Even more dreadnought nerfs.

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 Balance Suggestions Even more dreadnought nerfs.

This topic contains 37 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by  llfoso 6 years, 8 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 38 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #234461

    Ericridge
    Member

    Whats up with this.

    Dreadnoughts now lose the excellent repair machine + Iron heart.

    And worse of all, their engineers loses the repair machine. This was truly unnecessary for engineers only gain access to repair machine at elite.

    I have calmed down enough to post after several days of fuming.

    For now the time has come to return the poor Golems of Dreadnought restored to their old tier 3 glory after horrendous healing nerfs.

    Edit: Since it seems like it is mandatory for people to be miserable while playing AOW3, I would recommend..

    Set Healing to once per battle for Theocrat.
    Make Warbreeds of warlords tier 2.
    Double the casting cost of Beholders.
    Restore the stunning power of apprentices.
    Make Shadow stalkers tier 5 with price of tier 3.
    And give floating back to galleons.

    And I would like to request that PBEM be removed from my copy of AOW3 for I now see it as cancer destroying my game because I do not make use of that function whatsoever and somehow it’s making the game incredibly unpleasant to me.

    #234468

    Teehon
    Member

    Now, with the Mod Tools at hand, you can simply create a mod where Dred heroes start with Shoot Cannon, Engineers start with Repair Machine with no medal, and Golems shoot Martyrs.

    BTW, there is already a mod which restores Repair Machine:
    http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=532215424

    #234509

    Ericridge
    Member

    Logic is ridiculous.

    Pbem cry about healing OP. But it was Warlord as class with support hero Archdruid’s healing for super rush l33t doom.

    Therefore lets’ smash an entirely unrelated dreadnought class’s healing in the process for fun and then buff an already powerful class sorcerer’s healing spell.

    #234511

    Stormwind
    Member

    Balance for PBEM and for SP is basically the same thing, since PBEM tactical battles are identical to SP tactical battles. Preventing PBEM exploits also prevents SP exploits.

    The divide is balance between PBEM/SP and online MP, which is a near impossible balance task since they have opposite issues.

    SP’ers (of whom I am one, I play all 3 modes but SP gets the lion share of my play because of time constraints) dont really have much cause for complaint, since we can now modify the game to our hearts content. Just find a mod that suits you if you dont want to do it yourself.

    #234561

    Teehon
    Member

    Logic is ridiculous.

    Pbem cry about healing OP. But it was Warlord as class with support hero Archdruid’s healing for super rush l33t doom.

    Therefore lets’ smash an entirely unrelated dreadnought class’s healing in the process for fun and then buff an already powerful class sorcerer’s healing spell.

    Actually, I believe that making a weaker version of Emergency Repair (+10 HP or something) and giving it to Engineers on start would be really nice.

    #234586

    Zaskow
    Member

    I have calmed down enough to post after several days of fuming.

    Pure 1.7 version is waiting for you in BETA menu on steam…

    #234587

    Balance for PBEM and for SP is basically the same thing, since PBEM tactical battles are identical to SP tactical battles. Preventing PBEM exploits also prevents SP exploits.

    I have to agree. Removing the healing all the time fun fest removed a really obnoxious form of grinding that one could do to make the game too simplistically easy. Dreadnoughts don’t need multi heal because

    1). machines are tough enough as is with the one heal,

    2). strategic healing limit is what makes machines not super op (since they can take a lot of damage and do lots of damage at long range). Unlimited tactical healing (especially with a net hero) negates this weakness.

    3). reassemble. Why heal what you can infinitely raise from death?

    4). guardian flames is more fun since you can make things fire immune in combat, which fits your classes fire use.

    #234681

    NINJEW
    Member

    doesn’t the repair machine on builders still function same as it always did

    #234682

    doesn’t the repair machine on builders still function same as it always did

    Yep. I don’t really understand the OP, because Dread got stronger in most cases (with regards to heals).

    There is still normal repair on builder units for strategic map heal.

    Emergency repair heals more than regular repair machine did on the strategic map (meaning you get more heal than before). Your hero stacks should be healing even better than before.

    Emergency repair heals almost as much as 2x repair machine heals, so it’s about equal to having multiple uses of a regular repair machine heals in most cases.

    Guardian of Flames is better than Iron Heart later on because it grants fire resistance and damage, rather than spirit immunity (which much of your army is already immune to).

    #234794

    quo
    Member

    Well the Dreadnought did get a bit of an overall nerf IMO. I’m mostly fine with it and actually said in the discussion thread the nerfs he had planned for Dreads were okay, in light of Builders keeping Repair Machine. I didn’t realize Engineers were losing Repair Machine, might have said something if I’d realized it, altho I don’t usually get too many Engineers to Gold anyway.

    Beyond that, there seems to be a burgeoning movement to make ALL healing 1:combat. I think that is a huge, huge mistake. The change to Heal Undead was IMO game changing in a bad way. If people want that IMO the way to do it is with mods.

    Balance for PBEM and for SP is basically the same thing, since PBEM tactical battles are identical to SP tactical battles. Preventing PBEM exploits also prevents SP exploits.

    I disagree. The biggest “exploit” of single player is save scumming, which virtually all single players do to some extent and which is absent completely from PVP. Despite what PVP players tend to think, the purpose of single player is not merely to simulate PVP using AI. SP games often have an entirely different scope, with the AI serving as an obstacle that is somewhat formidable but does not break the fourth wall/is not allowed to “know” it’s playing a game like a human player is.

    The healing “exploit” in SP is/was not really an issue of any concern. It’s not like the AI was going to complain. It was a PBEM issue related to PVP that suddenly foisted itself back on the SP game. Without the PVP concern there was very little reason to change it in SP.

    Guardian of Flames is better than Iron Heart later on because it grants fire resistance and damage, rather than spirit immunity (which much of your army is already immune to).

    Iron Heart is definitely better than Guardian Flames IMO. There are lots more Spirit resistance checks than Fire. The Fire resistance isn’t a horrible thing, but it’s not Strong Will. I’m not angry about the change but I do think Iron Heart was stronger.

    #234799

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Quo, you are missing the point.
    In PBEM is no save game scumming, due to Ironman, so all “exploits” that are pulled in PBEM can be pulled in SP WITHOUT save scumming, which is a corrective element only for the lazy on one hand and an experimental tool – you have to go over the limit to see what is the limit.

    I have no idea how you see it, but in my opinion Healing is the most boring and worst mechanic possible because it undoes stuff and works like an equalizer. Working your ass of so-to-speak, to keep damage to a minimum, is cancelled out by Healing, and completely destroye by unlimited Healing.
    Dispel and Break Control are also part of this. In my opinion, ALL undoing stuff should be limited to ONE use per combat and unit (meaning, you cannot have enough units with Break Control, Dispel and Healing), because in that case it’s just a tactical element. You have a certain amount of “undoing potential”, and you have to use it like you see fit – but you have to think, before you start using it.
    A specific Healing class is a justified exception.

    #234802

    quo
    Member

    Quo, you are missing the point.
    In PBEM is no save game scumming, due to Ironman, so all “exploits” that are pulled in PBEM can be pulled in SP WITHOUT save scumming, which is a corrective element only for the lazy on one hand and an experimental tool – you have to go over the limit to see what is the limit.

    The point is, Single Player is not merely a proxy mode for PVP. The argument that balancing for PVP balances single player automatically by removing “exploits” hinges on the idea that some of the things a SP is able to do are actually exploitative.

    When I wrote my two spec mods I didn’t consider PVP at all. Why? Because I personally don’t care how they work in those environments. They’re written to make SP fun. They may be slightly underpowered or somewhat abusable. But the point isn’t just to create a PVP sim. I wish more people could see that PVP does not have a 1:1 relationship with the core game, nor will it ever.

    I have no idea how you see it, but in my opinion Healing is the most boring and worst mechanic possible because it undoes stuff and works like an equalizer.

    Healing is a major part of the basis for one of the classes (Theocrat) and to a lesser extent Dreadnought (by the way its implemented even if not in original intent).

    Dispel and Break Control are also part of this. In my opinion, ALL undoing stuff should be limited to ONE use per combat and unit (meaning, you cannot have enough units with Break Control, Dispel and Healing), because in that case it’s just a tactical element. You have a certain amount of “undoing potential”, and you have to use it like you see fit – but you have to think, before you start using it.

    I think this is a terrible idea unless you are also going to make stuff like Inflict Stun only trigger once per combat, which would just be boring. To heal or recover requires a combat action. If you don’t want the enemy doing that, destroy the unit that provides the cure, same was as if you don’t want to be stunned you kill the enemy that deals stuns. If you can’t do that, they outplayed you, and you deal with it.

    #234807

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You can’t argue first half on behalf of pure SP and then argue second half with PvP.

    Anyway, there is a certain basic game balance to consider:

    1) All regular units like Inf, Cav, Pike and Archer are COMBAT units first and foremost that are supposed to deal damage (only).
    2) There is a most exclusive action, and that is casting a spell; this action is allowed only once per turn and only by 1 unit; it also costs Mana. This action should have a meaning. It’s very expensive for heroes to gain more CPs and to learn spells – so it’s a bummer some spells can actually be countered with Break Control which is a fairly cheap ability. A spell effect should be countered with Dispel only.
    3) Most abilities would work better if they were once-per-battle, but would work guaranteed (Like Stiffen Limbs which is very powerul because it always works).
    4) Inflict stuff is always OP if it’s a by-product of shooting or melee-hitting, and the effect is more than a slight debuff (of course Inflict Stun is OP, because the difference between Inflict and Not Inflict is extremely big.

    Those are general thoughts, and normally you’d start with them, but of course the actual game is way too advanced and complex to get radical now (which is also unnecessary because the game s fun).

    That leaves looking at Healing, and Healing in an unlimited way is simply no fun at all, because it’s mechanical and repetitive. It doesn’t matter whether you play SP or PBEM, biggest part of the game is manual battling against the AI, and repeated Healing is just crap, which is easy to see because it’s something even the limited AI manages (minus the exploits, of course). There is Regeneration which IS basically Healing already. Then there are Healing SPELLS which cost mana and need a certain spec or Class. Then there are Healing ABILITIES of some support units – there can be no doubt that they should be limited to one use. And lastly there are mana-free Healing abilities – with Healing SPELLS around, why would they work more often than once without costing anything?

    Keep in mind that Necro and Theo have Empire Upgrades to make Support units Healers… so I would like to hear a good REASON in support of multiple ealing, not that you THINK it’s a mistake. A REASON?

    #234830

    quo
    Member

    That leaves looking at Healing, and Healing in an unlimited way is simply no fun at all, because it’s mechanical and repetitive. It doesn’t matter whether you play SP or PBEM, biggest part of the game is manual battling against the AI, and repeated Healing is just crap, which is easy to see because it’s something even the limited AI manages (minus the exploits, of course). There is Regeneration which IS basically Healing already. Then there are Healing SPELLS which cost mana and need a certain spec or Class. Then there are Healing ABILITIES of some support units – there can be no doubt that they should be limited to one use. And lastly there are mana-free Healing abilities – with Healing SPELLS around, why would they work more often than once without costing anything?

    I believe you are creating a false dilemma. There are attack spells in this game. There are debuff spells. That doesn’t mean units shouldn’t also get attack spells or debuffs that are basically free (not really: they cost action points). Units also get armor and protection, which limits the effectiveness of attacks, also basically for free. Meanwhile Theocrat, the main healing class, does not even get a Healing spell short of picking one up through a specialization.

    The issue you seem to have is believing that because healing recharges during the fight, the player is therefor compelled to drag combat out in order to heal every unit back to full. I can understand this, sort of. The issue is that 1:combat heal does not actually fix anything. It just changes the nature of healers, so that if you enter a fight already injured, the only logical first move is to blow your heal straight away and then use the healing unit like an archer for the rest of the fight. There is zero tactical decision making in that. And it RADICALLY changes the ability to defend a city in close call scenarios. The difference is astronomical.

    What limited healing does in reality is cause every nick and scratch a unit takes to mount in a cascade of damage. This does not fix attrition. It just makes single players more willing to use cheap tactics and change the threshold for where a single player decides to save scum. This might balance out PBEM. I have a feeling it would merely irritate the heck out of single players, as you can see with Ericridge’s comments above.

    But really the main point is getting rid of this idea that balancing the game for PVP somehow magically balances out SP. That is just never going to be true.

    #234840

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I still see no reason why Healing – as opposed to other abilities – should be a cooldown ability; that is the actual question, and the only reason you name is, that it radically changes the ability to defend a city (with astronomical difference. (The point with going injured into a fight and heal immediately as a no-brainer is actually just showing that you didn’t thought this through, because it’s just not true: the main purpose of Healing is actually to keep units from dying, not to make sure they are always full health.)
    For city defense IN CLOSE CALL scenarios, the difference is OF COURSE big, when it was a close call scenario ONLY because of the ability to regularly heal a big amount of damage over an extended period of time – which is obviously a poignant problem for ATTACKERS as well, if their force isn’t right.

    So the question would be, whether it’s really a bad move if all the people who relied heavily on their ability to repeatedly Heal over a longer period of time in order to drag the battle to victory, will now have to rethink their strategy – and of course the mix of their attacking and defending forces.

    I don’t think so.

    Limited Healing will either slow down the game or increase the gold that has to be spend on new units.

    And as a last word, Balance for single play isn’t needed, because it doesn’t matter: the battle human versus AI is imbalanced right away. I have no interest in “balancing” SP – I only like a challenge, and Healing tons of damage isn’t challenging at all. Instead it’s pretty boring, repetitive and is a main offender in the strive for “perfect play”, which leads to people mounting artifical difficulties (like teaming up all AI players and so on).

    Winning on highest difficulty should be nearly impossible, otherwise the game is “solved” for SP, and I suppose that’s something no one really wants, right?

    #234874

    quo
    Member

    (The point with going injured into a fight and heal immediately as a no-brainer is actually just showing that you didn’t thought this through, because it’s just not true: the main purpose of Healing is actually to keep units from dying, not to make sure they are always full health.)

    The point of healing is to restore HP. This may seem like a tautology but it’s a basic fact of the math involved. In a situation where you are only allowed to heal 1:battle:
    – It remains basically mandatory to blow the heal sometime during combat
    – In almost all situations, the timing of doing that should be at the start of combat

    Basically the only thing 1:battle healing “fixes” is the urge to stick around and farm some extra HP restoration by dragging out combat once it becomes clear you are the winner. However, “fixing” this is not a collateral-free proposition. It radically changes how healing functions, and completely redefines combat that lasts longer than a few turns. It also takes the reactiveness of healing away. Part of what makes a Theocrat’s healing not suck, for example, is that it is not only restorative, but they can amass it badly damaged key units to save them, even several turns into combat. A scenario with 1:battle healing takes the reactiveness away and massively favors whoever can simply deal the most damage.

    Mathematically, the issue is related to exiting combat having more than you went in with. But this issue is always going to exist in a game where there is an incentive to attack (rather than just defend). The true “fix” for the healing “exploit” would be to eliminate in-combat healing entirely, or put a cost on it. However, doing this without ALSO putting a cost on super high damage attacks or extremely useful status effects is a bad model. That is why a kludge fix will not repair this situation. Chart out damage over time through battles in 1:battle heal scenario and you can quickly see what I mean.

    When heals can recharge, an enemy cannot sit back and simply lob weak attacks at you until you die. If they try to, you will outlast them, due to your healing overcoming their damage output. Healing units, with only a few exceptions, tend to be defensively weak, and their advantage is staying away from attackers (e.g. using walls, blockading with units, etc).

    The complaint about heals eliminating the “attrition” element of the game are simply wrong. Attrition happens if you lose a battle or a unit completely dies. You do not necessarily need to keep track of attrition at the unit HP level, wherein every minor scratch they take gradually mounts into an avalanche of damage over time. It might be fair in PBEM. In SP it’s merely annoying as hell. The AI is not cut throat like a player, does not and (and IMO should not) simply mimic an entity that is out for the player’s blood, and keeping track of every nick until the player bleeds to death from paper cuts will merely irritate them.

    There are other ways to do healing, of course, including some ways to do “hardcore mods” or the like. But trying to “fix” it at this stage with a set of hard core rules in a desire to fix “exploits” is not sensible.

    #234892

    Ericridge
    Member

    You guys can argue until you’re blue in face. I simply do not care.

    For ….

    I Ericridge the Great has ragequit age of wonders 3 because of two PBEM Exploiters destroyed my Singleplayer game experience.

    Good riddance.

    Good bye exploiters.

    I’ll be uninstalling AOW3 and only come back after Dreadnought class is fun again. This nerf finally pushed me too far over the line.

    Its completely unnecessary.

    The fault is upon the exploiters who insist on spending gazillion hours on a single gold mine grinding exp when I do none of whatsoever exploits.

    #234909

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    The point of healing is to restore HP. This may seem like a tautology but it’s a basic fact of the math involved. In a situation where you are only allowed to heal 1:battle:
    – It remains basically mandatory to blow the heal sometime during combat
    – In almost all situations, the timing of doing that should be at the start of combat

    Using the word “math” is still not making this right. Yes, it is mandatory to use a Heal (provided you have damage to heal) – this was different in AoW2, mind you, where Heal could be used once per TURN, including in-between turns, making it NOT mandatory to use because it would be used eventually anyway. You want to go back there?
    And then – nope, it’s on the contrary often wrong to use a heal right at start, if you have only ONE heal, because you are wrong about the point of Healing when there is only 1 per battle. The point of Healing when you have a cooldown on Healing is to restore as many HPs as possible. The point of Healing, when Healing is severely limited (to once per battle) is first and foremost to keep a unit from being killed if it’s in danger. Only if there is no such danger, you will use Heal to simply restore HPs as an additional regeneration.
    With Healing on a cooldown the whole idea of a battle changes. Suddenly it’s advantageous when the AI simply waits: you can get 2 Heals in before combat even starts, and you can even retreat after that, should you so desire. But even if not – suddenly disabling an opponent is important, simply to gain time in order to Heal your units. It’s a silly logic that allows a unit to use Heal once “during the night” (between turns), but an unlimited number of times in a battle.
    Not to mention the combination of using Death March in combo with unlimited Healing, allowing basically to circumvent the penalty for double strategic movement (which admittedly could be fixed via Death March, but it adds up).

    When heals can recharge, an enemy cannot sit back and simply lob weak attacks at you until you die. If they try to, you will outlast them, due to your healing overcoming their damage output. Healing units, with only a few exceptions, tend to be defensively weak, and their advantage is staying away from attackers (e.g. using walls, blockading with units, etc).

    Hold your horses for a moment. In any field battle this is no issue anyway, because there is no way to keep a superior force from attacking an inferior one, heal or not. So what we are talking about is a SIEGE battle, and having just 1 heal is hurting the attacker just as much as the defender – provided, of course, the defender is prepared. “Preparation” in this case means building the town defense building – which incidentally is now so much better than before, because it actually takes a toll now, putting pressure on the attacker – and/or a Trebuchet, allowing to deal damage from far range. It simply means, a garrison of support units can heal each other just once – but it also means that an attack force of mainly supports can heal each other just once, so that’s fair.

    The complaint about heals eliminating the “attrition” element of the game are simply wrong. Attrition happens if you lose a battle or a unit completely dies. You do not necessarily need to keep track of attrition at the unit HP level, wherein every minor scratch they take gradually mounts into an avalanche of damage over time. It might be fair in PBEM. In SP it’s merely annoying as hell.

    Look, I have no idea what your idea of “attrition” is, but “attrition” in this game is simply the ratio of between-turn regeneration versus damage suffered in battle. Goblins having 5 HPs less than everyone else is critical because of that attrition: Having 5 HPs less from the getgo means, come attrition your unit is 5 points nearer to 0 than the rest, and when you reach the point that the first attack will deal enough damage for the unit to die, you have reached breaking point.
    Be that as it may, the game is based on the idea of attrition – if it was NOT, all surviving units would simply be automatically fully healed after battle; there ARE these games. Not in this case, though. In fact, attrition is massively important, and it’s one aspect to keep in mind when picking or playing a race. Which means, you are simply wrong with what you describe attrition to be. “Attrition” is the general loss of HPs that happens in battle and is kept and brought into the next one. It’s a crucial element of the game that influences your exploration speed: if your units are “fatigued” – which simply means, if they are too damaged to survive another battle, albeit they could fight it that round, you have to stop and “rest” (generally spoken). That isn’t “annoying” – it’s what makes things interesting as opposed to waltzing from one site to the next, mindlessly.

    The AI is not cut throat like a player, does not and (and IMO should not) simply mimic an entity that is out for the player’s blood, and keeping track of every nick until the player bleeds to death from paper cuts will merely irritate them.

    The AI is EXACTLY that, since it’s a good AI: programmers knew they could never make the AI tactically so apt to actually be as good or nearly as good as a human, so instead they made it bloodthirsty with the aim to annoy the heck out of you, going for your most vulnerable units with the idea, if they can only hurt you anyway, they can just as well try and make you bleed. This is why the AI will ruthlessly exploit any weakness of you, just to kill an isolated flankable unit, even if it means, that they are all dead meat next turn: they are dead meat anyway, otherwise you wouldn’t attack them.

    #234922

    Zaskow
    Member

    I Ericridge the Great has ragequit age of wonders 3 because of two PBEM Exploiters destroyed my Singleplayer game experience.

    Pure 1.7 version is waiting for you in BETA menu on steam…

    #234962

    How melodramatic.

    #235045

    quo
    Member

    You guys can argue until you’re blue in face. I simply do not care.

    For ….

    I Ericridge the Great has ragequit age of wonders 3 because of two PBEM Exploiters destroyed my Singleplayer game experience.

    Good riddance.

    Good bye exploiters.

    I’ll be uninstalling AOW3 and only come back after Dreadnought class is fun again. This nerf finally pushed me too far over the line.

    Its completely unnecessary.

    The fault is upon the exploiters who insist on spending gazillion hours on a single gold mine grinding exp when I do none of whatsoever exploits.

    Well don’t do that. 😛 I could just build you a mod that undoes the Dreadnought change, it would take about an hour. I’ll just stick it in with the mod I made that undoes the Heal Undead change, will be posted this weekend most likely.

    #235048

    quo
    Member

    Which means, you are simply wrong with what you describe attrition to be. “Attrition” is the general loss of HPs that happens in battle and is kept and brought into the next one. It’s a crucial element of the game that influences your exploration speed: if your units are “fatigued” – which simply means, if they are too damaged to survive another battle, albeit they could fight it that round, you have to stop and “rest” (generally spoken). That isn’t “annoying” – it’s what makes things interesting as opposed to waltzing from one site to the next, mindlessly.

    What you are forgetting is that in single player, the player is capable of reloading the game at any time to replay battles or stratetic scenarios that didn’t turn out like they wanted. The game anticipates this to such a degree that is autosaves after every turn. Most single players have a completely different mentality than PVP’ers. They see their gameplay as progress against an objective, and save games as safe points to return to if things turn out for the worse. Rather than start over from turn 1 (which they may not find fun to do) they back up to a previous starting point.

    Hardcore players, who make up the minority in virtually any 4X game, often insist this is a scenario that should not be considered. And yet developers always include these features because the reality is most players are not hardcore, and will not touch a game that does not feature saves and reloads.

    The single player game does not hinge on tracking every nick and scratch a unit takes. That’s a feature of hardcore gaming.

    1:battle healing is mathematically nothing like 1:3 healing. A heal that delivers 25 HP once 1:battle heals less overall than a 20 HP 1:3 does after 3 turns (40 HP), and the problem gets worse the longer the battle drags on. This is made even more drastic by the fact that you can’t heal more HP than a unit actually has. It changes everything. There is no fixing this. And it doesn’t even fix the “leaving combat with more than you started with” problem. You may squash an “exploit” but it radically changes the game and favors high damage attacks and cheese like attacking, healing up, and fleeing. You could put a cost on it, but doing that without also putting a cost on very high damage attacks and very disabling status effects (e.g. Inflict Stun) tilts the battlefield too much.

    #235065

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    What you are forgetting is that in single player, the player is capable of reloading the game at any time to replay battles or stratetic scenarios that didn’t turn out like they wanted. The game anticipates this to such a degree that is autosaves after every turn. Most single players have a completely different mentality than PVP’ers. They see their gameplay as progress against an objective, and save games as safe points to return to if things turn out for the worse. Rather than start over from turn 1 (which they may not find fun to do) they back up to a previous starting point.

    Hardcore players, who make up the minority in virtually any 4X game, often insist this is a scenario that should not be considered. And yet developers always include these features because the reality is most players are not hardcore, and will not touch a game that does not feature saves and reloads.

    I have no idea what this introduction is to prove, except that you can always reload, and lots of people are doing it – consequently enough, why would they miss a heal? They just have to reload more, if necessary – and no one wants to change THAT. I’m mostly SP as well, but I’ve never more than one save. Would be a waste of time going 10 turns back or so. Sometimes you just HAVE to lose otherwise it’s boring. I mean, the AI is “cheating” (by getting advantages and so on). If you start to cheat as well as a human player – where’s the point? You can just as well go down a difficulty level, but just play the game through. “I’be beaten 7 allied AI opponents on emperor is pretty meaningless when you reloaded the game 5o times to get it right. But, hey, each one their own.
    So what is this:

    The single player game does not hinge on tracking every nick and scratch a unit takes. That’s a feature of hardcore gaming.

    supposed to mean? The non-hardcore single player isn’t interested in difficulties on their way to victory? “Tracking every nick and scratch a unit takes seems to be an euphemism for “who cares how many HPs my troops have? They are supposed to do the job, and that’s that, and if they can’t the game sucks.” Is that it?
    In any case I don’t underdtand you: why play, when you are not interested in the status of your “playing pieces”?

    1:battle healing is mathematically nothing like 1:3 healing. A heal that delivers 25 HP once 1:battle heals less overall than a 20 HP 1:3 does after 3 turns (40 HP), and the problem gets worse the longer the battle drags on. This is made even more drastic by the fact that you can’t heal more HP than a unit actually has. It changes everything. There is no fixing this.

    I’m somewhat at a loss here. Of course ONE healing per battle is fundamentally different from 3 healings – if it wasn’t you wouldn’t need to change it. The power of healing is reduced, yes, that’s the point, and no, it isn’t supposec to be fixed, because it was what was broken.

    And it doesn’t even fix the “leaving combat with more than you started with” problem. You may squash an “exploit” but it radically changes the game and favors high damage attacks and cheese like attacking, healing up, and fleeing.

    No, that’s wrong; multiple healing favors attacking-healing-retreating more, because the potential gain is bigger (if the AI doesn’t attack). You are also wrong with your claim that the game would now radically change and favor high damage. Very easy to disprove: Compare Dwarves, Orcs, and Tigrans. Orcs are the high damage doers: War Cry, some units have higher base damage – MASSIVE damage output. Still, Orcs are currently having a 10 point victory rush, something that can only mean, that with a 6 point victory rush autocombat was still not good for them. Tigrans have that speed advantage and all that predator stuff – and still are not OP. Dwarves on the other hand are pretty stalwart – and you can’t say they deal high damage.
    No, the key is Defense and Resistance. As long as Dwarves are in guard stance, they can’t really be hurt – damage you do against them is appalingly low.
    Which means, the key is high Def and high Res. The better you are there, the less attrition you have, high damage or not. In the end, Healing (and Regeneration) is just one way to make up for being less stalwart – or a way of a Class. Reducing the Theocrat Class to unlimited Healing would be a bad mistake, though, and it’s a lot more than that, thankfuly. Also, what I really like with the patch is that the racial differences are way more important.

    You could put a cost on it, but doing that without also putting a cost on very high damage attacks and very disabling status effects (e.g. Inflict Stun) tilts the battlefield too much.

    Healing isn’t a weapon against inflict stun – stunned healers can’t heal.

    #235082

    quo
    Member

    “Tracking every nick and scratch a unit takes seems to be an euphemism for “who cares how many HPs my troops have?

    If you are sure of that you could make a mod that makes it so. I am sure there are at least some hardcore players who would agree with you. Maybe even me, when I’m in the right mood.

    But this game was built as it was, with healing on a recharge. It should stay that way.

    FWIW I am fine with heal being pushed back on heroes or only 1:battle (read my response to Tombles when he asked this question on the patch boards.) Making all of it 1:combat isn’t feasible for this combat system though.

    Which means, the key is high Def and high Res. The better you are there, the less attrition you have, high damage or not. In the end, Healing (and Regeneration) is just one way to make up for being less stalwart – or a way of a Class. Reducing the Theocrat Class to unlimited Healing would be a bad mistake, though, and it’s a lot more than that, thankfuly. Also, what I really like with the patch is that the racial differences are way more important.

    You write like this is the first time in the history of RPGs or 4Xs that the question of healing has come up. You have your idiosyncrasies regarding healing and that is fine. I only draw the line when you start suggesting uprooting the existing system and replacing it. That sort of material would be fine for a mod but is a huge step away from what we have and not something that you can do with out a huge ripple effect.

    #235105

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    Look, quo, I don’t want to offend you, although I may sound offensive; we’ve both been in this forum for a long time and you seem to be a nice enough guy. So don’t get me wrong when I say that for me you simply have no point – except that you don’t like the change, because objectively spoken, the change is not the big game changer you claim it to be.

    The Healing stuff has been on 3-turn cooldown. The longer you are into the game, the more medals your combat troops collect, which means, they do more damage and taking less. That means, you NEED a lot less healing., when it comes to battling the easy stuff, as in none, since regular regeneration will do the trick. 1 Healing is sufficient.
    Then there are the tougher battles: Dungeons, Lost Cities, Wizard Towers, Ziggurats, Sphinx Temples. Healing on a 3-turn cooldown isn’t going to do you that much more good than only 1 healing, if you come in healthy AND have no way to “disable” a unit. And here we are at the heart of the problem: Suppose you go in full health, so no need to heal anything. With Heal to be an option, yone of your units must have suffered a HP loss – so the battle has started. Without any way to really disable a unit, how long is the battle supposed to last that you a) don’t have any losses, but b) a 3-turn cooldown has passed, so you can use Heal a 2nd time?
    So this kind of Healing NEEDS a way to disable other units, in order to, well, CHEAT the cooldown (if it wasn’t such a bad idea, because there are some not so great things possible, you could solve this also, by auto-end a battle if one side has only disabled units).
    That leaves all battles that allow one side to delay the battle for a long time, and this side cannot be the attacker, because if the attacker wants to delay the battle, they better not had attacked in the first place – or it*s some exploit planned. So that means battles, in which the defender (the guy that doesn’t want to fight, actually) delays. A siege.
    Now, I really DO think, that it makes no sense to attack a town that is defended by some guys who can heal (no matter how often) when I obviously have no way to attack and kill ANY with a 3-turn cooldown on Heal – against 1-heal units it just makes even less sense, because if I can’t scratch them enough AND have only 1 heal myself, the towns defense structure alone will kill me.
    Which means, an attack on a fortified town makes sense only, if you are not long delayed by the walls.
    Additional Healing actually serves the attacker, because it can neutralize the effect of the town defense building.

    You want an advantage for besieged towns? Build the Hospital! NOW, with Healing reduced, it’s obviously a killer in all sieges where the attacker has a problem getting their units to bear.

    Now. If you are talking SP, then you talk about thwarting the AI. You do see, that being able to delay a siege against the AI to beat suprior, but unsuitable units for the job via multiple healing, without the benefit of defense buildings isn’t a thing to fight for, don’t you?

    #235201

    quo
    Member

    The Healing stuff has been on 3-turn cooldown. The longer you are into the game, the more medals your combat troops collect, which means, they do more damage and taking less. That means, you NEED a lot less healing., when it comes to battling the easy stuff, as in none, since regular regeneration will do the trick. 1 Healing is sufficient.

    You are trying to prove that 25 is the same thing as 100. It doesn’t work.

    I have seen the games I have played, and screenshots of what Ericridge has played, and I know for sure that combats that end in 3 turns are not decisive battles. Decisive battles can drag on for 15 or more turns. Let’s look at the difference in healing capacity in that scenario:

    1:battle (new value for some of the proposed heals) – 25 HP healed during the fight
    1:3 (Heal @ 20 HP/ every third turn)- 100 HP healed during the fight
    1:1 (Repair Machine @ 15 HP/turn) – 225 HP healed during the fight

    There is an enormous difference in these results.

    The only justification for making Healing 1:battle is a belief that the ability to “farm” heals in low danger situations is too exploitative and outweighs the tactical benefits of allowing players to use heals throughout combat. What’s impossible to argue, however, is that 1:battle healing is any mathematical way similar to 1:3 or 1:1 healing. The argument that battles end in just 3 turns is especially unpersuasive. You can see by looking at many of Eric’s screenshots, or mine, that that sort of thing happens all the time, particularly in the battles where healing actually matters.

    FWIW since the AI never farms healing, making its healing 1:battle makes it much easier to defeat.

    #235204

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    I seriously have no idea what the complaint is all about.
    You can have your long battles with tons of Healing just fine – you just have to play Theocrat, because Order of Healing now gives a Healing ability that is, if I’m not entirely wrong, on a 2-turn cooldown (whereas Theocrat HERO’s Healing is limited to 1 Healing per combat).
    Which means, surviving a looooong battle by virtue of Healing your troop is a Theocrat Class technique, and that is obviously perfectly fine.

    So what exactly is the complaint here? That you can’t play each Class – specifically Dreadnought – like Theocrat?

    #235210

    Bob5
    Member

    Theocrat HERO’s Healing is limited to 1 Healing per combat).

    Theocrat and AD still get Healing on their heroes, they get Iron Heart and Nourishing Meal respectively early and get the old Healing on cooldown around level 9 or so, so they can now get both for double healing power.

    #235220

    quo
    Member

    So what exactly is the complaint here? That you can’t play each Class – specifically Dreadnought – like Theocrat?

    This is not a “complaint.” I am presenting an argument against your contention that healing should be “looked at” and turned 1:battle to fix the possibility of people farming it. I was caught flat footed by the Heal Undead change in the last patch, didn’t realize it was up for discussion until it was already implemented.

    I am fine with what happened to hero units. Really dislike what happened to Heal Undead (modding it out). Think what happened to Engineers was merely unnecessary but not game changing. A change to Builders with Repair Machine, or to Theocrats with Order of Healing, would radically change those classes.

    #235226

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    But the issue is dead. Things are alright.
    I disagree with your opinion on Heal Undead. Necro played a lot like Theo, but shouldn’t.

Viewing 30 posts - 1 through 30 (of 38 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.