Necromancer Balance Discussion

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 Necromancer Balance Discussion

This topic contains 463 replies, has 29 voices, and was last updated by  Ericridge 6 years, 11 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 241 through 270 (of 464 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #218193

    NINJEW
    Member

    However, it could make a Cadaver rush an actual thing lol.

    i am in favor of this

    #218198

    NINJEW
    Member

    i suppose also somewhat relevant: as per the request of Jolly Joker, last night I played a live MP game as necro (against a dreadnought, no less). i’ll withhold most of my thoughts, as it’s very clear that a large part of my troubles were inexperience with the necromancer class (which i intend to play more of in the near future).

    i will say: holy shit the necro economy is down right horrific in how bad it is and for some reason i was led to believe that the optimum play with getting new cities was to plunder, then raise, which actually just resulted in my empire being one made of a half-dozen really shitty cities that took 20 turns or so to return to the size they were pre-conquer. i’ll have to figure out some optimizations to see if that helps but it’s actually worse than i was led to believe

    #218204

    @ Zaskow, late game Necro is fine, so not needed (but still a cool idea)

    @ Ninjew, so, what exactly are you arguing against?

    I’m saying not every class is equally good against every other class and yiu reply saying the same thing, which you’ve helpfully quoted.

    I don’t know what it is you think I am.saying but what you’re arguing against is not what I was saying.

    Follow my post history and.you’ll see I’ve been banging on about assymetric stuff for a long time

    Follow my posts in this thread and you’ll see I’m in favour of Necro buffs precisely to even out the situation. I used the term bottlenecked for a reason and I compared it to another class that was being bottlenecked.

    #218205

    Zaskow
    Member

    late game Necro is fine, so not needed (but still a cool idea)

    It would help Necro a bit against production classes before Age of Death comes. And make Cadavers more popular in late game.

    #218206

    @ Zaskow, the extra free cadavers idea was not *just * to help against Machines. It would also be useful in every match, and wasn’t supposed to replace all other tools. It’d be one extra tool to help the Necro. Cadaver only armies wouldn’t be much use, but normal Necro army, with extra cadavers (I’m talking like an extra stack per every normal stack, although that might be too much) used together could be a useful counter against Machines

    #218207

    @ Zaskow, my understanding is that cadavers in late game are obsoleted, by design, by Deathbringers.

    Being able to ghoul enemy units is infinitely better than Cadavers, surely?

    If a Necro has gotten to that stage, surely they don’t need cadavers, so honestly do you feel they need to be made more popular?

    My impression, from my playing and from reading here, is that the class is in some ways similar to the old WL, in that in practical terms it just isn’t quite competitive enough. Like the old WL it can still be loads of fun (Imho) but you didn’t pick old WL in a competitive match.

    It was too contingent on other people’s mistakes to work.

    Now the situation is different, due to the aforementioned changes, but also due to more expensive summons and defenders on free resources.

    I doubt we’ll get more map changes like the 2 mentioned but I do think more class tweaks, by which I mean quite small changes are already incoming.

    That is my line of reasoning, I.e. Make the early game a bit smoother, and make the class a bit easier to slip into.

    That doesn’t mean make it really easy to play or amazing against every thing.

    #218208

    @ Ninjew, I’m on a smartphone so my last reply was to previous posts.

    I’d be interested in hearing more detailed analysis of your game.

    #218210

    Zaskow
    Member

    @ Zaskow, my understanding is that cadavers in late game are obsoleted, by design, by Deathbringers.

    Being able to ghoul enemy units is infinitely better than Cadavers, surely?

    You pay much more for this advantage. Also Deathbringer isn’t very good tanky unit, while cadavers is almost free and spammable as cannon-fodder.

    #218211

    Ultimatum
    Member

    Cadavers lose health each round without a reanimator,they are also much weaker then deathbringers.

    Is it really worth spamming a weaker unit during a stage when you could summon a stronger unit..I think not.

    #218212

    So are you saying more cadavers later and more earlier?

    I think more earlier precisely to act as meatshields and cannot fodder

    I think that having an extra unit, for free, in the early game is more useful than having 3 free in the late game (assuming equal level).

    So I wouldn’t mind seeing cadavers pretty much as free units, but tied to whispers

    #218214

    Cadavers loose health each round without a reanimator,they are also much weaker then deathbringers

    Indeed, so having more of them is self balancing in a.way as you can’t heal them all.

    And they lose utility as the game goes on.

    So as a early game tool, more cadavers could work.

    If you manual you can have many of these, but we’re talking predominantly using auto, which is an unreliable generator of cadavers.

    So, at it’s heart, the idea is to more reliably generate cadavers as an early game buffer/tool.

    There is strength in numbers.

    I chose am existing spell to use as cadaver generator but you could attach the effect to anything else and the idea could still work.

    You could even make it a strategic map passive, for example, so that Necro leader auto generates cadavers.

    I’m using that as an example, not proposing it as an idea.

    #218222

    Zaskow
    Member

    I chose am existing spell to use as cadaver generator but you could attach the effect to anything else and the idea could still work.

    You could even make it a strategic map passive, for example, so that Necro leader auto generates cadavers.

    After battle leader creates 1 or more (dependable from size of combat) cadavers?

    #218225

    ExNihil
    Member

    Guys,

    I think we need to set some basic precepts for the discussion of proposals – through discussion. First of there are two different issues – Necro economy and Necro/DN battlefield matchup, these have some relation between them OFC but it just becomes incredibly condensed if the two are discussed together, so I suggest we discuss one at a time if possible. Second, I think there are some questions that need to be considered: Is Necro IMBA vs. all classes in the game or is the IMBA only relative to DN? It appears from previous discussions here that there is in fact a consensus that Necro is Ok vis-a-vis all other classes combat-wise. Therefore to propose changes that will dramatically offset this balance is problematic, simply put – these are bad changes that will destablize whatever balance already is in place. Thus, the changes that should be discussed should be more localized and affect as much as possible the Necro/DN matchup only. Since the problem, at least as far as I understand it is indeed machine immunities and the way this shuts down Necro, whatever changes we discuss should be primarily geared IMO towards addressing this specific IMBA rather than all possible DN/Necro matchups, which include also Bio-DN – after all, when DN persues a primarily or exclusively living unit based strategy the Machine immunity issue is not there.

    Some ideas that have been proposed here before really affect all matchups in the game- example being the cadaver spam proposal discussed above. Same goes to a combat oriented buff to Whispers of the Fallen or changes to Necro damage channels and the like (the same as changing those of Shrine of Smiting for that matter – problematic change that affects all matchups).

    Here are a few ideas – I’d appreciate your input and consideration of these, how will the impact the game? What will they contribute? Are they cool? And also, please contribute your own.

    Damnation: Allow this spell to work on machine units as well. It will allow Necro to weaken all DN machines before combat ensues when invading. This change will be localized to this scenario only, and in it DN usually has already almost overwhelming superiority – so it would allow some options with good play and good planning, but the cards will remain stacks against Necro in other battle scenarios. It will also not change anything in the units themselves and only affect a few possible match-ups (avatar machines, shrine of smiting) – that is, unless DN machines receive a special label that differentiates them from others (shrine already has the unique holy relic label, so it might be possible to remove it from this list).

    Invoke Death: Introduce a secondary effect specifically vs. machine units, rolled against physical defense or frost resistance. If the physical resistance channel is used the effect could be either along the lines of Rot – dealing some damage and inducing blight vulnerability, or inflicting “deteriorate”, reducing the damage output of the machine. If its rolled against the frost resistance channel it will have a chance to inflict freezing cold alongside 20 damage points or so.

    Death Bringer: Same as the previous, it might be possible to give Death Bringer a medal upgrade that rolls specifically against machines – “rotting strike” or something along these lines, which inflicts stackable blight vulnerability based on a roll vs. the physical channel.

    Death Ray: inflicts weaken or frost vulnerability on a machine w/o a roll.

    Bone Collector: will be allowed to “collect” machine corpses, to remove them from the battlefield and shut down Reassmble, this will not increase its health or damage output, but it could possibly increase its defense – say by 1 or 2 points per collected machine.

    #218258

    I think on the battlefield the Necro is mostly fine, notably less so.against machines although even here it’s not completely helpless.

    I do think the main issue, perhaps the only one, is the difficulty in getting the class off the ground.

    The early game to me feels a bit unreliable, in that if something goes wrong, there isn’t much bounce back ability, Imho less than there is with other classes.

    This means less risky play and less tolerance of things going wrong.

    Like with older Warlord, too many things needed to align to be good, but if they do, then it’s great.

    Less things required with other classes.

    That’s a characteristic of the class in general Imho, and Imho a workable solution, as already outlined, is extra troops.

    However, unreliable and deteriorating extra troops, which are worth less than their other class equivalent.

    That’s why I’m slightly obsessed with Cadavers!!!

    #218259

    @ Ex, whilst I can see where you’re going with those suggestions, I’m a bit wary of giving existing units extra stuff specifically to deal with machines.

    The exception is with BC, who thematically I could see consuming even machine parts. They’re essentially bone machines themselves.

    Consume machine would restore health, but not as much as consuming flesh and blood.

    Even BC is a bit debatable.

    By the time they come.out that’s solidly mid game + in my opinion by which point fully embalmed racial units *should* be able to manage machines.

    I could see curse working though, as mark of the heretic does.

    #218261

    NINJEW
    Member

    It’s basically doubling down without the specs so for me, I don’t mind that conceptually Dread is a tough opponent. It makes sense to me and also returns to a central point that not every class is supposed to do equally well against every other class, ditto race.

    That’s a pretty central tenet of the game, which I think people either don’t realise, or realise but wish to change.

    i’m saying that this is not a good state for the game to be in and not a good goal for the state the game should be in. your wording here seems to imply that you are in favor of there being imbalances in match ups, after all, “not every class is supposed to do equally well against every other class.” as if that is somehow a goal and not an accident of a game being too complex to balance evenly. in all your responses you’ve never actually gone back on this idea, you’ve just shifted your tone somewhat to “this is a matter of the game being imperfect” rather than “this si how the game should be,” which is what your initial statement sounded like.

    i’d agree that it’s fine that imbalances exist, but not that they are at all something that adds to the game.

    #218265

    NINJEW
    Member

    as for a deeper analysis of my game, i think it pretty much all boils down to “i’m bad at necro and also kinda shit in general at playing not dreadnought”

    i will say that banshees were not the magical cure-all that people seem to usual describe them as. haywire was nice and procced more than i thought it would, but also not nearly enough compared to how much i needed it to proc. also, banshees aren’t actually all that tanky, unless they’re against stalkers or something where they resist both physical channel and the entirety of the frost channel. they were dying just fine to pure physical brute force, golems and black knights and muskets did a real number on them.

    i’m hesitant to really say much because i definitely made a lot of bad moves, so it’s difficult to say how much of what happened is a result of “necro fares really poorly against dreadnought” and how much of it is a result of “i’m an idiot and thought phasing all 6 of my banshees into the middle of his army for a wicked sick wail party would be a good idea”

    i’d like to gather a bit more data before drawing too many conclusions

    #218277

    @ Ninjew you want to call it imbalance, and argue against that, but I’m calling it assymetry.

    And it is by design. Look at how the classes are designed and you see that this isn’t accidental. Since the vanilla release you could argue that things have changed somewhat, and various classes readjusted, but from a balance point of view, the vanilla game was pretty well balanced.

    What happened next was that the early game got massively extended, so early game classes were boosted, and WL deficiencies were highlighted, deficiencies that weren’t a problem when the early game window was much more reduced.

    Then wisps were deemed op, and nerfed. Then the wisp counter was deemed.Op and moved to temples. Etc.

    And I think it’s a good thing that classes have distinct strengths and weaknesses and that this naturally, by design, results in some matchups being easier than others.

    It becomes a bad thing when the deck is stacked too much one way or the other.

    Hopefully that clarifies what I mean when I say classes are supposed to be equal.

    #218278

    NINJEW
    Member

    @ Ninjew you want to call it imbalance, and argue against that, but I’m calling it assymetry.

    And I think it’s a good thing that classes have distinct strengths and weaknesses and that this naturally, by design, results in some matchups being easier than others.

    It becomes a bad thing when the deck is stacked too much one way or the other.

    Hopefully that clarifies what I mean when I say classes are supposed to be equal.

    i’d continue to disagree with you but i think at that point our differences in view are more semantic than anything practical. both views should come to roughly the same conclusions given the same data and the same personal bias so no problems here, i suppose

    #218279

    Also, I think this assymetry makes the game much more fun.

    People asking for racial changes keep asking for racial differences, ie racial assymetry (myself included).

    #218281

    @ Ninjew, exactly, we both desire the same thing: Different classes that have a fair chance against other class and race combos.

    That’s why I was bemused by your strident arguing!

    #218282

    NINJEW
    Member

    i enjoy asymmetry, but not imbalance, and i think you and i disagree somewhat on what constitutes asymmetry and what constitutes imbalance

    i’d say asymmetry is “different but equal abilities” while imbalance is “unequal abilities.”

    so an asymmetry can also be unbalanced, and an imbalance could also be asymmetrical.

    for example, the heavy use of blight and spirit is an assymetry from the dreadnought’s lack of such elements. the dreadnought’s immunities to those elements is also an asymmetry with the necromancer’s spirit weakness.

    the fact that this asymmetry results in a large portion of a necromancer’s abilities being rendered useless against a large portion of a dreadnought’s abilities, with very little in the way of other compensatory abilities, is an imbalance. when faced against each other, these abilities are very clearly not of equal strength, because one side’s ability is a direct counter to the other side’s ability.

    #218283

    NINJEW
    Member

    @ Ninjew, exactly, we both desire the same thing: Different classes that have a fair chance against other class and race combos.

    That’s why I was bemused by your strident arguing!

    i mean my initial argument was meant as more of a side note until the post grew and grew as i continued to explain my position

    despite my many words my disagreement with you is not a grave issue of dire importance

    #218361

    Zaskow
    Member

    Death Bringer: Same as the previous, it might be possible to give Death Bringer a medal upgrade that rolls specifically against machines – “rotting strike” or something along these lines, which inflicts stackable blight vulnerability based on a roll vs. the physical channel.

    Inflict Deteriorating could fix all necro problems with machines.

    #218362

    NINJEW
    Member

    how early do deathbringers usually come out? inflict deteriorating sounds like a decent idea

    #218364

    NINJEW
    Member

    it would be nice if there was A Necromancer Spell that worked against machines

    #218370

    Nasgate
    Member

    it would be nice if there was A Necromancer Spell that worked against machines

    As someone who watched your game, this was an example of imbalance I saw.
    you had 90 cp and ended the match with 70. Because your non-situational spells were useless.

    As a weird hybrid prod/summon/caster class that necro is, dread literally nullified one aspect, and grey guard nullified the other. So then you were forced to play a production war against the class that’s best at production.

    Even without grey guard, dread essentially nullifies or beats necro at 2/3 of what it does.

    #218375

    Jolly Joker
    Member

    You can give Dread Reaper Deteriorating strike. A T4 shouldn’t be THAT useless.

    Also a possibility on Giants and Black ANgels.

    About Cadavers.
    I think, you can balance Necro a lot with how much Health Cadavers lose every turn. I personally find Decaying 8 a liability (and for sure too high to make them a REAL tool. 4 would make them really interesting, but ptrobably too much so. Somehow I like 5, because that’s what I would actually like to reduce Heal Undead. So 5 would probably make Cadavers a lot more viable to last.

    #218397

    ExNihil
    Member

    Hallelujah 😃. I prefer the Death Bringer since its a melee t3 with Shadow Step. DN is able to amass t3 units quicker than all other classes, a melee change to the t4 will come too late probably, but the only way to know is to test this out.

    #218399

    ExNihil
    Member

    As for economy, why not implement a version of corpse looting here w/o tech that drops RP and some mana?

Viewing 30 posts - 241 through 270 (of 464 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.