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

[lucaluca]

I would not mind if that mp community would completely die off or move to another game. Perfect case would be a separate balancing, so they could shut up, finally, but it's not going to happen.

And if you still don't understand of why mp community know absolutely nothing about how to design the game or balance things, watch community council for SC2. And those guys earn money, just in case.

ok, you are clearly biased and just post to antagonize people.

Moving on.

 

[Legemeton]

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?

Talented Collectors is in theory very good, since it's a +30 income to the city, just spread over 6 types of yields. If we approximate the average resource node clearance to about 80 yields base, then Fabled Hunters is a 60 yield injection per resource cleared. To have a comparable income to Talented Collectors with only 1 Magic Material, Fabled Hunters need to clear on average 1 resource node every 2 turns.

That's also not accounting for Magic Materials already being a +20 income on their own and having a global benefit (e.g. -10% research cost for spells), which makes for a powerful tile even without Talented Collectors.

Last, expansion with Talented Collectors has little RNG if the way you expand includes conquering free cities, since they start with a Magic Material nearby.

There are two things that hinder Talented Collectors, though. First, the starting Magic Material may be some tiles away from the Throne City, rather than adjacent. And the fight in a Magic Material (which starts defended even for the one near the Throne city) is usually harder, so you may not be in condition to clear it without losses in the opening turns, especially if your faction has weak T1 units. Meanwhile, Fabled Hunters can start generating yields from turn 1, and do so with less risk of losing units.

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

Talented Collectors is in theory very good, since it's a +30 income to the city, just spread over 6 types of yields. If we approximate the average resource node clearance to about 80 yields base, then Fabled Hunters is a 60 yield injection per resource cleared. To have a comparable income to Talented Collectors with only 1 Magic Material, Fabled Hunters need to clear on average 1 resource node every 2 turns.

This seems, heavily simplified.

The thing about Talented Collectors is that because it is spread out over the 6 different yields, your capability of taking full advantage of it shall be reduced. Furthermore, the burst nature of Fabled Hunters means that when you get stuff like Production or Gold, then you'll be more capable of immediately using those resources to finish constructing buildings, or for Mana, casting spells, where you would have to wait several turns for the Talented Collectors to gain the same benefit.

Plus there is the fact that Fabled Hunters lets you recover quicker from fights as well. +5 HP per turn isn't the biggest bonus in the world, but it isn't nothing either.

 

[seperamos]

Talented collectors is a purely economy buff trait. Fabled hunters improves resource collection AND gives combat buffs as well as an additional unit. Very useful for combat-focused factions and players.

A pure economic trait should give more economic benefits than a mixed combat and economic buff trait. Those benefits could be used to purchase more units and buildings to counter the durability that combative culture traits provide to culture units.

I'm not sure if there are pure combat culture traits available, but they would harden faction units at the expense of resource collection, which would limit combative focused players against the flexibility of economic focused players. But it is an option that could be used to have faction t1 units take on t2 or t3 units, with additional enchant buffs.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

The argument that you as a single player exclusive player know just as much as MP is just unrealistic.
Even the developers have said they trust MP far more when it comes to game balance takes.

And who said I am single player exclusively? I just don’t play strategy games with randos. Talking to them on forums is aggravating enough, I don’t need that while also playing as well. (But I do play without mods, I will admit to that).

SAS Moderator - Edited language

 

[Legemeton]

This seems, heavily simplified.

It is indeed, since it's a theoretical exploration of what the trait is capable of.

Talented collectors is a purely economy buff trait. Fabled hunters improves resource collection AND gives combat buffs as well as an additional unit. Very useful for combat-focused factions and players.

A pure economic trait should give more economic benefits than a mixed combat and economic buff trait. Those benefits could be used to purchase more units and buildings to counter the durability that combative culture traits provide to culture units.

I think the issue isn't that the economic boon from Talented Collectors is subpar or equal to Fabled Hunters, but that it is slow. Talented Collectors would be way stronger (if not overpowered) if the starting bonus had the Magic Material both undefended and on the same province as the Throne City; you'd get to benefit from the Magic Material and the trait's +30 income right from turn 1. It would compete favorably with Fabled Hunters in such scenario, since it would be a +50 income AND a global bonus from turn 1 vs Fabled Hunter's average of +60 yields on resource node clear.

This looks even more powerful if the Magic Material happens to be a Fireforge Stone (+20 production and units cost -20% draft) or a Tranquility Pool (+20 research and spells require -10% research). If such version of the starting bonus were implemented, it would probably have a predetermined material, instead of a random one, just to control how powerful the start gets to be.

I'm not sure if there are pure combat culture traits available, but they would harden faction units at the expense of resource collection, which would limit combative focused players against the flexibility of economic focused players. But it is an option that could be used to have faction t1 units take on t2 or t3 units, with additional enchant buffs.

Mana Addicts was exclusively combat oriented before its +1 rank to mage/support was replaced by +10 stability from mana nodes. Still, it's very close to being a pure combat trait.

Powerful Evokers, which now increases damage spell damage by 10%, is entirely about combat. Nothing in that trait is economic.

 

[Grakor Spiriteye]

You don't need to play multiplayer to notice that some strategies work better than others. Especially ones related to economy, to which the AI has little saying on your pace of development (unless your economic plan is Chosen Destroyers).

For instance, it doesn't take long to realize that research posts are overall better than conduits. Which is part of why the Wizard King's +2 mana to conduits is so weak; if you're annexing a mana node or magic material, you're not going to pick a conduit over a research post. This doesn't change based on whether you're playing vs AI or with other players.

I don't see why single player and multiplayer balancing is so contentious. Anyone who enjoys planning builds or theorycrafting in single player will come to similar conclusions to those competing in multiplayer.

I agree with this entirely.

Honestly, the whole MP vs. SP argument is exhausting to me, between this and the enchantment limits thread. Both gameplay modes allow you to make judgments on game balance, but only if you're aware enough to analyze, compare, and understand your game experiences. Both have pitfalls in how they alter balance due to the ruleset your playing on: Live MP has the issue that early game is entirely autocalc and that influences the value of some things beyond their face value. Similarly, SP has the flaw that you're playing against computers that aren't quite playing by the same rules as you. But both game modes have value, and both deserve to have a fun and balanced experience.

I would like to think we can all understand that, and that while some people are going to champion one ruleset they play, everyone here wants what's best for the game.

 

[Codyksp]

I agree with this entirely.

Honestly, the whole MP vs. SP argument is exhausting to me, between this and the enchantment limits thread. Both gameplay modes allow you to make judgments on game balance, but only if you're aware enough to analyze, compare, and understand your game experiences. Both have pitfalls in how they alter balance due to the ruleset your playing on: Live MP has the issue that early game is entirely autocalc and that influences the value of some things beyond their face value. Similarly, SP has the flaw that you're playing against computers that aren't quite playing by the same rules as you. But both game modes have value, and both deserve to have a fun and balanced experience.

I would like to think we can all understand that, and that while some people are going to champion one ruleset they play, everyone here wants what's best for the game.

I agree with both of you. But there are too many "bad actors" here who just hate MP from the bottom of their heart.
Either because some other game burnt them, or they blame the community for a bad change the developers made.

It should be clear to anyone who actually makes the effort that things like Mystic Summoning or Fabled Hunters are OP.
OP being used here because they are stronger than all other choices you could possibly make at that specific screen.
Just like it should be clear to anyone that Watcher is a horrible unit when compared to any other T3 Battle Mage unit.

All I am asking for is that the game stops power creeping with every DLC all the while leaving old options in the dust.
I am fine with balancing around the strongest options, but then DO THAT. Because right now this is not the case.
If the benchmark for balance is Fabled Hunters, Mystic Summoning, and Reaper then buff everything else to that level.

And if this is too much work for the developers (understandable) than please reign in the strongest options instead.
Take a middle ground, something balanced, and then nerf the strong and buff the weak to hit that specific level of power.
To be clear, again, for the deaf people among us. Balancing power does not remove uniqueness or theme.

This will only make more strategies and more builds feel good to play and not like they're an utter waste of your time.

 

[Balthazar69]

You just don't realize that you're full of certainty with large generalities, without caution, even though you're only talking about one part of the game, with one kind of limited experience. Each time, all your point is justify everything with MP, if not, we are wrong. Humility is not your strong point, but make an effort. And because we contradict you, because you don't have the knowledge infused, we inevitably get "hate of MP". Stop bullshit plz, there is not hate here. You put MP at the center of discussion, each time. And rather than saying that there are two levels of reading, no, we are necessarily wrong anyway. We just tell you it is not everything, that's simply all.

And the problem behind it is that you have no mental flexibility to hear that there is not just one way to play, nor even that the same MP is not even the optimal way to play (which you suggest in all your posts = "We (MP players), we know better how play"). All optimal strategies that work in MP perhaps doesn't work all in SP and vice versa.

 

[Codyksp]

You just don't realize that you're full of certainty with large generalities, without caution, even though you're only talking about one part of the game, with one kind of limited experience. Each time, all your point is justify everything with MP, if not, we are wrong. Humility is not your strong point, but make an effort. And because we contradict you, because you don't have the knowledge infused, we inevitably get "hate of MP". Stop bullshit plz, there is not hate here. You put MP at the center of discussion, each time. We just tell you it is not everything, that's simply all.

Do you really believe that I, and the people I play with don't also test things in single player vs AI?
Is it impossible that we know the game very well and are aware of the impact of changes globally?

A lot of our players do what we call "benchmark runs", playing at minimum 30 turns vs AI to test a build.
We use this to test the early to mid game functionality of the build we want to play in a future MP game.
And almost everyone has played the Story Realms as well. Some people just play normal games vs AI as well.

Balance is most important in MP, this should be obvious to anyone. Human vs Human combat depends on balance.
Yes, some changes can impact SP, obviously. But the impact is often much lower, due to the AI being your opponent.

If something is nerfed, your SP experience isn't completely destroyed. It just makes more options feel good.
Yeah, your strategy will be less effective, but it was far too effective to begin with. So why is this an issue?

 

[Dreepa]

Modding fabled hunters shouldn't be a huge problem, right?

 

[Codyksp]

Modding fabled hunters shouldn't be a huge problem, right?

That's just one example. Small things can be modded, yes. We've already done this.

The issue lies in deeper, systemical problems that the developers should be solving.
Examples being unit class counters and enchantment/transformation stacking.
Or entire tomes that are just bringing nothing to the table compared to alternatives.

And no, thematic gameplay is not a reason to pick things. You can still fix the power level.
There's no reason that theme/roleplay can't go hand in hand with balanced power.

 

[seperamos]

First, there has to be a comparison of the nature traits between Fabled Hunters and everything else. If none of them have economic + combat bonus, then i would agree it's overpowered for the nature affinity traits.

But instead of removing or nerfing this trait completely, which has been done in the past, I would like to see MORE combat + economy traits available in nature and other affinities. At least 2 other traits available in the same format for nature, which would be worthwhile picks for nature players who run factions that rely on a lot of t1 t2 t3 units.

 

[Balthazar69]

Do you really believe that I, and the people I play with don't also test things in single player vs AI?
Is it impossible that we know the game very well and are aware of the impact of changes globally?

Same for me (us?). A lot of people do tests and know very well the game, stats, strats and co, me included. And yet, we don't agree. That happened, not the end of life. It is a debate, it is ok to disagree. And you not got the truth because you do that. And if you test SP, it is good, but all your answers do not do this subtlety of treatment.

+There's substance and form. There are many instances where there's some "putting people down" like, "You must not know the game very well if you say that." like you said to someone yesterday. We're here to enjoy and share, not to be looked down upon because that we want the medal for the one who knows the game best.

 

[Codyksp]

First, there has to be a comparison of the nature traits between Fabled Hunters and everything else. If none of them have economic + combat bonus, then i would agree it's overpowered for the nature affinity traits.

But instead of removing or nerfing this trait completely, which has been done in the past, I would like to see MORE combat + economy traits available in nature and other affinities. At least 2 other traits available in the same format for nature, which would be worthwhile picks for nature players who run factions that rely on a lot of t1 t2 t3 units.

You need to understand something about game development, because your demands are just unrealistic.

Let's assume Fabled Hunters is out of line within the Nature traits, it is just more powerful than all others.
So now instead of nerfing 1 trait, in your scenario, we have to potentially instead buff 4 other traits.
But it doesn't stop here, because you can't balance within 1 affinity. There are 34 Society Traits in total.
Balance is only achieved when all 34 are equal in power, within their specific use cases (niches are okay).

So. Why would I spend my development time and salary reviewing 33 traits when I can just nerf 1 instead?
This line of thought holds true for the entire game. For every unit, tome, spell, trait, culture, everything.
At the end of the day Triumph (and Paradox) is a company. They are here to earn money, that's just how it is.

I understand your wish. I have the same one. But it's an unrealistic utopia that will never exist.

Same for me (us?). A lot of people do tests and know very well the game, stats, strats and co, me included. And yet, we don't agree. That happened, not the end of life. It is a debate, it is ok to disagree. And you not got the truth because you do that. And if you test SP, it is good, but all your answers do not do this subtlety of treatment.

+There's substance and form. There are many instances where there's some "putting people down" like, "You must not know the game very well if you say that." like you said to someone yesterday. We're here to enjoy and share, not to be looked down upon because that we want the medal for the one who knows the game best.

Whether you like it or not the reality is that not everyone's input is equally as valuable. This isn't how the world works.
Who do you trust more, a senior car mechanic with 5 years of experience or the intern who joined 6 months ago?

The same is true for this game, but it is even more complex than the example I just gave you.
It's not about hours played, or how many times you've beaten the AI, or on what difficulty.
While it will give you some insight into the game, you're still just that intern who joined 6 months ago.

It's about being challenged by human players, specifically those who have proven themselves good.
People constantly push each other to new heights, demanding more and more perfection in PvP.
If you joined a game, you'd very quickly understand the difference of difficulty between the two.

You're free to have impactful opinions on things MP doesn't care about like roleplay, theme and visuals.
I'll gladly let you take the lead on such topics, because that's where SP players are much more invested.

I understand you don't like being told your opinion "matters less". But I am not going to sugar coat things.

 

[Balthazar69]

Whether you like it or not the reality is that not everyone's input is equally as valuable. This isn't how the world works.
Who do you trust more, a senior car mechanic with 5 years of experience or the intern who joined 6 months ago?

I mostly see someone with a big head. On internet difficult to see the true experience of someone (You show only words from my point of view, you have no more experience than all others here). But at base, respect is for all, experience or not.

You're free to have impactful opinions on things MP doesn't care about like roleplay, theme and visuals.
I'll gladly let you take the lead on such topics, because that's where SP players are much more invested.

The way you pretend to leave the history questions/lore to us is incredible. "Go play with the shit/casual things, we're talking serious here, about perfect numbers and balancing in MP."
I don't know if you realize what you're saying? The contempt you display. Crazy.

 

[Codyksp]

I mostly see someone with a big head. On internet difficult to see the true experience of someone (You show only words from my point of view, you have no more experience than all others here). But at base, respect is for all, experience or not.

Would you like my Age of Wonders resume? It's easy to dismiss something as "big head".

• I have played Age of Wonders since 1999.
• I have played multiplayer in AoW 1 and AoW 4.
• I made the largest MP balance mod for AoW 1 (1000+ downloads).
• I made the largest MP balance mod for AoW 4 (1600+ subscribers).
• I have inherited the AoW 4 MP Discord (1500+ members).
• I am involved with other MP communities (as I named before).
• I am involved in feedback discussions with the developers.
• I have a positive win rate in both AoW 1 and AoW 4 MP.

You're just going to find another reason to dismiss this though, either calling it ego or saying none of it matters.
But here's the thing, experiences shape a person. I have been involved with this game series for 25 years now.

Multiple of my mod changes have made it into the game, because the developers thought the same as me.
And it was not because I forced them to be made. I never even brought most of them up with the developers.
It's highly likely that SP, MP, and the developers all simply agreed on the change. It can really be that simple.

It's also not just me. I have an entire community of experienced players behind me helping with feedback.
They don't post here because they find it a waste of time, which I understand when I see these types of replies.

All you've done is be negative, press X reactions and go against every post I've made, where was your respect?
If you want to be treated respectfully then you have to show some of it yourself. Instead of childish emoji reactions.

The way you pretend to leave the history questions/lore to us is incredible. "Go play with the shit/casual things, we're talking serious here, about perfect numbers and balancing in MP." I don't know if you realize what you're saying? The contempt you display. Crazy.

Okay. pop-quiz. Here are questions for you:

• Why is Tome of Cryomancy better than every T1 tome in the game?
• Why is Ruthless Raiders a highly underpowered economical trait?
• Why do Polearms lose to Shock units, despite Charge Resistance?
• Why are Flying mounts better than all other 3 cost mount options?

Even in single player you should easily be able figure out the power differences at play here.

 

[seperamos]

You need to understand something about game development, because your demands are just unrealistic.

Let's assume Fabled Hunters is out of line within the Nature traits, it is just more powerful than all others.
So now instead of nerfing 1 trait, in your scenario, we have to potentially instead buff 4 other traits.
But it doesn't stop here, because you can't balance within 1 affinity. There are 34 Society Traits in total.
Balance is only achieved when all 34 are equal in power, within their specific use cases (niches are okay).

So. Why would I spend my development time and salary reviewing 33 traits when I can just nerf 1 instead?
This line of thought holds true for the entire game. For every unit, tome, spell, trait, culture, everything.
At the end of the day Triumph (and Paradox) is a company. They are here to earn money, that's just how it is.

I understand your wish. I have the same one. But it's an unrealistic utopia that will never exist.


Whether you like it or not the reality is that not everyone's input is equally as valuable. This isn't how the world works.
Who do you trust more, a senior car mechanic with 5 years of experience or the intern who joined 6 months ago?

The same is true for this game, but it is even more complex than the example I just gave you.
It's not about hours played, or how many times you've beaten the AI, or on what difficulty.
While it will give you some insight into the game, you're still just that intern who joined 6 months ago.

It's about being challenged by human players, specifically those who have proven to be good.
People constantly push each other to new heights, demanding more and more perfection in PvP.
If you joined a game, you'd very quickly understand the difference of difficulty between the two.

You're free to have impactful opinions on things MP doesn't care about like roleplay, theme and visuals.
I'll gladly let you take the lead on such topics, because that's where SP players are much more invested.

I understand you don't like being told your opinion "matters less". But I am not going to sugar coat things.

How many popular games have you created so far, Cody? I didn't see "game developer" next to any of your tags, so what make your opinions more valuable than mine? You're talking about development time as if you have an entire gaming studio at your beck and call, well show us your better strategy game than AOW4! All i see is you claiming your personal grievances should bear more weight than the rest of our concerns...because you play modded multiplayer games with autocombat as standard??

I was one of those players pushing for a major materium transformation, and thank the astral stars they finally did it! I didn't need to be a game developer or play multiplayer with excel data sheets by my side to realize all affinities should have at least 1 major transformation that tries to encapsulate all their themes.

I'm not here to play YOUR game, Cody. I'm here to play the best 4x/rpg game Triumph has developed to date so far. We're all trying to determine which traits are wildly out of balance, but you CANT do that if there's no frame of reference for what traits are supposed to be like! Are we allowed to get economic + combat focused traits or not?? Are the the traits only supposed to be economic bonuses? Stick with facts and data and make a coherent argument that doesnt trash the opinions of everybody who paid for this game for its expansive options!

 

[Balthazar69]

A lot of dudes are here since age of wonders 1 or 2. I start with the second opus when I have 10 years. I do all age of wonders since that day, I'm not going to brag about it. It is not crazy for a niche forum... You think you have a superior opinion, but you still don't. I even saw you fighting in a patch note. And sorry to tell you that : but you are perhaps the worst spokesperson for your community. Because you don't just say what you want, you want to impose your vision with a lot of bias.

All you've done is be negative, press X reactions and go against every post I've made, where was your respect?

This button is respectfully disagree. And not every post. Easily provable. Another lie. Yes only when I... disagree ? Where is the problem ?

 

[Codyksp]

How many popular games have you created so far, Cody? I didn't see "game developer" next to any of your tags, so what make your opinions more valuable than mine? You're talking about development time as if you have an entire gaming studio at your beck and call, well show us your better strategy game than AOW4! All i see is you claiming your personal grievances should bear more weight than the rest of our concerns...because you play modded multiplayer games with autocombat as standard??

I'll tell you how I know. Because I've had these conversations. With Triumph. It's also just common business sense.
They have planned work with timelines, resources and a budget. Just like any other company on this planet.
There has to be a choice made between what they can spend time on and what has to be postponed or ignored.

I already said in previous replies that our feedback is based on the game without mods and that we play SP too.
So no. Nobody said anything about balancing purely around mods or auto combat. It wasn't brought up at all.
I have only stated that auto combat is more credible than manual vs AI. Manual human vs human is the best option.

I'm not here to play YOUR game, Cody. I'm here to play the best 4x/rpg game Triumph has developed to date so far. We're all trying to determine which traits are wildly out of balance, but you CANT do that if there's no frame of reference for what traits are supposed to be like! Are we allowed to get economic + combat focused traits or not??

You're here to demand that the developers spend 100x more energy into buffing 75% of the game. It's unrealistic.
Nobody is going to spend hours making a framework as you demand, building entire spreadsheets for balance.

The frame of reference is simple. It's the middle ground between OP and UP. The majority of the game lives here.
Within the context given above, this is the only way the developers can approach such problems. You see it in all games.

But if you want confirmation, search for various developer replies and read all the previous game updates.
You'll notice a pattern of nerfs on OP things and buffs on weak things, while the rest remains untouched.
This isn't my influence, or yours, or anyone else's. This is the developers showing you what their framework is.

This button is respectfully disagree. And not every post. Easily provable. Another lie. Yes only when I... disagree ? Where is the problem ?

The problem lies in that you feel the need to press this on every post (notice how I don't).
While 2 or 3 other people who are just as negative will do the same, on every single post.
Those same 2-3 people then click on each other's posts with a checkmark, it's just hilarious.

I'm not sure what you want to achieve, but I find it childish behaviour akin to social media.