Dev Diary #17: Post-Launch

[Maethendias]

Maybe youa re playing them wrong and it working is just a bug?
Seriously, not being conductive to different playstyles in a game like AoW4 is pretty much a massive design issue.

you are literally complaining that you cant suck out SOULS enough because you dont like killing enemies.... like

do you acutally understand what you are complaining about

 

[Ferrus Animus]

you are literally complaining that you cant suck out SOULS enough because you dont like killing enemies.... like

do you acutally understand what you are complaining about

Yes!
When the game gives me half a dozen ways to boost my soul income but those don't really matter, that is a design issue.
When the game offers you different playstyles from "kill everythign" to "Kill only things if you have to", that is a design issue.
When the game has a morale mechanic as a way to shorten one-sided fights and a competent autocombat with inbuilt retry option so I don't have to do every trashfight by hand, and I still have to murder-micro every little fight to have a functional resource system, that is a design issue.

When you have a toolbox and it can only be used for hammering in an 8d finishing nail, you don't have a toolbox, you don't even have a hammer, you have a thign that does one thing a hammer does. Then you don't have a toolbox.

Do you actually understand what I am complaining about?

 

[TheDarkMaster]

[USER=430459]@TheDarkMaster suggested adding a t2+ cavalry unit to the game as base culture units which I'd also like. I think only Dark has anything like that as a base right now?

Not quite. The dark and feudal cultures have what I'd call a heavy cavalry unit. Within the game they fit into the shock unit classification. What I'd like to see is light cavalry, or similar generic unit type, a high mobility unit that specializes in flanking and taking out ranged units. It would otherwise be pretty bad against proper melee units.

 

[Xartharos]

I hope it's not too bound into the Tomes - especially not a Tier V tome that would make it exclusive, but that may of course be an option. Currently, you are only allowed to recruit Bone Dragons through Ancient Wonders (unless using a mod).

although i understand you want dragons as liege, quite frankly i think it will be locked by a tome IV, my reasoning for that is because of current affinities have a theme, order is kind of celestial although their tier 5 looks like undead, chaos is with demons and as far as i can remember you cannot recruit demons on lieges, shadow is with undead and besides bone dragon, astral is more into specters, nature into plants and metarium into golems , the new tomes are said to be based on draconic magic so based on the other tomes i expect it to be locked to tomes

another point you might help me to resolve is, dragons are tier 5 units and as far as i know liege is limited to tier 4 units isnt it??? by limit is there are not tier 5 units on lieges???
for some reason it is difficult to find a full list of what can be purchased on liege and in game info when you look at wonders it will only have pheonix, bone dragon and one trent as tier 4 units

who knows if devs will add them to lieges or create wonders, quite frankly i think it will be tomes because of what i explained with the other tier 5 units

 

[Sadorhael]

although i understand you want dragons as liege, quite frankly i think it will be locked by a tome IV, my reasoning for that is because of current affinities have a theme, order is kind of celestial although their tier 5 looks like undead, chaos is with demons and as far as i can remember you cannot recruit demons on lieges, shadow is with undead and besides bone dragon, astral is more into specters, nature into plants and metarium into golems , the new tomes are said to be based on draconic magic so based on the other tomes i expect it to be locked to tomes

another point you might help me to resolve is, dragons are tier 5 units and as far as i know liege is limited to tier 4 units isnt it??? by limit is there are not tier 5 units on lieges???
for some reason it is difficult to find a full list of what can be purchased on liege and in game info when you look at wonders it will only have pheonix, bone dragon and one trent as tier 4 units

who knows if devs will add them to lieges or create wonders, quite frankly i think it will be tomes because of what i explained with the other tier 5 units

You may be quite right, your logic makes sense. It's OK with me (although I'd prefer it through the Rally of Lieges) as long as it is not on a Tier V tome. That would make it too exclusive.

 

[Maethendias]

Yes!
When the game gives me half a dozen ways to boost my soul income but those don't really matter, that is a design issue.
When the game offers you different playstyles from "kill everythign" to "Kill only things if you have to", that is a design issue.
When the game has a morale mechanic as a way to shorten one-sided fights and a competent autocombat with inbuilt retry option so I don't have to do every trashfight by hand, and I still have to murder-micro every little fight to have a functional resource system, that is a design issue.

When you have a toolbox and it can only be used for hammering in an 8d finishing nail, you don't have a toolbox, you don't even have a hammer, you have a thign that does one thing a hammer does. Then you don't have a toolbox.

Do you actually understand what I am complaining about?

i find it truely hilarious that you acutally think that the best way to get souls is to not acutally kill things
like, even if you consider exclusively getting souls the "lawful" way, were do you think those soulwells are digging from=? Certainly not willing participants

 

[Leyrann]

i find it truely hilarious that you acutally think that the best way to get souls is to not acutally kill things
like, even if you consider exclusively getting souls the "lawful" way, were do you think those soulwells are digging from=? Certainly not willing participants

Before anything else: I think it makes sense that killing things is a logical way to get souls, and logical as the best way to get souls.

However, you could perhaps have a society where once people die, they freely give their souls to the undead protectors that kept them safe during their life, or something like that.

Honestly, whether harvesting souls from natural deaths is an issue in the first place really depends on what "souls" really means, whether there's an afterlife, what said afterlife is like, and so on and on.

 

[Ferrus Animus]

i find it truely hilarious that you acutally think that the best way to get souls is to not acutally kill things
like, even if you consider exclusively getting souls the "lawful" way, were do you think those soulwells are digging from=? Certainly not willing participants

You do not understand me at all.

The issue is not that killing is the best source of souls, it is that the base income from killing via battle is so much of all the total soul income that all the other methods, even those improving on the killing can't measure up.
And that combined with the demanding costs, means you are either forced to play hyperaggressive or not utilize your necromancy much. In a game that tries to offer a variety of playstyles, that is bad.

 

[Kitschy]

I didn't play with necromancy enough, but what is the point of Necromancer Soul change (from 50 Souls to 70 Gold and 25 Souls.) in particular why bring gold in to equation at all? Same question for Wightborn Transformation change (from 200 Souls to 300 Mana and 100 Souls) why mana is there now?

 

[Iacs]

Wild Speaker being mounted now would provide benefits to adjacent units due to racial transformation and is able to utilise unicorn's Phase ability - it's big. Now it may even replace nymphs in nature-focused army as a support unit, through it would need healing abilities. Glade Runner becoming proper mounted archer will give it much needed difference from Zephyr Archer. Staves of Warding + Nymph is still good combo, but now it would have alternate options for good support unit that also moves fast. Well, 1-2 Heroes + Wildspeaker (enchanted with Staves of Mending) + 3-4 Tyrant Knights may be interesting endgame army composition.

P.S. If cavalry is getting improvement, would Feudal Champions be able to start with lances like their knights? Or lance as a starting weapon is still High-only option?

 

[Yarri]

Because I want to play the scary-but-Lawful-Good undead that make sure the frail mortals who can't easily be revived are safe?



Sorry, I don't usually play games with a single-player focus in a multiplayer setting.

You also completely failed to answer my question even in the most basic of ways, instead deciding to give an angry response and... challenge me to a duel? "1v1 me bro"? I thought I'd escaped that when I stopped playing League of Legends.

If you don't tell people what the problem is, people don't know what the problem is. So I ask once again: What's the issue with Blaze of the Horde, presumably specific to multiplayer?

Because you're not just asking a question. You act as an expert, although apparently the only thing you know well is verbiage on the forum. If you just asked a question as a genuinely interested person, then I would certainly answer you. But you don't ask, you initially express sarcasm, and act as a person to whom everyone has to prove something. I say the obvious things, as a player with more than two hundred hours of playing hours, at least two hundred of which are PVP at the highest level. I know about the balance of this game (or rather about the absolute lack of balance) as 5-10% of the total mass of players. Why do I have to prove something to you? Who are you anyway?

The blaze of the Horde spell, as well as the berserker spell from the fourth book of nature, as well as disabling the enchantments of warriors for as many as three moves from the book of the archmage, as well as the cobweb , as well as the lack of any specialization of the player, these are absolutely unbalanced things that reduce the entire PVP game to two, at most requiring builds, unless you want to win.

 

[Yarri]

I also want to say that if you are a druid, then you should be a good druid and specialize in this. In addition, if you are a necromancer, then you, like no one else, should own dark magic and more skillfully manage the dark forces. Not to mention that it is impossible to be kind and evil, dark and light at the same time. But instead, the game is a hodgepodge, similar to an expired hodgepodge. The pursuit of "great diversity" turned into a lack of any specialization for the player, and this is sad.

 

[Leyrann]

Because you're not just asking a question.

I do not see how "What's broken about it?" is 'more than just asking a question'. You'll have to educate me on that.

You act as an expert, although apparently the only thing you know well is verbiage on the forum.

I act as an expert, where exactly? The only thing I'm acting anywhere near an expert about is, ironically, the forum, and the legions of people complaining the game is 'unplayable' because of minor issues.

If you just asked a question as a genuinely interested person, then I would certainly answer you.

This is verifiably false, as you did not answer my simple, genuine question, and instead proceeded to tell me, and I quote, "if you played PVP enough, you wouldn't have this question".

But you don't ask, you initially express sarcasm, and act as a person to whom everyone has to prove something.

I did not express sarcasm at any point. The closest I came in our interactions is expressing doubt that the game is as unplayable as you claim it is, but there was no non-literal meaning anywhere in what I said, while that is a fundamental component of sarcasm.

It is also incredibly ironic that you tell me that I "act as a person to whom everyone has to prove something", while you are the one saying '1v1 me, bro'.

I say the obvious things, as a player with more than two hundred hours of playing hours, at least two hundred of which are PVP at the highest level.

Congratulations, you've got slightly more time in the game than I do (less than 20% more), and you play against other players. And?

I'm sure another comment about requiring people to prove something to you could be made here...

I know about the balance of this game (or rather about the absolute lack of balance) as 5-10% of the total mass of players.

And claiming to be an expert. I think we touched on that one as well, didn't we? Ah yes, "you act as an expert, although apparently the only thing you know well is verbiage on the forum".

I don't know whether I'm in the top 10% most knowledgeable players of this game. Maybe. Maybe not. I do enjoy thinking about the game and theorizing things, but I wouldn't be so bold as to make any claims on where I am on that scale. That said, I do always enjoy learning more, which is why I was curious about the thing you were complaining about in the first place.

Why do I have to prove something to you?

You don't? I just want to know what this issue is that you have with the game, as I'm not familiar with it.

Who are you anyway?

I could ask you the same. I'm just a random forumer who enjoys Age of Wonders IV, but is skeptical of the severity of issues that people claim the game has, when those issues seem to not be present in my own playthroughts.

The blaze of the Horde spell, as well as the berserker spell from the fourth book of nature, as well as disabling the enchantments of warriors for as many as three moves from the book of the archmage, as well as the cobweb , as well as the lack of any specialization of the player, these are absolutely unbalanced things that reduce the entire PVP game to two, at most requiring builds, unless you want to win.

Let's see.
-The Web spell is currently bugged to deal double damage. As visible in the livestream that accompanied this dev diary, this has been fixed in the upcoming patch.
-I can see why the berserker spell from the Tome of Nature's Wrath is overpowered.
-I can sort of see it for the Archmage spell as well, although I think it makes sense for Tier V tomes to have extremely strong spells. Perhaps some balancing is needed, but conceptually I like it.
-I've seen the complaints about lack of specialization on the player's side before. While I think they're exaggerated as in my experience most games are resolved before it really takes effect, I can see the issue, and I wouldn't be opposed to some sensible restrictions on the matter, as I've chimed in on other threads.
-However, for Blaze of the Horde, I genuinely do not understand what the issue is. Heck, I actually wrote my explanation of why I didn't think it was that strong, then went to check whether I actually had the spell correct, only to realize it deals less damage than I thought it did. Even if you've got three full stacks of Tier I units, it deals only 54 damage, and 27 to adjacent enemies, and that requires you to nerf your army stack to only have Tier I units, whereas your opponent will probably bring Tier II, Tier III and maybe even stronger units to the battle. And then obliterate your Tier I units in two or three turns with Lava Burst or something.

And last but not least: 4X games are and will always be focused primarily on singleplayer, because that is simply innate to their design. Most people do not have the patience to wait for their opponent's turns, and want too much time to make their decisions and optimize for simultaneous turns to be appealing. I do think that services for multiplayer should be provided for those people who are willing to make either sacrifice, but balancing will always be an issue due to the complexity of the genre, and it is simply not feasible to dedicate enormous effort to it as a developer despite that simply to satisfy such a small part of the playerbase at the cost of the rest of the playerbase.

If Triumph had to choose between hiring someone to develop a new Form, new Culture, two new Society Traits and 5 new Tomes, or hiring someone to tweak the numbers of dozens of spells and units for the sake of multiplayer, I would vote for the former, and I think at least 90% of the total playerbase would do the same - heck, I doubt even 10% of the total playerbase ever touches multiplayer in the game's entire lifespan.

I also want to say that if you are a druid, then you should be a good druid and specialize in this. In addition, if you are a necromancer, then you, like no one else, should own dark magic and more skillfully manage the dark forces. Not to mention that it is impossible to be kind and evil, dark and light at the same time. But instead, the game is a hodgepodge, similar to an expired hodgepodge. The pursuit of "great diversity" turned into a lack of any specialization for the player, and this is sad.

As someone who had a great run as a pure good necromancer with a focus on Order and Shadow (and, obviously, vassalization), I disagree. The narrative possibilities are endless, and I love not being forced into any specific niche just because that's the most common or obvious combination.

And yes, I do think some specialization should be encouraged, but when doing so, I hope Triumph is careful not to mistake limitation for specialization.

 

[Critical Ethics]

Because you're not just asking a question. You act as an expert, although apparently the only thing you know well is verbiage on the forum. If you just asked a question as a genuinely interested person, then I would certainly answer you. But you don't ask, you initially express sarcasm, and act as a person to whom everyone has to prove something.

Did you take distant evocation because you are projecting.

I say the obvious things, as a player with more than two hundred hours of playing hours, at least two hundred of which are PVP at the highest level. I know about the balance of this game (or rather about the absolute lack of balance) as 5-10% of the total mass of players. Why do I have to prove something to you? Who are you anyway?

The blaze of the Horde spell, as well as the berserker spell from the fourth book of nature, as well as disabling the enchantments of warriors for as many as three moves from the book of the archmage, as well as the cobweb , as well as the lack of any specialization of the player, these are absolutely unbalanced things that reduce the entire PVP game to two, at most requiring builds, unless you want to win.

You still haven't actually answered their question you know.

What's broken about it?

It's uncapped.

I don't play PvP either but, unless I'm missing something, with a 6 stack it's 12 to 18 fire damage with 50% to adjacent units for 15 mana and 15 chips. Which looks bad next to soul fire which is 10 souls (now mana) and chips for 10 fire/10 frost + 50% adjacent, buuut...

...in an 18 stack fight of 3 heroes and 15 t1s that's 51 fire damage. If each of those heroes summons 3 skeletons (they count IIRC) that's 78 fire damage to the target of your choice and 39 to anyone adjacent to them, which is enough to delete quite a few units. Add the turn one casting empire upgrade and a wizard king popping their double cast and first turn you're dumping 156 fire damage on any unit you like and half that to everyone beside them (or do one on each of two adjacent units for 117 damage each). Loading up 3 stacks of t1s and 3 skeleton summoning heroes may seem like overkill but spawning and boosting huge amounts of t1s is explicitly what TotH and the chaos tree are good at and rewarded for. But even if you drop it down to an 18 stack of heroes and t2+s that's still 36 damage, equivalent to almost two whole soul fires or tagging AoE onto a rock blast++. Of course in reality half those t2+s would be houndmasters summoning their dogs...

And forgive me for assuming that "impossible to play multiplayer" is an overreaction. I've seen a few too many non-ironic "unplayable!" overreactions on this subforum to still take them seriously...

Not impossible but things like this distort the game because you're either playing the broken combos or very specific builds designed to counter them, which takes a lot of the fun out of things. In single player or co-op or friendly matches with friends you can avoid the game breakers by just not doing them, but in competitive multiplayer it's either banlists or you get what you get.

 

[Ferrus Animus]

Of course in reality half those t2+s would be houndmasters summoning their dogs...

18 houndmaster (and their dogs) makes Blaze of the horde do 90 damage per cast (45 to adjacent).

 

[Critical Ethics]

18 houndmaster (and their dogs) makes Blaze of the horde do 90 damage per cast (45 to adjacent).

That's what I was getting at yeah. And since they're also in TotH this isn't some kind of esoteric combo, it's a single book strat.

I'm genuinely surprised the damage isn't capped. Wrath of the Faithful is capped at 8 Faithful, so (10+40=)50 damage max, which is still pretty big but it's single target and AFAIK it's harder to make bonus faithful units in-combat (I could be very wrong there)

 

[Leyrann]

...in an 18 stack fight of 3 heroes and 15 t1s that's 51 fire damage. If each of those heroes summons 3 skeletons (they count IIRC) that's 78 fire damage to the target of your choice and 39 to anyone adjacent to them, which is enough to delete quite a few units. Add the turn one casting empire upgrade and a wizard king popping their double cast and first turn you're dumping 156 fire damage on any unit you like and half that to everyone beside them (or do one on each of two adjacent units for 117 damage each). Loading up 3 stacks of t1s and 3 skeleton summoning heroes may seem like overkill but spawning and boosting huge amounts of t1s is explicitly what TotH and the chaos tree are good at and rewarded for. But even if you drop it down to an 18 stack of heroes and t2+s that's still 36 damage, equivalent to almost two whole soul fires or tagging AoE onto a rock blast++. Of course in reality half those t2+s would be houndmasters summoning their dogs...

18 houndmaster (and their dogs) makes Blaze of the horde do 90 damage per cast (45 to adjacent).

I see it now. I didn't realize how many ways there were to multiply the damage it already dealt.

Funny how much easier it is to resolve a topic like this if people actually answer your question.

I'm genuinely surprised the damage isn't capped. Wrath of the Faithful is capped at 8 Faithful, so (10+40=)50 damage max, which is still pretty big but it's single target and AFAIK it's harder to make bonus faithful units in-combat (I could be very wrong there)

Agreed with this. Maxing it at 8, or even 12, units would probably balance it a lot better. Alternatively, making combat summons not count would also significantly reduce the damage you could deal, and an argument could be made to have Overchannel start on a 1-turn cooldown to disallow casting two spells in the first turn of combat even if you have the empire upgrade.

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

A coast based city is very weak compared to a inland city. The mariner's guild help with all other resources somewhat except mana. Can we get a single building or province improvement based on water that gives mana, until the entire maritime economy and naval combat is reworked.

E.g. "Mana crystal filter" which gives +3 mana to fisheries or +15 mana to water resource nodes.

 

[Leyrann]

A coast based city is very weak compared to a inland city. The mariner's guild help with all other resources somewhat except mana. Can we get a single building or province improvement based on water that gives mana, until the entire maritime economy and naval combat is reworked.

E.g. "Mana crystal filter" which gives +3 mana to fisheries or +15 mana to water resource nodes.

I agree that coast is underdeveloped, but I'm not sure coastal cities are weak. The main issue is the lack of ability to boost buildings, but the Seafarer's Guild gives 12 yields per province whereas other guilds only give 10 yield. And sure, the city will be weak in mana and knowledge, but other cities can make up for that.

Plus, you might actually be able to match the gold generation of a Merchant's Guild despite the Merchant's Guild giving 10 gold per mine and the Seafarer's Guild only giving 3 gold per fishery, because you can only build mines on tiles with Iron or Gold deposits (or as one of five special province improvements, one of them being cultural), whereas you can build a fishery on every coastal tile. 13 fisheries probably isn't much harder than 4 mines, yet the gold is 39 vs 40. And of course you get the food, production and draft on top of that.

 

[Lord Sheogorath]

I agree that coast is underdeveloped, but I'm not sure coastal cities are weak. The main issue is the lack of ability to boost buildings, but the Seafarer's Guild gives 12 yields per province whereas other guilds only give 10 yield. And sure, the city will be weak in mana and knowledge, but other cities can make up for that.

Plus, you might actually be able to match the gold generation of a Merchant's Guild despite the Merchant's Guild giving 10 gold per mine and the Seafarer's Guild only giving 3 gold per fishery, because you can only build mines on tiles with Iron or Gold deposits (or as one of five special province improvements, one of them being cultural), whereas you can build a fishery on every coastal tile. 13 fisheries probably isn't much harder than 4 mines, yet the gold is 39 vs 40. And of course you get the food, production and draft on top of that.

Yet no adjacency bonuses make coastal cities fall behind. I just want a way to get mana from water tiles as a stopgap measure, before water gameplay is overhauled (I hope).