Forum Replies Created
Yes, high morale is much less potent than the absolute imperviousness of Strong Will units, but it should still do -something-
Since this already the case – high morale just does not the one thing you want it to do – I think we do not need to make the effects of very high/low morale even stronger.
What you are looking for is not a Morale mechanic but instead a Loyalty mechanic. If this is an aspect you think should be expanded upon I think there is little room for options; it is touched upon by various other systems, all of which would not necessarily benefit by the bloat.
i like the “overflowed research slowly counts towards getting a free random research” idea
Count me in on this; having it be similar to how the building pickup behaves might make sense.
When you have accumulated enough ‘reserve’ knowledge equal to sum of the two cheapest research items available to you, you have to choose one, and reset your overflow counter.
This means that research acquired this way would always be more expensive, always be stuff that is already available, and you’d at the most be able to research 2 technologies per round.
Plus, someone beelining for high tier stuff would not profit as much as one using a more balanced approach, without his knowledge income sitting around being pretty and wasting away, though.
being a massive dickwad to people isn’t a good way of rallying them to your cause.
You have to break them first, you know.
Honestly, though, I do not see this adding nearly enough to bother with it for devs and players both.
Either it has a noticeable impact, then we can talk about its specifics, or it has not, in which case we can just drop it.
Basically, a player keeping their units happy won’t see too great an impact from this, and players neglecting happiness will see a little, but not overwhelming impact.
If so, why bother?
Honestly, most of the proposals of late to bring more depth to some aspect or other are levelled at the wrong game. Age of Wonders is not a game of great complexity in terms of anything other than when it comes to tactical combat itself. And adding more complexity to that one part of the game where the nuances required for complexity to thrive and be meaningful are greatly offset by randomness, will avail us nothing.
So if anything, more variety, since added complexity will mostly exist on paper only.
You didn’t – @vyolin did. And that’s basically against anything I (and I believe you) think about game balance, while using your words to support his claim.
It might go against your belief but it’s neither irrational nor far from @BBB’s sentiment. Balancing against more than one setting – more or less narrowly defined – is a futile endeavour. Just look at @epaminondas and his suggestions: There is no way his preferences could be reconciled with the settings most people play with.
So instead of opting for a one-size-fits-all approach why not balance around the Normal Game Flow with 4-6 players, Medium Map and otherwise standard settings.
And then introduce another set of rules for the Adventure and Empire flows to accommodate very short and very long games, respectively.
Those can then be tweaked in isolation and made to suit those rather extreme playstyles without affecting the base balance.
Accept it, the plethora of options this game offers means that there will never be a single acceptable balance for more than a small subset of setups. Focusing on subset balance – and then reiterating the approach for additional subsets – is the way to go.
It should be possible to change the hiring cost for high level heroes to 50 gold per level for first 5 levels then 25 gold and 25 mana for remaining levels.
Why not 25/25 on all levels? At least that’s equally unfair to every class.
If they were you’d have a dozen threads about how nobody plays anything but halfling now.
If this were a competitive game with a large MP playerbase, you might be right. It is not, though, so people are much more likely to just complain about Halflings not being fun to go up against – or more specifically, the luck mechanic.
As it stands, Luck is a sometimes infuriating vestige of the games predecessors, but luckily you can at least influence it somewhat.
For better or worse, the setting that appears most balanced is medium map default with 4 players, on Lord.
That seems to be the closest thing to a default setting. It may not be ideal but something has to be the baseline, and that is what we have.
I think BBB’s point needs additional stressing: We should really agree on a baseline setting – plus some range – and discuss balance for this setting only. Otherwise any discussion runs the risk of becoming the futile endeavour most them actually are.
Additionally, we should agree on a set of mechanics that differ – in itself, in usage, in viability, etc – between SP and MP, and agree on whether this set should be ignored for balance discussion, if either the SP or MP aspect of it, or both should be taken into account.
And in any case, we should really be asking if setting c is fun, and if not why not, and balance is just a part of what makes the experience fun.
Although I concur in general, I think concentrating on whether any setting, strategy, etc is viable and fair, should come first, due to the fact it being, well, more viable.
Fun is highly subjective, and discussions about it – if threads about stun and luck mechanics are any indication – utterly pointless.
In most cases, something has to be at least minimally viable and fair to be fun consistently for all parties involved. Looking at you, stun.
Count me in on the “stun != fun” camp.
@arcaneseraph, My complain/suggestion is rooted in the idea that an ability in a strategy game should be fun both to use and to have used against you. Stun fails the first test by being unreliable and unexciting, and the latter by actively taking away tactical choices.
Nice to see a likeminded individual around here!
I also concur with the proposed general stun nerf.
And I have a proposal for compensating the Sorcerer class, too.
As it stands, it is really strong in tactical battles, but has less of a presence on the strategic map.
How about creating strategic counterparts to his tactical spells – or switching them outright, so his focus might shift more to the strategic level. This would make the class more distinct in being a powerhouse on the cloth map with lots of tricks, but be actually manageable and fun to go against in tactical battles.
This would also help address the Sorcerer not wholly conveying the wizard-feel of the older games.May 3, 2015 at 19:20 in reply to: EL massively nerfs Resurgence: Do Theocrats need compensatory buffs? #193383
I guess we must rely on Crusaders and beefy racial T3s like Firstborns or Knights to do heavy melee.
Is that honestly such a bad thing? The races in AoW are there for more than just providing some variation on class units.
Time to break out of the class-units-only mold.
Exalted or Resurgence do need a rework, though.May 3, 2015 at 18:53 in reply to: EL massively nerfs Resurgence: Do Theocrats need compensatory buffs? #193360
Clearly, Theocrats need something – anything – shiny.
I am sorry, but this sounds like you need something – anything -shiny rather than the Theocrat class.
Succubi are not worthless anymore? Stalkers are able to achieve something? It sounds like the Rogue was now on equal terms with you.
Have another round, or two, or three, and try something new for a change. If you lose consistently, report back – and in detail! – but as it stands, your report doesn’t reveal any imbalance. If anything, it reveals an advent of balance.
Regarding Resurgence being overriden so easily, well, the unit with it had to die first, so there’s that. But it might make sense to exempt units with Resurgence from being targetable by corpse-exploiting spells, as they are not technically dead, but rather, uhm, unwell.
– Changing the razing mechanic. Now you can using a single scout unit raze/pillage/migrate an entire town. Can this be changed to needing a set amount of troops? Like 3 units to be able to do such things? I cannot remember which game had thgis mechanic, I believe it was Heroes of Might and Magic (correct me if I am wrong), but it would be a tad more realistic and more fun.
I’d much prefer a soft limit: Set a base line amount time, say 5 rounds, for Watchtoers, Forts and Cities alike. Then add 1 for upgraded forts, and 1 for every city level including outpost.
Then detract 1 round again for every unit in the stack, and an additional 1 round for each siege unit.
You will still be able to raze just about everything with a single scout. But a watchtower will set you back 5 rounds, and a metropolis will take you a whopping 10 rounds.
Should be able to address the issue much more organically than a hard limit regarding stack size.
Because, how would you treat the case of 2 siege engines (rams, trebuchets, et al.) not being able to raze a city in your scenario? Appears a tad counterintuitive to me, I have to admit.
Hold the phone. You mean if I’m fighting a hero-based enemy army using Resurgence items, I can cast Essence Harvest after killing a few of them and they won’t come back?
I can see that making people cry who rely on suicidal autocombat-heroes having Resurgence.
The problem with the sorcerer is that he is a one-trick-pony, wrecking tactical combat with his spells. That is why his spells have been nerfed from day one until now. I strongly advocate limiting the strength, e.g. duration of his debuffs in tactical combat.
Then give him plenty of toys on the strategic map. Convert a couple of his tactical spells to strategic ones and let him wreak havoc on the world map. Vision, movement reduction, teleports, damage – the possibilities for making sorcerers less bland are certainly there.
It is definitely OP, but I am not sure if the devs will nerf it, because the Sorcerer class is a popular class with a lot of MP kiddies invested in it – just like Rogue. In short, the general player demand has to be overwhelming to nerf anything associated with these classes.
Lord, we agree on something! The sorcerer being designed around sucking the fun out of his opponents should definitely be addressed at some point. Stun mechanics are the worst, and clumping them almost all together on one class is, well, not fun to go against.
And not even that much fun to go with, since it being so strong means you are bound to rely on it. Meh.
Have a beer on me, @epaminondas
Anyway, returning to our Exalted.
What do you think about giving analog of Static shield without stun? Attacker suffers from low amount of spirit+fire damage and has chance to be inflicted by Spirit Breaking, for example?
That sounds actually quite good. But it does help against everything except machines, which I find odd. I think the Exalted should not be buffed gratuitously, such a buff should answer a genuine need of the Theocrat class as a whole.
I’d rather settle for passive Inflict Spirit Breaking, i.e. only if being hit, not on the Exalted attacking – call it Remorse, Regret, something along those lines – that way the enemy has some control over the effect triggering.
I would then add a second ability as reward, alluding to the Theocrat’s ultimate spell:
– inflict 20% Spirit Weakness on attack, lasts for this turn, stacks
– does not affect enemies at 0% or lower Spirit Resistance
This would allow Exalted to nicely set up heavily resistant targets, without increasing damage indefinitely.
It removes all movement / action points
If it never removed action points, ever, I would actually be a bit more ok with it.
As it stands, removal of action points, i.e. a ‘stun’ effect is the absolute worst for the other player. He has to take whatever the sorcerer throws his way and he can’t do anything whatsoever on his own turn. Might as well have clicked auto-resolve, for he didn’t do much manual fighting, anyways.
So, yes, everything turning down the sorcerer’s capability to deprive the enemy of actual gameplay in tactical – en mass, too! – is a plus in my book.
How about switching some of those worst offenders to the strategic map? Would keep the awesomeness for the sorcerer, but ensure that in tactical battles the other player could have some fun, too. Or at least do something.
Plus, this would bring back a bit of the legacy-AoW feel for sorcerers, slinging spells willy nilly on the strategic map.
What happened to proper writing? Put some effort in your typing, or I won’t put any more effort in trying decyphering it, for god’s sake.
As I noted elsewhere, fielding arguments pertaining to issues beyond the balance horizon of ~100 turns is not worth it, even less so for early T1 units.
As it stands, the ram is not bad in and of itself, it is just obsolete. There is no genuine need for it. So giving it some thematic extra, like it providing full cover against ranged attacks, or it being able to ‘leech’ movement points from your infantry to get it to the walls quicker, might help alleviate that.
This is not a Theo balance thread.
So what is it, really? I honestly can’t tell anymore. I thought it was about the Exalted’s medal rewards originally, but the way different matchups and the Theocrat’s general ‘issues’ regarding them are bandied about, I can’t tell.
That thread could do with a serious reboot and more focus, in my opinion.
I don’t see how guard breaker on longswordsman is making them a better T1 infantry.
Let me help you out. Guard breaker is essentially a huge defense/resistance debuff. On top of that it forces your opponent to position his troops much more defensively, since he can’t rely on guard mode providing the tankiness and flanking protection needed in exposed positions.
It allows you, on the other hand, to disrupt his formation and put the hurt wherever you choose to, not where he allows you to.
TL;DR: Guard Breaker is amazeballs and fits like a glove on infantry.
Problem of this spell is late game u tend to have almost only T4(except for dread & theo)
At this stage of the game the last remnants of balance have gone, and Cardinal Culling is only one offender amongst many.
This game is only balanced for up to ~100 turns, at the very most. Discussing issues coming up beyond this balance horizon is moot.
Grammar and spelling are OP, please nerf.
If Theocrats struggle against Theocrats due to high spirit resistance, maybe, just maybe, tone it down a notch?
Or expand upon Heretic and other mechanics.
And regarding machines, last I checked racial units were quite the thing.
You already have the cost of the unit, as well as the time it takes to actually ‘cast’ it – build time, travel time, one turn activation time.
Adding yet another resource cost to an ability killing your own top tier unit would be plain insulting.
I think it’s fine if it only freeze those water for 3 turns at most, like the freeze water spell, but it’s bad if it freeze water permanently or more than 3 turns.
Fine by me. Plus, affecting pathing is way rarer than affecting morale – again, yawn.
If you have to sacrifice your end-of-the-line unit you would expect something at least a little flashy and extraordinary.
T2 unit with 20 def + 14 res on gold has no need. Just lol…
If the Exalted became a melee-brawling-powerhouse, why would I care building tanky Crusaders? Who needs defense if he’s got resurgence?
Seriously, I fail to see the genuine need for such strong and all-encompassing spirit damage buffs on the theocrat. Buffing up specifically against machines? Fine, if you really feel the need. Buffing against literally everything? Uhm, no, thanks.
Also, the Necromancer having awesome spirit channel capability has no bearing on the theocrat needing stronger spirit damage capability whatsoever. None at all.
How about it using as many spells as possible? You can turn it off, after all.
so it’s just a STORY not fact! lol
It’s all just stories. Sometimes about facts. Who could tell.
Take a break.
The sorcerer being built around stun and similar effects is a problem in and of itself. Costs and balancing aside, it makes for very bland battles, due to the much reduced interactivity between armies.
So even if it were balanced, which is arguable, it is often boring for at least the receiving player.
Flanking without the actual stun effect would be much more enjoyable for both sides, and could be more easily balanced, too.
If the theocrat’s only issue is dealing with machines, why are the ‘solutions’ thrown around here screwing with any sort spirit resistance, and most probably affect non-machine (!) units the most?
Exalted are fine in their own right, making them a proper T3 infantry invalidates the Crusader, for which there is no need. They are a convenience unit, not a frontline brawler. Let them provide +2 spirit damage to nearby units, if you absolutely need them buffed.
For dealing with machines, come up with a genuine solution for the problem, not a blanket buff against pretty much anything.
Let Exalted sacrifice themselves for applying a 50% spirit weakness on a single machine.
Plus, if you bring only spirit damage to a machine fight, I have no sympathy for you.