PDA

View Full Version : 1st ranked, 101 killstreak player opinion on the game



rzeznicc
03-07-2013, 11:08 AM
Hello, during the course of seven days that I have played TBS:F I have accumulated 220 games, 208 of which were wins, with a win streak record of 101 and the highest ELO 1551 score so far.

Below are my thoughts about the game:

1.First of, awesome game, thank you developers! I didn’t follow the whole kickstarter thingie, just picked up the game when it went F2P on Steam - got hooked.

2.You should be able to rearrange units in Proving Grounds, to tidy up their order, see:
http://img802.imageshack.us/img802/9407/65613622.jpg

3.There should be a way to tell units armor break stat in a match

4.Meadhouse advanced unit preview should show more information about abilities and precise stats

5.There should be different loadouts of units, with ability to name them from Proving Grounds.

6.Higher level units (3,2, but also 1) should have an option to downgrade them temporarly, so a player with two level 3 Warmasters doesn’t have to buy two new ones, simply because the tournament is taking place in lower levels than his unit deck and he need two levels 2’s.

7. Raiders vs Archers. Raider has stat(arm/str) budget of 18 while archer only 14. In a situation of 2 raiders vs 2 archers the budget becomes 40(shield wall bonus) vs 28, which makes metagame lean towards spamming raiders in all shape or form. Archers are and should have more risk/reward element to them, but the starting stats deficit puts them way behind now.

8.Warrior vs Shielbanger. As Varls have higher stat budgets than human units, an optimal deck should always consist of two of them. The high strength warriors can main/kill most units with one blow which makes for a staring contest of who gets the first hit, which is often determined by RNG factors such as map, starting order, unit order etc. On the other hand shieldbangers need a series of blows to hinder enemies, with their abilities being to weak/situational to compensate for this. Actually the best defender is a high STR warrior, as if you get to close to him, he will instantly kill you. Pushing enemy away, forcing him to attack you or doing ARM damage pales when you can just hit the guy and be done with him. That’s why you see so many of 2 warrior/4 raider builds, not the other way around.

9. RNG is a number crunching game is bad – Trashers, I am looking at you. My proposal is to redesign the ability like this: each hit deals 1 point of damage to whichever stat is the highest, for the current number of hits per rank. For example: a trasher hitting a 11/12 unit will do damage like this: 1 str (now stats are 11/11, in this situation he continues to hit the same stat as last hit), 1 str(now its 11/10), 1 arm (10,10), 1 arm. This will make trashers ability an alternative to wearing a unit down as opposed to normal hit with willpower just to one stat. It will allow to do ARM damage to high armoured units with little armour break on trasher, or do STR damage in endgame with a maimed trasher. It will also keep his normal armour break/attack options, making the ability situational, as all abilities should be.

10. Raidmaster’s Stonewall should block 3/5/7 damage for the turn duration, not every per hit; it should make him a least desirable target, but still he shouldn’t be immortal when the whole enemy team focuses on him.

11. When clicking on an enemy/own unit you should be able to see numbers on tiles to easily and fast asses distances.

12. Units like warrior/warmaster, or raider/raidmaster should be more visibly distinct from each other, preferably trough armouring, not only coloured details.

13.When battling an opponent whose unit tiers is higer than yours, you should recive a big renown/elo bonus. I’ve had many matches with more advanced untis just to recive +1elo and starndard 8 renown.

14.You should force more experienced players to stay away from unit power 1-3 games, as they are just noob bashed, but give exact same renown reward as battling a grizzlied veteran in tier 6 – make rewards for them very small. Right now I can play lvl2 games againt new players and get kills for my units, get a plenty of renown, and take away the fun from newbies – and I am willing to do this, as many others (who I’ve met and beat) simply it’s the most effective way to get a lot of renown – and games are faster there too!

15. Make a way to introduce unranked play, so I don’t fear trying out new tactics for sake of losing hard earned elo in a cookie cutter build.

Now I officially resign, equip my underleveled 1shieldbanger/5archers and go get some kills, leaving to you bettering my 101 win streak record :)

franknarf
03-07-2013, 11:45 AM
Nicely done!

Re: 7-9. I don't think it's entirely a number-crunching game. Well-played matches are won with spatial tactics and tricky use of initiative order. In this light, archers and shieldbangers are doing fine; I have one of each on my team, anyway.

Re: 10. That's hard to track in the UI. Besides, I like the more extreme abilities.

Re: 12. I agree, and haven't heard this brought up before. It may be a little late to change the units' appearances, though.

erom
03-07-2013, 12:04 PM
Re:12
This is result of a change in direction during development, I think. Master classes were not part of the original design - they got added on mid way through beta, after the art assets were mostly already created (originally they didn't even have the few distinctive elements they have now - the raidmaster was literally just a raider with a gold colored shirt). There were originally going to be simpler units, too - not having a unique active ability, rather just being a buffed version of the basic unit. So recolored art reflected that. Giving them unique actives like the other units came later, I think. Due to complexity of the art assets, they are sort of stuck as paint-overs of the base units (unless Stoic finds a bunch of money in a mattress and wants to spent it on this, I guess.)

Anodai
03-07-2013, 12:05 PM
I'd like to talk about all of your points but I am currently at work. RE: 12, though, the more visually distinctive he is, the more work he takes to animate. With a 2D game, its harder to make significant permutations of the same character, as you can't just attach a new model to the skeleton as you can in 3D (which isn't a cinch either, necessarily, but you see where I am going). Color alterations are a lot easier than armor and spikey bits, unfortunately.

Grits
03-07-2013, 12:19 PM
Wow, really great post. I hope everyone is listening.

Lekkit
03-07-2013, 12:19 PM
I have also thought about 12. More when I was new to the game than now. Changing the hair color would probably be one of the most notable changes one could do to the portraits.

Rillet
03-07-2013, 12:37 PM
Re: 7-9. I don't think it's entirely a number-crunching game. Well-played matches are won with spatial tactics and tricky use of initiative order. In this light, archers and shieldbangers are doing fine; I have one of each on my team, anyway.

While, I agree in general I think you missed the point. Shieldbangers and Archers become effective when you play them smart and use them tactically. Warriors and Raiders become MORE effective than they already are when you play them smart and use them tactically. The same basic reason why you don't see many Warleaders, while their ability is good, it requires specific situations to become effective and isn't as versatile as WH/WM. You can go wrong with a WL in a build, but you will never go wrong with a WH/WM.

It is a choice between a safe and strong option and a potentially powerful situational option with a higher chance of failure or simply never being used.

At least that is how I see it.

@rzeznicc: I think you listed every one of my complaints since I started playing. To the letter. +1

Vaidency
03-07-2013, 12:54 PM
I think most veteran players do agree at this point that raiders and warriors are a little bit stronger in a general sense than archers and shieldbangers. It's not a large discrepancy, though, so any changes Stoic makes to class balance will have to be small and carefully considered. If most classes got changed any more than plus or minus 2 stat points it would almost certainly do more harm than good.

franknarf
03-07-2013, 01:59 PM
As far as shieldbangers go, I think they were designed to have less offensive and, yes, weaker abilities. Imagine a tank unit who could also do things like sundering impact. Now that would be OP.

I don't put myself forward as someone who knows how to balance a game. Maybe a stat nerf is needed, but the fact that there's a disparity in stats does not automatically mean that there's imbalance. Balance does not mean equivalence in every measurable dimension.

Anyway, I concur with "most veteran players" that there's something wrong with how raiders can be used right now. But I think players generally, and even veteran players, are bad at diagnosing problems (http://makegames.tumblr.com/post/687758330/interpreting-player-feedback).

van
03-07-2013, 02:17 PM
14.You should force more experienced players to stay away from unit power 1-3 games, as they are just noob bashed, but give exact same renown reward as battling a grizzlied veteran in tier 6 make rewards for them very small. Right now I can play lvl2 games againt new players and get kills for my units, get a plenty of renown, and take away the fun from newbies and I am willing to do this, as many others (who Ive met and beat) simply its the most effective way to get a lot of renown and games are faster there too!


Note that this can fix itself as the average and top elo numbers will go up, but right now...

the biggest problem I have with the current ladder is that half of the people there noobbash their games on team rank 1-5 over and over again. (where's the fun when there's no challenge? I don't know)
It should be intended for everyone to eventually end up playing on team rank 6, and treat 1-5 ranks like a get-to-know-the-game period. So either enforce extremely low elo gain for those games (right now it's 2-4 elo per game vs a complete newbie), disable it entirely or come up with a different solution.

Guys, seriously, stop playing on low ranks and join the rest playing on 6. High elo doesn't mean anything if you farmed it .

BJSV
03-07-2013, 03:08 PM
In other thread yellow said that only rank 6 teams will gain ELO.

As far as backbiters go, I think that when they use ability their armor break should be based on armor break stat. Half of armor break stat is dealt when using ability rounded up. With armor break stat on 1 and 2 ability will do 1 armor break, and with 3 it will do 2.
This way they dont do much to armor unless they put 2 points into that stat and that means 2 less points in other stats.

RobertTheScott
03-07-2013, 03:17 PM
Re. newb-bashing. I don't play this game as much as some people, apparently, because I still struggle to get enough renown to buy the level-1 units I want. When I decided to try a 3-backbiter strategy, that meant I had to either pay all my renown to get three 5-kill units, or I could earn renown while giving them 5 kills. In order to try out my strategy, I did the former.

I wasn't farming for elo, but kills. And they did mean something--they meant that I could play with three backbiters today, rather than a week from now.

SunAngel
03-07-2013, 05:47 PM
Re 8:
Shieldbangers may be slightly underpowered compared to the burst strength of Warriors and may not be much stronger than Raiders; I agree that it is much easier to ruin your enemy with warriors and Raiders than with Shieldbangers and Archers. However, Shieldbangers are not 'kill your enemy' units, based on stats and abilities. Their armor cap is higher than any other class, they focus more on armor break than strength damage, and they're too big and slow to be used for easily killing off the enemy.

So, what are they good at? Standing still, taking damage, and slowly wearing away your opponent's armor. Most players likely see this as useless when you can just use a Raider to do the same while an extra Warrior provides much more damage than an offensive Raider. I still believe the Shieldbanger is useful, but its current role is much more specialized than the other classes. Shieldbangers thrive in positioning games, denying flanks and mitigating the damage of enemy Warriors. In my current composition (2 raidmasters, siege archer, skystriker, warmaster, and shieldmaster), my biggest worry is keeping my Warmaster and Archers alive long enough to have caused the necessary damage, allowing my Raidmasters to deal out high late-game damage with their high strength due to Stone Wall. That is where the Shieldbanger comes into play. Every single game I've played, the Shieldbanger has held his flank long enough for my Archers and Warmaster to maim enemies. He claims a massive 4 tiles just for himself, and with 15 armor, Raiders have to spend 2 turns to get around him (more with less exertion, or if I move my Archers) and Warriors bash their heads on his shield due to their inability to get around him easily, while he armor breaks anything that comes into contact with him. The best part? If the enemy ignores him, he becomes a late-game threat with 11 strength and high armor, just as a Raidmaster would have.

Would a second Warrior work out in my composition? I don't believe so. Even with capped armor, a Warrior is almost completely useless with low strength. The reason Warhawks and Warmasters are so scary in the current meta is the focus on spending stats for 16 or 17 Strength, then keeping them out of combat until they can rush in and maim a unit instantly. Having a warrior on the front line with medium strength and capped armor (which is 12 or 13 if I remember correctly) will not be useful, since he'll either be maimed instantly or won't have the strength to do more than 1 or 2 damage each turn. Running a high willpower Warmaster tank could work, as Sundering Impact does 2 damage and 1 armor regardless of strength, but his armor and strength would have to be lower and Archers would shred him quickly.

The Shieldbanger can hold a position unlike any of the other classes, sitting on 4 tiles and drinking Viking ale while the enemy tries to whittle down his armor. Against 6 melee teams, he's the only reason the Archers don't get maimed on turn 2. As I said before, he has a specialized role unlike the other classes and is not a good part of most hyper-aggressive compositions. Therefore, I would not classify a Warrior as 'better', although I would say that Warriors can exist in a greater variety of compositions.

As a side note, I've faced four 6-melee teams of various types at 6 power, and although they end up being very close, I've won all four. I feel that 6-melee teams are incredibly strong, but they are countered by superior positioning. Melee teams don't gain quite as much from positioning as a Shieldbanger and Archer composition.