Proposal - Make Techmarine Structures Tier 2

[Oddnerd]

Hi all,

I can't speak for 1v1, but in 3v3 TM structures are extremely potent and create a situation that demands much more skill/effort on the part of the opponent than they do on the part of the TM constructing them. Turrets are definitely annoying in tight lanes, but for me the relay beacon seems just as bad. The issue I have with beacons is that they eliminate the risk you take when over-extending and massively cut down the time penalty for a retreat. If they provided no healing, then there would be a clear trade-off, in which you sacrificed healing for a faster return to the field; however, the beacon also provides a healing aura. It is not the same as a base aura (which is 1% every second for non-heroes and 2.5% for heroes), but 3.5hp/sec is still a lot (I was told that when it is started that regen increases by 0.35, that means 3.5 hp/sec, correct me if I am wrong). 1% of a tactical marine's level 1 hp is 3.5... so for anything with less hp you are actually getting more than you would at a base. Commanders may be shortchanged, but it is still much better than nothing... 3.5/sec is on par with the best wargears.

I wanted to see how other people felt about making TM structure require your base to be upgraded to tier 2 before they can be built. Is it too harsh? Would taking away the beacon heal aura or getting rid of suppression turrets be better? Is there no problem at all and I just need to L2P?

[Dark Riku]

In short, as you asked, L2P.

Beacons do not generate HP as good as a base for tacs at all.
The trade-off is that your units, once damaged, will not heal up at a good rate, it's bad enough as is already for tacs and the likes at the HQ.

[egewithin]

Yes, but it weakens the Techmarine army.

A beacon covered with a Tarantula Turrent costs 400 - 60 in total. That is expensive for T1. Techmarine won't get another unit after these so that equals to Techmarine Scout and Tac for T1. No Devestators that you can carry fire arms to the battle fields or no Assault Marines that you can jump on enemy infantry if needed. Even if he gets any of those, you can easly out tech him and get a quick tank up in T2.

Also, I think beacon has nothing with durability. It has very low health regeneration and if a Space Marine losses a model, that is expensive to reinforce. It basicially bleeds you. 2 Tac models = 150. I sometimes don't wipe out Tacs if I can always counter them so I can keep bleeding enemy, and hurt his economy.

Beacon gives time advantage. You don't have to come back from base anymore. Your army is slow. And you can just fall back a little bit without loosing a model. THAT is the advantage. Keep falling back, keep coming back, keep enemy bleeding. That is it.

[Ace of Swords]

Turrets in T1 are fine the beacon should be T2 though.

[Toilailee]

Turrets in T1 are fine the beacon should be T2 though.

Pretty much~

[Cyris]

Signed.

T1 beacon is nearly never seen in 1v1, and is cancer in team games. Turret is painful, but a lot more reasonable.

[Torpid]

Yeah, agreed. Turrets fine, beacon not fine.

Didn't comment earlier because I can't be bothered elaborating why.

[Dark Riku]

Beacon to T2? Good luck seeing that thing ever again then.

[Torpid]

Beacon to T2? Good luck seeing that thing ever again then.

Please. Both turrets and beacons are extremely powerful still in team games in T2. In fact, I feel like the beacon in 1v1 is pretty much better in T2 than T1 as it isn't all in.

People really need to get gud. Beacons can be an absolute nuisance to deal with. They're basically like the old snipers were in team games. There is no counter except to go beacon yourself atm in T1.

Problem is that people only play 3v3 casually. There aren't any systemic try hard attempts to win. When that happens beacons are more or less unbeatable, especially on big maps.

[Oddnerd]

Problem is that people only play 3v3 casually. There aren't any systemic try hard attempts to win. When that happens beacons are more or less unbeatable, especially on big maps.

This is definitely what I've noticed; when I play 3v3s on my own with random people, I only have a reasonable chance of taking out a beacon if my opponents are not putting much effort into defending it. If they happen to be a pre-made team or really experienced then my only option is to ride out T1 and go for a fast T2.

[Torpid]

This is definitely what I've noticed; when I play 3v3s on my own with random people, I only have a reasonable chance of taking out a beacon if my opponents are not putting much effort into defending it. If they happen to be a pre-made team or really experienced then my only option is to ride out T1 and go for a fast T2.

But you won't even get a tech lead in such instances because the beacon's constant pressure due to them not having to retreat as far and essentially you having no viable means of pushing them off that side of the map or decpping their natural points (bar extremely time consuming flanks/infiltration). If you sit back and try to ride it out until T2 you will simply get bashed, and sit throughout T1 having less income than your foe. So they get to T2 just as quick. As I said, against an actual team the only counter to a beacon is another beacon on the other side and a better ranged blob so you can in that map control game even if you cannot destroy the beacon OR huge T1s but they automatically lose you the game because your foes get vehicles by the time you destroy the beacon + power bash.

If the beacon then in T2 is behind a los blocker there's a good chance that the beacon cannot even be killed by artillery in any reasonable position. Them getting to T2 and essentially knowing for sure that you are going to get a vehicle and/or artillery, they can prepare themselves to deal with that quite easily and if they are decent they shall. Even if you do get the beacon often your vehicle/artillery then will be mostly redundant vs their composition.

[MaxPower]

I know that the beacon in t1 is too strong, but moving it to t2 doesn't seem like the best solution (nerf it, increase price, etc.), cause once you are t2 a beacon wont last long at all. And since most maps don't have los-blockers that benefit beacon play, nobody will buy them anymore, because as I've already mentioned, they tend to not last very long in t2.

[hiveminion]

Could it be changed perhaps so that allies can no longer use it as a retreat point?

[Torpid]

I know that the beacon in t1 is too strong, but moving it to t2 doesn't seem like the best solution (nerf it, increase price, etc.), cause once you are t2 a beacon wont last long at all. And since most maps don't have los-blockers that benefit beacon play, nobody will buy them anymore, because as I've already mentioned, they tend to not last very long in t2.

Max the fact of the matter is that we see things like bunkers being built in T2 A LOT yet bunkers are far more vulnerable than beacons even in a laned one player vs one player perspective. In addition to that beacons allow teammates to retreat to them unlike bunkers which alongside SM's superior arty to IG in the form of plasma devs (which are way better at countering enemy SUTs that may threaten a bunker or a beacon than stuff like a manticore or artillery spotters) make it much easier to defend than a bunker.

Yet bunkers cost more and we see them all the time.

Yes, the bunker's heal/reinforce synergises better with IG than the beacon's does with SM, but I think that really just justifies the lower cost + ability to retreat to the beacon.

I have literally no clue at all why people think beacons would be bad in T2. They're great there as it is. Just like turrets in fact. I feel almost urged to point out that SM players perhaps to be a bit more inspired in their 3v3 compositions, tactics and build but I don't know if that really is true...

Many maps have artillery blocking line of sight blockers. Argus has two at the top, one in mid and one at the bottom that are good for beacons. Typhon has numerous bottom and top. Calderis likewise - merely placing them on a hill will make it far more difficult albeit not as difficult as having to totally re-position to be hit with artillery, but you can also put it on areas where they have to flank to one particular side to hit it accurately rather than just being able to shoot through the middle of the map.

Of course as SM you can often get away with not using your TM in main fights come late T1 - so you can always build a relay beacon in a teammates lane if it is stronger there. And hey, vs a real team, you'll just swap hero lanes at the start so that beacon can get up quick-time and that ork can really pressure their lane with the beacon.

[egewithin]

I would go for beacon anytime. Doesn't matter T1 or T2.

Techmarine main btw.

[Oddnerd]

I use my T2 IG bacon all the time, even though it has no heal and costs 385/85. Yes, it synergizes well with bunkers, but you still have to buy the bunker (total cost of bacon + heal bunker is 585/110/75) and sacrifice your chimera (it can attack, but the loss of a functional transport vehicle still hurts). SM just need to not act like princesses about it.

[Flash]

Of the opinion that turret is fine, beacon is too strong in teams for Toroid's reasoning. Would adding upkeep and significantly increasing pop be viable? Makes sense logically too, keeping a forward base up is expensive if you're constantly sending in new supplies. Totally throwing outnumbers without too much though: say 15-20 pop and 12.75-15 upkeep? 15 and 12.75 are tac

[Oddnerd]

Not all balance issues can be solved with price/pop changes. In this case I don't think slapping on some more pop cost will make bacons less potent in 3v3.

[Flash]

I concur with not everything solved with pop/upkeep changes. I normally don't suggest them. The pop especially in t1 is minor. I'm hoping for more of an upkeep bite. So that would be what I'd like to scale up. Make it actually economically hurt to utilize a beacon

[Tinibombini]

Would it be crazy to take away the beacon's ability to reinforce until T2 (maybe make it an upgrade to purchase) so that in T1 you just have the benefit of the short retreat distance and the healing aura?

[Flash]

Huh that's actually a really good idea

[Dark Riku]

Nerfing the beacon is not a good idea imo.

If you sit back and try to ride it out until T2 you will simply get bashed, and sit throughout T1 having less income than your foe. So they get to T2 just as quick.

How is the TM player supposed to bash when the other player should have the bigger army since the TM invested in 2 static structures?

As I said, against an actual team the only counter to a beacon is another beacon on the other side and a better ranged blob so you can in that map control game even if you cannot destroy the beacon OR huge T1s but they automatically lose you the game because your foes get vehicles by the time you destroy the beacon + power bash.

Immolator.

[Atlas]

Agreed almost entirely with Riku's last post. That's a lot of resources you are dumping into protecting a small part of a 3v3 map. Just flank or go elsewhere?

I'm kind of scratching my head over how big of a deal we are making of 3v3 casual games. If TM is op in 3v3, can we open discussion about other things that get nuts in 3v3?

IG bunkers get built in T2 and not T1 because they are actually more useful in T2. GMs get their useful combat upgrades in T2 and it's no guarantee that you actually get 100 red in early-mid T1 (not to mention if you want to use other globals). I don't really understand the comparison.

All these nerfs I'm hearing are just going to make Beacons even more useless in 1v1 than they already are. Removing the retreat/reinforce aura just makes it entirely useless, even in 3v3.

[hiveminion]

Agreed almost entirely with Riku's last post. That's a lot of resources you are dumping into protecting a small part of a 3v3 map. Just flank or go elsewhere?

That depends on the map. Obviously some maps' key points are heavily centered giving a big advantage to a team that can control it in the early game. For example, giving up the bottom of Typhon Arena exposes your two natural power farms, so a beacon there cannot be ignored. In addition, the TM player and his allies are not required to camp the beacon, they can still move out to defend other parts of the map.

I'm kind of scratching my head over how big of a deal we are making of 3v3 casual games. If TM is op in 3v3, can we open discussion about other things that get nuts in 3v3?

I don't think anyone who regularly plays team games could argue that the TM is not one of the best heroes for 2v2/3v3, and the beacon is a huge part of that. And I would welcome a discussion about other T1 reinforcement structures like the IG bunker. Even the Brood Nest can be crazy in T1.

All these nerfs I'm hearing are just going to make Beacons even more useless in 1v1 than they already are. Removing the retreat/reinforce aura just makes it entirely useless, even in 3v3.

Unless you only remove the retreat option for allies as I suggested.

[Dark Riku]

I don't think anyone who regularly plays team games could argue that the TM is not one of the best heroes for 2v2/3v3, and the beacon is a huge part of that.

Wanna bet on that?

[hiveminion]

I don't think anyone who regularly plays team games could argue that the TM is not one of the best heroes for 2v2/3v3, and the beacon is a huge part of that.

Wanna bet on that?

Sure. List for me the heroes you think bring a bigger asset to their team.

For me, the Techmarine ranks highest because of the Beacon, but other benefits include Global Repair, the Land Raider, and his excellent AV options. I guess some Heroes also bring substantial benefits, ie. Warboss buffs, Webways, Bunkers or Brood Nests, but I can't think of anything that trumps the Beacon.

[Oddnerd]

It never occurred to me to purchase immolator on my LC or Apo. I also play as FS sometimes so I'll get it on her as well. Thanks for the tip.

[Torpid]

I don't think anyone who regularly plays team games could argue that the TM is not one of the best heroes for 2v2/3v3, and the beacon is a huge part of that.

Wanna bet on that?

Sure. List for me the heroes you think bring a bigger asset to their team.

For me, the Techmarine ranks highest because of the Beacon, but other benefits include Global Repair, the Land Raider, and his excellent AV options. I guess some Heroes also bring substantial benefits, ie. Warboss buffs, Webways, Bunkers or Brood Nests, but I can't think of anything that trumps the Beacon.

Warlock.

I wonder why?????

You NEVER go eldar and not go WL in 3v3. In fact, as far as I'm concerned any serious 3v3 team must have a warlock. Immolator not only deals with turrets/beacons, but also other light buildings like banners and it synergises well with the general SUT spam in teams. Then you have swift movement which is a joke in 3v3, warp throw, and the best webway gates. Alongside the already great eldar T2/T3 with wraithguard + the avatar/prisms/d-cannons.

But yeah that's pretty much it. Hive Tyrant/TM/Warlock is a great team. HT can be swapped for IG sometimes. But TM/WL synergy is pretty much something that cannot/should not be swapped.

[Torpid]

Nerfing the beacon is not a good idea imo.

If you sit back and try to ride it out until T2 you will simply get bashed, and sit throughout T1 having less income than your foe. So they get to T2 just as quick.

How is the TM player supposed to bash when the other player should have the bigger army since the TM invested in 2 static structures?

As I said, against an actual team the only counter to a beacon is another beacon on the other side and a better ranged blob so you can in that map control game even if you cannot destroy the beacon OR huge T1s but they automatically lose you the game because your foes get vehicles by the time you destroy the beacon + power bash.

Immolator.

Firstly, you don't need two structures. A beacon alone is incredibly difficult to destroy even without a turret backing it up just courtesy of what it does with its reinforce aura and heal aura.

Secondly, even with that, the TM bashes because they invest in the structures early on and get a continuous benefit out of that - bleeding the enemy more because they can get to enemy land far quicker than the foe can to theirs and courtesy of the TM being a ranged composition always in T1. If you go a heavy T1 to equal the TM expenditure you win engagements not near the beacon, but you fail to take ground and ultimately will tech up slower than the TM anyway. The TM then hard counters jump troops with dreadnoughts and signum in T2, so hopefully you didn't get them and if you set-up spammed the TM will have just gone snipers in T1, so you will have bled a lot. Of course, if you fast-teched, so will the TM, except he will gen bash since he has the beacon advantage, you don't. Or on bigger maps he will at least have the contested points, if one of them is power they can easily build power on it.

And the immolator point really just proves my point. Immolator is great for sure, but not every team has a warlock nor should a balanced DOW demand you do, right?

Agreed almost entirely with Riku's last post. That's a lot of resources you are dumping into protecting a small part of a 3v3 map. Just flank or go elsewhere?

I'm kind of scratching my head over how big of a deal we are making of 3v3 casual games. If TM is op in 3v3, can we open discussion about other things that get nuts in 3v3?

IG bunkers get built in T2 and not T1 because they are actually more useful in T2. GMs get their useful combat upgrades in T2 and it's no guarantee that you actually get 100 red in early-mid T1 (not to mention if you want to use other globals). I don't really understand the comparison.

All these nerfs I'm hearing are just going to make Beacons even more useless in 1v1 than they already are. Removing the retreat/reinforce aura just makes it entirely useless, even in 3v3.

No it isn't. It isn't a lot of resources and it isn't a small part of a 3v3 map. A beacon at the top on Argus covers the contested power node, perhaps the contested central req is the wall can be destroyed and the contested VP and all points on the side of the field of the beacon. That's 75% of the contested points on the map. For less than the cost of two devastator squads. But really that cost is a misnomer since it has constant economic boons endlessly due to the snowball effect it has, which is massive due to the map control the beacon gives you.

Literally loads of maps you cannot just ignore a beacon or you instantly lose. Well, you lose anyway tbh unless way more skilled than your foe. Capital spire, typhon, tiberis, siccaris, calderis (this one isn't so bad but you will lose a lot of VPs if you ignore it), argus. Not really played many of the new elite maps so can't really comment there, I know estia is pretty ridic though.

[Dark Riku]

It never occurred to me to purchase immolator on my LC or Apo. I also play as FS sometimes so I'll get it on her as well. Thanks for the tip.

You're welcome. Git gud.

Firstly, you don't need two structures. A beacon alone is incredibly difficult to destroy even without a turret backing it up just courtesy of what it does with its reinforce aura and heal aura.

Without devs then any melee force will wreck the SM force.

Secondly, even with that, ...

Your experiences far differ from my own then. It certainly isn't as easy an as sure as you make it out to be.