The "Mono Stacking" Problem

[seperamos]

I have no idea what you are talking about. To me it looks like we have a different understanding what "balance" means, because [adjective] balance is still BALANCE. It is no [adjective ] balance when one option is always stronger, no matter what.
But what's more - this game isn't THAT asymmetrical, due to the high customization., the module-like game structure. You can balance module by module.

And ... this is again this misconception: I quote:
but solutions of bigger problems than simple number-correcting - like mono-stacking, should be made with a view on not taking away anything from the SP experience AND with a view on doability (which only Triumph can tell).
What is your problem with that?

No problem, I'm just clarifying that some people have different ideas on how balance is supposed to be approached. We already discussed parallel balance and asymmetrical balance. You can have shields vs polearms vs fighters, instead of feudal shields vs mystic shields vs barbarian shields.

I just want us all to have a clear understanding that what works for SP may not work for MP, and what works for MP may not be popular with the SP or RPG crowd. I don't want to see ANY group put on a pedestal without seeing the trends of their input lead to better gameplay and performance.

 

[Jolly Joker]

I understand that. And it's clear that limiting enchantments to three would be hated by the SP gamers. But what works and what doesn't is part of the solution. Not the problem. That's why I say - let's trust Cody with the problem (instead of trying to tell him the problem isn't real) and try to find solutions that help everyone.

 

[seperamos]

I understand that. And it's clear that limiting enchantments to three would be hated by the SP gamers. But what works and what doesn't is part of the solution. Not the problem. That's why I say - let's trust Cody with the problem (instead of trying to tell him the problem isn't real) and try to find solutions that help everyone.

Forgive me if I don't simply take one person's word for it. A game will hit the mark when it can achieve majority consensus over every issue it encounters, as it will be the players paying for a game that twists and turns into something that they may not have been willing to pay for in the first place.

Democratic game design can create and improve a game that will appeal to a much larger group of people than a game that simply serves one person's purposes, or the oligarchy of the dev/ multiplayer community. If we treat each other like adults, listen to each other's opinions carefully and seriously, and then provide a factual counterpoint based on correct and reliable information, we can persuade others to a conclusion that can address both sides adequately.

So I have questions about some of the proposals put forth. Why just 3 enchants on our units? Why not 5 or 11? How many enchants and transformations should each affinity have? Should we have 3 major transformations for each affinity? Should we have 9 or 6 minor transformations? What themes should the enchants and transformations fall under? How do we balance enchants and transformations between affinity?

Should affinities break enchants into groups that assist units, cities, or world map with thematic powers? If enchants are meant for units, how many for each category should every and any affinity have? How many enchants for shields, or polearms, or fighters, or mages/supports, or archers/gunners, seige units and monsters?

There are a lot of variables we need to consider before changing aspects of the game. There should be a road map or balance goals for specific areas of the game.

 

[Deus von Vult]

The moment someone writes "only mp guys have an understanding of how balancing works" you are simply loosing me as a listener. I won't take anything serious you say if you write this kind of lines.

Age of Wonders 4 is mainly a single player game. Do i want a functioning multiplayer without dosconnects? Yes of course! Do i like multiplayer yes! But this doesn't mean the devs need to balance the game for the loud 1℅ minority.

I simply can't understand people who want to balance games completely ignoring the economic reality of the mentioned game. Age of Wonders 4, Hearts of Iron 4, Warhammer Total War 3 are all mainly single player titles. Yet they always have a very loud minoritiy which are trying to balance the fun out of the game. This minority is often less than 1℅ percent of the playerbase. Maybe 5℅ if you are lucky.

But they have ALWAYS the same elitist attidute no matter where i encounter them!

 

[seperamos]

The moment someone writes "only mp guys have an understanding of how balancing works" you are simply loosing me as a listener. I won't take anything serious you say if you write this kind of lines.

Age of Wonders 4 is mainly a single player game. Do i want a functioning multiplayer without dosconnects? Yes of course! Do i like multiplayer yes! But this doesn't mean the devs need to balance the game for the loud 1℅ minority.

I simply can't understand people who want to balance games completely ignoring the economic reality of the mentioned game. Age of Wonders 4, Hearts of Iron 4, Warhammer Total War 3 are all mainly single player titles. Yet they always have a very loud minoritiy which are trying to balance the fun out of the game. This minority is often less than 1℅ percent of the playerbase. Maybe 5℅ if you are lucky.

But they have ALWAYS the same elitist attidute no matter where i encounter them!

The things they did to total warhammer...the fall from grace after the beauty of the 2nd game from potion of speed update onward...still sends chills to my bones to this very day.

Their Johnny come lately approach to listening to their playerbase, finally, after a few years of insufferable smugness changed my gaming spending habits drastically. Their initial lack of respect for their fanbase drove me into the arms of aow4.

 

[Jolly Joker]

There are a lot of variables we need to consider before changing aspects of the game. There should be a road map or balance goals for specific areas of the game.

Well, that's what I say. Let's trust the MP crowd that something's amiss, but let's make the solution something we all can agree with.
So mono-stacking as a pronblem just means, that stacking enchantments on one strong troop type as a general strategy is superior to any other.
How that can be solved is a different matter. But we can never solve anything when we don't even acknowledge the problem.

 

[seperamos]

Well, that's what I say. Let's trust the MP crowd that something's amiss, but let's make the solution something we all can agree with.
So mono-stacking as a pronblem just means, that stacking enchantments on one strong troop type as a general strategy is superior to any other.
How that can be solved is a different matter. But we can never solve anything when we don't even acknowledge the problem.

But joker, the multiplayer crowd can very easily optimize for multiplayer-focused gameplay, instead of casual strategic and rpg related experiences! Depending on the type of balance used, those experiences can change drastically.

I appreciate their input and dedication to mathing out every trait, every SPI, every unit on every tier compared to the average, we need that intensity to find out the issues most players are experiencing. All I'm asking for is that MP crowd seriously considers the experiences and preferences of the SP crowd, and engage in dialogue on official forums before pushing the devs for changes that may radically alter gameplay or restrict it unnecessarily.

Make a statement of an issue, then do an explanation that makes sense and has popular support before going to the devs.

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

I get ya. Atm you can go with little lizards, they evolve without losing their class and benefit from Druid ambition + Pack Leader. (not really Arcane but very Nature-y, so there is that)

Yeah, Slithers are an option, but they aren't Magic Origin, so they don't fully fit the entire Summoner side, can't rank them up quickly with the Astral Echoes either.

Seriously, the ability to make Tier 3 armies out of thin air by the amount of T1 rank ups I had in the late-game, plus the 1-2 ranks from the Astral Echoes I had is nothing to sneeze at.

Peeps still want more classes so their playstyle is included in the new system.

And? It's still fantastic. Not perfect, but fantastic, far better than the Killing Momentum archer mess we had previously.

I understand that. And it's clear that limiting enchantments to three would be hated by the SP gamers.

Uh, hello? SP Gamer here? I want enchantments to be limited?

The moment someone writes "only mp guys have an understanding of how balancing works" you are simply loosing me as a listener. I won't take anything serious you say if you write this kind of lines.

I mean...

Yet they always have a very loud minoritiy which are trying to balance the fun out of the game. This minority is often less than 1℅ percent of the playerbase. Maybe 5℅ if you are lucky.

If you go ahead and say things like that, when people have repeatedly and insistently said that no, they are not trying to do that. That balance can still be fun.

Then why should we listen to you, when you show you don't listen to others?

 

[Grakor Spiriteye]

... Fighter units are important, especially for animals and the like, because they aren't always shock units, but they certainly aren't shield units or polearms users, are they?

Yes and no? There is the route of doing some abstraction, shield and polearm as unit types don't necessarily need to only be units that literally are holding either shields or polearms. How many games are there that make bears defensive tanks, as an example?

Fighter as a unit class literally seems to exist just as a catch-all for units that the designers don't want to categorize otherwise. Which raises questions about the intended design. Like, if you're going to go out of your way to make a unit counter system, it seems counter-productive to have an entire category of units that exists just to be outside of it.

Age of Wonders 4 is mainly a single player game. Do i want a functioning multiplayer without dosconnects? Yes of course! Do i like multiplayer yes! But this doesn't mean the devs need to balance the game for the loud 1℅ minority.

I simply can't understand people who want to balance games completely ignoring the economic reality of the mentioned game. Age of Wonders 4, Hearts of Iron 4, Warhammer Total War 3 are all mainly single player titles. Yet they always have a very loud minoritiy which are trying to balance the fun out of the game. This minority is often less than 1℅ percent of the playerbase. Maybe 5℅ if you are lucky.

And 99% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

No one is attempting to balance the fun out of the game. If anything, they're trying to balance the fun into the game because they don't find the current state enjoyable.

 

[Codyksp]

But joker, the multiplayer crowd can very easily optimize for multiplayer-focused gameplay, instead of casual strategic and rpg related experiences! Depending on the type of balance used, those experiences can change drastically.

Let me ask you this question. Does balance even matter for casual or rpg roleplay gameplay?
Do you, as one of those two types of players make your choices based on the game balance?

Or is balance something that only appeals to people who optimize their gameplay in either single or multiplayer?

Yes and no? There is the route of doing some abstraction, shield and polearm as unit types don't necessarily need to only be units that literally are holding either shields or polearms. How many games are there that make bears defensive tanks, as an example?

Fighter as a unit class literally seems to exist just as a catch-all for units that the designers don't want to categorize otherwise. Which raises questions about the intended design. Like, if you're going to go out of your way to make a unit counter system, it seems counter-productive to have an entire category of units that exists just to be outside of it.

Agreed. This is why I said Fighter is just a mono-stack class with no true purpose. It's a catch-all class.
They are the most generic units to ever exist and have no strengths or weaknesses, thus require no multi-class army.

No one is attempting to balance the fun out of the game. If anything, they're trying to balance the fun into the game because they don't find the current state enjoyable.

These comments seem to always show up over and over again. Either from the same people, or from new joiners to the topic.
Despite the fact that I, and others, have repeatedly stated that this is not the case and there is no evidence to support these claims.

Nobody wants to remove unique interactions, thematic design or close off any path players are enjoying.
We merely want the existing design to have better balance between each module. This primarily means numbers.

Of course when numbers are not enough, then a rework is required (like Feudal, Reaper, Heroes, or Form Traits).
All of these were changed to adhere to the original idea but improve it for a better gameplay experience.
While some players may disagree with the end result, you cannot deny that the core design remains in place.

I would also like to remind everyone that the developers have the final say here. They make the call on how to handle things.

 

[Kitschy]

...

And? It's still fantastic. Not perfect, but fantastic, far better than the Killing Momentum archer mess we had previously.

...

And there is still work to be done be it tweaking the classes we already have to adding new ones even if you perceive new system as fantastic, that was my point. It is like saying cultures are fantastic when quite a few of them would benefit greatly from fine-tuning and/or new additions. (like peeps still want their rogue culture from what I saw)

Let me ask you this question. Does balance even matter for casual or rpg roleplay gameplay?
Do you, as one of those two types of players make your choices based on the game balance?

Or is balance something that only appeals to people who optimize their gameplay in either single or multiplayer?

I can't say for everyone, but certainly matters to me. There is a big difference in game that has balanced system vs the one that does not, imo it is not really SP vs MP thing.

 

[seperamos]

Let me ask you this question. Does balance even matter for casual or rpg roleplay gameplay?
Do you, as one of those two types of players make your choices based on the game balance?

Or is balance something that only appeals to people who optimize their gameplay in either single or multiplayer?

Well let me put it to you this way, I was frustrated with the previous game state of all affinities having a major transformation EXCEPT for Materium. That was a clear indicator of imbalance, since players who preferred Materium factions were denied an additional stat modifier that other affinities has access to.

But the balance adjustment was asymmetrical, since the new transformation did not do the same things other MTs did. It seems to emphasize the pro's and cons of Materium factions and has a consistent theme of terrain advantage less mobility or magic resistance. That is a fun example of promoting asymmetrical balance in this g

I like to look at these kinds of games from the macro level to the micro level, and I like to keep an open mind when other players express their feedback on certain mechanics of the game they purchased. Since I work a full time job, it's hard to find the time to go through the entire game and look at the math of every individual spell or enchant between affinities, or to organize them into groups and tiers that reflect their "power level". This is where SP and MP feedback comes in, because Sp plays the games long term, usually past 100 turns, while MP plays the game competitively, tend towards short and brutal games.

 

[Codyksp]

Well let me put it to you this way, I was frustrated with the previous game state of all affinities having a major transformation EXCEPT for Materium. That was a clear indicator of imbalance, since players who preferred Materium factions were denied an additional stat modifier that other affinities has access to.

But the balance adjustment was asymmetrical, since the new transformation did not do the same things other MTs did. It seems to emphasize the pro's and cons of Materium factions and has a consistent theme of terrain advantage less mobility or magic resistance. That is a fun example of promoting asymmetrical balance in this g

To me having or not having a major transformation isn't even part of the balance consideration.
I also disliked it and thought it was odd. But from a balance perspective it never actually mattered.

Materium had a T4 minor transformation in Goldtouched that grants +2 RES and Gold income. It's actually quite powerful.
Unlike major transformations it has no downside, but it grants a reasonable amount of power compared to the majors.

I personally prefer to look at individual tome balance rather than the affinity as a whole in this specific case.
Because if the individual parts are balanced, the entire picture, in most cases, automatically becomes balanced too.

I like to look at these kinds of games from the macro level to the micro level, and I like to keep an open mind when other players express their feedback on certain mechanics of the game they purchased. Since I work a full time job, it's hard to find the time to go through the entire game and look at the math of every individual spell or enchant between affinities, or to organize them into groups and tiers that reflect their "power level". This is where SP and MP feedback comes in, because Sp plays the games long term, usually past 100 turns, while MP plays the game competitively, tend towards short and brutal games.

This is where I really need you to either trust my input or take the time to gain in-depth knowledge of my mod and experience.
Because I also work full time but am still involved with the game almost every day of the week here, on Steam and on Discord.
But you have to understand that it is simply impossible for me to share every bit of information with everyone here.
The amount of hours I invest into this game is so high that I can barely contain all of it myself, let alone share it with you.

The community I manage plays 4-8 hour games on a daily basis with 4-6 players. These are generally speaking 2v2 or 3v3.
But we also host multi-session FFA games, which generally last for 2-4 sessions of 6-8 hours each. We play both types of games.
Not only that. We test out Shops, Happenings, Realm Traits, etc. There is all kinds of experimentation that takes place for us.

I am constantly analyzing multiplayer games, asking for details, spectating them, gathering player feedback and hearing their experiences.
I take this information and perform my own analysis, to verify the claims and compare game components at the micro and macro levels.
Then I attempt to gather opinions from a 3rd party, one or both of the other multiplayer communities whom play exclusively vanilla.
I keep in mind modded changes and compare vanilla to the mod, while also asking myself "what did the developers intend here?".

When I have some free time I play matches myself and write down my own notes while talking to the other players in voice chat.
We are always analyzing the game, looking for strategies, build paths and trying to figure out what works and what doesn't work.
Once something has been identified we discuss whether a nerf or a buff is required and what these could potentially look like.
Only after all of the above has been performed do I finally decide to push a change to my mod so we can test the outcome of it.

After the testing phase we will deem it a success or follow it up with either more changes or reverting it and taking a new approach.
Only fully approved and tested changes are brought forward towards the developers. Not something I cooked up in 10 minutes on a Sunday.
That is to say, suggestions I make have a solid foundation. Feedback I give "X is too strong/weak" is based on multiple hours of gameplay.
There is less involvement in making such claims because I am merely communicating a feeling, not advocating for a specific solution.

So please, put aside any previous bias you have from other games and educate yourself about our community before speaking ill of us.

 

[seperamos]

To me having or not having a major transformation isn't even part of the balance consideration.
I also disliked it and thought it was odd. But from a balance perspective it never actually mattered.

Materium had a T4 minor transformation in Goldtouched that grants +2 RES and Gold income. It's actually quite powerful.
Unlike major transformations it has no downside, but it grants a reasonable amount of power compared to the majors.

I personally prefer to look at individual tome balance rather than the affinity as a whole in this specific case.
Because if the individual parts are balanced, the entire picture, in most cases, automatically becomes balanced too.


This is where I really need you to either trust my input or take the time to gain in-depth knowledge of my mod and experience.
Because I also work full time but am still involved with the game almost every day of the week here, on Steam and on Discord.
But you have to understand that it is simply impossible for me to share every bit of information with everyone here.
The amount of hours I invest into this game is so high that I can barely contain all of it myself, let alone share it with you.

The community I manage plays 4-8 hour games on a daily basis with 4-6 players. These are generally speaking 2v2 or 3v3.
But we also host multi-session FFA games, which generally last for 2-4 sessions of 6-8 hours each. We play both types of games.
Not only that. We test out Shops, Happenings, Realm Traits, etc. There is all kinds of experimentation that takes place for us.

I am constantly analyzing multiplayer games, asking for details, spectating them, gathering player feedback and hearing their experiences.
I take this information and perform my own analysis, to verify the claims and compare game components at the micro and macro levels.
Then I attempt to gather opinions from a 3rd party, one or both of the other multiplayer communities whom play exclusively vanilla.
I keep in mind modded changes and compare vanilla to the mod, while also asking myself "what did the developers intend here?".

When I have some free time I play matches myself and write down my own notes while talking to the other players in voice chat.
We are always analyzing the game, looking for strategies, build paths and trying to figure out what works and what doesn't work.
Once something has been identified we discuss whether a nerf or a buff is required and what these could potentially look like.
Only after all of the above has been performed do I finally decide to push a change to my mod so we can test the outcome of it.

After the testing phase we will deem it a success or follow it up with either more changes or reverting it and taking a new approach.
Only fully approved and tested changes are brought forward towards the developers. Not something I cooked up in 10 minutes on a Sunday.
That is to say, suggestions I make have a solid foundation. Feedback I give "X is too strong/weak" is based on multiple hours of gameplay.
There is less involvement in making such claims because I am merely communicating a feeling, not advocating for a specific solution.

So please, put aside any previous bias you have from other games and educate yourself about our community before speaking ill of us.

I'm not speaking ill of the multiplayer community, I'm not attacking you or any of your mod's communities, we have common agreements and some disagreements.

I'm simply questioning whether a playerbase of thousands of people should be blindly trusting of a group of at least 30 players without some sort of roadmap for how balance, nerfs, and removals are implemented.

Edit: regarding goldtouched...it should be a major transformation for a materium construct tome path. This path would lead a Materium heavy faction to their apotheosis as Constructs, whether by golems or steampunk clockwork concepts. So we could have 2 possible major transformations or paths for Materium focused players to choose (elementals or constructs), one side that emphasizes defense, the other for resistance and seige attacks. The minor Ts for construct are already there, we just also need Copper/Bronze or Silver transformations.

 

[Codyksp]

I'm simply questioning whether a playerbase of thousands of people should be blindly trusting of a group of at least 30 players without some sort of roadmap for how balance, nerfs, and removals are implemented.

This is the task of the developers of the game. It is unreasonable to expect a small community to do this.
We identify issues, and where possible, test out solutions via modding. But modding has many limits too.

Tested solutions are presented, but might still be declined by the developers in favour of a different option.
Issues where modding is not an option are also presented and theoretical solutions are then discussed.

More than this cannot be reasonably expected from people in their free time for a single video game.

 

[Xerberus]

Let me ask you this question. Does balance even matter for casual or rpg roleplay gameplay?
Do you, as one of those two types of players make your choices based on the game balance?

Or is balance something that only appeals to people who optimize their gameplay in either single or multiplayer?


Agreed. This is why I said Fighter is just a mono-stack class with no true purpose. It's a catch-all class.
They are the most generic units to ever exist and have no strengths or weaknesses, thus require no multi-class army.


These comments seem to always show up over and over again. Either from the same people, or from new joiners to the topic.
Despite the fact that I, and others, have repeatedly stated that this is not the case and there is no evidence to support these claims.

Nobody wants to remove unique interactions, thematic design or close off any path players are enjoying.
We merely want the existing design to have better balance between each module. This primarily means numbers.

Of course when numbers are not enough, then a rework is required (like Feudal, Reaper, Heroes, or Form Traits).
All of these were changed to adhere to the original idea but improve it for a better gameplay experience.
While some players may disagree with the end result, you cannot deny that the core design remains in place.

I would also like to remind everyone that the developers have the final say here. They make the call on how to handle things.

the evidence is in you listing 40% of the games featuers as "oppressive".

the existing designs have a good balance, no changes needed. the fine-tuning the devs are alreaddy doing or have done over the past 2 years.

and yes, devs have final say and thankfully after 2 years of your nonsense "feedback" which calls for removal of whole swathe of features like umbral abyss, banner pickups, shops, wonders and the likes, it was successfully ignored.

like honestly, having "wonders" in a game is as old as 4x games are, who in their right mind wants to remove them.

but errors should be pointed out and that is what some people are doing. you failed to make any sound argument so far. your only post which tried to show 3 scenes with the screenshots backfired heavily. so yeah, dream on.

 

[Jolly Joker]

Lol, Jesus, how long do we have to listen to this nonsense? "Have a good balance"`Haha.

 

[Codyksp]

I, for one, hope Avoxel gets the time and freedom to dive deeper into this and other priority issues in the near future.
He's the only real vocal dev (sorry Jordi, you're QA ) and displays a healthy understanding of the game and our concerns.
I am absolutely not biased because he said he might look into the issue with unit enchantments. Nope, no siree Bob.

For now I think we can only wait for Archon Prophecy and information on Triumph's plans heading into the future.

Lol, Jesus, how long do we have to listen to this nonsense? "Have a good balance"`Haha.

I feel like I missed something, but perhaps that's for the best.

 

[Imma93]

I play single player and Multiplayer with some friends but it's not that compatitive. My reason for wanting this change is NOT because I think it's unfair. Some strategies DO seam pretty unbalanced and they take the fun out, so we just agree to not use them. Obviously we don't do this with every single thing that is unbalanced.
My reason for wanting this fixed is to make the game more fun and challenging in the late mid and end game. In the early game the Ai can be very challenging but later not so much. We win every single battle against them in auto resolve. At first glance you would think that's nice, but it makes the rest of the game kinda meaningless. If we wouldn't have other real player opponents it would become quite boring.

 

[Balthazar69]

Good balance, when starting position already not give the same near free city to all players... Two day ago I got town hotel IV. In a other game, town hotel II (more frequent this one)

In high world threat, one time I got near my first base a gold infestation, an other time, a bronze one.

One time I have few foes to start XP in my three first turns, sometimes, no foes at all on my nodus...

So lol... This discussion is interresting but only until a certain point. Perfect balancing in this situation is a mirage actually. I always found this is not a game for competitive actions, because games are all differents and that perhaps a good thing. So I accept it. It is not startcraft, and even for starcraft, balance is already complicated with 3 races, with differents operatings. But at least, on map, All position are served fairly. There is not golden mineral closer to one player...

To conclude, balance is important in this game, yes, but only to make all possibilities viable. If one possibility is not viable or over OP, nerf or boost must be operate. If not, chase optimal perf in each segment is an illusion.