Balance is out of wack - Devs please stop the pay 2 win DLCs

[Dreepa]

This doesn't mean they should inherently be stronger than Champion/Wizard King/Eldritch Sovereign.
Because if that's the cause, why would I ever want to pick one of the other 3 at the start of the game?

Are you seriously suggesting, the only reason we play games is because we want to pick the strongest, most effecient and best option there is?

Okay, let's remove all graphics. Let's just have a lowy poly world with triangles and cubes you move around.
Let's remove all fluff text.

Because player fantasy, world building, immersion, player journey and all these concepts mean nothing.



I for one know why I should pick other things: Because I do not play a fantasy 4x for the sole purpose of accumulating numbers.
Balancing a game to death usually make it bland, uninspired, without interesting spikes in the flow, where everything is exchangable. Often times, nothing stands out or feels different.

Balance for balance sake is bad goal.
Balance for competitive PvP multiplayer is a valid goal, ofc.

But I would reasonably suggest that competitive MP is not a major focus. I would guess it's less than 10% of the player base that do hardcore competitive PvP. Probably even below 5%.

 

[Codyksp]

I mean, a lot of your resources also come from your cities and buildings? Don't get me wrong, nearly doubly the gold and mana and so on you get from clearing stuff is useful, allows you to rush stuff more easily and help accelerate your cities. But it doesn't exactly help much with upkeep you know?

Then again, I suppose unless your playing High Upkeep realms, that likely won't be an issue.

With the extra income you can afford units and structures much sooner than without.
What point is there to getting (for example) +20 Gold per turn when I can get +100 once?

That +100 is 5 turns worth of income that also has a slingshot effect on my economy.
As it allows me to get structures earlier and thus benefit from their bonuses sooner.
Especially Production and Knowledge incomes are massively slingshot by Fabled Hunters.

You can also survive "off the land" and have negative incomes, many people in MP play this way.

 

[Codyksp]

Are you seriously suggesting, the only reason we play games is because we want to pick the strongest, most effecient and best option there is?

I am seriously suggesting that in a multiplayer context this matters more than in single player "story mode" vs AI.

Because player fantasy, world building, immersion, player journey and all these concepts mean nothing.

In a competitive environment, when you pit human player against human players, they aren't important.
That's not to say they aren't a nice bonus, but none of these things are the point of playing a PvP match.

I for one know why I should pick other things: Because I do not play a fantasy 4x for the sole purpose of accumulating numbers.
Balancing a game to death usually make it bland, uninspired, without interesting spikes in the flow, where everything is exchangable. Often times, nothing stands out or feels different.

I hear this argument a lot, yet I haven't seen any proof in the context of Age of Wonders 4.
Nobody is asking to remove uniqueness. We are merely asking to balance the numbers.
I've never said we should delete a reward or a unit or a tome or a skill. I want them balanced.

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

I hear this argument a lot, yet I haven't seen any proof in the context of Age of Wonders 4.
Nobody is asking to remove uniqueness. We are merely asking to balance the numbers.
I've never said we should delete a reward or a unit or a tome or a skill. I want them balanced.

To be fair, the issue here is that people are worried that if everything is balanced, then nothing will actually feel unique or different from one another.

 

[seperamos]

This doesn't mean they should inherently be stronger than Champion/Wizard King/Eldritch Sovereign.
Because if that's the case, why would I ever want to pick one of the other 3 at the start of the game?

They all need to have some form of unique power, at some point in the game. One shouldn't eclipse the rest.
At this moment Giant Kings have the best personal power, army power and governor power.
Doesn't matter that Wizard King has spells and CP, they are weaker in every stage of the game.

The issue lies not in making them all equal and "boring" as people who misinterpret everything I say will claim.
The issue lies in making sure all options feel good to play and have similar power over the course of a game.

Cody, I respect most of your opinions about this game. But some of the ideas you have take a nerfbat to my favorite parts of the game, form traits included. Remember when you mentioned that +2 def and +2 res were overpowered traits, even though they each take away 2 points from faction creation?

Well, they nerfed those form traits, and although annoyed, I could see the argument there. Form traits should be key to battle success, and there should be a reasonable balance to their skills and powers. Although there could be levels to def and res like +1, +2, or +3. There's not a lot of options to specialize in those stats or hp.

I disagree, very strongly, with the idea of unequipped Champs, wks, ES taking on unequipped Dragons and Giants in single combat. That goes against the concept of asymmetric balance.

 

[Dreepa]

To be fair, the issue here is that people are worried that if everything is balanced, then nothing will actually feel unique or different from one another.

Yep.

That is for example why Dawn Of War 2 had a completely different balance set for MP.


And a game that comes to my mind when thinking about "balanced to death" is WARNO.

Gazillion real life units, US army, german, UK, etc. but in the end it's all just the same "low cost low dmg tank" up to "high cost high damage high armor" tank.
Doesn't matter if it's called T-80, Leopard or Abrams. No quirks, no identity. Just numbers balanced to match the cost.

Multiplayer will always be at conflict with single player, as SP is about a power fantasy and MP is about fairness.

E.g. Highly mobile glasscannons are a prime example of smth that is fun in SP, but usually destroys MP balance.


If balance must be achieved for MP purposes, I highly favour asymmetrical balance. It's hard to do, I know. But it's the most fun. It means different factions have their strengths and weakness at different point in time and in different areas.
So there might even be a unit that is OP and kind of seals the deal, but before the enemy gets to that point you have plenty of strengths of your own faction to stop the enemy from reaching that point in the first place.

A unit seen in the context of the faction and the overall powercurve and other advantages/disadvantages of the faction.
Not just "unit A deals 30dmg and unit B deals 23dmg, so unit A is better". But "Well, to get unit A you have to do X Y Z and survive Z".

An example for this in AOW4 could be the new feudal knight. I wouldn't have a problem with it being OP, because you need to get it in a special way that can be interrupted.

As long as it requires higher investment to get, or as long as their is a hard counter to something that is OP in generic situations, but kept in check if you prepare for that particular OPnes, I think the best games come out of that thinking.


Things are only OP if they cannot be stopped, by no tactic.
They are not OP just by doing something best in class.

I remember in my harcore C&C 3 Kane's Warth times when they patched multiplayer, and didn't realized they Fed up the campaign by making some missions super hard for normal players. Stuff like that easily happens if don't pay attention and have a campaign with the same balancing as the MP part.

Every balancing change means: QA has to check the singleplayer. Granted, not so much an issue here, except mabye with the scenarios.

 

[Codyksp]

To be fair, the issue here is that people are worried that if everything is balanced, then nothing will actually feel unique or different from one another.

Well, the uniqueness lies in how you play with said mechanic and what kind of strategies it enables.

i.e. I could play a build based around Morale or one based around Alpha Strike damage.
But either one should be able to beat the other without it being massively one-sided.

Cody, I respect most of your opinions about this game. But some of the ideas you have take a nerfbat to my favorite parts of the game, form traits included. Remember when you mentioned that +2 def and +2 res were overpowered traits, even though they each take away 2 points from faction creation?

Well, they nerfed those form traits, and although annoyed, I could see the argument there. Form traits should be key to battle success, and there should be a reasonable balance to their skills and powers. Although there could be levels to def and res like +1, +2, or +3. There's not a lot of options to specialize in those stats or hp.

This is boring. +1/+2/+3 for 1/2/3 points is boring. I have nothing else to say about it, I am against such bloat options.

I disagree, very strongly, with the idea of unequipped Champs, wks, ES taking on unequipped Dragons and Giants in single combat. That goes against the concept of asymmetric balance.

Who said anything about them being unequipped? Who even named any levels or skills or classes? Not me.
I said the rulers need to be balanced throughout the course of the game, as an entire package.

This means if a Dragon Lord is stronger early game, they should taper off in the mid-late game.
If a Champion focuses more on army, they should be impactful enough on their units to pull out a win.
If Giant King is a crafter, they should have less personal power (they empower their Heroes and army).

But in the current state of the game Giant King does ALL OF IT better than literally anyone else, during all game stages.
Meanwhile Wizard King does nothing. I'm sorry, but they are weak unless you're double casting T5 spells every other turn.

Things are only OP if they cannot be stopped, by no tactic.
They are not OP just by doing something best in class.

And these are the problems. These are the things I bring up and wanted addressed.
I just cannot write an entire thread worth of explanation for everyone every time I post...

I have no issues with Knights, none of the multiplayer guys actually do. They are fine.
Stormbringers were OP because they beat everything else from T4 tomes, even T5 units.

Cryomancy is OP because nothing in that tome is weak and it all stacks together.
Try opening Cryomancy vs opening any other T1 tome, the tempo difference is insane.
And no, the units aren't countered by Fire damage, as much as I wish this was true.

The amount of tempo gained early game just creates a big snowball advantage for you.
While you have a full army of T3 Snow Spirits, your opponent barely has half an army.
Or you're simply so far ahead in resources/tech that you're fielding T4 units already.
These are the kind of problems I advocate for, the things that are massively unfun.

The most recent DLC has created new issues with Landmarks, Shops and Artifacts.
Nevermind the T5 units from a Silver Wonder that grant an OP battlefield aura...

These rewards are basically once per player. So you get them and become unstoppable.
Even though everyone gets a Shop. They're all different and the options are random.
So by pure chance, pure RNG, you can get amazing options. While your opponent gets bad ones.

 

[MortyTheGoblin]

I, for one, feel pretty bummed out when an option I want to play for aesthetics reasons has me struggle against even AI enemies for no good reason, while another option steamrolls them. I play a strategy game to exercise my strategy skills, not just create pretty-looking factions. And that needs balance if it's going to feel satisfying. "But balance will make things feel the same!" is an argument that always crops up and is always nonsense.

 

[Codyksp]

I, for one, feel pretty bummed out when an option I want to play for aesthetics reasons has be struggle against even AI enemies for no good reason, which another option steamrolls them. I play a strategy game to exercise my strategy skills, not just create pretty-looking factions. And that needs balance if it's going to feel satisfying. "But balance will make things feel the same!" is an argument that always crops up and is always nonsense.

Agreed. The people who think balance will make everything the same have been burned by other games.
But the type of balance I am advocating for retains all unique options. It just changes numbers in 90% of cases.

When I modded the first Age of Wonders, I made unique changes like making the Warlord vulnerable to debuffs.
I gave Fairies Physical/Magical Protection, Seduce and Entangle, making them thematic flying support units.
When I added a Necromancer, I gave him Cold Strike, Death Immunity, Life Stealing, etc. As you would expect.

But I still made sure everything was balanced as a whole. That every race had an equal chance of winning the game.
This is asymmetrical balance like you would find in Command & Conquer 3 or StarCraft. It's harder, but very achievable.


It doesn't matter if you're playing Single Player or Multiplayer. Everyone wants their choices to feel good and powerful.
I am not against this. I am against certain choices drowning out other choices in 9/10 scenarios. This is not good design.

 

[seperamos]

Agreed. The people who think balance will make everything the same have been burned by other games.
But the type of balance I am advocating for retains all unique options. It just changes numbers in 90% of cases.

When I modded the first Age of Wonders, I made unique changes like making the Warlord vulnerable to debuffs.
I gave Fairies Physical/Magical Protection, Seduce and Entangle, making them thematic flying support units.
When I added a Necromancer, I gave him Cold Strike, Death Immunity, Life Stealing, etc. As you would expect.

But I still made sure everything was balanced as a whole. That every race had an equal chance of winning the game.
This is asymmetrical balance like you would find in Command & Conquer 3 or StarCraft. It's harder, but very achievable.


It doesn't matter if you're playing Single Player or Multiplayer. Everyone wants their choices to feel good and powerful.
I am not against this. I am against certain choices drowning out other choices in 9/10 scenarios. This is not good design.

Tell us exactly what you mean by ruler balance and please present your solutions. Because I will not be paying for additional seasons and DLC if the rulers have the same stats, spell and skill access, and even equipment as each other in a very boring interpretation of balance as I have seen in other games.

Dragons and giants SHOULD hit hard, in melee and magic, in base form without skills and equipment. These can be tapered off into mid and late game, and rectified with additional skills, spells, items, or possibly giant mounts for compensation.

It makes sense to see a dragon be worth 2 Champs or a champ and melee hero in a duel. Same for Giant. In the lineup of rulers, champs should be the 3rd most powerful melee capable ruler, followed by Wizard Kings, that can use spells to enhance their melee capabilities against the first 3. Giants and Dragons should have different ways of obtaining power from each other and other rulers without completely and obviously breaking the game.

Giants should gain advantage with building and crafting, dragons with spells and mobility. There are many strategies in the game to hunt them and take them out. Range, magic, and polearm swarms.

 

[MortyTheGoblin]

The idea that more balance would decrease variety rests on the implication that the current flawed state of balance improves it, which I don't think is evidence. Does it really improve balance that archers fall behind other groups of units?

 

[seperamos]

The idea that more balance would decrease variety rests on the implication that the current flawed state of balance improves it, which I don't think is evidence. Does it really improve balance that archers fall behind other groups of units?

Do you want archers to be good in melee and magic too?

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

Hmmmm, well, I will say that concerns of others aside, I do agree that there is some serve balance issues with the game.

I don't fully agree with you Cody when you make that massive list of everything that you consider broken and overpowered. But even if I don't fully agree with you, there are plenty of elements that I do agree need to be changed. The level of power of the traits is ridiculous and all over the place. How does Wonder Architects give you an easy +20% Production Bonus and free annexation of Wonders, including starting with a free Wonder, whilst Great Builders give you a measly +2 gold per Quarry (which is going to be about +4-6 per city?) and a production discount on SPIs, which aren't even that slow to build? How about Fabled Hunters and its bonuses, both to resource and to healing out of combat, while Talented Collectors give you a heavily RNG-dependent flat +5 stacking bonus to the cities? Socity Traits are not created equal, and there is plenty of work that can be done to buff the weakest while nerfing some of the outliers.

And indeed, that's important. Instead of just buffing the 25% of the stuff that is overpowered, we also need to buff the stuff that is vastly underpowered as well. Tome of Cryomancy too good at freezing peeps and dealing cold damage? Maybe it should be bumped into Tier 2, and maybe Tome of the Doomhearld is brought down to Tier 1? With how easy it is to get morale bonuses or resistance to morale penalties, I don't think that would be a bad switch if the numbers are tweaked a little. Nature Tomes are generally weak because they have a heavy focus on Food, and Food is the weakest of the resources? Well, maybe we should update the Nature Tree to give us a way to leverage the Food Production immediately, instead of waiting until Tier 4 tomes to get the 10% of Food = Gold or Mana (or both)?

I'm not a multiplayer, not really interested in competitive MP, but I do agree that balance can be important even for a SP experience, and that currently, the balance of the game is out of wack. I heard talk of a Triumph dev planning to play competitive MP to get a better understand of the current meta/balance points, and I really hope that actually plays out. Honestly, I'm surprised that Truimph don't have the data already to look at the most or least picked traits and tomes and units and see if they can't do stuff to make them a bit more popular, or less popular if necessary.

The idea that more balance would decrease variety rests on the implication that the current flawed state of balance improves it, which I don't think is evidence. Does it really improve balance that archers fall behind other groups of units?

Make the Ironclad T4 Archers!

 

[MortyTheGoblin]

Do you want archers to be good in melee and magic too?

The fact that you suggest I do sums up your argument quite well. The idea that anyone wants every unit to be equally good at everything is a strawman, nothing more.

 

[Astronlmo]

Hmmmm, well, I will say that concerns of others aside, I do agree that there is some serve balance issues with the game.

I don't fully agree with you Cody when you make that massive list of everything that you consider broken and overpowered. But even if I don't fully agree with you, there are plenty of elements that I do agree need to be changed. The level of power of the traits is ridiculous and all over the place. How does Wonder Architects give you an easy +20% Production Bonus and free annexation of Wonders, including starting with a free Wonder, whilst Great Builders give you a measly +2 gold per Quarry (which is going to be about +4-6 per city?) and a production discount on SPIs, which aren't even that slow to build? How about Fabled Hunters and its bonuses, both to resource and to healing out of combat, while Talented Collectors give you a heavily RNG-dependent flat +5 stacking bonus to the cities? Socity Traits are not created equal, and there is plenty of work that can be done to buff the weakest while nerfing some of the outliers.

And indeed, that's important. Instead of just buffing the 25% of the stuff that is overpowered, we also need to buff the stuff that is vastly underpowered as well. Tome of Cryomancy too good at freezing peeps and dealing cold damage? Maybe it should be bumped into Tier 2, and maybe Tome of the Doomhearld is brought down to Tier 1? With how easy it is to get morale bonuses or resistance to morale penalties, I don't think that would be a bad switch if the numbers are tweaked a little. Nature Tomes are generally weak because they have a heavy focus on Food, and Food is the weakest of the resources? Well, maybe we should update the Nature Tree to give us a way to leverage the Food Production immediately, instead of waiting until Tier 4 tomes to get the 10% of Food = Gold or Mana (or both)?

I'm not a multiplayer, not really interested in competitive MP, but I do agree that balance can be important even for a SP experience, and that currently, the balance of the game is out of wack. I heard talk of a Triumph dev planning to play competitive MP to get a better understand of the current meta/balance points, and I really hope that actually plays out. Honestly, I'm surprised that Truimph don't have the data already to look at the most or least picked traits and tomes and units and see if they can't do stuff to make them a bit more popular, or less popular if necessary.



Make the Ironclad T4 Archers!

They have the data, but since competitive patties play modded games, that data is pretty much useless.

The game needs balancing, but for the sake of not dying (because it will die if they will focus on pvp), the balance should be separated.
That way they can look at asymmetrical balancing for SP and symmetrical MP. Hope some people, who don't even play the game, will finally shut up.

As for new content being OP, it's mostly tied to fundamental thing, which is economy. My fix would be:
1) Applying reserach upkeep (1 mana per 10 points of research)
2) rebalancing city cap and penalty for overcap. Specifically making it 1 city max by default, and making the city cap increase at 100 imperium+100*2*number of city cap. Adept settlers will make a discount, and creating a city could be made cheaper (and creating from ruins would require 50 food per province from the closest city).
3) Penalty for overcap would be 10% total income of everyting in every city as well as -10 stability, but for research it's 40% income.
Point is to make tech rush costly, so you have to build up the economy, without hurting the pick ups and rewards from activities. Fixing tech rush will fix the crap like "mythic units are bad (they are not) vs non mythic units being too good (they are good only because of tech rush). You still can go tech rush, but you will have to sacrifice your army and economy early on for that.

As for content in general, it being "OP" is a good thing, since it's a reward. Having 500 gold as a reward for finishing 3 fated regions would be stupid. Nobody forces you to play them anyway.

Balancing is needed, but not at the cost of having fun. Like, Golden golem should get a buff for it's attack, for sure, but it doesn't mean that the game is broken and everything should be identical. Not even talking about that you can't make asymmetrical game "balanced".

PS: also there are no things that "don't work" unless you want them to "not work". Focusing on tech rush does break the game (especially if you are a min maxer), but if you dare to name a single game, where min maxing isn't OP, please do it. Also, this is not Esport game or even genre. It's fun first, competitive flies second.

 

[Balthazar69]

Hit hard or to be efficient is not a problem if others tome shine in other situations. Even in less situations than others tomes.

Champion heroes can do unique thing that giant can't. (+2 XP by turn / Ignore resistance for team, +1 range for team etc etc)

The only thing that bother is the necessity to have affinity point. This is the main problem IMO.

 

[seperamos]

They have the data, but since competitive patties play modded games, that data is pretty much useless.

The game needs balancing, but for the sake of not dying (because it will die if they will focus on pvp), the balance should be separated.
That way they can look at asymmetrical balancing for SP and symmetrical MP. Hope some people, who don't even play the game, will finally shut up.

As for new content being OP, it's mostly tied to fundamental thing, which is economy. My fix would be:
1) Applying reserach upkeep (1 mana per 10 points of research)
2) rebalancing city cap and penalty for overcap. Specifically making it 1 city max by default, and making the city cap increase at 100 imperium+100*2*number of city cap. Adept settlers will make a discount, and creating a city could be made cheaper (and creating from ruins would require 50 food per province from the closest city).
3) Penalty for overcap would be 10% total income of everyting in every city as well as -10 stability, but for research it's 40% income.
Point is to make tech rush costly, so you have to build up the economy, without hurting the pick ups and rewards from activities. Fixing tech rush will fix the crap like "mythic units are bad (they are not) vs non mythic units being too good (they are good only because of tech rush). You still can go tech rush, but you will have to sacrifice your army and economy early on for that.

As for content in general, it being "OP" is a good thing, since it's a reward. Having 500 gold as a reward for finishing 3 fated regions would be stupid. Nobody forces you to play them anyway.

Balancing is needed, but not at the cost of having fun. Like, Golden golem should get a buff for it's attack, for sure, but it doesn't mean that the game is broken and everything should be identical. Not even talking about that you can't make asymmetrical game "balanced".

PS: also there are no things that "don't work" unless you want them to "not work". Focusing on tech rush does break the game (especially if you are a min maxer), but if you dare to name a single game, where min maxing isn't OP, please do it. Also, this is not Esport game or even genre. It's fun first, competitive flies second.

Completely agreed.

The fact that you suggest I do sums up your argument quite well. The idea that anyone wants every unit to be equally good at everything is a strawman, nothing more.

Im asking a genuine question here. If you don't like asymmetric balance, what is your counter proposal? Why should archers not be a cheaper specialized range class compared to mages and supports?

 

[MortyTheGoblin]

Im asking a genuine question here. If you don't like asymmetric balance, what is your counter proposal? Why should archers not be a cheaper specialized range class compared to mages and supports?

I'm all for asymmetric balance that works. Right now it doesn't. It's not very complicated. Archers should be a reliable ranged option with its own upsides and downsides compared to battle mages, but they're not. Likewise, many supports aren't enough of a force multiplier to justify taking them instead of another beatstick unit. That's not an argument against diverse unit roles, that's an argument for units being actually good at their supposed role.

 

[Codyksp]

Tell us exactly what you mean by ruler balance and please present your solutions. Because I will not be paying for additions seasons and DLC if the rulers have the same stats, spell and skill access, and even equipment as each other in a very boring interpretation of balance as I have seen in other games.

Dragons and giants SHOULD hit hard, in melee and magic, in base form without skills and equipment. These can be tapered off into mid and late game, and rectified with additional skills, spells, items, or possibly giant mounts for compensation.

It makes sense to see a dragon be worth 2 Champs or a champ and melee hero in a duel. Same for Giant. Giants and Dragons should have different ways of obtaining power from each other and other rulers without completely and obviously breaking the game.

Giants should gain advantage with building and crafting, dragons with spells and mobility.

Yes, Giant Kings have a terraforming income bonus and craftable army bonuses.
They also have unique weapons (cone repeating, aoe splash, 2-hex charge).
They also get every single item slot except for mounts, they aren't exactly weak...

So tell me, why should they have the best army support, economy and combat power?
Where is the weakness of a Giant King? What can they not do compared to others?
Dragon Lord is worse in every aspect, from personal power to economy to army power.

You need to define strengths and weaknesses for every ruler type and then balance them out.

• Wizard King > Spellcasting / Summoning
• Champion > Army Support / Commanding
• Eldritch Sovereign > Magical damage / Control
• Dragon Lord > Combat / Gold Economy
• Giant Kings > Crafting / Army Support

This is just a rough draft from my end. But you get the idea. They should excel at these roles and be weak in others.
HOWEVER they should still have the same power levels throughout the game (with peaks and valleys of course).

Right now this just isn't the case with Giant Kings and Wizard King. One is OP and the other is UP.
I don't have the time right now to write an entire proposition, that would be much longer than this post.

 

[Astronlmo]

I'm all for asymmetric balance that works. Right now it doesn't. It's not very complicated. Archers should be a reliable ranged option with its own upsides and downsides compared to battle mages, but they're not. Likewise, many supports aren't enough of a force multiplier to justify taking them instead of another beatstick unit.

I'd suggest restoring 2 turns cooldown for Battlemages.

Archers have a bonus of being long range attackers. For them, imo, champion ranks should give +1 range and +20% crit damage. They are overall identical with only minor quirks of their own, so no need for unique medals.