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

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

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

Oh. Huh. That kinda makes them bitching about balance in the game a bit of an eyebrow raiser then.

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.

That ah... that's probably worse, honestly. They can improve the balance of the game without focusing on PvP. Adding two forms of balancing the game will just increase the overall work-load.

Though when the MPers bitch about how swingy stuff like Landmarks and Trainers are... just... turn them off? Isn't that part of the realm traits?

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.

Eh... I kinda disagree here. Half the reason why Mythic Units struggle is that they don't gain any enchantments. Even without a tech rush, the enchantments give non-mythic units plenty of extra bonus and synergy with builds and spells that Mythic Units often struggle to pick up or utilise themselves.

I do kinda like the idea of having research be something you can't just spam without a cost... not sure if attaching it directly to mana is the right way forward, but it is something to think about.

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.

Yeah... I'm playing around with the Industrious Culture, and while the Alabaster has been proving themselves useful thanks to their overdraw shot allowing them to cancel retalations, the Support unit has been rather lacklustre. The fact it doesn't have a healing that doesn't remove the Bolstered Defences is a pain in the ass, and the damage it deals when its not healing is so bad I have to wonder why it has an attack in the first place.

Anecdotal evidence, I fully understand but. But I really do feel like Archers and Supports are inferior. This is even more evident in the late game as well. Did you know that there are Eight Tier 4 Battlemages and Seven Tier 4 Shock Units? Fighters only have 4 Tiers 4, all of which are Greater Animals, Polearm, Skirmisher and Shield have a measly 1, and Archers/Supports have a grand nothing?

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.

Extra Range struggles with accuracy penalties, doesn't it? Maybe it should be +1 Range, +20% accuracy instead? And yeah, restoring 2 turn cooldown for Battlemage AoOs could help make them less of an issue too.

 

[MortyTheGoblin]

As far as PvP goes, it doesn't really take competitive, optimized play for issues to crop up. A few weeks ago I got into my first PvP situation, since I normally play single player or ally with my fellow players. And the other player got steamrolled when I attacked him with stacked warbreeds. There wasn't much he could do to stop me. All it took was picking a strong unit and focusing on it.

 

[seperamos]

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.

With supports, I can have a unit that heals and/or buffs all of my units, including heroes. Some cultures may have supports that heal and/or debuff instead , which is also acceptable with a certain range. If i can buff a unit +10, then another unit should be able to do a debuff -10, which would be a fair range to work with and can be countered with appropriate unit micromanagement.

With mages, I can take them for native AOE, single target dmg, and dmg based buffs and debuffs within a similiar range, let's say from +10 to -10, each one able to counter the other. The strategy is in microing your units, making sure they are protecting or buffed sufficient to counter enemy buffs or their debuffs put on them. Within a reasonable range of numbers, this system works to enhance strategies in the game.

With archers, I get reliable ranged units that have superior range to mages and especially supports, that can inflict bleed status effects depending on weapons or enchantments, and can receive sniper or skirmish enchantments and skills depending on their unit or hero status.

Tbh, I would also like to have seige units thrown in the mix here. All of these ranged units should be compared by their specialization and base tier stats, not player selected enchantment and transformations.

 

[seperamos]

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?

Ideally, I would like to see Giant kings be strong individual fighters, with no special army buffs that champs should have. I dont believe they have access to command skills.They SHOULD have skills trees that emphasize either fighting melee, range, crafting, or teraforming/building. They can mix them up, but they can master only one area. Idk if this is the case yet because I have not tried giant ruler for now.

Dragon Lord is worse in every aspect, from personal power to economy to army power.

Dragons with wings should use mobility and spells/breath for ranged attacks before closing with enemy units in melee. They can fly from one area of the battlefield to the other. Dragons without wings would either focus on melee skills, economy, or magical ranged breath or spell attacks. They can be just as powerful of not more than giant rulers, depending on if they focus on melee, magic, or economy.

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

Correct. But this framework I'm using provides the asymmetric balance that keeps the game interesting. Giants and dragons are better at certain things, without having to compensate for others.

• 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.

Giant Kings and dragons don't need to gain army support skills, they attempt to be either the best fighters, spellcasters, seigers, crafter, or builders they can be. They should be able to focus on one of three areas available to them. This will drastically increase available strategies and gameplay experience.

We agree on wanting a better gameplay experience, but equal combat stats in base forms can't be the solution here.

 

[Astronlmo]

Oh. Huh. That kinda makes them bitching about balance in the game a bit of an eyebrow raiser then.



That ah... that's probably worse, honestly. They can improve the balance of the game without focusing on PvP. Adding two forms of balancing the game will just increase the overall work-load.

Though when the MPers bitch about how swingy stuff like Landmarks and Trainers are... just... turn them off? Isn't that part of the realm traits?



Eh... I kinda disagree here. Half the reason why Mythic Units struggle is that they don't gain any enchantments. Even without a tech rush, the enchantments give non-mythic units plenty of extra bonus and synergy with builds and spells that Mythic Units often struggle to pick up or utilise themselves.

I do kinda like the idea of having research be something you can't just spam without a cost... not sure if attaching it directly to mana is the right way forward, but it is something to think about.



Yeah... I'm playing around with the Industrious Culture, and while the Alabaster has been proving themselves useful thanks to their overdraw shot allowing them to cancel retalations, the Support unit has been rather lacklustre. The fact it doesn't have a healing that doesn't remove the Bolstered Defences is a pain in the ass, and the damage it deals when its not healing is so bad I have to wonder why it has an attack in the first place.

Anecdotal evidence, I fully understand but. But I really do feel like Archers and Supports are inferior. This is even more evident in the late game as well. Did you know that there are Eight Tier 4 Battlemages and Seven Tier 4 Shock Units? Fighters only have 4 Tiers 4, all of which are Greater Animals, Polearm, Skirmisher and Shield have a measly 1, and Archers/Supports have a grand nothing?



Extra Range struggles with accuracy penalties, doesn't it? Maybe it should be +1 Range, +20% accuracy instead? And yeah, restoring 2 turn cooldown for Battlemage AoOs could help make them less of an issue too.

Mythic units are balanced around the normal 2 tomes per tier and up to 9. Worst case would be Templar, but being pikeman it's OK. That way you will realistically get 3 enchantments and 2 transformations (1 minor and 1 major). Add one more here. It's not really OP vs Mythic units.

Like I remember someone saying that archers are 100% better than Ironclad. Ironclad is from tier 3 tome, tier 3 archer is from tier 2 tome. Or Feudal, but anyway. In the end you get 2 enchantments for that archer for the sake of damage, by the time you get at least Veteran rank Ironclad with Duracell on top.

Long run is tech rush, because otherwise you won't see that "long run", since it's turn 120+.

 

[lucaluca]

The one between balance and fun or diversity is a false dichotomy. Total war warhammer has the most diverse factions but they are strictly balanced based on multiplayer.

I play single player and I don't min max and my builds are more based on role playing than on optimal play but if I see that a random thing on the map gives the full dragon roster I get it, it's a strategy game, I play on brutal and I try to get everything I can. If I wanted t play a role playing game I would have played DnD.

Also for example, for role players who like nature, how does it feel to get food rewards when you know food is trash? Does it make your game better and more diverse? To me it makes me feel dumb and disappointed.

The mess that the balance is right now kills the fun for everyone, single player, multiplayer, role playing, strategy. Devs should listen to the (sadly tiny) multiplayer community for balance because that's where balance can get improved and make the game better for everyone, like they do for warhammer.

 

[seperamos]

Just another thought, if army support skills MUST be granted to giants and dragons, then they should ONLY apply to giants and dragons units. From t1/t3 weaklings to the fully grown monsters of t5 caliber.

It keeps their army support unique but limited to certain types of units. I believe supergrowth and draconic transformation could be abused if that were to happen though. Hmmm...

 

[Astronlmo]

As far as PvP goes, it doesn't really take competitive, optimized play for issues to crop up. A few weeks ago I got into my first PvP situation, since I normally play single player or ally with my fellow players. And the other player got steamrolled when I attacked him with stacked warbreeds. There wasn't much he could do to stop me. All it took was picking a strong unit and focusing on it.

And your case implies that Warbreed are OP AF and need a nerf.
However, your opponent could have prepared and use pikemen to counter you (like ancient wardens or templars). But he didn't, because he didn't scout your first, didn't saw you massing warbreeds and so on. Because he didn't care.

For example, in SC2 baneling bust can delete your game if you don't prepare (tanks, bunkers, ready for repair SCV), but you can prepare only if you see baneling nest and zerglings with movement. Without it, the first idea would be "it's OP and we should nerf it for the sake of Balance!".

What I want to say, that just because something worked in one case, doesn't mean it will always work. And flat tuning numbers won't fix something, especially when it's not broken. Currently, the only thing the game really needs is fixing economy, everything else is just a symptom of that issue. And whining about monostacking, bad balance and some other crap won't help, without solving the main issue. Economy, and players exploiting it.

 

[Codyksp]

Oh. Huh. That kinda makes them bitching about balance in the game a bit of an eyebrow raiser then.

Astronimo likes to complain about multiplayer as a whole, I wouldn't take him too serious.
When someone enters the conversation fully biased against the topic, there's no point.

I speak to multiple communities and I always speak from an unmodded PoV when posting.
I hang out with people like WinSlaya and Guthuk, who have their own MP communities.
And wouldn't you know it, both of them make content and have done so by request too.

If you seriously engage with either of them you'll quickly find out there are balance issues.
There is another group run by Kaige, but he has made a ton of mods as well, due to issues.
The same as my own community, they would literally uninstall without my balance mod.

Though when the MPers bitch about how swingy stuff like Landmarks and Trainers are... just... turn them off? Isn't that part of the realm traits?

So we just can't enjoy these toys because they can only exist as OP? How to alienate your players 101.

Anecdotal evidence, I fully understand but. But I really do feel like Archers and Supports are inferior. This is even more evident in the late game as well. Did you know that there are Eight Tier 4 Battlemages and Seven Tier 4 Shock Units? Fighters only have 4 Tiers 4, all of which are Greater Animals, Polearm, Skirmisher and Shield have a measly 1, and Archers/Supports have a grand nothing?

Which is a point I've brought up multiple times. But they don't build content for balance (i.e. balancing the unit choices).
New content is always built for be a new, shiny, eye catching release that draws in new players and sells game copies.
I know it sounds jaded, but in the end this is the truth. They are a company and they have to put bread on their tables.

Still. That doesn't mean we can't try to balance out units and tomes when creating new ones.

Extra Range struggles with accuracy penalties, doesn't it? Maybe it should be +1 Range, +20% accuracy instead? And yeah, restoring 2 turn cooldown for Battlemage AoOs could help make them less of an issue too.

FYI Battle Mages aren't even a problem. They don't need any kind of nerfs right now, they're not even top dogs.
It's as I mentioned at the start, Astronimo is not someone who is even remotely involved in multiplayer communities.

Ideally, I would like to see Giant kings be strong individual fighters, with no special army buffs that champs should have. I dont believe they have access to command skills.They SHOULD have skills trees that emphasize either fighting melee, range, crafting, or teraforming/building. They can mix them up, but they can master only one area. Idk if this is the case yet because I have not tried giant ruler for now.

They can literally craft an item and pick a Signature Skill that buffs their army.
They can craft an item that summons a strong unit in combat.
They have tons of direct combat power from their personal skill tree.
They have an extremely strong economy via terraforming and governor bonuses.
They have weapons that beat any other weapon type in the game.

They do everything and are probably the best at any class except maybe Mage (Eldritch wins here).

Dragons with wings should use mobility and spells/breath for ranged attacks before closing with enemy units in melee. They can fly from one area of the battlefield to the other. Dragons without wings would either focus on melee skills, economy, or magical ranged breath or spell attacks. They can be just as powerful of not more than giant rulers, depending on if they focus on melee, magic, or economy.

Every unit gets 48 movement in combat, courtesy of Hastened. So your only benefit is Flying.
The Dragon Lord skill tree is actually very bad outside of the Breath options.
The Dragon Lord governor bonus is a joke, based around Gold and building Mines.
They have no army bonuses. Their combat power is weaker than a Giant King.
Their economy is barely better than Champion/Wizard King/Eldritch Sovereign.

They used to be good as a strong combat ruler with decent economy. Now they're not.

Giant Kings and dragons don't need to gain army support skills, they attempt to be either the best fighters, spellcasters, seigers, crafter, or builders they can be. They should be able to focus on one of three areas available to them. This will drastically increase available strategies and gameplay experience.

We agree on wanting a better gameplay experience, but equal combat stats in base forms can't be the solution here.

I never asked for equal stats. Not once have I said this should be changed. I don't know why you thought this.
I also didn't say Dragon Lord needs army skills. I said they should be a combat ruler with some economy.


To be perfectly straight forward, anyone who complains, yet doesn't play MP at all has no right to do so.
Why? Because you begin to talk about subjects you have no experience with. That's just not logical.
How can you know the issues or the way games play out if you've never stepped foot into this world?

Imagine I was a car salesman and I started to talk about how to repair refrigerators... Like... What?

 

[seperamos]

And your case implies that Warbreed are OP AF and need a nerf.
However, your opponent could have prepared and use pikemen to counter you (like ancient wardens or templars). But he didn't, because he didn't scout your first, didn't saw you massing warbreeds and so on. Because he didn't care.

For example, in SC2 bameling bust can delete your game if you don't prepare (tanks, bunkers, ready for repair SCV), but you can prepare only if you see baneling nest and zerglings with movement. Without it, the first idea would be "it's OP and we should nerf it for the sake of Balance!".

What I want to say, that just because something worked in one case, doesn't mean it will always work. And flat tuning numbers won't fix something, especially when it's not broken. Currently, the only thing the game really needs is fixing economy, everything else is just a symptom of that issue. And whining about monostacking, bad balance and some other crap won't help, without solving the main issue. Economy, and players exploiting it.

Warbreed spam is another issue brought up in the monostacking thread that contends cultural t4 units are best units because of their limitless enchant and transformation potential.

Some see it as an issue involving too few culture units and strategies available to counter tome units.

 

[Codyksp]

And your case implies that Warbreed are OP AF and need a nerf.
However, your opponent could have prepared and use pikemen to counter you (like ancient wardens or templars). But he didn't, because he didn't scout your first, didn't saw you massing warbreeds and so on. Because he didn't care.

For example, in SC2 bameling bust can delete your game if you don't prepare (tanks, bunkers, ready for repair SCV), but you can prepare only if you see baneling nest and zerglings with movement. Without it, the first idea would be "it's OP and we should nerf it for the sake of Balance!".

So tell me. How, in a TURN BASED STRATEGY (so not real time like StarCraft) can you adapt your strategy in time?
How can I just reroll my culture for Primal? How can I just pick up 3 Chaos/Order affinity when I have 0 of both?

Do you even read the suggestions you are making?

 

[Arcantos_the_Storyteller]

I speak to multiple communities and I always speak from an unmodded PoV when posting.
I hang out with people like WinSlaya and Guthuk, who have their own MP communities.
And wouldn't you know it, both of them make content and have done so by request too.

If you seriously engage with either of them you'll quickly find out there are balance issues.
There is another group run by Kaige, but he has made a ton of mods as well, due to issues.
The same as my own community, they would literally uninstall without my balance mod.

Alright, fair enough.

So we just can't enjoy these toys because they can only exist as OP? How to alienate your players 101.

No, you can enjoy the toys. Just, enjoy them in single player. If a game is SP focused, and a new, optional addition to the game is proving to be problematic in the MP. Then, just, don't play them in MP? That's not alienating the players 101. That's building cool stuff for more of your players 101.

FYI Battle Mages aren't even a problem. They don't need any kind of nerfs right now, they're not even top dogs.
It's as I mentioned at the start, Astronimo is not someone who is even remotely involved in multiplayer communities.

Tbf, the suggestion was less about nerfing the Battlemages for the sake of if, and more finding a way to help the other ranged unit, archers, get stronger in comparision.

The Dragon Lord governor bonus is a joke, based around Gold and building Mines.

Yeah... I like the idea of the different ruler types getting different governer bonuses. But I really don't like how the Dragon Lord, that already has a pretty decent gold economy, gains even more gold with their governer bonus, it really is badly executed.

Honestly, should have called back to the Ancient Governer abilities pre-rework and made us good at research. Maybe a mix of gold and research? The Wizard can be Mana and Research to get new spells and stuff.

You scout other rulers and plan around what you expect their build to be, that’s like saying in Pokémon the game is ruined because your pikachu can’t take on the rock gym. Get some different damage types and adapt knowing there’s other gyms/rulers with completely different affinity builds and units out there. Losing one battle shouldn’t make you lose your entire campaign unless you planned poorly

Does... does that even work?

 

[seperamos]

Astronimo likes to complain about multiplayer as a whole, I wouldn't take him too serious.
When someone enters the conversation fully biased against the topic, there's no point.

I speak to multiple communities and I always speak from an unmodded PoV when posting.
I hang out with people like WinSlaya and Guthuk, who have their own MP communities.
And wouldn't you know it, both of them make content and have done so by request too.

If you seriously engage with either of them you'll quickly find out there are balance issues.
There is another group run by Kaige, but he has made a ton of mods as well, due to issues.
The same as my own community, they would literally uninstall without my balance mod.


So we just can't enjoy these toys because they can only exist as OP? How to alienate your players 101.


Which is a point I've brought up multiple times. But they don't build content for balance (i.e. balancing the unit choices).
New content is always built for be a new, shiny, eye catching release that draws in new players and sells game copies.
I know it sounds jaded, but in the end this is the truth. They are a company and they have to put bread on their tables.

Still. That doesn't mean we can't try to balance out units and tomes when creating new ones.


FYI Battle Mages aren't even a problem. They don't need any kind of nerfs right now, they're not even top dogs.
It's as I mentioned at the start, Astronimo is not someone who is even remotely involved in multiplayer communities.


They can literally craft an item and pick a Signature Skill that buffs their army.
They can craft an item that summons a strong unit in combat.
They have tons of direct combat power from their personal skill tree.
They have an extremely strong economy via terraforming and governor bonuses.
They have weapons that beat any other weapon type in the game.

They do everything and are probably the best at any class except maybe Mage (Eldritch wins here).


Every unit gets 48 movement in combat, courtesy of Hastened. So your only benefit is Flying.
The Dragon Lord skill tree is actually very bad outside of the Breath options.
The Dragon Lord governor bonus is a joke, based around Gold and building Mines.
They have no army bonuses. Their combat power is weaker than a Giant King.
Their economy is barely better than Champion/Wizard King/Eldritch Sovereign.

They used to be good as a strong combat ruler with decent economy. Now they're not.


I never asked for equal stats. Not once have I said this should be changed. I don't know why you thought this.
I also didn't say Dragon Lord needs army skills. I said they should be a combat ruler with some economy.


To be perfectly straight forward, anyone who complains, yet doesn't play MP at all has no right to do so.
Why? Because you begin to talk about subjects you have no experience with. That's just not logical.
How can you know the issues or the way games play out if you've never stepped foot into this world?

Imagine I was a car salesman and I started to talk about how to repair refrigerators... Like... What?

Im also going to be brutally honest here as well, just because you play multiplayer and can mod the game doesn't mean you can dismiss the opinions of other players. This game shouldn't be conformed to the opinions of one player, but reach the widest audience possible and allow them to express their creativity within a reasonable range of asymmetrical balance. I would like to invite winslaya and guthuk to the discussion here so they can have some input at this official thread on the official site. We need more people willing to break out the hard data and numbers so they can be within a reasonable range.

The best way to move forward in helping developers with designing this game is to reach as much of a consensus as possible with the majority of players that are texting in official forums about their issues. The perfect way to do this is through surveys, polls, and upvotes/downvotes. Dismissing the opinions of players that do not fit into the multiplayer or modding communities leaves out the very large casual community that purchased this game to spend a few hours escaping political meltdowns before going back to their high school, college, or 9 to 5.

Perfect balance is going to be impossible, and we have a decent asymmetrical balance with rulers as it is now. But perhaps you want rulers to manipulate certain resources better than others? I could see dragons producing +50 gold over +25 gold for champs. I could see +50 mana available for WKs while champs, as the baseline, get +25 mana. I could also see Eldritches getting +50 knowledge/Mana over champs. Giants, +50 production compared to other. But if champs focus on economy skills over combat skills, they too could possible match the boosted economies of the other rulers.

But economic advantage should depend on ruler type, ruler focus, culture, and culture traits. There should not be a clear parallel to every ruler. Perhaps giant crafting bonus could be restricted to giant specific items.

But the community should voice their inputs on it, every voice should be heard and considered when the future of this game and it's future seasons are at stake.

 

[Codyksp]

No, you can enjoy the toys. Just, enjoy them in single player. If a game is SP focused, and a new, optional addition to the game is proving to be problematic in the MP. Then, just, don't play them in MP? That's not alienating the players 101. That's building cool stuff for more of your players 101.

You're missing the point though. The MP community doesn't play SP because the AI is absolutely no challenge.
You need to understand why we play MP to understand what we enjoy and what the driving force behind it is.

We want to play with Landmarks, and Shops, and Happenings, and Dwellings. We like the change of pace.
But we do not want them to catapult 1 player to infinite power and make them unable to be toppled.

You scout other rulers and plan around what you expect their build to be, that’s like saying in Pokémon the game is ruined because your pikachu can’t take on the rock gym. Get some different damage types and adapt knowing there’s other gyms/rulers with completely different affinity builds and units out there. Losing one battle shouldn’t make you lose your entire campaign unless you planned poorly

So my opponent is going for a Shock army. I have to somehow obtain a Polearm unit. I am playing Mystic.
My choices are Bronze Golem and Pyre Templar. Neither one matches my current affinity or tome choices.

Fine. I sacrifice my build plan to pick up some Bronze Golems. They're 32 movement, non-racial and I have no bonus for them.
My opponent proceeds to crush me with racial T3 Shock units, let's say Avengers. Because it was his plan from the very start.

What am I trying to say? The player who built Shock units was all-in on them, with a fully optimised build from the get-go.
I had to meanwhile pivot my build and have far less bonuses for my units. So despite the "counter" I still end up losing.

 

[seperamos]

My concern in this game is primarily wargaming with custom factions and having the units and cultures necessary to dominate everything in the realm, sometimes by diplomacy, mostly by warfare.

Rulers and heroes are the most important units in every army, so we need to decide if we want parallel balance or asymmetrical balance for them, and how they can be better implemented if they are not already. I wish we had this debate BEFORE the hero rework...

Once heroes and rulers are at a a decent state of balance, we can move on to units and lack thereof.

 

[Dreepa]

So tell me. How, in a TURN BASED STRATEGY (so not real time like StarCraft) can you adapt your strategy in time?
How can I just reroll my culture for Primal? How can I just pick up 3 Chaos/Order affinity when I have 0 of both?

Do you even read the suggestions you are making?

That analogy is relevant.

There isn't really a difference whether you tech wrong in an rts or tbs.

In each cases if you go scissors and enemy goes rock you're near done. There is no difference if you have 2 min in realtime game to turn the game around or if you have 20 turns in a turn based game.


The principles are the same: Scout, disrupt your opponent while playing the counter to his strat, going eco boom when dominating or rushing his weakness when he's going long term.

The only thing taken out if the equation is dexterity. And when balancing RTS that aspect is always considered to be on par so irrelevant

 

[Codyksp]

But the community should voice their inputs on it, every voice should be heard and considered when the future of this game and it's future seasons are at stake.

I never said you can't have opinions on the game. But if you don't play multiplayer how can you claim to know about it?
To be able to meaningfully contribute to a discussion you have to actually understand the complexities of the topic.
When I talk about how PvP battles play out and what the struggles of our community are, are you able to understand?

You can still have opinions on all kinds of topics that would influence your single player sessions, like actual changes.
Once details are being discussed, everyone can contribute input from their own perspective. This is totally fine.
But people in this thread are screaming bloody murder just at the drop of the word balance. As if the game will implode.

90% of the MP community has stopped giving any feedback because they feel like they're talking to wall. It's unfortunate.
I am putting myself forward, stepping into the crosshairs of your anti MP guns, to represent at least my own community.
I know there are people here who just press X and who antagonise me just for the sake of it, without providing arguments.

But I will never stop trying to reach the people who might be able to do something.

That analogy is relevant.

There isn't really a difference whether you tech wrong in an rts or tbs.

In each cases if you go scissors and enemy goes rock you're near done. There is no difference if you have 2 min in realtime game to turn the game around or if you have 20 turns in a turn based game.


The principles are the same: Scout, disrupt your opponent while playing the counter to his strat, going eco boom when dominating or rushing his weakness when he's going long term.

The only thing taken out if the equation is dexterity. And when balancing RTS that aspect is always considered to be on par so irrelevant

You're forgetting one crucial detail. In Age of Wonders 4 you make a lot of very influential choices pre-game.

• Form Traits
• Society Traits
• Culture
• Ruler (and their Class)
• Starting Tome

None of these can be adjusted. This makes a lot of Form Traits and Society Traits a trap.

Let's say I go for Arcane Focus or Strong, but I need a unit that doesn't benefit from this.
Or what if I go for a mounted trait but end up needing a unit that is unable to use mounts?

What this ends up doing is forcing a super bland "cover your bases" experience.
Which is exactly why Tough+Resistant were picked in 90% of the MP games.

The same reason everyone now picks Giant King.
The same reason everyone still picks Fabled Hunters.

Do you see the point I am trying to make? This game is about as flexible as a steel rod.

 

[Gali77]

You mp guys got the avenger and peacekeeper nerfed primal was heavily nerfed wizard kings were nerfed and on and on. so many games where mp whined so our toys got crushed by the nerf hammer again and again and again.

They should buff other rulers. Champions are god awful now the only unique thing they have is to give one unit an extra turn like maybe twice big deal. They have no economic bonuses and are incredibly weak in combat especially with the massive nerf to the item forge. I would give their 20% xp bonus to all their units and add a universal rank bonus to their tier 4 governor trait. Then remove all that standing next to each other limitation to their army buff line. That plus their signature skills would make their army a lot stronger with no forging cost. Also give their 20 city stability back. The champions are better at running the empire since they are actually much more attuned to the race and command and train their armies much better

For wizard kings just buff their casting points again so they get 50 points more again. that plus channeling ritual would make them a threat with a lot more spells and more powerful ones.

For dragons give them roar by default and buff their governor trait or their hoard and realy people don't think tail swipe especially now that it ahs a useful upgrade is good.

We have seen the patchnotes for 1.2 just nerfs to GK and nothing to boost the others

 

[seperamos]

I never said you can't have opinions on the game. But if you don't play multiplayer how can you claim to know about it?
To be able to meaningfully contribute to a discussion you have to actually understand the complexities of the topic.
When I talk about how PvP battles play out and what the struggles of our community are, are you able to understand?

What do you and your "community" want multiplayer to be like, cody? This game doesn't have a great MP lobby system like classic BNET did. I can't show off my prized pantheon member as an avatar to other MP players, so what really is the point to this parallel balance request?? Why can't giants choose to be either good at crafting, good at combat, or good at a specific economy? They don't get casting points like WK or ES get access to, and that's FINE.[/QUOTE]

You can still have opinions on all kinds of topics that would influence your single player sessions, like actual changes.
Once details are being discussed, everyone can contribute input from their own perspective. This is totally fine.
But people in this thread are screaming bloody murder just at the drop of the word balance. As if the game will implode.

It depends on the type of balance you are trying to achieve. It's insane to think a base halfling champ should hit for the same damage as a giant warrior, defender, Spellblade, or death knight!

Dragons and giants are great counters for each other in melee combat. They don't have to be the same as the rest of the rulers.

90% of the MP community has stopped giving any feedback because they feel like they're talking to wall. It's unfortunate.
I am putting myself forward, stepping into the crosshairs of your anti MP guns, to represent at least my own community.
I know there are people here who just press X and who antagonise me just for the sake of it, without providing arguments.

People who dont participate don't get a say in future developments. Choices shouldn't be reduced for the sake of players who will optimize no matter what updates are given or taken away. MP will always optimize. We all just want MORE options and strategies that CAN be optimized.

But I will never stop trying to reach the people who might be able to do something.

Good, but be aware that other players may have different feelings to your personal notions of balance. Your ideas will affect not only multiplayer but single player and current battle strategies. These are even more drastic changes than what has currently been done so far.

You're forgetting one crucial detail. In Age of Wonders 4 you make a lot of very influential choices pre-game.

• Form Traits
• Society Traits
• Culture
• Ruler (and their Class)
• Starting Tome

None of these can be adjusted. This makes a lot of Form Traits and Society Traits a trap.

Let's say I go for Arcane Focus or Strong, but I need a unit that doesn't benefit from this.
Or what if I go for a mounted trait but end up needing a unit that is unable to use mounts?

What this ends up doing is forcing a super bland "cover your bases" experience.
Which is exactly why Tough+Resistant were picked in 90% of the MP games.

The same reason everyone now picks Giant King.
The same reason everyone still pick Fabled Hunters.

Do you see the point I am trying to make? This game is about as flexible as a steel rod.

There's only so much that can be done to appease both single players and multiplayers. There has to be a definitive power scaling which the tier system does a good job of doing. Rulers will affect economy, themselves, and in the case of champs at least, other units. Rulers must be symmetrically balanced compared to each other, with pros and cons that make sense for each one.

Perhaps giant crafting bonus should be restricted for giant only items? Perhaps rulers can have their own crafting systems? The community must unite and decide by votes or inputs in the best way to move forward. There's no reason why we can't have common sense consensus for single and multiplayer games.

 

[$ilent_$trider]

Also for example, for role players who like nature, how does it feel to get food rewards when you know food is trash? Does it make your game better and more diverse? To me it makes me feel dumb and disappointed.

Food allows you to expand your cities faster which allows you to build mor province improvements and special province improvements?
Nature/Chaos (Barbarians) can be quite scary as they can have a rush early game as well. (that being said, I would like for more Nature tomes that are not animal related, which we are slowly getting them...)