[Brainstorm] Forget economy rebalance. Tackling T4 Units directly.

We’ve moved over to the paradox forums. Please come visit us there to discuss:
You can still read the collective wisdom - and lolz - of the community here, but posting is no longer possible.

Home Forums Age of Wonders 3 Discussions [Brainstorm] Forget economy rebalance. Tackling T4 Units directly.

This topic contains 178 replies, has 70 voices, and was last updated by  spockimpossible 5 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 121 through 150 (of 179 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #70055

    azman
    Member

    Upping the price and upkeep of t4’s hurts the human player more then the AI. The AI starts with more cities, bigger cities and they aren’t taking losses through attrition since they don’t need to expand as much.

    That’s on top of what ever money cheats the AI has, this punishes the Human player more. Slower production, slower access to the 1-3 tiers and city upgrades. Yet the AI can sit on it’s ass waiting for you to get near.

    And it still doesn’t stop t4 spamming, it just delays it. Later in a mission after you have 7= cities you have money and mana to burn, as does the AI.

    The units are just too powerful. A t2 isn’t a huge upgrade from a t1, and a t3 isn’t a massive upgrade from a t2.

    But the jump to t4 is just incredible. And it doesn’t carry any real inherent weaknesses, it’s just a God unit. That’s poor design.

    There is no rock, paper, scissors. It’s just rock vs boulder, lol. And the ability to have a stack of just boulders is poor design, as well.

    #70058

    Steven Aus
    Member

    So the balancing act of making them strong but with inherent weaknesses that don’t make the unit useless.

    #70071

    azman
    Member

    Exactly, yet they should have reasonable hit points, too. 132 hit points is LOT in this game. Also there should be SOME limit on how many can be in a single stack.

    #70083

    davidtcf
    Member

    I used to remember me myself spamming 3-4 Undead Dread Reapers in AoW2. They are strong but still able to die if not handled properly.

    See the Stats comparison for low tier to highest Tier for AoW2 Undead:
    http://aow2.heavengames.com/gameinfo/units/undead.shtml

    For the other races:
    http://aow2.heavengames.com/gameinfo/units/

    Notice the difference compare to AoW3?

    Their HP, stats are still balanced, Dread Reapears only have 26 HP! Bone Horror has more HP yet they are slow with a lower defence and move points. This should be the way they balance things out. Not giving T4 units a huge 100HP+ and high stats.

    #70129

    1969
    Member

    I like to see an option to disable tier 4 units. Let the player decide if he want a game with tier 4 units or not.

    Or an option to disable tier 4 units AOE attack, so they just got one main attack. Then you can atleast try to surround them with lower tier units to work them down. AOE attack for the shrine and juggernaut is devastating for the lower tier units, if you got more than one tier 4 unit operating on the battlefield.

    #70167

    azman
    Member

    I’d turn them off in a second.

    I really think they tested this game in small maps and quick skirmishes. All the balance is there for that, but I can’t see how they could have not see the clusterfuck that the game turns into on longer, or slower play throughs.

    I’m mean within 48 hours forums like this, or the steam forums we’re full of people complaining about how truly awful the game becomes later in the missions, how could they possibly NOT seen that themselves?

    Did they really not notice? Did they not notice every single global spell was almost instantly dispelled, EVERY TIME?

    The average player knew after a few hour of playing, but the people who spent 3 years with the game just couldn’t see it? Really?

    #70170

    Ricminator
    Member

    Personally I believe that we shouldn’t change too much on the t4’s. Some of the suggestions like increasing cool down time of a juggernaut are great, that is true. But preventing massproduction of them is more importent here and I think it can be done. For the risk of getting trown off the forum for repeating a statement, this is what I wrote earlier in a different thread:

    Second thing is the following. I noticed that part of the problem is, that because the ai have cheats(necessery for giving a nice resistance to a human player), the ai tends to have too much resources mid-late game. Why not try to prevent this from happening whitout making ai a toothless joke, by dynamicly lowering or raising the amount of extra income depending on the ai position in regard to the other players. I’m thinking of looking at the amount of cities an ai player has compared to the overal number of cities. If ai has more of them than the other players then you can lower the cheats, because the amount of towns will generate enough income for the ai. If he loses a couple of them, you can then increase the cheat back up so he gains again enough income to give enough opposition to the rest. Hopefully by doing so you can prevent the ai from having a treasury full of resources without messing up the experience.

    The reason I believe this is, because I finished the second elvencourt campaign map. At the end I had three armies with 2 heroes, 9 horned gods and 1 golden dragon,1 shaman and 3 draconian elders. One call of lightning attack isn’t overpowered, but being able to launch 9 of them in the first round IS in my eyes( it was fun but not every time in every battle). So prevent a lot of t4 and anyone, including ai will have a choice of spreading the few t4 you have among all armies or put them together in one stack. So far I saw the ai spreading his t4’s. Makes more sence especially on bigger maps where your fighting on multiple fronts.

    #70191

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You could indeed make the AI advantage dynamic – on Emperor you might just give it + (100 – x*#cities) % bonus, X being probably at least 1 and at most, well 2, 2.5, 3? Capped at, say, +25%, so that it wouldn’t drop too low.
    You could also decrease the amount of flat bonus, depending on number of cities.

    #70198

    grizzz
    Member

    PLS FIX SHADOW STALKER

    HAVE NO MORE TEARS

    #70359

    Taykor
    Member

    In aow 2 and SM, T4 required hall of champions, masters guild and temple complex, essentially everything beside the wizard tower. It’s more reasonable in AOW 3 for T4 to require the palace so that they can’t be built out of every remote village.

    this

    I think this is the main problem: for city-built T4 you must only have one class-dependent building which doesn’t require anything. Summoned T4 don’t have this problem as you can summon only one at a time.
    If a production of city-built t4 would require (almost) fully developed city than it will be much-much better, I think.

    #70395

    So, limit it to metropolises, or cities with Grand Palace (effectively the same thing in game time)?

    Grand palaces take a huge amount of resources to get too.

    With the ai bonii they’ll get the comparatively sooner than you will, albeit later overall.

    So, the “problem” will just get postponed, which might be enough anyway.

    I say “problem” because I’m still not convinced it is an actual issue.

    #70418

    Taykor
    Member

    So, the “problem” will just get postponed, which might be enough anyway.

    I think it will be greatly postponed and there is high probability that it will be almost solved: even AI will produce much less t4. As I see now it very rarely upgrades cities up to the Palace.

    #70433

    SheepyScotty
    Member

    How’s about bringing in a new ability. T4 slayer? Can only be given to t1 units maybe? A David v Goliath scenario. Or possibly 6 t4 units and they get a debuff e.g 6 t4’s get a 50% debuff on hp and damage then for one less in each army tile you get the debuff decreased by 10%? Just a couple of ideas.

    #70438

    Calmar
    Member

    So, limit it to metropolises, or cities with Grand Palace (effectively the same thing in game time)?

    Grand palaces take a huge amount of resources to get too.

    With the ai bonii they’ll get the comparatively sooner than you will, albeit later overall.

    So, the “problem” will just get postponed, which might be enough anyway.

    I say “problem” because I’m still not convinced it is an actual issue.

    I’d like to chime in to suggest maybe limiting the metropolises where the T4s are built. In AoW 1 metropolises were of massive strategic value because they are limited and cannot be built, much like dwellings today.

    How about having common and player-built settlements still grow up to city, whereas metropolises are special places that have to be conquered on the map?

    Fluffwise they’d be like Paris, London, Jerusalem, Constantinople – powerful and strategically important places that need to be conquered instead of being countered by building one’s own metropolis two days downriver. 😉

    #70441

    Mardagg
    Member

    guys,since I have hopes that we might end up with T4 racial units at some point,for which I would prefer the steep building requirements posted here as suggestions for T4 class based units, I strongly vote for 2nd class specific building that is required to build T4 class units.
    This way we would keep a clear distinction in requirements between potential race based T4 units and class based T4 units.

    I agree 100% though,that it needs to be more hard to get to T4 in terms of building requirements in general.

    #70470

    C4ptainZA
    Member

    (I’m really enjoying the game so far, this is just my opinion from a game play point of view)

    I have a different take on the T4 problem, I think the problem is not T4 units and their powerlevel, but caused by the ‘always hit’ mechanic used by the game.

    In essence they removed ‘luck’ and replaced it with ‘flanking’. In AoW:SM attacks and spells didn’t always hit, and defense and resistance modified that chance. So T3 and T4 units had high defence and resistance, but not necessarily high hit points (Flying T4 units had roughly 22 Health, Walking T4’s had about 32). This meant that T1 units were less effective against T4’s as most attacks missed, but when one did connect on a small chance it still hurt that unit. So even a few Archers could take down a dragon with a little magical help. The odds are against them but I think this was quite healthy as it introduced counterplay.

    In AoW3 defense and resistances lower damage, which means lower level units have their damage output lowered against those higher level units considerably. Add large HP reserves of sometimes 100 HP or more and some damage resistances and immunities and high level units become very hard to deal with. Sure there are counters if you take advantage of damage type immunities, but you don’t always have those available, so you’re left with countering with other T4s.

    How to fix it? I don’t know. Because T4’s need to be worth the investment, but at the moment it feels like it’s a ‘who get’s them first?’ and a ‘do I have the counter available?’ question. Which is not necessarily fun in the late game.

    #71037

    Ricminator
    Member

    Can anyone explain to me what the fun is of having a lot of t4’s??? Just got steamrollered in the 3th elven court campaign in the swamps. Turn 36 and 4 yes 4!!! juggernauts killed of my entire army including heroes. I was just turning up production of goblin beetle riders. I had al the goblin towns, but they start with nothing. So before there able to put out a decent army, that takes a wile and those towns need a garrison, otherwise the indepedants will take them over under my nose. Especially since half of the ranged goblin units are useless against machines. I wiss for an elven town or some stormsisters in Sundrens army. My feeling so far is that massing t4’s is bad for the experience. When I had them myself they turned down any need of strategy, where as when I am fighting with t1-t3 I have a lot of epic battles, sometimes with only my heroes surviving. Will take a night rest and tomorrow I try again with some sort of stupid rush strategy of some kind, maybe that will help. Otherwise I will wait with the campaign and play only rmg with the right setup so there’s no t4 in sight.

    #71087

    CrazyElf
    Member

    So let’s build out from there. Changing the economy is not going to make spamming T4 units impossible. It’s simply going to make it harder to do.

    Isn’t that the intended goal of this entire thread though? Make it harder for T4s to be spammed?

    The way I see it:
    1. Nerf T4s doesn’t work. It leads to 6 units that are weaker than before, but there’ll still be that incentive to make 6 T4s.

    2. Massively increase the cost (you’ll have half as many T4s or proportionately less depending on build/maintenance costs), so that you have no choice but to build lower tier units as well for a combined arms force.

    The problem I see with 1 is that there will be no T4s in multiplayer and smaller single player maps at all if the nerfs are taken too far. With 2, they’ll be rare, but still present.

    #71088

    CrazyElf
    Member

    I say “problem” because I’m still not convinced it is an actual issue.

    Judging by the volume of people who are upset, it does seem like quite a few people are not happy with it.

    #71115

    @ Crazy Elf, in the beta, when they introduced the new shrines, I sh*t myself because they ripped multiple Orc armies to pieces.

    Then I picked myself up and did some experimenting and figured out that massed Cavalry is a reliable counter, especially as Warlord, so you can absorb the losses.

    Same with Juggernauts.

    Not to disparage people here but the point is, I learnt to overcome it, in about 2 hours flat, and often times it seems to me that people are playing the game in a way that all but hands the ai the opportunity to build massed T4 units.

    Now ofcourse that’s not “fun” but neither is it “broken,” and no I am not telling everyone to “learn to play.”

    There are 2 suggestions that stand out for me here:

    1-link class buildings to city building, e.g. Berserkers require Warlords hall plus Barracks.

    2-linked to above, require considerable investment in a city before it is t4 capable, e.g. Grand Palace (imho a bit too much) or Metropolis, or perhaps having one of the building chains complete before hand, e.g. Barracks + warhall + Riding Hall to unlock Manticore Riders (logically/lorewise, this shows that certain berserkers get selected for Manticore Riding training. Not many make it, hence the cost. I left out the tier3 building because that doesn’t really fit imho) or the Shrine chain complete to allow summoning Horned Gods, or building a dedicated “Summoners Circle” (highly original name lol) which strengthens the link with the Arcane enough for these huge creatures to be summoned. Dreadnoughts could require a Master’s Guild for Juggernauts, siege Hall for the rest of their machines.

    We can have alot of fun here, and add in some of that ‘diversity’ everyone wants :).

    #71143

    CrazyElf
    Member

    Not to disparage people here but the point is, I learnt to overcome it, in about 2 hours flat, and often times it seems to me that people are playing the game in a way that all but hands the ai the opportunity to build massed T4 units.

    Now ofcourse that’s not “fun” but neither is it “broken,” and no I am not telling everyone to “learn to play.”

    I agree – to an extent.

    Juggernauts, shrines, and everything else are not the unstoppable things that people say that they are. Strong, yes, but unstoppable, no.

    The issue here as you hinted (but you wanted to state in a politically correct manner) is that people are unwilling to learn how to take the time to experiment into what counters are effective – they just want the T4s nerfed NOW. And you can tell by the way people are talking in their comments that it is a nerf “NOW NOW NOW” sort of thing.

    I think that a price increase is well justified (to encourage more T3s), but a total nerf of T4 capabilities (which reading this and several other threads many have called for) is excessive.

    Now where I disagree is the lack of options.

    There is only 1 tier 4 per class (well unless you get a dragon’s site). But either way, I think that is way too few.

    #71145

    ghtshrine
    Member

    I think you are still missing a large part of this problem. The AI is not aggressive with other AI. So when you are doing a match you can lay down a lot of pressure down on one or two and the others have free reign. There needs to be a change to how the AI reacts.

    But honestly there doesn’t seem to be much of a response from the devs with all of these posts I am thinking it is a bit pointless to post any more on this topic. To shadowclasper look at the big mega post we were talking in pages with nothing.

    #71154

    CrazyElf
    Member

    Number 1 is what I want to certainly fix. The AI is missing researching nice tactical and global spells and going straight fro T4 units, which makes fighting it kind of bland sometimes. For number 2, I’m not sure if we need to change it or how to change it… I could modify the system to be empire wide, but I’m not sure if it would have undesired consequences…

    Perhaps a slight bias towards T3 at the end game in favor of a balanced army? So in other words somewhat fewer T4s and somewhat more T3s?

    #71183

    Aekis
    Member

    Hi folks !

    I was thinking about this and maybe a rule like “core units build” should be a good idea in order to see every unit of the race/faction combos.
    The idea is that if you want to build some T2+ units, you have to build first some T1. Something like four T1 units, in order to unlock the creation of three T2 units, then two T3 units and finally one T4 unit. If you want more powerful units, you’ll have to build core units before. In that way, no matter what you want to do, you cannot spam T4 without before create a huge army of everything you race/faction combo allow you.

    Proportions can, of course, be modified in order to fit properly, but the idea is to create low tier units in order to unlock high tier “slots” or “population”, not only do the research.

    #71213

    bekken
    Member

    In AOW2 the T4 units were even cheaper and even more powerful compared to lowest tier units (although they did have less health), and yet even then they could be taken down easily to a focus fire of siege engines and spells or had an exploitable elemental weakness. This made it possible to build stacks with proper units and enchantments to play to their weaknesses while being cost effective. The main difference in AOW3 is the max range for T1-3 units is shorter combined with the fact that most T4 units having powerful/long range AOE attacks (*except manticore riders). In my opinion, reducing the range and/or damage of the AOE attacks, less health, or added elemental weakness would be a sufficient change.

    #71217

    CrazyElf
    Member

    I was thinking about this and maybe a rule like “core units build” should be a good idea in order to see every unit of the race/faction combos.

    Too restrictive and unwieldy. You’d just want to get rid of the bad units to get the higher tier ones.

    #71223

    Mardagg
    Member

    Personally I think all cooldown effects in the game should get an additional “can only be used once/twice/thrice per battle.

    This would prevent exploiting the Healer ability to get more xp durin battle(make it once per battle).
    This would make strong ranged abilites like the one from the Horned God less good and harder in sieges to outsmart the AI(Horned God for example I would prefer : once per battle).

    Also I would like to see Ballista added for all races,that would be kind of specialized in taking down single high HP/high Defense targets from long distance.

    #71247

    But honestly there doesn’t seem to be much of a response from the devs with all of these posts I am thinking it is a bit pointless to post any more on this topic. To shadowclasper look at the big mega post we were talking in pages with nothing.

    You’re not giving them enough credit. They read everything on the forums, and I imagine that the reason they haven’t responded here is because they don’t want to commit to anything definitive just yet.

    And surely, the existence of a beta patch, and the things is contains, is a big enough “response”.

    @ CrazyElf, call it being pc if you like (I think it’s a dirty word myself) but I see it more as being polite. Manners don’t cost much, and yelling and screaming is totally counter-intuitive (but unfortunately that seems defacto internet modus operandi)

    #71248

    azman
    Member

    I have my reasons for thinking that limiting the number of t4 is the right solution, for those that don’t agree I ask this:

    What reason is there for mass t4’s? Is it that it adds to the variety? No, there is only 1 t4 per class.

    Does it make battles more tactical and interesting? No, the opposite really.There only seems like 2 real reasons to want stacks of t4’s.

    One, to compete with the fact that the AI does it, and it is the best way to counter it, which wouldn’t be needed it there were limits.

    Two, to totally steamroll the enemy AI, and make battle fast and thoughtless. With the added bonus of making them seem common and less impressive.

    #71255

    I agree i am getting bored of this game because of the t4 spam and i only have 19 hours under my belt. Something has to be done because mass t4 battles is not fun in the slightest. I think t4 should either be tough and do little damage or do heaps of damage but be fragile to even t1 troops.

    Also the idea of limiting t4 troops is a great idea, but i would also like if they pulled the balance of all the tiers a bit closer together otherwise you don’t end up using t1 troops past the first 20 turns.

Viewing 30 posts - 121 through 150 (of 179 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.