PDA

View Full Version : The future of TBS without advanced class restrictions.



Tirean
03-10-2013, 08:09 AM
http://www.twitch.tv/tirean/b/376036260

This set of games is a prime example of why class restrictions should be inplace.

As you can see the games played were bland and boring without much tactical choice from one side.

I'll be providing more evidence of how boring the games looks and feel with more 4x builds in the future. I thought id show this one first as I am guessing not many people have seen/heard of it.

R00K
03-10-2013, 09:15 AM
I appreciate you doing this. Another option beyond enforced restrictions is custom game modes/tournaments. If you would like to play with class restrictions, you enter the tournament with those settings.

Eventually, those who want to play with silly setups will find the only people playing them also have silly setups.

Cheers

franknarf
03-10-2013, 09:25 AM
Eh, looks very boring to play, but it might be sort of fun to test my mettle against a four-SA team. If you were playing it, maybe less so. :)

I still say the lame builds are all about low-exertion melee, allowing for too much armor. Mixing the raiders (which I'm seeing plenty of) doesn't change that guiding principle.

Gygu
03-10-2013, 11:10 AM
What do you describe as low-exertion melee? Many classes don't need high exertion as they generally use their special abilities to attack (Warmaster, Backbiter, Provoker). Higher than 1 exertion gives them more range at most.

piotras
03-10-2013, 11:12 AM
Yep, I hope that the class restrictions, raider nerfs and ranking incentive-issues will be considered. Until that happen I guess I'll be undergoing a TBS:F-detox ;p

franknarf
03-10-2013, 12:04 PM
@piotras: Ditto. Good time to take a break from it. :)

@Gygu: Right, they don't need it, and they're far too strong for being able to sacrifice it. I'm not saying that it's a bad idea to make characters low-exertion, but rather that it's overpowered when five or six melee units are statted that way. You probably already know what I mean, but might as well spell it out.

A 12/12/4/0/1 Backbiter, for example, takes a good two hits to effectively maim, and even then can inflict 2-4 Break with his ability...not to mention the range of 6. A similarly-statted Thrasher, say 11/12/4/1/1, can also remain effective after a couple heavy hits. In isolation, low-exertion units get left behind, but a bunch together can just power through the enemy with superior strength. If the opponent strikes first, that just makes it all the easier. Also, tanky raiders can easily protect the advancement of a low-exertion warrior allowing him to get a good first hit in.

By "low exertion," I mean zero or one exertion, of course. And by "melee" I mean two varls, at least one being a warrior, and at least three raiders. I think a raider nerf will resolve the un-fun of fighting these builds, while a class cap will not (and, moreover, has the unpleasant side-effect of limiting build variety). "Build variety" means variety between builds (though I think the OP disagrees :) ).

Tirean
03-10-2013, 12:20 PM
yeah Frankarf, I am of the impression that if you put in some form of advanced unit class limits it will actually bring more build variety into the game :D

Gygu
03-10-2013, 12:28 PM
@franknarf
So basically you described my build:
Provoker 16/8/4/1/3
Thrasher 11/12/4/1/1
Backbiter 11/12/4/1/1
Raidmaster 12/10/4/1/2
Warmaster 10/15/4/1/1
Archer
The problem of high exertion is that you also need high willpower to benefit from it.
Maybe if Willpower was mainly based on exertion stat and not being a stat for itself (WP would increase if the exertion is increased) high exertion build would be effective...

franknarf
03-10-2013, 05:39 PM
There's no need to explain to me why you don't want to use much exertion. I get it! ;)

Your build is less frightening than most of this type, thanks to it's low attack power (RM, PK and archer are 10 or less Strength attack).

netnazgul
03-11-2013, 01:35 AM
The problem with low-exertion high-armor builds is that those swarms of raiders (or siege archers) are still dangerous when maimed, but if you kill them (putting a lot of effort into that), you get turn disadvantage and fresh enemy units can simply overrun you.

SoMuchSwag
03-11-2013, 11:07 AM
Very interesting, I cant wait to see how frustrating a 4x SS team would be. O the Horror!
I don't know if you need the class restriction. I haven't watched the full 1hr+ (yet)
Did you play any raider heavy teams? like 4 bros? It would be interesting to see a 4 archer build vs a 4 BB build.

Tirean
03-11-2013, 12:17 PM
Very interesting, I cant wait to see how frustrating a 4x SS team would be. O the Horror!
I don't know if you need the class restriction. I haven't watched the full 1hr+ (yet)
Did you play any raider heavy teams? like 4 bros? It would be interesting to see a 4 archer build vs a 4 BB build.

Love how you mention a 4 bb team to be used :D And I am not saying the strength of the team above as I think it is very weak team and is easily beatable if you know how to find priorities in a game and attack them. What I am showing is how boring and simple 4X of anything is to play :)

InfiniteNutshell
03-11-2013, 12:47 PM
I dunno, you've shown that the 4-siege-archer build is boring when your opponent doesn't know how to play against it, but I'm not convinced it would be boring if your opponent knows how to fight it effectively. I guess to test this you would have to actually find a game with such an opponent though...

I think it's too early in the life of the game to justify the drastic changes a lot of people have been proposing (not just in this thread). People are still learning how to play well, and will be for a while.

piotras
03-11-2013, 01:04 PM
4xSA is part of the story, but 4bbs with max health and armour who are still capable of doing decent break or 4ths who can also max strength and armour and deal minimum 4 damage and armour stack from shield wall... if you defend, they can easily attack you with a perfect formation and let those double WM/WHs approach you, if you attack for the first strike you're also disadvantaged... your only bet is that people who play this sort of crap builds are still relatively fresh and went for the easy option and make mistakes all over. And how about 4xRM? There was a video of that somewhere and is was just silly. I wouldn't say that it's too early to make those decision, I stopped playing because that's 90% of my matches = 4x BB or 4x TH pref 2x warriors and if someone feels like a 'strategist extraordinaire' they change one warrior to a 15/14 strongarm... gameplay and 'competitive' build choice is going downhill big time and the sooner we make drastic changes to how it's being played the better.

Grits
03-11-2013, 01:18 PM
As I've said before, restricting to 2 or even 1 of each unit type would be good.

SoMuchSwag
03-11-2013, 01:22 PM
Love how you mention a 4 bb team to be used :D And I am not saying the strength of the team above as I think it is very weak team and is easily beatable if you know how to find priorities in a game and attack them. What I am showing is how boring and simple 4X of anything is to play :)

I understand the point of this now. I got carried away by just watching you crush everyone you played while they kinda ran around willy nilly.
So do you suggest less than 4 of a class or unit type? like we can have 4 archers but only 2 of them can be the same thing?
or like, you cant have more then 3 archers?
I feel like if your playing something that is 'boring' isn't that your decision as a player to fix?

Tirean
03-11-2013, 01:27 PM
I am just showing off what 4x builds are around SoMuchSwag and just how stronger they are in capable hands and also how boring it makes the games look.

My suggestion has always been to cap the advanced class limit, sure let someone have 4 archers if they choose but make it so they atleast have to have 2 different type of archers.

BrainFreeze
03-11-2013, 02:11 PM
4x builds around? I composed this build (4xSA) as a joke. Jo-oke. Not for the 1000 games to come, not to make it part of meta, not for some other "serious business". Yes, i won tournament with it. No, i'm not going to play it again anytime soon. I really doubt that there will be many people who will try to emulate it (although i actually met one). I do not defend 4xx builds, in fact i support restrictions. But maybe you should have picked more popular build, like 4BB, don't you think so?

Tirean
03-11-2013, 02:35 PM
i'll be showing 4xts and 4xbb and 4xrm once the MM is fixed. I showed 4xSA so people could see something different and take the focus off all melee set ups. Since 4x isn't just an all melee thing as your build shows Brainfreeze :)

BrainFreeze
03-11-2013, 02:54 PM
Ah, okay, you made a point. I agree, that "all-melee problem" and "4xx problem" are different and should be treated so.

Alex
03-11-2013, 11:21 PM
We are right now making changes to class limitations. Some people will like the changes, others will not.

I'd also like to point out that with the advent of recent success with the SA, at this point in Factions history literally every class has been considered OP. In celebration, we will be doubling every character's strength, halving all their armor and giving every attack a chance to miss! (dev joke).

PadreDoom
03-12-2013, 12:49 AM
For every tactic or build, there is a counter. I played two games against a 4SA build last night with a relatively mixed squad (2BBs, TH, WM, WH and SS), and won both. I had never played against it before. Guy said he was top100 rank, too. I struggle against all melee squads, but am determined to figure out the right tactics.

netnazgul
03-12-2013, 01:09 AM
For every tactic or build, there is a counter. I played two games against a 4SA build last night with a relatively mixed squad (2BBs, TH, WM, WH and SS), and won both. I had never played against it before. Guy said he was top100 rank, too. I struggle against all melee squads, but am determined to figure out the right tactics.
I myself play almost this build (except I have RM not BB, and SRM not WM) and I myself am pretty comfortable against all-melee, but suck badly vs 4SA :) So possibly it's just a style of play

masterblaster
03-12-2013, 03:24 AM
restrictions for powerful/advanced units makes sense to me. its a common feature in other similar games and doesnt seem to hurt builds or strategy. placing limits on a game makes people get more creative with builds and strategy....aka, its a good thing.

look at Blood Bowl Online for example, the more powerful players tend to have lower limits, while the weaker players tend to have higher limits. specialized players also have lower limits. and you know what? it works. it really helps to balance the game.

when a team of 6 is comprised of 66% identical or nearly identical players then thats not very well balanced. thats a problem. I know there are types of players that want to push certain strategies to the max, and i get it. however, games that aren't well balanced tend to be exploited by players with a 'win at all costs' mentality. sad but true. the best way to prevent people from breaking the game is to have restrictions.

during a 'friendly' match i think it would be fine to remove all restrictions. but for ladder matches it seems to be necessary.

KRD
03-12-2013, 03:43 AM
Hi Alex, welcome back.


We are right now making changes to class limitations. Some people will like the changes, others will not.

One reason against the unit caps as proposed in that other thread (http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1199-Unit-Cap-Idea-Suggestion-Request) that we've been hearing since beta is that the proving grounds UI doesn't really support the display of both a per-base-class (currently 5 for raiders and archers, I believe) as well as a per-promoted-class limit (currently nonexistent), on top of the Varl limit (currently 2 Varl of any kind) to boot. Since from what I've been reading, a decent majority of at least the veteran players is in favour of imposing a limit of at most two backbiters/thrashers/siege archers/etcetera, do you think implementing it might perhaps nullify the need for the first limit, the one that says you can't have 6 raiders/archers/spearmen/menders on the same team? The two caps do sound to me like they would overlap slightly, although obviously the base class passives would stand to stack even more dangerously than they do already in the case of the raiders' shield wall, for example. Is passive stacking even the main reason for that cap of 5 units of the same base class, though? Am I missing something major here?

Anyway, even if Stoic ends up agreeing with us that doing caps on promotions instead of base classes is the way to go, and that two is a sensible number to settle on, and that the UI can be modified to reflect this easily enough, that still leaves us with at least two other obstacles that would need to be addressed before going forward with the plan:

The first one, in my mind, is the tradeoff between theoretical build variety (this would most likely be going slightly down with the change) and the variety of builds actually being used in practice at the top level of play (this would probably increase, but the same thing could happen as a result of other changes unrelated to unit caps). I think in this regard, many of us would like to hear more about what the official reasoning behind your stance on the matter is. How strongly do you guys feel about theoretical build variety if it comes at the expense of player enjoyment right now, even slightly? Are there single player considerations interfering with things by any chance? Is the proving grounds UI thing just a coverup?! That sort of thing. :p

Secondly, there's the issue that was brought up in the chatbox yesterday sometime, namely that some players may have already bought renown with the intention of knocking together 4 backbiter builds for themselves and would probably be a bit upset if the possibility was taken away from them in an update. How much work would it be to implement a grace period after such game-changing updates during which players would be allowed to retrain their recently nerfed characters into another specialisation of the same base class? I'm thinking a banner similar to the Promote! one that comes up under character portraits in the proving grounds when they meet their kill requirement. Just an quick idea here, it's quite possible you have something better in mind for these situations already.

Anything else I forgot to mention or is this a good enough summary of what we've been mulling over while Stoic were busy having fun at SXSW? ;)

Vexbane
03-12-2013, 04:56 AM
I myself look forward to the restrictions. I am all for the class restrictions ( no more than 2x of any upgraded class, 1x for varls). I feel this will promote more build variety, which is a good thing. I still feel certain units need to be balanced as well.

Bloodaddict
03-13-2013, 09:01 AM
I am pretty emotion less when it comes to class restrictions. I never tried a "specialized" team since I just like to play a mixed one and if my opponent wanted to have a 2WM, 4TH team, OK, his choice.
I just wonder, if a cap of 2 per class and maybe 1 per Varl will be implemented, how long it will take until someone complains about WM, WH, 2BB, 2TH builds... ;) But probably this is another topic since someone mentioned this is not about all melee...

Impaler
03-13-2013, 07:34 PM
Stop with the stupid limits and balance the game properly instead. There should be noticeable drawbacks with using too many of the same unit. Make it so that mixed units neatly complements each other.

piotras
03-13-2013, 08:34 PM
Stop with the stupid limits and balance the game properly instead. There should be noticeable drawbacks with using too many of the same unit. Make it so that mixed units neatly complements each other.
A lot of critique but not constructive critique. Many of us tries to advise in where we see the problems and solutions, maybe you would like to chip in with some thoughts of your own?

raven2134
03-13-2013, 09:21 PM
Idea: Provide a renown bonus that encourages unit diversity in builds.

Playing with the following builds:

1-2 unit types = 0 bonus
3 unit types = 1 bonus
4 unit types = 2 bonus
5-6 unit types = 4 bonus

masterblaster
03-13-2013, 10:48 PM
Stop with the stupid limits and balance the game properly instead. There should be noticeable drawbacks with using too many of the same unit. Make it so that mixed units neatly complements each other.

I see what you mean, but implementing unit restrictions is balancing the game. Look at professional team sports. They all have certain player/position restrictions to help balance gameplay. Can you imagine the chaos if football (soccer) clubs were allowed more than one keeper? If it was allowed, I'm pretty sure every team would want it, but what fun would that be?

Vexbane
03-14-2013, 01:04 AM
Idea: Provide a renown bonus that encourages unit diversity in builds.

Playing with the following builds:

1-2 unit types = 0 bonus
3 unit types = 1 bonus
4 unit types = 2 bonus
5-6 unit types = 4 bonus

That is a good idea raven, but still does not solve the problem. Especially when one or two builds are so very strong compared to others (imo of course). I feel placing class limits is going to be the best option here for balance and build variety.

netnazgul
03-14-2013, 01:21 AM
Stop with the stupid limits and balance the game properly instead. There should be noticeable drawbacks with using too many of the same unit. Make it so that mixed units neatly complements each other.
Yay, balancing the game is too easy, you know.


Idea: Provide a renown bonus that encourages unit diversity in builds.

Playing with the following builds:

1-2 unit types = 0 bonus
3 unit types = 1 bonus
4 unit types = 2 bonus
5-6 unit types = 4 bonus
So instead of favoring homogenous builds (because of game mechanics and 4x power) we will favor maximum diversified builds for no reason? It bans people from experimenting.

masterblaster
03-14-2013, 01:31 AM
Idea: Provide a renown bonus that encourages unit diversity in builds.

Playing with the following builds:

1-2 unit types = 0 bonus
3 unit types = 1 bonus
4 unit types = 2 bonus
5-6 unit types = 4 bonus

this i'm not feeling is a good solution to the inherent issue of balancing the units. it would simply encourage people to play 5/6 unit builds on expert mode, and regardless of winning or losing matches, there would suddenly be lots of rank 2 and 3 units, which would probably make the game/community even less balanced.

i still feel that unit restrictions is a better option.

piotras
03-14-2013, 07:21 AM
Restrictions decrease potential build variety BUT increases the actual observed builds in play. Just face it :p

Leartes
03-14-2013, 07:47 AM
Idea: Provide a renown bonus that encourages unit diversity in builds.

Playing with the following builds:

1-2 unit types = 0 bonus
3 unit types = 1 bonus
4 unit types = 2 bonus
5-6 unit types = 4 bonus

Strongly against this! It pushes the player to make a decision between "play2win" and "play2grind". This should be a non-decision for playing to win.

Imo a max of 3 per class seems fine but I'm not even sure if this remains neccessary with higher ranks on units.

masterblaster
03-14-2013, 09:46 AM
Restrictions decrease potential build variety BUT increases the actual observed builds in play. Just face it :p

i dont think the main issue is build variety vs observed builds. the issue is game balance so that certain lopsided builds dont dominate every other type of build. if left as is, TBS will devolve into a handful of cookie cutter builds. where is the build variety in that?

Leartes
03-14-2013, 09:52 AM
i dont think the main issue is build variety vs observed builds. the issue is game balance so that certain lopsided builds dont dominate every other type of build. if left as is, TBS will devolve into a handful of cookie cutter builds. where is the build variety in that?

Isn't that exactly what he was saying? Observed Builds = Cookie Cutter Builds. Few observed builds = everyone plays the same cookie cutter builds.

piotras
03-14-2013, 12:09 PM
Isn't that exactly what he was saying? Observed Builds = Cookie Cutter Builds. Few observed builds = everyone plays the same cookie cutter builds.
Maybe I haven't stated it clearly enough - as Leartes explains I'm all for restrictions :) I do believe that we should see more interesting builds and less cookie cutter builds thanks to restrictions. Also, getting restrictions in should allow for having more unique units, which would have to be otherwise balanced (i.e. nerfed) to accommodate for builds abusing 4-5x of the same unit.

erom
03-14-2013, 04:21 PM
How strongly do you guys feel about theoretical build variety if it comes at the expense of player enjoyment right now, even slightly?
This hits at the heart of my feelings on the matter - theoretically, I think re-balancing units if they are overpowered en mass is better than enforcing top-down build restrictions on the game, but pragmatically having a balanced game now instead of taking three months to re-balance many units (Stoic is a small and busy team, and that would be a lot of work) might be the best bet for getting a workable solution into the game even if it is less theoretically beautiful.

Thorbarden
03-15-2013, 12:47 PM
Honestly, You're not going to see THAT much difference in builds anyway until More Class types are intoduced. If the 2x Max limit is in place, and 3 more bass classes are added, you're going to have alot more options to build your team.