1st Clue that EC is no TableTop Sim. Power Fist Sucks. 2nd Clue The EC is no TableTop Sim. No Dice. These things are clearly deal breakers. And makes EC just a IP licenced Lobby Shooter, (Aka: WH40k-CSgo)
Actually a vast majority of concepts and mechanics in game take inspiration from both lore and table top. How do we know this? Because Miguel, Brent, Oveur and many others from Behavior Interactive told us this fact again and again as the game was being developed. Most current in game concepts and mechanics were first researched and conceived via the appropriate Games Workshop - Space Marine, Chaos Space Marine, Ork or Eldar table top Codex. Then these building blocks were further conceived and reformed with that TT basis in mind as to best work in a PVP video game setting. All the utterly ridiculous, egotistical nay saying and the asinine, unfathomable denial of TT influences in this thread are rather astounding. Eye popping for sure. More like laughable. Most of the "TT deniers" that are replying to this thread are showing how extremely and unquestionably ignorant and ill informed they are on table top and the tremendous influence TT has had on the development of almost every single facet of EC. While it is indeed true a lot of EC weapons and items in game currently cannot be used in competitive game play and are poorly conceptualized or recreated from the 40K universe(Power Fist, Possessed, Plasmagun, Stalker Bolter, Axes and Mauls), that does not change the fact that TT has still had an undeniable, overwhelming influence on the game as a whole. Nobody in their right mind has ever suggested "EC should be a TT sim". Of course it shouldn't be. That's just an utterly ridiculous statement. That fact not withstanding, anyone denying the fact that TT has had a huge influence on every single facet of the game is either flat out lying or has absolutely no idea what they're talking about. Mostly because ground Assaults are so underwhelming and lack luster when compared to every single other archetype. That's like saying "but the Plasmagun is better than the Skip Launcha!". That doesn't make the Plasmagun a good weapon nor does that change the fact that the Bolter is cheaper than and kicks the living crap out of those both weapons platforms in almost every imaginable situation. Ground Assault, to include Banshee and Slugga, are the "Skip Launcha" of Archetypes IMO. Nerfing JPA after nerfing JPA after Nerfing JPA because Ground Assaults were/are such an unfinished/incomplete overall design isn't a viable reason for the final/last round of nerf JPA. While the initial rounds(x 2) of JPA nerfs were warranted, the last round was not. I recall the Twitch episode just prior when Brent stated something along the lines of: "more players are playing JPA than are playing Ground Assaults". Yes Brent, that's because GA's basically suck and do nothing really well. So in order to coerce more players into playing GA than were playing JPA, let's make JPA suck worse then GA? The logic and train of thought involved to see that JPA nerf implemented is hard to comprehend. Why not instead finally give the GA a unique, class defining role with a special or unique capability for their squad and/or a - GAME CHANGER - special combat mechanic and special weapons unique to the class? Instead of making the JPA suck, why not make the GA an appealing class that brings unique and powerful combat capabilities to their squad and/or to each combat encounter? Non shield bearing Ground Assaults : - are outgunned by all ranged units - are outmaneuvered by all JPA, all Eldar, all Tacticals with +1 Stamina - have the exact same combat weapons and capabilities as JPA units(minus mobility) - have a single bolter round's worth of more durability(HP and Armor) than JPA - are out-tanked by all opponents bearing shields - have no special or unique class defining combat mechanic that's unique to ONLY GA. What special, unique combat capability do non shield bearing GA bring to their squad or to each combat encounter? The answer is they bring NOTHING special or unique to their squad or to any given combat encounter which is why they're a failed concept. Perhaps give GA's a teleport homer they can toggle on every couple minutes or allow them to slot 3 different, unique squad only buffs or outgoing debuffs that they can activate, one at a time, as needed. Think of the support or recon class in Battlefield 4, minus the long rifle. Currently anything a GA can do IN COMBAT or that they can do for their squad, other classes and other builds can do much, much better. There's absolutely no reason to ever choose a non shield bearing Ground Assault over another build unless of course you like being outclassed, outgunned, out tanked, or outmaneuvered. If we can go with no shield, or if the shield isn't an option(CSM TA) we should be able to bring another powerful, unique(class only) capability to our squad and/or to each combat encounter. So perhaps when talking about CSM, Orks and LSM and stating that "JPA are the best melee class", when the only other melee options are Ground Assaults or Slugga, perhaps that isn't such a good comparison. Again, that's like comparing the Plasmagun to the Skip Launcha. Neither are really, really good like the Bolter. One just sucks more than the other.
Why is this even a thread? It's all fine and well to take inspiration and ideas from tabletop for balance and additional features, but a direct 1:1 can't happen if there is no "army restrictions", where you have to balance a total allowed unit-cost controlling what can be brought to combat and within that squads forced to work together.. EC strongly favors lone-wolfing, due to a number of lacking factors for incentivizing groups of specific classes play as if they were one unit. If EC used a team/army&squad system similar to the game "Squad", then MAYBE it could start to be applicable through class-limiting factors. If you want a video game representation of tabletop, I suggest you play Sanctus Reach
You do comprehend the fact that the OP is saying "power armor is power armor, so WTF with JPA and Medics"? It's a more than a legit question and as we can see in Battlefield 3, 4 and 1 you can have the same EXACT durability for all classes while having each and every class very unique and very different in their own right while at the same time not seeing 32 medics v 32 medics every match. Personally I see Behavior's move to implement the EC Melee Apothecary, Warlocks and Painboys and JPA with such abysmal durability as a devastating design choice and feel that this decision along with several other poor decisions contributed heavily to the demise of the game. As I stated, look at Battlefield games. The game play is 100x more enjoyable than EC with all classes having the exact same baseline durability. When I lose in a head to head encounter in any BF match playing any class vs any class I know I lost in a fair fight without any mechanical, loadout disadvantages and there's no bullshit Prima Dona class that the Devs clearly favor, unlike what we see in EC with Tacticals. Or I know i picked the wrong class and wrong loadout for the situation(CQB, open terrain, etc). In EC Tacs and ranged fanbois expect to be able to win in every situation on every single loadout in every single type of terrain and BHVR does their best to ensure that happens. I see that so clearly now after being away from EC all this time. Perhaps the EC formula of having such atrocious durability stats for JPA and Supports should be reexamined. Perhaps Behavior implementing Tacticals as the overpowered, Prima Dona class that they have become should re reexamined. You see not everyone likes being forced to play one class to truly compete. Not everyone will keep playing a game when they know the deck is stacked so heavily in favor of a single archetype. Melee fans are legion and are world wide. There are probably a billion plus melee fanatics that have played WoW and many other action games and RPGs over the last couple decades. A lot of gamers that have played EC clearly recognize and resent how BHVR has completely turned their back on melee archetypes and they deeply resent when one class has so many clear advantages in item selection, LP prices to include weapons, gear prices and the cheapest, best overall weapons and mods in the game. With such clear and blatant bias comes much hate and resentment. Don't believe me? Check the reviews. You end up with a dead game and empty servers and terrible reviews on Steam. You end up with 95% Tacs in every match or Bolter Apothecary with melee enthusiasts being told that they are merely "harassers" and that they should expect to lose 70% of the time vs ranged opponents even after closing the gap and achieving melee range. Basically you're giving all non Tac classes the middle finger and telling us to be happy that we're fodder, be happy with that 30% win rate, be happy seeing Tacs getting 50, 60 kills per match where the nearest melee player usually gets 20 to 30. That's not the 40K universe I read about every night and again, nobody plays a class to be served up as a "harasser" and fodder vs Prima Dona classes(ie. Tac). Anyone that says this isn't true please feel free to cite sources and the numbers. As we all know Tacs and bolter have billions upon billions of kills with the next closes class and the next closes weapons not even coming within light years of those numbers. We all know and can clearly see the LP pricing that works in favor of Tacs, we all know about the NCS being limited when it's overall numbers pale in comparison to the Bolter's total kills. The last time we saw the numbers is was off the charts in favor of ranged and especially in favor of Bolters and Tacs. Until we see new numbers there's no reason to believe anything has changed. The numbers don't lie.
Using a roll-of-the-dice based system as logic for EC-balance doesn't work This is what was replied to primarily, as it's not supposed to be a representation of tabletop, using tabletop arguments for balance do not apply, they can be used as guidelines, but not as primary directive. You're going off on a completely out of bounds grasp at much more than even could be interpreted from what I wrote, and you did it in a manner that could easily have been simplified to a third of the text you wrote.
Agreed. I think the OP was getting at the fact that "Power Armor worn by an Astartes is Power Armor regardless of their class/archetype". The dice roll thing was just expanding on that fact. I.e. Why the fek don't all Astartes in game wearing Power Armor have the same baseline stats and the same chances(dice roll) for survival? Again, it's a totally legit question. Again, look how Battlefield games implement classes with identical baseline stats and how each and every class is balanced so that they each bring unique and powerful tools and capabilities to the fight with no single class being such a Prima Dona like we see Tacs in EC. Again, in BF games you don't see 32 medics vs 32 medics even though they have the same exact durability as Assaults, Supports and Recon/Scouts. You don't feel and know you're totally outclassed because of gear prices and devs playing favorites when you play a Battlefield game unlike knowing how the deck is so heavily stacked in favor of Tactical classes in EC.
Battlefield doesn't take into account the element of melee-classes having further focus on physical traits allowing them to be better at melee than an average astartes just handed the weapons would have. Specialization through physical attributes obtained through prolonged focus on a given role. You could take two twins, give one guns and one melee weapons, the twin with the melee weapons will automatically get physical attributes like that of someone who lugs around weight more commonly than the one who shoots the guns who will instead shift towards stability, accuracy and observation skills etc. It's logical an astartes would have different physical attributes, but armor would remain the same unless otherwise equipped with different armor.
So how does that account for the fact that the Apothecary wielding a Bolter doesn't have identical stats to the Tactical wielding a Bolter? Fuzzy math? "but the Apothecary can heal OUT OF COMBAT" you say? Healing does NOTHING for the Apothecary during combat, just like you see in BF4 with Medics and BF4 medics have the same HP as all other classes! BF4 and BF1 are infinitely more successful than EC so we're saying EC's doing things right and their nerfing of Apothecary durability just after the game went live is BEST and the ONLY way to go? How does the Bolter Apothecary have identical durability stats compared to the Melee Apothecary? Shouldn't the melee apothecary need inherently more HP in order to use their primary weapon in a melee situation(requires melee range, requires closing distance to target?). Common sense would say "yes, ALL MELEE SUPPORTS should have inherently higher durability than the Bolter wielding support". Well the Tactical can spawn an army single handed by capping an objective. Can an Apothecary do that? Should the Tac have lower durability as a result? Does that sound absolutely fucking ridiculous? That sounds about as ridiculous as nerfing support durability because they can heal OUT OF COMBAT. In lieu of asymmetrical balance from faction to faction and from class to class, EC is in sore need of some consistency and just plain fairness from class to class. Behavior really needs to stop kissing ass to Tacs and really needs to implement some balance between the classes. How do you think Battlefield fans would react if DICE told them there was "one class to rule them all" like we see with Tacs in EC? lol! You think the Star Wars loot boxes thing was a big deal? The shit storm that would result if DICE treated their players like Behavior treats all non Tac players would be epic. Nobody likes being served up as fodder. Behavior currently serves up all other classes as fodder for Tactical players. The CAPABILITIES each class brings to the fight should determine balance, not severely handicapping certain builds via baseline horrendous durability and by allowing over priced wargear and over priced weapons for all non Tac classes. The LP pricing thing isn't even up for debate. Look at the numbers. It's an irrefutable fact taht Tacs get away with murder as far as insanely powerful an insanely cheap weapons, mods and wargear compared to all other classes LP prices.
@Njord-Halfhand You're making a very apple to oranges comparison with a 40K game and Battlefield, because the latter doesn't have jump pack units that can disengage from melee, fly out of reach, ground slam back in, stun you and then proceed to cave your face in with whatever melee they are using. In the TT version, they only have a 3+ save because they're very easy to get out of position, and are usually armed only with a bolt pistol and chainsword, the former of which can only be fired ONCE, rather than multiple times, not to mention having a 12" range. Also, all Medic/Healer classes can heal themselves WAY quicker than in something like Battlefield (BF Medics: assuming it hasn't changed since I played BC2, an AoE pack that increases rebounding health recovery vs. EC Healers: syringes and abilities that heal instantly or several times quicker). Also, if Tactical's are SO much stronger like you claim, then why am I able to kill them just as quickly as ANY OTHER CLASS in the game? If you're going melee, it's usually a better idea not to run straight at the guy who has a range and weapon advantage over you (can't tell you the number of Heavies I've taken by surprise because I flanked them).
