Page 1 of 6 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 104

Thread: Is BM OP

  1. #1
    Junior Member glraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21

    Is BM OP

    Greetings, Vikings! I have a genuine question that I wish to bring to the table.

    I have been hearing the same story from a few other people. I think they are good, but not OP (like the Warmasters). However, personally, I wouldn't be a good person to answer the question since I have been running dual BMs since I first got enough renowns to build a PL6 team many months ago.

    SA was definitely OP before the patch. However, I think there is growing concern to nerf the BM a little bit if too many people find it OP.

    What are your thoughts?

    - glraven

  2. #2
    I've only played on p6, but I haven't seen anything from any unit that I would call overpowered. Three BM builds can be tough to beat, but no tougher than dealing with any other specialized build played by somebody who knows how to use it.

  3. #3
    It's an interesting topic really. If you look at the original overpowered Siege archer you would see weaker players being able to easily beat stronger players. Now if we look at bowmasters we will not see this happening.

    The reason for this is due to the bowmasters ability. It requires other members in the team to be dealing all the damage before hand. Now if you put this situation in someone who is just an average player they will not be able to take advantage of the ability in time for it to be classed as "overpowered". The situation completely changes though in the hands of a strong player. With the added positional knowledge they have and a strong end game knowledge they can take full advantage of the range of the bowmaster. For this reason the BM is usually your choice of archer as she becomes the master of all trades.

    It tweaks would happen I believe we have 2 choices to choose from: We either change how her ability works with puncture, or we lower her armor break to 1.

    In short the bowmaster only becomes the strongest archer in the hands of the strongest players in the banner saga and do we want to tweak the game for that or the masses?

    PS. Muahahaha! Learning to write forum posts! fear me all!!!

  4. #4
    Junior Member glraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21
    @Tirean

    Wow!! Not trying to fatter you, but that's a really articulated post!! I think your answer is quite convincing despite that I still wish to hear other sides of the story :-)

    This is my thoughts before reading your post:

    Judging from my experience, it's quite possible to use the BM without exposing it to danger. HW and WM are both quite excellent, however, the same could not be said about them. As a result, it is often that my team is reduced to 2 or 3 units, two of which are BMs at nearly full health and armor.

    The other teams may have 4-5 units, many at full strength, but most with low armor. As a result, I can puncture many opponents and turn the tide simply by using the turn-advantage. Despite that one hit from the HW often spells gg for me.

    I love your idea that it's not OP because beginners cannot beat experienced player simply by having BMs on their teams. However, I can feel the opponent's frustration when the unit count is 4vs2 but I still emerge victorious.

    -glraven
    Last edited by glraven; 05-20-2013 at 07:04 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Rensei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wrocław
    Posts
    237
    Many people (myself included) just want the archers to be strong lategame with the ability to punish overzealous moves and break here and there. Hence BM, who is just that - an archer, only better at all the three things listed above, tends to be the natural choice.

    Utility is only now gaining value in my eyes (as I am learning to deal with bruiser builds better), and so are units like WL or SS.

    I'd still say SA got screwed by the nerf. Increased armor doesn't justify how close she needs to get to the enemy to deal any meaningful damage and her ability is rarely worth it's cost (You could argue that she is the Thrasher of archers, but she can be taken down much faster).

  6. #6
    Junior Member glraven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    21
    Don't want to get off topic, but I will support max8 strength for SA. They are definitely not as common now a days, but they can be extremely deadly when combined with Strong Arm

  7. #7
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    BMs are the most popular because the Skystikers are tricky to use and the Siege archers are currently underpowered post nerf- the only stat SA can exceed other archers with is max will and the power is almost nearly always inferior to making a will boosted break attack.

    BMs are the most vulnerable to being maimed useless to counterbalance their ability.

  8. #8
    Yeah, BM vulnerability is certainly a trade-off. With SAs I worry far less about them getting maimed, as I still have a way to deal damage and manipulate positioning as long as they have willpower. BoP on the other hand makes far less of an impact once a BM's strength has been compromised, unless you can manage to keep up a serious level of armor break on the enemy.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Butters's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    303
    Since there has been an amount of talk about nerfing the BM, I've been toying with the idea, looking for the best / most appropriate way to tone her down.

    First, I'm still unconvinced that the nerf is needed. Being a heavy user of a 3 BM build, I'm probably not in the best position to make that case though ^^ But as Tirean very rightfully said, BM does not allow "average" players to win above their level ; she is only truly powerful in the hands of a skilled player. On the other hand, high-level balance is far from a non-issue, so if a large part of the community feels like she is too powerful something should be done about it. There is a case to be made for her preponderance at the moment - I'm running 3, so is ojustme, so is Yth (AFAIK), glraven is running 2, etc. The difficult question is knowing if this is flavor-of-the-month or a tangible, uncounterable advantage she brings to the team.

    Assuming a nerf is to be decided, here are some possibilities :

    - Limit break to 1 :
    would seriously hinder the BM's versatility and accentuate her vulnerability trait. At the moment a BM that gets maimed early (ie with a relatively high amount of wp left) will still be very useful by dealing a good couple of 4/5 breaks. In multi BM builds, a maimed, wp-less one can throw herself forward and do a 2 break without using the horn, adding 3 to her sister's next BoP. It would have the side effect of making the SA the only 2-break archer, effectively buffing her which I think most people would agree is a good thing.

    - nerf armor to 7:
    This would very bad for the 3-BM builds like mine, which need the BMs to be as resistant as possible to enemy archer fire, BBs, and other threats to their all-important HP. It is however very consistent with the glass-cannon quality of the class and would put more emphasis on keeping them out of harm's way. I suspect that would make BBs and high-str RMs hard counters to the BM-centric builds (or at least level the playing field, if it wasn't).

    - step down BoP range :
    range 6 for rank 1, 7 for r2, 8 for r3 ; I feel this would be too much of a nerf, but the possibility exists. I know it has been tested in the beta; I was not around for that so I couldn't say. I heard some people say that it didn't work too well, and I can see why, but were higher ranks implemented at the time ? I can see how a 6-range rank 1 would be underwhelming, but the rank 2 would seem to be manageable.

  10. #10
    Superbacker Echlir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    31
    Have to say that if BoP or break got reduced like that I'd stop using BMs and start slotting SAs. The range break against high armour varls (especially shieldmasters) is almost half the reason I use them. The 7 armour would hurt but I guess I'd just get another point of willpower.

  11. #11
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    Not to get off topic but I can't quite agree that SAs are underpowered. You have to factor in that though they are easier to take down compared to a BB and TH, the fact that they shoot from a range means they are stronger positionally, because

    1. You take less risk shooting from far away as opposed to walking right up and hitting an enemy
    2. You force the opponent into positional play or engagement, because that range shot and the possibility of another often requires you to punish (this is why SA+WL synergy is strong)

    I do agree that the ability is in an odd place right now. But then looking at the alternative, which was pre-nerf, the ability was far too strong especially with mutliple SAs. I think someone just needs to seriously try running 2 SA builds again to show it is still viable (I think it would be, if you focused fired on level 2 ability you could do 4/2 + coals using the 2 SAs).

    Going back to BM, I like the suggestions Butters puts forward. BMs are tricky because of how the overall strategy plays out. Break is the highest utility option there is in the game, because it is never reduced by weakening a unit. If you kill a breaker on the other hand, you grant turn advantage. When you factor in units designed to break for as long as possble (SM/RM) + the extended range of BM, you come out with a very robust strategy where you basically need to blast DPS out early game to get rid of the wall so you can reach the BMs.

    My own suggestion, which I think would be interesting...is decreasing the damage output from BoP. Make it a trade-off between DPS and range. Example

    BoP r1 -2 str, +2 range (+ puncture)
    BoP r2 -1 str, +3 range (+ puncture)
    BoP r3 -0 str, +4 range (+ puncture)

  12. #12
    Senior Member roder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    215
    While I don't think BMs are OP, I just don't think they have counters other than having archers of your own. Having BMs of your own certainly help to threaten enemy BM's movement or else they get maimed by your archers, but it further reinforces the idea that BMs are something to be required. In a game that promotes strategy and various unit combination, there really shouldn't be a one unit type that MUST be taken to battle, and yet i rarely ever faced a higher level player without one.

    What I propose are more counters, not beating rock with rock (archer vs archer), but with other unit types.

    (-) max 7 armor BM
    (+) max 11 str BB


    Subtle stat changes, but I think it'd give more options for more formation types, because the most common ones I see are defensive turtles. I am biased though, I've taken a break from TBS because I think the game feels too defensive, so take my suggestion with a grain of salt lol

  13. #13
    Developer raven2134's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Manila, Philippines
    Posts
    1,061
    BB's are a sorta counter at best. Look at it this way, it's silly if you need to bring as many BBs as the other person could have BMs. When you deal with team make ups that can have duplicates of units, you can't rely on a head to head counter. If someone played 3 BM and I had 1 BB, that BB has to

    1. Get past the front line (unscathed)
    2. Survive long enough to actually hit something past the wall.

    In general TBSF has been far less about hard counters and more about soft counter, meaning a general area of weakness in the unit itself, or a dialectical interplay (the anti-thesis of a unit lies in it's own strength/thesis). This is why, for example, SAs have 7 max str and not eight. Cos they can't be as good as other archers at both Break and Puncture. For BMs their ability which has it's own utility, has little direct space control (it doesn't directly penalize a player for walking in certain areas unlike S&B or RoA, the prerequisite of that unit being severely broken must first be in place). However, I do think when we factor in the puncture strength, 2+ wp break, and that her additional range which gives indirect space control don't have any real drawbacks (antithesis), this makes me think BM's BoP should receive -str damage, to weaken their indirect space control and balance out their break utility.
    Last edited by raven2134; 05-20-2013 at 12:47 AM.

  14. #14
    If you are looking for counters to 3x bowmaster builds I have designed a team which allows you to get close to the BMs while they still have most of their willpower. That is the only way I know personally how to deal with mass bowmaster/archer builds.

    https://tinyurl.com/l7y5fc3 < Try this sort of build with your own adjustments to it and then we can see if it really is just a flavor of the month build.

  15. #15
    Junior Member K_B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    10
    Hello everyone,
    In last weeks i met many builds based on BMs. I am using only one in my build but i am quite sure that something needs to be done.
    Real problem is endgame and that 2 full strenght BMs in good hands can easily kill 3-4 enemy units. High armor break, puncture and long range makes them OP.
    I really like options that you have presented. I like most option to reduce the armor break.
    This will make the archers almost equal:
    BM with long range and high damage,
    SS probably the most harmless unit but with great tactical advantage,
    SA with best armor break, and high damage but in close range.

    Damage reduce in BoP can be good option too but I am afraid that in most situation this will only result in leaving unit less crippled but still useless. Maybe this is good option to test it first, because it will not effect that much on game.

    I do not consider the option of reduced armor because many people already playing with armor on 7 due to the larger number of willpower.

  16. #16
    Senior Member Rensei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Wrocław
    Posts
    237
    Wow Butters, for a well known BM lover, You managed to keep Your post super objective.
    I think I'd rather see other archers buffed a bit than the BM nerfed, but of all changes You proposed, the break reduction sounds best IMHO (especially with the resulting SA value increase).

    Quote Originally Posted by Tirean View Post
    If you are looking for counters to 3x bowmaster builds I have designed a team which allows you to get close to the BMs while they still have most of their willpower. That is the only way I know personally how to deal with mass bowmaster/archer builds.
    Figure a way to get 3x RM + 3x BB into battle and the enemy will never ever pick more than 1 archer again.
    Last edited by Rensei; 05-20-2013 at 05:59 AM.

  17. #17
    Skald Aleonymous's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    2,442
    As someone has to do the Troll ...

    ....I'll pop up and say that ALL archers are OP. Firstly because of how Puncture works (OK, that I can live with), secondly because of the unproportionally high ARM (STR is also a little off, but I get the deadliness of a well-placed arrow) and thirdly because of the unproportionally high AB (how can an arrow break an SB's armor equally to a WL's warhammer?).

    Concerning the matter at hand (BM), I'd personally go for (a) 1AB and/or (b) reduced range, in order of preference.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Kletian999's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by Aleonymous View Post
    As someone has to do the Troll ...

    ....I'll pop up and say that ALL archers are OP. Firstly because of how Puncture works (OK, that I can live with), secondly because of the unproportionally high ARM (STR is also a little off, but I get the deadliness of a well-placed arrow) and thirdly because of the unproportionally high AB (how can an arrow break an SB's armor equally to a WL's warhammer?).

    Concerning the matter at hand (BM), I'd personally go for (a) 1AB and/or (b) reduced range, in order of preference.
    This ties into my point: everyone must use archers with current class limits, good players can use archers very effectively, and of the 3 choices BM is the easiest to use correctly. I would use Skystrikers all the time instead of BMs if it weren't for the lower break.

    As to Aleo's "How do they break for 5" I always imagined they borrowed from Twilight Princess version of link and made bomb arrows.

  19. #19
    Backer Slimsy Platypus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Posts
    368
    Not to 180 the thread but I think another thing we need to keep in mind (as Tirean hinted on) is the following question: Is it alright for Bowmasters to be more powerful than other classes? Unlike the Thrasher, Backbiter, Warmaster, and Siege Archer "flavor-of-the-week", the Bowmaster's active ability is not one that you drudge forward with and click it and that's always the correct choice. So for me personally, I prefer for the slightly more powerful classes to be the ones that promote something other than just face value Active Ability use (i.e. positioning, armor breaking, etc.).

    As a supplement it is my personal opinion that as long as game balancing supports the following few points, I'm content:

    • Can I leave the OP unit (Bowmasters) out of my group, and defeat a similarly skilled opponent that is using them?
    • Do the significant majority of active and experienced players use this overpowered unit(Bowmasters) in the same overall macro strategy?
    • When I play, do I see a variety of units and strategies (contrary to a dominant strategy bolstered by the capabilities of a single unit)?

    From my play experience (mostly quick matches) I would say that none of these points really are being hit hard by the current state of Bowmasters. However, I certainly have been absent from the tournament scene, and the unit demographic may be a bit different there.

  20. #20
    This is the build I've been using for my last dozen matches or so: https://tinyurl.com/kqdrhqv

    I wasn't specifically looking to defeat 3-archer builds, but it has worked splendidly in that regard. I mostly just wanted a team I could play more aggressively than the builds with 2 WH that I had been using.

    Speaking of Warhawks, I've found an intact WH to be more dangerous in the endgame than an intact archer, and I've reached the end game with at least one of my WH intact very often. The rapid accumulation of kills on my WHs, faster than my BMs even, speaks to that. Archers do have the ranged attack advantage, but unless they've got a decent amount of wp available or are attacking very broken units, they can be overwhelmed fairly quickly. If you're not trying to chase them down with shield Varl anyway.

    But! Considering the current specifications for the SS and SA, the BM may very well need a slight downward adjustment. If I had to vote, the reduced Break stat would probably be my choice of the currently proposed options. Let BM's stay the long-range damage specialists, it is their niche after all.

Page 1 of 6 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
  •