Removing detection from detectors inside transports

[PhatE]

Can this please go?

To be fair this can really help out in a jam when you need to get your detectors close but it gets to the abuse levels that are a growing trend in higher level matches.

Like Falcons with detection at ranger levels or Razor backs that prevent any IED's from getting anything done is just too much. Perhaps I'm a minority on this one but it's been in the game for yonks and probably needs a visit.

[saltychipmunk]

considering that in order to get a mobile detector they have to buy 2 units i think it is fine. it would be one thing if you could cheaply get away with this, but both detectors and transports are inherent power sinks.
if your opponent can afford to be faffing about in a transport chasing your stealth units , then you should realistically also be able to afford an answer to it.

Plus i think your examples are rather weak in this case. ied's are already extremely punishing to people who dont get detectors (hell if you force a detector purchase just because of the threat of ieds i think you came out on top) . So it is waaaaay to much to ask for an ied to counter a vehicle+ detector considering the massive difference in investment here.

It can be unfair for units that need stealth to function( specifically melta troopers since i think that is the race we are coming from with this topic) but i think there are alternatives present for ig anyway.

[Nurland]

I am with the dollawagE on this one. I don't think detectors should detect from inside transports.

[PhatE]

I'll make this perfectly clear so that this can't cause any confusion in case the title was not clear enough.




This is not an IG thread



This thread is about detectors detecting in transports




That's only two examples out of a possible many. Most of which cause more problems than what they offer. There's more than one way to play and the use this "feature" can give you a huge advantage where it shouldn't be a factor in a match. I can flank around and see invis lootas, bully scouts into being irrelevant, sweep IED's, react to well thought out traps without actually using the proper way of doing things, the list goes on.

An invulnerable detector that has transport speed is a little on the ridiculous side, I'm sure you can at least agree on that.

Don't derail this.

[saltychipmunk]

I'll make this perfectly clear so that this can't cause any confusion in case the title was not clear enough.


That's only two examples out of a possible many. Most of which cause more problems than what they offer. There's more than one way to play and the use this "feature" can give you a huge advantage where it shouldn't be a factor in a match. I can flank around and see invis lootas, bully scouts into being irrelevant, sweep IED's, react to well thought out traps without actually using the proper way of doing things, the list goes on.

An invulnerable detector that has transport speed is a little on the ridiculous side, I'm sure you can at least agree on that.

Don't derail this.

not derailing, one of the examples you gave was an ied, thats ig

And my previous point stands, they as in the people using the detector transport combo are investing two units worth to get mobile detection. it is inherently nearly double the investment in resources and population over most of the things they are countering.... unless you are playing a pretty large stealth army...

not to mention a pretty large portion of stealth in this game is a t1 mechanic. so needing a t2 vehicle and a t1 detector to counter a t1 stealth unit doesn’t really seem all that unreasonable to me especially since a good portion of t2 infiltration also happen to carry av weapons.

there is also the fact that said detector units might not otherwise be optimal choices for a given race match up. just for some basic examples shot/regular scouts with a sarge arent particularly great against shooty armies. rangers aren’t particularly amazing vs light infantry dominant races , nor are they really practical for the sweeping role given how they need setup and are squishy. that much is fine in t1.

But this t2+ we are talking about. I find it perfectly reasonable, to me anyway, that there are t2 solutions to the durability of detectors issue.


That being said , I am not at all against nerfing the detection radius of units while in a transport to something reasonable as I can appreciate how annoying a mobile detector with the range as large as a rangers would be. but that doesn’t mean we need the total elimination of the mechanic.

[Dark Riku]

This should not get changed. It's a way to protect the more fragile detectors come T2.

[Forestradio]

agreed it's way too hard to counter detectors with flesh hook so forcing them to come out of the transport so they can be balanced properly with hook would be balanced

on a serious note, a reduced detection range while inside transports would be fine probably to open up some more infiltration plays in t2+

[Tex]

I think that would be great to reduce detection range to somewhere in the 15-20 value when inside a transport.

[Nurland]

Reduced range could work too.

[PhatE]

Infiltration is what keeps the more fragile detectors from getting killed.

Can agree with a detection range reduction. Pretty much means that traps can still be laid and carried out whilst getting them to have some form of relevance.

[CSM Emperor]

Can this please go?

To be fair this can really help out in a jam when you need to get your detectors close but it gets to the abuse levels that are a growing trend in higher level matches.

Like Falcons with detection at ranger levels or Razor backs that prevent any IED's from getting anything done is just too much. Perhaps I'm a minority on this one but it's been in the game for yonks and probably needs a visit.

i had no idea detectors could detect inside transports, it should go.