personally I really dont think eldar will be all that squishier then the SM faction theres far too many times when a player has to be underfire in EC, bottlenecks, capture points, melee etc make eldar much more squishier and they wont be able to close, capture/contest, melee worth a damn as for smaller hitboxes ... they have said eldar will be the same height but slimmer then SM, that doesnt equate to a huge difference in their hitbox (maybe ~10%) and fails to account for the much taller helmet which might mean a larger headshot hitbox and as for speed ... thats a hard act to balance between faster enough to justify a shorter TTK and so fast that they may have trouble maneuvering accurately and tend to overshoot things like corners, ledge edges and opponents with player latencies and frame rates being so variable greater speed may be as much a hinderance as a help
I've thought this is how it will end up being employed too. Story has to fly out the window sometimes for the sake of practicality and gameplay. Otherwise the Space Marine lovers would have lazer eyes and require being stepped on by a titan to die.
I suppose the balance will be brought in such a way that increases all of the HP of all the races. So Eldar players won't die from one bolter shell, although that is the likely outcome. Or they will make it so that the hitboxes are smaller than usual, or hell, even have Eldar dodge a certain amount of bolter shells/beams/bullets before they can be actually hit. Although, it isn't hard to guide your mouse towards a target and shoot, even if hitboxes are reduced.
Eldar squishiness depends on the Craftworld really. Saim-Hann are some ruthless sumbitches. Exodites are fucking badass wood elves who effortlessly repelled FOUR of Comorragh's top ten Kabals. It took three Space Marine LEGIONS to take one Exodite world.
But they took it, held it down, and raped it in the end and to what total Exodite losses? I'm guessing massive.
At the core I share your concerns with so many one hit insta death options in the game already ( melee, plasma, grenades, tanks shooting and grazing physically, turrets, lascannon if you stand still long enough etc.) even against legendarily tough and armored SMs the ELdar with their traditionally lower HP and Armor will get slaughtered. However to talk about balance right now is kind of a an exercise in futility as its too early for one thing and there are so many random elements that may or may not be addressed. Like the fact the armored post-human can get irrecoverably stunned from a "nearby" slam ( despite being armored against kinetic attacks and the slam originating from inches off the ground ) but can roll off buildings with nearly no damage, guns that can mow down entire legions do less damage then chainsaws ( which if Gaunnt killing Dercius can be trusted, a big if, do not act like blades), TTK, inconsistent melee, strange damage hitboxes, shooting someone in the head repeatedly being less effective then spray and praying ( in armor designed to protect against just that and that can enhance/stabilize vision etc.)"near" them due to suppression,people actively lobbying to keep their preferred class/weapon "OP," a strange "bug" that makes it so you can't shoot over or to the side of anything unless you are pressed up against it, and on and on. ( I'm not really complaining just illustrating the breadth of the issues still to be addressed) Essentially , so many mechanics have been changed or tweaked already and so many others are waiting on other features not yet implemented to be fully realized that its really hard to even get an idea of what needs to be "balanced" in the first place.( or, to be honest what "balanced" actually means in the game) Nathan used to repeatedly say that they put out a "vertical slice" to establish and perfect the shooter framework first etc. so with so much still to come it difficult to legitimately speculate. Hopefully the game will find some kind of homeostasis soon and then we can talk about true "balancing". A rephrasing of the question expands on what a poster (this one-->Tarl68)has already mentioned "will the Eldar be irresistibly funneled into situations where they are unable to to use uniquely Eldar tactics to effectively compete in the game by design/code rather than player skill?" The Devs used to talk about asymmetric balance more often but as the game devolved ( hopefully just for the time being ) into a lobby/arena shooter that became less and less of an overt topic. Accordingly, it became harder and harder to see how a truly Eldar faction could be implemented in the current spam one thing or another, human "Horde mode". The maps are really too small for maneuvering/tactics beyond "run around in a group until you die and hope that your next wave of respawns kill the guys that got you before they cap." The infinite respawn mechanics makes strategic/tactical play a moot point as the strike and maneuver, draw out and overcome piecemeal, tactically apply specialists at the perfect time type of warfare the Eldar are known for is pointless and ineffective when the enemy can just come back just as strong as before, there is no place to draw them out from or to, and you are forced into narrow play parameters by e-sport based win conditions. In Planetside 2( which did accomplish that 40k iconic massed war feel at times) at one time you could take any base you could capture which opened up allot of strategic/tactical opportunities; ghost caping, small unit effectiveness,"hit em were they ain't", taking an unassuming base then massing a large force behind the front lines, drawing off/fragmenting/blunting a large assault with a small determined/skillfull unit, and other alternatives to "zerg" play. (Essentially in the open world of the game you could play like Eldar) However, eventually they instituted a grid mechanic that meant you could only capture bases in order ( like the refinery in EC as opposed to Blackbolt) this put an end to that kind of strategic play in favor of massive/epic/large scale front line battles(regardless of judgement/opinion this is a thing that happened). This story is applicable in that a certain type of play ( Eldar like strategy/tactics) was limited and essentially removed by a hard (read design/code level) mechanic. If the promised "asymmetry" is still a goal and if the factions ( mostly Eldar) are to be unique and equally viable ( not necessarily balanced or fair in the usual forum usages) bEhavior can't have a game which limits Eldar (or anyone's) tactics on a design level. That Eldar ( or SM, orCSM, and definitely Ork) "RPG eperience" and its viability in game, is seemingly at the heart of the OPs concern and for many of us the reason we came to the game in the first place. As is, that "feel" is off. There is none of the ( even on a minscule scale) iconic 40k or even Fantasy artwork feel of battle lines and "epic" combat instead the game is a series of ti individual(largely meaningless due to the infinite respawn) engagements who purpose is to run out the clock rather than contribute to a larger "war." For example; Heroes and Genrals has instanced lobby battles that tie into a world map conquest system with the resources allocated by player "generals" determining what forces you can bring to bear in the instanced battle so it is possible to split the difference. Despite the potential,history of progress so far, and reasonable or legitimate/very real explanations/justifications the current state IS a little disheartening considering the promises made and the potential of the Xenos factions shown in the mo-cap and the surprise Twitch stream Eldar cameo. I don't think any one wants the factions to be re-skinned clones of each other with minor tweaks a la Planetside 2, so its fine if the Eldar are comparatively squishy as long as they are given "room" to do what they do best.
Yes, an Eldar should have a lower TTK vs a Bolter than a SM does; however, an Eldar Shuriken Catapult should also have a lower TTK against a SM than a Bolter does, so that their ranged TTKs are relatively even. The Eldar's greater speed should help with closing in to the necessary ranges/getting into the necessary positions to best use their weapons strengths against their enemies. All SM classes with the same mobility as the Trai/Tac should have the same Armor/HP as them, being that Ass/Rap/Dev/Hav values were changes based on their increased/decreased mobility. Of course, all C/SM classes should actually have the same Armor/HP values, with their wargear and the effects applied by carrying that wargear(I.E. heavy weapons slow move/turning rates) differentiating them from one another. Only, in WH40K those healers are supposed to be just as adept at murdering an enemy as they are at tending to their allies. You should be a combatant on the field just as they are, with the differences between them and you being the wargear you have(I.E. their grenades and ammo packs, your medical supplies, etc. etc.). If classes like the Apo are supposed to be more supportive then instead of reducing their weapon damage they should have reduced supplies(I.E. less magazines), which encourages them to stay closer to Tacs in order to get rearmed, while the Tac wants an Apo nearby in order to get healed without having to fall back. They should be noticably squishier, taking at least a couple less shots than a Marine to go Down. Of course, Eldar weapons should have lower TTKs against Marines than the Bolter, putting them and Marines on relatively even levels. Being squishier is relative. If the thing being measured against is not squishy at all and you are noticably more squishy than it is you could still be hard but with a pudgy layer on top. Not only are the Eldar's bodies thinner than those of an Astartes but their Armor is also less bulky, meaning they could be around 20% smaller in overall surface area than a Marine. It's very doubtful the extended part of the helm would be considered for head shots. Even ~25% should be a noticable increase speed-wise, hopefully without too much/any performance decrease. SM speeds: Forward 6-ms, Strafe 4.5-ms, Back-Pedal 3-ms, Sprint 12-ms Eldar speeds: Forward 7.5-ms, Strafe 5-ms, Back-Pedal 3.5-ms, Sprint 15-ms Not true at all if you play the TT rather than using novel standards. I have actually been working on TT-based builds using the core stats of weapons classes to determine their values for EC. Spoiler With my builds: Bolter TTK vs C/SM: 1.75-sec, 8 Bolts, 0.25-sec Firing Rate Bolter TTK vs Shoota w/'Eavy Armor and Eldar with Heavy Aspect Armor: 1.5-sec, 7 Bolts Shoota TTK vs C/SM: 1.25-sec, 11 shots, 0.125-sec FR While the Shoota has a lower TTK vs the Tactical than the Bolter has vs the Shoota, the Shoota's damage drops to 2/3rds at 27-meters and 1/3rd at 54-meters, while the Bolter's damage does not drop until 48/96-meters. Overall, the Tactical should have the advantage in ranged, which is counter-balanced by the Shoota having the advantage in melee. Bolter TTK vs D. Avenger/S.Hawk/H.Banshee: 1.25-sec, 6 Bolts, 0.25-sec FR D.A. S.Catapult TTK vs C/SM: 1.15-sec, 47 Shuriken, 0.025-sec FR The S.Cat should have less range than the Bolter(36/72 vs 48/96-meters) and be less accurate; however, it should have very low recoil so consecutive head shots are easier to achieve, while its much higher rate of fire significantly improves the chance of hitting with it, especially in close range. Overall, the D. Avenger should have the advantage in ranged, which is counter-balanced by the Marine have the advantage in melee. Shoota TTK vs D. Avenger: 0.875-sec, 8 shots, 0.125-sec FR D.A. S.Catapult TTK vs Shoota: 1-sec, 41 Shuriken, 0.025-sec FR The S.Cat has more range(36/72 vs 27/54-meters), is more accurate and has less recoil; however, the range difference is slight, while the Shoota's high FR and lower accuracy improve its CQC effectiveness. Overall, the D.Avenger should have the advantage in ranged, which is counter-balanced by the Shoota having the advantage in melee. True balancing should start at the core, the base statistics upon which classes/weapons/vehicles/animations are dependent upon. Once those things have their proper Armor/HP/damage/firing rate/etc. etc. values, you can properly determine what is statistically more powerful than what and to what degree. Then, based upon that data, you can apply further limitations(I.E. increased Load-Out points cost) to those powerful things so that the extra points the non-powerful thing users have can be used to get things that gives them a relatively/completely equal performance percentage to the powerful thing users. Infinite respawns and class changes allow for a battle to continually change and evolve over its duration based upon how the players react to one another. With properly designed respawn mechanics(I.E. respawn timers, respawn locations) even a team with infinite spawns can be overcome because every death removes a member of their team, temporarily giving the enemy team an advantage. It doesn't matter how many times you respawn if you just run out and die straight away. With the ability for players to heal themselves/each other, injuries taken in battle should be nowhere near as significant as casualties taken. For starters, just fyi, the grid in PS2 that connects bases represents supply lines. In PS2, the ability to hit one point before focusing on another is still a completely viable tactic because each faction at least starts with multiple bases in contest with two different factions; what the change to PS2 did was remove the ability of enemies to strike deep behind enemy lines where their side had no supply line running, which in EC is going to be handled by the Tyranids. It was an excellent choice for PS2 because it cut down on how many possible engagement spots there could be at once, resulting in greater numbers of players per engagement, while still leaving multiple options open to assault in case a particular fight isn't going the greatest.
That's exactly the point though, it was a viable tactic "...to strike deep behind enemy lines where their side had no supply line running." and one that was very Eldar like but it was removed not by players strategy but by code. The devs wanted to force the players into really big engagements and it worked, but at the cost of player agency. In Ps2, the factions were not that different so removing a possible play-style (which was viable and fun if you weren't part of a huge outfit, or didn't want to be part of the "Zerg") didn't have that much effect and since they always stated that they wanted to focus on the "huge" battles it did make sense. However, in EC forcing the Eldar into that kind of Head to head attritional warfare goes against their traditional methodology, and is potentially very unfair if they as you have said have lower values. Finally it would also remove the choice of the player to play like Eldar forcing thenminstead to play like the other faction with a few tweaks. Eldar probably wouldn't choose to attack into the teeth of a defense but if the game forces players to do that in an attempt to foster "big" battles the faction just becomes a re-skin of the others instead of a unique gamplay choice for both the players and opposition. Eldar ( and this is part of the Ops point) should add another dimension to the game. Opponents should have to worry about their flanks and and over extending more because of the unique nature of the Eldar threat as opposed to worrying about a full out assaults or being outnumbered for the other factions. Each faction should present a separate and individual set of challenges that change how they are dealt with. A real world allegory would be an MMA match of a dedicated striker versus a dedicated grappler they each bring different skill sets and a huge part of the fun is seeing how they each employ those skill sets against the opposite and possibly countering set. Nathen even mention assymetrical ( def:having parts or aspects that are not equal or equivalent; unequal in some respect.) balance again in last Fridays Twitch. Which is great and one of the distinguishing characteristics of EC but it becomes game breaking if for instance the Orks are hypothetically the best at melee but the game hypothetically forces all the other factions to primarily engage in melee. If the game doesn't give the opportunity (like Ps2 removed the opportunity ..to strike deep behind enemy lines...) to circumvent the Ork's hypothetical strength using the strengths of the other factions ( like speed maneuverability for the eldar because the maps are too small or the win condition force a style of play) then it fails in its stated goals even if it is the name of big battle or a more conventional "balance." Now you are probably going to say the they could "balance" the game , give the Eldar high damage low TTK ( if it can be any lower) etc., and probably already have numbers to show how they could implement it. But the core of the issue is the question of whether the game will intrinsically limit truly Eldar play. Finally while you successfully described what an infinite spawn does, the point was that the mechanic creates a certain style of play which is less tactical(deff, relating to, or constituting actions carefully planned to gain a specific military end) than a mechanic which makes death more meaningful. If death was a bigger threat and had more impact than a K/D ratio or temporary absence people would play differently. The repetitive cycle of running around recapping point after point until the timer runs out is not strategic (def:relating to the gaining of overall or long-term military advantage.) and barely tactical which are hallmarks of Eldar warfare. Using wave after wave of massed troops or trickling in respawns is not is not an Eldar friendly or Eldar specific methodology, In fact it might even handicap the Eldar becasue low HP/Armor units forced to play into the opponents strengths by the game will be slaughtered. Making death have more consequence which is the point you glossed over allows the Eldar "room" to be Eldar effectively. Charging into fights, uncaring ( which is what many melee do as shown by sprinting in to the rooms already swinging before they get to a enemy and continuing to swing after everyone else is dead for a bit showing key spamming), and killing until you are downed becomes less of a viable tactic when that eventual death is permanent or otherwise has greater consequences. You could, in that scenario, reap a fearfull tally and still handicap your own side, or more likelly a planned defense would mow you and the the other "beserkers"down ( as happens in truly tactical games like GR Phantoms or, R6 Siege). In the end Z, you do good work ( exhaustive work too so props though Brent did say they do not use TT or fluff as more than a vague hint of what GW wanted the word to be in Friday's Twitch) but the op's concern and mine as well is that EC doesn't limit Eldar by map size or win conditions or even number values, not because of exactly what TT says or what Thorpe may have invented but what we as players want Eldar to be ( which may never come to pass). I think infinite re-spawns/super short death timer is great for Orks ( mentioned at the end of the Twitch) it represents the Green tide pretty directly and Orks are not known ( aside from some stand out leaders) for tactics/strategy or even caring if they and /or their comrades die so it fits them and it builds their in game flavor. Eldar ( and SM, CSM) should get that same consideration. Eldar shouldn't have infinite respawn because charging in like Orks s not their way so their playstyle should reflect that. They should be able to meaningfully hit an run, be clever and draw out the opponents (which is pointless on a strategic scale in the current maps), and should not be forced (by game undeniable mechanics, because the opponents should try to force them into bad places obviously) into a Non-Eldar style of play.
