PDA

View Full Version : Unit Cap Idea/Suggestion/Request



Yellow
03-04-2013, 02:33 PM
Ok, first than all, this ain't a whining or hating thread(maybe a bitt of whining?). I might not be a "pro", but i know my stuff to a satisfactory degree(am on top 20 on most wins, and top 15 on most games played)

With that said:

From my humble point of view, Unit Cap for the same unit category should be reduced to 3 in stead of 5.

This would eliminate the amount of cheese i'm seen in the past 2 days, by a great amount. Teams of 4 riders 2 varls(4bb + 2 strong arms/ 4 trashers + 2 warhawnk, etc), are in mayor or minor degree a bitt unbalanced and can be OP unless on particular maps or vs particular builds.... This adding a degree of luck(map u play at and build u got) on matchmaching that should not be there.

Sure, such builds are not witown vulneravilities, they do have weakness and still require some amount of skills to use them, after all positioning in this game plays a Big KEY! But in the hands of an average player they can be pretty much op, thus reduce the skill the player needs to win with such a build and unfairly increasing the skill the opponent needs to counter it.

I am a person who likes to play fair and enjoy having a balanced army composition, no matter what game i play i allways live by my own code, ofcourse i can not spect everybody to do the same, and diversity on the army builds is ultimatelly something i enjoy.
I'm sure it would be boring facing mirrow armies all the times, but, there is a big diference between playing vs a guy who got "2 Varls, 1 archer and 3 raiders", to playing vs someone that brought 4 riders and 2 Varls.... Making the last one, a very unpleasant game experience 80% of the times....... believe it or not that 1 extra unit has a hugge weight...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Resumen:

-Reduce the Raider Cap to 3 from 5
-Reduce the Archer Cap to 3 from 5(this was included because i have seen people complaining about it, not from a personal point of view)

As an alternative:

-Add a "same unit(same promotion)Cap of 2.

This way the game would be more balanced and enjojable while still allowing a good diversity of builds and matchups.

PS: Feel free to leave ur opinion below, just make sure to keep it mathure.

piotras
03-04-2013, 03:40 PM
Hmmm, I can see your point about more variety in builds. I did suggest during he beta to have a cap of 3 units of the same type (and by that I mean the promotion, so no 4 THs or BBs, but by what I suggest 4 mixed raiders would be still acceptable, so it's less strict than what you advise).

I understand that things can get ugly when you fight against 4 raiders, but these builds are not unbeatable. SS, SA, PR, also warriors can easy mess up an all melee team and I know that from my own experience of running such build (however I'm not running 4 identical Raiders which I also find rather lame). In terms of 4 archers.. hmm, very hard to say. Never played it, but I've played against it and I do find it a very risky build, where everything is dependant on the SS success or failure of zone control.

But to be honest, if I was to drop any 4 raider (including 2 x 2 types mix) team for the sake of more interesting build I would gladly do that. Especially that after addition of spearmen and other classes the all-melee build variant would still be possible to accomplish.

Yellow
03-04-2013, 03:48 PM
Hmmm, I can see your point about more variety in builds. I did suggest during he beta to have a cap of 3 units of the same type (and by that I mean the promotion, so no 4 THs or BBs, but by what I suggest 4 mixed raiders would be still acceptable, so it's less strict than what you advise).

I understand that things can get ugly when you fight against 4 raiders, but these builds are not unbeatable. SS, SA, PR, also warriors can easy mess up an all melee team and I know that from my own experience of running such build (however I'm not running 4 identical Raiders which I also find rather lame). In terms of 4 archers.. hmm, very hard to say. Never played it, but I've played against it and I do find it a very risky build, where everything is dependant on the SS success or failure of zone control.

But to be honest, if I was to drop any 4 raider (including 2 x 2 types mix) team for the sake of more interesting build I would gladly do that. Especially that after addition of spearmen and other classes the all-melee build variant would still be possible to accomplish.

Caping to 3 of the same promotion would work aswell, as for when i said "raider" was for being more general, and not having to say, 4 backbiters, 4 trashers, 4 raidmasters.. ect ect. That would be as u said less restrictive, but if i have to pick, i still pick max 3 of the same category ^^)

And yes i never said such builds were unbeatable, since at the end of the day all builds have their own strenght and weakness, but it is, as u self said, kinda lame having to face a guy who brings 4 Backbiters + 2 Strongarms for example, and a lot comes down to what map u fighting on and what units u brought urself... This adding a lot of luck to the matchmaking as i previosly said, cos u never know what ur oponent might bring, so if u decide to run a defensive anty-melle build, u might be handicaping urself if u get matched vs something else, the same applies the other way around.

Regarding the Archers, to be honest i have never faced anybody using more than 3 archers in total so far, so i personally dont have any issues with them but i added it to the list cos i have heard of people complaining about such builds, + i can inmagine how it could be somehow frustrating playing vs such builds sometimes.

piotras
03-04-2013, 04:16 PM
Well, I need to admit one thing. It's really not fun to play against someone using 4 identical units. That sort of play creates the need of having 'anti-builds' to counter it etc... I would rather see interesting mixed builds, where everyone have a chance rather than battles filled with 'build A', 'anti-A build', 'build B', 'anti-build B' etc ;P

erom
03-04-2013, 04:26 PM
There is no indication that 4 archer or 4 raider builds are unbalanced (I'd even say that 4-archer builds are rather weak) so I don't see why we should restrict player choice. Variety is the spice of life. Just like a cloaked banshee rush in Starcraft or a E. Honda HHS block in Super Street Fighter, learning how to deal with "cheese" builds is part of a competitive game. I also always have a problem declaring a balanced build as somehow morally superior to a cheese build. If player want to run a higher risk/ higher reward build, that should be allowed.

Wordplay
03-04-2013, 04:57 PM
I think that those builds are very rarely run, but they are interesting to experiment with.

I've only ever run 4-5 of a unit to test builds for balance, but when I did, I found that I needed to build at least a couple of them very differently.

Most people won't run those builds most of the time...but I do like to have the option.

Yellow
03-04-2013, 05:08 PM
There is no indication that 4 archer or 4 raider builds are unbalanced (I'd even say that 4-archer builds are rather weak) so I don't see why we should restrict player choice. Variety is the spice of life. Just like a cloaked banshee rush in Starcraft or a E. Honda HHS block in Super Street Fighter, learning how to deal with "cheese" builds is part of a competitive game. I also always have a problem declaring a balanced build as somehow morally superior to a cheese build. If player want to run a higher risk/ higher reward build, that should be allowed.

As i replied to Pirotas already, i have never faced a person using more than 3 archers, i added it becouse i have seen people complaining, not from a paersonal experience.

From a Personal experience however i can tell u that facing 4 backbiters is a pain in the A.S.S . as their avility to run trought units leaves little to no hope of protecting archers, specially when the build is acompanied by 2 Strongarms, making useless and even worse the idea of grouping ur units or deploying archers behind Varl....


I think that those builds are very rarely run, but they are interesting to experiment with.

I've only ever run 4-5 of a unit to test builds for balance, but when I did, I found that I needed to build at least a couple of them very differently.

Most people won't run those builds most of the time...but I do like to have the option.

Since i started playing, i have fought at least a minimum of 12 times vs such armies, today's afternoon alone i fought 4, almost 1 after another..... so it is not as rare to encounter such build as u claim to be.... or maybe the system just hates me, and/or am very unlucky....

-------------------------

PS:
as a side note, duno if any of u ever played "Shogun 2 : Total War" but there were builds there very very cheesy and anoying!, such as people bringing only "archer calvarly" units and spending 2+ hours running around shooting.... the whole comunity saw such things as a shamefull displays, and asked for unit caps to be included.... while the situation ain't that bad in here, it kinda resemblance.

eAZy
03-04-2013, 07:25 PM
Frankly, it is far too early in the game's life to make such drastic balance dynamic changes. Nothing against you OP, but do you think you know enough about the game having played it maybe a few dozen times to be 100% sure this is a problem? I would wait and see what builds come out for at least a few months before jumping to big changes.

BrainFreeze
03-04-2013, 07:39 PM
I play 4-archers build recently. I find it rather fun, both for me and my opponents(judging from their comments). I don't think options for gimmicky builds should be limited. If such a build is unbeatable - then it is a balance issue with massed unit itself, and it should be fixed. If it is not - then it doesn't need to be fixed at all. My opinion - all builds have stronger and weaker sides, and "soft counters" to them.

piotras
03-04-2013, 08:15 PM
I thought this might be of interest in this thread as well. Taken from here. (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1028-When-you-win-it-s-because-you-were-better-would-be-nice/page5)

I ended up with 52 wins in a row using 2 Warhawks and 4 Thrashers. I've played over 100 games with them. The Flail ability allows them to be deadly even in the late game. It doesn't matter if they miss the last hit with Flail. The whole point is that you have an ability that will deal at least 3 total damage, with 100% accuracy, even when you only have 1 HP left. That's a huge advantage over other units near the end of a match. I send out my four Thrasher team to take a beating, smash armor, and go Archer hunting, while my Warhawks sit in the back waiting for their chance to rock enemy Varl's to 1 HP in a single blow.

By the way: Backbiters miss their last attack just as often as Thrashers (it's armor based like regular attack).

Anodai
03-04-2013, 08:22 PM
It seems like the people who complain about heavy archer builds are newer players. I'm against a restriction to raiders more than max 4, because while I only use 3, some of my most enjoyable games have been against teams using two thrashers and two raidmasters.

sweetjer
03-04-2013, 08:32 PM
I have to say, I've become a proponent of identical unit cap as of late. 4 bb spec for armor and str seems to reduce the skill the player needs to win and unfairly increase the skill opponent needs to counter it. I have written at length regarding skill level to play vs skill level to counter in the past, and I'd like to agree that (at least when it comes to identical raiders, specifically BB and TH), this is still a balancing issue that we should take a look at.

To clarify, in response to Anodai, I am supporting a cap to how many of the SAME unit not same base class you can have in the team. Ie. 4 BB would be illegal but 2 TH 2 RM would not.

Bork
03-04-2013, 08:45 PM
In my view this is more of an issue of backbiters being slightly too all around strong. Their special attack is perhaps the most deadly and flexible special attack in the game, yet they also have stats on par with the other raiders. If they had their max armor or strength reduced slightly, I think we would see many less 4 of one unit builds.

sweetjer
03-04-2013, 08:49 PM
I hear that Bork, usually the issue with these builds is the high armor from shield wall stacking. 4 Archers isn't an issue in my opinion, I think that team is easily countered, so not sure why that is tacked onto this thread. I figure stoic will come up with something to reduce build homogeneity, they are really good at coming up with balanced solutions.

KRD
03-04-2013, 08:52 PM
I'm with sweetjer on this one and have been since pretty early beta.

As a sort of compromise between the current situation and making all-melee builds outright impossible (as a hard cap of 3 raiders would), I really think limiting individual specialisations is the way to go here, at least as a test. If this limit was set at 2 backbiters/thrashers/raidmasters/bowmasters/siege archers/sky strikers, the freedom of archer-heavy and raider-heavy teams would remain, while the really annoying and difficult to balance quad-backbiter and quad-thrasher builds wouldn't be an option anymore. In practice, this would increase the variety of builds that we'd get to see in combat.

One could still of course go with two biters and two thrashers, and this would bypass armor just as effectively, but from my personal experience, I feel the increase in variety could just make such builds that little bit less straightforward to play. How much this would mitigate the problem at hand remains to be determined, but I can safely say for myself that I would enjoy playing against two of each raider specialisation a lot better, from the point of view of variety at least, if nothing else.

Slimsy Platypus
03-04-2013, 10:27 PM
To me, it's a problem when a new player specs 4 Backbiters 12/12 with two warriors then avoids the concept of armor breaking; it bothers me because I know there is much more fun ways to play the game, and it sucks to lose to something that feels like it is breaking the mechanics.

With that being said, I'm not so sure that limiting the potential melee units you can be put on a team (via a Raider limit) is an end-all solution, as we are going to be getting a host of additional classes released that will likely very effectively fill a missing role in the "all mellee" build.

I think this is more of an issue on how you can put your stat points in characters. In my way of thinking, you should not be able to make a backbiter both the best defensive and best offensive Raider type. Additionally, the issue is further complicated because they have an active ability that does 2 armor break, which effectively gives them an out if they choose to avoid break all together. If Backbiters are intended to be used offensively (which synergizes with their active ability) I think we need to eliminate being able to play them as an effective damage sink.

As a suggestion, perhaps Run Through could be adjusted so that it uses the Backbiter's break stat to determine it's ARM damage (I'm thinking a break stat of 1 deals no ARM damage while running through, break of 2 deals 1 ARM, and 3 deals 2 ARM). This concept is similar to the Siege Archer's Slag and Burn and the Shieldbanger's Bring the Pain, so I'm not thinking I'm too far off base here. Alternatively we could just give Backbiters a nerf on the break on Run Through all together (limiting it to 1). This is speculation, but I am nervous that when a Backbiter can run through 4 tiles with Rank 3 Run Through (while using less the minimum required willpower required to stat him), that we definatley wont be seeing groups with 4 Backbiters disapear. However, this might not be the best decision either, as it diminishes their ability to be effective archer killers.

With all this being said, there has been alot of focus on Backbiters in my post. Let me reiterate: it is my thought that we need to adjust how we can stat the characters. If we don't put break in our units, we should run the risk of encountering a high ARM unit and not being able to overcome it. If this isn't working, I think something needs to get adjusted. If we stat our units for the highest STR, they should not also be the hardest to kill or be able to easily ARM break. It's amazing to me how delicate the balancing is in this game, at times 1 or 2 points in a unit can feel like an entire world of difference. Stoic has done an outstanding job balancing so far, I think we just need to tweak any units that appear to be both "jack-of-all-trades" and the "masters of that trade".

sweetjer
03-04-2013, 10:32 PM
I was thinking that Run thru AB should be equal to base AB for the unit. So if you assign 1 break, run thru does 1 break. Additionally I'd like to see BB break capped at 2. That way you have to spend points to get the current run thru value, and BB's are no longer the most effective raiders for breaking.

InfiniteNutshell
03-04-2013, 10:46 PM
In my view this is more of an issue of backbiters being slightly too all around strong. Their special attack is perhaps the most deadly and flexible special attack in the game, yet they also have stats on par with the other raiders. If they had their max armor or strength reduced slightly, I think we would see many less 4 of one unit builds.

I believe a reduction in max armor for backbiters is being considered by the devs. They were talking about it in the forum chat.

Vaidency
03-04-2013, 10:52 PM
I think something we need to keep in mind when considering balance is that teams are more than the sum of their parts. A team built very heavily around stacking a single type of unit may be one-dimensional, but they gain an exponential increase in power along that one dimension, and it can potentially reach a level where a more balanced team is at a distinct disadvantage in spite of their greater breadth of abilities.

We saw this problem in beta with the 2-warmaster, 4-thrasher build. Those units are still able to deal modest damage regardless of their strength or the target's armor. Each additional unit on your team that can't be neutralized by maiming significantly increases the difficulty for your opponent. This ultimately lead to Bloody Flail being nerfed but the build still seems to be among the strongest in the game.

The other one I'm a bit concerned about it just running two max-strength warmasters or warhawks. Those units must be engaged with extreme care because if you don't manage to hit them before they hit you they can kill or cripple most targets in a single attack without even armor breaking first. Having two of those coming at you is more than twice as difficult as having one.

I haven't faced a 4-backbiter team yet but a similar dynamic probably applies. Four backbiters are going to be more than 4 times as good at penetrating your lines and raising havoc than one.

I'm not sure if any of these warrant a balance adjustment at the moment, but I hope Stoic is keeping an eye on the team composition players are using. I wouldn't want to see a game with such rich tactical depth devolve into a series of a one-dimensional gimmick builds trying to counterpick each other.

Vaidency
03-04-2013, 10:59 PM
Let me reiterate: it is my thought that we need to adjust how we can stat the characters. If we don't put break in our units, we should run the risk of encountering a high ARM unit and not being able to overcome it. If this isn't working, I think something needs to get adjusted.

Very good point and I completely agree with you, Slimsy. I think that right now armor might be a little bit too weak. I see a lot more units stated for maximum strength than maximum armor and, frankly, I consider them more of a threat. This is probably because there are a few too many ways to bypass armor, and a couple of problematic units that can get their max strength up so high they can deliver considerable damage to most targets through unbroken armor.

I also agree with you that the balancing of the game is very delicate, but maybe maximum strength on a few units needs to come down a point, and maybe minimum armor on a few others needs to go up a point.

KRD
03-04-2013, 11:34 PM
Good posts all around, I like. In addition to backbiter max armor coming down a point or two, the devs have already mentioned they're considering a decrease of one point on warmaster max strength as well, so they're definitely on the case already. Might be a good first step that'll let us all evaluate if further changes are warranted.


I was thinking that Run thru AB should be equal to base AB for the unit. So if you assign 1 break, run thru does 1 break. Additionally I'd like to see BB break capped at 2. That way you have to spend points to get the current run thru value, and BB's are no longer the most effective raiders for breaking.

Alternatively, but in that general direction, how about that old idea of distributing the biter's armor break stat across all units that he runs through? So a backbiter with 3 in armor break running through two units would deal 1 AB on the first one and 2 AB on the second one before stabbing it for normal strength damage. On the other hand, a backbiter with only 1 in armor break running through two units would deal 0 AB on the first one and 1 AB on the one getting stabbed.

This does present the problem of backbiters with 3 AB dealing all of it on a single unit, making them even more amazing archer (and low armor warrior Varl) slayers, though. Hmmm... maybe they should go down to 2 max armor break on top of that, but then their ability wouldn't be as godly at higher ranks anymore either...

NonToxic
03-05-2013, 01:55 AM
While I agree with the philosophy that no team is unbeatable, I can also see that certain compositions will reliably lose to certain other comps. I have a two archer team that I like to use, and it is a fun and fair match against everything except a line-up including 4 BBs. Even on the larger maps, positioning myself as far back as possible, these BBs will be on me in 2-3 turns and it won't end well. 4 Raidmasters is doable and 4 Thrashers is doable, but after losing some 15 not-even-close matches to 4 BBs, seeing that at the load screen really breaks my spirit. Similarly, I have a different two warrior team that loses very badly to 4 archer setups, but feels fun and fair against everything else.

None of these teams are invalid or unfair, and these very poor match-ups are rare, but it is a No Contest when they do occur. What I unrealistically want is the ability to tag in Team B when I see myself matched against a No Contest composition, though it is really obvious how badly that would complicate matchmaking.

piotras
03-05-2013, 04:36 AM
Very good thread. To sum up, more than 3 of the same class might gives a slight advantage to the player, but the actual problem in probably in how BBs can be spected. Stoic has suggested that some changes might be coming but I guess they were hoping thing will not turn ugly just yet, but I'm afraid that gimmicky builds are popping up at a alarming pace and we need to be a bit more verbal about it.

I really like this suggestion that would keep AB for run through fair:

As a suggestion, perhaps Run Through could be adjusted so that it uses the Backbiter's break stat to determine it's ARM damage (I'm thinking a break stat of 1 deals no ARM damage while running through, break of 2 deals 1 ARM, and 3 deals 2 ARM).

If that would be coupled with a minimum exertion for BBs set to 1, we probably wouldn't have to change any max on strength and armour because to have a BB with 12 strength and 2 armour break on run through he could only have a max of 9 armour (ar 9/st 12/wp 4/ex 1/ab 3). If someone would decide to drop armour break in general we would end up with 12 strength and 11 armour, which isn't too much even with shieldwall from other raiders in the light of having to outsource armour breaking to other units in the team. A minimum on exertion might be of use since as the distance that a BB can run through gets bigger BBs will not only get more stats but they will be able to drop exertion and maintain the same effective range.

Yellow
03-05-2013, 04:38 AM
Frankly, it is far too early in the game's life to make such drastic balance dynamic changes. Nothing against you OP, but do you think you know enough about the game having played it maybe a few dozen times to be 100% sure this is a problem? I would wait and see what builds come out for at least a few months before jumping to big changes.

I have 100+ games played, that ain't exactly little, i have used all units to a fair amount, and i can pretty much tell u, that 4 BB or 4 trashers are unbalanced....


I have to say, I've become a proponent of identical unit cap as of late. 4 bb spec for armor and str seems to reduce the skill the player needs to win and unfairly increase the skill opponent needs to counter it. I have written at length regarding skill level to play vs skill level to counter in the past, and I'd like to agree that (at least when it comes to identical raiders, specifically BB and TH), this is still a balancing issue that we should take a look at.

To clarify, in response to Anodai, I am supporting a cap to how many of the SAME unit not same base class you can have in the team. Ie. 4 BB would be illegal but 2 TH 2 RM would not.

yes Pirotas suggested that already, and i agree with the idea, facing a team of 2x + 2x is ok, now when it comes down to 4x and even in most cases 3x of the same it gets quite nasty....


4 Archers isn't an issue in my opinion, I think that team is easily countered, so not sure why that is tacked onto this thread.

as i have previosly said a few times already, i added it cos i have seen people complaining about it, not because any personal exprience, it would be unfair to ask for 1 particualar unit to get a cap while other dosen't from my point of view, so its on the thread to be fair with the other people i have seen complaining...

Tirean
03-05-2013, 04:55 AM
I am all for the change of the system however I feel you should allowed people to play 4 archers or 4 raiders 2 varl if needed. However I do feel maybe a cap should be put on how many of each class you can bring to the table.

What id suggest is that you could bring 2 of any same type archer class, 2 of the same type of raider class and 1 of the same type of varl class. This way you can still use many many different tactics however you can't just stack 1 unit over the other because its stronger.

sweetjer
03-05-2013, 04:58 AM
Yellow, I am aware that someone else recommended it (it's been recommended before in beta), that's why I said that I supported it. Regarding the archer balance: maybe. There are seemingly arbitrary composition limitations in the game already: 5 humans. 2 varls. Those limitations aren't actually arbitrary though. They're there for balancing purposes. 4 Archers can be very strong, but you also have to know how to play it. Even if you know how to play it, there are some fairly obvious strategies for countering. Just a thought... not saying unique unit cap across the board (including Varls) would be a terrible thing anyway. But if it's not a mass limitation across all units, I would have to say I disagree that Archers need a cap like that.

eduran
03-05-2013, 05:23 AM
I think unit limits should be kept to a minimum. Every new limitation removes compositions from the game and decreases variety. If some units are overpowered when stacked, like BBs and maybe Thrashers, these units need to be adressed. It's pretty clear to me that a 12/12 BB who is extremly mobile, very durable and both a fantasitc killer and breaker just isn't right. Of course that problem is going to be even bigger if someone fields four of them. But arbitrarily forbidding such a team only cures one symptom of the underlying issues, instead of attacking the actual cause.

Bottom line: don't remove OP compositions, balance them instead. Consider this thread (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1206-The-Strategy-of-Ultimate-Win). Read the last paragraph. It'd be a shame if that team would have been kept from coming together like it did.

Zahar
03-05-2013, 05:28 AM
Yellow, I am aware that someone else recommended it (it's been recommended before in beta), that's why I said that I supported it. Regarding the archer balance: maybe. There are seemingly arbitrary composition limitations in the game already: 5 humans. 2 varls. Those limitations aren't actually arbitrary though. They're there for balancing purposes. 4 Archers can be very strong, but you also have to know how to play it. Even if you know how to play it, there are some fairly obvious strategies for countering. Just a thought... not saying unique unit cap across the board (including Varls) would be a terrible thing anyway. But if it's not a mass limitation across all units, I would have to say I disagree that Archers need a cap like that.

I tend to agree. Unit class caps usually mean the game is not properly balanced, and true balance should be pursued, not a way to fake it.

About archers, very subtle changes could make them more relevant, namely slight armor or str debuffs to raider advanced classes (maybe along with one more movable point for raidmaster so he has slightly better stats to balance his defensive special skill).

Jorgensager
03-05-2013, 05:56 AM
I don't see limiting teams to only 3 of one base unit as a good idea. It would force an archer and a raider base class on all teams.

It is not a problem that people can build homogeneous builds of one unit which can be very effective against certain other builds ~ it's a problem if, say, a 4 BB team always gives an unfair advantage.

The whole idea of being able to be creative with team construction gives the game a lot more depth, and that's not worth taking away (at least not immediately... try balancing it in other ways first). In an ideal system, a homogeneous build would typically not be very effective, except for against some compostitions.

I.e. the problem is not (necessarily) with the team distribution, but rather with stat/ability tweaking (as others have pointed out).

piotras
03-05-2013, 07:42 AM
I tend to agree. Unit class caps usually mean the game is not properly balanced, and true balance should be pursued, not a way to fake it.
True balance = identical units. It's impossible to truly balance a game into which you're allowed to bring different mix of units. We can either start diluting units so they start to look more alike or draw a line somewhere. If getting rid of the exponential benefits of having 4+ identical units is 'the line' than I would advise going for that.

franknarf
03-05-2013, 07:58 AM
Okay, so we have...promoted unit caps and BB nerfs?

I don't think either of these address what I see as the core problem: mostly-melee teams can sacrifice exertion and willpower in favor of higher strength and armor, and be stupidly strong. I suspect such builds do take skill to use, but much more skill to counter.

Then again, I'm not speaking from experience: I have gone up against a four-BB team once and gotten whupped. Maybe I just wasn't prepared, and it wouldn't be too hard to counter a second time, though...

I don't know how Stoic can/should address that issue we think we see here, but maybe higher ranks and new units will naturally resolve it. Anyway, I wouldn't object to a promoted-human or promoted-raider cap of three, but I don't think it would make teams like this less popular and generally like the idea of leaving team-composition rules as open as possible.

Finally, archer-heavy teams have never been a problem for me (except when used by a particular beta player); leave 'em alone!

raven2134
03-05-2013, 08:46 AM
Hmm, let's go about this another way...

One suggestion I made before to balance mass raider teams was to suggest a nerf to shieldwall. Shieldwall is one reason why high str, high armor raiders are that much harder to kill, and clearly, the more raiders you bring, the greater the shieldwall effect there is for everyone - because you have more raiders to generate the effect, fit in formations, and stack.

Now, the problem with just straight up nerfing shieldwall, like for example if shieldwall instead has a flat effect of +1 armor instead of the +2 when its raider to raider, is that this kind of nerf significantly affects low raider composition teams, like if someone only brings 2 raiders. What if instead we introduce a cap to how much shieldwall can stack instead? Let's say shieldwall can stack up to +3 only, for any unit. This means that sticking 4 raiders beside a varl only increase the varl's armor by +3 (1 armor less), and if you have a line of 3 raider's the center raider also only gets +3 (1 less). Putting a raider behind to form a T does not give the center raider further protection either. This also servers to keep low raider compositions viable, since majority of situations will see formations of 2-3 units only with a bonus of 2-3 armor only.


Now, 1 armor is probably still not enough of a change. The point that bringing a mass of any single unit increases the strength of a single dimension so much and so creates imbalance is I feel correct and hits the nail on the head. Similar to the balance issues seen with the old SA and the QA tested SA (which was reported by stoic but never entered my or other players' hands), who could blow stuff up to overpowered proportions/burn everything the more you had.

The issue is that for people to naturally not want to bring too many of a single unit, but keep these wacky builds an option and playable/viable (not OP or UP), the units and what they can do need to see diminishing returns. There are a number of great examples for this already in the game.

1. SS - bringing more than 1 does allow more traps. But each trap is less damage output
2. RM - bringing more gives you more blockers, But each RM blocking is not doing damage, and additionally they have less WP to do damage as their ability drains it. Not to mention they're less effective as damage dealers due to their effective stats.
3. Mass archers in general - yes you can break and puncture...but you lack the defensive wall. 1 blocker goes down and the archers are toast.

Now...on a side note but related subject, the thrasher nerf was interesting. The randomness came to be a pretty much blanket solution. Being random, theoretically a solo TH could be as effective as mass TH because even the user couldn't predict when or if BlF would miss. It is funny, but the thrasher follows 2 points which can contradict each other:

1. You can bring 1 thrasher and limit your randomness but also make use of it when the opportunity arises (you take a risk but hedge your bets).
2. You can bring 4 and look for x4 the chance to luckout on a wicked flail (you take the maximum risk with the unit, but the numbers can also work to your advantage).

Whether perception or reality however, effectively reducing the guaranteed damage for flail, allowing misses, and creating a perception that the thrasher is more manageable has also made dealing with 4 thrasher teams more manageable to fight against (unless someone would disagree? I at least think its much more manageable than before).

Can we specifically balance the BB like the thrasher was balanced? We can try. Nerfing total armor on the unit is clearly needed, as it was never intended to be able to tank as well as it can. The ability feels too weak at 1 break, but too strong on multiple units at 2 break. Linking the unit's break and ability together is a good solution.

Perhaps, we can tweak the ability description and the way it links to break. Run-through will do the BB's Break-1 and attack for the BB's strength. This creates incentive to invest into break for the ability. And if someone does want to go for high armor/high hp, no break BB, then the BB with 1 break does no AB on his ability. Does this make the BB too effective on tearing thru armor on level 3 run through (up to 4 tiles for -2 armor each target)?

...well how many people would line up that many units? I don't think it's that different from WH tempest rank 3; and if a full str WH swings at 4 targets with his 15-16 str...just how much damage do you think he's doing for 3 WP?

If it's really an issue, just limit the number of targets affected by the run-through break in my opinion, only the last two targets are ever affected by the break.

Thoughts?

Zahar
03-05-2013, 08:58 AM
Shield wall could also receive an indirect debuff in the form of slag and burn buff (and it would make having at least one archer more relevant), i.e.; thing is, we discuss balance without being able to test rank 2 and 3 stuff, and we have no way to avoid it. Maybe simply slag n burn rank 3 could be enought, maybe it needs a buff indeed (I personally feel the AoE should be more powerful, not only the target in the main square should lose more armor and str).

ATM the only real AoE we have comes from Warriors (WH and, to a lesser degree, WM) - and that's one of the reasons they are so vital to every team. Should it change, small units that tend to cluster will obviously lose value.

Yellow
03-05-2013, 09:13 AM
True balance = identical units. It's impossible to truly balance a game into which you're allowed to bring different mix of units. We can either start diluting units so they start to look more alike or draw a line somewhere. If getting rid of the exponential benefits of having 4+ identical units is 'the line' than I would advise going for that.

+1 that is pretty much my take on it.

piotras
03-05-2013, 09:33 AM
I agree with Zahar that shieldwall will have more counters as we grow in ranks and removal of shieldwall bonuses will remove a nice mechanic out of the game, however +1 for every extra raider rather than another +2 sounds interesting.

Maybe imposing higher exertion and WP minimums for TH and BB would make them less tanky (by decreasing the stat points available for strength and armour, so people would have to choose what they prefer). The base AB-1 for run through would make things different as well!

EDIT:
although that would have to come with the suggested lower strength maximum for WM, or else they would die like flies when not in a multiple-raider build.

Arnie
03-05-2013, 10:57 AM
We've often toyed with the idea of capping units to 3. We will continue to look into this.
We're trying to be careful about overbalancing as we think that the next ranks of the current characters will do a lot to change tactics and also we know there are certain future classes we'll be launching that will change current builds. Basically we're of the mind to slightly adjust right now to let the game evolve with the updated ranks and units. We're aware of the all melee builds being powerful right now.

My build is RM/TH/SRM/WL/SA/SS and I can say I lost a day ago to a 3BB/1TH/PK/WM build but it came down to 1v2 and his two units had 1 and 3 str left when he won. So...it was a dang close match and he was not a poor player.

Great thread.

As a side note, we are going to be balancing certain classes again, like the Backbiter and Warmaster soon.

Yellow
03-05-2013, 11:03 AM
Hi Arnie thanks alot for taking a look at the thread and answering, also thanks to Raven for pointing it out ;)

Its really good to know that u guys have been toying around with the idea already for a wile, and that a closer look will be taken into the issue. Keep up the great work!

piotras
03-05-2013, 07:55 PM
We've often toyed with the idea of capping units to 3. We will continue to look into this.
We're trying to be careful about overbalancing as we think that the next ranks of the current characters will do a lot to change tactics and also we know there are certain future classes we'll be launching that will change current builds. Basically we're of the mind to slightly adjust right now to let the game evolve with the updated ranks and units. We're aware of the all melee builds being powerful right now.

My build is RM/TH/SRM/WL/SA/SS and I can say I lost a day ago to a 3BB/1TH/PK/WM build but it came down to 1v2 and his two units had 1 and 3 str left when he won. So...it was a dang close match and he was not a poor player.

Great thread.

As a side note, we are going to be balancing certain classes again, like the Backbiter and Warmaster soon.

So glad to hear that! I'm all for tightening restrictions if that is supposed to save different classes and their skills from being 'diluted'.

I understand that you try to preserve player choice, but sooner or later players find what works best or is simply easier to play (it will happen at higher ranks too) and incentive to win will make this game boring. Like the whole BB/TH all-melee situation which is getting a bit toxic. I don't have anything against all-melee, shieldwall stacking should be a tactic like all other (after all they sacrifice range and mobility) but maybe min/max stats for raiders should be redistributed so they can't be treated as mini-varls when they get into a formation.

Anyway, looking forward to the changes, the current situations made me completely hate my 2x RM, 2x TH, STR, WM build :(

KRD
03-05-2013, 10:37 PM
I think unit limits should be kept to a minimum. Every new limitation removes compositions from the game and decreases variety. If some units are overpowered when stacked, like BBs and maybe Thrashers, these units need to be adressed. It's pretty clear to me that a 12/12 BB who is extremly mobile, very durable and both a fantasitc killer and breaker just isn't right. Of course that problem is going to be even bigger if someone fields four of them. But arbitrarily forbidding such a team only cures one symptom of the underlying issues, instead of attacking the actual cause.

Stoic are already arbitrarily forbidding certain team compositions, clearly this is something they're okay with doing in the name of keeping the game fun and balanced and, most importantly, diverse. If you removed the Varl limit for example, a lot of people would run six warhawks; more freedom does not equal more variety, not in practice, not in this case.

Furthermore, the problem really doesn't lie in backbiters and thrashers being unbalanced when they're part of an all-around team. No experienced player would complain about a backbiter slaying their out of position archer, that's what they're designed to do, if you let them do it, you have yourself to blame. But since we all agree that they can be played more easily and effectively when they group up and move as four, balancing them in this case obviously implies making them weaker. Doing this without making them too weak when part of a balanced team (as they were once before in beta, at least compared to pre-nerf thrashers) is likely impossible. Hence the proposition for stricter unit caps.

erom
03-05-2013, 11:44 PM
I could feel a warmaster nerf coming in my bones, this is why I went warhawks instead.

Gramalian
03-06-2013, 02:34 AM
I think unit limits should be kept to a minimum. Every new limitation removes compositions from the game and decreases variety. If some units are overpowered when stacked, like BBs and maybe Thrashers, these units need to be adressed. It's pretty clear to me that a 12/12 BB who is extremly mobile, very durable and both a fantasitc killer and breaker just isn't right. Of course that problem is going to be even bigger if someone fields four of them. But arbitrarily forbidding such a team only cures one symptom of the underlying issues, instead of attacking the actual cause.

Bottom line: don't remove OP compositions, balance them instead. Consider this thread (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1206-The-Strategy-of-Ultimate-Win). Read the last paragraph. It'd be a shame if that team would have been kept from coming together like it did.

Just to chime in. Limitations increase creativity, and while a more free form design space can allow for more variation it also allows and encourages min maxing which limits variations. What you are defending can and in this case does lower the amount of variations currently seen either do to lack of other options in the same ease of use vs power spectrum or thanks to the lack of rnak 2-3 options balancing it out.

If your goal is to win, and the game allows you to stack your advantage with 4xs biters and 2xs warriors and outside of specific counter builds or map vs build advantages that build has an easier time winning you are going to run that build or one like it. Limiting it down to 2 of each human type ( BB, Thrasher,RM etc though with future classes it could be raider, X, Y) and 1xs varl type actually forces you to use a wider range of units which leads to increased play options, which leads to harder to build counter builds, which actually leads to more diversity as people try to build the most well rounded bgs for their own style. In this case limiting the extremes by cutting out the option for 4xs builds and 2xs varl types forces more diversity then leaving those build options open.

If it wasn't true other turn based games or army/deck builder games such as MtG or Poxnora or even things like warhammer wouldn't have at their top lvl of play very select cards/units that you can use with out weakening yourself. I can tell you in pox split battle groups( mixture of 2 factions)have an absurd advantage over full faction when it comes to combos and their ability to build a stronger whole simply due to their larger deck options and it has in the past greatly hurt diversity. The goal nees to be to limit top of the line builds so more things are equivalent or as close as you can. Which currently some team builds and even some classes have clear power lvl advantages to the rest.

eduran
03-06-2013, 05:15 AM
If you removed the Varl limit for example, a lot of people would run six warhawks; more freedom does not equal more variety, not in practice, not in this case.
I assume Varls have been designed with some kind of limitation in mind, given that they have higher stats than humans. Nothing wrong with that. I didn't want to give the impression that I am against any and all unit limitations. If Stoic comes up with a unit type (like Varls) that needs to be limited to be fun and interesting, sure, why not.



If your goal is to win, and the game allows you to stack your advantage with 4xs biters and 2xs warriors and outside of specific counter builds or map vs build advantages that build has an easier time winning you are going to run that build or one like it.

I am not defending 4BB/2Warrior builds. You are right, there shouldn't be any one build that is just plain better. But stacking four BBs does not have to be an advantage. So you could either limit BBs to two per team or try to tweak them so that 4BB/2W is still possible without being stronger than every other option.


And one point about variety:
There is unit variety within a team. 4X/2Y is not varied in that regard and unit limitations would improve on that. Then there is variety of teams available for play, which would be reduced by unit limits. Personally, I don't care much about the former but very much about the latter form of variety. I don't want to play against a well-rounded team every single game. I want to see crazy stuff thrown at me, as long as it is reasonably well balanced. That makes the job of balancing the game harder for Stoic, but I belive it's worth the effort.

Gramalian
03-06-2013, 01:01 PM
Just note that if you tweak any unit to allow it to be " balanced" in terms of a 4xs mass unit tactic, you most likely have to dilute or weaken the unit enough that running it 1xs or even 2xs isnt as viable as it currently is.

You honestly are going to either have to pick strong dynamic units that have limits put on their numbers or weaker, more generalized units that you can run up to 4+ of but lose their value in smaller numbers.

Personally I pick running fewer but more unique, dynamic, and interesting units. That of course doesn't mean they cant be or dont need to be tweaked outside of the number limit. I firmly believe that warhawks and warmasters as an example are too good as they are right now regardless of 1-2 in a group. Mostly its do to their ability to ignore the whole armor break concept and would like to see them and/or their ability touched to not be as simple to use.

erom
03-06-2013, 02:39 PM
I think that's a false choice actually. Imagine a unit with high stats that gets weaker with every one you add to the team. That was just off the top of my head. It's perfectly possible to have units that are interesting in 1s and 2s but not overpowered 4 or 5 at a time. Like eduran just said, that takes a bit more thought but I also think it's worth the effort.

Impaler
03-06-2013, 02:51 PM
I don't like the idea of limiting stuff in general. It just becomes too streamlined. Keep the possibilities open

Zahar
03-06-2013, 02:52 PM
Actually, I just remembered something that crossed my mind the other day - there's a very simple reason wht Threshers are so hard to balance.

They are pretty much the ONLY unit in the game (well, melee units anyway) that is not utter crap with very low strenght. Since good players will not kill ANY unit if they can, leaving them all with 1 str so you'll lose turns, the very nature of Bloody Flail makes him a good counter to the actual state of the game.

There are 2 possible solutions:

1 - Get over it. If you leave units with low health alive, you're alloweing Trashers to do what they are supposed to do. And if you don't, accept the reason they are so much used, cause most people WILL leave maimed units alive.

2 - Change OTHER abilities so they are good at low health. Maybe it will change the players mindset that it's always good to leave low health units alive.

Actually I'd like 2 better. You see, the fact that units are left purposefully alive is the one thing I feel kinda weird about the game systems - it's counter intuitive and game-y, makes no sense for any reason other than the turn order mechanics. I understand that's to avoid the slipery slope (game design problem where people that started losing get punished for it and the game pretty much is over after a bad start), but imho abilities that do not need high strenght (or give them bonuses at low strenght to compensate) to work would be a very subtle, yet effective, work around.

franknarf
03-06-2013, 03:02 PM
@zahar: I think your solution #2 is over-balancing, making the units too samey. Gamey over samey any day!

As you say, the archers all have active abilities that are strong in this sense, and so do the Thrasher and Warmaster (5/12 promoted units). I'm fine with forcing players to design other units so that they aren't liabilities late-game. If a unit doesn't have a good strength-invariant ability, then you'd better give them good break or make them easy to kill yourself.

As far as units that get bonuses at low strength, I think that would be really cool! I hope that's how one of the berserker classes works.

Zahar
03-06-2013, 03:06 PM
@zahar: I think your solution #2 is over-balancing, making the units too samey. Gamey over samey any day!

As you say, the archers all have active abilities that are strong in this sense, and so do the Thrasher and Warmaster (5/12 promoted units). I'm fine with forcing players to design other units so that they aren't liabilities late-game. If a unit doesn't have a good strength-invariant ability, then you'd better give them good break or make them easy to kill yourself.

As far as units that get bonuses at low strength, I think that would be really cool! I hope that's how one of the berserker classes works.

Indeed, and that's exactly why SOME players choose to kill archers. This is not samey if the abilities are not dangerous the same WAY if the unit is heavily damaged - but I bed to differ, I think that is much less SAMEY than forcing unit setups with restrictions to the max number of each unit :)

raven2134
03-06-2013, 11:59 PM
There a number of units that remain useful at 1 health besides the Thrasher due to their abilities:

1. Skystriker RoA will trap an enemy regardless of str of the archer, forcing the enemy to lose a turn
2. Warmaster sundering impact - will deal 1/2 guaranteed to target, and collateral damage, regardless of warmaster's strength
3. Provoker - malice, will probably cos the Pk his life, but it will cause the enemy to lose a turn.
4. Warleader - forge ahead, the mechanic is not affected by warleader strength
5. Strong arm - battering ram still executes positional play regardless of Strongarm str

with the thrasher that's 6/16 units that have abilities unaffected by str. Less 4 for basic, and you're left with 6/12 advanced classes whose abilities remain effective. Realistically, 4 units are always useful with their abilities even at low str: Thrasher, SS, PK, WM. There is a lot of choice created on whether to kill or maim based on this unit distribution and design.

piotras
03-07-2013, 07:20 AM
... and the SA can be of use at 1 str.

Tirean
03-07-2013, 08:35 AM
So right now I am currently using an all melee build with 4 different type of units in it.. How come this couldn't be a standard in the game? It would not stop creativity imo.. Why should people be allowed to have 6 units on the field but only use 2 classes? That isn't letting you be creative all it is doing is limiting creativity..

I said it before but I really wish we had
2 of each type of raider class
2 of each type of archer class
1 of each type of varl class

keep the restrictions we have now also of 2 varl, 5 raiders 5 archers (think its 5.. could be 4)
I think this would create a more dynamic game which more people could enjoy :)

Yellow
03-07-2013, 10:18 AM
I said it before but I really wish we had
2 of each type of raider class
2 of each type of archer class
1 of each type of varl class

keep the restrictions we have now also of 2 varl, 5 raiders 5 archers (think its 5.. could be 4)
I think this would create a more dynamic game which more people could enjoy :)

that would ultimatelly be a good idea in my opinion.

erom
03-07-2013, 10:25 AM
1 of each type of varl class
Okay whatever you think about raider spam, you have to acknowledge this would degenerate build variety. We all know double-warrior is the noob standard, but there are plenty of people using 1/1 and even double shieldbanger. The Varl classes are actually really well balanced against each other, imo.

Tirean
03-07-2013, 10:27 AM
1 of each varl class doesn't mean 1 warrior only. It means only 1 warhawk/warmaster/warleader, you could have a warhawk and a warmaster still.

Wordplay
03-07-2013, 11:38 AM
I ran into 1WH 1WM 4BB yesterday, for the first time.

I was running 1 WM 2TH 1SRM 1SS 1SA in that order.

It was on the Great Hall map, my opponent deployed on the left, I deployed split. I deployed too far forward, so my opponent was in range to cripple WM and 1stTH. Moved WM back, thrasher was crippled, moved thrasher to block a kill on SA, thrasher was killed (5 WP unspent).

Then I won - four units left standing. I was as surprised as my opponent. It helped a lot that in crippling and killing the thrasher he'd exposed his warhawk to a cripple, and the SS got a lucky RoA on the Warmaster, setting it up for a cripple. The real hero was the Strongarm, which had to kill almost all the backbiters (fortunately the other units were able to break their armour or cripple them). My opponent's biggest mistake was probably leaving a 1 ST WM in play. I got three uses of his special, one with Heavy Impact damage. This greatly helped with softening up the backbiters.

I don't think any change to the cap is necessary. In my experience, all-melee builds are weak, and can be killed cheaply. I had an awful lot more success in the Beta running 3 TH 1 SA than I did running 4 TH. If raider classes are capped, I think the cap should be 3 of each class.

I'm not really sure that the WM or BB nerfs are needed - but as I'm not running WMs at full strength, I guess it's not such a big issue.

Edit:
... and the SA can be of use at 1 str. Although affected by strength, don't forget, the Bowmaster can reliably do 1 direct damage, if she still has WP. This should not be underestimated.

Yellow
03-07-2013, 11:46 AM
@Wordplay the example ur giving is from the only map where all melle can be dificult to run... and even so....

piotras
03-07-2013, 11:52 AM
I said it before but I really wish we had
2 of each type of raider class
2 of each type of archer class
1 of each type of varl class

+1000

gripho
03-08-2013, 07:33 PM
+1000

I'd say +∞

Guğmundr
03-08-2013, 11:25 PM
I said it before but I really wish we had
2 of each type of raider class
2 of each type of archer class
1 of each type of varl class

keep the restrictions we have now also of 2 varl, 5 raiders 5 archers (think its 5.. could be 4)
I think this would create a more dynamic game which more people could enjoy :)
Sounds good to me!

KRD
03-08-2013, 11:33 PM
http://www.radicalfamilysabbatical.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Make-It-So.gif

Butters
03-09-2013, 12:34 AM
I'm with wordplay.
It's challenging, but beating a 4Th/2WH or 4BB/2WM with a balanced team is possible enough as it is (still plenty challenging, sure). I could see a 3-per-class cap making some sense to avoid cheesing, but I'd prefer for it to come after the balance of all higher rank units is taken into account.
I think a 2 cap as proposed and endorsed earlier here is way too restrictive, and a 1 per class cap on varls seems completely uncalled for.

Guğmundr
03-09-2013, 07:47 PM
If I understand correctly, we're talking about caps on individual unit types, right? So, you could still play 2 thrashers, 2 backbiters, a warhawk and a warmaster?

sweetjer
03-09-2013, 08:27 PM
That's right, Gud. The original proposal was a hard cap on the base unit, but the idea has been tweaked as we discussed it to a cap on unique advanced class.

Chumpy
03-10-2013, 06:51 PM
Is 2x Backbiter 2x Thrasher super different in power from 4x one or the other?

Honest question.

Grits
03-10-2013, 08:18 PM
I would like to see at least a restriction to two of the same units, possibly one of each. Would make for much more interesting builds.

Yellow
03-11-2013, 05:19 AM
Is 2x Backbiter 2x Thrasher super different in power from 4x one or the other?

Honest question.

Honest answer, nope, ain't a big diference between that, and 4x.... Thats why in my opinion 3 of same unit class, while a bitt restrictive, would be the best in terms of balance....

But if in stead of 3 of same class, 2x of same upgrade(veteran) is implemented i could live with that, it might not change a hugge deal when it comes to all melle builds, but at least it brings some more variation....

PS: am personally taking a break from Factions until this issue and the matchmaking deal gets sorted out, wich is a shame as i lost my daily log in streak of 12 days :/ and i have already droped from top 10 on "most wins" and "most games played" :/

PS2: In the meantime am waiting impasiently for the Poster i bought to arrive ;)

Yellow
03-14-2013, 06:13 PM
Update for everybody on here:

The 4x issue is now fixed, as with last build, the unit cap was reduced to 3 for Archers and 3 for Raiders :) :cool: very pleased with this to be honest! Bright days are to come!

Dansk viking
08-12-2014, 11:07 AM
I redownloaded Factions and was looking forward to playing with my team of raiders (five raiders and an archer). I always liked the idea of challenging the game by not using a Varl, now this is not possible (unless you want to spam archers). It's not like you're going to be too strong if you take more than three raiders, on the contrary, it's quite a challenge. Now this is not possible. Very sad.

Yellow
08-15-2014, 12:41 AM
I redownloaded Factions and was looking forward to playing with my team of raiders (five raiders and an archer). I always liked the idea of challenging the game by not using a Varl, now this is not possible (unless you want to spam archers). It's not like you're going to be too strong if you take more than three raiders, on the contrary, it's quite a challenge. Now this is not possible. Very sad.

Holy Necro!

Aleonymous
08-19-2014, 06:10 AM
Holy Necro!

Indeed :) For what it's worth, I agree with Dansk Viking. The unit-restrictions should be to prevent over-powered builds (like 3+ Varl) not under-powered ones... However, five raiders, especially if they are Thrashers, is gonna be highly-annoying to play against!

Dansk viking
12-30-2014, 09:54 AM
I know that Factions haven't been updated in a long while, but could you please consider letting people have at least four raiders? I'm sure I'm not the only one with this sentiment - as can be seen in the patch thread (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1337-Build-1-6-29) for the version that changed the class limits. I don't think switching a Varl or an archer for an additional raider gives you any obvious advantages, but many people prefer to play with challenging and interesting setups, and it makes sense as it enhances the use of the shieldwall mechanics - a tactic that many people consider iconic to the Vikings from whom the game has taken most of its inspiration. The current limits really lowers the amount of possible builds, for no real reason. While I'd go so far as to opt for a limit of five raiders, I believe four would be a viable compromise.

Aleonymous
12-30-2014, 10:22 AM
My suggestions, for the various match types, are as follows:

1. Ranked/Tournament matches: Hardest restrictions. 2 Raiders, 2 Archer, 1 Warrior, 1 Shieldbanger. I'd go as far as banning same-class raiders/archers as well.
2. Quick/Random matches: Mild restrictions, like the current ones. 1-3 Raiders, 1-3 Archers, 0-2 Varl.
3. Friendly/Custom matches: No restrictions at all :D 0-6 units of any class!

Dansk viking
12-30-2014, 10:55 AM
2. Quick/Random matches: Mild restrictions, like the current ones. 1-3 Raiders, 1-3 Archers, 0-2 Varl.

So, why not 1-4 raiders (and thus 0-3 archers)?


EDIT: I wouldn't mind the introduction of some restrictions on class types. Maybe a maximum of two of the same type (backbiter, thraser, skystriker, etc.) would be good.

Aleonymous
12-30-2014, 01:55 PM
So, why not 1-4 raiders (and thus 0-3 archers)?

Well, you see, the Quick/Random matches will also have to be more-or-less fair for most of the builds out there. In this case, I believe that a 4Raider build (e.g. something like 4 Thrashers or 4 Raidmasters) can beat a 3Archer+1Raider build on any give date... That would make random matches unfun for archer-loving players and eventually everybody will start using 4Raider builds only.

But, that's just my estimation. Maybe things would turn out differently :) In any case, all this talk is meaningless with such a small playerbase...

Dansk viking
12-30-2014, 02:11 PM
I don't know, with the release of the new singleplayer addition pending, things might pick up.

I don't see how four raider builds should inevitably become predominant. All classes have advantages and disadvantages, archers are superior at taking out low armour foes from a distance, and combined with two good Varls (which I believe most people play with), I'm pretty sure a balanced 3R+1A+2V or 2R+2A+2V can stand up to an all out melee team if properly applied. People (read I) want choices. Give us the possibility to use more raiders, the basic infantry unit! The balance should be so, that every build has its advantages and disadvantages, and I don't think the build options are free enough to give the exciting and sometimes surprising builds that some people might try.

In the matter of "same-class" raiders, I am, as I said above, all for a limitation (just like the OP's alternative solution).

Aleonymous
12-31-2014, 04:49 AM
I don't know, with the release of the new singleplayer addition pending, things might pick up.

Just like with TBS1's release (notice the "spike" in Jan 2014) (http://steamcharts.com/app/219340#All), the numbers will climb for a month or so, but then people will lose interest again, as it's such an old game, with no new stuff coming anytime soon.

Frankly, I think that the undeniably "best" way to handle those things (e.g. the class restrictions), is to constantly change and tweak them, so that you force people to try different things, experiment, never feel stagnant with the same old content etc. Same goes for other aspects of the game, e.g. stats, abilities etc. Constantly changing them, little by little, will hopefully bring the game closer and closer to an overall "balanced" whole.

netnazgul
12-31-2014, 08:26 AM
I don't see how four raider builds should inevitably become predominant.
Canadian Army and 4BB-builds back in beta don't agree with you :D
If limitations are there - they are there for a reason, not that someone just came up with a dumb idea.

Although there should probably be less (or none) limitations in friendly matches.

Dansk viking
12-31-2014, 09:13 AM
Well, if the backbiter (which has been nerfed from what I've heard) is the problem, don't limit the classes themselves, limit the class types.



As an alternative:

-Add a "same unit(same promotion)Cap of 2.

This way the game would be more balanced and enjojable while still allowing a good diversity of builds and matchups.

Dansk viking
12-31-2014, 09:45 AM
TBS1's release (notice the "spike" in Jan 2014) (http://steamcharts.com/app/219340#All)

It might be a coincidence, but it seems the major drop in population happened after the patch that limited the classes. I think many people (including me) left when they lost the possibility to play with their favourite build - be it a four archer build, full melee team, or like me a human only 5R+1A team (which I doubt anyone here would call overpowered). Like many people have stated before, I think a limiting of the advanced classes would be much more preferable. I'd say that a limit of two of the same class type (backbiter, warmaster, skystriker, raidmaster, thraser, etc.) all across the board would be very nice.

netnazgul
01-02-2015, 08:36 AM
I strongly dislike playing against cheesy 2TH 2SA 2WM or 3BM 2SRM 1RM builds or something like that. But those are still better than ones that got banned with the patch (probably due to overall players skill being lower than before, but still).

Anyways, population drop in Factions doesn't relate to patches, it's just people played everything they wanted out of the game (you can get most of it in several weeks max). Game being in stagnant state since it's release (!) is the one and only reason for its decline.

Dansk viking
01-03-2015, 12:25 PM
Yes, granted, the population drop might have no other reason than the usual launch buzz and following weariness.

There are still plenty of ways to make an annoying build, especially since the types (upgraded versions) of the various classes aren't limited. I'm sure most people find three bowmasters or thrashers annoying. In the event of such a limitation it might be nice with, as I said above, only two of the same type available - maybe even only one type of Varl (still possibly the same class, but never the same class type).

Rensei
01-03-2015, 09:05 PM
I joined shortly after beta, before the nerfing patch landed. Facing 4Raiders+2Warriors is an experience that can discourage people from playing the game ever again.
You know how stupidly dominant 3Raiders(esp 12/12Thrashers)+2Warriors+1BM can be (even in less competent hands)? Well that one was ten times worse - a bloody wall of 4 RM slowly and silently closing in on Your most valuable targets while You desperately try to protect them and calculate how long would it take for those 9/16 Warriors looming behind said wall to annihilate any forces You send to intercept. Oh the horror.

The only way for it to work is if it would force 1 Varl - that might actually unlock some interesting options, it could, however, open the door for exploits aiming to override this restriction.

For now, You feel experimental give 3archers+3raiders a shot - it used to work wonders in hands of a competent leader.

Dansk viking
01-04-2015, 06:13 AM
I use one of each of the archers and raiders with quite good results actually, I always feel kind of turdly when I end up with the a couple of archers - which is mostly the case. I can't see how any build could be more annoying for a regular player actually, it's all about limiting the movement and use of the Varls for me; often I kill a low armour high damage Varl even before he can get into contact...

KamikazeDurrrp
01-05-2015, 08:49 PM
Dansk, your issue with the unit cap is just a smaller facet to some of the bigger problems in TBS:F. I wasn't a big fan of the 3 raider/archer cap either (I preferred the 2 advanced class cap) but it was one of the more effective solutions to fix an obvious issue to the game during that time. Note the word "effective" because even though cap worked, it ultimately didn't fix any of more fundamental issues with the game, such as how powerful cheeses due to certain broken abilities, overpowered advanced units, etc. TBS:F hasn't been patched for basically years now, and with Stoic more focused on the tablet version of TBS and the second episode, I don't they're going to come back anytime soon. I'd rather Stoic actually start balancing the game first and add new maps, etc. before reverting the unit cap because reverting a change just to satisfy somebody's need for cheese doesn't seem like the the biggest deal with the game right now. Stoic should actually start patching TBS:F again before that starts happening.