Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 41

  Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.   Thread: The future of TBS without advanced class restrictions.

  1. #1

    The future of TBS without advanced class restrictions.

    https://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.
    Last edited by Tirean; 03-10-2013 at 10:52 AM.

  2. #2
    Junior Member R00K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    11
    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

  3. #3
    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.

  4. #4
    Junior Member Gygu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10
    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.

  5. #5
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    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

  6. #6
    @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 ).

  7. #7
    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
    Last edited by Tirean; 03-10-2013 at 12:31 PM.

  8. #8
    Junior Member Gygu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10
    @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...

  9. #9
    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).

  10. #10
    Superbacker netnazgul's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    456
    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.
    If you don't know where to put it - put it in the pillage

    Steelhammer Tribune issues collected here
    Some of my Factions games can be observed here
    Also possible streaming at http://www.twitch.tv/netnazgul

  11. #11
    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.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by SoMuchSwag View Post
    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 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

  13. #13
    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.

  14. #14
    Superbacker piotras's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    188
    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.

  15. #15
    Backer Grits's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    East Coast
    Posts
    106
    As I've said before, restricting to 2 or even 1 of each unit type would be good.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Tirean View Post
    Love how you mention a 4 bb team to be used 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?

  17. #17
    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.

  18. #18
    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?

  19. #19
    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

  20. #20
    Ah, okay, you made a point. I agree, that "all-melee problem" and "4xx problem" are different and should be treated so.

Page 1 of 3 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
  •