Hatchings and Initiates…

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 Hatchings and Initiates…

This topic contains 109 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by  Zaskow 6 years, 12 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 110 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #215659

    Buczer
    Member

    wait, are we talking about lucky

    As any halflings.

    …so? Is any other halfling so mobile with so exception of t3, wich is costly?

    forrest running cavalery

    Unicorn rider too.

    “Oh look, the unit doesn’t have monopole on his trait within his class. Its boring”

    that turns immune to spirit attack and mind control effects on gold?

    This is the main problem. Pony rider becomes special only on gold.

    So do many other units, look at human archers and LSMs.
    And the lucky trait with phisical weakness and improved mobility alone makes it special. It forces you to use different strategy and give additional importance for morale penalties/bonusses.

    #215663

    Zaskow
    Member

    …so?

    “Lucky” is racial trait. Besides this Pony rider hasn’t any noticeable traits.

    So do many other units, look at human archers and LSMs.

    Human archer is only racial archer, who uses normal bow.
    LSM – agreed, this needs to be fixed somehow.

    #215665

    Buczer
    Member

    …so?

    “Lucky” is racial trait. Besides this Pony rider hasn’t any noticeable traits.
    (…)
    LSM – agreed, this needs to be fixed somehow.

    Its lucky cavalery, only avalaible to hobbits. It alone makes it special. If you want other, you must be halfling WL.

    About LMS F*** NO, they are exacly as they should be. Special trait on gold motivates me as player to keep them alive.

    #215669

    NINJEW
    Member

    Dwarves are not a good enough race, I think they should also be granted massive economic bonuses on top of having the best units

    Guys, please.

    #215673

    ExNihil
    Member

    They have 3 excellent units, not more then most other races.

    #215675

    Zaskow
    Member

    About LMS F*** NO, they are exacly as they should be. Special trait on gold motivates me as player to keep them alive.

    Compare them with Orc Greatswords and come after. They both cost 50 g.

    Dwarves are not a good enough race, I think they should also be granted massive economic bonuses on top of having the best units

    Maybe you should just stop shit-posting?

    They have 3 excellent units, not more then most other races.

    Problem isn’t that. Race has crappy or mediocre unit. Fine, nobody is perfect, but it must be fairly reflected through prices. Currently, there is complete mess in game in this area.

    #215678

    NINJEW
    Member

    They have 3 excellent units, not more then most other races.

    What classes are Dwarves not perfect for

    They don’t seem like they’d make particularly good Arch Druids or Rogues, but they’re kind of a top pick for every other class

    Dwarves are an insanely good race, having an economic disadvantage is kind of a big part of their balance. Giving them massive economic bonuses kind of defeats the purpose of “all their units are 10% more expensive” racial trait doesn’t it?

    Like it seems like the developers intentionally gimped the Dwarven Economy for some reason? Now you’re suggesting that they get double gold mine income??? This might be kind of unbalanced?????

    Do you want Dwarf Nerfs to go along with this economic boost? Because then I’m in favor of this discussion, it could make for an interesting race mechanic.

    Maybe you should just stop shit-posting?

    You would maybe have a point if the point behind my post wasn’t immediately and incredibly obvious.

    I could have simply said “guys Dwarves are really good already, it’d be unbalanced if they were given piles of extra gold” instead, and I don’t think anyone would have had a problem in particular. I’m sorry my particular phrasing offends your delicate sensibilities, Zaskow.

    #215680

    Zaskow
    Member

    What classes are Dwarves not perfect for

    There are numerous posts and topics about imba-dwarves. I’m agreed with that, but this problem could be discussed in new topic or continued here, for example.

    Like it seems like the developers intentionally gimped the Dwarven Economy for some reason?

    Truth is that Dwarf economics isn’t nerfed. You gain a very powerful auto-clear army just for pitiful +10% to unit price. This price is acceptable for most players. Especially in MP.

    I’m sorry my particular phrasing offends your delicate sensibilities, Zaskow.

    Excuse me for misunderstanding then.

    #215712

    Ericridge
    Member

    They will be vulnerable to any angry neutral.
    I prefer to see bigger amount of gold which can be generating by tunneling. As it was in Dwarf eco1 RG upgrade, yes, but nerfed a bit.

    There must be some kind of risk for boosting the income of a goldmine greatly. And angry neutrals doesn’t add enough risk. For angry neutrals is a limited time danger present on maps and once all the angry neutral node generators is gone, there is no more angry neutrals. Cosmic events included then from there on, only risk in dispatching prospectors into goldmines is from other human players in pvp to AI sending unit to murder them.

    And if the risk is too great, don’t make use of it. Otherwise go ahead. And you can set up defences so that the gold mines towards your interior is protected by border forces which makes it very safe for prospectors to prospect for gold.

    Extra tunneling gold for dwarfs was taken out because it is risk free. Too easy to empty the map of diggable walls and convert that excess gold into winning the game fast.

    And plus from what I have seen in RMG and scenarios and campaigns. Gold rich regions only exist in scenarios like taming the khan one. There’s almost never a city with 5+ gold mines in RMG. If there is one, thank the gods of rng and gift them sacrifices while singing songs of praise.

    #215746

    Hatmage
    Member

    Given that prospecting is searching for ore rather than extracting it, perhaps the prospector could have increased vision range, or just detect gold sites a tile or so beyond his normal vision range, if any buff is necessary? It fits the idea behind the unit without actually improving the dwarven economy.

    If evolve is enough to make human cavalry good, It’s enough to make the far more available (and lower tier, allowing fast leveling) initiate good. Hatchlings are also fine, though it’s disconcerting how much their heads shrink upon reaching adulthood.

    #215747

    ExNihil
    Member

    Like it seems like the developers intentionally gimped the Dwarven Economy for some reason? Now you’re suggesting that they get double gold mine income??? This might be kind of unbalanced?????

    I have made no such suggestion – Erichridge proposed to double the income from goldmines using prospectors, I originally suggested +3 gold, which will almost reduce their upkeep completely (or for WL generate a small income), and then suggested +9 gold – which will increase a single gold mines income by 50%, for which you would have to park a prospector. This means that in 8 turns a prospector will return its cost and start generating profit, this profit is not very large, but if you find it problematic it could just as well be +7 gold, giving +3 per parked prospector. Also, there is the question whether this is a stackable or non-stackable income. I tend for the latter, but if it is stackable than it can be further reduced – introducing a nice trick, but nothing game changing.

    As for dwarfs and synergies – they are a very reliable race, but they are never the top choice for each particular class, or at least have a very good competition for that. Furthermore, there are other very versatile races in the game now- Humans are truly excellent, after being very mediocre in Vanilla, High-Elves remained excellent (although I personally dislike playing ’em), Draconians are as reliable I’d say as Dwarfs, and for some classes are superior, and Halflings are very well developed as well. Does that mean this race doesn’t need some love? Of course it does, but also the other races. You assume that one simple change will dramatically offset a fixed meta-game-state, but the meta-game is developing as long as the game is. The point is to discuss changes that would be interesting and beneficial, and let the devs decide what to use – after all, they will introduce changes that we can’t consider, as they are in development still, so we don’t really know what will be done and where. IMO the prospector is a boring unit that is really under-powered in comparison to other irregulars. Whereby other races received quite a bit of attention, Dwarfs have been relatively kept as they were – simply on the merit of being extremely good (and thus constantly nerfed). Yet this is no longer the case, Dwarfs are excellent – but so are other races (not all equally so OFC.)

    #215751

    Xaneorath
    Member

    I think I share the opinion of some people here though, that some “plain” units also should be part of the game.
    If we talk about the prospectors, I think its a good example: The dwarves have overall such advantageous units (due to the racial treats), that there must be some built in counterbalance, and namely thats exactly where ExNihil proposes that the units could need some more “oomph” (freely quoted in my words).
    But why not just accept, that the crossbowman of the dwarves is less attractiv than many other ranged units, because its part of that counterbalance?
    Or that dwarves as the expensive durability-race have the weakest irregular of them all? (battlewise)

    On the other hand, halfling pony riders are a fun thing to have. Plain, but fun. And yes, due to the luck. And yes, thats racial. But yes: Racial skills ARE part of the unit, and shouldn’t be seen apart from them.

    And then there is that opinion about units HAVING to reflect their ability on their price… just no!
    I think its ok, if a meta-balance is created by adding the factor of the price, also to weaken certain racial aspects. If some race has overly expensive riders for example (for their skillset and/or abilities), its just another thing that defines them and should be considered, when taking them. As long as the whole balancing of the race is ok.. that would be ok as well.
    If riders “just aren’t a races thing” I would even understand if the class units with that race would have weakening factors or would be more expensive. (As long as its compensated with increased strengths in other class units, lower prices or an inherent synergy with race specs).

    That being said: I think you look at units way too much away from the racial/cultural context here. Comparing and adjusting between all irregulars of all races or all bowmen or all riders or whatever just doesn’t make much sense, if it’s just about “making them as equal as possible in their own ways”. Since it’s the complete racial rooster and playstyle, thats important in that games atmosphere.

    #215774

    NINJEW
    Member

    I have made no such suggestion – Erichridge proposed to double the income from goldmines using prospectors, I originally suggested +3 gold, which will almost reduce their upkeep completely (or for WL generate a small income), and then suggested +9 gold – which will increase a single gold mines income by 50%, for which you would have to park a prospector. This means that in 8 turns a prospector will return its cost and start generating profit, this profit is not very large, but if you find it problematic it could just as well be +7 gold, giving +3 per parked prospector. Also, there is the question whether this is a stackable or non-stackable income. I tend for the latter, but if it is stackable than it can be further reduced – introducing a nice trick, but nothing game changing.

    The point is that you are introducing a balance suggestion that would unbalance the game. Dwarves are supposed to have a lesser economy. Giving them more gold goes directly against that. I feel like this suggestion would make for a poor addition to the game, due to not being consistent with the balance decisions made in regards to Dwarves.

    As for dwarfs and synergies – they are a very reliable race, but they are never the top choice for each particular class, or at least have a very good competition for that.

    Dreadnought. Theocrat. Top pick for both.

    Draconians are as reliable I’d say as Dwarfs, and for some classes are superior, and Halflings are very well developed as well.

    What classes are these? Draconian Sorcerer is really, really good. Draconian Rogue is also a top pick. In my experience, using Draconians for anything else tends to go south very, very quickly (usually due to their extremely poor early clearing). I’ve never seen anyone use Draconians to good effect as any other class, and the few times I’ve tried them out it has never gone well.

    You assume that one simple change will dramatically offset a fixed meta-game-state, but the meta-game is developing as long as the game is. The point is to discuss changes that would be interesting and beneficial, and let the devs decide what to use – after all, they will introduce changes that we can’t consider, as they are in development still, so we don’t really know what will be done and where.

    Counter-point: I’m not talking about any kind of meta-game when I’m pointing out that Dwarves are specifically given an economic penalty, so they shouldn’t get an economic boost to render that pointless.

    Additionally, I can’t see how taking an already top tier class and giving it more benefits would be good for the meta-state of the game. Best-case scenario: it has little effect, and probably shouldn’t have had the effort put in to implement it in the first place (since apparently no one uses it). Worst case: it leads to single-race dominance.

    Giving buffs to weaker races, like Tigrans or Halflings or Draconians or Orcs, I would be far more in favor of.

    The point is to discuss changes that would be interesting and beneficial, and let the devs decide what to use – after all, they will introduce changes that we can’t consider, as they are in development still, so we don’t really know what will be done and where.

    We are discussing changes, how are we not? A discussion does not consist entirely of people who agree with you to varying degrees, and you never seem to understand this. This is the balance forum. We discuss game balance here. This involves introducing balance suggestions, and talking about how those suggestions could be good or bad for the game, because discussions typically have more than one viewpoint. Being offered a range of opinions and arguments for and against a given suggestion will allow the developers to make a more informed decision about the suggestion. Worst case scenario: they can just ignore all my posts. If they truly don’t want to hear why a suggestion might not be a good idea, and wish to discover that themselves, I’m sure they possess the self restraint necessary to just not care about one person’s posts.

    I’m not entirely sure why you even typed that out. Are you asking me to stop disagreeing with you? That’s what it sounds like, but that’s a pretty poor position to take in a discussion forum, so perhaps I am misunderstanding something here?

    #215792

    ExNihil
    Member

    I’m not entirely sure why you even typed that out. Are you asking me to stop disagreeing with you? That’s what it sounds like, but that’s a pretty poor position to take in a discussion forum, so perhaps I am misunderstanding something here?

    Not at all, I have explained my position – you gave an intelligent and eloquent answer, which I find refreshing, given some of our previous exchanges.

    Giving buffs to weaker races, like Tigrans or Halflings or Draconians or Orcs, I would be far more in favor of.

    My point was that there is no contradiction here – the prospector is a crappy unit that can very well do with being less crappy, this will not unbalance the game in and by itself (later on the economic aspect.) I am also all in favor for changes to other races, and esp. Orcs, which are the perpetual underdog among AoW3 races IMO.

    Yet, I was under the immpression this thread was dealing with crappy t1 irregular units, not with all units in the game. Except Draconians, which have been discussed in this context, all the other races you mentioned actually have good t1 irregulars. Whatever changes are there for other racial units are better discussed in other threads dedicated to this topic – you are welcome to start such topics OFC and I’d participate.

    The point is that you are introducing a balance suggestion that would unbalance the game. Dwarves are supposed to have a lesser economy. Giving them more gold goes directly against that. I feel like this suggestion would make for a poor addition to the game, due to not being consistent with the balance decisions made in regards to Dwarves.

    Its a question whether Dwarfs are supposed to have a “lesser economy” – I disagree, they are supposed to be more expansive because they get a racial buff to def, res and blight on top cave crawling, night vision and mountaineering, which is better than all other races in terms of the amount of benefits received. They compensate by don’t having a sustain buff, no evolving units and more expansive units, as well as short legs and crappy ranged (hence I dislike the crossbowman but I accept it as is grudgingly.)

    Be that as it may, I am open to any other suggestion regarding the prospectors – if you feel an economic boost to prospectors is unfitting conceptually, and that is a valid point although one we don’t agree on, you are welcome to offer any other changes you see fit if any. I could do with enhanced vision range and some small combat buff or anything else that makes this unit more interesting and fun (it doesn’t need to be dramatically more powerful, just more interesting.)

    Additionally, I can’t see how taking an already top tier class and giving it more benefits would be good for the meta-state of the game. Best-case scenario: it has little effect, and probably shouldn’t have had the effort put in to implement it in the first place (since apparently no one uses it). Worst case: it leads to single-race dominance.

    As I said, the meta-game is evolving. The amount of changes Dwarfs will receive will be much smaller than other races. Probably both Tigrans and Frostlings will receive the largest amount on account of being new, I would also like to see Orcs receiving attention – perhaps through more racial synergies. If anything requires real attention for Dwarfs IMO it is their racial governance, but that is for another thread.

    What classes are these? Draconian Sorcerer is really, really good. Draconian Rogue is also a top pick. In my experience, using Draconians for anything else tends to go south very, very quickly (usually due to their extremely poor early clearing). I’ve never seen anyone use Draconians to good effect as any other class, and the few times I’ve tried them out it has never gone well.

    Sorcerer of course, Rogue and AD are also good. Necromancer is an excellent synergy and they do well as Theo and WL as well. The only class that really doesn’t benefit much from them is Dread IMO. I very much disagree with you regarding Draconian early game – they have the best racial sustain ability in the game, and albeit their relatively low defense do remarkably well if you are careful with auto-combat. The only real problem is the hatchling, which is horrible for autocombat creeping.

    #215794

    NINJEW
    Member

    Be that as it may, I am open to any other suggestion regarding the prospectors – if you feel an economic boost to prospectors is unfitting conceptually, and that is a valid point although one we don’t agree on, you are welcome to offer any other changes you see fit if any.

    I’m not too broken up over them as it is, but I could see them having a slight combat buff. Perhaps more durability? Dwarves in general are pretty durable, and irregulars are consistently made of wet paper. An irregular that doesn’t immediately crumble upon being hit would be somewhat unique, fitting, and still not much of a game changer balance wise.

    #215796

    ExNihil
    Member

    The problem is how to achieve this without giving them more defense, which they can’t get really without the armored trait – which in turn will make this unit both more vul. to armor piercing, and reducible in price with Dread tech. Perhaps some sort of resistance buff – to Blight – is fitting here.

    #215800

    NINJEW
    Member

    More resistance to blight I don’t see as doing much of anything except frustrating goblin players

    They can have their defense values upped without giving them Armored. I also don’t think Armored would be a terribly bad thing to give them. If Forge Priests can benefit from Armor, I don’t think it’d be particularly game breaking if Prospectors were included as well.

    #215806

    ExNihil
    Member

    Blight resistance will effect their creeping ability quite dramatically. Fire res. will also do.

    Alternatively their ranged attack can be exchanged for slingshot – giving them x3 attacks but at a reduced damage. Perhaps a base of 6 dmg could do.

    #215807

    NINJEW
    Member

    Give the Dwarves an Irregular with an archer attack and an Archer with an Irregular attack?

    Can’t say I’m particularly fond of the idea. I like slingshots being unique to Halflings, personally.

    #215841

    ExNihil
    Member

    Or that dwarves as the expensive durability-race have the weakest irregular of them all? (battlewise)

    Its not only battlewise, its everything except dig walls. I do want some more oomph but primarily more fun, this unit is just boring.

    As for crossbowman, I can accept it as is, but I can’t really accept two t1 units that are this bland and unimpressive. There were some good suggestions in my old dwarf balancing thread. I recall BBB suggested a ”double tap” ability for crossbowman on gold that made them very interesting – basically gold medal crossbowman would receive a two shot crossbow or alternative will receive some extra flanking damage. I still like this one.

    #215842

    Or that dwarves as the expensive durability-race have the weakest irregular of them all? (battlewise)

    Its not only battlewise, its everything except dig walls. I do want some more oomph but primarily more fun, this unit is just boring.

    As for crossbowman, I can accept it as is, but I can’t really accept two t1 units that are this bland and unimpressive. There were some good suggestions in my old dwarf balancing thread. I recall BBB suggested a ”double tap” ability for crossbowman on gold that made them very interesting – basically gold medal crossbowman would receive a two shot crossbow or alternative will receive some extra flanking damage. I still like this one.

    It’s a good idea. Not one of mine though.

    #215853

    zlefin
    Member

    Brainstorming ideas for prospectors, Haven’t read entire thread so not sure which ideas have already been considered. also including a note as to why it could make sense.

    Projectile resistance: those helms are designed to protect against falling rocks after all.
    Move demolisher and/or wall crushing from being on medal to base. A miner shouldn’t need a medal to be able to take down a wall.
    Minor prospecting: upkeep reduced by 2 while in mountainous terrain. finding a few useful things while they’re out and about, encourages them to run around on the map.

    #215854

    Buczer
    Member

    About LMS F*** NO, they are exacly as they should be. Special trait on gold motivates me as player to keep them alive.

    Compare them with Orc Greatswords and come after. They both cost 50 g.

    Humans are my main and thus i have no need to compare LSM to t1 inf. from a race that is dedicated to powerfull melee units. Maybe instead of looking at stats and equivalents from other races its better to look at role, that unit has within the roster, dont you think? There was a time, when LSM was borderline useless (becouse HB did a good job with anti-pike fighting) and first thing i did when i captured city with other race was absorbing their T1 infantry units.

    #215859

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Personally, now that we’ve broken the symmetry of all racial irregulars having a ranged attack, I’d like to see prospectors rebalanced as a melee irregular (without Pounce, but perhaps with some other ability that lets them support other dwarf units). It’d probably require changing their description, but on the flipside it would mean that they have a more unique position both when compared to other racial irregulars and when compared to the rest of the dwarf lineup (rather than overlapping heavily with crossbowmen as they do now).

    #215876

    ExNihil
    Member

    Personally, now that we’ve broken the symmetry of all racial irregulars having a ranged attack, I’d like to see prospectors rebalanced as a melee irregular (without Pounce, but perhaps with some other ability that lets them support other dwarf units). It’d probably require changing their description, but on the flipside it would mean that they have a more unique position both when compared to other racial irregulars and when compared to the rest of the dwarf lineup (rather than overlapping heavily with crossbowmen as they do now).

    I like this! +1

    #215878

    Zaskow
    Member

    Giving buffs to weaker races, like Tigrans or Halflings or Draconians or Orcs, I would be far more in favor of.

    For the record: Tigrans and Orcs are top-tier races (with Dwarves and Humans) and relatively popular in MP.

    The point is to discuss changes that would be interesting and beneficial, and let the devs decide what to use – after all, they will introduce changes that we can’t consider, as they are in development still, so we don’t really know what will be done and where.

    Sometimes devs make horrible and unneeded changes. As it was done for Exalted once.

    What classes are these? Draconian Sorcerer is really, really good. Draconian Rogue is also a top pick. In my experience, using Draconians for anything else tends to go south very, very quickly (usually due to their extremely poor early clearing). I’ve never seen anyone use Draconians to good effect as any other class, and the few times I’ve tried them out it has never gone well.

    That’s because Dracos haven’t any shining class units for Warlords, Dread, AD.

    Projectile resistance: those helms are designed to protect against falling rocks after all.

    Projectile resistance – good variant, it’s racial dwarven trait for many class units.

    Move demolisher and/or wall crushing from being on medal to base. A miner shouldn’t need a medal to be able to take down a wall.

    Racial t1 irregular crushing walls looks interesting.

    Minor prospecting: upkeep reduced by 2 while in mountainous terrain. finding a few useful things while they’re out and about, encourages them to run around on the map.

    Interesting idea, but not very noticeable.

    Humans are my main and thus i have no need to compare LSM to t1 inf. from a race that is dedicated to powerfull melee units. Maybe instead of looking at stats and equivalents from other races its better to look at role, that unit has within the roster, dont you think?

    When you have a multiracial empire and need swordsman the choice is obvious.

    There was a time, when LSM was borderline useless (becouse HB did a good job with anti-pike fighting) and first thing i did when i captured city with other race was absorbing their T1 infantry units.

    IMAO, LSM is barely used even now. I don’t think that +1 to attack/def and wallclimbing is better than First strike and Polearm. In open field especially.
    A simple change could force a LSM to shine – just move Guard breaker from elite to rookie.

    #215879

    ExNihil
    Member

    A question, building on what @Drax wrote – what about Dwarfs and ale? I find it weird that Halflings get nourishing meal, and Dwarfs, who are traditionally (literally in old norse epics and elsewhere as well, let along in modern fantasy literature) very drunk get no abilities to this effect. With that in mind, I wouldn’t mind see the prospector getting an interesting alcohol related ability – be it a Molotov cocktail, or a bottle of ale passed around to the infantry chaps. Such an ability could give either the prospector himself or other dwarven units a temporary buff to melee damage and morale, perhaps with some malus to resistance.

    #215909

    Drunk = alcohol = age rating.

    That’s why Halflings don’t smoke any more

    They can get away with brew brothers because brew is neutral – you can brew up some tea – whereas there’s nothing neutral about drunkenness, ergo age rating bullshit.

    It’s also a contributory factor to the lack of graphic blood and also why Nymphs have clothes now.

    So unlikely TS will build a unit specifically around alcohol.

    I think Drax could be onto something.

    I also think giving them demolisher or wall crushing at Base could be enough.

    #215922

    ExNihil
    Member

    Drunk = alcohol = age rating.

    Bummer. Is there no way to repackage this in a way ambiguous enough to pass? Say, a name like “Fortifying Spirits” for a potion like ability the Prospector has which give it or another unit +20% damage resistance for 2 turns, or simply a boost to defense and morale?

    #215925

    Buczer
    Member

    IMAO, LSM is barely used even now. I don’t think that +1 to attack/def and wallclimbing is better than First strike and Polearm. In open field especially.
    A simple change could force a LSM to shine – just move Guard breaker from elite to rookie.

    It depends what class you play, with rogue’s cruel backstab LSM is now much more powerfull than HB (and much cheaper than assasin). Unless you have orc in your empire, LSM is becoming the most powerfull t1 anti-pike unit.

Viewing 30 posts - 61 through 90 (of 110 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.