PDA

View Full Version : Kills with a shieldbanger type vs. other types



Jawbone78
03-03-2013, 12:39 PM
I have a question about using my shieldmaster that I'm sure applies to other shieldbanger types: What is your approach to collecting kills?

What I mean is that the other units, for the most part, are well equipped to kill and be in a position to kill enemy units, but my shieldmaster seems most effective as a tank. He rarely gets a kill, mostly because I'm finding it so advantageous to use him offensively as an armor-breaker rather than as a damager - not to mention the early-game advantage of maiming rather than killing.

As a result, my archer-types and warrior-types have enormous kill totals, but my poor shieldmaster doesn't have many more than he had when I promoted him.

Am I doing it wrong?

erom
03-03-2013, 12:53 PM
People keep trying to pin this problem on different unit types (see the identical thread about raiders, for example) but really all I think is going on is that it is difficult to promote whatever unit you use as your early game shock troop, whether that's the fast rush warrior to shock their formation, or the tanky shieldbanger/raidmaster you move up as the anchor for your mid game formation.

I don't think you are doing anything wrong, Jawbone, I think this is just an emergent behavior of Factions gameplay - your lead elements tend not to get kills. The units you sweep in to clean up get kills.

In theory you could solve this problem by making promotions based on dealing X damage instead of doing X kills. Not sure if it's a large enough problem to warrant it - you did, after all, eventually get your shieldbanger promoted.

Slimsy Platypus
03-03-2013, 01:08 PM
Jawbone - to echo erom here, what you're stating is an issue that many players seem to be having with their unit's that are more used to set up kills rather than get the kills themselves.

I like erom's idea of adjusting the system a bit. But it might be even easier for the developers if they had a way to determine, what the average number of kills a certain class has historically gotten per game. At that point they can adjust the kills required to whatever number of games is deemed acceptable for a promotion. For example, since Warriors and Archers easily can rack up kills, maybe they should get promoted after 7 kills, while Shieldbangers and Raiders who can sometimes struggle, they can get promoted after 3 kills (arbitrary numbers used here).

Alternatively, perhaps getting the kills can be a shortcut to promotion and as a secondary measure the number of games the unit has played in can be used (since this is already logged anyway). Say my Raider has been along just as long as my 20 kill Warrior, but he has only gotten 2 kills. Lore-wise he is just as experienced a fighter, so why not allow him to be promoted after say 15 games (also an arbitrarily chosen number).

As always - simply food for thought

raven2134
03-03-2013, 05:53 PM
Reopened the thread while we check why this was closed. Sorry about that.

Rillip
03-03-2013, 05:58 PM
I like the system the way it is. It creates an incentive to try new strategies rather than doing the same thing over and over again. If you need kills with your shieldbanger try holding him back till later in the game. You might be surprised at how this turns out.

Wordplay
03-03-2013, 06:05 PM
Raw shieldbangers do seem to rack up kills more slowly, and shieldbanger advance classes will probably rack up kills slowly if they're built as tanks.

If I field shieldbangers advance classes, I tend to build them with a bit more strength - that way they can do front line fighting, whilst still doing some tanking. The great thing is that people train themselves to think of shieldbangers as tanks, not threats, so sometimes they're ignored until they start racking up damage. The disadvantage is that they're no longer as good at tanking - though they are often good at mopping up crippled units at the endgame.

Even then, I find Shieldbangers and their advance classes accumulate kills more slowly, but not so slowly that it hinders promotion (considering how long it takes to collect 50 renown).

With rank 2 and 3 abilities, it'll probably depend on how many kills are required. 20-50 I'd say is very achievable for a shieldbanger - might need a little extra effort. If it's something like 100 for rank 3 WH, WM, TH, BB, will be first to be promoted, followed by archer classes and WL. Shieldbanger classes will be last. Then I think it would definitely need to be looked at.

quartex
03-03-2013, 06:24 PM
I agree that different numbers of kills to get ranks 1, 2, and 3 for each unit type would be a good thing. Archers get a majority of kills and this should be reflected in the upgrade requirements.

Jawbone78
03-03-2013, 09:42 PM
Thanks raven!

Rillip - Do you have experience with that strategy? I'm curious as to what experiences others have had. I don't see how that could be effective, but I won't know until I try, I suppose. I do have a level 0 Shieldbanger sitting around now, so maybe I'll take my Warrior out and put in my Shieldmaster (don't want to stray too far off yet) to tank, and see how the Shieldbanger handles the damager/mop-up role.

Jawbone78
03-03-2013, 09:46 PM
I agree that different numbers of kills to get ranks 1, 2, and 3 for each unit type would be a good thing. Archers get a majority of kills and this should be reflected in the upgrade requirements.

That's a good idea. I wouldn't want them to be too far apart, but different kill numbers for different roles sounds like a fair plan.

I suppose it could also change if/when we see healing units join the game. The difference between tanking in BS:F as opposed to most other games is that you don't have someone sitting in the back buffing and healing the tank.

Anodai
03-04-2013, 07:56 PM
In my opinion, the Shieldbanger isn't on the team to get kills, at least not first and foremost. He's a tank/support character. The Provoker and Strongarm both have abilities that, if situational, help either protect your guys or set up advantageous positions. I've played against a provoker that simultaneously blocked the path to his archer and kept my high STR Warmaster tied down for multiple turn cycles. The Strongarm is great for getting a dangerous unit out of the way, clearing a path to more vulnerable units, etc. I played against someone today who hurled a protected Raidmaster at me on the level with the two little posts on either side, delaying the same high STR Warmaster for a couple turns.
If you need kills after rank 1 try building him less tanky. 9/15/4/2/2 for a Strongarm, for example. Thats stronger than a regular Warrior.
Touched upon here is the issue of kills with lower level units, though. I've thrown a novice raider in my current party in an attempt to raise him into a Backbiter, but he never gets any kills in the 5th level party bracket. I've heard from others that the best thing to do is to get a party of all rank 0 characters, but that seems in poor taste...

Bork
03-04-2013, 08:29 PM
I don't think people should be having problems getting to rank 1 with shieldbangers. I could see this being an issue if higher ranks require large number of kills, but 5 is very manageable. I've played 30 games and my shieldbanger has 28 kills without going out of my way to get them.

Jawbone78
03-05-2013, 01:06 AM
Getting to 5 is absolutely no problem for any unit, as long as you're playing against other rank 0 units. It gets a lot tougher at higher levels though.

Still, right now there's only rank one. I'm more concerned about ranks 2 and 3. It's ridiculously easy to get your warrior-types and archer-types enough kills, a little less so for raider-types (depending on the type and how you set your stats), but really tough for any of the shieldbanger-types. Not really the biggest deal now, but it will be once the higher levels become available.

RobertTheScott
03-05-2013, 01:54 AM
I finally got a third raider to rank 1--it took me around 7-8 games to get him five kills. I finally solved my problem by making tactically-questionable decisions (hide my raider behind a raidmaster and besides a shieldbanger, then purposefully get people to 1 health to let him mop up.)

As much as I enjoyed the feeling of accomplishment when he got his fifth kill (and on an archer, no less!), I felt bad playing game after game against newbs. I tried to be polite and give advice, but had one guy surrender right out the gate, and another lose with only 1 or 2 kills and an excessive amount of frustration. Moral: next time I'm buying experienced raiders, so I can skip directly to playing with the big boys.

Zahar
03-05-2013, 02:19 AM
People keep trying to pin this problem on different unit types (see the identical thread about raiders, for example) but really all I think is going on is that it is difficult to promote whatever unit you use as your early game shock troop, whether that's the fast rush warrior to shock their formation, or the tanky shieldbanger/raidmaster you move up as the anchor for your mid game formation.

I don't think you are doing anything wrong, Jawbone, I think this is just an emergent behavior of Factions gameplay - your lead elements tend not to get kills. The units you sweep in to clean up get kills.

In theory you could solve this problem by making promotions based on dealing X damage instead of doing X kills. Not sure if it's a large enough problem to warrant it - you did, after all, eventually get your shieldbanger promoted.

While I agree it's not a huge problem, it could be made better. Total damage - armor included - instead of kills could be a solutuion; I know I'll have a hard time reaching rank 3 with my provokers (and they will be much better with 3 range taunt)...

Jawbone78
03-05-2013, 01:11 PM
I finally got a third raider to rank 1--it took me around 7-8 games to get him five kills. I finally solved my problem by making tactically-questionable decisions (hide my raider behind a raidmaster and besides a shieldbanger, then purposefully get people to 1 health to let him mop up.)

As much as I enjoyed the feeling of accomplishment when he got his fifth kill (and on an archer, no less!), I felt bad playing game after game against newbs. I tried to be polite and give advice, but had one guy surrender right out the gate, and another lose with only 1 or 2 kills and an excessive amount of frustration. Moral: next time I'm buying experienced raiders, so I can skip directly to playing with the big boys.

I know what you mean. I'm training up a whole new squad of zeroes right now, and while I've only played maybe four or five matches with the new loadout, they were all against fresh meat. I also tried to be gracious and helpful, but it feels like a pretty tight rope to walk to be helpful and offer advice while mopping the floor with them (though one guy took advantage of my overconfidence to serve me up a pretty humiliating loss).

In my case, part of the problem might be my ridiculously low ranking. I only recently got back up over 1000 after getting badly thrashed over my first 30 or so games. I'm still not back to an even win ratio. Because new players start with 1000 (right?), I'm getting matched against people who are literally still learning the basic mechanics, to say nothing at all for strategy.

For some reason, it never occurred to me to focus on buying new units at 50 rather than 10. Having that option is making a lot more sense now than it did when I first joined.

RobertTheScott
03-05-2013, 01:18 PM
In my case, part of the problem might be my ridiculously low ranking. I only recently got back up over 1000 after getting badly thrashed over my first 30 or so games. I'm still not back to an even win ratio. Because new players start with 1000 (right?), I'm getting matched against people who are literally still learning the basic mechanics, to say nothing at all for strategy.

I'm over 1200, and still get matched against rank newbs.

Wordplay
03-05-2013, 02:10 PM
I find my raiders get most of the kills, followed by Warriors, followed by archers and Shieldbangers. Of course, I field more raiders than warriors, but even so, my leading unit for kills is a raider. My Strongarm is averaging about a kill per match without any special effort.

Like I said - depends on the level 2 and 3 kill thresholds. I doubt that they'll be implemented for some weeks yet, though. If it were Lvl 1 - 5, lvl 2 - 10, lvl 3 - 15, or even 20, I really can't see a problem. Playing casually, should be able to fill out several shieldbanger classes to those figures, long before lvl 2 & 3 are implemented.

I guess we won't know whether it's likely to be an issue or not, until Stoic let on roughly what they're thinking with kill boundaries...

If the kill thresholds are very high, then they probably should be variable for different base classes - but I'm sure Stoic would implement that, if that was the feedback that they were getting. I expect the kill boundaries may move a bit, to help find the right level.

Again, this issue is particular to the Shieldbanger, I think. Other classes, I can't really see the need. Some say it's raiders, some say archers, or others warriors that get the most kills. I guess it varies quite substantially for different play styles and builds - in fact I often use the kill ratios of my opponents to work out their strategy (Bowmaster with a disproportionate number of kills is a red flag, given my style of play).

Jawbone78
03-05-2013, 03:11 PM
... in fact I often use the kill ratios of my opponents to work out their strategy (Bowmaster with a disproportionate number of kills is a red flag, given my style of play).

You know those things that seem so obvious after you've seen it, but probably never would have occurred to you otherwise? This is one of those. Bam. Thanks, Wordplay!

RadioactiveMan
03-05-2013, 10:51 PM
Just to be different, my Strongarm just cracked 100 kills, and is my kill leader. The rest of the team has around 30 to 60 kills each, for comparison.

The far more important criteria for kills is position in your lineup, which was mentioned at the top of this thread.