ORC 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 ORC Balance Discussion

This topic contains 59 replies, has 13 voices, and was last updated by  Gloweye 7 years, 10 months ago.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 60 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #114345

    ExNihil
    Member

    Dude, Fire and Blight ARE the most common damage types in game aside from Physical. You are in fact offering to make Orcs ultra resistant. This is the very opposite of balance. Here I completely understand why the dev team didn’t give them these buffs.

    #114484

    jakjak
    Member

    I like orcs healing 6 after each battle won and I think 10% is a good number for the shock trooper black knights priests both in terms of damage mechanics and for things like entangle it could be buffed in a plethora of ways on lower level troops berzerk is a little too effective against orcs I think that switching the extra resistance on greatswords vs shock troopers would help remedy the extremism of the berzerk blow and elemental damage would still do plenty

    #114492

    Nollpunkt
    Member

    Orcs in game hate Volcanic, dislike blighted. It is hard to motivate fire/blight resistance, the priest being comfortable with blight is an exception not a race standard. I don’t see how it can fit? Draconians on the other hand prefer lava pools, don’t mind volcanic, fire is their element. I agree with Ex.

    I don’t like the idea of physical resistance. Orcs never had it in the past and the trait in the AOW series have mostly always been reserved for wraith like undead creatures, shadows and ghost beings. Orcs are physical tough through Health, defens and of course brute strength but physical resistance trait is more befitting for the supernatural.

    The orcs needs some fine tuning on individual level, the shocktrooper is afaik receiving +5hp. We should wait and see how that works out. Should it be insufficient, then +1 defens(14) should be considered IMO. T1/t2 orcs are just great, some of the best units for this tier, exception being the priest who is quite bad. More Class orc units need extra abilities added like was seen in the latest patch.

    #114551

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Orcs in game hate Volcanic, dislike blighted. It is hard to motivate fire/blight resistance, the priest being comfortable with blight is an exception not a race standard. I don’t see how it can fit? Draconians on the other hand prefer lava pools, don’t mind volcanic, fire is their element. I agree with Ex.

    Orcs only dislike Blighted. Every other race, apart from goblins, hates it. I’d argue that this points to their blight resistance being higher than everyone except goblins. At the moment, it works out to be lower than everyone, including blight-vulnerable Elves unless it’s coming in a big packet.

    Draconians will still have higher fire resistance with this proposal due to not having the resistance penalty, and due to many draconian units having additional fire resistance. And orc lore from previous games presents them as more heat-resistant than humans, when at present they’re the opposite.

    The proposal fits the lore. It also helps ameliorate the problem that has been expressed that the orc resistance penalty makes them too vulnerable to non-physical sources, by reducing the list of channels they’re vulnerable too.

    To conclude, if you take nothing else from this post, please keep the following in mind:

    The proposal is suggested in the context of orcs having -1 resistance, which means that they’re inherently vulnerable to every nonphysical damage type. A 20% resistance means that, for many damage packets, all it’s doing is offsetting the resistance penalty and bringing orcs back to the level of humans. Do people really think orcs should be more susceptible to burning and poison than humans?

    There is precedent for this – the thinking on the part of the devs on giving elves blight vulnerability is not that elves are actually particularly vulnerable to blight – it’s that, in the context of also having +1 resistance, that they’re more resistant than other races to everything except blight.

    #114651

    ExNihil
    Member

    Well, the point of making them -1 resistance is a. a balancing mechanism, and b. a question of concept. If you are gonna make them immune to blight and fire you are gonna counteract the -1 resistance, simple. This is a balancing that breaks the concept. I don’t understand why you dont see it, so I will try again to explain: -1 magic resistance is a very powerful malus. You can balance it like you suggest, which is to take the malus out of the malus so to speak, which isn’t good at all as it empties it from content and homogenizes the game, or you do what the devs tried to do – give them a buff on a different register that creates a “balanced imbalance”: they have strength in one thing and a minus in the other. The problem with this balance is not the concept but that the +5hp the devs gave Orcs don’t really work in a way that makes Orcs competitive. Hence my proposal for Physical Resistance, which I think is a creative solution.

    Aside from this what you are writing about elves. It is a convention of fantasy fiction of the kind AOW3 draws from, since Tolkien pretty much, but through out the RPG world from Merp onward that Elves have a weakness to corruption because on some primordial level they stem from a pure origin. In this game blight represents this element, hence the -20% blight weakness. In this game, in difference to Tolkien, but like the ADֶ&D System Orcs are an Organic Race that is like the others to the degree that it is not made from minions of the dark one or whatever. Hence it is not inherently corrupt. Goblins are on the other hand a type of rodent – they thrive in filth and if you will radiation – Orcs don’t. Orcs are angry swamp people that probably eat people they don’t like, but they are not about serving the forces of evil and so forth. Well their priests practice black magic, but aside from that. Thats how I understand it anyhow. As for fire resistance – Why? Draconians are supposedly semi-supernatural creatures that have some magic in their blood, thus they can survive fire, why Orcs? they burn just as well as humans but on some primal level are more susceptible to magic – maybe its a cultural thing :).

    #114813

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Orcs aren’t swamp people in AoW. Goblins are. Orcs like tropical barrens, and in Age of Wonders 2, it is specifically called out that orcs are more resistant to heat than humans. I understand from other posts you’ve made that you haven’t played the previous installments, but that doesn’t mean you can ignore them when talking about concept. These precedents exist and need to be considered if we’re going to talk about concept. And those precedents say that, no, actually, orcs are more tolerant of fire and heat than humans, enough that in at least one scenario it’s specifically called out that the PC used an orc army rather than a human one because humans couldn’t survive the hot environment. (And keep in mind that heat-based debuffs such as Inflict Scorching Heat work on the fire channel, so fire resistance also applies to things like heatstroke.)

    When it comes to blight – in most games and settings with orcs, it’s a common trend that orcs have hardier constitutions that allow them to shrug off poisons and diseases that would kill a human. An orc in general fantasy can often get away with eating raw, rancid meat, have a total lack of hygiene with no ill effects, thrive in polluted environments that would sicken other races, and so on. In Age of Wonders 3, they ‘dislike’ blighted terrain. Out of context, this sounds like blight is bad for them – but in context, every other race so far hates blight, demonstrating that orcs actually have an above-average tolerance to blighted terrain. Just not as high as goblins.

    As I’ve said a few times, and you seem determined to ignore, draconians would still have more resistance to fire because they have fire protection without the resistance penalty. Goblins would still have more resistance to blight because they have have a higher base level of blight protection, again, without a resistance penalty. And that’s without considering the extra layers of resistance and even immunities that many draconian and goblin units get.

    When it comes to the argument about making the penalty bite less – half of every orc balance discussion comes down to the resistance penalty being a massive weakness that isn’t compensated for by any of the bonuses – your example of how the extra hit points are quickly whittled away by extra damage from elemental attacks, for instance. Rather than come up with entirely new things that require extra development time and might actually break the game, this is a simple suggestion that ameliorates that weakness. It still leaves them with a weakness against magic. It just has to be genuine magic, not simply a burn or toxin that could be coming from an entirely mundane source.

    #114814

    ExNihil
    Member

    No point in this conversation really – you hold to your opinions i will hold to mine.

    I haven’t played the previous installments – never said i did. I also dont make it personal in my posts and try to be objective, answering you on equal terms but I see this is not going to be the case here. From your posts it is clear you have played very little to no MP and don’t really grasp a substantial chunk of the game mechanics or interaction between races, classes and how players can exploit them. The difference between us is that I don’t make this into a point in trying to invalidate what you write – quite low amigo and really not productive.

    #114817

    Draxynnic
    Member

    PS Just wanted to point out, since you seem to be making an incorrect assumption:

    When I talk about how the aim for the elven blight vulnerability being to come to an end result of ‘+1 resistance except against blight’, this is something that came directly from a discussion with the developers. It’s not something I’m making up – that was their expressed intention at the time. The observation was made that the +1 resistance wasn’t enough to balance the 20% vulnerability for large packets – this was essentially regarded as acceptable collateral damage (particularly along with thinking similar to yours – that the attunement of elves to unspoiled life and nature makes them particularly vulnerable to high concentrations of magic and poisons that disrupts that harmony).

    So there is precedent to the sort of thing I’m suggesting, I’m just suggesting doing it in reverse. Against small packets, it results in orcs being about as resistant to blight and fire as humans. Against large packets, yes, they come out a little ahead… but that fits their lore as described above. Against shock, spirit, and cold, they remain vulnerable (although we’ll need to see more sources of cold damage appear for the latter to be really significant).

    #114820

    Draxynnic
    Member

    PPS Not having played previous installments isn’t something I consider a point. What is a point is that when it comes to looking at what traits races and units have in Age of Wonders, the primary source is how those races and units behave in the Age of Wonders franchise. I don’t think any less of someone for not knowing those sources because they haven’t played, and am quite happy to fill someone in on these things when relevant.

    In this discussion, though, I have done so several times. You’ve claimed that my suggestion breaks the concept, when I have pointed out in numerous posts that my suggestion actually follows the concept as established in the game world. You’ve drawn analogies from other settings, when to be frank, such analogies are simply not as important as precedents within the setting in question.

    That you have not played previous installments is not important. That you continue to ignore precedents from those installments after they have been pointed out to you is.

    #114824

    ExNihil
    Member

    Dude, I will reiterate my point: the concept of Orcs (in terms of how this race is represented in Game mechanics) is that of having a big weakness towards magic, which is all attacks that are rolled against the resistance channel. Hence they got -1. If you will go and buff 2 out of 5 parameters with 20% you will break this concept completely. Consider for instance that in ability checks the weight of 1 resistance point it 5%, by giving them 20% in two registers you are gonna give them an effective +3 resistance in fire and blight. As for the damage calculation this is slightly more difficult, but you will still reduce from the total damage 20% in both registers. Blight and Fire are the most common attacks in the resistance channel – hence you will be breaking their concept. Where the mechanics different then perhaps there was a way to do what you suggest without doing that. But as my first reply to your suggested stated clearly: There is a conflict between the lore and the game mechanics.

    For some reason you think that what you propose will preserve the concept of the Orcs, balance them out and so forth. I have explained and argued why not – e.g. emptying the -1 resistance from content. You ignored this several times, and instead prefer to pick at the points in which I try to offer you some imaginative explanations of why xyz can accommodate the lore as you understand it. This is me trying to be in dialogue with you, while you not trying to grasp the points i’m offering to show you. If the question is whether the game should have balance or continuity with the lore, the game should have balance – at least in my perspective. 20% Fire and 20% Blight resistance are major buffs. They out-weight -1 resistance by quite a bit. So what do you suggest? remove the +5hp, keep the -1 resistance and add these resistances? or add them on top? that will be IMBA and OP. Or what, lose the +5hp? Great, now you have Orcs without the Orc in them. Or really, the problem here is the -1 resistance, so lets just remove this and give them -40% Frost Weakness – cause they like it hot, and -40% because that is the real magical elements as used by Sorcerers and Elves. Finally, if you add these resistances it will make the races more similar: Goblin has Blight resistance, as do Dwarves. Draconians have fire resistance, as do some Dwarven units. So now there will be 2 races with fire and blight resistance, and additional 1 with fire and an additional 1 with blight. Great solution man.

    All of what I wrote in this paragraph appears in my previous replies, you have addressed only a small portion of it tendentiously. If you want to convince me your solution works, please show me on the level of game balance that it does – because I am telling you it does the opposite. I have done the initial math in my original post and I explain the mechanics there, you are welcome to work on top of it.

    #114899

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Thaaaaat’s… not actually how protection and vulnerability works, according to the explanations I’ve been given by the devs.

    Protection and vulnerability modify the strength of the attack before it is applied to the target’s resistance (although I can’t recall offhand how it handles rounding). So if it’s a damaging attack, the potential damage before defenses goes up and down – a 10 strength attack becomes an 8 strength attack versus a protected unit, and a 12 strength attack versus a vulnerable unit (assuming only one application of protection and vulnerability, since they’re applied in lots of 20%).

    For saving throw type effects, the mechanic is the same. If the effect has a 10 strength normally, it gets shifted up or down by two points, and then gets applied to resistance. So, against a 10 strength attack, a 20% protection is actually only equivalent to two points of resistance (the attack gets scaled down to strength 8, which is 10% more likely to be saved against). Against 15 strength, it’s three points, and so on.

    So that 20% protection in fire and blight coupled with -1 resistance is only equivalent to a net +3 in resistance if the attack has a strength somewhere around the 20 mark. Those are quite rare – I don’t know of any saving throws within that region offhand, and in damaging attacks on nonphysical channels it’s generally limited to dragon breath and the like. Against most attacks in the game, it’s equivalent to parity, +1, or at most +2. Since the lore implies, or outright states, that orcs are more resistant to heat and blight than humans, this seems reasonable to me – they’re still vulnerable to other more magical attack forms (particularly fairy fire, which is still going to be doing +2 damage per volley compared to the current +3), but the bonuses have less they need to compensate for.

    Now, the behaviour of the rounding does make a difference here – I’m pretty sure that protection and vulnerability always shift the attack strength by at least 1, but can’t remember off the top of my head whether 6-9 rounds down to 1 or up to 2 (or whether the cutoff is within that range, such as down for 6-7 and up for 8-9). However, I can at this point say that the effect is less then you think it is.

    #115044

    ExNihil
    Member

    Ok, I don’t know what you were told. The way damage is being calculated is as follows:

    Physical Damage: (10 + (attack strength – defense) +- 20%) – physical resistance %
    Non Physical Damage: (10 + (attack strength – defense) +- 20%) – attack element resistance %

    Thus if you have an Orc Impaler with 10def and 8res and he is attacked by a Forge Priest using ranged attack at close range (no penalties) the equation looks like this:

    (10 + (8 – 8) +- 20%) – 0%. Thus the Forge priest will inflict between 8-12 damage

    With your Proposal:

    (10 + (8 – 8) +- 20%) – 20%. Thus the Forge Priest will inflict between 6 – 10 damage

    Now for status effects:

    Chance of success against defense:
    50% + 5% * (attack strength – target defense) – target physical resistance %

    Chance of success against resistance:
    50% + 5% * (attack strength – target resistance) – target attack element resistance %

    Lets take the same Orc Impaler with 9def and 8res who has now has the bad luck of being met by Dread Spider Queen who has Inflict Severely Poisoned (9res, blight modifier) lets see what are the chances he will be poisoned:

    50% + 5% * (9 – 8) – 0% = 45% the Impaler will be severely poisoned

    With your proposal:

    50% + 5% * (9 – 8) – 20% = 25% the Impaler will be severely poisoned

    As you can see the effect of each individual resistance point in this kind of roll is exactly 5%. Your proposal is equal to giving the Orc an additional +4 resistance points or as I was writing before, complement the -1 and add another +3.

    If you remain unconvinced of what I wrote in my previous post, I am afraid we will have to remain on differing opinions of how significant 20% fire and 20% blight resistance are indeed.

    #115089

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Righto, did a bit of digging – the formula was changed late in beta, after High Elves were given blight vulnerability. I missed the discussion after it was changed because I was busy moving houses at the time.

    This does indeed make the effect of 20% protections stronger than I’d thought. It’s a shame that protections in installments less than 20% are not currently possible, but I do note that your proposal also involves protections less than 20% – if 10% protections on these channels were to be implemented, instead of 20%, would this assuage your objections?

    (That said, I’m not holding my breath on protections less than 20% on any channel, but if we’re considering a physical protection channel less than 20%, it’s just as valid to consider other channels.)

    #115094

    ExNihil
    Member

    That could work, but it would be IMO a less elegant solution – the Physical Protection makes the Orcs more Orcish in the way they fight and their advantages in combat. It would also introduce something new in this respect. In general I do think that allowing Orcs to be happy on blight is not a bad thing – I would like another blight race. As far as resistances go though the problem is that these are simply too proliferated ATM for both diversity and game balance.

    #115117

    Draxynnic
    Member

    From my viewpoint, physical protection is essentially extra defense by another name, except that it’s extra defense that ramps up with bigger attacks. That’s fitting for incorporeals and big things that are just plain tough, but orcs strike me as being something that, yes, they’re tougher, but if a dragon bites them they’re not really THAT much less squishy than a human.

    Also, graphically speaking, humans have better armour than orcs, so orcs having the same defense already is reflecting their being generally tougher. So, really, I don’t see increasing their defense as being appropriate, and physical resistance is even less appropriate.

    Elemental protections at least have the additional subtlety of offering protection against one element that attacks resistance, but not all of them.

    (Ironically, though, this same thinking is leading me to raise a mental eyebrow on halflings (go check the news if you haven’t already, I’m allowed to talk a little about them now). I suspect the idea is that intuitively decent defense and physical vulnerability makes more sense because they’re wearing decent armour (in many cases) while being physically puny, but a big penalty to defence coupled with physical protection might actually be a more accurate reflection – they’re more susceptible to big hits, but that dragon can still only eat one halfling at a time…

    So maybe, on the basis of the halfling precedent, physical protection coupled with a -1 to defense? This would mean that there’s a mechanical reflection of orc armour (mostly leather) being weaker than what humans and elves have, but the physical protection reflects them being tougher overall under the armour. Mechanically… well, see above. Coupling a defense penalty with a 20% protection would also avoid the problem of getting the devs to make things like 15 or 10% protection possible.)

    #115122

    ExNihil
    Member

    Well, the devs solve their problems easily I assume – they have beta-testers like you to check it out. If you add -1 defense you will just weaken them further. The problem is to make Orcs competitive – if you detract form them even more then they will be even less attractive. There is a point in which stuff is simply over-thought – this is a fantasy game, it doesn’t make sense really, the question is how to balance it so its competitive, fun and fits the concept. If you ask too many questions it collapses – this is after all make believe.

    #115352

    Draxynnic
    Member

    Well, at the moment, defense only applies to physical channels, and as per the above discussion a 20% protection will always at least offset a -1 to the associated defensive stat, and may be significantly more beneficial. While you can’t really do it with elemental protections and vulnerabilities because multiple channels are based off resistance, with physical you can play defense and prot/vul against one another until you get the exact effect you’re looking for.

    There seemed to be a consensus on the previous page that 20% phys protection, on its own, was too much. At the moment, though, I don’t think Triumph can do 10% or 15% protection without rewriting the way it works. However, coupling a defense penalty with protection may well have the desired effect.

    #115362

    ExNihil
    Member

    You might be right – although what I would like to see in that case is a removal of the armored trait from most Orc units rather then a -1 def as racial trait. The armored is currently the justification for giving Orcs similar def as humans, simply because it is a single trait. If armored is removed at a -1 penalty to defense across the board, a 20% physical resistance will work just as well as 15% because they are mathematically identical. This will be a good solution because the armored trait is a paradoxical bonus – it gives +2 to defense (actually +1 for many units, compare draconian and Orc/Human/Elf stats) but makes the units vulnerable to Armor Piercing.

    #115805

    ExNihil
    Member

    Seems this discussion is over… well if anyone else has input I’m all eyes ;).

    #115892

    Jomungur
    Member

    Guys, 10% physical protection is generally worse for orcs than having extra 5hp.

    Let’s look at some examples.

    SPEARMAN

    Assume attack value 8.

    #1 Orc spearman base hp 38 (includes +5 bonus). Defense 8. Average damage per shot is 10. Range is 8-12. Number of shots to kill spearman: 4-5.

    #2 Orc spearman base hp 33, 10% physical protection. Defense 8. Average damage per shot is 9. Range is 8-11 (remember, always round up). Number of shots to kill spearman: 3-5.

    In this situation, orc spearman is actually worse off with in #2 for a physical damage attack. This is because 3 max shot hits at 11 damage could kill the spearman, but in #1 it will always take at least 4 hits, even at max damage, to kill the spearman. Furthemore, hp bonus is better than 10% physical protection because hp is beneficial for all damage channels, not just physical.

    Assume attack value 30 (musket).

    #1 Orc spearman base hp 38 (includes +5 bonus). Defense 8. Average damage per shot: 32. Range is 26-39. Number of shots to kill spearman: 1-2.

    #2 Orc spearman base hp 33, physical protection 10%. Defense 8. Average damage per shot: 39. Range is: 24-35. Number of shots to kill spearman: 1-2.

    In this situation orc spearman has no advantage in #2 over #1 (each could be killed in 1-2 shots, depending on luck). (Actually #2 is slightly worse off because there is a slightly greater chance of a 1 shot kill in #2 than #1). However, since hp is better than 10% physical protection because hp bonus is beneficial for all damage channels, not just physical, #1 is better off.

    ORC SHOCKTROOPER

    Attack value 8.

    #1 Orc shocktrooper base hp 70 (includes +5 bonus). Defense 13. Average damage per shot: 5. Damage range is 4-6. Number of shots to kill shocktrooper: 12-18.

    #2 Orc shocktrooper base hp 65, 10% physical protection. Defense 13. Average damage per shot: 5 (remember to always round up). Damage range 4-6. Number of shots to kill shocktrooper: 11-17. (11 max shots, although unlikely, would kill the shocktrooper)

    In this situation, orc shocktrooper is slightly better off in #1 because it takes more shots to kill him, just considering physical damage attacks. Again, once you consider elemental damage there’s no argument that #1 is better.

    Attack value 30. (musket)

    #1 Orc shocktrooper base hp 70 (includes +5 bonus). Defense 13. Avg damage: 27. Range: 22-33. Number of shots to kill shocktrooper: 3-4.

    #2 Orc shocktrooper base hp 65, 10% physical protection. Defense 13. Ave damage: 25. Range: 20-30. Number of shots to kill shocktrooper: 3-4.

    Even with a musket attack, there is virtually no difference between #1 and 2. But at least #1 gets the hp bonus vs. elemental attacks.

    Hopefully I got the math right, but generally I wouldn’t underestimate the value of hp; it is the precise reason why there are so many complains about goblins and their lack of viability in clearing. Also, if you run the numbers, you’ll see that even at 20% physical protection it would be better in the above examples for the spearman to have +5 hp instead. However, the higher the base hp, the more effect you get from protections rather than a flat hp bonus so for a shocktrooper it is better to have 20% physical protection than 5 extra hps if you only consider physical attacks.

    #115894

    ExNihil
    Member

    You are absolutly right, thats why I suggested 15% :). You can see the math in the original post and then in my discussion with @BBB. An interesting possibility is giving them 20% reduction and reducing their defense rating by one and at the same time remove the Armored trait from them. This will also be balanced damage wise and will mean they have one less vulnerability (armor piercing), although they wouldn’t be eligible for the Dread bonus.

    Hopefully I got the math right, but generally I wouldn’t underestimate the value of hp; it is the precise reason why there are so many complains about goblins and their lack of viability in clearing. Also, if you run the numbers, you’ll see that even at 20% physical protection it would be better in the above examples for the spearman to have +5 hp instead. However, the higher the base hp, the more effect you get from protections rather than a flat hp bonus so for a shocktrooper it is better to have 20% physical protection than 5 extra hps if you only consider physical attacks.

    I personally wouldn’t mind a flat out 20% Physical resistance and I think it would be balanced, but I also know a hard sale when I see one :). The idea with this proposal to begin with as an asymmetrical balance – rather then compensate for the weakness by giving the Orcs a bigger health pool, this alternative makes them extra robust in melee combat against physical damage and thus creates an imbalance in the other direction, which I feel actually balances well the malus and goes nicely with their concept. I think the +1 physical on melee is ok concept wise but it really doesn’t give Orcs the distinct edge that they need, that is, without the Physical resistance in combination.

    #115896

    Gloweye
    Member

    I think for clarity they would need 20% – all protections go in multiples of 20. also, I do not believe that this would make them OP, just a pain to fight with phys damage, as is supposed to be. The HP bonus gone would mean the Resistance Malus goes as well – and than the physical protection will stimulate us to attack them with magic.

    #115897

    ExNihil
    Member

    ALSO! Physical Resistance of 15-20% will mean that that they are also 15-20% more resistant to any ability that is rolled against the defense damage channel, which is also significant!

    #115912

    Jomungur
    Member

    I don’t think -1 resist is that bad of a penalty. +5 hp more than makes up for it in most cases for most elemental damage attacks, which tend to be of lower value than physical damage attacks. Certainly for things like fire bolts, etc. it makes little difference to have +5 hp rather than +1 resist for tier 1 and tier 2 troops. Also, for effects like convert, etc., a 5% chance difference is pretty small. Where it becomes a little more troublesome is abilities like inflict stun or static shield which can process 3 times. But even there, if you are being hit by 3 inflict stun shots, a troop with 8 resist will escape unstunned with a chance of 12.5% while a troop with 7 resist will escape unstunned with a chance of 9.1%.

    However, as I look at the numbers I see one of the problems is orc shocktrooper has effective a -2 resist penalty off the baseline tier 3 value. Knight, beetle and flyer have resist of 11. So I think orc shocktrooper resist needs to go to 10 instead of 9 where it is now.

    So why are orc less popular? For me personally:

    1. no movement bonuses
    2. range combat is king in AoW and they have short range archers, and certainly nothing that compares to swarm darters, longbowmen or flamers
    3. no heal on support (unlike humans, which are similarly unpopular)

    Black knights are pretty terrific, though.

    #116032

    ExNihil
    Member

    5% chance difference is pretty small

    Only when you are thinking about 1 time shot abilities or spells, and even then 5% is exactly what it is – 5%.

    inflict stun or static shield which can process 3 times.

    Actually this is all abilities that run against the resistance damage channel in this case as Orcs have no elemental resistance bonuses to change these. It is rough 80% of the abilities in game currently.

    But even there, if you are being hit by 3 inflict stun shots, a troop with 8 resist will escape unstunned with a chance of 12.5% while a troop with 7 resist will escape unstunned with a chance of 9.1%.

    That is correct, but now consider this in the context of every unit against every ability that comes from the resistance channel. The difference is substantial indeed. Finally, the question is not whether +5hp is overall more powerful then 20% physical resistance. It is over-all more powerful if you consider it from the direction of a symmetrical game-play for all races, but Orcs are meant for a play-style that favors melee combat. I think therefore 15-20% physical resistance will be a superior bonus and one that serves this concept better. Also, the idea here is a bonus that scales with the progression of the game. At lower tiers 5hp is a serious increase, but by the time you get to t3-4 units it becomes a very small difference, not inconsequential mind you, but not a huge perk. The physical resistance has the advantage of being scalar – the stronger the base units are, the stronger the bonus. This also works on medal progression, which I particularly like. All in all I think this is a very elegant solution, if I may say so myself ;).

    However, as I look at the numbers I see one of the problems is orc shocktrooper has effective a -2 resist penalty off the baseline tier 3 value. Knight, beetle and flyer have resist of 11. So I think orc shocktrooper resist needs to go to 10 instead of 9 where it is now.

    Yup. You really should look in the original post – it is there.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 10 months ago by  President.
    #116057

    vota dc
    Member

    Devs seriously said that protection are multiples of 20? Seems weird. I imagine they can’t use attack 2.5 or decimal weird values, but multiple of 10 is really a problem?

    #116059

    ExNihil
    Member

    Devs seriously said that protection are multiples of 20? Seems weird. I imagine they can’t use attack 2.5 or decimal weird values, but multiple of 10 is really a problem?

    I have no idea. I hope 15% could work as that is the magic number IMO, but 20% would do just fine as well.

    #116111

    Draxynnic
    Member

    It’s not been said outright that I know of, but look at the way it works, particularly with medals. ‘Protection’ is an ability that grants 20% protection against a particular channel. Higher percentages are achieved by layering that ability multiple times.

    Making it more finely-grained would surely be possible, but it would require reworking the system.

    #116343

    ExNihil
    Member

    I made a post in the Blight, Spirit, Machines and Theocrat thread a part of which concerns a proposal on how to deal with Blight Immunity with the Orc Priest:

    I suggest to change the type of the Orc Priest’s ranged attack from Poison Bolt to Acid Bolt and change the damage type from 8 blight damage to 4 physical and 4 blight damage. This will enable the Orc Priest to serve some physical damage to machine units regardless of their blight immunity. It will also enable the inclusion of a new ability on gold medal called “inflict Deteriorate,” which will be rolled against the defense stat of the target unit at

    What do you guys think?

    #116395

    Gloweye
    Member

    I mentioned that all is 20% currently, and while I dont really believe the game doesn’t support other values, the orc bonus could very well go there without being problematic.

    Orc sorcerer would become good, cause you can get physical immune for 2 combat rounds pretty easy with this bonus+sphere of protection. only 2 turns, so not OP, but nice nontheless.

Viewing 30 posts - 31 through 60 (of 60 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.