to cap the sides of the map. In this instance "OP" simply means very powerful. This is an awful use of the term "OP".

When I talk strictly (that is seriously and not in a jocular/lazy manner as I did above when talking about the ogryn-LC combo) about something being OP what I mean to say is roughly as follows:

When "something" is a race or a hero I mean:
The particular hero/race in question is powerful such that in >57.89473684210526% (I'm being pedantic for the sake of humour there) of the 19 different MUs in which the hero/race may participate the hero/race is distinctly favoured, where favoured is defined as having a greater than 65% chance of winning the MU given equal skill on behalf of the players where skill is defined as being the aggregate of an individuals micro+macro+knowledge of the game+psychological advantages/disadvantages and it itself represents an individuals chances of winning holistically vs any race with a given hero.

When "something" is a unit or a wargear or a ability I mean:
The performance of this unit/wargear/ability is "too good" relative to its cost, tier, time to purchase, the composition of the hero and the race available when buying such a wargear/unit/ability, the level of potential counter-play that the unit/wargear/ability allows for and thus its general reliability and the skill required in order to optimally use such a unit in terms of micro, macro and psychology. "Too good" is representative of causing a change in the chance of winning that is not compensated for in terms of those factors listed above. It is hard to quantity such a compensation as it is innately subjective - the unit/wargear/ability costing more but being hard to micro will be good compensation for some people, but bad for others and so on.

Note also that with the unit/wargear/ability being OP notion, the extent to which the unit/wargear synergises or otherwise combos extremely well with the unit/wargear/ability comes under my consideration of "macro" and therefore is part of the "skill required to use the unit/wargear/ability effectively".

So that's what I mean by OP. What do you guys mean by "X is OP?".

By the way, the Lictor Alpha and the Warlock are definitely OP.

What are the biggest concerns with the way in which I define OP? Should we adopt this definition of "OP" universally for better clarity of thought and progress towards perfect balance or instead should we create a different one/edit this one?

You're gonna hate it when I say that a clear quantitative answer is impossible. Obviously there are so many variables. OP can and does have a few different meanings; the most straightforward being an element (unit, ability, etc) of the game that results in one's opponent being helpless to counter it. However, such a thing doesn't exist, but there are degrees to which something is, qualitatively speaking, located in the 'OP zone' where it's benefit is not proportional to its difficulty to implement. If we're talking raw elements (that is, not bearing in mind army rosters and so on), there is/should be, theoretically speaking, a linear, inverse relationship between potency and ease of implementation (I use 'implementation' instead of 'use' to bear in mind cost of acquisition here). However, when an ability doesn't lie along this gradient and is disproportionately 'easy to implement' OR 'potent', it becomes imbalanced, and if it is particularly such it can be considered 'OP'*.

Imagine an extremely potent unit that could wipe any other unit in seconds, and that the enemy couldn't counter at all. It would obviously be OP unless it had some crazy drawbacks in terms of implementation, such as to fire its attack you must lose all your units and VPs, and your VP score reduces to 1. It would be, I suppose, more balanced if this drawback were to occur. Naturally this is an extreme example to highlight the dynamism between implementation difficulty and potency, so don't take it at face value. However, a similar, but realistic, example is the baneblade: The bb counters its own counters and it is unique as such. This would be clearly OP but we all accept it isn't due to its cost and time required. Were it to cost the same as, say, a LR, it would be OP.

One example was channelling with banshees at tier 1 a few versions back: You would end up, through one click, with banshees tearing through enemy fire and wiping a retreating unit, suffering no bleed. Such is an example of a easy-to-acquire/use ability that can lead to results that far exceed its drawbacks (that is, risk of use or requirements to obtain). Another is the T-dread frenzied barrage (is that right?), which is easy to implement and allows what should be a dedicated AV unit to handle infantry as well rather cheaply. Its effects of suppression and damage lead to benefits that exceed the drawbacks of acquisition and use mostly.

The LA's flesh hook is, really, a bit of a joke. It can just pick off scout models, draw gm sergeants in so the squad takes lots of damage from a whole army that is miles away, and it can wipe heroes by dragging them into the jaws of hundreds of tyranids. It costs nothing but energy to use, and, coupled with infiltration, often leads to instant bleed. the imbalance between skill required to use and the benefit to the user here is clear.

Of course, for something to be OP it must be the case that it over-performs in most cases; saying the apo is OP just because IG barely have a chance against him is not accurate. The case of one MU will undoubtedly have too many other extraneous variables to isolate whatever it is that is OP about a unit. Like in statistics, the OP-ness must be an effect visible across multiple cases, enough so that it can be reasonably ascribed to the element rather than the situation. It would be more accurate to say that 'the apo-IG MU is imbalanced'.

*I echo the distinction designers behind Destiny's exotic weapons made: 'We want to make these weapons feel imbalanced, but not overpowered'. They are imbalanced in that an exotic weapon of a particular class will, say, outperform any other weapon in the same class in that class's intended role. However, they will not allow a player to go round pwning the whole enemy team with impunity.

Torpid wrote:Today I want to discuss the nature of the meaning of OP. OP being an acronym for overpowered of course. Now, obviously lots of people throw OP around very very loosely these days but what I want to address is what very high level players, or just people who are serious about understanding the balance of this game actually mena when they claim something is OP.

Here's the first thing I want to pick at. Does OP stand for overpowered when people talk about it? From what I understand I see people using OP as "over performing" sometimes, which doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as "overpowered." They are similar, but to me, "over performing" is not something that needs to be taken out entirely, but simply tuned down a bit, like the DPS of a particular squad, etc...

Torpid wrote:
When "something" is a race or a hero I mean:
The particular hero/race in question is powerful such that in >57.89473684210526% (I'm being pedantic for the sake of humour there) of the 19 different MUs in which the hero/race may participate the hero/race is distinctly favoured, where favoured is defined as having a greater than 65% chance of winning the MU given equal skill on behalf of the players where skill is defined as being the aggregate of an individuals micro+macro+knowledge of the game+psychological advantages/disadvantages and it itself represents an individuals chances of winning holistically vs any race with a given hero.

When "something" is a unit or a wargear or a ability I mean:
The performance of this unit/wargear/ability is "too good" relative to its cost, tier, time to purchase, the composition of the hero and the race available when buying such a wargear/unit/ability, the level of potential counter-play that the unit/wargear/ability allows for and thus its general reliability and the skill required in order to optimally use such a unit in terms of micro, macro and psychology. "Too good" is representative of causing a change in the chance of winning that is not compensated for in terms of those factors listed above.

Note also that with the unit/wargear/ability being OP notion, the extent to which the unit/wargear synergises or otherwise combos extremely well with the unit/wargear/ability comes under my consideration of "macro" and therefore is part of the "skill required to use the unit/wargear/ability effectively".

So that's what I mean by OP. What do you guys mean by "X is OP?".

I mostly agree, but I also think this is a really complicated way of saying: "When two players of roughly equal skill play a game of DoW2 and one player possesses a unit or ability that gives him an advantage against every possible matchup, said unit or ability is overpowered."

The cost, reliability, and whether or not it can be countered really just fall under the umbrella of "advantage" in the scenarios you talk about.

The longer and more convoluted a definition is, the harder it is for people to remember it, if our goal is to create a standardized definition.

It is hard to quantity such a compensation as it is innately subjective - the unit/wargear/ability costing more but being hard to micro will be good compensation for some people, but bad for others and so on.

However, I feel that we should also talk about the player using the abilities that someone might consider overpowered. If doing a large amount of damage required a fair bit of micro to make up for it, then sure, I would not have a problem with this. Partly, however, this is due to my personal opinion that we must balance the game for the median. I know you disagree on this.

For example, in my recent suggestion for Elysian Droptroops, I proposed that the squad get two stormtrooper frag grenades. This would be extremely powerful in the hands of say, Toilailee, as his micro is excellent and he is an experienced player. He would easily be able to drop in the squad, accurately place two grenades, and then wipe up to two retreating squads. In the hands of the average player, however, this is not necessarily going to happen. Even for an experienced, pro-level player, it would still be extremely micro intensive to the point where they would likely need to abandon control over their main army during the time required to land those retreat grenades.

But in my opinion, this actually factors into the "advantage" part as well. If something taxes your micro so much that your opponent gains a temporary advantage(whether he knows it or not), then that should factor into whether the unit or ability is really providing an advantage.

Torpid wrote:By the way, the Lictor Alpha and the Warlock are definitely OP.

Take Nobs for instance. Extremely powerful when used correctly, kinda useless if they get countered really hard, but I don't see a point in changing anything about them because while they might not be the best buy versus a great-pro level player with counters to Nobs, in general they end up doing fine regardless of the counters because the counters aren't always executed properly.

Compare to the LA or WL w/ MWB. These commanders are really hard to counter, and in the case of MWB WL, you're just... right clicking. LA with Menacing Visage basically renders certain expensive squads utterly useless, especially with Terrify's 60 second cooldown, and this is just clicking on something.

There are huge advantages but these advantages are not offset downsides that potentially provide your opponent with a temporary advantage. Compare the LA's terrify with the CS's Tome of Subjugation: The CS cannot move, the subjugated squad doesn't take damage so you can't walk them into an abyss or something, the sub'd unit moves more slowly, and worst of all, they stay on the field after the ability is over.

Torpid wrote:What are the biggest concerns with the way in which I define OP? Should we adopt this definition of "OP" universally for better clarity of thought and progress towards perfect balance or instead should we create a different one/edit this one?

Getting people on board with one definition will be hard I think.

Torpid wrote:
When "something" is a race or a hero I mean:
The particular hero/race in question is powerful such that in >57.89473684210526% (I'm being pedantic for the sake of humour there) of the 19 different MUs in which the hero/race may participate the hero/race is distinctly favoured, where favoured is defined as having a greater than 65% chance of winning the MU given equal skill on behalf of the players where skill is defined as being the aggregate of an individuals micro+macro+knowledge of the game+psychological advantages/disadvantages and it itself represents an individuals chances of winning holistically vs any race with a given hero.

When "something" is a unit or a wargear or a ability I mean:
The performance of this unit/wargear/ability is "too good" relative to its cost, tier, time to purchase, the composition of the hero and the race available when buying such a wargear/unit/ability, the level of potential counter-play that the unit/wargear/ability allows for and thus its general reliability and the skill required in order to optimally use such a unit in terms of micro, macro and psychology. "Too good" is representative of causing a change in the chance of winning that is not compensated for in terms of those factors listed above. It is hard to quantity such a compensation as it is innately subjective - the unit/wargear/ability costing more but being hard to micro will be good compensation for some people, but bad for others and so on.

Note also that with the unit/wargear/ability being OP notion, the extent to which the unit/wargear synergises or otherwise combos extremely well with the unit/wargear/ability comes under my consideration of "macro" and therefore is part of the "skill required to use the unit/wargear/ability effectively".

maybe im just tired but... my brain hurts. i cant really add to this if i have no idea what you're talking about. maybe i'll have better luck if i read it when im more awake.

In much shorter words, there's really no way to quantify what is OP. The guys at Blizzard try to use massive groups of statistics to find trends but it's really a crapshoot. There's too many factors at play to definitely say X is OP by Y% and we need to do Z to bring it back in line.

Of course, I'm talking about the point we are at now in Elite mod. Those extreme examples that are being brought up now just don't exist in the game anymore and everything is too grey at this point to really build a massive consensus. It's up to Lord Caeltos to decide.

....except for SHI Rhino that stuff is whack

I would add that something can be OP, even though it is utterly useless in 9/10 matchups. If it is too good in one specific matchup, its OP. But also there are many different ways something can be OP. Also, just because something is OP, doesn't mean it has to be nerfed. If the Wargear is OP in that matchup, maybe it needs to be, to achive balance in that matchup because other things might be UP.

So, in the end I am not sure why we even need a definition of "OP". And if we define it, it should also mean that there are specific things to do if something is OP, because if not what good is it to define it as OP?

There are many more words we can use in a balance/design disscusion to determine problems and find solutions that are more accurate.

Forestradio wrote:

The funniest thing I've ever seen on these forums. Even funnier than Kim Jong Skill's name.

Forestradio wrote:

lol

Torpid you'd make a good scientist

Flash wrote:Torpid you'd make a good scientist

I study meta-physics, logic and the philosophy of maths/science. So yeah, I study philosophy but very clearly the more scientific, analytic philosophy. I have a bit of a superiority complex to those who study continental philosophy too. Anyway, I need to respond to some of these posts before the thread goes completely off-topic.

Cheah18 wrote:
The LA's flesh hook is, really, a bit of a joke. It can just pick off scout models, draw gm sergeants in so the squad takes lots of damage from a whole army that is miles away, and it can wipe heroes by dragging them into the jaws of hundreds of tyranids. It costs nothing but energy to use, and, coupled with infiltration, often leads to instant bleed. the imbalance between skill required to use and the benefit to the user here is clear.

Just to clarify - the main thing that is OP about flesh hook is not even that it is easy to use or that it bleeds models so well or that it is so good vs retreating units. Instead, it is that it that it instantly forces off any hero which can be knocked back if you just hook them into 2 termagants. This is especially potent vs heroes like the apo or the plague champion. A plague champion with that plague sword in T1 is absolutely brutal vs the HT/RA but vs the LA he is practically useless. That's pretty insane that the LA's default ability makes such a difference. Not only is it a hero thing though, but also a suppression thing. Suppression is the main counter to tyranids in T1. BSWB shuts down generic ranged units, jump units generally just get out-bled by niddies and melee is shut down hard by either warrior form + termgants with their crippling poison AND all of the nid heroes are very strong vs melee too. So you go suppress vs nids and it does best.

LA though naturally hard counters suppression via infiltration so this instantly forces a power investment for the chaos/SM which allows the LA to get the tech lead even more so than the HT/RA can. Even then though with detection the LA can still flank from the sides and flesh hook models off the havoc to the side and leave them there, leaving the suppression team largely useless. The IG HWT has it worst here because not only are IG forced to buy catachans after solely for detection which is 30 power but the IG HWT lead model can be hooked AND is die-last. This makes HWTs pretty useless in T1. The havocs/lootas/devastators all have hookable lead models. The shuriken does not but eldar have to spend an additional 25 power AND 300 req getting out rangers - a squad that in its current form is effectively useless vs tyranids, or at the very least is nowhere near worth its price - they no longer do much to zoanthropes

Then where the HT/RA typically get zoans to counter suppression in T2 the LA just gets leap and can drop spore mines. It's just ridiculous really. It's like he was designed to make nids easy vs everything.

-----End talk about the OPness of the LA-----

I agree with most of your post and I want to clarify that in my "definitions" given in the first post I was specifically laying out those different ways in which something could end up being OP. Such as the cost, the timing, the ease of use and so on. However I do fail to see why you want to draw a distinction between the "OP" and the "imbalanced". I want to talk about this further.

In a replay yesterday we were observing you said that you thought we should make a distinction between such because the way we react to the OP compared to the imba is different - we should heavily nerf the OP, and gradually nerf the imba. However, how do you define "heavily nerf" and "gradually nerf"? My point is these are not discrete variables - these are continuous. Not all "heavy nerfs" are as large a nerf as one another, when does the heavy nerf become a gradual nerf and vice-versa? Surely if some things warrant a heavy nerf response then some things also, at least in principle warrant a super-heavy nerf and we should call such things UOP - uber overpowered. Fair enough maybe such terminology is redundant since not much in elite at the moment does warrant a super-heavy nerf, however look at it from the other side of the spectrum. What about something that needs a bit more than a "gradual nerf" but a bit less than a "heavy nerf" and so if the definition of IMBA/OP is based on how we react to it do we then need a new word to describe that which in its current state of balance requires a moderate-nerf-response?

The whole point of this is that if we start giving different definitions to claims that are all of the meaning - It needs a nerf - then we end up with potentially infinite different terms for it to even be useful. I think it would be better to just use "OP" to describe anything that needs a nerf and UP to describe anything that needs a buff and then take the OP/UP and decide specifically how we ought to nerf/buff them on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to attach a word to those cases because the cases will be very unique and so we'll end up either causing confusion and blurring in our terminology by using words that are too broad in meaning, or we will just create an infinite amount of redundant words.

Lichtbringer wrote:I would add that something can be OP, even though it is utterly useless in 9/10 matchups. If it is too good in one specific matchup, its OP. But also there are many different ways something can be OP. Also, just because something is OP, doesn't mean it has to be nerfed. If the Wargear is OP in that matchup, maybe it needs to be, to achive balance in that matchup because other things might be UP.

So, in the end I am not sure why we even need a definition of "OP". And if we define it, it should also mean that there are specific things to do if something is OP, because if not what good is it to define it as OP?

There are many more words we can use in a balance/design disscusion to determine problems and find solutions that are more accurate.

I don't agree with you that something can be OP even though it is useless in 90% of the MUs. Why is this? Well it's related to your second point. I suggest that if we say something is OP that we concur that we are implying that we wish it to be nerfed. I don't wish that the apo is nerfed simply because the apo is very strong vs IG. Likewise I don't wish fire dragons were nerfed just because they're very powerful vs chaos. Hence, I shan't call them OP as that kind of defeats the whole point of calling anything OP as it takes the meaning away from the words. Reading the second part of my post to Cheah may help you understand what I want to achieve here.

Atlas wrote:In much shorter words, there's really no way to quantify what is OP. The guys at Blizzard try to use massive groups of statistics to find trends but it's really a crapshoot. There's too many factors at play to definitely say X is OP by Y% and we need to do Z to bring it back in line.

Of course, I'm talking about the point we are at now in Elite mod. Those extreme examples that are being brought up now just don't exist in the game anymore and everything is too grey at this point to really build a massive consensus. It's up to Lord Caeltos to decide.

....except for SHI Rhino that stuff is whack

I'm not trying to quantify the meaning of OP. How can one quantify meaning? What I'm trying to do is analyse the meaning of the word in its most serious usage and try and pull from that some utility. If we want to have informed opinions on balance then we need to understand what we mean by "balance". OP is a term that is directly related with balance, specifically imbalance in favour of one side. Hence clarifying its meaning is very important for any balance discussions we wish to have.

Torpid wrote:In a replay yesterday we were observing you said that you thought we should make a distinction between such because the way we react to the OP compared to the imba is different - we should heavily nerf the OP, and gradually nerf the imba. However, how do you define "heavily nerf*" and "gradually nerf"? My point is these are not discrete variables - these are continuous. Not all "heavy nerfs" are as large a nerf as one another, when does the heavy nerf become a gradual nerf and vice-versa? Surely if some things warrant a heavy nerf response then some things also, at least in principle warrant a super-heavy nerf and we should call such things UOP - uber overpowered. Fair enough maybe such terminology is redundant since not much in elite at the moment does warrant a super-heavy nerf, however look at it from the other side of the spectrum. What about something that needs a bit more than a "gradual nerf" but a bit less than a "heavy nerf" and so if the definition of IMBA/OP is based on how we react to it do we then need a new word to describe that which in its current state of balance requires a moderate-nerf-response?

As I said or at least alluded to in my first post on his topic, I question the need for said discrete variables. The problem with qualitative stuff isn't usually its validity but more its provability. We don't need to rigorously 'prove' that something is OP if the majority quite clearly agree on it so I think qualitative analysis is sufficient here. I think the difference between 'imba' and 'OP', which was really what the dialog on the replay was about rather than 'heavy nerf' and 'gradual nerf' (though there is certainly overlap between these sets of terms). Assuming perfect balance is impossible, everything in the game is imba. More than that, the whole game is imba. But this is acceptable provided that the things which are brokenly OP are fixed as soon as they are discerned. I don't see the need for the second distinction between OP and something which specifies a greater degree of OPness, as I maintain that everything that is OP needs priority fixing (that is, should be reviewed ASAP). With regards to the other end of the spectrum, though the process of qualification may be qualitative there will naturally be two discrete groups: OP and imba. I see where you're coming from and you're not wrong to aspire to something that discretely divides the imba group as well, but such a thing is practically impossible. Moreover getting away with not having such a stringent method of separation is practically feasible, and I want to appeal to that over the need for a philosophical/semantic/in-principal need for one.

*I also want to add that I didn't mean 'heavy nerf', I meant 'urgent nerf' in the chat, and the two are very different indeed. The opposite of a heavy nerf would be a soft nerf, and the opposite of an urgent nerf a gradual one. Impact of nerf is not what is important here but more the speed at which it is done. If something is broken and ruining the game, nerf it down to size so the game is playable/more fair and then work on the exact size of nerf needed. If Opness were a disease, I would propose widespread treatment of symptoms to bring it down to manageable levels while a team works on a cure, rather than committing the whole health service's attention to finding a cure and letting people suffer in the mean time.

If something is op its used all the time and get moaned at and wins engagements 90percent of the time. Play 3v3 and u see a lot of things that are very strong but i haunt cried op for a while. Last time was shes chaseing my hero for what seemed like several mins and catching him right outside my base:p

Torpid wrote:I don't agree with you that something can be OP even though it is useless in 90% of the MUs. Why is this? Well it's related to your second point. I suggest that if we say something is OP that we concur that we are implying that we wish it to be nerfed. I don't wish that the apo is nerfed simply because the apo is very strong vs IG. Likewise I don't wish fire dragons were nerfed just because they're very powerful vs chaos. Hence, I shan't call them OP as that kind of defeats the whole point of calling anything OP as it takes the meaning away from the words. Reading the second part of my post to Cheah may help you understand what I want to achieve here.

I think I get what you want, but for me OP will always mean what it says. Something has to much power in a certain situation. So I guess I agree that it is not OP, but it is OP in a certain Situation. And if we define something as OP in a certain situation, it needs to be nerfed in that certain Situation. But in the end we are always talking about specifics.

On a broad level I agree. If something is OP (with your definition, on which I agree if we add "in most cases" OP), its powerlevel in general should be nerfed. If we need such a word, which I am not so sure about.

So the difference is, that I naturally assume it means something specific, and you mean a broader level?


I would also add that the word : "OP" is maybe not the best word to use, if we want to find one. OP has a certain history... It's often used in emotional contexts e.g. after losing a game. Also its history makes it a bit different for everyone. So why don't we just say: It needs a nerf/buff.

Now I am probably projecting from me, because the following is the only reason why I would want to define OP and use it: Do you want a "weapon" to use in informal disscusion? So that if someone after a game says: "This is so OP!!! ", that you can respond with: "So you think it needs a nerf? Does it fullfill the definition of OP? If you say its OP". So in the end to stop people from using it emotionally? This is why I would propose to define something, sorry for "accusing" you, probably I just don't quite get it yet what you really mean.

Torpid wrote: "The whole point of this is that if we start giving different definitions to claims that are all of the meaning - It needs a nerf - then we end up with potentially infinite different terms for it to even be useful. I think it would be better to just use "OP" to describe anything that needs a nerf and UP to describe anything that needs a buff and then take the OP/UP and decide specifically how we ought to nerf/buff them on a case-by-case basis rather than trying to attach a word to those cases because the cases will be very unique and so we'll end up either causing confusion and blurring in our terminology by using words that are too broad in meaning, or we will just create an infinite amount of redundant words."

So if I get this right, you want to use OP/UP as a general term, and then get into more specifics? I am not sure why we even need a clearly defined OP/UP here. Or could I use it like this:
The specific wargear is OP in that matchup, but UP in all others. So lets buff it in those matchup and nerf it in one where its OP.
? Then I think I agree with you

I just leave it to the pros to enlighten me on what is OP.

Then I eagerly try to use, exploit and abuse the OP advantage and to deem myself a pro player.

a better definition of op is : something that has too much power when compared to its investment. limiting the definition to certain situations doesn't really work well as it is a fair bit restrictive and implies less that a unit is too good in a situation but rather the units /play style / race it is being used against is simply too vulnerable

like a tank spam vs grey knights a few patches ago. you cant really say a blood crusher is op just because it has the potential to ruin gks day uncharacteristically well or put another way op vs races that have shit av. No op would be the blood crusher being stupidly dirt cheap with a short build time making it a defacto rushing tactic for chaos in almost every situation like it was in unpatched chaos rising.

you can also link op units to cookie cutter builds. so just off the top of my head you can most certainly make a convincing argument that imperial guard lemanruss tanks are op , it would take some work and I am positive there are plenty of members in the current community who can make equally convincing counter arguments to that assertion.

But i think you get my point

Muahaha, Torpid's definition factors in win rate...success.

Cheah18 wrote:As I said or at least alluded to in my first post on his topic, I question the need for said discrete variables. The problem with qualitative stuff isn't usually its validity but more its provability. We don't need to rigorously 'prove' that something is OP if the majority quite clearly agree on it so I think qualitative analysis is sufficient here. I think the difference between 'imba' and 'OP', which was really what the dialog on the replay was about rather than 'heavy nerf' and 'gradual nerf' (though there is certainly overlap between these sets of terms). Assuming perfect balance is impossible, everything in the game is imba. More than that, the whole game is imba. But this is acceptable provided that the things which are brokenly OP are fixed as soon as they are discerned. I don't see the need for the second distinction between OP and something which specifies a greater degree of OPness, as I maintain that everything that is OP needs priority fixing (that is, should be reviewed ASAP). With regards to the other end of the spectrum, though the process of qualification may be qualitative there will naturally be two discrete groups: OP and imba. I see where you're coming from and you're not wrong to aspire to something that discretely divides the imba group as well, but such a thing is practically impossible. Moreover getting away with not having such a stringent method of separation is practically feasible, and I want to appeal to that over the need for a philosophical/semantic/in-principal need for one.

*I also want to add that I didn't mean 'heavy nerf', I meant 'urgent nerf' in the chat, and the two are very different indeed. The opposite of a heavy nerf would be a soft nerf, and the opposite of an urgent nerf a gradual one. Impact of nerf is not what is important here but more the speed at which it is done. If something is broken and ruining the game, nerf it down to size so the game is playable/more fair and then work on the exact size of nerf needed. If Opness were a disease, I would propose widespread treatment of symptoms to bring it down to manageable levels while a team works on a cure, rather than committing the whole health service's attention to finding a cure and letting people suffer in the mean time.

Considering for the longest of time the vast majority of people didn't see tyranids in elite as OP, I don't think majority opinion is anywhere near a good indicator of what is truly in need of a nerf (which is what I am using as the very broad definition of OP).

I still dislike your use of imba. Of course the game isn't perfectly balanced as it balanced asymmetrically. Of course though MUs like the Warboss vs the RA are so well balanced that it is hard to say who is truly favoured. In reality one must be favoured as the game is not symmetrically balanced. The problem is that I see OP as being anything which surpasses the line of uneven-but-still-tolerable and because of that I say that if something is OP it means it needs a nerf. Yet I would like, given that I could identify them, to nerf what you describe as imba. In reality a problem results though because as I said above for us humans identifying the imba in very specific cases is difficult/impossible. So where it is very close to even or otherwise impossible to tell that something is imba leave it, but otherwise, even if it is not "OP" according to your definition of OP I say we nerf it/buff it as it ought to be. This would mean we should react the same way to OP/imba things -> a respective buff/nerf and that's why I dislike you having two words for the things.

I don't see a difference between soft and gradual nerf. A gradual nerf is merely a series of soft nerfs.

saltychipmunk wrote:a better definition of op is : something that has too much power when compared to its investment. limiting the definition to certain situations doesn't really work well as it is a fair bit restrictive and implies less that a unit is too good in a situation but rather the units /play style / race it is being used against is simply too vulnerable

How do you define "power"? How do you define "investment"? And no situational definitions are inappropriate and there we specify that something is "OP" in merely that situation instead of saying, because of one situation, that it is just "OP".

saltychipmunk wrote:you can also link op units to cookie cutter builds. so just off the top of my head you can most certainly make a convincing argument that imperial guard lemanruss tanks are op , it would take some work and I am positive there are plenty of members in the current community who can make equally convincing counter arguments to that assertion.

I don't think so. Popularity has very little to do with OP. Even popularity AND win ratio because some heroes are just easy to play and most people suck at the game. Doesn't make the chaos lord OP though because vs a decent player the chaos lord is very easy to deal with.

[Strengths / (Weaknesses x Skill Requirements)] x cost coefficient = power

If you could quantify these things, it would boil down to this. If something has both incredible strengths with a minimal amount of skill input needed to use those strengths, then it is OP.

Torpid wrote:

saltychipmunk wrote:a better definition of op is : something that has too much power when compared to its investment. limiting the definition to certain situations doesn't really work well as it is a fair bit restrictive and implies less that a unit is too good in a situation but rather the units /play style / race it is being used against is simply too vulnerable

How do you define "power"? How do you define "investment"? And no situational definitions are inappropriate and there we specify that something is "OP" in merely that situation instead of saying, because of one situation, that it is just "OP".

saltychipmunk wrote:you can also link op units to cookie cutter builds. so just off the top of my head you can most certainly make a convincing argument that imperial guard lemanruss tanks are op , it would take some work and I am positive there are plenty of members in the current community who can make equally convincing counter arguments to that assertion.

I don't think so. Popularity has very little to do with OP. Even popularity AND win ratio because some heroes are just easy to play and most people suck at the game. Doesn't make the chaos lord OP though because vs a decent player the chaos lord is very easy to deal with.

power can be defined by having specific attributes in excess, like having an armor type that is too good, or doing too much damage or having too much hp.

if you want a really binary example , then the gk rhino would fit the bill, super heavy armor is extremely difficult to deal with on its own in the piercing weapon dominant t1 but then giving it so much hp makes its starting set up so powerful that the vehicle armor upgrade is, in all seriousness, ... redundant and unnecessary.

that is too much power , and the fix is simple reduce the power either by reducing the armor type or preferable cutting the hp significantly so that the vehicle armor upgrade is an actual upgrade and not a money trap.

as for the chaos lord it depends on the context , if you are a race of ranged squishy units with a ranged commander ... you pretty much have no answer to the a melee bum rush from a good cl... not without losing alot of ground and or alot of models you simply wont be able to kill the heretics fast enough if the cl is smart enough to force melee with the csm. and most of that is the fault of how dirt cheap heretics and csm are together. more of the ideal mix of units on the field faster.

this all changes once power investment comes in, but the 2x tc 1 csm cl force melee rush is sickenly popular and undeniably unstoppable in key situations of the early game. I wont say op since i dont consider situations to be enough .... though i cant for the life of me figure out why heretics were reduce back down to 210 req when they are clearly better than many other t1 melee units in terms of utility and even as a generic melee unit they hold up well..


put another way the cl bum rush isnt op, its just that certain ranged armys are up against melee rushes. mostly the power heavy races that need their t1 upgrades to do stuff

I agree the term gets used way to much. Im guilty of it.

I find when i say " this thing in this game is op " what i really mean is " this thing in this game is really strong " Obviously this is using the term incorectly.

I blame the internet , and stupid OP bullshit in games.

P.s. web way gate are OP