.com.unity Forums - some balance questions

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)

- Dominions 2: The Ascension Wars (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=55)

- - some balance questions (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=16581)

Re: some balance questions

Quote:

Originally posted by Pocus:

- the castles are somehow tweaked, but I think there is perhaps not enough emphasis on the importance of admin (and there is too much emphasis on the importance of defence strength in cost evaluation). The preferred castle of doms I, named 'Castle' in doms II, is still a sure bet.

I also was hoping for more spread on the castles. There is obvious effort there but the choices seem automatic. I really wanted the first two to be cheap and fast.

If its a worry about balance then I can understand it but if its "why would anyone use that" then I think the devs went the wrong direction. The devs dont have to understand what purpose something would serve if you provide enough variety. Provide it anyway please, watch for balance problems, and be pleasantly surprised with what we come up with.
Im beginning to be afraid that some changes might be about writing a proper marketable game instead of a fun this-might-not-work game. IMHO

[ October 28, 2003, 17:02: Message edited by: Gandalf Parker ]

Re: some balance questions

Quote:

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:
I also was hoping for more spread on the castles. There is obvious effort there but the choices seem automatic. I really wanted the first two to be cheap and fast.

If its a worry about balance then I can understand it but if its "why would anyone use that" then I think the devs went the wrong direction. The devs dont have to understand what purpose something would serve if you provide enough variety. Provide it anyway please, watch for balance problems, and be pleasantly surprised with what we come up with.
Im beginning to be afraid that some changes might be about writing a proper marketable game instead of a fun this-might-not-work game. IMHO

Whoa! We have adopted to the market! Just about time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

They are cheap and fast. 2 turns is fast. Anything faster is devastating to game balance as a very early Version of dominions I showed. The only pro was for the player using these fast castles. There were more cons in that particular case http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Cheap? in gold or design points. Gold cost is 150 times turns to build.

What kind of spread do you want?

The rest of your post i do not understand http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: some balance questions

another balance issue :

the Ctis hierodule has climbed in cost, whereas in my mind he was already too pricey! What do I'm missing in his interest? Now you have - for a nation which is supposed to have powerful priests - a level 2 priest, which is only recruitable in castle, that command no units, and which has the same price than the indep priest!

so please, give him either a commanding ability, or reduce his cost. In doms I it was 30 gp, but even with that the no command made him of few interest. His limitation to castle will make him seldomly recruited also. I would have proposed either a 25 gp price, or a 30 gp with 10 command.
Compare him to Marignon friar (30 gp, sneak, command 25).

Also, the undead hierodule in Tomb of the Deserts cant command undead, dont seem logical (and practical) to me.

Re: some balance questions

I think there are a host of balance issues, but if I had to pick just one; why did you guys cut the base damage of Star Fire?

Star fire was a very basic defense versus super combatants. Dom II is very super combatant oriented (more than I think you guys intended). Slashing one of the basic defenses versus this tactic make things much worse.

Re: some balance questions

Quote:

Originally posted by Pocus:
another balance issue :

the Ctis hierodule has climbed in cost, whereas in my mind he was already too pricey! What do I'm missing in his interest? Now you have - for a nation which is supposed to have powerful priests - a level 2 priest, which is only recruitable in castle, that command no units, and which has the same price than the indep priest!

so please, give him either a commanding ability, or reduce his cost. In doms I it was 30 gp, but even with that the no command made him of few interest. His limitation to castle will make him seldomly recruited also. I would have proposed either a 25 gp price, or a 30 gp with 10 command.
Compare him to Marignon friar (30 gp, sneak, command 25).

Also, the undead hierodule in Tomb of the Deserts cant command undead, dont seem logical (and practical) to me.

Re: some balance questions

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger:
I think there are a host of balance issues, but if I had to pick just one; why did you guys cut the base damage of Star Fire?

Star fire was a very basic defense versus super combatants. Dom II is very super combatant oriented (more than I think you guys intended). Slashing one of the basic defenses versus this tactic make things much worse.

Because it was too powerful for such a low level spell. I wasn't aware that it was the supercombatant slayer spell of choice. Why and would you like another like it on higher research?

Hmm, in what ways supercombatant oriented?

Re: some balance questions

>I wasn't aware that it was the supercombatant slayer spell of choice.

It was one of them. It was awkward to use, but it was possible to mass enough to drop super combatants sometimes. There is no ward or immunity to Star Fire. Most super combatants are stacked with immunity. Many super combatants have incredible protection values, and Star Fire was armor negating. It gave many nations the ability to deal when they had no other options.

In Dom I if an enemy showed up with a pumped up Ice Devil, you could respond with a stack of witch hunters, lizard shamen, crystal sorceresses, or anything with a shard of astral magic. Massing the needed mages wasn't easy, and star fire tended to be painfully inaccurate, but it was a response that could work. Loading up a bunch of mages in Dom II is harder due to a weaker gold economy. Less mages and weaker star fire is going to make life more difficult for players.

>and would you like another like it on higher research?

Absolutely.

>Hmm, in what ways supercombatant oriented?

I'll get you a detailed list of reasons later, but for now:

*Low value to nation scales inspires pretenders with more magic.
*Gold economy weaker than Dom I. Harder to afford mages, and mages are one of the things that handled super combatants.
*Gold economy weaker than Dom I. Harder to afford troops. Super Combatants trump conventional armies. Less conventional force plus magical pretenders equals players using super combatants.
*Star fire no longer as potenet a defense versus super combatants.
*Many super combatants are high end blood summons. These are now 'demons' and not 'undead'. Nations with death magic can no longer use dust to dust, wither bones, control the dead, or any anti-undead magic to deal with these bad boys. This makes them dramatically more potent.
*Not sure about solar rays (and herald lance) but it may suffer from the same ineffectiveness versus 'demons'. Used to be that a few commanders with herald lances and totem shields could offer an army some defense versus the big undead.
*Elemental summons have been rendered impotent (double fatigue plus gem cost!). A basic defense versus super combatants was swarming them with elementals. Not any more.
*there are a few more reasons but I can't think of them off the top of my head. I'll make a list. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thus defense versus super combatants is at an all time low, while game mechanics inspire players to use magically endowed pretenders.

My fear is that multiplayer is going to turn into "Super Combatant battle arena".

Re: some balance questions

Quote:

Originally posted by Kristoffer O:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Pocus:
another balance issue :

the Ctis hierodule has climbed in cost, whereas in my mind he was already too pricey! What do I'm missing in his interest? Now you have - for a nation which is supposed to have powerful priests - a level 2 priest, which is only recruitable in castle, that command no units, and which has the same price than the indep priest!

so please, give him either a commanding ability, or reduce his cost. In doms I it was 30 gp, but even with that the no command made him of few interest. His limitation to castle will make him seldomly recruited also. I would have proposed either a 25 gp price, or a 30 gp with 10 command.
Compare him to Marignon friar (30 gp, sneak, command 25).

Also, the undead hierodule in Tomb of the Deserts cant command undead, dont seem logical (and practical) to me.

Does she cost more? 25 might be OK.

She also follows the tradition stating that female lizards do not command male lizards, dead or alive http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif She can wake them up. <hr /></blockquote>it was at 30 gp in doms I, and raised to 40 gp in doms II (as the indep priest with command ability).

I strongly suggest (it is a minor issue but well) that he should be of interest to a Ctissian player compared to an indep priest. To outweight the fact that he dont command, 25 gp seem good (versus 40). Alternatively, a small command ability (just 10 ) would be of great interest, but it is up to you.

Star fire :

wow, didnt saw that! I concur with Alex, star fire was one of the few spell which worked against tetra immune super combattants with high prot.

You toned down enormously the spell : 4 times more fatigue, nearly two times less damages, precision dropping from 5 to 2. You hate this spell or what? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

I fear too that doms II will be super combattant arena. That damage dealing shields doest damages after an attack is far from sufficient in equilibrating the whole thing. What are the other compensating new mechanisms in place?

Re: some balance questions

Star fires was indeed a cheap early counter.

My standard anti-rush procedure when playing Jotun in Dom I was to recruit 6 cheapo witches in the 8 or so initial turns. If some Combat pretender came banging at my door early on he would be met with a curse & 23xStar fires castings directed by eagle eyes.

I haven't had much time to play the demo yet, but I have been browsing the spells and noted a number of interesting additions. Nature battle magic in particular seems to have been boosted some, and Earth can do some funny stuff with castle walls.

Before we conclude whether supercombatants will be stronger in Dom II some of these new spells need to be tested.

[ October 29, 2003, 16:37: Message edited by: Wendigo ]

Re: some balance questions

Quote:

Originally posted by apoger:
>I wasn't aware that it was the supercombatant slayer spell of choice.
*Low value to nation scales inspires pretenders with more magic.
*Gold economy weaker than Dom I. Harder to afford mages, and mages are one of the things that handled super combatants.
*Gold economy weaker than Dom I. Harder to afford troops. Super Combatants trump conventional armies. Less conventional force plus magical pretenders equals players using super combatants.
*Star fire no longer as potenet a defense versus super combatants.
*Many super combatants are high end blood summons. These are now 'demons' and not 'undead'. Nations with death magic can no longer use dust to dust, wither bones, control the dead, or any anti-undead magic to deal with these bad boys. This makes them dramatically more potent.
*Not sure about solar rays (and herald lance) but it may suffer from the same ineffectiveness versus 'demons'. Used to be that a few commanders with herald lances and totem shields could offer an army some defense versus the big undead.
*Elemental summons have been rendered impotent (double fatigue plus gem cost!). A basic defense versus super combatants was swarming them with elementals. Not any more.
*there are a few more reasons but I can't think of them off the top of my head. I'll make a list. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

Thus defense versus super combatants is at an all time low, while game mechanics inspire players to use magically endowed pretenders.

My fear is that multiplayer is going to turn into "Super Combatant battle arena".

There is a few flip sides to some of your arguments as well as other ways in which supercombatants have been toned down. Sure supercombatants might have become more powerfull, but at least the case is not as open and shut as you make it out.

1 Resistances are harder to come by. Most items no longer provide 100% resistance. Resistances are important to supercombatants
2 While mages where a good counter against supercombatants, their site searching and forging of magical items where also a vital part in decking out supercombatants. So if mages are harder to come by this will also affect the effectiveness of the supercombtants, not only the effectiveness of counters against them.
3 The high end bloodsummons are more expensive, there are demon combating spells and items.
4 Fire shields and astral shields are slightly toned down.
5 Some units commonly used as supercombatants now has additional suspectibilities. Such as Arch Devils taking extra damage from cold etc.
6 And Lastly if the magically endowed pretender is the supercombatant that is fielded it is not so bad, first of all he is expensive to loose, secondly he is only one, thirdly it is ever so much more appropriate with a pretender supercombatant actually able to cast a few spells compared to the magically impaired pretenders often encountered in dom 1.
There might be more but these are the reasons I can think of at the top of my head.

[ October 29, 2003, 17:34: Message edited by: johan osterman ]