Dwarves

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.

This topic contains 138 replies, has 30 voices, and was last updated by  CrazyElf 6 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 139 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #209704

    People keep complaining that they are OP, but that might be within the bounds of the tournament, where clearing effectively can win you the game, and Dwarves clear pretty well.

    Arcane Seraph provided a pretty good summary of Dwarves I feel.

    So, just throwing this out there as food for thought, what if their base regeneration was + 4 instead of + 6 (so clearing isn’t so fast until they get Forge Priests, but they aren’t rendered useless), or they cost 15% extra instead of 10% (so the economic downside has more bite?)

    I propose those as I think changes like that are simpler than slowing down Dwarven tactical speed in combat, or anything more adventurous.

    Again, I’m not sure any of this is needed, just musing.

    It’s actually, if you think about it, a good thing that things like this get highlighted, as it means Races are important and meaningful, addressing an early criticism…

    #209706

    Dagoth Ur
    Member

    A big problem in answering the question “is a nerf needed?” is how much of the Dwarven usefulness is based on the AI handling auto-combat.

    The problem isn’t that Dwarves heal too quickly all game, the problem is early game creeping. Manticores already heal freaking slowly without healers in the stack.

    One solution would possibly be to just give a Dwarf Leader slightly worse starting units, or one unit (preferably an Irregular) less.

    Or make a system that determines starting units based on unit costs, instead of how it is now (how does it work now exactly btw? I think it only looks at tiers and not cost, with some randomness) and make Heroes subject to cost increases or decreases. So this would also possibly improve Goblin play in MP.
    Why cost? Everything is balanced by increasing the cost, something gets something new and fancy? Cost gets increased…

    You could make a system where every game, the game picks two boundaries of total starting unit cost price between which it has to operate to determine starting units, with an extra rule of getting 6 units max on standard setting and maximum 1 T3.
    Leaders cost 200 gold, Dwarven Leaders cost 220 gold. Upper bound could be like 640, lower bound 600 (Leaders included).
    Dwarves pay more for heroes during the game too… (Goblins less)

    #209708

    Why cost? Everything is balanced by increasing the cost, something gets something new and fancy? Cost gets increased…

    I propose those as I think changes like that are simpler

    #209712

    Prodigal Sun
    Member

    May have a point there. However, I still think RG1 has the most impact with UG being enabled. You basically hurry everything from settler to every basic building. I like boosting mana and research early on to fall back on later, and this is happening along with very quick, early expansion.

    Super tired so forgive any weird sentences, but there is no secret what I think of the bonus gold. :p

    #209716

    quo
    Member

    I’ve always wanted to give them Shock weakness. I think they are a little too similar to Humans right now in not having a weakness to exploit. If they had 40% Shock weakness, somewhat compensated for by their +1 resist, at their current costs, they’d feel about right to me.

    #209728

    I’ve always wanted to give them Shock weakness. I think they are a little too similar to Humans right now in not having a weakness to exploit. If they had 40% Shock weakness, somewhat compensated for by their +1 resist, at their current costs, they’d feel about right to me.

    I like this, it would fill the gap of non-shock weakness units. But I would make -20%. Which kind make sense, Dwarf were created from the earth (LOTR, not sure on AoW) and in AoW III Shock weakness is something related to Earth elementals.

    #209735

    Serahfemme
    Member

    Dwarves have always bugged me, balance wise. I don’t think they are extremely over powered, but I think that they are simply too safe of a pick in the current multiplayer meta game, and it’s only been made worse now that the underground is more interesting and becoming a more common option in matches. There’s simply no risk to picking Dwarves- they have no bad racial matchups, they complement every class at an above average level at a minimum. This is made even worse by the fact that in some racial matchups they clearly have the upper hand- goblins have a hard time punching through the high defense and resistance and blight resistance on every unit, and frostings melt to the fire damage that forge priests and first born dish out while doing generally less damage across the board than they are used to thanks to split damage going against very high defense and resistance. Combine this with effective clearing and heroes who get all of the awesome benefits of being a dwarf (mountaineering, cave crawling, +1 defense and resistance, %20 blight resistance) without the penalty of costing extra, it all adds up to be too much.

    On that note, I don’t think the fact that dwarf units cost more on average is much of a penalty in a game like Age of Wonders, where the most expensive part of a unit is its maintenance fees (which Dwarves pay as much as everyone else) and when the stack limits potentially prevent an opponent with more units than the dwarf player to bring them all into the fight.

    I’m not sure what needs to be done about it. For starters I’m not convinced that they need blight resistance- especially not %60 on the First Born who also has %100 fire immunity. Blight damage is surprisingly common and too many units in this game are resistant to it already, and it gives Dwarves an unneeded edge against Goblins, Orcs, Rogues, Arch Druids, and Necromancers. It especially bugs me in the Goblin vs Dwarf match up; since Goblins are the only other race with cave crawling, they are the only race that could reasonably fight the Dwarves underground, and yet the match up strongly favors the dwarves thanks to the blight resistance. This makes dwarves the uncontested kings of the underground, as if they need to be good at anything else.

    #209746

    Ericridge
    Member

    Nerfing their innate healing is just wrong thing to do.

    Dwarves is earth elemental but resistant to blight at same time. So we should go with giving them shock weaknesses so that the age old rivalry between elves and dwarves make more sense.

    #209747

    Serahfemme
    Member

    The only thing that would be accomplished by giving Dwarves Shock Weakness is it would give both High Elves and Sorcerer even more favorable matches than they already have; making dwarves weak to the OTHER arguably “best” race would only cement High Elves as top pick even more than they arguably are.

    #209752

    Epaminondas
    Member

    Two points:

    First, I think BBB’s cost increase suggestion may be too dramatic.

    Second, a lot of Dwarf imbalance currently comes out due to the improved UG making a UG start worthwhile (keep in mind that many races dislike UG) combined with RGU 1 still being quite too much.

    So the best way to balance is not to nerf the race further in general (if it were to occur, a UG-disabled map would make Dwarf perhaps too weak overland), but to enable more races to compete in the UG (probably too much work for the devs to consider) and/or nerf RGU 1 yet again (easiest solution).

    #209753

    Epaminondas
    Member

    The only thing that would be accomplished by giving Dwarves Shock Weakness is it would give both High Elves and Sorcerer even more favorable matches than they already have; making dwarves weak to the OTHER arguably “best” race would only cement High Elves as top pick even more than they arguably are.

    Well-said, dude.

    #209765

    ArcaneSeraph
    Member

    A lot of the power of the dwarves in MP to me comes from the AI, as others have mentioned. It makes a lot of mistakes, separates your troops, opens you up to flanks, etc. However dwarves, with superior stats, are able to survive these mistakes much easier. Also they don’t need to fight in groups as much as other races do. Their units are more self sufficient. Heck in autocombat their slower cavalry is actually a benefit.

    In a similar way this is what makes elven archers strong in autocombat. Unlike other archers who need to run up to do full damage, elves can stay at a distance and thus are more protected and survive better. So other archers may run up and die where the elves survive.

    I don’t have a good feel for how to fix it though. I’d take away their cheaper siege workshop for one. They don’t need it and it just goes to further eliminate their extra cost issues. The only time that extra 10% cost really bothers you is when it adds an extra turn to production. But if you can just rush a siege workshop in a turn or 2 it’s not a big issue any more.

    Perhaps also an extension of what Dagoth Ur suggested: it would be nice if you get a certain fixed cost worth of units at the start. This would give the dwarves a little less. I feel this would be a positive tweak to early game balance.

    I also think a game mode that would let you pick units at the start with a certain upkeep or cost limit would be nice. But that’s another topic.

    #209782

    NINJEW
    Member

    Shock is already the most powerful element in the game, please don’t buff Shock

    #209787

    quo
    Member

    Unrelated, but the idea of Dwarven Undead with Mountaineering has always made me LOL. I realize its there for balance reasons but its still a hilarious visual image.

    #209792

    quo
    Member

    The only thing that would be accomplished by giving Dwarves Shock Weakness is it would give both High Elves and Sorcerer even more favorable matches than they already have; making dwarves weak to the OTHER arguably “best” race would only cement High Elves as top pick even more than they arguably are.

    Well I think Elves should have had 40% Blight Weakness instead of 20%, but point taken. Once mods comes around I may make that edit for myself.

    #209793

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Nerfing their innate healing is just wrong thing to do.

    Dwarves is earth elemental but resistant to blight at same time. So we should go with giving them shock weaknesses so that the age old rivalry between elves and dwarves make more sense.

    Lorewise, there is no such age old rivalry. (Non-Dark) Elves and Dwarves were close allies in the original game, and in 2 and Shadow Magic Julia maintained close relations.

    Some tension is seen in the original AoW3 campaign, which seems (albeit not explicitly stated) to be a mix of apprehension at the influence of Dark Elf ideas at the Elven Court and dwarves being honoured by the Commonwealth for their engineering skills. However, dwarves and elves that maintain compatible ideology still get along quite well.

    #209800

    Fenraellis
    Member

    One solution would possibly be to just give a Dwarf Leader slightly worse starting units, or one unit (preferably an Irregular) less.

    Or make a system that determines starting units based on unit costs, instead of how it is now (how does it work now exactly btw? I think it only looks at tiers and not cost, with some randomness) and make Heroes subject to cost increases or decreases. So this would also possibly improve Goblin play in MP.
    Why cost? Everything is balanced by increasing the cost, something gets something new and fancy? Cost gets increased…

    This is technically already supposed to be the case. Wherein a player will get a rough(presumably based upon a range) value of units based upon the starting army setting. As Dwarves cost more, their units will generally, but obviously not always, be of lower overall type-quality to meet that value amount. Likewise, the reverse for Goblins.

    —–

    Since everyone admits that the base cost increase is less relevant, and Goblins take their base cost decrease even further by also having Volunteer to decrease upkeep on several units, what about Dwarves having an upkeep increase(obviously not on the scale of Volunteer).

    Lover of Gold/Greedy(sounds too harsh)/Hoarder/Wealth Seeker/Etc.: “Unit costs increased upkeep.” **

    **With the description either stating something about it being ‘per tier’, such as -1/-2/-3/-4(although this has the downfall of costing less relative to increased tier, but Goblins don’t have Volunteer on Big Beetles either), or the same +25% as Dark Pact, -1/-2/-4/-8.

    I’m sure this could easily be applied to other suitable units, like Dragons, as well.

    #209802

    Add the extra ten percent to upkeep costs as well as upfront costs, and you’ve pretty much solved the problem. Round up to 1 gold for tier 1, 2 for 2, 3 for 3, 4 for 4. Or you could make it 1, 1, 2, 3.

    It seems fen and I have the same idea.

    #209823

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I also think, you cannot nerf them, because they are more expensive. More expensive means by definition: better. So Dwarves SHOULD be the safe pick. That’s fine.

    The main problem I see is that both Goblins and Dwarves get actually the same starting forces than everyone else.
    It was already mentioned that Dwarven Heroes should cost 10% more (and Goblin 10% less).

    I also think the starting forces should be adjusted. Regular starting forces are:
    1 Hero
    1 T2 Cav
    5 units – most common are 3 T1 and 2 T2, I think (although I’ve no idea whether that’s true).

    which means somewthing like 36 Gold in upkeep (maybe it’s even 40).

    Simple solution: give Dwarves -4 upkeep worth starting forces and give Goblins +4.

    Another factor is RG 1, making a lot of Gold. I don’t know what the current value is (4?), but I was thinking that from the getgo that 3 would be enough.

    #209825

    NINJEW
    Member

    I believe the way that the game determines your starting army is that it’s given a “budget” of resources which it uses to buy soldiers. Dwarves cost more, so they’d get less/worse soldiers.

    Necromancer gets a larger budget, to balance Ghouls not being very good early game.

    So it’s all ultimately tied into cost.

    #209835

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I mean, you cannot make troops of a certain race more costly and then end up with them being only as good as the rest (and the reverse is true for Goblins as well). Why pay more for them in that case?

    What about increasing/decreasing the costs for troop-giving buildings as well? Barracks, War Hall, Temple, T3? War Hall for 193, Peak, for 330 plus 110 …?

    Changes nothing about good troop quality, but may make building things a bit more awkward.

    #209836

    NINJEW
    Member

    Sounds like it’d just make Dwarves more reliant on class units to me

    #209847

    Tombles
    Keymaster

    I believe the way that the game determines your starting army is that it’s given a “budget” of resources which it uses to buy soldiers. Dwarves cost more, so they’d get less/worse soldiers.

    Necromancer gets a larger budget, to balance Ghouls not being very good early game.

    So it’s all ultimately tied into cost.

    This is basically true. In principle Dwarves start with weaker starting armies and goblins start with stronger ones, however in practice it’s not very reliable. The system which generate random unit sets has a ton of weird logic associated with it that often gets in the way of how costs affect what units are spawned. With Necromancers, the starting difference is enough to always have big effect (I once had a golbin necro start with 2 big beetles), but the +-10% that goblin/dwarves get may not really lead to a change of any note happening.

    #209852

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Couldn’t that be changed somewhat – the setup is too random anyway; you don’t want to start with 3 Pikes and no Archer, for example. I had 3 Cavs at start as well…

    #209853

    NINJEW
    Member

    3 Cav start is pretty good, actually. The problem with Cavalry in autobattle is that they rush ahead of the group, and then get ganked before their backup arrives. When most of your army has fast movement, however, this stops being an issue, and your Cav suddenly have a marked increase in survivability.

    #209854

    Tombles
    Keymaster

    Couldn’t that be changed somewhat – the setup is too random anyway; you don’t want to start with 3 Pikes and no Archer, for example. I had 3 Cavs at start as well…

    I suggested to the closed beta testers that we do a bunch of things to reduce starting randomness in RMG maps (more stable starting armies, everyone/no-one starts with their scout researched, things like that) and almost everyone hated the idea.

    #209858

    Bouh
    Member

    I start to think the economic bonus/malus of goblins and dwarves is not high enough for people to notice and care about it.

    Also, dwarves received two big indirect buffs with EL : fire became a far better damage type (more undead vulnerable to it and frostlings) and underground is desirable now.

    I suggest to increase dwarf price malus to 15 or 20%. Considering the care people have for economy there shouldn’t be many complaints. Goblins received enough IMO to not deserve anything more.

    #209864

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Not me.
    In SP, it doesn’t really matter you can restart, if it’s not right or until you get a couple of Swarm Darters or whatever (I wasn’t saying tat 3 Cavs was bad) – and in SP it even doesn’t matter if you get a weaker starting force, say one without Archer: if you WANT the challenge you can just reduce starting force in the options, which makes a lot more sense than to senselessly randomizing the starting forces.
    In MP though, the difference can be a big bummer – needlessly, so that resistance against having a bit tighter rules is – sorry, people, silly, because it makes no sense. It’s more or less completely irrational.

    The main question – imo – is whether the regular setup should allow racial T3 to contain and whether the number of units should always be the same (which strangely enough seems to be the case).

    I think, the MEDIUM starting force should be the standard T1/T2 unit set. Archer, Irreg, Support, Cav, Pike, Inf.
    That’s 6 troops for 32 upkeep. Tigrans and Frosts have a T2 Inf/Pike, so that’s 36 upkeep.
    If 40 Upkeep would be standard (nice number) – than Dwarves, Frostlings and Pikemen were eligible to get +1 T1, everyone else except Goblins were eligible to get another +8 for either another T2 or 2 T1, while Goblins were eligible to get +1 T2 and +1 T1 (or even 3 T1).
    (I have no idea what Necro gets, but ‘m sure it would fit in).

    T3 make a lot of difference, and I don’t really think they should be part of the MEDIUM starting forces at all.

    Simple and easy. Now, should someone say, but what if Goblins get 3 Swarm Darters – correct: Archers are pretty expensive, and for THEM, they might be a limit of at most two at start (for Medium).

    #209885

    Zaskow
    Member

    I’ve always wanted to give them Shock weakness. I think they are a little too similar to Humans right now in not having a weakness to exploit. If they had 40% Shock weakness, somewhat compensated for by their +1 resist, at their current costs, they’d feel about right to me.

    Will this decide anything? I don’t think so. Shock damage is very rare, only 1 class has it at enough amount.

    I like this, it would fill the gap of non-shock weakness units. But I would make -20%. Which kind make sense, Dwarf were created from the earth (LOTR, not sure on AoW) and in AoW III Shock weakness is something related to Earth elementals.

    Dwarves is earth elemental but resistant to blight at same time. So we should go with giving them shock weaknesses so that the age old rivalry between elves and dwarves make more sense.

    In AoW3 earth elementals also have blight weakness…

    Well I think Elves should have had 40% Blight Weakness instead of 20%, but point taken. Once mods comes around I may make that edit for myself.

    It’s not very clever to give race weakness to the most common element in game after physical.

    As for me I’d delete +1 res bonus or/and 20% blight protection. Not too big, but still.
    Also people don’t want to look on some dwarven units. Some dwarven skills make their units obvious OP.
    I meant Defensive strike. Thanks to this ability dwarves are so tough in auto-combats. That’s why dwarven versions of Phalanx and Crusader are far better than other racial analogs.

    #209890

    the age old rivalry between elves and dwarves make more sense.

    In this universe there was no such rivalry. The Elves would have been made extinct without the Dwarves helping them against the Human onslaught actually.

    it would be nice if you get a certain fixed cost worth of units at the start.

    I suggested a whole new screen to leader picking, where everyone had the same starting resources, e.g. 1000 gold and 50 mana, and then they picked what they started with, using ingame costs, so no mater how you tried, you’d always have fewer Dwarves than Goblins.

    It got lost because that same post had ideas on how to make dwellings playable races, and also how to start with non Humanoid Leader avatars.

    what about Dwarves having an upkeep increase(obviously not on the scale of Volunteer).

    An old idea that I raised in the past, and also one for Tigrans, to represent their need to be pampered.

    Another idea, more complicated, also raised in the past is simply to give them the inverse of athletics, so slower tactical speed.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 139 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.