PDA

View Full Version : Warrior Varls damage output suggestion



piotras
03-13-2013, 07:14 AM
Skall fellow vikings. I would like to discuss warrior varl massive damage outputs and how it downgrades shieldbanger-based tactics. Let me start off with a quote which lead me to my conclusions:


Imo shieldbangers in general could use a little buff. It is too easy to break armor atm. So there "thing" is simply not as powerful as having a str 15-17 warrior. I would rather have a unit with 16 str than 16 armor any day of the week right now.

I agree with this, double shieldbanger teams can be good as frontline damage and wp sinks if you try to make your archers or raiders as the main damage dealers, but it's definitely much harder to play than doing it the other way - raider / archer break and double-warrior varl clean up. However, rather than try to boost shieldbangers (who then might turn too powerful against raiders and archers) I would advise to look at how warrior varls deal their damage output.

I think that the gameplay could benefit if warrior varls would achieve high damage output (for 2-3 cycles) thorough high exertion and more base will power, rather than actual strength, which for example could be set to a maximum of 14. Lore-wise it would still make sense - they would be still stronger than a raider and could beef up their attack with more willpower and have superb mobility for more than one cycle (i.e. as they are mostly played now - 3-4 WP, enough for one rush and use of ability).

Choosing to play a double warrior varl team should feel like a trade-off - getting more damage than a raider and good mobility instead of armour and armour break capability. Right now, there is no trade-off since you don't have to armour break with such high strength to kill or maim. This slight nerf would still make them the best damage dealers which they should be, but wouldn't allow to one-hit-kill a 9/10 raider (17+2WP) or kill shiledbangers within one cycle (i.e. 1-2 breaks followed by a single hit clean up).

It was quite refreshing to see the base warrior vs base shieldbanger where the fight feels more balanced. As soon as you hit promotions, warrior varls become much better deal.

The 4-raider armour-stack problem (which is discussed elsewhere) shows that 2-3 less in effective damage makes a huge difference in how warriors are played and 2x warrior builds couldn't just walk in killing/maiming everything in one blow, but, for once, had to think and plan when fighting against a non-mirror build.

I expect someone will find that it limits the player choice in specing the warrior, but right now, although there is much more options, there is only one way to spec the warrior varl (WH/WM) in a effective and competitive manner (with a difference of a point here or there, but high strength is a must!).

raven2134
03-13-2013, 07:34 AM
<slow clap> you sir, have stumbled onto an interesting idea. And I really want to try this :). I think though, SRM will also have to drop str if Warriors max out at 14.

Also, if this goes in, shieldwall would need a nerf :)...maybe a cap (this I prefer) or +1 only (this I can live with, not 2 for raider-raider).

piotras
03-13-2013, 07:46 AM
Also, if this goes in, shieldwall would need a nerf :)...maybe a cap (this I prefer) or +1 only (this I can live with, not 2 for raider-raider).

I kinda assumed that shieldwall or raider base armour nerf is coming in one way or the other (or to paraphrase it: I don't imagine it not being changed).

netnazgul
03-13-2013, 07:55 AM
It may be an interesting idea, but have you thought about exertion being also an attribute to increase movement range? If you move varls from high-str to high ex/wp then they will move up to 8+ range, which is sure quite scary. Although base movement range can also be nerfed in the way that to move farther and hit stronger you will need to use a huge heap of WP.

Another question is that it will be much easier to maim warrior useless, cause 8str+0wp is not equal to 4str+4wp when your opponent has 6 armor.

Yet another question is armor break - in current system varls are just damage dealers, they can't really hit any armor at substantial quantities (I don't consider Warleader here :)). With high exertion they will be allowed to drain some enemy armored units in one blow.

To summarize this - not denying that this idea is interesting, but it should be well thought out to be used.

piotras
03-13-2013, 08:30 AM
It's all valid points. I wouldn't recommend going higher than 3 (maybe 4?) on exertion, thus we wouldn't see a 8+ movement range. Even if a varl could move by 8 tiles, that would be a very expensive move that would possibly isolate him from his slower allies and as mentioned, he would be easier to maim, so that would be a tough decision to make.

EDIT:
So playing quickly with the numbers a bit, assuming 14 and 3 for strength and exertion (for WM):
to play him as he is currently (fragile chicken at the back until mid-game, clear up late game) you could go: 7/14/6/3/1 - allows for 2x 17 hits or one large run up and 17 hit
to max strength and armour for better survival - 11/14/3/2/1 or 11/14/2/1/3 depending if you want him to do better break or more mobility and damage...

I think there would be some choice in there and maybe we would even see him use that 3 break he has? I suspect it would work similar with WH, but I definitely can see that this change would make WL a decent choice also at rank 1, while right now he's a bit pushed aside given the raw strength that other warriors have.

raven2134
03-13-2013, 09:22 AM
I wouldn't mind warriors staying at 2 exertion (except for Warleader), and then just having more willpower in place of the str.

erom
03-13-2013, 09:33 AM
I think just replacing str with will without touching exertion would be an over-nerf: we would instantly be in a situation where people would say "Why bring a warrior? They're not that hard to kill and when they die you lose a massive wad of unspent willpower."

EriktheRed
03-13-2013, 10:51 AM
I really like this idea. I tend to field two warriors for the reasons given in the first post. Balancing would be an issue, but I think the game play would benefit from having warrior types used as shock attack troops rather than mop up. I seems wrong somehow to have Warhawks running away from everything for the first half of the game. I feel that the damage output vs. armor of the lvl 0 warriors put them in the middle of combat from the beginning.

Vexbane
03-13-2013, 01:09 PM
Well since you quoted me I guess I will respond:)

In this game strength will always be better than armor. Why? While armor is an important factor str in the most important stat. Why? Because it is both life and dmg. An interesting mechanic, however, those are generally the 2 most important stats in any game that is based on tactical fighting and they are in one stat.

If I have 0 armor, 10 str I am still in the fight and am fine. Granted I will die quickly, but I am still there and a threat. If I have 0 str and 10 armor I am dead and out of the fight. So inherently str is more important than armor. The goal of any fight is to make the collective str of the enemy 0. Not the armor 0.

Even if I have 1 str and 10 armor I am still able to contribute to the fight albeit at less effectiveness, further making armor less important than str.

That is not to say armor is not an important factor in battle. It is. The way break works and the proliferation of it though makes it less important than strength. People usually want to be more aggressive than defensive in nature playing games like this further not helping the situation.

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

Now back to the shieldbangers. I have used all of them except strong arm (still leveling) and they are decent. I have won a few games because of provokers ability even. I have also lost quite a few games because of them. 2-3 hits from most standard armor break units render a shieldbanger's armor (and therefore his role) useless. Imo shield bangers should have a new stat. Resistance. This is the same as the damage resist ability that the raid master has. Adding another stat will complicate the game, but also gives a counter to the break stat, much like how armor is the counter to the str stat.

I do not think nerfing warriors strength is the way to go. Making armor more important is what should be done. Maybe lowering armor break on certain units or even across the board. Either way nerfing warriors "thing" (high str) Will not fix the underlying problem with shieldbanger's "thing" (high armor).


Anyway that is my take on it. I am by no means an expert at this game. In fact I still class myself a noob. Some of what I say may be way off, but this is how I see the situation with str vs armor.

erom
03-13-2013, 02:59 PM
Rather than adding a stat, just add one damage resistance to their existing passive ability. That would benefit the entire tree.

I don't think it's a necessary change, but that's the better way to go about it if it was done.