PDA

View Full Version : Concern: Effects of Power 12 on Team Cost



Shiri
03-31-2013, 04:24 PM
TL;DR below.

First of all, I want to say good job to stoic on all the stuff they've improved lately. I don't want to come off like I'm bitching or being ungrateful here, and I'm really enjoying the game, and I definitely approve of being able to buy experienced units.

However, there is one major aspect of the new power 12 thing that makes me really uncomfortable. I actually have quite a big backlog of renown (I bought a huge chunk on release and got a big refund from the price drops, and would rather buy skins from the shop if steam didn't try to screw me than from the proving grounds) and I am just extremely reluctant to spend it.

The reason is related to this new power 12 focus. I understand what Stoic is going for with this and it makes sense to me - trying different units at rank 1, 2 or 3 but having a single team rank everything is meant to be balanced at seems like a good attempt at getting the best of both worlds, and it could just make rank another element of unit stats to experiment with, AND . The problem I have is that this really feels like terrible value for the basic reason that promoting a unit to rank 3 is often just going to screw you, and always screw me specifically. Right now the game is REALLY FUN to just experiment with all kinds of crazy stuff in, and it's actually ok to do that. Having every combo of units is really quite cheap even without grinding, and then if you're the sort that likes that, you can just buy up to it and then sit on it. If the balance/tournament format were power 18, you could do that there too, because the prices for level 3 are very reasonable for an F2P game, which tend to be VASTLY more expensive than regular games (some quick maths gives me about 50-60 for almost all reasonable team comps right now, although that will get higher as new units come in, but also ameliorated since you don't strictly need them all at once and will get renown from playing with other teams.) However, if you determine that, say, your raidmasters suck at level 3, and you instead want them at level 2, that's a disaster! Adding an entire other set at level 2 is about half that price again (counting the cost of the base unit.) You could make the case that that price is still decent enough right now, but the point is more that it feels really cheap to have to buy backup units. Additionally, this is not a huge issue for a lot of people, but it also means you're not going to be capable of playing fair matches against friends you're trying to introduce to the game with the same great spirit of experimentation and variety the game currently has unless you also get another level 1 set, which is WAY cheaper than the rank 2 or 3s, but again just feels really cheap. I have a couple of friends who mainly just like playing games with me - fighting public players is intimidating rather than entertaining for them, so being able to have fair matches with them is valuable to me, and I am turned off by the idea that ranking up my army will prevent me doing that unless I buy another one.

I have asked in chat and stoic have said there are no plans for a "rank down" (which would eliminate this last remaining concern entirely) at this time. Some people have suggested to me that this is because it would be pointless in the singleplayer, which is a perfectly good reason given that they have so much stuff to get done for that and may as well double up by getting it done for factions too. However, now that I'm getting older (used to play MTG a lot, good god that game has an awful business model) my enjoyment is seriously impacted by the feeling that I would have to spend wayyyy more than I need to to play a "full game" and not just half of one. Don't get me wrong, half of TBS:F is still probably really fun, but I would just feel comforted knowing this was at least on the agenda for the future, so my hope is that by writing this I will get replies from people who value the combination of experimentation and fair competition that this game has had so Stoic can see if it's worth prioritising at all. Also, please understand that I don't have anything against people who don't care about having all options available, or do care but also really enjoy levelling up each unit individually so "all options" is just an eventual goal. If you don't feel like you need to pay/grind for all the stuff, great, but this game has been, and I believe can continue to be, excellent even for people who don't share your values.

TL;DR: I really like being able to just pay to play with whatever units, but with power 12 (rather than 6 or 18) I feel like I'm getting screwed by having to pay multiple times for different tiers of units. I understand that this can't be fixed anytime soon but hope enough people express similar concerns that it can be put onto a list for later. My suggestion for a fix here would be to just have "rank" as another accessible toggle or something in the stats window - once you have the renown/kills, you rank up, and from then on you can just +/- it as normal depending on the needs of your team comp or the level of the opponents you want to fight.

Leartes
03-31-2013, 04:45 PM
Agree with your concerns shiri. Without rank-down option I will not move to power 12. At least for now.

I'm not strong enough to play tournament anyway, so there is not direct impact for me right now. Even restricting myself to 1x on varl and 2x on other units I end up with 2(base-class)x3(promoted class)x3(ranks) = 18 varl and 2x2x3x3=36 human units. With that restrictions I can't play any of the fancy 3x combos that make their round in chat all the time.
For every new class I need 3-6 more units to keep a somewhat decent degree of customization. If I feel at some point that it is really really worth it, I might do it. But right now it is not there yet.

Now, as grim as the above sounds, I have faith in stoic that they will find a way. In the back of my mind I remember someone say "we will make rank-up easier" or something like that. Imo rank-down is the way to go (units have more personality if I don't have every unit 6+ times).

Slimsy Platypus
03-31-2013, 09:39 PM
For me personally I ran out of things to spend renown on after playing in the first couple weeks. I interpret getting value in purchasing additional units for lower ranks as a good thing as I don't have all that much to spend my renown on. That stems from me not feeling negatively at all about promoting units then not being able to use them at lower ranks (obviously I haven't been able to use any promoted units in the tournament and I haven't felt ripped off by that).

Butters
04-01-2013, 01:36 AM
I share OP's concerns, but Slimsy also has a point. "Heavy" players like myself accumulate enough renown that if downranking at will was possible, I would already have all the renown I ever needed. (it's worth nothing I have not bought any renown from the store). At this point I already have most units in 2*r1+2*r2 and a handful or r3s with a few hundred in spare change ; that leaves me with some things to work towards.
Of course not everybody plays as intensely as me or some others do, but many players with a bit of experience should already be ready to field at least a handful of p12 permutations for the first p12 tournament, especially with the prices having come down significantly in the last update.
I do agree that the absence of down-ranking limits attachment to specific characters, which is a bit of a shame, but not a tragedy either.

Chopsticks
04-01-2013, 03:03 AM
I am strongly for the addition of down-grading your higher rank units. At the very least it should be added to friend-matches.

HeadOpener
04-01-2013, 04:51 AM
Ok so I sit somewhere in the middle of the "heavy" players and casuals. I currently have 19 rank 1 units and I am sat on about 1,000 renown as I was waiting to upgrade when the "meta" became P12 which I would assume it will move to now.
Upgrading to P12 will be fine with my 1K I should be able to make myself an effective team for P12. However as mentioned by Shiri recruiting a new P6 team to play with my casual friends and so on might be a bit more costly and take some time. This is where I feel the argument comes from.

I understand renown upgrade costs have been reduced twice now already, but for me if I was going to spend renown on anything other than units such as renames or colours I would not do this for a very long time. The reasoning is until I have covered all my bases for each power tier for each unit combination to give me the right level of playability. The other things I could buy are non essential to my full enjoyment unlike lacking the unit for the team combination I want to play.

However this I suppose, compares in a way to other F2P games, I am thinking of League of legends here for example, where you get a fixed rotation of characters but you can buy some 1 at a time with games won.

So I guess after all my ramblings, do I think it's about right, I guess so. Would down ranking be nice, yes, but the economy as Butters mentioned would be almost gone, renown would be practically worthless already. The problem comes as the older community ranks up and newer players find it harder and harder to find matches until folks like me can gather the renown together to have a team at each "meta" power level.

The only other suggestion I can think of is a temporary down rank but only for friends games so you can play friends whilst not requiring to completely rehire your team. This might keep newer friends interested in teh game long enough to be able to rank up to an effective "meta" level.

Kletian999
04-01-2013, 08:17 AM
For a Friend match, just de-allocate the 12th stat point (just like how you can forget to use your 11th point on a new rank 1) and not use your rank 2 power. Friend matches aren't bound by Team level restrictions.

Haeso
04-01-2013, 08:18 AM
Rank 3 = 10+20+80+160 (I was told 160.)
Rank 2 = 10+20+80
Rank 1 = 10+20


All permutations of R1 = 30 x 30 = 900 renown
All Permutations of R2 = 110 x 30 = 3300
All permutations of R3 = 270 x 30 = 8100

12300 before space extensions to be able to play with all permutations.


I too favor the possibility of down-ranking, gives me far more flexibility in ranked and doesn't make it very difficult to play fairly with friends.


I think you older players are overstating the difference for you, down ranking is much more important for people still leveling their teams where deciding to try out a level 2 unit means you no longer have a proper P6 team anymore, oops! Among other things. 8100 vs 12300 isn't a huge deal, but it would be really nice for people still starting out so they could try R2/R3 units without handicapping themselves and their ability to customize.

Tirean
04-01-2013, 08:24 AM
For a Friend match, just de-allocate the 12th stat point (just like how you can forget to use your 11th point on a new rank 1) and not use your rank 2 power. Friend matches aren't bound by Team level restrictions.

This guy speaks sense, nothing stopping you from ranking up and then treating them like rank 1 units when you face your friends.

raven2134
04-01-2013, 08:40 AM
Stoic will surely chime in on this thread, I get that feeling :p. Ok, tbh I'm on the fence about this one.
There things for and against this implementation

For:
1. Practical, less/no need for duplicate units. More manageable roster.
2. More interaction across playerbase

Against:
1. Game economy and need for renown sink.
2. Lore (why would you want to "demote" your battle hardened veteran?)


And there's also constraints
-It's just really unlikely to see any kind of rank shifting in reverse until saga ships (?) Think half a year or more away.

So yes, I can see why this may be practical. In fairness, I think part of the reason why we're concerned about this is because we don't have a way to "handicap" or counterbalance unit ranks. For example, like how Shogun 2:Total War balanced unit quality via cost vs quantity. (You could bring super chevrons, but you'd be limited to like 5 units, or you could bring 10 but those could be easily broken and dispersed). This meant it didn't matter what ranks your units were, cos you could play either way.


Anywho, back to topic. I'm not sure what is "best" or if this may even be a preference thing. Who knows. Before that, though, I think lowering the costs already does a lot to help the progression issue, and recruiting rank 6 teams should be even easier as well. So I don't think there's need for much concern that veteran players won't be able to match newer ones. I would think difficulty matching would arise more from Elo gaps, and people staying at power 12 by preference, than by necessity.

Besides this, yes, while it's true you may come to a point that you find you prefer a rank 2 unit, I don't think that makes the rank 3 unit irrelevant. It may just mean you don't have a use for the unit in a particular build or at that particular time or playstyle. I think it will always be good to have a unit at whatever rank.

Also, we really need to stop thinking of the "critical" point of the game as having every permutation of every unit, at every rank, within a short period of time. And instead, think of it as a natural progression. We will be experimenting, looking at what works and what doesn't for us. And amassing what choice of units we think will work or we will want to play with over time.

Experimentation doesn't occur only when we have everything, it's ongoing and happens with even that first team and that first additional unit or rank that we get.

Shiri
04-01-2013, 08:42 AM
This guy speaks sense, nothing stopping you from ranking up and then treating them like rank 1 units when you face your friends.

This is a good point that should have been obvious, that solves half the problem! But it doesn't remove the unpleasant feeling that I'm paying to get back stuff I already had and promoting units is as much a negative as a positive.

franknarf
04-01-2013, 08:59 AM
@Haeso: It may also be useful to have base classes on your team, so 30 -> 40. And when new classes are released for each current base class (soon), you'll have 50.

Also, you're not mentioning the cost of getting 30*30 + 30*15 + 30*5 = 1500 kills. At 4 kills per game (?),if they are not optimized that would be ~400 games, which should get you 2000-4000 R...?

I'm not really arguing for or against a change to the costs, just thinking about the numbers.

I think it would be nice to have a paid option that unlocked everything for friend mode...they could just add a non-expanding clone of the Proving Grounds with a matching clone of the Mead Hall with free units. By making it non-expandable, they could make sure you don't destroy their servers by hiring a gazillion Strongarms named Whiskers.

Haeso
04-01-2013, 09:05 AM
Experimentation doesn't occur only when we have everything, it's ongoing and happens with even that first team and that first additional unit or rank that we get.

I know I'd be able to experiment more if I could justify leveling favored units to R2, but since I'll just have to create another R1 version of the same unit should I want to play at P6 it sets me back on getting other R1 units even further.

I can't speak for others, I just know for me personally I would be more willing to try R2 units/consider P12 if there wasn't another 30 renown tax on every unit on top of that 80 incase I feel like playing p6 again.



@Haeso: It may also be useful to have base classes on your team, so 30 -> 40. And when new classes are released for each current base class (soon), you'll have 50.

Also, you're not mentioning the cost of getting 30*30 + 30*15 + 30*5 = 1500 kills. At 4 kills per game (?),if they are not optimized that would be ~400 games, which should get you 2000-4000 R...?

I'm not really arguing for or against a change to the costs, just thinking about the numbers.

I think it would be nice to have a paid option that unlocked everything for friend mode...they could just add a non-expanding clone of the Proving Grounds with a matching clone of the Mead Hall with free units. By making it non-expandable, they could make sure you don't destroy their servers by hiring a gazillion Strongarms named Whiskers.

I'm not particularly concerned either way myself, I just felt curious how much it would cost/how long it would take. I enjoy math. You're right about basic units/the fourth class... I totally forgot about that.


R3 = 11610
R2 = 4730
R1 = 1290
Base= 100

17730 total then once the new class comes out.

Edit: I made a slight error.

Correct numbers:

R3 = 10800
R2 = 4400
R1 = 1200

or 16400 + 100 for base classes too.

16500 total.

raven2134
04-01-2013, 09:12 AM
Well, I do see how it can look or feel that way. But at the same time, it's also seemed to me like, why are people so anxious about the fact they may need to play more?

TBSF isn't the kind of game with "an endgame" whether at power 6 or power 12, it's an active and dynamic scene. Sure I do understand 12 is progression and the peak. But even then you're likely to have rank 1s in that team composition (I'm sure many will choose to). In this sense, there's really not much need to take things overly seriously or be too hesistant to promote. Rank 2 is in a good spot at 80 renown. You can dabble with rank 3 here and there (it's at 160). There much less grind when you know that even at all rank 2, you're competitive even without maxing to rank 3.

TLDR: Maybe there's not so much need to think too hard. Just promote, go with it. Have fun, play. And should the need arise, play some more to hire fresh recruits and field a power 6 team. It may just be a matter of perspective or getting players past this comfort zone hurdle.

Haeso
04-01-2013, 09:17 AM
It's not a critical issue either way, this is just a quality of life thing. Also once you actually get to this point it'll make the current proving grounds interface INCREDIBLY cumbersome. 40~ units would be a significant amount in the current interface and be a little annoying to navigate. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to find what unit you're looking for in the barracks with 130 units haha. Also I wonder if (More likely when.) we'll be able to re-orgnaize our barracks. Right now with so few units it's a non issue for me but I can see it being a problem in the future.

It's important to take into account player perception, not just the math as well. Like I mentioned, it feels punitive in some cases when you go to R2/R3. It would be overall better received if it was just more expensive and you could down rank even if the math ended up working out to be the same, for whatever reason it would be more palatable. People are strange like that.

Butters
04-01-2013, 09:46 AM
... current proving grounds interface INCREDIBLY cumbersome. 40~ units would be a significant amount in the current interface and be a little annoying to navigate. I cannot imagine how difficult it would be to find what unit you're looking for in the barracks with 130 units haha. Also I wonder if (More likely when.) we'll be able to re-orgnaize our barracks.

This is a bit off topic, but I have a full screen of units (mainly because I need 4-5 of each class with different ranks) and it's already pretty impractical.
Rather than a fancy sorting menu, I'd be happy with an automatic sorting by class. That should be relatively easy to implement.

Shiri
04-01-2013, 09:53 AM
It's important to take into account player perception, not just the math as well. Like I mentioned, it feels punitive in some cases when you go to R2/R3. It would be overall better received if it was just more expensive and you could down rank even if the math ended up working out to be the same, for whatever reason it would be more palatable. People are strange like that.

Yeah, this is a major issue.

Also, I think they are working on a sorting thing in the future, it's just not a high priority.

raven2134
04-01-2013, 09:55 AM
I'm massaging the sorting thing as gently but firmly as I can :)). I know Arnie knows about the sorting.

Arnie
04-01-2013, 10:24 AM
An interesting discussion that I'll be following. I'm a bit cramped for time this morning though so I'll keep this one short.
Our thoughts on this were that if we made rank 1 units cheap (and as you can see we lowered every other rank quite considerably) then players could easily always make a power 6 team. Many people are sitting on much renown right now with nothing to do with it. Why not just keep your rank 1 team and as you accrue renown make a new team that goes to Power 12? Take your time. :)

erom
04-01-2013, 11:02 AM
I think the problem may just be one of perception - when you have a power 6 team, it is actually better to buy an experienced unit from the mead hall and upgrade it (while not using it) to avoid breaking your power 6 team than it is to upgrade one of your team members. Which isn't necessarily bad, but it's deeply odd.

Haeso
04-01-2013, 11:15 AM
An interesting discussion that I'll be following. I'm a bit cramped for time this morning though so I'll keep this one short.
Our thoughts on this were that if we made rank 1 units cheap (and as you can see we lowered every other rank quite considerably) then players could easily always make a power 6 team. Many people are sitting on much renown right now with nothing to do with it. Why not just keep your rank 1 team and as you accrue renown make a new team that goes to Power 12? Take your time. :)

Hey Arnie! (Josh) Finally started browsing the site and what not, love seeing so many posts with a comment from one of you guys. My favorite part of indie games is how practical fan interaction is. Not so much when you have a million players per developer.

I don't think it's a big issue in any case, though I can't speak for others. I'm willing to bet that the barracks interface ends up being far more important. Butters' anecdote seems to confirm what I was worried about, as it stands once you get a couple rows it'll be a nightmare to find what you're looking for in the barracks. At the very least the ability to move them around inside of it (Unless there's a way that I'm unaware of?) would be great.

Still having tons of fun so far.

Vexbane
04-01-2013, 05:21 PM
The old quantity vs quality argument.

Right now the devs have gone with the quantity route. Should they go with quality in the future? I say yes. Here's why:

I feel that in the long run it will attract and keep more players. It is a scientifically proven fact that the more options you give a customer the less likely they are to buy. There are many factors that contribute to this. How is this relevant in this game? Players will feel like there is too much of a mountain to climb to gain all units and/or unit combinations they want or overwhelmed sifting through their barracks. It seems like a chore rather than fun. Math is not important here. Neither is the cost. It is all about customer feel and perception. Having a good customer experience is always priority #1. Even if we are able to sort our barracks this would still be an issue.

I am already feeling irritated in my barracks and I only have 21 units. It is becoming a chore to get units instead of fun like it was in the beginning. Not to mention having to buy barracks spots. Not that it is expensive or not feesable, but when I feel forced to have to buy something it lessens my gaming experience. I do not want to own 50+ units to have access to the combinations that I like/want. Nevermind completionists who like to get everything.

Right now there are not too many units so the quantity method is not that bad, but I feel strongly that in the long run it will turn off many more players than it attracts. I think making units a little more expensive and having options is better than having mass units to sift through. Ease of use is important and this gives the best ease of use imo.

If it were up to me I would not only make it so you can change ranks at will, but I would also make it that so you could pay to change classes (like changing a backbiter to a raidmaster). Why? This again would make it so you have less units to sift through, but having a cost keeps the renown sink needed in the game. I think changing ranks should be free though. People like to customize their units. One of my favorite games of all time is final fantasy tactics. One big reason is that you have great unit customization and can change jobs after every battle if you want. In this way you can get attached to your character instead of just adding more redshirts. (extra credit if u get that reference)

They already took away any sense of accomplishment leveling your units since you can buy leveled units cheaply. So I feel forcing you to spam units is not a good idea to add to that. This will only get worse the more unit types and classes you add. Dealing with this sooner rather than later would be a wise choice imo.

franknarf
04-01-2013, 06:00 PM
It's bad that "you can buy leveled units cheaply", eh? There are just as many saying the prices are too high (that is, not very many), so I guess they've found a good balance.

And they haven't "gone the quantity route"; it's just a side-effect of the single-player design. Of course, you know this already. I don't really buy your application of the paradox of choice (is that what it's called?) here. Besides, your proposal entails complicated choices within units instead of between units. I hardly think that improves ease of use.

Personally, I don't want to change units' ranks or classes at will; I'd be happier with a way of sorting or filtering the PG. Anyway, both of us will have to wait, but I don't see this as urgent.

sweetjer
04-01-2013, 08:50 PM
The "more options::less sales" observation is generally intended to refer to manipulating stupid consumers to maximize sales and profit. This does not affect discerning (i.e. intelligent) consumers, except that they usually call to complain about these "dumbing down my options" initiatives. Intelligent consumers like options. Too bad you get more sales below the line than above it (discerning customers are also more likely to think again about a frivolous purchase, for instance). The whole point of that notion in marketing is to manipulate the mindless "OK" head-nod consumers. It really shouldn't be referenced for designing a "better" system. I know that doesn't apply to your application of the idea, but that's because your application of the idea and its actual use in marketing are not congruent. What I mean is allowing people to downgrade units/scale level vs. a crowded barracks doesn't really line up with that marketing analogy. The marketing analogy might line up better if you were arguing to reduce the number of advanced classes in the game, for instance. Of course you wouldn't do that, that'd be absurd. That's why "more choices::less sales" is kind of a stupid marketing idea; it might have a positive effect on a company's bottom line, but it almost always has a negative effect on customer experience. At least if the customer is paying attention.

Sorry if I'm rambling; I'm multi-tasking while taking calls at my marketing/customer service/sales job ;P

Arnie
04-01-2013, 08:55 PM
Hey Arnie! (Josh) Finally started browsing the site and what not, love seeing so many posts with a comment from one of you guys. My favorite part of indie games is how practical fan interaction is. Not so much when you have a million players per developer.

I don't think it's a big issue in any case, though I can't speak for others. I'm willing to bet that the barracks interface ends up being far more important. Butters' anecdote seems to confirm what I was worried about, as it stands once you get a couple rows it'll be a nightmare to find what you're looking for in the barracks. At the very least the ability to move them around inside of it (Unless there's a way that I'm unaware of?) would be great.

Still having tons of fun so far.

Glad to hear your having fun! Yes, barracks sorting is something I am well aware of as being an issue. We *may be able to auto sort into class areas which, while not a perfect system, will help a lot. The problem right now is bandwidth. There's 3 of us trying to do a lot at the moment.
For those of you that don't know Haeso, he's one helluva a DM. He took Stoic through a module of D&D Next while we were at PAX. Was supposed to be a 4 hour game and it turned out to be more like 6. Good times.

Kletian999
04-01-2013, 10:09 PM
I know the devs had said that downgrading is a feature they don't want to code, because it's useless in single player.

Maybe it would be easier to take my idea for friends matches (de-allocate stat points and voluntarily don't use rank powers) and code it into the factions protocol. I assume the class object for "unit in battle" isn't intimately tied to the data structure "in barracks". If this is the case, the checks that currently use unit rank (both whether higher rank powers are accessible AND team power calcs) could treat any stat 11- unit that isn't base class as rank 1 (to prevent cheating rank 1s being considering zeros), any stat 12 as rank 2, and stat 13 as rank 3.

Thus with hopefully only minor adjustments to the matchmaking and class power code blocks, you can have the effect of completely player controlled downranking without worrying about renown spending, lore reasons (I'm voluntarily handicapping myself for a fair fight makes sense), or chances for the process to go "wrong" and waste someone's renown. As a courtesy, the Proving ground UI should mention unallocated stat points when they see them and notify them of this "feature" if they decide to implement it.

raven2134
04-02-2013, 01:23 AM
Actually, that sounds a lot like how progression and matchmaking used to be built around, with the basis being the spent stats on a unit (meaning a power 6 team was power 66) rather than the ability rank (power 6, since each rank 1 is 1 power not 11).

The main issue with this, is that while the stat point subtraction is there, the ability downgrade isn't =/

Zahar
04-02-2013, 02:04 AM
Yeah, down ranking is a must. I really regret upgrading units to rank 3, and I should not be punished for doing it.

Haeso
04-02-2013, 06:38 AM
I've just come across another good reason for down ranking instead of retraining new units... I was just in a P4 quick match with 2 WH and 2 SA, leveling up two raiders since I want to try backbiters. It put me against someone who is obviously new to the game and had no chance, but short of buying veteran units which are too expensive for me, every time I want to rank up new units I have the option of running R2/R3 units + my basic units in p6+ or ruining some new player's day which sucks for both of us.

I felt like a bully, but I don't want to go into a P6+ with basic units which is a major handicap either. Down ranking wouldn't solve this particular problem but it would help a bit. I don't know, that last game was just disheartening, I really felt bad for the other guy. Buying recruits and getting matched against new players feels like smurfing in League of Legends or other games like that, but I have to do it to get the units I want or self-handicap by paying much more/playing in p6+ with basic units.

Arnie
04-02-2013, 06:54 AM
Down-ranking is something we can look into in the future. Right now there's no way to drop stats on an ability. So dropping stats would be one thing, but you'd still have the r2/r3 ability, which can be powerful.

Haeso
04-02-2013, 07:13 AM
Down-ranking is something we can look into in the future. Right now there's no way to drop stats on an ability. So dropping stats would be one thing, but you'd still have the r2/r3 ability, which can be powerful.

With such a small team I wouldn't expect anything to happen any time soon. By the way thanks for the kinds words about my DMing haha.

I didn't really have any good reasons for down ranking other than quality of life until I just recently started playing in under P6 quick matches for the first time in 20+ matches to rank up some new units and I just feel kind of bad for ruining games against new people that's all. This seems like a legitimate reason to consider it instead of just quality of life that's all. I understand all too well there's only so much time in the day, I was actually talking to butters in the in game chat about that.

Only seek to bring things I notice to attention, every faith in you guys spending the little time you do have wisely! In the mean time I'll be using R2s and basic units in P6 instead of ruining games for new people when I want to level things up, rather a minor handicap to myself.

Shiri
04-02-2013, 08:13 AM
Down-ranking is something we can look into in the future.

Ok, that's all I really wanted to hear :D

Arnie
04-02-2013, 10:32 AM
In the mean time I'll be using R2s and basic units in P6 instead of ruining games for new people when I want to level things up, rather a minor handicap to myself.

Wait a sec Haeso...haven't you only been playing for like a week or so? Aren't YOU one of the new players?

Haeso
04-02-2013, 10:45 AM
Wait a sec Haeso...haven't you only been playing for like a week or so? Aren't YOU one of the new players?

I was a professional player for several years, and the start of my old game dev job I got because I spent my time figuring out how to break video games and posted breakdowns of what I did, how I did it, and how to fix it, QA/Balancing was where I started before I learned to program. I've only been playing three days, true. But between that and I've been playing 4-5 hours a day heh.

I just played against global anarchy actually at p6, the leaderboards suggests he's one of the best and out of my 45/8 w/l he was definitely the best person I've played against so far, my other losses were mostly me making mistakes. I nearly beat him - came down to an SS trap. Had two targets on either side of a full str BB he could kill either, knew he had a trap, was a matter of picking which one to go for, chose wrong and lost with about 10~ hp left on his last two units instead of a win! Was great fun, though I was completely bitter about losing to something I couldn't really counter, was a 50/50 I hit the trap or I killed one of his guys. But hey thems the breaks as it were. Really good match.

I'm by no means the best mind you, if I was I wouldn't have lost to global in spite of one trap heh - but I learn pretty quick and I don't like playing against people with no chance, I feel like I'm going to turn them away from the game, especially when the chat box goes invisible and I can't even give them some pointers or anything. That's a way more important bug than the stuff from this thread.

Tirean
04-02-2013, 11:13 AM
Another challenger approaches :D hope you stick with the game Haeso!

Haeso
04-02-2013, 11:51 AM
Another challenger approaches :D hope you stick with the game Haeso!

I just fell in love with backbiters. Late game an extra 2 break and 2 str damage for one willpower on that special ability is nasty. I'm starting to prefer them over thrashers. Just a shame they cap at 10 str!

I still haven't even given bowmasters or any of the shield varls serious play time yet, so I've plenty more to do. Once I've figured everything out I tend to get bored with a game, but with all three ranks and 6, 12 and 18 power level teams to mess around with there's enough to keep me here for at least a few months.

Tirean
04-02-2013, 11:57 AM
no point going up to power 18 teams, only competitive side is 6 and 12

Haeso
04-02-2013, 12:00 PM
no point going up to power 18 teams, only competitive side is 6 and 12

Not for competitive play you're right. I believe it was said the 'official' game is going to be P12 correct? For me though the theory is just as interesting to me as actual playing. I enjoy taking things apart and putting them back together in this case figuratively.

Vexbane
04-02-2013, 07:59 PM
Hmm that post did not turn out the way I planned. Let me try again.

The short version is I would rather have 3 raidmasters and be able to make them what I want and what level I want than 27 raidmasters to get the same effect if I choose to. I can take having 9 raidmasters and be able to customize them to what level I want though as a compromise. Why should I have to have 100+ units in order to have full choice if I choose to? Does that not seem a little excessive? Especially since I cannot even organize them the way I want in my barracks and am forced to spend renown on barracks slots in order to do so.

I think leaving the system as is will turn people off in the long run. I am taking a hiatus from the game right now for a few reasons this is one reason. People enjoy choice and customization in strategy games especially. It may not make sense for the single player aspect, but it is really needed for multi-player imo.

erom
04-02-2013, 08:05 PM
I'm so confused where 27 raidmasters are coming from. You mean 27 total across all raider variations, right? (If you wanted to have 3x of every variety at every level, which seems unnecessary to me, but I can see it.)

Vexbane
04-02-2013, 08:13 PM
I'm so confused where 27 raidmasters are coming from. You mean 27 total across all raider variations, right? (If you wanted to have 3x of every variety at every level, which seems unnecessary to me, but I can see it.)

You are correct every level and rank. While unlikely some people may want that many you can see my point. I myself would like at least 3 rank 1 and 3 rank 2 of every kind, which is still 18. Throw in 1-2 rank 3's and you still end up with 20+ units. When 3 or 9 could easily do. Throw in an extra few hundred renown for barracks slots and I cannot sort my units the way I want and it becomes a frustrating mess and that is 1 unit type.

It will get exponentially worse are more unit classes and types are added. Hence why I suggest something be done now instead of later even though single player does not need it.

franknarf
04-02-2013, 08:35 PM
Yeah, something should be done. I'm already beginning to have a little trouble finding the right unit in the PG.

PG filtering/sorting sounds a lot more straightforward (in terms of coding, lore, communication to players) than redefining units so that re-ranking and re-classifying make sense, but I can see why you might get angsty over promotion regrets.

EDIT@vexbane: Oh, just realized this is almost exactly what I said before, and so likely does not merit a new reply.

BattleSloth
04-07-2013, 01:23 PM
I couldn't agree more. The system (down with the system, maaaaan) is preventing players from being able to have fun, experiment, and optimize.

grumpyoldman
05-26-2013, 11:16 AM
Hello,

I really have nothing to add to the discussion, all good points were mentioned. But here is another downgrade-supporter due to oversight and Haeso's new-player argument; - and I think there are a lot more out there, especially newer players. Im glad you are rethinking it in long term.

My best regards
grumpy

Njael
05-26-2013, 12:13 PM
Hello,
I would recomment up/downgrading units. Maybe you can buy this option for xx renown per unit/lvl. At the moment it is really expensive to upgrade units, especially if you really want the full flexibility (q.e. 3 archers of every type and rank).

Best regards,
Njael

Aleonymous
05-26-2013, 02:07 PM
I'd also like these features, e.g.
(1) downgrading -- returns X% of the Renown spent, with X~50-100%.
(2) sidegrading -- change class-type, at a small cost of say 10-20 Renown
(3) dismissing -- returns X% of the Renown spent (with X~50-100%), or the unit's kills in Renown.

Butters
05-26-2013, 02:16 PM
I can definitely see the appeal of downgrading, for the good reasons in this thread (my barracks are a vivid example of why it would be useful).
Sidegrading, I don't see me having the use of - possibly ever.
Dismissal with returns based on number of kills is a cool idea, but I'd be tempted to just periodically dismiss my rank 1s to cash in their kills value (profitable even if you replace with a 25 r unit + 20 for promotion starting at 56 kills). I'd rather keep my guys pretty much forever, for better or for worse...

Esth
05-26-2013, 02:58 PM
I don't see whats so hard about letting you set an effective level (up to that unit's max level) while it's in roster and then allocate points. (sort of a reply to a post i made in another thread but this one is really more relevant).

raven2134
05-27-2013, 05:57 AM
Umm...it has to do with programming (when Stoic has just 1 programmer) and making sure things don't bug out :)? Please note, that this has been noted. But Saga is priority right now, so there are only balance tweaks done for Factions. New features such as this will be looked at once Saga is out.

Butters
05-27-2013, 07:05 AM
I imagine adding the UI elements for it is a reasonable amount of work too. PG will need separate indicators for max level and current level, etc. It's not that trivial. Had they more people on the team, it would have been done by now I think. Too bad they couldn't keep the temps around for that kind of heavy lifting.

Esth
05-27-2013, 07:15 AM
Ok, that came across a bit strong. I didn't mean implement it now, just that it should be a priority (and not a particularly difficult one) soon after the single-player is finished. It also seems easier for the programmers, in the long run, to do this rather have to store and sort what will eventually be massive barracks. Renown costs would probably increase though.

raven2134
05-27-2013, 07:30 AM
Aye!!! (Wanted just 1 !, but vbulletin won't let me post less than 5 characters :p, even if I am admin)

Rensei
05-27-2013, 08:26 AM
The only valid reason to ever buy extra renown is to get a wider variety of units faster and be able to experiment with them that much earlier...
Wonder why they didn't make killing it their ABSOLUTE priority. What on earth are they thinking?


While I have to agree that downgrading is a strong alternative to the current system, they did hotfix the proving grounds, making it quite readable (even with few screens worth of units)and added veteran units to recruitment hall (so You can invest bling bling and get a level 3 unit right off the bat) so it's not as bad as it used to be.

Butters
05-27-2013, 09:34 AM
I guess I'm OK with the current state of affairs. I'm probably not one to talk, but the progression seems very reasonable to me with the veteran units, the upgrade cost cut, and the +5 win. With eternal boost renown is now flowing really much faster than before (19/20 per match !).
The fact that it keeps me on my toes with currency after 350+ hours logged in says something about the general balance. Considering the technical constraints of nothing-that-is-not-useful-to-SP (which is of course the right thing to do), I'd say it's pretty darn good.
I think a complete rethink of the renown system, if necessary, is not something to be afraid of. It may be needed with downgrading and all the additions coming from Ep1. I wouldn't worry too much about making too much of a departure from the current system. The current fanbase is dedicated and loyal, I think, and we will return to factions and adapt. I'd rather have that rather than a system built on foundations built in a hurry.

Sygdir
06-10-2013, 02:15 PM
Hello everyone, sorry to interfere in this discussion, but setting aside the fact that the rank 2 and 3 have a really high cost, I must say that I would not agree with this "downgrading units" idea... but... I just noticed that my casern is already full, I can't buy more slots AND I obviously don't have all the units(I just have all the rank 1 and 2). So I did a quick calculation: I need about 120 slots to have every variations, but I only have 81. So do you mean I need to delete some units to have more rank 3?
In this case, I would agree with the "downgrading units" idea. But I wanted to ask this: Why not allowing to buy more slots in the casern? Furthermore, there will be some new units I guess, so will I need to delete my units again to be able to test them?

Sorry for my bad english by the way, I just hope this post is decipherable :)

Aleonymous
06-10-2013, 02:38 PM
I would like the option of being able to set each unit to whatever Rank equal-to or lower-than its highest promoted Rank, for the purpose of a match at a specific power-level. In this way, you'd need only:

3 Raiders x 3-Types = 9
3 Archers x 3-Types = 9
2 Shieldbangers x 3-Types = 6
2 Warriors x 3-Types = 6

...for a grand-total of 32 units (@Rank-3) in your barracks to have EVERY possible permutation at EVERY possible power-level.

Alas, I guess TBSF needs some major Renown-drains for hardcore gamers (e.g. stoicmom :cool:), and, so, these huge barracks with multiple units at various different ranks is a good way towards that goal!

But fear not: I am confident Stoic will let you guys spend your Renown in even larger barracks before they force you to dismiss units ;)