Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 84

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: Unit Cap Idea/Suggestion/Request

  1. #1
    Senior Member Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    265

    Lightbulb Unit Cap Idea/Suggestion/Request

    Ok, first than all, this ain't a whining or hating thread(maybe a bitt of whining?). I might not be a "pro", but i know my stuff to a satisfactory degree(am on top 20 on most wins, and top 15 on most games played)

    With that said:

    From my humble point of view, Unit Cap for the same unit category should be reduced to 3 in stead of 5.

    This would eliminate the amount of cheese i'm seen in the past 2 days, by a great amount. Teams of 4 riders 2 varls(4bb + 2 strong arms/ 4 trashers + 2 warhawnk, etc), are in mayor or minor degree a bitt unbalanced and can be OP unless on particular maps or vs particular builds.... This adding a degree of luck(map u play at and build u got) on matchmaching that should not be there.

    Sure, such builds are not witown vulneravilities, they do have weakness and still require some amount of skills to use them, after all positioning in this game plays a Big KEY! But in the hands of an average player they can be pretty much op, thus reduce the skill the player needs to win with such a build and unfairly increasing the skill the opponent needs to counter it.

    I am a person who likes to play fair and enjoy having a balanced army composition, no matter what game i play i allways live by my own code, ofcourse i can not spect everybody to do the same, and diversity on the army builds is ultimatelly something i enjoy.
    I'm sure it would be boring facing mirrow armies all the times, but, there is a big diference between playing vs a guy who got "2 Varls, 1 archer and 3 raiders", to playing vs someone that brought 4 riders and 2 Varls.... Making the last one, a very unpleasant game experience 80% of the times....... believe it or not that 1 extra unit has a hugge weight...

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

    Resumen:

    -Reduce the Raider Cap to 3 from 5
    -Reduce the Archer Cap to 3 from 5(this was included because i have seen people complaining about it, not from a personal point of view)

    As an alternative:

    -Add a "same unit(same promotion)Cap of 2.

    This way the game would be more balanced and enjojable while still allowing a good diversity of builds and matchups.


    PS: Feel free to leave ur opinion below, just make sure to keep it mathure.
    Last edited by Yellow; 03-05-2013 at 04:57 AM.

  2. #2
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Hmmm, I can see your point about more variety in builds. I did suggest during he beta to have a cap of 3 units of the same type (and by that I mean the promotion, so no 4 THs or BBs, but by what I suggest 4 mixed raiders would be still acceptable, so it's less strict than what you advise).

    I understand that things can get ugly when you fight against 4 raiders, but these builds are not unbeatable. SS, SA, PR, also warriors can easy mess up an all melee team and I know that from my own experience of running such build (however I'm not running 4 identical Raiders which I also find rather lame). In terms of 4 archers.. hmm, very hard to say. Never played it, but I've played against it and I do find it a very risky build, where everything is dependant on the SS success or failure of zone control.

    But to be honest, if I was to drop any 4 raider (including 2 x 2 types mix) team for the sake of more interesting build I would gladly do that. Especially that after addition of spearmen and other classes the all-melee build variant would still be possible to accomplish.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by piotras View Post
    Hmmm, I can see your point about more variety in builds. I did suggest during he beta to have a cap of 3 units of the same type (and by that I mean the promotion, so no 4 THs or BBs, but by what I suggest 4 mixed raiders would be still acceptable, so it's less strict than what you advise).

    I understand that things can get ugly when you fight against 4 raiders, but these builds are not unbeatable. SS, SA, PR, also warriors can easy mess up an all melee team and I know that from my own experience of running such build (however I'm not running 4 identical Raiders which I also find rather lame). In terms of 4 archers.. hmm, very hard to say. Never played it, but I've played against it and I do find it a very risky build, where everything is dependant on the SS success or failure of zone control.

    But to be honest, if I was to drop any 4 raider (including 2 x 2 types mix) team for the sake of more interesting build I would gladly do that. Especially that after addition of spearmen and other classes the all-melee build variant would still be possible to accomplish.
    Caping to 3 of the same promotion would work aswell, as for when i said "raider" was for being more general, and not having to say, 4 backbiters, 4 trashers, 4 raidmasters.. ect ect. That would be as u said less restrictive, but if i have to pick, i still pick max 3 of the same category ^^)

    And yes i never said such builds were unbeatable, since at the end of the day all builds have their own strenght and weakness, but it is, as u self said, kinda lame having to face a guy who brings 4 Backbiters + 2 Strongarms for example, and a lot comes down to what map u fighting on and what units u brought urself... This adding a lot of luck to the matchmaking as i previosly said, cos u never know what ur oponent might bring, so if u decide to run a defensive anty-melle build, u might be handicaping urself if u get matched vs something else, the same applies the other way around.

    Regarding the Archers, to be honest i have never faced anybody using more than 3 archers in total so far, so i personally dont have any issues with them but i added it to the list cos i have heard of people complaining about such builds, + i can inmagine how it could be somehow frustrating playing vs such builds sometimes.
    Last edited by Yellow; 03-04-2013 at 04:01 PM.

  4. #4
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    Well, I need to admit one thing. It's really not fun to play against someone using 4 identical units. That sort of play creates the need of having 'anti-builds' to counter it etc... I would rather see interesting mixed builds, where everyone have a chance rather than battles filled with 'build A', 'anti-A build', 'build B', 'anti-build B' etc ;P

  5. #5
    There is no indication that 4 archer or 4 raider builds are unbalanced (I'd even say that 4-archer builds are rather weak) so I don't see why we should restrict player choice. Variety is the spice of life. Just like a cloaked banshee rush in Starcraft or a E. Honda HHS block in Super Street Fighter, learning how to deal with "cheese" builds is part of a competitive game. I also always have a problem declaring a balanced build as somehow morally superior to a cheese build. If player want to run a higher risk/ higher reward build, that should be allowed.

  6. #6
    Senior Member Wordplay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    94
    I think that those builds are very rarely run, but they are interesting to experiment with.

    I've only ever run 4-5 of a unit to test builds for balance, but when I did, I found that I needed to build at least a couple of them very differently.

    Most people won't run those builds most of the time...but I do like to have the option.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Yellow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    265
    Quote Originally Posted by erom View Post
    There is no indication that 4 archer or 4 raider builds are unbalanced (I'd even say that 4-archer builds are rather weak) so I don't see why we should restrict player choice. Variety is the spice of life. Just like a cloaked banshee rush in Starcraft or a E. Honda HHS block in Super Street Fighter, learning how to deal with "cheese" builds is part of a competitive game. I also always have a problem declaring a balanced build as somehow morally superior to a cheese build. If player want to run a higher risk/ higher reward build, that should be allowed.
    As i replied to Pirotas already, i have never faced a person using more than 3 archers, i added it becouse i have seen people complaining, not from a paersonal experience.

    From a Personal experience however i can tell u that facing 4 backbiters is a pain in the A.S.S . as their avility to run trought units leaves little to no hope of protecting archers, specially when the build is acompanied by 2 Strongarms, making useless and even worse the idea of grouping ur units or deploying archers behind Varl....

    Quote Originally Posted by Wordplay View Post
    I think that those builds are very rarely run, but they are interesting to experiment with.

    I've only ever run 4-5 of a unit to test builds for balance, but when I did, I found that I needed to build at least a couple of them very differently.

    Most people won't run those builds most of the time...but I do like to have the option.
    Since i started playing, i have fought at least a minimum of 12 times vs such armies, today's afternoon alone i fought 4, almost 1 after another..... so it is not as rare to encounter such build as u claim to be.... or maybe the system just hates me, and/or am very unlucky....

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

    PS:
    as a side note, duno if any of u ever played "Shogun 2 : Total War" but there were builds there very very cheesy and anoying!, such as people bringing only "archer calvarly" units and spending 2+ hours running around shooting.... the whole comunity saw such things as a shamefull displays, and asked for unit caps to be included.... while the situation ain't that bad in here, it kinda resemblance.
    Last edited by Yellow; 03-05-2013 at 04:55 AM.

  8. #8
    Junior Member eAZy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    12
    Frankly, it is far too early in the game's life to make such drastic balance dynamic changes. Nothing against you OP, but do you think you know enough about the game having played it maybe a few dozen times to be 100% sure this is a problem? I would wait and see what builds come out for at least a few months before jumping to big changes.

  9. #9
    I play 4-archers build recently. I find it rather fun, both for me and my opponents(judging from their comments). I don't think options for gimmicky builds should be limited. If such a build is unbeatable - then it is a balance issue with massed unit itself, and it should be fixed. If it is not - then it doesn't need to be fixed at all. My opinion - all builds have stronger and weaker sides, and "soft counters" to them.

  10. #10
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    I thought this might be of interest in this thread as well. Taken from here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Galactimus View Post
    I ended up with 52 wins in a row using 2 Warhawks and 4 Thrashers. I've played over 100 games with them. The Flail ability allows them to be deadly even in the late game. It doesn't matter if they miss the last hit with Flail. The whole point is that you have an ability that will deal at least 3 total damage, with 100% accuracy, even when you only have 1 HP left. That's a huge advantage over other units near the end of a match. I send out my four Thrasher team to take a beating, smash armor, and go Archer hunting, while my Warhawks sit in the back waiting for their chance to rock enemy Varl's to 1 HP in a single blow.

    By the way: Backbiters miss their last attack just as often as Thrashers (it's armor based like regular attack).

  11. #11
    Junior Member Anodai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    20
    It seems like the people who complain about heavy archer builds are newer players. I'm against a restriction to raiders more than max 4, because while I only use 3, some of my most enjoyable games have been against teams using two thrashers and two raidmasters.

  12. #12
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    I have to say, I've become a proponent of identical unit cap as of late. 4 bb spec for armor and str seems to reduce the skill the player needs to win and unfairly increase the skill opponent needs to counter it. I have written at length regarding skill level to play vs skill level to counter in the past, and I'd like to agree that (at least when it comes to identical raiders, specifically BB and TH), this is still a balancing issue that we should take a look at.

    To clarify, in response to Anodai, I am supporting a cap to how many of the SAME unit not same base class you can have in the team. Ie. 4 BB would be illegal but 2 TH 2 RM would not.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 03-04-2013 at 08:38 PM.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  13. #13
    Junior Member Bork's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    4
    In my view this is more of an issue of backbiters being slightly too all around strong. Their special attack is perhaps the most deadly and flexible special attack in the game, yet they also have stats on par with the other raiders. If they had their max armor or strength reduced slightly, I think we would see many less 4 of one unit builds.

  14. #14
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    I hear that Bork, usually the issue with these builds is the high armor from shield wall stacking. 4 Archers isn't an issue in my opinion, I think that team is easily countered, so not sure why that is tacked onto this thread. I figure stoic will come up with something to reduce build homogeneity, they are really good at coming up with balanced solutions.
    Last edited by sweetjer; 03-04-2013 at 08:51 PM.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  15. #15
    Backer KRD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    #worms|irc.gamesurge.net
    Posts
    53
    I'm with sweetjer on this one and have been since pretty early beta.

    As a sort of compromise between the current situation and making all-melee builds outright impossible (as a hard cap of 3 raiders would), I really think limiting individual specialisations is the way to go here, at least as a test. If this limit was set at 2 backbiters/thrashers/raidmasters/bowmasters/siege archers/sky strikers, the freedom of archer-heavy and raider-heavy teams would remain, while the really annoying and difficult to balance quad-backbiter and quad-thrasher builds wouldn't be an option anymore. In practice, this would increase the variety of builds that we'd get to see in combat.

    One could still of course go with two biters and two thrashers, and this would bypass armor just as effectively, but from my personal experience, I feel the increase in variety could just make such builds that little bit less straightforward to play. How much this would mitigate the problem at hand remains to be determined, but I can safely say for myself that I would enjoy playing against two of each raider specialisation a lot better, from the point of view of variety at least, if nothing else.

  16. #16
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    To me, it's a problem when a new player specs 4 Backbiters 12/12 with two warriors then avoids the concept of armor breaking; it bothers me because I know there is much more fun ways to play the game, and it sucks to lose to something that feels like it is breaking the mechanics.

    With that being said, I'm not so sure that limiting the potential melee units you can be put on a team (via a Raider limit) is an end-all solution, as we are going to be getting a host of additional classes released that will likely very effectively fill a missing role in the "all mellee" build.

    I think this is more of an issue on how you can put your stat points in characters. In my way of thinking, you should not be able to make a backbiter both the best defensive and best offensive Raider type. Additionally, the issue is further complicated because they have an active ability that does 2 armor break, which effectively gives them an out if they choose to avoid break all together. If Backbiters are intended to be used offensively (which synergizes with their active ability) I think we need to eliminate being able to play them as an effective damage sink.

    As a suggestion, perhaps Run Through could be adjusted so that it uses the Backbiter's break stat to determine it's ARM damage (I'm thinking a break stat of 1 deals no ARM damage while running through, break of 2 deals 1 ARM, and 3 deals 2 ARM). This concept is similar to the Siege Archer's Slag and Burn and the Shieldbanger's Bring the Pain, so I'm not thinking I'm too far off base here. Alternatively we could just give Backbiters a nerf on the break on Run Through all together (limiting it to 1). This is speculation, but I am nervous that when a Backbiter can run through 4 tiles with Rank 3 Run Through (while using less the minimum required willpower required to stat him), that we definatley wont be seeing groups with 4 Backbiters disapear. However, this might not be the best decision either, as it diminishes their ability to be effective archer killers.

    With all this being said, there has been alot of focus on Backbiters in my post. Let me reiterate: it is my thought that we need to adjust how we can stat the characters. If we don't put break in our units, we should run the risk of encountering a high ARM unit and not being able to overcome it. If this isn't working, I think something needs to get adjusted. If we stat our units for the highest STR, they should not also be the hardest to kill or be able to easily ARM break. It's amazing to me how delicate the balancing is in this game, at times 1 or 2 points in a unit can feel like an entire world of difference. Stoic has done an outstanding job balancing so far, I think we just need to tweak any units that appear to be both "jack-of-all-trades" and the "masters of that trade".
    Last edited by Slimsy Platypus; 03-04-2013 at 10:35 PM.

  17. #17
    Senior Member sweetjer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Pacific NW, United States
    Posts
    154
    I was thinking that Run thru AB should be equal to base AB for the unit. So if you assign 1 break, run thru does 1 break. Additionally I'd like to see BB break capped at 2. That way you have to spend points to get the current run thru value, and BB's are no longer the most effective raiders for breaking.
    that which does not kill you often leaves you handicapped

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Bork View Post
    In my view this is more of an issue of backbiters being slightly too all around strong. Their special attack is perhaps the most deadly and flexible special attack in the game, yet they also have stats on par with the other raiders. If they had their max armor or strength reduced slightly, I think we would see many less 4 of one unit builds.
    I believe a reduction in max armor for backbiters is being considered by the devs. They were talking about it in the forum chat.

  19. #19
    Junior Member Vaidency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6
    I think something we need to keep in mind when considering balance is that teams are more than the sum of their parts. A team built very heavily around stacking a single type of unit may be one-dimensional, but they gain an exponential increase in power along that one dimension, and it can potentially reach a level where a more balanced team is at a distinct disadvantage in spite of their greater breadth of abilities.

    We saw this problem in beta with the 2-warmaster, 4-thrasher build. Those units are still able to deal modest damage regardless of their strength or the target's armor. Each additional unit on your team that can't be neutralized by maiming significantly increases the difficulty for your opponent. This ultimately lead to Bloody Flail being nerfed but the build still seems to be among the strongest in the game.

    The other one I'm a bit concerned about it just running two max-strength warmasters or warhawks. Those units must be engaged with extreme care because if you don't manage to hit them before they hit you they can kill or cripple most targets in a single attack without even armor breaking first. Having two of those coming at you is more than twice as difficult as having one.

    I haven't faced a 4-backbiter team yet but a similar dynamic probably applies. Four backbiters are going to be more than 4 times as good at penetrating your lines and raising havoc than one.

    I'm not sure if any of these warrant a balance adjustment at the moment, but I hope Stoic is keeping an eye on the team composition players are using. I wouldn't want to see a game with such rich tactical depth devolve into a series of a one-dimensional gimmick builds trying to counterpick each other.

  20. #20
    Junior Member Vaidency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by Slimsy Platypus View Post
    Let me reiterate: it is my thought that we need to adjust how we can stat the characters. If we don't put break in our units, we should run the risk of encountering a high ARM unit and not being able to overcome it. If this isn't working, I think something needs to get adjusted.
    Very good point and I completely agree with you, Slimsy. I think that right now armor might be a little bit too weak. I see a lot more units stated for maximum strength than maximum armor and, frankly, I consider them more of a threat. This is probably because there are a few too many ways to bypass armor, and a couple of problematic units that can get their max strength up so high they can deliver considerable damage to most targets through unbroken armor.

    I also agree with you that the balancing of the game is very delicate, but maybe maximum strength on a few units needs to come down a point, and maybe minimum armor on a few others needs to go up a point.

Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •