Warlords TBS Series
Spin-off Projects
Home Forum
Welcome,
Guest
|
|
TOPIC: Uncapped Negate
Uncapped Negate 12 years, 7 months ago #573
KGB I'm bringing this here because I dont want to interrupt the thread thats going on because I think its a really important one for the site to have and I dont want to hijack it. But i have to argue here. Why are you against negate?
KGB wrote: I agree we need a cap on the negative values of the current bonus's to distinguish them. However that cap has to be applied 'to the bonus first' and then 'to the stack' second. By that I mean if you decide the negative cap value is -5 for a bonus you can't pass on more than -5 from your bonus category. In the same way the positive cap should be 25 from a single category (tho nothing can reach that now obviously). I don't understand why you are so much against Archons & Devils having negate powers? I'm saying this here because over there its a really important thread and not worth disrupting but why do you not like Archons & Devils having uncapped negate abilities per Warlords2. Currently: DK (12 Chaos) vs Dragon (12 Morale) is 12-12=0. Capped at -5: DK (12 Chaos) vs Dragon (12 Morale) is 12-5 (capped at -5) = 7. Further the stack would be capped at -5 at worst (I think -10 is a bit too big of a negative value as the range of -5 to +25 seems more than fine). So what needs to happen is CityWall-Siege (cap at -5. Of course this is capped at 0 anyway) = X Morale-Fear (cap at -5) = Y Command-Chaos (cap at -5) = Z Then X+Y+Z (cap at range -5 to +25) Example 1: DreadKnight ( 12 Chaos) vs Lt Infantry in a City with +10 walls) 10 wall - 0 siege = 10 0 morale - 0 fear = 0 0 command - 12 chaos = -5 (capped at 5) Total bonus is 10+0+-5 = +5 for Lt Infantry (on the other side, the DK bonus is all 0's) Example 2: DreadKnight + Medusa vs Lt Infantry in a City with +10 walls) 10 wall - 0 siege = 10 0 morale - 5 fear = -5 0 command - 12 chaos = -5 (capped at 5) Total bonus is 10+-5+-5 = +0 for Lt Infantry (on the other side, the DK_Medusa bonus is all 0's) Example 3: DreadKnight + Medusa vs Lt Infantry in the open 0 wall - 0 siege = 0 0 morale - 5 fear = -5 0 command - 12 chaos = -5 (capped at 5) Total bonus is 0+-5+-5 = +-5 (overall cap of -5 at stack) for Lt Infantry (on the other side, the DK_Medusa bonus is all 0's) This is how DLR handled mixing the bonus's to uniquely distinguish them and to prevent one bonus from becoming over powering. Incidentally, I still see no reason to have a Negate Power such as Devils and Archons have. The Chaos that the Dreadlord has was meant to be the counter to the Command that the Paladin/Valkrie have. That's why there is Morale/Fear and Leadership/Chaos so that there are opposites to each bonus. The 'Negate either' doesn't really need to be there with Caps in place. KGB Posts: 764 Joined: Tue Feb 16, 2010 12:06 am Again - why have any caps? archons & devils as 4 or 5 turn units should have incredible power. And that power should be confined to Warlords with the resources, time, defenses and cities to devote to building such units. KGB: This is how DLR handled mixing the bonus's to uniquely distinguish them and to prevent one bonus from becoming over powering. Why should a bnonus ever be capped? if the dreadknight is really powerful, then let him be powerful. if a warlords hero has busted his ass and searched a ton of ruins and fought a bunch of battles, why not give him great power? Thats the whole point of an archon IMO. the one chance against a mighty hero. why have capped values on either side? The heroes are nerfed enough. I just dont see why in your examples you are in favor of the DK+Medusa having any caps or limits. Ken |
|
|
Re: Uncapped Negate 12 years, 7 months ago #575
First, for those reading this post, understand this discussion doesn't relate to any of the Warlords games but rather to the Warbarons clone.
Ken, Sir Ken wrote: But i have to argue here. Why are you against negate? I don't understand why you are so much against Archons & Devils having negate powers? I'm saying this here because over there its a really important thread and not worth disrupting but why do you not like Archons & Devils having uncapped negate abilities per Warlords2. I'm against Negate because it no longer makes sense in terms of how the bonus's are now implemented. Right now as I've mentioned the bonus system in Beta4 is Morale/Fear/Negate both Leadership/Chaos/Negate both But you don't need the Negate skill at all since Fear cancels Morale and Chaos cancels Leadership. The Negate just adds an extra layer of confusion for anyone learning the game. For example if you need to get rid of a Dragons +12 Morale skill, just bring a Fear unit. So the Devil doesn't need Negate, it just needs a large Fear bonus (say 10). That way a Devil vs a Dragon gives +2 to the Dragon. That's the same thing as the Devil currently having +10 Negate. Now, I realize you will say well how do I cancel a Fear bonus. Well the answer is you bring a Morale unit like a Dragon. So if you need to cancel a Medusa you bring a Pegasi or need to cancel a Devil you bring a Dragon. If 2 Devils face off, rather than Negating each other they just give each other -10 Fear which is the same thing as giving each other 0. If 2 Dragons face off they both get +12. Sir Ken wrote: Again - why have any caps? archons & devils as 4 or 5 turn units should have incredible power. And that power should be confined to Warlords with the resources, time, defenses and cities to devote to building such units. Or more likely those lucky enough to get them as Allies with their heroes I *rarely* see players build those units, they normally just get them as Allies. Also I only want to cap what they can do in terms of giving a negative combat value. I have no problem if the Devil or Archon has a Fear or Chaos bonus of 10 or 15 or whatever as long as it can't give a large negative to a stack as the final value. It can cancel as much positive bonus as possible. It just can't take a stack with no/small positive bonus and give it a large negative value. So if a Devil with 12 Fear faced a lt Infantry it should give -12 Fear + 0 Morale = -12 capped to -3. If a Devil with 12 Fear faced a Pegasi it should give -12 Fear + 6 Morale = -6 capped to -3. In both cases the Devil basically *negates* the Morale bonus while still providing a small negative modifier. If that Devil with 12 fear faced a Dragon with 12 Morale it would give -12 Fear + 12 Morale = 0. The caps on Negative values are to prevent one bonus from being used as the other one as currently can be done. Right now, if I bring a Pegasi with +6 Morale, my opponent can eliminate it entirely by bringing a DK with +6 Chaos. What he should be required to bring is a unit with +6 Fear since Fear is the counter for Chaos. If the bonus's can be freely substituted then there is really no reason to have 2 separate bonus (or even 3 since why make siege if you can simply bring Fear or Chaos). You can just go with 1 bonus (Morale/Fear) as I mentioned. By capping a bonus at something like -3 you force players to bring the correct counter bonus. Sir Ken wrote: Why should a bnonus ever be capped? if the dreadknight is really powerful, then let him be powerful. if a warlords hero has busted his ass and searched a ton of ruins and fought a bunch of battles, why not give him great power? Believe me, -5 is great power. That's because negative bonus's are much more powerful than positive ones due to how combat works. In other words, -5 combat is much more powerful than +5. That's because reducing a 2 strength unit to 1 makes it 100% more as powerful (2v1) while increasing yourself to 3 makes you only 50% better (3v2). So a -5 bonus is equivalent to about +10. A -10 bonus is about equal to +20. So to keep the Negative bonus's from becoming super powerful you have to limit them or else make it so the positive ones are much higher in value so they are equal. Sir Ken wrote: Thats the whole point of an archon IMO. the one chance against a mighty hero. why have capped values on either side? The heroes are nerfed enough. I just dont see why in your examples you are in favor of the DK+Medusa having any caps or limits. Also the Archon/Devil no longer fully Negate anything. They just negate X amount. Which I said you can already do without Negate by simply giving the Archon and Devil a big value in Fear and Chaos (Capped of course once you go below 0). The Dragon serves as the large Morale bonus and a Paladin/Valkryie provide Leadership. The heroes are nerfed. No doubt about that. But the bonus system has to get fixed to stop stacking or add caps because otherwise if the heroes ever do get put back where they belong it will be way out of control. I am seriously thinking of asking for the Orc's Assassination chance to go up to 10% from 6. At least then there would be a 1 turn unit worth making on defense against all the stacking. KGB |
|
|
Re: Uncapped Negate 12 years, 7 months ago #578
KGB,
This is a really complex thread so thank you for explaining the bonus system. Honestly, I dont love DLR's system because I think it overpowers people to the same degree Beta 4 is nerfing the heroes. I do think the system needs to be simplified. What are your thoughts on creating a King Devil to go along with the Grand Archon and making those units unavailable as allies. These two units would have absolute negate ability for heroes and allies respectively. The Grand Archon would totally negate a hero bonus and the King Devil would completely negate any unit bonuses not including terrain. I just want to see some payoff for warlords that patiently buy and build such 4 turn units. Also - I think there is some strategy involved in early game allies. If my strategy is to pillage out every castle I take in early game situations, I ought to get some reward for this ie:every once in a while I get a hero with some deadly allies early. It doesnt happen everytime but every once in a while the strategy pays off. If i get a dragon on turn 7 well then thats the benefit of that game strategy. Why be against that happenstance. So it just so happpened you got unlucky in the placement of a temple and your capital in that example but still - those things happen. Why be against such occurences? Often in play I have more money than anyone else early because I like to pillage...shouldnt I occasionally benefit from having a good warchest early on? Ken |
|
|
Re: Uncapped Negate 12 years, 7 months ago #579
Ken,
Sir Ken wrote: This is a really complex thread so thank you for explaining the bonus system. Honestly, I dont love DLR's system because I think it overpowers people to the same degree Beta 4 is nerfing the heroes. I do think the system needs to be simplified. It does need to be simplified because it's a hybrid of War2 and DLR and incorporates none of the best features of each. So you get a complex system that doesn't work well. Like the Government I want to un-nerf the heroes so they are more useful at L1 as I don't think a L1 hero should be so weak. The original +5 numbers were fine and I don't see why they got weaker. I do want to move closer to DLR's system though but not use everything DLR did simply because the spread of -3 to +5 was too much and the fact that bonus's reduced terrain bonus's wasn't a good idea either. In time with new units added, new skills, potential spells etc the system is going to have to be refined so best to get it all working now rather than keep re-doing it. The War2 system just isn't complex enough to support all the new skills and bonus's. Sir Ken wrote: What are your thoughts on creating a King Devil to go along with the Grand Archon and making those units unavailable as allies. You mean an Arch Devil. That's the name you are looking for Sir Ken wrote: These two units would have absolute negate ability for heroes and allies respectively. The Grand Archon would totally negate a hero bonus and the King Devil would completely negate any unit bonuses not including terrain. I just want to see some payoff for warlords that patiently buy and build such 4 turn units. I am pretty sure they would have to be 5 turn units. And give no bonus's at all other than the Negate. That's assuming Negate remains in the game and doesn't get dropped as I think could and should be as right now you end up mixing War2 and DLR systems and getting the mess we have. Sir Ken wrote: Also - I think there is some strategy involved in early game allies. If my strategy is to pillage out every castle I take in early game situations, I ought to get some reward for this ie:every once in a while I get a hero with some deadly allies early. It doesnt happen everytime but every once in a while the strategy pays off. If i get a dragon on turn 7 well then thats the benefit of that game strategy. Why be against that happenstance. So it just so happpened you got unlucky in the placement of a temple and your capital in that example but still - those things happen. Why be against such occurences? Often in play I have more money than anyone else early because I like to pillage...shouldnt I occasionally benefit from having a good warchest early on? Well you do get the benefit of more hero offers. Heroes if returned to +5 would be more worth the investment of pillaging. Also you can get fairly good allies early in the Wizard/Elemental/Medusa etc. Especially since now you can get more of them based on time to produce. You can also begin production of units like Pegasi etc. My problem is gambling (which is what you are doing) for early allies is pure luck. In a strategy game the amount of luck should be minimized where possible. Once upon a time in early DLR days you could literally get 7 Dragons for a completed quest on turn 3 or 4 while your opponent might only get 4-5 Pegasi for the same quest. That of course led to simply rushing the Dragons (called the Dragon rush) at the opponent. This got changed so that quest rewards were 100% standardized and controlled so 7 dragons weren't possible any more. Now if you could chose your allies instead of relying on what was offered (because if you get offered dragons and I have money and I get 3-4 offers in a row of Wizards or Elementals that's 100% not fair and nothing skill based) then I wouldn't be opposed. But then everyone would select Dragon or Devil or Archon and the rest of the allies would be a waste of time. Plus games would literally be simply a race for Dragon allies and everything else wouldn't matter. Especially in 4+ player games / 2 player smaller maps. You'd have to give players 20-30 starting units (as DLR did) to compensate for those early allies. KGB |
|
|
|
Time to create page: 0.31 seconds