Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Warhammer Open Beta

Moderators: Slitherine Core, BA Moderators, WH40K Armageddon moderators

Post Reply
vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by vadersson » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:31 pm

Hey gang,

Just so the new testers know, I have been data mining the game files againt my personal repository of 40K information. I was doing this in a balance thread, but I think it fits better in it's own thread. So to that end, here are some results from the data mine.

Beta 4 Range Data

Approximate Range bands:
Game 40K
0 Melee, 8"
1 12", 18"
2 24"
3 36", 48"
4 60", 72"
5 96", 120"
6 180", 240"
7 360", Unlimited

120 of 172 weapons have a range that matches 40K. If you include the more minor discrepancies, this increases to 166 of 172. Not bad.

Weapons with 3 hexes too long a range in game
Ironclad Assault Launchers (These are a melee weapon in 40K)

Weapons with 2 hexes too long a range
Bale Eye
Hyperios Missile Launchers
Hyperios Missile Launcher
Rattler Kannon

Weapons with 1 hex too long a range
Big Zzappa
Burna
2 Flamestorm Cannons
GigaShoota
Graviton Gun
Grot guided missile
Inferno Cannon
2 Killkannons
Killkannon
Laser Destroyer
Meltagun
2 Rocket Pods
Plasma Pistol
Quake Cannon
2 Rokkits
Rokkit Launcha
Rokkit Launchas
Shoota
Skyspear Launcher
Sniper
Supa-kannon
Supa-Kannon
Supa-lobba
Tremor Cannon

Weapons with 1 hex too short of range.
2 Battle Cannons
Battle Cannon
Deffgun
Nova Cannon
2 Flamers
Flamer
Gatling Blaster
Gaze of Mork
Hellhammer Cannon
2 Hellstrike Missiles
Laser Blaster
Lobba
Medusa Siege Gun
Plasma Blastgun
Plasma Cannon
Plasma Destroyer
Ripper gun
2 Skorchas
Skorcha
4 Stormstrike Missiles
Soopagun
2 Vengeance Launchers

Weapons with 2 hex too short a range
Heavy Siege Mortar

More to come,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

zakblood
Most Active User 2017
Most Active User 2017
Posts: 15419
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 6:44 pm

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by zakblood » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:44 pm

looks good, but have no idea of what you are talking about either, but good work all the same and thanks for the work, even though again i really don't know what it's for, but hopefully most or some will find it useful, for me u went over my head like a tank shell, and missed my brain by 5ft :roll: :wink:

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by vadersson » Sat Nov 15, 2014 6:46 pm

Ok, next topic is Rate of Fire numbers. This can be a bit off as template weapons seem to have more attacks than expected. Some area attack weapons are the same way.

First off lets look at Template weapons. (Flamers and such) All these weapons get 1 shot per weapon in the game, but can easily hit multiple targets. The vast majority of these have 4 shots in this game, which seems reasonable. Based on that here are the ones that don't follow that rule.
Burna (1 shot low)
2 Flamers (Flamers are fine, but two flamers only have 4 shots as well. This line is only used on Ironclad Dreadnaughts, and I know that those have 2 separate weapons, not Twin-linked weapons which flamers can't be. I would say they should have 8 shots.)
2 Flamestorm cannons (These only get 5 shots, but the Land Raider Redeemer has two separate guns on opposite sides of the vehicle. Seems like 8 would be better here too.)
2 Heavy flamers (again only 4 shots and these are separate weapons. A higher amount is recommended.)
Inferno Cannon only get 3 shots. 4 Seems more reasonable. It would also make the Hellhound better as it seems a little lacking.
2 Skorchas only get 6 shots.

Now I could see the argument that multiple flamers are limited in how many targets they can hit from the same unit. I could buy that. I would just like to see some consitancy in the number of shots and how having two weapons help. Maybe 6 shots is a better number for mounting dual flamers. Still seems like they should be more effective (and shorter ranged.)

More ROF stuff later.
Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by vadersson » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:50 am

Ok, lets talk Traits a bit now.

I did a quick review of the traits intended in the game. There are quite a few comments I have with these.

Terror
This is a great trait and I think ALL flame and chemical weapons should have it. I noticed that Burnas and Flamers don't but really should. (also all template weapons should have the Seige ability too. Only the Chem Cannon, Flame Belcha, and Inferno Cannon do right now.) I am not sure why the Gut Buster Mega-Kannon gets Terror, I don't think it is much worse than some other massive weapons.

AA
This actually matches the various codexes. Good job!

Indirect
This has some issues.
The following weapons have it, but really should not.
Hyperious Missile Launchers
Ironclad Assault Launchers (See my other tirades about these...)
Supa-Kannon

Seige
This also seems a bit too widely used. Not all that much Ignores Cover in 40K
Weapons that should not have it:
Heavy Siege Mortar (yes, it is in the name, but that is not really how it works.)
Demolishe Cannon
Earthshaker Cannon
Heaby Mortar
Medusa Siege Gun
Melta Cannon
Supa-Kannon
Supa-Lobba
Tremor Cannon
This would help infanty survive quite a bit.

On the other hand, all flame weapons should have it. (See above)
Also the Deathstrike Missile should have it
Hellhammer Cannon too.
Stormshard mortars

Kamikaze
I don't see anything with this. So maybe it is just not being used. If it were, the following should have it:
Deathstrike Missile
HellStrike Missile
Hunting Lance (?)
Stormstrike Missiles

Area
Final one I checked it Area. This is massively needed instead of more shots on a lot of the big guns.
The following should have it:
Apocalypse Missile Launcher (B)
Baneblade Cannon
Big Lobba (B)
Heavy Siege Mortar
Gut Buster Mega-Kannon
Conqueror Cannon
Deathstrike Missile (B)
Deth Kannon
Earthshaker Cannon (B)
Heavy Mortar (B)
Hellhammer Cannon
Lobba (B)
Mortar (B)
Plasma Blastgun
Quake Cannon
Skullhamma Kannon
Manticore Missiles (B)
Stormshard Mortars (B)
Supa-lobba (B)
Thunderfire Cannon (B)
Tremor Cannon
Whirlwind multiple missile launcher (B)

This is based on the weapon having either Barrage or Large Blast, Massive Blast, or Apocalyptic blast in 40K. Not sure if that is the criteria you want to use. I did not include weapons with just Blast. (Actually the weapons that are actually Barrage should perhaps have Terror rather than Siege to represent their Pinning effect from 40K. I marked these weapons with a B above.)

Currently only 3 of the above use Area, but I don't think it is working in game anyhow.

That is all the traits I checked for the weapons. Just more data to look at.
Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

vadersson
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Administrative Corporal - SdKfz 232 8Rad
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by vadersson » Mon Nov 17, 2014 4:24 pm

More tails from the Data Mine

Ok, So I did a quick review of unit data for a change. Not quite as detailed at this point, but some general trends.

1. Melee accuracy is really messed up. Orks need a big boost. Slugga boys only have like 40% accuracy and IG troops are 60% accuracte. That needs to be the other way around. The guard should have the lowerst melee accuracy. Ork and Space Marines should be the same. Dedicated Melee fighters should then probably get a boost.

2. All infantry needs melee weapons. You should make some sort basic melee weapon for every infantry group. All characters in Warhammer 40K are assumed to have a "Close Combat Weapon". I used the stats for those to compare the "Knife" against. Such a weapon lets you fight at your Strength rating in 40K. Orks and SM should have the same, while most guards are lower. Obviously, Ogryn would be higher and Gretchin would be lower. Melee is an essential part of 40K, so I think it should be better reflected in this game too. Only units with heavy weapons should not get a melee weapon I think. It would make a big difference if all Shootas, Standard Infantry, and Tactical Marines could have melee attacks. I think it would make the game better and give Infantry more reasons to exist.

3. Ork shooting accuracy also seems to get kind of wonky. Some orks having just as good a fire attack as IG troops seems wrong.

I am sure I can find more comments later, but this is the first stuff that jumped out at me.

Thanks,
Duncan
The Warhammer 40K games all need more T'au Empire units.

Galdred
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Master Sergeant - Bf 109E
Posts: 497
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:43 am

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by Galdred » Mon Nov 17, 2014 5:06 pm

Great job on the data mining.
Concerning melee, I don't think it would be that good to give melee weapons to everyone now, because units attacked in melee already automatically shoot at their target before they are being assaulted. As it stands now, assault units are already pretty weak compared to shooty units, that would tip the balance even more against them.
At this scale(1hex is quite big in this game), assault can also represent short range firefights and grenades (well, I wish grenades were implemented, but that would also mess the balance).

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5395
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by Kerensky » Mon Nov 17, 2014 7:55 pm

We tried to make accuracy reflect lore, but in the end it had to be a direct slave to unit formation size. There can be no highly accurate Ork infantry when their formation size is significantly larger than their opponents. Otherwise they would defeat entire Imperial units in a single engagement by sheer number of dice thrown, and that is not good for gameplay.

Same goes for very small unit count formations. Their base accuracy had to be inflated otherwise players perception of units is damaged. Extremely powerful Volcano cannon with a coin flip chance to hit, under optimal firing conditions? Not good gameplay.

thepuffin
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:53 pm

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by thepuffin » Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:25 pm

You realise that that (Orks tabling Guard in close combat) is pretty much the basis of the tabletop game and the lore around the universe, right? The game is balanced on the basis that Guard are balanced through using superior firepower to bleed the Ork formations *before* they get close enough to assault.

I come back to the question about movement distances versus attack range which wasn't adequately answered before. It seems that by allowing infantry to move 36" in a turn and then assault you are forced to nerf melee ability to compensate.

Right now, I can't see any real differences between the Orks and Guard, and to me that feels like a failure in game design when the source material clearly designates one army as shooty and one as choppy.

Rudankort
FlashBack Games
FlashBack Games
Posts: 2931
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 2:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by Rudankort » Mon Nov 17, 2014 8:35 pm

What exactly do you suggest re unit movement and firing distance?

Kerensky
Content Designer
Content Designer
Posts: 5395
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 2:12 am

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by Kerensky » Mon Nov 17, 2014 9:48 pm

thepuffin wrote:You realise that that (Orks tabling Guard in close combat) is pretty much the basis of the tabletop game and the lore around the universe, right? The game is balanced on the basis that Guard are balanced through using superior firepower to bleed the Ork formations *before* they get close enough to assault.

I come back to the question about movement distances versus attack range which wasn't adequately answered before. It seems that by allowing infantry to move 36" in a turn and then assault you are forced to nerf melee ability to compensate.

Right now, I can't see any real differences between the Orks and Guard, and to me that feels like a failure in game design when the source material clearly designates one army as shooty and one as choppy.
Interesting description, but considering this game and how it behaves, especially with regards to retaliation and game pacing, I'm not really sure what you are suggesting?

thepuffin
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:53 pm

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by thepuffin » Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:31 am

To be honest, I'm not sure what I'm suggesting as it may require an overhaul of some basic mechanics (i.e. morale, retaliation) to make it work.

My feedback to you is that the armies in the game do not play like the same army does on the tabletop (or in the written fluff about the universe). Part of that might be that the assault/close combat element of the game is too forgiving for Imperial Guard and that might be due to the fact that assault/close combat is too easy to enter without taking return fire. On the tabletop, the average infantry unit will move 6" if they shoot or 9" if they elect to run. In return, the average weapon range is 18-24", meaning that units wanting to enter close combat must manoeuvre well or survive 2-3 turns of fire before they can initiate combat. However, a unit of melee-focused troops such as Orks will destroy a unit of low strength/toughness/weapon skill/armour (such as IG) once combat begins.

To make the game more like the tabletop you would need to consider:
  • Reduce movement range/buff shooting range of all weapons
  • Increase Ork melee strength, accuracy
  • Reduce IG melee strength, accuracy
  • Highlight in game the difference between a range 1 shot and an assault (so that IG do not accidentally commit to an assault they will lose)
  • If an assault is decisive, the winner should occupy the hex of the unit that was charged
I suspect that this is a change too far at this point, but perhaps some of this balancing could be considered? At the moment, it feels like assault isn't really in the game and the strengths and weaknesses of each army aren't particularly apparent.

thepuffin
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Lance Corporal - SdKfz 222
Posts: 28
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 5:53 pm

Re: Vadersson's Data Mine Thread

Post by thepuffin » Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:33 am

Also for consideration:
  • Increase spotting distance by a couple of hexes
  • Implement an accuracy penalty for shooting after moving (more movement = less accurate)

Post Reply

Return to “Warhammer Open Beta”