Dawn of War Codex

o/

So, today I did the third patch making stream which you can find here. It starts about 7 minutes in so just skip to there. The last leg of it is a lot of live testing, which you can skip through as well if it doesn't interest you.

Here's some bits of news!

- First off, between the sessions Cyris got back to me. He is doing fine, but is stepping down. Idk exactly what to do after this patch, but for now we're just going to roll without a head and just refine these notes and go to production.

- So, I can do the upkeep and aura changes offscreen and that just leaves some testing and refinement stuff. After that it passes to bugfixing and such.

- Make sure to leave posts or notes for me if you want it considered. I check both the forums here and the discord server's balance discussion session! Obviously, I'm also looking at twitch chat when I'm on stream working the patch.

- The most significant change from the last stream is the sent cost nerf got cut and replaced with a stomp cooldown nerf. There were a couple of tweaks here and there otherwise. I think we'll cut Ogryn stuff too.

- One change that has gotten a lot of feedback is the replacement of the symbiosis ability on the Zoan for a Consume-like ability on Carnifexes instead. This is talked about a lot during the feedback section (the first part) of the patch making stream and specifically during Mr. Telos' posts. I'll think a little more about whether I'd like to do that style of change but I think it's definitely worth considering at the least.

Right, so anything you guys want to say, here you go

*11/17

Crewfinity wrote:*11/17

Ty

Just want to say some last things should not go in

Fire Prism:
Focused Beam damage type changed from plasma_cannon_pvp to explosive_pvp.
Focused Beam damage per hit reduced from 160 to 145.
Focused Beam windup reduced from 1.5 to 1.

Don't do this just cos someone lost a setup team to them does not mean you need to nerf them bumb reasoning

Next all this upkeep changing don't do it, the only ones that were ask for was for tyranids the rest should never be put it the reasoning why some have less than stranded upkeep it to help with bleeding for high cost units take that away and they won't be used. Next patch if theses do go in you be reventing them I make sure of that, just start with tyranids ones and go from there.

Techmarine:
Bionics melee damage bonus increased from 15% to 20%.
Axe of the Mechanicum now grants +100 hp in addition to its other effects.
Axe of the Mechanicum cost increased from 100/20 to 100/25.

3 straight buff and cost decrease will just make it insane for a meh cost, least don't decrease it cost

Whirlwind:
Speed reduced from 6 to 5.
Turret rotation rate increased from 40 to 48.
Unit cap reduced from 2 per player to 1 per player

Well done you just made it useless no one will ever buy it now but yet no one ever got it so

Genestealers:
Cost changed from 400/45 to 360/50.
Reinforce time reduced from 5 seconds to 3 seconds.

Don't bother with this they need a reworked not a cost change .

That's about it really if you don't stop these now you will be reventing them next patch so

boss wrote:Next all this upkeep changing don't do it, the only ones that were ask for was for tyranids the rest should never be put it the reasoning why some have less than stranded upkeep it to help with bleeding for high cost units take that away and they won't be used. Next patch if theses do go in you be reventing them I make sure of that, just start with tyranids ones and go from there.

If you want upkeep changes then we might as well standardize them across the board... hormagaunts/termagants barely bleed at all relative to how much field presence they give you (especially under synapse), so why should their upkeep be decreased? think about how much gaunts bleed relative to heretics... and they have higher damage and speed 6.5

boss wrote:Techmarine:
Bionics melee damage bonus increased from 15% to 20%.
Axe of the Mechanicum now grants +100 hp in addition to its other effects.
Axe of the Mechanicum cost increased from 100/20 to 100/25.

3 straight buff and cost decrease will just make it insane for a meh cost, least don't decrease it cost

Am I missing something here? 25 > 20 right?

Nvm I got Axe cost mixed up with something else but still there is a thing called over buffing wargears axe plus bionics plus refractor Field you can get getting around almost 1500hp with a 20% less accuracy gain and energy drain for just 65 power im not really liking this.

I wanted tyranid upkeep to be look at because it was dumb that basic gaunts had the highest upkeep in the game and die to even a grot shooting at them barely bleed is not true they very often go back to base with 2 guys they bleed way more than tics and tics have a diffent role to them anyways they are what makes the diffence between good chaos players and bad ones cos they have an inbuilt way to support there army's along with they combat stats. Also ever played tyranids without Synapse you be base locked in 5 mins without it let them scale.

The reasoning why you can't standardize upkeep is it apart of every the unit performance aka bleed upkeep drains your rec income, there are units in this game that can bleed your eco to death very easy let say orks which unit pisss away your eco people call them bleed boys I call them shit boys aka stormboys this unit has low heath role is to jump and deal with setup teams mainly however they will die in droves very fast then bleed come into play then no eco no more, one way we could solve this abit it reduce there upkeep abit then least your eco won't be so fucked then stormboys might be useable again.
The chaos space marine upkeep nerf shows this as well now you barely see 2 of them unless your sorc and a lot of the time you need 2 of them but then your rec income goes down the sink and this change just nerf sorc to the ground the harder match up just want even more shit one of the reasons why it went down to help this out lower than stranded, upkeep is a way to buff a unit without changing its stats it's why caeltos did this In the past.

So like I say just start with tyranid upkeep first then go from there remove the rest pls it to big a change and not needed.

Upkeep is confusing.

boss wrote:I wanted tyranid upkeep to be look at because it was dumb that basic gaunts had the highest upkeep in the game and die to even a grot shooting at them barely bleed is not true they very often go back to base with 2 guys they bleed way more than tics and tics have a diffent role to them anyways they are what makes the diffence between good chaos players and bad ones cos they have an inbuilt way to support there army's along with they combat stats. Also ever played tyranids without Synapse you be base locked in 5 mins without it let them scale.
So like I say just start with tyranid upkeep first then go from there remove the rest pls it to big a change and not needed.

Actually, gaunts/gants have one of the lowest upkeep in the game... realistically, you will never be paying upkeep on those squads, since you will always have models that are more upkeep-expensive.

because upkeep is calculated based on upkeep/model, RATHER THAN Upkeep/Population, every other unit in the nid roster has higher upkeep than gants/gaunts. I just did some custom games to verify how the upkeep calculations actually work

Looking at how this plays out - you start off with 264 base requisition income
hormagaunts (8 pop) - income unchanged
2x termagants (16 pop - 24 pop total) - income unchanged
warriors (15 pop - 39 pop total) - you now get taxed on 2 warrior models @12.75 each - 26 total upkeep
raveners (12 pop - 51 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 ravener models and 2 warriors @ 12.75 each - 64 total upkeep
venom (15 pop - 66 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav, 2 warrior, and 3 venom @12.75 each - 102 total upkeep
zoanthrope (10 pop - 76 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each + zoan @ 25.5 - 128
carnifex (18 pop - 94 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each +zoan @25.5 + carnifex @ 57.36 - 185 upkeep total



I guess it really doesnt matter one way or another. but gaunts/gants having higher than standard upkeep does not realistically affect nid eco in the slightest. and decreasing their upkeep is a meaningless change.

Can we also consider reviewing current population values and making sure they are standardized along with upkeep? If not with this round of changes, then the next one?


Some inconsistencies to call out:
Setup teams - should be standardized @ 12 pop, 30.6 upkeep (looking at you, HWT and Shurican)
Rangers should probably be set to 3 pop/model - 6 population for this squad makes no sense at all (they are comparable with scouts and spotters imo)
Squad Leaders - these are all over the place, with most of them set to lower than standard upkeep. lets standardize this and update population values to whatever makes sense. I am also in favor of making repurchasing squad leaders cheaper than buying them initially - i think that would solve a lot of issues.

boss wrote:The reasoning why you can't standardize upkeep is it apart of every the unit performance aka bleed upkeep drains your rec income, there are units in this game that can bleed your eco to death very easy let say orks which unit pisss away your eco people call them bleed boys I call them shit boys aka stormboys this unit has low heath role is to jump and deal with setup teams mainly however they will die in droves very fast then bleed come into play then no eco no more, one way we could solve this abit it reduce there upkeep abit then least your eco won't be so fucked then stormboys might be useable again.
The chaos space marine upkeep nerf shows this as well now you barely see 2 of them unless your sorc and a lot of the time you need 2 of them but then your rec income goes down the sink and this change just nerf sorc to the ground the harder match up just want even more shit one of the reasons why it went down to help this out lower than stranded, upkeep is a way to buff a unit without changing its stats it's why caeltos did this In the past.

So like I say just start with tyranid upkeep first then go from there remove the rest pls it to big a change and not needed.

You need to consider not only how much bleed a unit suffers but also how much bleed it inflicts. A unit could be considered to be as effective as how much damage it does, minus how much damage it receives, plus other stuff. Which is what I meant by "strength" when I wrote about this a while ago.

Crewfinity wrote:Can we also consider reviewing current population values and making sure they are standardized along with upkeep? If not with this round of changes, then the next one?


Some inconsistencies to call out:
Setup teams - should be standardized @ 12 pop, 30.6 upkeep (looking at you, HWT and Shurican)
Rangers should probably be set to 3 pop/model - 6 population for this squad makes no sense at all (they are comparable with scouts and spotters imo)
Squad Leaders - these are all over the place, with most of them set to lower than standard upkeep. lets standardize this and update population values to whatever makes sense. I am also in favor of making repurchasing squad leaders cheaper than buying them initially - i think that would solve a lot of issues.

I went through the trouble of standardising all pop and upkeep values and sent the results to Cyris and Atlas. I also estimated how much squad leaders were worth by comparing them to the base unit models. If 1 Tac = 150req and the Sargeant is slightly better than a Tac he might be worth 175 req, and ATSKNF could be 25req = 200 req for a Tac squad leader. Then I invented a method is discounting the leader if s/he was in a later tier, because the player has had to spend 300/125 or 300/150 to get to T2 or T3. So if a unit is T1, and the leader is T2, then the leader is discounted by 20% (made up % but feels ok). Therefore a Tac Sargeant would be 200req-20% = 160req and then convert to req/power using a 4:1 exchange rate = 80/20. If a unit was T2 and the unit leader T3 then s/he would also get a 20% discount. Most of the squad leaders are fairly priced using this method with some obvious exceptions like Bone'Eads, Purifier Justicars and other stuff I can't remember. If a squad leader is better than the models of the unit and in the same tier then it is obvious that the squad leader should cost more than the base models. If otherwise, either the squad price is ok and the SL is undercosted or the squad is overcosted and the SL is ok.

boss wrote:Fire Prism:
Focused Beam damage type changed from plasma_cannon_pvp to explosive_pvp.
Focused Beam damage per hit reduced from 160 to 145.
Focused Beam windup reduced from 1.5 to 1.

I agree with Boss here, it is an overnerf of the Fire prism, especially with regard to HI blobs and SHI (it will do 33% less damage per shot). The firing pattern change is rather distasteful since it discourages proper micro of the fireprism to dance back and forth which is its strength. And I believe (more as a feel thing rather than something I can test) its going to fuck up chasing vehicles even more, since you have half a second less to retarget if you notice the FP aiming at the wrong thing.

Crewfinity wrote:
Actually, gaunts/gants have one of the lowest upkeep in the game... realistically, you will never be paying upkeep on those squads, since you will always have models that are more upkeep-expensive.

because upkeep is calculated based on upkeep/model, RATHER THAN Upkeep/Population, every other unit in the nid roster has higher upkeep than gants/gaunts. I just did some custom games to verify how the upkeep calculations actually work

Looking at how this plays out - you start off with 264 base requisition income
hormagaunts (8 pop) - income unchanged
2x termagants (16 pop - 24 pop total) - income unchanged
warriors (15 pop - 39 pop total) - you now get taxed on 2 warrior models @12.75 each - 26 total upkeep
raveners (12 pop - 51 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 ravener models and 2 warriors @ 12.75 each - 64 total upkeep
venom (15 pop - 66 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav, 2 warrior, and 3 venom @12.75 each - 102 total upkeep
zoanthrope (10 pop - 76 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each + zoan @ 25.5 - 128
carnifex (18 pop - 94 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each +zoan @25.5 + carnifex @ 57.36 - 185 upkeep total



I guess it really doesnt matter one way or another. but gaunts/gants having higher than standard upkeep does not realistically affect nid eco in the slightest. and decreasing their upkeep is a meaningless change.

Im not going over this again I already did this a long time ago why it was wrong, atlas is just reworking upkeep stats not buffing them for the tyranid army if you bother to look at the changers and that's all im saying im not going over something I said years ago.

Aetherion wrote:

boss wrote:Fire Prism:
Focused Beam damage type changed from plasma_cannon_pvp to explosive_pvp.
Focused Beam damage per hit reduced from 160 to 145.
Focused Beam windup reduced from 1.5 to 1.

I agree with Boss here, it is an overnerf of the Fire prism, especially with regard to HI blobs and SHI (it will do 33% less damage per shot). The firing pattern change is rather distasteful since it discourages proper micro of the fireprism to dance back and forth which is its strength. And I believe (more as a feel thing rather than something I can test) its going to fuck up chasing vehicles even more, since you have half a second less to retarget if you notice the FP aiming at the wrong thing.

Its not just a overnerf but its unjust, its not overperforming in the first place for these kind of nerfs, the focused beam is the av weapon of the fire prism so now with less damage now it going to be worse vs vehicles and we all know burst damage is best damage, take one look at the gk lascannon rhino you reduce damage for rate of fire, so that it barley damage and just can be repaired though that got change back alot. You now are doing this to a t3 arty vehicle because someone lost a setup team vs them how fucking retarded I would hope you used your brain on this one atlas.

This change should never had made it though and should just be change back before patch its. Its just as bad as someone wanted to buff leman russ.

Can we have those notes written on the forum, here? Not everyone watches the stream or has time for that. That way would be easier to share with us.

Crewfinity wrote:

boss wrote:I wanted tyranid upkeep to be look at because it was dumb that basic gaunts had the highest upkeep in the game and die to even a grot shooting at them barely bleed is not true they very often go back to base with 2 guys they bleed way more than tics and tics have a diffent role to them anyways they are what makes the diffence between good chaos players and bad ones cos they have an inbuilt way to support there army's along with they combat stats. Also ever played tyranids without Synapse you be base locked in 5 mins without it let them scale.
So like I say just start with tyranid upkeep first then go from there remove the rest pls it to big a change and not needed.

Actually, gaunts/gants have one of the lowest upkeep in the game... realistically, you will never be paying upkeep on those squads, since you will always have models that are more upkeep-expensive.

because upkeep is calculated based on upkeep/model, RATHER THAN Upkeep/Population, every other unit in the nid roster has higher upkeep than gants/gaunts. I just did some custom games to verify how the upkeep calculations actually work

Looking at how this plays out - you start off with 264 base requisition income
hormagaunts (8 pop) - income unchanged
2x termagants (16 pop - 24 pop total) - income unchanged
warriors (15 pop - 39 pop total) - you now get taxed on 2 warrior models @12.75 each - 26 total upkeep
raveners (12 pop - 51 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 ravener models and 2 warriors @ 12.75 each - 64 total upkeep
venom (15 pop - 66 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav, 2 warrior, and 3 venom @12.75 each - 102 total upkeep
zoanthrope (10 pop - 76 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each + zoan @ 25.5 - 128
carnifex (18 pop - 94 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each +zoan @25.5 + carnifex @ 57.36 - 185 upkeep total



I guess it really doesnt matter one way or another. but gaunts/gants having higher than standard upkeep does not realistically affect nid eco in the slightest. and decreasing their upkeep is a meaningless change.

I need to review this myself as this has huge implications and basically refutes what I know. Upkeep is a raw number in Cope's that is not tied to population but is rather a second variable used to generate a total upkeep and I have always thought that the game stacks upkeep based on the values of the raw upkeep value and the population value. This is why that upkeep value needs to be adjusted when population values are changed on the unit itself if you want to keep the same upkeep rate. Changing the population value but leaving the upkeep value will just create a new total upkeep rate based on the new population which would be different from before. Hence, discussing upkeep in terms of rates is usually the most direct way to talk about upkeep.

The game should be calculating upkeep based on most expensive to least expensive, but I don't see why it would take all-or-nothing on models as the upkeep and the population of an entity are separate fields.

If you are right, this will have huge implications on Tyranid upkeep changes but won't affect the upkeep standardizations in any real way as those changes are not questions related to populations or are expected to create noticeable shifts in eco.

Atlas wrote:

Crewfinity wrote:
because upkeep is calculated based on upkeep/model, RATHER THAN Upkeep/Population, every other unit in the nid roster has higher upkeep than gants/gaunts. I just did some custom games to verify how the upkeep calculations actually work

Looking at how this plays out - you start off with 264 base requisition income
hormagaunts (8 pop) - income unchanged
2x termagants (16 pop - 24 pop total) - income unchanged
warriors (15 pop - 39 pop total) - you now get taxed on 2 warrior models @12.75 each - 26 total upkeep
raveners (12 pop - 51 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 ravener models and 2 warriors @ 12.75 each - 64 total upkeep
venom (15 pop - 66 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav, 2 warrior, and 3 venom @12.75 each - 102 total upkeep
zoanthrope (10 pop - 76 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each + zoan @ 25.5 - 128
carnifex (18 pop - 94 pop total) - you now get taxed on 3 rav/2 warrior/3 venom @12.75 each +zoan @25.5 + carnifex @ 57.36 - 185 upkeep total
.

I need to review this myself as this has huge implications and basically refutes what I know. Upkeep is a raw number in Cope's that is not tied to population but is rather a second variable used to generate a total upkeep and I have always thought that the game stacks upkeep based on the values of the raw upkeep value and the population value. This is why that upkeep value needs to be adjusted when population values are changed on the unit itself if you want to keep the same upkeep rate. Changing the population value but leaving the upkeep value will just create a new total upkeep rate based on the new population which would be different from before. Hence, discussing upkeep in terms of rates is usually the most direct way to talk about upkeep.

The game should be calculating upkeep based on most expensive to least expensive, but I don't see why it would take all-or-nothing on models as the upkeep and the population of an entity are separate fields.

If you are right, this will have huge implications on Tyranid upkeep changes but won't affect the upkeep standardizations in any real way as those changes are not questions related to populations or are expected to create noticeable shifts in eco.

Please do - I previously had also thought that it calculated the 'most expensive models' based on upkeep/pop, rather than upkeep/model - i was very surprised when testing indicated otherwise. TBH I think it makes much more sense to calculate it based on upkeep/pop :/

I opened a high resource game vs computer and started buying squads, and writing down how my req income changed as they hit the field in order to get the numbers from my previous post.

Update -
After some additional testing, I don't think that either method is correct... and upkeep calculation really is fucking weird

I had originally thought that the 30 cheapest pop was 'free', based on upkeep/pop... and then I thought that it was based on upkeep/model...
But it actually seems like it calculates the first 30 pop based on the FIRST 30 POPULATION TO HIT THE FIELD, IN ORDER OF PURCHASE (?!?) - every purchase after that is then taxed via upkeep.

I have no idea how the game handles model losses and such with that logic... but I put my findings here (using the same method - high res game, making purchases, checking req income):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

one of the examples I looked at - if you buy 2x scouts + tacs as an opener...
If you purchase the tac before the second scout, you only pay upkeep on a single scout model (8 upkeep total on the single 3 pop model @ 7.65)
If you purchase the second scout before the tac, you pay upkeep on the tac model instead (13 upkeep total on the single 5 pop model @ 12.75)

I can't believe I got to go though this again, again and again, gaunts have higher than standed upkeep standed is 2.55 gaunts have 3.825 that's a fact

so for 1 pop of a Heretic = 2.55 1 pop of a gaunt=3.825

So with this we know 8 guys a unit of heretics = 8x2.55=20.4 gaunts 8 guys is 8x3.825= 30.6 so really if we go by this standed upkeep shit, you are paying for a 12 pop squad I think if the numbers match for standed upkeep, don't know where you get this cheapest unit upkeep from then, your wrong already your paying for a 12 pop squad when they are 8, on basic squads that not only need they upgrades to be viable but then basic synapse to not die from grots shooting at them and then there upgraded synapse come t2.

As from what I been told and know you pay from the highest upkeep per pop so you don't pay for warriors venom brood,zoanthrope, they have standed upkeep so they go to that 30 free pop when it to that point you pay the left overs but you have to pay for gaunts first cos they are the highest upkeep per pop so your whole list of shit is wrong straight away atlas already look at this a long time ago with me and fe and admitted we was right. One simply way to look for this in game is when you have a 70 pop army lose 1 gaunt and see your rec income goes up by 3 or 4, 3.825 the upkeep.

Not really much else to say really I already said this about 7 or 8 time now on these forums and im not saying this again just cos of your hate boner towards tyranids and think they are god mod even tho you can't play them for anything and I don't even understand these posts these changes will move abit of upkeep from gaunts and put them onto Venom Brood,Warrior Brood and Zoanthrope so you pay for them instead of gaunts end of its not even a buff or a nerf its a change.

boss wrote:I can't believe I got to go though this again, again and again, gaunts have higher than standed upkeep standed is 2.55 gaunts have 3.825 that's a fact

not disputing that, but thanks for the snarkiness

boss wrote:So with this we know 8 guys a unit of heretics = 8x2.55=20.4 gaunts 8 guys is 8x3.825= 30.6 so really if we go by this standed upkeep shit, you are paying for a 12 pop squad I think if the numbers match for standed upkeep, don't know where you get this cheapest unit upkeep from then, your wrong already your paying for a 12 pop squad when they are 8, on basic squads that not only need they upgrades to be viable but then basic synapse to not die from grots shooting at them and then there upgraded synapse come t2.

I would argue that hormagaunts with upgrade and under synapse perform very comparably to AC tics (especially with endless swarm).
I would also argue that upgraded termagants under synapse perform very comparably to upgraded DA's/upgraded GM/other standard 12 pop ranged units.

With that in mind, why should it cost less upkeep for tyranid standard squads in mid/late game than other races? They perform at a level of 12 pop squads, they just get to that level with upgrades and synapse, rather than paying for squad leaders and extra population.

boss wrote:As from what I been told and know you pay from the highest upkeep per pop so you don't pay for warriors venom brood,zoanthrope, they have standed upkeep so they go to that 30 free pop when it to that point you pay the left overs but you have to pay for gaunts first cos they are the highest upkeep per pop so your whole list of shit is wrong straight away atlas already look at this a long time ago with me and fe and admitted we was right. One simply way to look for this in game is when you have a 70 pop army lose 1 gaunt and see your rec income goes up by 3 or 4, 3.825 the upkeep.

I'm telling you that's not the full picture. If that were actually how it worked, then if you went for an opener of 2x termagants+hormagaunts+warriors, you would be paying upkeep on 9 population based on highest upkeep/pop >> 9*3.825=35 upkeep

If you actually go into game and purchase those units without capping any req points, you can see for yourself that you actually only pay 26 upkeep (which comes from 2 warrior models @ 12.75 each).

I took those values straight from in-game testing so denying that is like Trump denying climate change... you can say it all you want but it doesnt make things true. When you start losing models it may apply upkeep on the new ones so you may be right on that point - still not entirely sure how the '30 free population' logic holds up with model losses.

boss wrote:Not really much else to say really I already said this about 7 or 8 time now on these forums and im not saying this again just cos of your hate boner towards tyranids and think they are god mod even tho you can't play them for anything and I don't even understand these posts these changes will move abit of upkeep from gaunts and put them onto Venom Brood,Warrior Brood and Zoanthrope so you pay for them instead of gaunts end of its not even a buff or a nerf its a change.

I dont hate nids, I just don't think they're underpowered at all - they put out massive pressure in the early/mid stages of the game. They can already churn out monstrous creatures in the late game without much difficulty, so I don't buy into the view that "their economy is crippled".

But if you've said it multiple times it must be right - i guess we should just put you in charge of balance and call it a day. #MakeNidsGreatAgain

I did this my self and I can only say there been a cock up with how upkeep works this fits into your stuff about first units 30 pop is free stuff then stuff after gets taxed that would fit that but it should not do that at all, far as I know which atlas did some looking into a long time ago with me and fe highest pop per upkeep gets taxed first, I can only say something happen and now its first units buy upkeep free and so on I not surprised since banshees did tac dps with sidearms I guess atlas will look into it and find out why it doing that and tyranids will have even less rec income after its fixed.

I should have been balance lead instead of cyris since im the only one who gives much of a shit about changes, who's good at all races and bothers with change logs and come up with reason for changes, so god knows how you can put cyris in change even worse than torpid. Also keep saying tyranids have massive pressure one day people might believe it, pressure race are chaos, orks and ig, tyranids are just now make sure you win before late t2 or you lose the game.

ATLAS
Find out pls what going on with upkeep and why its fucking up.

Hormogaunts are way stronger than Heretics. Upkeep difference is very normal. I don't think it should be changed.

Tyranid economy is already good enough, specially in T2 where you don't need to spend high power purchases like any other races. You should stop crying about a little upkeep difference which is already a not-broken-thing.

Umm ok so no. Because if that was the case, guants would be taxed first rather than a Swarmlord or a fex if it is based on that logic which is untrue. I might jump in and look at it all briefly myself. But i was under the impression the most expensive models get taxed first. Considering what Atlas said. That seems to not be true and is far simpler, when you are over 30 pop whatever it is gets taxed regardless of what is more expensive.

If nid eco is bottled necked late game in anyway it is simply due to not having endless swarm on the guants in the first place or level 1 warriors (since they are easy to pop off late game) so you don't get that free model. In fact does the guants from the without number global come with endless swarm or just their t1 upgrade? Plus separating the squads when they deploy. Maybe even allow the player to choose where which squad deploys where however the reinforcement from the global comes from the last spore. Might make is a bit strong since the first squad would reinforce any loses they took. But the delay between both would/should not be any longer that 1 second.

At this rate we should auction off the position of balance lead to the highest bidder to make money to revive the game.

Cheekie Monkie wrote:At this rate we should auction off the position of balance lead to the highest bidder to make money to revive the game.

Crew, you might be on to something though I have absolutely no clue why the game would do it in such a way. I'm not sure if your hypothesis is correct but at the very least it should add into our insights of the game. I'll be reviewing the data as much as a guy on final exam week can.

Atlas wrote:

Cheekie Monkie wrote:At this rate we should auction off the position of balance lead to the highest bidder to make money to revive the game.

Crew, you might be on to something though I have absolutely no clue why the game would do it in such a way. I'm not sure if your hypothesis is correct but at the very least it should add into our insights of the game. I'll be reviewing the data as much as a guy on final exam week can.

Did you ever figure out how the fuck upkeep actually works?

Nothing beyond what I already knew so far. Part of the reason for standardization IS to help cut out the eccentricities and try to control for some of this eco madness.

Atlas wrote:Nothing beyond what I already knew so far. Part of the reason for standardization IS to help cut out the eccentricities and try to control for some of this eco madness.

There is no eco madness it just you some units had less upkeep to show that they bleed more or just not very good, your now ruining that and making these unit worse than they are warp spiders for one. Just great thinking that you can somehow standardize stuff in warhammer

boss wrote:Just great thinking that you can somehow standardize stuff in warhammer

Q. If you have two units which are identical, with identical purchase costs, how do you set upkeep so that the cost of both of them, in terms of purchase cost + upkeep, remains identical at all times?

boss wrote:...some units had less upkeep to show that they bleed more or just not very good...

Units that are just not very good cost less to buy and to reinforce (as reinforce is 1/2 the purchase cost).

Bleeding more indicates or suggests that they are not very good so it doesn't need to be considered.

I explained this all carefully and uploaded a document. It even had premises, logic and conclusions that followed from the premises. Or at least I think it did. Did you read it?

Antandron wrote:Q. If you have two units which are identical, with identical purchase costs, how do you set upkeep so that the cost of both of them, in terms of purchase cost + upkeep, is identical throughout the whole game?

You just make sure the upkeep value in Cope's Toolbox is the same, so long as the units are of identical population. We often denote upkeep as a ratio based on req/pop.

Purchase cost and upkeep are unrelated. Population cost is the only metric that matters there.

No antandron im not reading a long ass post about upkeep and shit for everything.

I don't really need too its very simply some units have less upkeep or had now then you think to yourself why then the answer will come too, not then look an other unit then see it has the standed upkeep then say we need to fixed this aka standardize it. Dats not how balance works you should at each unit by themselves not judge by another, again just look at the csm upkeep nerf now you don't see 2 csm much I wonder why and again why cos you wanted to standardize not cos it balance retarded change

Rec is everything is this game it buys you power, units, reinforce and all that shit now with all this upkeep shit happen you going to make these unit which had less upkeep worse off, making there builds worse off and we won't see these units used much which is already happen and not cos balance but cos you wanted to standardize stuff well done.

Antandron wrote:

boss wrote:Just great thinking that you can somehow standardize stuff in warhammer

Q. If you have two units which are identical, with identical purchase costs, how do you set upkeep so that the cost of both of them, in terms of purchase cost + upkeep, remains identical at all times?

boss wrote:...some units had less upkeep to show that they bleed more or just not very good...

Units that are just not very good cost less to buy and to reinforce (as reinforce is 1/2 the purchase cost).

Bleeding more indicates or suggests that they are not very good so it doesn't need to be considered.

I explained this all carefully and uploaded a document. It even had premises, logic and conclusions that followed from the premises. Or at least I think it did. Did you read it?

I think better explanation is along the line of let us not use upkeep as a balance tool because it is not a reliable mechanic to use for balancing. There are several tools that can be used for balancing from unit stats, reinforcement cost, purchase cost to upkeep-pop(these two are hard rigged to be together. you can alter upkeep rate per 1 pop value but not separately changed each value to have 0 pop upkeep value).

However, upkeep is the most unreliable of all of them because it is affected by too many factors and is very not consistent as a buff or a nerf. This is due to how upkeep nerf or buff a unit. It takes time to affect eco and during that time different effects occur according to how a unit functions.
1. A unit that does not have to be at full strength to be effective
- Units such as artillery spotters and rangers are not easily affected by member loses. They function very well at 2 or even 1 member left. Effect of upkeep nerf or buff can be lessened and also be exploited by purposefully keeping their member count low.
2. Survival capability of a unit
- More survival wise able a unit is more penalized upkeep wise. Units that bleed less gets more punished by upkeep.
- In 1v1, very well managed subcommanders and vehicles are very difficult to kill. As they won't bleed and survival wise good, they stay until the end and makes your eco suffer more so than other units.
3. Tiers
- Each unit comes out at different Tiers so earlier the unit comes out more you are penalized by having it. Also, tier 3 unit upkeep don't affect 1v1 much because most matches end so quickly after they come out before their upkeep takes full effect.
4. Units that can be thrown away after a certain timing
- Some units scale badly into late tiers and against certain combinations. Sometimes it is even better to just let them die after a certain point to free up upkeep. If we tried to penalize such units by increasing upkeep, it won't have much effect because it will be thrown away in the middle.

In conclusion, upkeep affects each unit differently according to how it functions and effect of upkeep varies according to different situations that occur. This is due to upkeep being payed per model and because it takes long time to take effect and not out of gate at once. Thus, it is a bad balance mechanic when used for nerfing and buffing.

So rather than trying to use upkeep as a balance tool, make it a constant in formula for balance and not change it to keep a unreliable factor a constant. Of course, some units can have a different standardization rate such as sub-commanders and vehicles. Tyranids units can also have different standardization due to how synapse works.

Step 1
If units were balanced before like below
Unit 1 A(30) + B(50) + C(40) + D(25) + Upkeep(20) = 165
Unit 2 A(55) + B(25) + C(70) + D(5) + Upkeep(10) = 155
Unit 3 A(60) + B(30) + C(20) + D(10) + Upkeep(15) = 120
Step 2
and standardized upkeep changes work as Upkeep(5) across the board, it should result in below.
Unit 1 A(30) + B(50) + C(40) + D(25) + Upkeep(5) = 150
Unit 2 A(55) + B(25) + C(70) + D(5) + Upkeep(5) = 145
Unit 3 A(60) + B(30) + C(20) + D(10) + Upkeep(5) = 105

The catch here is Factors, A, B, C and D must change accordingly to ensure that result of effectiveness of a unit is same even after upkeep change.
So unit 1 must receive buffs from increasing ABCD to cover up lose of 15 while Unit 2 and 3 must each receive a buff of 10 and 15 in order to have exact same effectiveness as before the upkeep design change.