|
| Thread: Beta 2 Wishlist |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV |
|
keldaur
Adventuring Hero
|
posted September 07, 2015 01:47 AM |
|
|
Maurice said:
keldaur said:
Random maps will be inherently flawed. Don't know if you are trying to be ironic or hopeful.
I was being ironic. You can't fix a problem by brushing it off on one side; you'll still have to deal with it on another side. In the case of imbalanced skills, ignoring the imbalance there shifts the problem to forcing addition code on the RMG to keep that in mind when creating a map. Why not fix the problem at the source, rather than further down the chain? Yes, random maps will inherently be flawed, so why compound it with problems that you can fix elsewhere?
You are missing the point, you don't really know what is imbalanced right now because you lack:
- Gametime
- Context
The first you need to put some serious testing before even daring to say something is imbalanced. The second is how they perform in the maps that will be played mostly.
Or do you find something that is really broken in game that desperatly needs to be re-balanced?
Outside of trackers being a tier 1 unit that murders champions and elites like nobodies business i just don't see it, and even in that case, there are ways to stop them from shooting.
____________
|
|
jhb
Famous Hero
|
|
posted September 07, 2015 04:55 AM |
|
Edited by jhb at 05:03, 07 Sep 2015.
|
good discussion.
My playing time was limited, but I'll give my 2 cents about flanking.
I agree with proj and the others in favor of flanking. I think we need to consider all the costs involved in full flanking and also need to take a better look at the big scenario, about how flanking influence the army globally, instead of concentrating on how it affect a single unit stack. A 'assassin vs assassin' fight would be even more boring without flanking, imo. I think duel battles would be a better scenario to test flanking.
The first thing to think about is that the stack can also become vulnerable while full flanking, there are also obstacles, map edges, creatures used as obstacles, a lot of aura buffs/debuffs, area effects.
Sometimes, you'll think: is it worth doing a full-flanking and exposing your stack to be also easily full-flanked? Is it worth FF and receiving a bigger retaliation, because you have lost 'shielding' from your legionnaire? Is it worth FF and, possibly, losing a 'inner fire' area buff next round, because the stack got too far from the rest of your troops? Is it worth FF and getting into the area of that blizzard, so, in the next turn you might not have enough mov points to perform an attack? Is it worth FF and possibly missing an extra retaliation from your justicars? etc.
We can add to that, regenerating troops is also more limited. So, if we really want low or the lowest possible casualties, we have to think and plan ahead. I replayed battles where a little difference in positioning made a whole lot of difference in the results. But of course, if you got an OP army, you'll probably skip a lot of the strategy and just 1shot/1hit everything.
That said, I could agree that, probably, there is room for improvement, as there is in almost everything in life  . But I disagree with sentences like 'it's bullcrap, ridiculous, terribad'.
About changes, new/different rules, bonuses or penalties, I got the impression that a reasonable part of these will come via skills.
Sleeping_Sun said:
The tactical decisions are not complicated more because of it, since the flanking is condition-less, thus it is always the way to go. It is similar to attacking: if you can attack you will attack; the player won't defend himself till the end of the combat...
Disagree, even the action of 'attack' in itself is not condition-less, imo. Why do people use the 'wait' button then, instead of attacking when they can already go ahead and do it? And there is also times where defending is worthy.
Simple example:
case 1 - you have 2 stacks of druids against 2 shooters, you'll probably attack right away.
case 2 - you have 2 stacks of druids against 2 walkers, you'll probably wait in that turn for the chance of having a more favourable scenario, a shot without range penalty or walkers aligned for the special. If they are legionnaires, you might decide to attack right away.
case 3 - you have 2 stacks of druids against 2 fast flyers, you'll probably look at the map's topography and take advantage of it, if possible. If flyers are 2x2 units and it's viable to make a barrage with 1 druid stack + obstacles in a way that only 1 fast flyer will be able to attack, while the other will be wating/defending, that could end up being the best strategy. 1 druid free shooting + 1 druid defending and using the special or only defending, depending on threat the enemy is causing.
It's just a hypothetical example, I ignored hero's action. If enemies are being controlled by heroes, there could be a lot more "ifs".
Sleeping_Sun said:
if you can attack you will attack
That might be how the AI behaves.
EnergyZ said:
It shouldn't apply to all creatures. Instead, it can be just released as a creature ability.
Actually, it doesn't apply to all creatures, since the ones with 'vigilance' can't be flanked. 
The defensive side of flanking is a creature ability.
|
|
Maurice
Hero of Order
Part of the furniture
|
|
posted September 07, 2015 09:17 AM |
|
|
keldaur said:
You are missing the point, you don't really know what is imbalanced right now because you lack:
- Gametime
- Context
The first you need to put some serious testing before even daring to say something is imbalanced. The second is how they perform in the maps that will be played mostly.
I thought we were talking about flawed and imbalanced skills in general (some of which have been pointed out by other players, by the way), not about specific skills that are flawed an imbalanced. In that general sense, you stated that skill imbalances would have to be mitigated by map design, which I refuted by stating that you should fix problems at the source (i.e. the skills), not compound it in another area (i.e. map design) which is already having its own issues (i.e. especially the RMG).
From my point of view, it seems you're convoluting a few things, causing you to miss the point instead.
|
| |
|
|
