PDA

View Full Version : Same-class units limit??



Kirinyale
05-18-2013, 10:14 AM
I just bumped into being unable to take more than 3 archers (of any kind) into my battle party. What's the matter?? We only have 4 base classes (+3 upgrades for each), and now another tactical option is taken away "just because"? I am very disappointed, because I spent some time moving towards an idea of experimenting with 6-archer tactics... and that's what I get AFTER spending some renown. If developers think that such a limit is an absolute must for the balance - well, they could at least warn me.

That said, now I don't think I'll be coming back to the Factions anytime soon. The combat system itself is nice enough, but the number of options available is just not enough to keep it interesting once most of the tricks are known (and I just played it for a week). I really hope that there will be a LOT more units and abilities in the single-player Saga. After all, that's what I backed originally (not being a multiplayer lover anyway)...

trisenk
05-18-2013, 10:34 AM
and now another tactical option is taken away "just because"?
Not "just because". You should read some of the discussions here.


and that's what I get AFTER spending some renown. If developers think that such a limit is an absolute must for the balance - well, they could at least warn me.
You were warned - limit is displayed in the proving grounds every time you drag a unit.


The combat system itself is nice enough, but the number of options available is just not enough to keep it interesting
Chess are hundreds of years old, and people still play them.


once most of the tricks are known (and I just played it for a week).
I seriously doubt that.

Aleonymous
05-18-2013, 10:35 AM
Hello Kirinyale.

Don't turn you back (in anger) to this lovely game just because of this! There are still countless options to experiment with, while only the most asymmetric ones are restricted. These base-class limitations are shown in your Proving-Grounds at the left of your current 6-unit lineup, for the class-type last clicked-upon. It's not explicitly stressed but it is there. Current restrictions are:

(a) up to 3 archers
(b) up to 3 raiders
(c) up to 2 varls, i.e. Warriors and/or Shieldbangers (2 of the same type, or 1+1)

Give it another shot! You can promote some of your 6 archers to different ranks to mitigate this problem while hiring some more melee units...

Shiri
05-18-2013, 10:45 AM
There will be more units in the singleplayer, and (most of) those units will be available in multiplayer too. At the very least there will be male menders, female menders, berserkers, hunters and spearmen.

loveboof
05-18-2013, 10:56 AM
There will also be equip-able items for your units in the single player game (right? .. I'm sure I read that somewhere)

Kuba
05-18-2013, 10:59 AM
About number of options, I have done some calculations while ago at http://stoicstudio.com/forum/showthread.php?1487-Number-of-builds , but they are still valid.

SeraphimLoki
05-18-2013, 11:09 AM
It's a must. Back in the beggining when there wasnt any limitation there was a built
2xWarhawks 4x Trashers which was almost impossible to win against. so yea its not "just becouse", its for the game balance

Kirinyale
05-18-2013, 11:14 AM
You were warned - limit is displayed in the proving grounds every time you drag a unit.
Well, I guess, then it's my fault that I didn't notice it. Still, I think there should be some more stress on any limits like that.
What's the reason for it anyway? I realise it had to be discussed many times before, but could you please provide a quick summary (or a link to one) so I don't have to go looking through the whole forums? :)



Chess are hundreds of years old, and people still play them.
That's quite a far-fetched comparison, don't you think?



I seriously doubt that.
Ah, no, I'm not saying that I can defeat anybody already. Just that I learned enough and there don't seem to be any real secrets worth playing for.


Hello Kirinyale.

Don't turn you back (in anger) to this lovely game just because of this!
Not just because of this, actually. That was just the "final blow" of sorts. :) First, as I already said, I'm not a fan of multiplayer at all. "Not a fan" is an understatement actually - when it comes to modern online gaming, I guess you could call me a "hater". Even the fact that I'm currently working on an MMO project for a pretty well-known company doesn't change that (and I am quitting in two weeks anyway). So... the only reason I gave Factions a chance originally is because I wanted a glimpse of the future single.

As for specific disappointments... aside from the unit limits, and the already mentioned fact that there are too few classes, another big issue for me is that there are no renown bonuses or any other incentives for friend matches. Defeats the purpose of playing through a server instead of good ol' peer-to-peer. Next time I want to challenge my friend for a game of tactics and strategy, I'll rather go back to Heroes of Might & Magic (3 or 2). Also I wasn't happy when I realised that the only point of leveling any unit to 2nd level or more is to get a few extra stat points and strengthen the ability a little. A chance to unlock more unique abilities would have kept my interest for much longer.

Factions is not a bad game, but I can't help seeing it as "just a demo". And, as far as I remember, that's what it was intended to be, so... enough demo for me. :)


There will be more units in the singleplayer, and (most of) those units will be available in multiplayer too. At the very least there will be male menders, female menders, berserkers, hunters and spearmen.
Sounds good, although not even half as good as the selection we get in HoMM or King's Bounty (mostly speaking about the "new" KB, as the original wasn't much of a tactical game). But well, those games must have had *slightly* bigger budgets. Okay with me, as long as the story and exploration are as good as Stoic promised. ;)

hreinnbeno
05-18-2013, 11:18 AM
When the game came first out in march the limitation for archers and raiders were 5 and honestly the game was incredibly inbalanced at that timepoint as melee only teams brushed all other teams. Not only that as 4 siege archer team were as well pretty powerful. So more variablity caused less variability in builds. Thus the change. The builds that you compete against are much more variable now (especially after siege archer nerf) than it was when you could play more variable builds.

Kirinyale
05-18-2013, 11:27 AM
Thanks for the explanation, hreinnbeno. Sounds reasonable enough with the current state of things. Still, I would love to see how it would turn out if we had more unique abilities per class (possibly compensating for lack of classes themselves).

raven2134
05-18-2013, 11:36 AM
I think once all 3 chapters of Saga are done, Stoic plans to have a total of 64 advanced classes (we have 12 now). Or something like that.

I'm glad you stopped by to try Factions Kirinyale, I hope you enjoyed what you played and liked most of what you saw. Factions right now is more like a demo for the Saga. Many things in store still, but all in good time.

trisenk
05-18-2013, 01:22 PM
Well, I guess, then it's my fault that I didn't notice it. Still, I think there should be some more stress on any limits like that.
You may be right. I've been playing TBSF for so long that these limits are natural to me. Perhaps they should be displayed permanently in PG.




That's quite a far-fetched comparison, don't you think?
Nope, these two games have a lot in common, as it has been said many times here.



Ah, no, I'm not saying that I can defeat anybody already. Just that I learned enough and there don't seem to be any real secrets worth playing for.
You are not the first trying to measure TBSF with HoMM standards, which is a mistake in my opinion. TBSF is much more chess-like. I strongly encourage you to give it a fresh start with this in mind :)

Then there's of course the fact that TBSF is just a teaser add-on for a 700k game made by half a dozen people in a shack :)

I know that my posts may look like they're lacking concrete arguments, but like I said, we've had this discussion a few times already.

loveboof
05-18-2013, 01:49 PM
To be fair, I don't think 4 archer builds would be particularly game breaking! You just wouldn't be able to keep them all protected...

Kletian999
05-18-2013, 06:26 PM
4 Archers behind 2 Shield Varls is pretty well protected, especially when SMs or Provokers are involved.

Aleonymous
05-19-2013, 05:08 AM
I don't think 4 archer builds would be particularly game breaking!

Melee/Ranged 2:1 ratio seems fairer to me, so I have actually suggested to reduce the ranged-attackers upper-limit to 2, since three-archer builds are becoming quite popular... Well, perhaps it's me not knowing how to deal with them! :o

Rensei
05-19-2013, 09:05 AM
I joined Factions very late, but I caught the last days of 4 raiders limit. Yeah... we do not want to go there again.

loveboof
05-19-2013, 09:54 AM
4 Archers behind 2 Shield Varls is pretty well protected, especially when SMs or Provokers are involved.
Yeah, but that would be the only way to play it - which has it's own draw backs!


I have actually suggested to reduce the ranged-attackers upper-limit to 2, since three-archer builds are becoming quite popular...
I don't agree. I only use 2 archers right now so it wouldn't affect me, but a line up being popular is not a good enough reason to nerf or remove it...


I joined Factions very late, but I caught the last days of 4 raiders limit. Yeah... we do not want to go there again.
Yep, I completely agree. But 4 raiders shouldn't be lumped in with 4 archers! Different discussions imo...

Evil Laughter
05-19-2013, 04:13 PM
During the beta stages the devs played around with unit limits a lot. At one point we even had the disaster that was the 3 varl limit. The point being is that these limits were reached after much experimenting as to what gave the most diverse set of viable teams.

Echlir
05-19-2013, 04:57 PM
I can only imagine how broke combat would have ended up in SP without all of us essentially beta testing the combat.