28. Mär 2024, 16:12 Hallo Gast.
Willkommen Gast. Bitte einloggen oder registrieren. Haben Sie Ihre Aktivierungs E-Mail übersehen?

Einloggen mit Benutzername, Passwort und Sitzungslänge. Hierbei werden gemäß Datenschutzerklärung Benutzername und Passwort verschlüsselt für die gewählte Dauer in einem Cookie abgelegt.


Select Boards:
 
Language:
 


Autor Thema: Dwarven Balance Discussion  (Gelesen 65733 mal)

-DJANGO-

  • Balins Schriftführer
  • **
  • Beiträge: 572
  • I might play Unchained!
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #180 am: 2. Mai 2017, 11:13 »
I agree with most of the points you make and can garantee you, that some points will get changes with 4.5.
Axtthrowers deal so huge building damage because their damage type is melee. They benefit from the forged blade upgrade directly, therefore it is out of question that they are OP atm.
I agree with you, that all the attack bonus erebor gets are balanced through weak defense and mobile stats. However that is in my opinion only the case for the EG and MG. In LG Erebor becomes unstoppable in melee fights, which are hard to avoid. Why? Because Erebor has so many attack buffs that get even greater when combined with each other: Horn, Guardien Debuff, Masks, Dain (+50/+50 attack), Default high dwarven stats with upgrades, Axthrower melee damage. And dont forget Gimli, Arkenguard or even Veterans.

Battle wagons are only great if you outnumber your enemy cav due to their low speed. I'd like to see them more valnurable against pikes than against archer clumps. That causes in my opinion the dilemma of them being op and useless at the same time.
- THE EAGLES ARE COMING -

Odysseus

  • Galadhrim
  • **
  • Beiträge: 718
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #181 am: 2. Mai 2017, 20:41 »
Honestly, I think some of the buffs for both Erebor and Iron Hills should be revisited. I feel like, even though the team intends both realms to be very much one trick ponies in the offense and defense playstyle respectively, there are simply too many powerful buffs of the same type to them. I just wish the faction would get back some of the older versatility, with Erebor Dain the only giving armour, and the Iron Hill Dain battlecrying. It made complete sense lore-wise and it also wasn't bad gameplay-wise. I also think the horn spell could be made more interesting for the Dwarves. Maybe increase defense instead of offense for example, a little twist for once on the classic offensive horn spell.

« Letzte Änderung: 2. Mai 2017, 21:15 von Odysseus »
“For so sworn good or evil an oath may not be broken and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.”

Secret Keeper

  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • *
  • Beiträge: 32
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #182 am: 26. Mai 2017, 17:40 »
Hi everyone,

ET stated, that they want for every unit in a game to have a purpose and usefulness. I've never really thought about it but, what is a purpose of Lake-town units and Dale units in dwarven faction?



Let's be honest here, when was the last time you played Ered Luin and thought that you need to buy lake-town units to get an advantage over your enemy? I cannot think of such time.

Maybe I am wrong about everything. I would like to hear your opinions.

Odysseus

  • Galadhrim
  • **
  • Beiträge: 718
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #183 am: 26. Mai 2017, 18:20 »
That's a good point. There are a couple of factors that tie into this together, I think. First of all, Ered Luin being too strong with their default units, which diminishes the value of other units. Second of all, Lake-Town and Dale are usually rather bought for their economic strength, not really the military one. Thirdly Dale and Lake-Town do provide mostly utility and meatshielding, since Dwarves are low on number and quite slow in general. If you want to make them more combat-effective you have to invest upgrades into them.

In short, you get the Outpost for moneyz and meatshielding units since they have higher model count. And I suppose also for harass.

“For so sworn good or evil an oath may not be broken and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.”

Secret Keeper

  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • *
  • Beiträge: 32
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #184 am: 26. Mai 2017, 19:05 »
Before dwarven overhaul in 4.3, Lake-town was a perfect addition to slow and defense orientated Ered Luin and when the big change came, Lake-town stayed sadly the same.

Something does not feel right about having them as meat-shield. They are too costly for letting them just die. Free orcs are meat-shield units, but 200/300 units hardly. I know that team is changing Ered Luin for 4.5 patch. I hope that something will be done about this also.

I know that this issue probably does not belong to Balance thread, but I did not want to post it in suggestion one as I have no suggestion on how to solve it. I've just wanted to point out a problem.

Odysseus

  • Galadhrim
  • **
  • Beiträge: 718
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #185 am: 26. Mai 2017, 19:55 »
Well, meatshield is a term that can be employed in a broad sense. You have the traditional meatshield, the Mordor Orcs, but you can also have more durable damage soakers, which would typically called damage sponges, like tanks. I am pretty sure the idea was initially to have a frontline, the same way peasants work for Rohan.

I may be wrong though.
“For so sworn good or evil an oath may not be broken and it shall pursue oathkeeper and oathbreaker to the world's end.”

Aiphaton

  • Thain des Auenlandes
  • *
  • Beiträge: 37
  • Don't look back. You're not going that way.
Dwarven Balance Discussion in 4.5
« Antwort #186 am: 3. Feb 2020, 13:43 »
Hello together,

since there is no official balance thread for 4.5 yet, I'd like to introduce one.

Ofc 4.5 hasn't been out for a long time and it's too early to talk about everything in detail yet. Lots of testing and playing in PVP is still needed to get a generic overview over every single issue, with all the counterbalance going on and the new changes to the gameplay.

At this point thumbs up to the ET for doing such an amazing job!

However here's a first issue that I find likely to have a great negative influence on Multiplayer in general.
It's the tier 1 Ravenspell of the Dwarves.
Although I do like the new implementation of this spell as a defense-mechanism which is summoned static on a building, I don't quite like the benefits it brings to the Dwarven player.

The issue I am having with it is basically that it has a huge impact for such a cheap spell. There are:
- 50% Armor Buff for surrounding buildings
- 25% Debuff for hostile units
- 200% extra sight
- The spell stays permanent unless you don't recast it on another building

While the debuff is really strong, the real problem I see is the 50% armor buff for surrounding building. This ability stacks with other abilities like the Runes (+20%), the quarries (+30% max) and the citadel bonus in bases and outposts (+50%), which earns the concerning buildings 150% more armor.

This rewards a clumpy and campy playstyle and makes it nearly impossible to take down a base or even an outpost (especially since both, casting runes AND ravens on the citadel, brings the armor buff to all buildings inside the base/outpost).

The experience that I had with it is, that basically rushing an outpost and casting the ravens on it to debuff hostile units and buff the own buildings is a viable strategy to win matches. I also witnessed that mines have become so tanky, that harassment became nearly impossible, especially since the dwarven reinforcements benefit from the debuff of hostile units.

Also it is an option for the dwarven player to cast the ravens as a last resort on his base and force the enemy to siege him, while he can build up a strong dwarven force once again and come back.
I know that a comeback system in 4.5 is wanted up to some extent, however doing this over and over, not being able to end a match simply because the buildings in a base are too tanky, is not a way I imagine this was thought of.


Perhaps there is a way to deactivate the 50% building buff in a new balance patch, since I also don't see quite the connection between ravens buffing a building, while the other effects are understandable.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Galadhrim
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #187 am: 3. Feb 2020, 14:02 »
Hi,
in general I agree with you: The ravens are too strong right now. But I don't think the armor buff for a building is that much of a problem, at least not in 1v1. Even if your opponent rushes an outpost you can play arround it (I think, I haven't been in this kind of situation in 4.5 yet^^).

The in my opinion bigger problem is the fact, that the ravens stay where they are even if the building is destroyed. I think they should fly home (to the dwarven players base) after the building is gone.

But if the building armor buff is in fact too strong, I'd rather decrease it to like 30% instead of removing it completely. The defensive path of the spellbook should still be a good choice as well.

best regardes
Seleukos I.

Valarauko

  • Gastwirt zu Bree
  • **
  • Beiträge: 115
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #188 am: 3. Feb 2020, 14:27 »
I agree with Aiphaton to 100%. First of all it doesn't make sny sense that raven can strength a building. And second point is, it is way to strong. Especially with the other buffs as Aiphaton said. I friend of us plays Ered Luin all the time and he also agree on this problem. I think totally delete the armor buff would be the right solution. Especially because a tier 1 spell with 200% more sight and a debufge is strong enough. But also seleukos is right. It looks kinda strange when the ravens stay there even after the building got destroyed.
"Der Herr der Nazgûl schonte das Leben Schlangenzunges nicht aus Mitleid, sondern weil er glaubte, dass dessen Entsetzen so groß war, dass er es nicht wagen würde über ihre Begegnung zu sprechen (was sich als richtig erwies) und weil er erkannte, dass diese Kreatur böse war und Saruman noch großen Schaden zufügen konnte, wenn sie am Leben blieb, So ließ er ihn am Boden liegen und ritt fort, ohne sich die Mühe zu machen, nach Isengart zurückzukehren. Saurons Rache konnte warten...."

Smeargollum

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Gesandter der Freien Völker
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 369
  • #teamfish
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #189 am: 3. Feb 2020, 20:22 »
Hello,
I can understand all your points perfectly!
The ravens feel very strong atm as they stay forever and have a great Debuff. But as Seleukos already said it would be better when they return to their base after their building is destroyed.
So far I didn't have any bad experience with the armor buff but when I think about it, it would be good to get rid of it. When you are in a game you want to try to get the other player out of position and then go in to quickly destroy the raven-building and in that situation it doesn't make that much sense to have that buff gameplaywise.
If you feel like dwarves need some kind of stronger building armor buff we could discuss about buffing the runs, but I think that is not nessesary.
So I agree with you, Aiphaton ;)

Sorry for my bad english  :P

Best regards Smeargollum


"What if the real balance was the friends we made along the way?"

Big F

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 20
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #190 am: 26. Mär 2020, 00:57 »
This is the Dwarven subsection of my gameplay & balance post over at the general balance discussion thread.

Iron hills and Erebor are too weak. IH swords should insta activate their ability like imla swords do. Raven’s are too weak. Dwarves also suffer from having the slowest upgrade system next to isengard.

Battlewagons are too weak for their cost, they seem to decelerate extremely quickly.

Geethopapa

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 10
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #191 am: 1. Apr 2020, 11:19 »
Currently does the Ravens even boost the sight range? I have tested but couldn't verify. It seems kinda underwhelming spell, even for 1 PP.

And regarding Iron Hills, I personally don't think they are a bad faction as many say, just might not be one of the exciting one to play for many players. It rewards a patient gameplay I think. I personally like playing them.

Seleukos I.

  • Edain Balancetester
  • Galadhrim
  • ***
  • Beiträge: 732
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #192 am: 1. Apr 2020, 12:18 »
The ravens don't do anythng right now, I think.

Othere than that I totally agree with Big F. Erebor and Ironhills are the weakest factions in 1v1 multiplayer. His suggestion concerning the IH sword sounds good to me, but I'm not sure if that will be enough to fix the faction.

I also think that battlewagons suffer a little too much damage from sword (e.g. Imlaswords), against weaker units like orcs or peasents they seem to be fine, but I haven't tested them that much so far.

best regardes,
Seleukos I.

Geethopapa

  • Bilbos Festgast
  • *
  • Beiträge: 10
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #193 am: 1. Apr 2020, 15:54 »
The ravens don't do anythng right now, I think.

Othere than that I totally agree with Big F. Erebor and Ironhills are the weakest factions in 1v1 multiplayer. His suggestion concerning the IH sword sounds good to me, but I'm not sure if that will be enough to fix the faction.

I also think that battlewagons suffer a little too much damage from sword (e.g. Imlaswords), against weaker units like orcs or peasents they seem to be fine, but I haven't tested them that much so far.

best regardes,
Seleukos I.

Can you elaborate on why do you think Erebor and IH are the weakest? Want to understand your perspective. Maybe I'm missing something here.

Only True Witchking

  • Elbischer Pilger
  • **
  • Beiträge: 191
  • Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!
Re: Dwarven Balance Discussion
« Antwort #194 am: 1. Apr 2020, 16:08 »
As far as I know, the problem of Iron Hills and Erebor is mainly their speed. All dwarves are generally slow, but Ered Luin has faster units, and the swords also get a pretty strong Speedbuff.

This allows them to fight for mapcontrol very efficiently, and their units, eventhough they are (supposed to be) a bit weaker than IH and Erebor units, are still strong enough.
IH guardians also have a problem with their ability right now, that makes it mostly useless.

Iron Hills is definitely good for campy gameplay, which is strong against the AI, and they aren't bad in blobfights, which works versus players with poor micro, but isn't useful when it comes to fighting on multiple fronts, harassing and defending quickly, etc.

They also can't really retreat from fights, which often leads to the loss of high level battalions or entire armies, where Ered Luin would've gotten away.

Erebor seems similar, but with weaker defense, which makes them easy prey for Archers.

Signed,
The Only True Witch-king
“In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl. A great black shape against the fires beyond he loomed up, grown to a vast menace of despair. In rode the Lord of the Nazgûl, under the archway that no enemy ever yet had passed, and all fled before his face."