Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Know your units: Episode 2, Shieldmaster

  1. #21
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Yes, while puncture is 1 damage per 2 armor lost, having armor is 2 less damage per 2 armor you have.

  2. #22
    Junior Member vrolok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    28
    you know, i can grab irrelevant, useless numbers out of the air, too

    16 arm down to 8 arm 8 str is going to take 1 str + 4 puncture + (1-3) ex from archer hit whereas 12 armour down to 8 arm is only going to take 1 str + 2 puncture + (1-3) ex from same archer

    2 free damage because you had 4 more armour

  3. #23
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Not trying to be confrontational, but I did that math, A 16 unit at 8 armor has suffered 4 more points of break than a 12 armor unit at 8. That's not free damage.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Butters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by vrolok83 View Post
    you know, i can grab irrelevant, useless numbers out of the air, too

    16 arm down to 8 arm 8 str is going to take 1 str + 4 puncture + (1-3) ex from archer hit whereas 12 armour down to 8 arm is only going to take 1 str + 2 puncture + (1-3) ex from same archer

    2 free damage because you had 4 more armour
    This is a pretty weak argument for such an aggressive tone...
    Of course if you consider both units down to the same 8, the one starting at 16 will take more than the one starting at 12. The (obvious) difference is the enemy needs to do 4 more break to get to the same 8, so one more turn from a breaker (probably with WP) to achieve that result.
    OTOH you announced this as irrelevant and useless, so I guess that's pretty spot on.

    Now I'm being aggressive too. Seriously, where did that post come from ..?
    Last edited by Butters; 04-19-2013 at 09:02 AM.

  5. #25
    Junior Member vrolok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Butters View Post
    The (obvious) difference is the enemy needs to do 4 more break to get to the same 8, so one more turn from a breaker (probably with WP) to achieve that result.
    but that's exactly where the "math" fails. there's not a single unit currently in game capable of a solid 8 armour break in a single turn, so we're making the assumption that the enemy will continue to throw units at your shieldmaster (most optimal target, amirite?), in turn damaging their own armour which is win/win for the SM controller with or without puncture. if the scenario is 4 enemy units against your SM, then i guess his "math" might be plausible, but matches start 6 units against 6 units.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Shiri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    94
    You made that same assumption though. If your shieldmaster never gets his armour broken at all, then puncture is irrelevant, but that would be a much sillier scenario than, uh, two raiders breaking a shieldmaster at some point, or a raider and an archer, which is normal and happens all the time.

  7. #27
    Junior Member kgosser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    12
    LOL, ok bro. Quite the hostile viking we have here.

  8. #28
    Junior Member vrolok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiri View Post
    You made that same assumption though. If your shieldmaster never gets his armour broken at all, then puncture is irrelevant, but that would be a much sillier scenario than, uh, two raiders breaking a shieldmaster at some point, or a raider and an archer, which is normal and happens all the time.
    at least i didn't just pull numbers out of thin air and call it math
    Last edited by vrolok83; 04-19-2013 at 09:05 AM.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Butters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    303
    I think someone's going for Impaler's title of biggest troll on the forum...

  10. #30
    Senior Member Shiri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    94
    Quote Originally Posted by vrolok83 View Post
    at least i didn't just pull numbers out of thin air and call it math
    No, you pulled numbers out of thin air and acted like it supported your argument even though it actually still demonstrates that Kletian's right (while calling it irrelevant info, even...).

    If there actually is a real situation where puncture makes low armour more valuable than high armour while accounting for the break needed to reduce the high armour to the same level, go ahead and point that out, and then we can compare how often the two scenarios are to come up on a regular basis.

  11. #31
    Junior Member vrolok83's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    28
    Quote Originally Posted by Shiri View Post
    If there actually is a real situation where puncture makes low armour more valuable than high armour while accounting for the break needed to reduce the high armour to the same level, go ahead and point that out, and then we can compare how often the two scenarios are to come up on a regular basis.
    i'll be happy to. my scenario: 14 armour shieldmaster has his BtP buff active. enemy skips armour breaking him on his raiders since he doesn't wish to receive 3 armour break in return. the 2 points were better placed elsewhere. and puncture has no effect.

    done and done.

  12. #32
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Is your argument "people never break a Shieldmaster, so Puncture doesn't happen and low armor is ok?" because that still doesn't support the notion that "Puncture makes lower armor better for survival than high armor"

  13. #33
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Shieldmasters are getting used now, albeit mainly as pawns for Bowmasters to puncture with turn advantage after their death. If the Bowmaster nerf proposals go through, I think it would be nice to add 1 break to all levels of Bring the Pain (like Warmaster adds 1 Strength).

  14. #34
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    ...Fifteen months later...

    I was thinking that Bring the Pain (BtP) should be activate-able also "on self", i.e. like the Raidmaster's StoneWall. For example, when you click on the ability, and if there's no enemies in-range, you have the option to click on yourself. In this case, the SM just bangs his shield (like his idle animation) and BtP is up. It could even have a range (counting from the SM to the nearest enemy), that scales with rank, for example: at rank-1/2/3, BtP can also be activated on-self if there is an enemy unit within a range of 2/3/4 tiles.

    That BtP modifications is quite balanced, imo, let me explain. Negative side: you don't get to do that 4-6 Break-damage associated with current BtP implementation. Positive side: you can use SM more aggressively by tanking in front of enemy lines and providing room for your allies to advance.

    I am curious if that has been proposed and/or tested before (e.g. during beta).
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  15. #35
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Here's some notes on using BtP in 1-on-1 (melee) situations, in order to maximize ARM damage and optimize WP use.




    Rank [1,2,3] BtP deals AB+[0,1,2] on attack, plus 1+[1,2,3] from "buffed" RtF when the SM is attacked. So, the "cumulative" AB damage over one round (you hit/enemy hits) is:

    AB_cum = (AB+[0,1,2]) + (1+[1,2,3]) = AB+[2,4,6]

    with a minimum of 3 and a max of 10. This result tells us that high-rank BtP is both faster and more WP-efficient than low-rank.

    Numerical Example: Your rank-3 SM has 4AB, 3WP and three turns to attack (and get attacked); what is the maximum ARM damage he can do to the enemy (including RtF)?
    • Assuming that he does one r3-BtP and then two regular breaks, the total is: 20=(AB+2+4)+2*(AB+1).
    • If he does one r2-BtP, one r1-BtP and then a regular break, the total is: 19=(AB+1+3)+(AB+0+2)+(AB+1).
    • Doing three r1-BtP is 18=3*(AB+0+2), i.e. exactly the same as spending the 3WP on exerted breaks: 18=3*(AB+1)+3.

    Please note only one unit has so high ARM (18+): the PK. So, be warned that doing high break on an enemy whose ARM is already low might lead to "overuse" of your WP to no extra gain. For example, an 8ARM enemy is not worth the rank-3 BtP (that does up to 10 damage), i.e. the rank-2 suffices.

    Summary: In melee 1-on-1 situations, always do the highest rank BtP possible!

    Finally, rank [1,2,3] BtP costs you [1,2,3] WP, plus any RtF ARM damage taken if your target is a SB. So, the "net" stat balance, subtracting the WP spent and any RtF from the AB_cum is:

    Stat_net = AB_cum - [1,2,3] - RtF = AB-RtF + [1,2,3]

    with a min (worst case) of -2 and a max (best case) of +7, which is not bad at all!
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  16. #36
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Here's an interesting little SRM>SM combo that I wasn't aware of. IIpuBeT showed it to me yesterday Here's the scenario:

    1. You position your SRM behind your SM.
    2. Your SM engages and activates high-rank BtP on enemy unit in front of him.
    3. Your SRM follows up and does a rank-1 Ram on ally SM, sending him through the enemy front-lines.
    4. Your SM receives ARM damage from the push and from going through enemy units.
    5. For the latter case, the game registers the damage as dealt by the enemy units the SM was pushed through...
    6. ... so BtP retaliates the damage manyfold

    If your SM is pushed through ally units, they don't receive damage. One small detail, we are not entirely sure about, is that this BtP-damage is only dealt to the enemy units that are adjacent to the SM's landing location; so, if SM is pushed through a 2x2 (Varl) unit, that unit will get BtP damage, but if he's pushed through a single 1x1 (human) unit, that unit might not get...
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

  17. #37
    Quite interesting! Never used it that way. Although: this combo is already handy if you want to engage with the SM firsthand. I guess SRM SM is most effective against 3 Raider builds. Most obvious problem here is that the breaker acts after the damage dealer, so team & and tactic has to be carefully designed around this combo, making it a bit weaker. I'll try to find out about the "landing-riddle" the next days.

  18. #38
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,444
    Quote Originally Posted by grumpyoldman View Post
    Most obvious problem here is that the breaker acts after the damage dealer, so team & and tactic has to be carefully designed around this combo, making it a bit weaker.
    Um, the SRM acts right after the SM, in order to push him after SM has broken somebody and activated BtP. That's what I meant by "SRM>SM combo"! So, technically you're fine, i.e. the Bruiser acts after the Breaker. Sorry if it caused frustration!
    Together we stand, divided we fall.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

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