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 - 61 through 90 (of 139 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #210090

    Zaskow
    Member

    And auto-calc is mainly an MP issue, and the majority of the player-base plays SP?

    Why Mp-players must suffer from balance issues more than SP-players? Long life of AoW3 will be provided by MP-players, not SP.

    #210093

    Serahfemme
    Member

    No. Prevalence of dwarves in auto is clearly visible.

    And auto-calc is mainly an MP issue, and the majority of the player-base plays SP?

    That’s not entirely true. I use autocombat even in single player because the game quickly becomes tedious and overly long if you manual every single fight against independents, and I know I can’t be the only one. Moreover, the AI is essentially using autocombat every time it fights. That means a dwarf AI will generally out perform it’s rivals because it both clears more effectively and will generally be tougher to beat in a fight because it’s units are more straightforward and thus the AI makes fewer tactical mistakes.

    Also regarding single player vs multiplayer balance (that dreaded debate), sensitive balance issues are more likely to impact the fun of multiplayer games; I don’t think dwarves are so over powered that your average SP enthusiast will notice or even care; small imbalances are easy to overcome because the AI is frankly rather bad at this game, and even using the strongest race/class combinations the AI fails to understand or take advantage of the potential. Good players can defeat an emperor level AI easily with any race/class combination, even the “bad” ones because the AI is a fixed opponent. In multiplayer, your opponent can be several orders of magnitude more clever than an AI, and assuming relatively close skill levels, small balance issues can be felt and can sometimes even decide the game. Even though dwarves are definitely the best auto-clearers, I think they are slightly too strong in other ways too- almost all of their racial units are among the best of their type, and their class units are also often clearly the best-in-class because they often get some extra ability or perk in addition to the huge list of bonuses for being Dwarf (+1 def/res, blight protection, mountaineering). Yes they cost more, but only a little bit up front and it’s money well spent.

    #210117

    Ericridge
    Member

    And auto-calc is mainly an MP issue, and the majority of the player-base plays SP?

    Why Mp-players must suffer from balance issues more than SP-players? Long life of AoW3 will be provided by MP-players, not SP.

    #210119

    Zaskow
    Member

    Let’s see how you will play AoW3 after 2 years without addons, dlcs and patches.

    #210133

    NINJEW
    Member

    Balance is way less important in single player than multiplayer. Not to say that it doesn’t matter at all, but trying to discount the MP side of things because “the majority of players play single player” is silly, because that majority of players also probably cares the least and is affected the least by balance changes like this.

    The Elf 20% blight weakness matters very little. On a Poison Spit from an untouchable, the damage increase is only +2 (and Elves have an extra point of Res anyways, so it’s really just +1). No Goblin unit does more Blight damage than this.

    It results in +3 damage from Poison Spit from a Mature Reed Serpent, and +4 from a King Reed Serpent and from Poison Breath from a Bone Dragon. These are all single hit attacks from T4s/T3s.

    #210140

    Ericridge
    Member

    Let’s see how you will play AoW3 after 2 years without addons, dlcs and patches.

    I started a thread that got all the pikes in aow3 fixed and became a viable addition to aow3. And I prefer SP, now what?

    #210141

    NINJEW
    Member

    Oh snap he got nerdcred

    How will Zaskow respond

    #210152

    ArcaneSeraph
    Member

    The funny thing is AoW:SM was played and maintained for over a decade after its release and the vast majority of players were still playing SP.

    A lot of people claim SP players don’t care about balance, aren’t very good, etc, etc. I think it’s just an easy way to dismiss that group of people. “You’ll be happy no matter what. Now let’s get back to what is important to us.”

    #210157

    NINJEW
    Member

    I mean the only reason this conversation happened is because there was a discussion about the prevalence of dwarves in MP due to their autobattle strength, and Epi used that discussion to jump at the chance to dismiss the concerns of everyone who plays MP. “You don’t matter because there’s less of you.”

    I never said that the single player perspective isn’t worth considering, and I don’t believe anyone else did either. But it is a simple fact that imbalances will affect MP players more than SP players, because SP players always have the option to ignore unbalanced combos. But MP players don’t.

    #210166

    ArcaneSeraph
    Member

    That’s fair enough NINJEW and I can respect that point of view 🙂

    #210169

    Fenraellis
    Member

    Just making them slower (-2-4 mp) as in AoW3 is far less difficult.

    Reducing Movement Rating below 28 is not going to happen. End of story. Trust me(or don’t).

    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.

    I thought I supported the idea, at least…

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

    Presumably 7-cost ground movement, with Mounted/Flying units being excluded from this, due to not having the stout walking Dwarf being the primary source of locomotion(and also to avoid having to give Boar Riders 36 Strategic movement to make it so they have 5 Combat speed).

    28 move units would still have 4, 32 would have 4, 36(Explorer/Long Strider 28-base) would have 5, 40 would have 5. Mounted/Flyers would remain as-is. Ultimately, it’s just the 32 and 36 speed Walking non-Mounted units which would be losing a tile of standard movement. Normal Dwarf Infantry would functionally remain unaffected(barring movement debuffs in combat), actually.

    #210183

    llfoso
    Member

    I would just give all dwarf units -4 MP, with a minimum of 28. So all the 32 movement infantry/irregulars get knocked to 28, and mounted archers get knocked to 32 (they are on boars aren’t they?). Sure, the 28 mp units are unaffected (unless an upgrade like longstrider/trail running comes in, in which case they’d only get +4) but overall they would miss out on fast movement.

    Manticores would be the exception, since the mount itself is unchanged, the movement is neither dwarf nor boar.

    #210186

    NINJEW
    Member

    being slower is a terribly unfun mechanic

    #210193

    llfoso
    Member

    You know what, that’s true. Hm. But if it were limited to no lower than 28 would it really be that bad? Would 28 MP berserkers ruin your day?

    On second thought it would really wreck dwarf rogues. So maybe not the best idea.

    #210207

    Epaminondas
    Member

    I mean the only reason this conversation happened is because there was a discussion about the prevalence of dwarves in MP due to their autobattle strength, and Epi used that discussion to jump at the chance to dismiss the concerns of everyone who plays MP. “You don’t matter because there’s less of you.”

    Okay, I wrote a wall-of-text, at times ad hominem, reply that would have started a flame war, so I decided to think better of posting that version and post a shorter and censored version. (Yes, I’ve had a bad day today, and this was the last thing that set me off as I was preparing to go sleep; but obviously in my cooler moments, I realize people write quickly online, and with less care, and such a product implies more than intended.)

    Anyways, the substantive, non-ad hominem part of my response can be rather succinct. While it is true that I’ve been a strong proponent of incorporating SP concerns into the game, I have never to my recollection argued that MP concerns do not matter at all. In fact, recently I’ve even conceded that – at least in balance matters – MP concerns should have some priority over SP concerns! Nor do I ever recall such a one-sided, SP-centric position on game balance ever been espoused by the SP players who frequently post here, such as Seraph.

    Instead, our position is simply that minority MP concerns should not completely and always override majority SP concerns, as it seems like some MP exclusive players such as Zaskow and Abed have in fact argued. As a frequent poster yourself, I am sure you’ve seen how much dissastisfaction there is with Zaskow, because of the perception he has caused – and may cause further if unopposed – many questionable changes from a purely MP-centric perspective (some, like Bouh, would be even harsher and argue he doe not understand even MP balance). So my little repartee with Zaskow here that you make so much of is wholly innocent within that context; he wants to boost Elves and nerf Dwarves, because he is convinced, from a purely MP auto-calc perspective, that the former is underpowered and the latter overpowered. And I’ve pointed out merely that, as usual, he is approaching the issue of racial balance from a purely MP perspective. That’s all.

    Now, this “shorter” re-write has itself is threatening to become another of my typical wall-of-text, so I should stop and go to sleep. (And if I can’t get things done tomorrow, I blame you solely! ;)) So one final, rather, personal point:

    I just find it most ironic that you are attributing to me a hardcore “majoritarian” position where I believe the majority should run roughshod over minorities for two fundamental reasons. Such a position is absolutely foreign to me for two fundamental reasons. First, philosophically I am actually an elitist whose primal impulse is skepticism toward majoritarian posturing of all stripes. Ultimately I am still attracted to the Platonic view that knowledge or expertise should prevail over sheer power or numbers. Second, while philosophically elitist, in practice I am also a compromiser or “trimmer,” because I don’t believe you can ever get anything done unless you incorporate the concerns of others – even those who disagree strongly with you. (Look at how modest or accommodationist my concrete proposals are in my own rather humongous, large map, SP player concerns thread: They are deliberately tailored to affect small map or MP players least, and many of them are outright options.) Consequently, fanatics and extremists are the human types I find the least in common with, even if they are well-intentioned: By staking out maximalist positions that will by nature exclude some, often many, they make peace or friendship impossible and thus conflict inevitable. So I don’t ever want to be identified with them, even – once again – well-intentioned ones. In fact, I think well-intentioned extremists (or “idealists”) like Jimmy Carter in some sense more dangerous than putatively “evil” men.

    Edit: Yeah, no one wanted to hear the last paragraph regarding my personal creed of sorts. But I think it was better for all of you that I posted that than f-bomb sprinkled screed, which was the original version. And it was just as cathartic for me as a screed would have been, will hopefully not cause a mess I will regret later and need to clean up, and may even be productive in thinking through my positions again! 😉

    #210221

    Zaskow
    Member

    Reducing Movement Rating below 28 is not going to happen. End of story. Trust me(or don’t).

    Hardcoded? Sadly…

    I started a thread that got all the pikes in aow3 fixed and became a viable addition to aow3.

    So what? Did I reject possibilities that some SP-player can see obvious balance flaws? But SP-player can’t see overall balance picture. AI doesn’t use gameplay tools and features at full capacity as human could (fresh example). Also AI cheats. If you can fool AIs and find way to win this doesn’t mean that you can use similar strategy vs. AIs.

    #210228

    NuMetal
    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

    Well put and true. Shock Weakness is not a solution.

    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.

    As Tombles said in theory yes but quite often not really. I started a bunch of games as Goblin with Dwarf ally and most of the times he doesn’t have less/weaker units…

    It *could* work in tactical combat because there’s only so far you can move.

    I don’t think it would work because of kiting alone.

    I suggest to increase dwarf price malus to 15 or 20%

    This is the best solution there is.
    Serrahfemme already described it perfectly: There currently is no downside to choosing Dwarves. The price increase can be disregarded almost entirely because it is so small and because the stack limit of 6 units makes it much less relevant if you have one unit less.

    So from me +1 for a higher price increase for Dwarves!

    #210237

    CSav10
    Member

    Im not opposed to dwarves costing 5% more. But I also think that maybe being able to select different strategies in the auto-combat might be a viable option, if its not too hard to code in. All in all the biggest problem comes down to auto-combat as I’ve heard people complain elves are weak at clearing ;). This is also the forte of dwarves when using this mechanism, so maybe having better auto combat options might better balance your losses for the other races. Being able to prioritise units safety, setting certain units to guard others or play defensively/offensively e.t.c. Ill agree to a higher dwarf cost by all means, but I find if I am actually fighting my own battles with most of the other races I don’t get that much of a different outcome. Dwarves are solid defensive units, however most other races make up for it with better damage, range and versatility, things that aren’t really planned out carefully with the current auto-combat mechanism. The first borns however are always a huge PITA to kill ;P.

    #210256

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    People, a solution that involves weakening the units would be absurd – Dwarves cost more, ergo, they are better. End of story.

    However. It should matter in some way that they DO cost more, even at start. The 10% higher costs ARE a factor (since they also may affect production time). Which leaves:

    1) Make sure, starting forces ARE 10% weaker, rouded UP (that is, Dwarves get – one tier worth of creatures on normal start).
    2) Make buildings that allow creature production 10% more expensive as well. (Keep in mind that higher costs generally will lead to Dwarves picking more of the economy choices of the RG, giving others the chance to catch up making military choices).

    Nerfing Dwarves would be silly – they are boring enough as it is.

    #210257

    terrahero
    Member

    And auto-calc is mainly an MP issue, and the majority of the player-base plays SP?

    Why Mp-players must suffer from balance issues more than SP-players? Long life of AoW3 will be provided by MP-players, not SP.

    I highly doubt that. If modding becomes a thing, that would provide the longevity for this title and not mp.
    MP is a tiny fraction of the active playerbase, the overwelming vast majority of people playing AoW3 do so for SP.

    Balancing around MP, which has different circumstances, is not the way to go. Just look at how this thread started, all dwarves to be catagorically nerfed because the AI works a bit better with them in auto-combat early on. And that could favor dwarves in an unofficial, fan set-up multiplayer tournament.
    That’s just ridiculous. Balance should be struck around manual combat.

    What should be considered is unit costs when starting armies are formed. Giving everyone X number of units is disadvantageous to Goblins and advantageous to Dwarves, who have their respective strength and weakness bypassed.

    #210260

    Zaskow
    Member

    People, a solution that involves weakening the units would be absurd – Dwarves cost more, ergo, they are better. End of story.

    Problem is that +10% to price of dwarves doesn’t really matter. They’re TOO GOOD, for only +10% to price.

    #210262

    Bouh
    Member

    The Elf 20% blight weakness matters very little. On a Poison Spit from an untouchable, the damage increase is only +2 (and Elves have an extra point of Res anyways, so it’s really just +1). No Goblin unit does more Blight damage than this.

    The blight weakness means that all blight effects are 15% more likely to proc. That is significant. The problem with goblins is not the +2 damage of the poison spit, it’s the noxious vulnerability that comes with it.

    #210271

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    People, a solution that involves weakening the units would be absurd – Dwarves cost more, ergo, they are better. End of story.

    Problem is that +10% to price of dwarves doesn’t really matter. They’re TOO GOOD, for only +10% to price.

    Don’t think so. Quality is just summing up. Also, as mentioned, some actually not so good things (like slow Cav), are actually an advantage in AC, so the mixture combines.

    #210313

    Balancing around MP, which has different circumstances, is not the way to go. Just look at how this thread started, all dwarves to be catagorically nerfed because the AI works a bit better with them in auto-combat early on. And that could favor dwarves in an unofficial, fan set-up multiplayer tournament.
    That’s just ridiculous.

    @ terrahero, thing is, the qualities that make Dwarves a safer bet in mp have the same effect in SP.

    You have a better chance of surviving AC for the times you don’t want to manual things, so it translates into a race that is easier to play.

    Now the effects are highlighted in mp because another Human player = more pressure, but the effects are still there in singeplayer.

    Pick any class, and odds are that you, as a singleplayer, are going to have an easier time using Dwarves. They are more forgiving physically.

    Now I thought I carefully phrased the opening post as a discussion of their advantages, and possible tweaks, as opposed to simple “nerf everything” so I don’t feel your post is either accurate or justified.

    Balance should be struck around manual combat.

    Except that this actually massively favours the Human player. The AI, when it clears, clears using auto combat algorithms.

    As an interesting experiment, and one that makes the SP experience more balanced (but less fun imho) try setting all AI fights to auto, so you have to auto against the AI.

    It’s (much) fairer on the AI, and makes them tougher overall when facing a Human.

    It’s also slightly more boring, but my essential point is this: you can’t balance the singleplayer around a mode that the AI cannot use.

    For sure, you could balance a multiplayer game like that, because then the differential is in how Humans use things, but the AI can’t think, it just follows instructions.

    However, apart from an odd few on either side, I don;t think anyone is seriously claiming that SP should be balanced by ignoring MP, or vice versa.

    Interestingly enough, the game is still quite fun without fighting tactical combat. It just gets more abstracted, and emphasis those Dwarven qualities talked about earlier.

    #210316

    I play mosly SP, and is it visible how good dwarfs are in Auto Combat, much better than any other race (specially if compared with goblins and halflings) and I do agree it is a bit unbalanced. But in manual combat they are not much better than any other race.

    I don’t mind you guys trying to fix it and nerf a bit, but please don’t mess with the move speed, it would screw the game to me 🙁 (since dwarf is my most played race and it would become incredible boring to play with less speed)

    #210318

    It is also important to note that the auto ai is also the very same ai used by the game for independents and the ai players. So mp players (or those in sp who auto a lot) just have more chances to see the ai messing up/whatever with their own troops. It’s fun when you beat the ai, so there is an incentive to credit player brilliance, rather than enemy incompetence, when you manual victory in.

    So better dwarf early game performance also gives dwarf ai an advantage, which impacts the later game.

    15 or 20% might be the best solution to the start issue, as it would likely be enough to make starts differ, and will make production times go up. I still like upkeep better, because that scales with the game (since metropolises have so much production that an extra 15 or 20% doesn’t have much impact on time).

    10% less income in the early game is also a pretty tough thing on top of 10% more replacement costs.

    #210324

    Capirex
    Member

    Lowering tactical combat speed seem a bad idea to me and it would be a serious nerf.

    Dwares are always a solid choice and a pretty good race so it’s normal they are popular both in mp and sp, being simple and sturdy the AI, which plays like a a hammer trying to stomp things with brute force, does well with them but i still think that other races can perform as well if not better with many classes. And they are already slow in tactical, you can be as sturdy as you want but if they had infantry with 3 movement and cavarly with 4 in tactical against humans they would be too exploitable by kiting.

    Raising upkeep cost could make more sense.

    Anyway i believe the new underground while an improvement overall is still immature and i think that it needs some tweaks and rebalancing and this would affact dwares indirectly.

    Edit: and i add that elf absolutly don’t need any help even in autocombat, they have all the tools they need to do well and imo are still a race that is stronger than the avarage, possibly still the strongest even by a less wider margin.

    #210348

    Epaminondas
    Member

    That’s not entirely true. I use autocombat even in single player because the game quickly becomes tedious and overly long if you manual every single fight against independents, and I know I can’t be the only one. Moreover, the AI is essentially using autocombat every time it fights. That means a dwarf AI will generally out perform it’s rivals because it both clears more effectively and will generally be tougher to beat in a fight because it’s units are more straightforward and thus the AI makes fewer tactical mistakes.

    You presented a very thoughtful position from an opposite perspective; and I try to consider and answer them respectfully. Last night, I forgot to address it, as I was steaming from Ninjew’s post (in retrospect, his post wasn’t all that offensive, and I take things too personally – whether in RL or online). So here’s a belated version:

    What I excerpted above regarding your claims about auto-calc affecting SP play is is certainly true. I, too, auto-calc quite often in SP when 1) I know I can win easily without casualties; and 2) I have no pressing need to squeeze the last drop of XP.

    But again, I said “mainly,” rather than “only” or something similarly categorical or unconditional. Qualifications are important and indeed completely change the tenor of what is written/said. And, unfortunately, too many people 1) forget to sufficiently qualify their own claims, and 2) ignore when their interlocutors present carefully qualified or hedged claims and instead respond as if their interlocurs actually made categorical or absolute claims. Here I think you are partly guilty of the latter.

    Also regarding single player vs multiplayer balance (that dreaded debate), sensitive balance issues are more likely to impact the fun of multiplayer games; I don’t think dwarves are so over powered that your average SP enthusiast will notice or even care; small imbalances are easy to overcome because the AI is frankly rather bad at this game, and even using the strongest race/class combinations the AI fails to understand or take advantage of the potential. Good players can defeat an emperor level AI easily with any race/class combination, even the “bad” ones because the AI is a fixed opponent. In multiplayer, your opponent can be several orders of magnitude more clever than an AI, and assuming relatively close skill levels, small balance issues can be felt and can sometimes even decide the game. Even though dwarves are definitely the best auto-clearers, I think they are slightly too strong in other ways too- almost all of their racial units are among the best of their type, and their class units are also often clearly the best-in-class because they often get some extra ability or perk in addition to the huge list of bonuses for being Dwarf (+1 def/res, blight protection, mountaineering). Yes they cost more, but only a little bit up front and it’s money well spent.

    In regard, to the SP v. MP issue: I reiterate, I have simply never claimed that MP concerns should be struck from balance or other major game adjustment considerations. So much of what you wrote is moot and is tilting at (Ninjew’s) windmills.

    As for nerfing Dwarves, I do not disagree that they are currently the strongest race, though mainly because they are versatile, jack-of-all trades, rather than they are “overpowered” in some major aspects the way elven ranged game may be (in fact, I was one of the few people who actually voted them as so in the poll). But I disagree with the nerf advocates in thee ways. First, while the Dwarves are strongest, they are more strongest in the manner of primus inter pares (“first among equals”) than Caesar-Colossus towering over others according to Shakespeare’s Cassius. So if there needs to be nerfs, they should be mild – not the dramatic movement or upkeep reduction suggested by many (with either nerfs, I’d simply NOT play the race, and you never want to nerf a class or race to the point where its devotees simply abandon it). Second, I disagree with the general diagnosis of the nature or cause of the Dwarf strength; so, thirdly, my prescription of proposals to fix the current power gap differs from that of the majority. More specifically, I think the current situation is an outcome more of Dwarf superiority in the new UG environment rather than their auto-calc superiority, as there were very few complaints about the race prior to the implementation of the new UG. So I’d look more in the direction of either boosting other races’ viability in the new UG (my preferred solution) or nerf the Dwarven UG advantages.

    #210354

    So if there needs to be nerfs, they should be mild – not the dramatic movement or upkeep reduction suggested by many

    I don’t think the advocates of either would consider those “dramatic.”

    I certainly don’t.

    I mean, if a race can move faster in tactical and still work more or less*, then a race moving slower to the same degree should also, logically, work.

    And given their sturdiness, I don’t think kiting would actually be an issue here.

    Units costing 15% extra sounds like a big change, but it works out at not very much more at all. I mean, given how well you can clear, and how much gold you can accrue, I find that the extra upfront cost is almost a non factor.

    Also, the extra cost only really comes into play when you are considering production capacity, and given that most races will take 2 turns, for example, for their initial archer unit (i.e. before siege workshops) then having the Crossbow cost more than an Archer doesn’t matter.

    At most, you are looking at some extra turns over a few cities to get out a superior (in the sense of surviveable) army, so well worth it, and something that won’t change imho with a 15% jump. But upping it to make a difference will go into too much of a jump imho.

    I used cost as an example in the original post because manipulating cost is one of the easiest things to do, whereas introducing the anti-athletics requires more tech savvy.

    I think the thing is, most people agree that Dwarves have the edge, the debate (much like Dread v Theo) is whether that edge is insurmountable, detrimental to the game, and therefore something to concern ourselves with.

    For both cases, I don’t think it is that big a deal.

    But it is interesting to gain other people’s perspectives.

    So, I’m quite happy with Dwarves as they are, and if my opponent in a game was Dwarves I would not be worried enough about it to change my plans.

    I’d be far more concerned if I was playing Necromancer and found he was a Theocrat (would have to hide my Lost Souls and cede the skies to his Chrerubs) or Sorceror!

    * YMMV.

    Anyway, I think this is largely an intellectual exercise, I doubt things are going to get changed here. It’s not “broken” enough.

    #210357

    there were very few complaints about the race prior to the implementation of the new UG.

    Actually, Dwarves have always been considered very effective. Remember that the “unviable” underground was actually a short lived experiment before Triumph basically reverted it to the way it was before.

    Forge Priests were very early on identified as very strong, and First Born received a few nerfs.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 139 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.