Summary of Community Balance Discussions
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 03:08
#2
A good way to slightly nerf TF2 offense might be to weaken soldier/demoman melee attacks, or take away the engineer's ranged attack?
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 03:10
#3
Yes, really. You are conflating my two separate scenarios, which might explain why you find them so unlikely. First, Tribe corpses are often left unstomped, either due to lack of APs or the desire to keep the attacker out of range. These corpses can make great splode fodder, assuming enough damage can be done to make it worth the meat (which is currently never, of course, but may be relevant again with a CE boost).
Secondly (and separately), it is quite common for the Tribe to preserve their rage by bringing in fresh attackers, which can then attack (often with Typhoon assistance) and make KOs for Witch sploding. Do these two situations happen every game? Maybe not, but I remember them occurring with at least some frequency pre-patch, and I expect them to reappear if enough damage can be done.
I cannot comment on the possibility of statistical flukes, but I will point out that capitalizing on mistakes is part and parcel of the Tribe's strength. A positioning error that might have been relatively minor against any other faction can blow up into a complete game-changer against the Tribe. Sure, against perfect play and a perfect draw the Tribe will struggle to make headway -- but who doesn't? Is theoretical "mistake-free" play the only measure of team balance? If so, once Tribe is balanced by this unrealistic measuring stick, they will be ridiculously overpowered for the vast majority of players, most of whom don't play anything close to mistake-free.
With nerfs to DW and TF2, along with slight readjustment of the previous Tribe changes, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they will be below the power curve.
Combining the two scenarios is quite appropriate in this case. Look, I understand that this "massive" CE at 66% KO'ing some vanillas may theoretically seem plausible, but practically it is next to impossible. Let me put it this way: what are the odds that at one point in the game a tribe player will have ALL of the following on his turn?
a. A runemetaled enraged witch
b. A corpse on the field to explode
c. 2-3 Vanilla units surrounding it?
Answer: close to 0. Even the odds of a) and b) happening together are extremely low, because, like I said above, if a witch is enraged it automatically means the corpse was stomped. And even if I did spawn a fresh attacker after I got my runed enraged witch, what are the odds that my opponent would choose to KO him and leave mourning vanillas nearby? Why not stomp him? Why not go for the runed enraged witch instead? Even KOing her would be enough, because a Rez from enraged shammy would lead to a loss of enrage.
You have to be practical. If I were to guesstimate the odds of a, b and c happening together (and that's what is needed for 66% CE to KO 2-3 vanillas), they are lower than the odds of dwarves drawing 3 engineers in the starting hand. Hence, buffing CE to 66% will NOT make meated CE overpowered in the slightest. If you cannot see it, I dont know what else to say.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 03:40
#4
I cannot comment on the possibility of statistical flukes, but I will point out that capitalizing on mistakes is part and parcel of the Tribe's strength. A positioning error that might have been relatively minor against any other faction can blow up into a complete game-changer against the Tribe. Sure, against perfect play and a perfect draw the Tribe will struggle to make headway -- but who doesn't? Is theoretical "mistake-free" play the only measure of team balance? If so, once Tribe is balanced by this unrealistic measuring stick, they will be ridiculously overpowered for the vast majority of players, most of whom don't play anything close to mistake-free.
With nerfs to DW and TF2, along with slight readjustment of the previous Tribe changes, I don't think there's any reason to believe that they will be below the power curve.
I recall we already had a debate regarding whether capitalizing on mistakes should or shouldn't be part of balancing act. And I'll stand my ground - balance changes should be implemented as close to perfect play as practically possible. Because trying to make balance changes coming from "oh, tribe can easily win if opponent makes a mistake, so lets make them weaker" is, well, complete crap. All you, Trip, would have to do if this were the case would be play 10-15 league games as tribe, learn how they operate, and later pick any other race and win 90% of the games vs equally skilled TR opponents. But how can you call that balance?
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 03:44
#5
A good way to slightly nerf TF2 offense might be to weaken soldier/demoman melee attacks, or take away the engineer's ranged attack?
Oh, that's actually a great suggestion. Say, implement all three, and also take away sniper's crouched melee über damage attack. And reduce sniper's crouch damage as suggested in numerous posts. Each individual change is small, but together they may make quite a difference.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 06:37
#6
A good way to slightly nerf TF2 offense might be to weaken soldier/demoman melee attacks, or take away the engineer's ranged attack?
Oh, that's actually a great suggestion. Say, implement all three, and also take away sniper's crouched melee über damage attack. And reduce sniper's crouch damage as suggested in numerous posts. Each individual change is small, but together they may make quite a difference.
Pre crouch buff snipers sucked. Even now they work mostly to deter. So no crouch Nerf. Soldiers can't kill without melee so no soldier Nerf. Demo man can be changed and so can engi. We all live in fear of dem op engi attacks
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 07:07
#7
Okay, I give up on the Jarate suggestion. But I also wouldn't like the sniper nerf.
I agree with the soldier nerf though. The soldier CAN KO a unit at range, as long as that unit can't be knockbakced (which happens quite frequently). The melee attack is too strong IMO, so I agree with halving it. The soldier can still be used to KO units on occassion and as a knockback, that's good enough.
I also agree with the engineer change to non-ranged and reducing Demoman AoE. Those three changes should be enough. If not, make respawn cost 1ap and that will definitely be enough.
Just don't touch my heavy!
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 09:19
#8
Just don't touch my heavy!
only problem is that its the heavy that needs a nerf most of em all. hes way to strong. and it doesnt get better with his bugged attack so he can hit 4 units on some scenarios.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 09:25
#9
A good way to slightly nerf TF2 offense might be to weaken soldier/demoman melee attacks, or take away the engineer's ranged attack?
Oh, that's actually a great suggestion. Say, implement all three, and also take away sniper's crouched melee über damage attack. And reduce sniper's crouch damage as suggested in numerous posts. Each individual change is small, but together they may make quite a difference.
I kind of like taking away the engineer's attack. That would definitely have more of an impact than one might think at first blush, as the ability to trade off an engineer is routinely useful. However, since engineers have a ranged attack in TF2, not sure Robot would want to vary that. Accordingly, maybe nerf it to 100 or 150 and pair that with the sniper nerf.
I have never seen a sniper crouched melee attack, and didnt know it was possible. Aratribal seems to be saying it is possible, but this attack strikes me as such a rare thing it has close to zero significance.
What do people think of adding reducing engineer damage to the list of secondary nerfs to be considered?
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 10:56
#10
A good way to slightly nerf TF2 offense might be to weaken soldier/demoman melee attacks, or take away the engineer's ranged attack?
Oh, that's actually a great suggestion. Say, implement all three, and also take away sniper's crouched melee über damage attack. And reduce sniper's crouch damage as suggested in numerous posts. Each individual change is small, but together they may make quite a difference.
I kind of like taking away the engineer's attack. That would definitely have more of an impact than one might think at first blush, as the ability to trade off an engineer is routinely useful. However, since engineers have a ranged attack in TF2, not sure Robot would want to vary that. Accordingly, maybe nerf it to 100 or 150 and pair that with the sniper nerf.
I have never seen a sniper crouched melee attack, and didnt know it was possible. Aratribal seems to be saying it is possible, but this attack strikes me as such a rare thing it has close to zero significance.
What do people think of adding reducing engineer damage to the list of secondary nerfs to be considered?
I had a game where my opponent parked his 1200+ HP jarated wraith next to my sniper. So all I had to do was knife him once for 1100 damage from crouched position, them whack him twice more (for 100 HP each) for a KO. I recall Trip had a game where crouch melee attack mattered, too.
Like you said, this nerf would not matter in the majority of the games, but such a heavy knife attack from a crouch position is just... illogical.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 11:18
#11
I agree with the soldier nerf though. The soldier CAN KO a unit at range, as long as that unit can't be knockbakced (which happens quite frequently). The melee attack is too strong IMO, so I agree with halving it. The soldier can still be used to KO units on occassion and as a knockback, that's good enough.
This would be a huge nerf to the rocketman if you think about the dynamics of the weak melee and knock-back together. If a unit runs right up to a rocketman, there almost certainly won't be anybody behind the attacker, so the implication would be that the rocketman has to step back to fire, but then such a shot would knock-back the enemy further. A second shot and now the enemy is out of range. It's pretty much an open invitation to charge the rocketman unless he has strong friends.
Compare that to the archer or grenadier (assume armed with runemetal) who can step back, presumably kill you in 2-3 shots and then stomp if desired. Not being able to do that makes it a much bigger disavantage to the rocketman.
What about instead of 50% melee damage, the rocketman's melee attacks pushed back enemies too? It would be easy enough for Robot to change the launcher smack animation with the usual rocketblast. I assume this would be viewed as a net nerf even though it could be viewed as preferable in certain defensive situations (eg, against an aggressive void monk). In my view this would weaken the rocketman's offense abilities since in vanilla battle situations he could no longer step forward, wack on the head 3 times, stomp and jump back, if the enemy was half-way smart about positioning men properly. This change would also hurt the ability of the rocketman to finish off a jarated unit by running up to it. So in a way, it is backdoor nerf to jarate without the negative implications of a direct nerf.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 11:22
#12
Changing sniper melee would be goofy, since he's shown crouching and aiming at the whole row. Some units do have different damage on their melee attack, but here it would both be strange, and not really helpful since it's such an edge case. For a minor flavor cleanup maybe they could have him always use the rifle animation for a crouched shot.
Yeah, nerfing attack ability of some of the incidental TF2 units might be good. Their main advantage is just having so much meat for the enemy to grind through. Engineers seem like a fine candidate. I might look at the offensive power of the Heavy though. Right now he zones out a lot of the board since nobody can walk into his tange 3 killzone.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 11:28
#13
I had a game where my opponent parked his 1200+ HP jarated wraith next to my sniper. So all I had to do was knife him once for 1100 damage from crouched position, them whack him twice more (for 100 HP each) for a KO. I recall Trip had a game where crouch melee attack mattered, too.
Like you said, this nerf would not matter in the majority of the games, but such a heavy knife attack from a crouch position is just... illogical.
I've had this come up in games too, mainly against players who don't realize that either the sniper can get crouch benefits for melee attacks (who stand right in front of the sniper), but I would say more often it comes up against players who probably don't realize that the sniper can shoot sideways at all, let alone can get a crouch bonus from a sideways melee shot.
However, I struggle to think of a situtation this has really helped in against an experienced player who understands the mechanics, so it is a rather remote situation. I remember painfully making this mistake myself in the early days of TF2, learning my lesson harshly and easily avoiding the sideways crouched sniper ever since.
That said, it would be a pretty innocent incremental nerf that wouldn't risk spoiling other gameplay aspects so I would be supportive of it as part of a larger package of incremental TF2 nerfs (rather than a single large nerf).
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 12:30
#14
I agree with the soldier nerf though. The soldier CAN KO a unit at range, as long as that unit can't be knockbakced (which happens quite frequently). The melee attack is too strong IMO, so I agree with halving it. The soldier can still be used to KO units on occassion and as a knockback, that's good enough.
This would be a huge nerf to the rocketman if you think about the dynamics of the weak melee and knock-back together. If a unit runs right up to a rocketman, there almost certainly won't be anybody behind the attacker, so the implication would be that the rocketman has to step back to fire, but then such a shot would knock-back the enemy further. A second shot and now the enemy is out of range. It's pretty much an open invitation to charge the rocketman unless he has strong friends.
Compare that to the archer or grenadier (assume armed with runemetal) who can step back, presumably kill you in 2-3 shots and then stomp if desired. Not being able to do that makes it a much bigger disavantage to the rocketman.
What about instead of 50% melee damage, the rocketman's melee attacks pushed back enemies too? It would be easy enough for Robot to change the launcher smack animation with the usual rocketblast. I assume this would be viewed as a net nerf even though it could be viewed as preferable in certain defensive situations (eg, against an aggressive void monk). In my view this would weaken the rocketman's offense abilities since in vanilla battle situations he could no longer step forward, wack on the head 3 times, stomp and jump back, if the enemy was half-way smart about positioning men properly. This change would also hurt the ability of the rocketman to finish off a jarated unit by running up to it. So in a way, it is backdoor nerf to jarate without the negative implications of a direct nerf.
I'd be fine with your suggestion, but I don't think the alternative would be too bad. If we assume a 900 HP unit with no resists (the maximum you could to make the grenadier comparison valid) one melee attack at 195, then two 390 attacks would give 975 damage - enough to KO. You can't stomp, true, but I don't think that's a massive disadvantage, given that with another non-TF2 unit you'd essentially be sacrificing that unit anyway if you tried to stomp. Again though, I'd be perfectly happy with melee knockback too.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 12:36
#15
Just don't touch my heavy!
only problem is that its the heavy that needs a nerf most of em all. hes way to strong. and it doesnt get better with his bugged attack so he can hit 4 units on some scenarios.
I don't think he's too strong. His attack is quite weak unless he's on a sword tile, and if you've let yourself be in the position when your units are in range of a heavy on a sword tile, you deserve the carnage that will follow!
Also, the 4 unit hitting isn't bugged IMO. The heavy can hit tiles that are 2 diagonals away from it. This is consistent, it doesn't just happen sometimes, and, the distance to that tile (sqrt of 8) is less than his range, 3, so it makes sense that even if he can't aim to that tile, his projectiles would go that far. It's just like the gunner but at range 3.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 13:48
#16
I recall we already had a debate regarding whether capitalizing on mistakes should or shouldn't be part of balancing act. And I'll stand my ground - balance changes should be implemented as close to perfect play as practically possible. Because trying to make balance changes coming from "oh, tribe can easily win if opponent makes a mistake, so lets make them weaker" is, well, complete crap. All you, Trip, would have to do if this were the case would be play 10-15 league games as tribe, learn how they operate, and later pick any other race and win 90% of the games vs equally skilled TR opponents. But how can you call that balance?
If you think I don't play Tribe games against tough opponents, you are mistaken. It's true that I haven't put them on the line in official League matches yet, but I do have experience using them against strong (and even upper League) opposition in unranked matches. I'm not blathering from a position of complete ignorance here.
I hear your Tribal balance arguments, and I find them reasonable and valid -- I just don't agree with them. As old-school DE I find the axe-thrower buff to be far, FAR more significant a change than the corpse explosion reduction was, and I think it went overboard. If Tribe gets a boost somewhere (and I agree that they need one to stay competitive with TF2), I think it would be a huge mistake in terms of other matchups not to rein in the axe damage.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 14:31
#17
If you think I don't play Tribe games against tough opponents, you are mistaken. It's true that I haven't put them on the line in official League matches yet, but I do have experience using them against strong (and even upper League) opposition in unranked matches. I'm not blathering from a position of complete ignorance here.
I hear your Tribal balance arguments, and I find them reasonable and valid -- I just don't agree with them. As old-school DE I find the axe-thrower buff to be far, FAR more significant a change than the corpse explosion reduction was, and I think it went overboard. If Tribe gets a boost somewhere (and I agree that they need one to stay competitive with TF2), I think it would be a huge mistake in terms of other matchups not to rein in the axe damage.
I'm sure you are just as good with tribe as with other teams, hands down.
Look at the axe-thrower. You are, of course, spot on, the most affected matchup after his buff was TR vs DE - but this was much needed! I won't repeat the reasons why - plenty of prepatch threads regarding this issue.
But if axe thrower's damage goes down to +150 instead of +200, this will significantly revert its previous buff in matchups vs DE. Vanilla VMs won't die in 3 hits anymore, 905+ hp imps and necros will require 4 hits, beefy wraiths will become harder to deal with, etc. Most of axeman's killstomps vs DE will again require a meat, but there are only 4 meats and 3 axethrowers - and there are many more DE superheroes than that.
I would further argue that together with CE at 66% and axeman at +150, this will NOT be a net buff in matchup vs DE at all when compared to olden days of CE at 100% and axeman at +100. Tribe will remain at disadvantage. And that's why I want to keep axethrower at +200.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 14:36
#18
I've had this come up in games too, mainly against players who don't realize that either the sniper can get crouch benefits for melee attacks (who stand right in front of the sniper), but I would say more often it comes up against players who probably don't realize that the sniper can shoot sideways at all, let alone can get a crouch bonus from a sideways melee shot.
However, I struggle to think of a situtation this has really helped in against an experienced player who understands the mechanics, so it is a rather remote situation. I remember painfully making this mistake myself in the early days of TF2, learning my lesson harshly and easily avoiding the sideways crouched sniper ever since.
That said, it would be a pretty innocent incremental nerf that wouldn't risk spoiling other gameplay aspects so I would be supportive of it as part of a larger package of incremental TF2 nerfs (rather than a single large nerf).
Just to clarify, sniper can deal +300 damage in melee when crouched not only to opponents directly in front of him, but also to opponents south, north and behind him.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 15:19
#19
Look at the axe-thrower. You are, of course, spot on, the most affected matchup after his buff was TR vs DE - but this was much needed! I won't repeat the reasons why - plenty of prepatch threads regarding this issue.
But if axe thrower's damage goes down to +150 instead of +200, this will significantly revert its previous buff in matchups vs DE. Vanilla VMs won't die in 3 hits anymore, 905+ hp imps and necros will require 4 hits, beefy wraiths will become harder to deal with, etc. Most of axeman's killstomps vs DE will again require a meat, but there are only 4 meats and 3 axethrowers - and there are many more DE superheroes than that.
I would further argue that together with CE at 66% and axeman at +150, this will NOT be a net buff in matchup vs DE at all when compared to olden days of CE at 100% and axeman at +100. Tribe will remain at disadvantage. And that's why I want to keep axethrower at +200.
Yes, the buff was absolutely needed -- but not to this extent. Previously, a single Soul Harvest was enough to put every DE unit on the field out of 3-shot range for both warriors and axe-throwers -- big problem for Tribe, and absolutely imbalanced. However, the new numbers enable vanilla axe-throwers to take out just about any +3 DE unit, even those with a moderate Soul Harvest boost. Monks remain tough kills, but they are poor offensive options against Tribe, who not only have some physical resistance, but also handle AOE better than anyone. Potions can help, but there are only two of them. Even if they manage to get a few units over the 1000 HP hump, DE have a hard time protecting those heavily upgraded units (essentially +4 or +5 in terms of invested value) from typhoons and rage, and will be nearly helpless once they do go down. "Only" 4 meats? Only the Dwarves have more burst damage options in their arsenal, and that's only if we aren't counting Typhoon-kills!
With rage, nerfed axe-throwers would still do 1000 in 3-shots, so they won't be entirely dependent on their meat, and of course with rage AND meat axe-throwers would still be able to take out just about any unarmored unit they want.
If CE at 66% and axe-thrower at +150 is indeed a net nerf rather than a neutral shift, I would look at bumping up CE to 70% or 75% until the right balance is found, rather than keeping the +200 axethrower buff. I think there is a happy medium in there, but we're not going to find it as long as the axe-thrower remains the single deadliest unequipped damage-dealer in the game.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 15:12
#20
TR: Partially reversing the previous Tribe tweaks is probably fine. Interesting how we all thought that would be a net buff at the time (although new races also played a part). I'd like seeing the buff to CE to make it more interesting again, and nerf to Axe to reduce the rage/meat one-shot threshold just a bit--1025 has always been a little crazy for an unupgraded unit, esp. since DE essentially can't get above that. I definitely don't want to buff Typhoon. Typhoon is too prominent a mechanic as it is--mentally processing every possible Typhoon combo is already a bigger deal than anyone would really like.
If Tribe is at the right level now, scaling back the last tweak is probably fine. If they need to be brought up a tad, find some other buff, but not leaving the 1025 Axe Thrower or expanding Typhoon possibilities.
Reducing axethrower from +200 to +150 will reduce meated damage from 1025 to 975, a change insignificant vs all matchups except DE, so that makes no difference. It should, however, make a difference vs DE - since DE have been historically stronger than TR - and so a threat of 1025 should remain. See my other thoughts on +200 axethrower 1 post above.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 15:38
#21
Look at the axe-thrower. You are, of course, spot on, the most affected matchup after his buff was TR vs DE - but this was much needed! I won't repeat the reasons why - plenty of prepatch threads regarding this issue.
But if axe thrower's damage goes down to +150 instead of +200, this will significantly revert its previous buff in matchups vs DE. Vanilla VMs won't die in 3 hits anymore, 905+ hp imps and necros will require 4 hits, beefy wraiths will become harder to deal with, etc. Most of axeman's killstomps vs DE will again require a meat, but there are only 4 meats and 3 axethrowers - and there are many more DE superheroes than that.
I would further argue that together with CE at 66% and axeman at +150, this will NOT be a net buff in matchup vs DE at all when compared to olden days of CE at 100% and axeman at +100. Tribe will remain at disadvantage. And that's why I want to keep axethrower at +200.
Yes, the buff was absolutely needed -- but not to this extent. Previously, a single Soul Harvest was enough to put every DE unit on the field out of 3-shot range for both warriors and axe-throwers -- big problem for Tribe, and absolutely imbalanced. However, the new numbers enable vanilla axe-throwers to take out just about any +3 DE unit, even those with a moderate Soul Harvest boost. Monks remain tough kills, but they are poor offensive options against Tribe, who not only have some physical resistance, but also handle AOE better than anyone. Potions can help, but there are only two of them. Even if they manage to get a few units over the 1000 HP hump, DE have a hard time protecting those heavily upgraded units (essentially +5 or +6 in terms of invested value) from typhoons and rage, and will be nearly helpless once they do go down. "Only" 4 meats? Only the Dwarves have more burst damage options in their arsenal, and that's only if we aren't counting Typhoon-kills!
With rage, nerfed axe-throwers would still do 1000 in 3-shots, so they won't be entirely dependent on their meat, and of course with rage AND meat axe-throwers would still be able to take out just about any unarmored unit they want.
If CE at 66% and axe-thrower at +150 is indeed a net nerf rather than a neutral shift, I would look at bumping up CE to 70% or 75% until the right balance is found, rather than keeping the +200 axethrower buff. I think there is a happy medium in there, but we're not going to find it as long as the axe-thrower remains the single deadliest unequipped damage-dealer in the game.
Buff of CE to 75% may affect all other matchups, whereas leaving axeman at +200 instead of +150 won't and DE will be the ones affected the most.
Sure, axethrower may be the deadliest when unequipped and he may be single (haha), but take into account that he only has 880 resist-free hp max and move/attack of 2/2. Which means he is very vunlerable to any 300 attackers (I'm talking imps here) and almost invariably dies after his meat-kill (unless comboed to a typhoon) after he advances.
And his deadliness actually can be compared to all of the other 300 damage dealers - they may only deal 900 in 3 hits instead of 1000, but 1200 in 4, just like axethrower. Additionally, many of them have additional "special" bonuses (range of 3, ability to pull etc) and can be made sturdier - and deadlier - with equipment.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 15:47
#22
I recall we already had a debate regarding whether capitalizing on mistakes should or shouldn't be part of balancing act. And I'll stand my ground - balance changes should be implemented as close to perfect play as practically possible. Because trying to make balance changes coming from "oh, tribe can easily win if opponent makes a mistake, so lets make them weaker" is, well, complete crap. All you, Trip, would have to do if this were the case would be play 10-15 league games as tribe, learn how they operate, and later pick any other race and win 90% of the games vs equally skilled TR opponents. But how can you call that balance?
I just realized that I misread that last part -- apologies!
I hear what you're saying. If Tribe is balanced under the assumption that they will have tons of opponent errors to exploit in order to win, they will be worthless at higher-level play. But that's a bit of a slippery-slope argument -- I'm not at all saying that Tribe ought to be toothless without opponent mistakes. I'm just saying that their unique ability to reshape the board and deal variable amounts of damage like no other team has to be factored into their overall strength.
This is, at it's heart, a game of trades. Whether we are attacking crystals or stomping enemy heroes, we are making sacrifices. We are saying "I believe that this crystal damage is more valuable than the unit and APs I am giving up in the process" or " getting this kill is worth more to me than the scroll in my hand". Under this model, a "mistake" can be defined as a case where one player fails to recognize the actual terms of the deal: they think they'll lose a knight in exchange for taking out a witch, when in fact they lose their fully-kitted archer, for example. One of the great strengths of the Tribe is that they have, through their array of consumables and special abilities, more available (and often hidden) exchanges than anyone else. This increased flexibility can (and often does) lead to more opponent mistakes, simply because it is so easy to miss or misunderstand possible moves, but it is a team advantage whether or not their opponent misreads the board. That's the intangible strength of the Tribe that (I believe) has to somehow be factored into all of the numbers: variable damage (Axe-thrower, Warrior, Rage), board-shaping powers (Typhoon, Chieftain), and consumables (4 burst-damage boosters vs. 2 for most other teams) translate into more options. More options translates into more threats that the opponent must take into consideration. More potential threats will lead to either opponent mistakes or more limited move options -- BOTH of which are a net positive for the Tribe. That's why I don't think someone could ever just "stop making mistakes" to eliminate the advantage that the various Tribal surprises afford.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 16:06
#23
Buff of CE to 75% may affect all other matchups, whereas leaving axeman at +200 instead of +150 won't and DE will be the ones affected the most.
Sure, axethrower may be the deadliest when unequipped and he may be single (haha), but take into account that he only has 880 resist-free hp max and move/attack of 2/2. Which means he is very vunlerable to any 300 attackers (I'm talking imps here) and almost invariably dies after his meat-kill (unless comboed to a typhoon) after he advances.
And his deadliness actually can be compared to all of the other 300 damage dealers - they may only deal 900 in 3 hits instead of 1000, but 1200 in 4, just like axethrower. Additionally, many of them have additional "special" bonuses (range of 3, ability to pull etc) and can be made sturdier - and deadlier - with equipment.
I think the +200 axe-thrower boost actually did affect all matchups -- it just affected DE the most. We haven't even discussed the significance of the +200 boost in regards to Warrior combos, for example. As it stands, a naked axe-thrower can get a fully armored Knight to below half-health in three-shots, a bare Knight in 2 shots, and vanilla 800 units in one. The potential for Warriors to swoop in and finish the job after an initial axe barrage is clear, and very significant to the CL/TR matchup. Similar cases can be found for every other race.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I recognize that going to +150 would maintain the axe/warrior combo potential in the Knight examples -- I just wanted to illustrate the significance of the axe-thrower buff against almost all teams in this regard, not simply against DE. It really was a big buff, even if it doesn't help much against TF2.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 16:14
#24
Buff of CE to 75% may affect all other matchups, whereas leaving axeman at +200 instead of +150 won't and DE will be the ones affected the most.
Sure, axethrower may be the deadliest when unequipped and he may be single (haha), but take into account that he only has 880 resist-free hp max and move/attack of 2/2. Which means he is very vunlerable to any 300 attackers (I'm talking imps here) and almost invariably dies after his meat-kill (unless comboed to a typhoon) after he advances.
And his deadliness actually can be compared to all of the other 300 damage dealers - they may only deal 900 in 3 hits instead of 1000, but 1200 in 4, just like axethrower. Additionally, many of them have additional "special" bonuses (range of 3, ability to pull etc) and can be made sturdier - and deadlier - with equipment.
I think the +200 vs. +150 axe-thrower actually does affect all matchups -- it just affects DE the most. We haven't even discussed the significance of the +200 boost in regards to Warrior combos, for example. As it stands, a naked axe-thrower can get a fully armored Knight to below half-health in three-shots, a bare Knight in 2 shots, and vanilla 800 units in one. The potential for Warriors to swoop in and finish the job after an initial axe barrage is clear, and very significant to the CL/TR matchup. Similar cases can be found for every other race.
Sure, but take it together with overall nerf of CE to from 100% to 66%. Matches vs DW, CL will likely (and hopefully) be neutral after this balancing act. So will the matchup vs DE (again, hopefully) - DE were ahead of TR in the past, but thats why this change will affect DE the most. Match vs TF2 may still be hard - depends on the TF2 nerf. Dunno anything about SL yet, and I fear we won't be able to balance them against other races after just one patch.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 16:32
#25
This is, at it's heart, a game of trades. Whether we are attacking crystals or stomping enemy heroes, we are making sacrifices. We are saying "I believe that this crystal damage is more valuable than the unit and APs I am giving up in the process" or " getting this kill is worth more to me than the scroll in my hand". Under this model, a "mistake" can be defined as a case where one player fails to recognize the actual terms of the deal: they think they'll lose a knight in exchange for taking out a witch, when in fact they lose their fully-kitted archer, for example. One of the great strengths of the Tribe is that they have, through their array of consumables and special abilities, more available (and often hidden) exchanges than anyone else. This increased flexibility can (and often does) lead to more opponent mistakes, simply because it is so easy to miss or misunderstand possible moves, but it is a team advantage whether or not their opponent misreads the board. That's the intangible strength of the Tribe that (I believe) has to somehow be factored into all of the numbers: variable damage (Axe-thrower, Warrior, Rage), board-shaping powers (Typhoon, Chieftain), and consumables (4 burst-damage boosters vs. 2 for most other teams) translate into more options. More options translates into more threats that the opponent must take into consideration. More potential threats will lead to either opponent mistakes or more limited move options -- BOTH of which are a net positive for the Tribe. That's why I don't think someone could ever just "stop making mistakes" to eliminate the advantage that the various Tribal surprises afford.
Yet, the alternative - factoring in what you said above in attempt to balance things - is worse in my opinion, for reasons I stated in my previous post. I would abandon playing tribe alltogether if they were balanced that way.
Although, I hear what you are saying too - at low levels, if tribe is balanced based on nearly perfect play, they will feel overpowered. But this happens in most of the well balanced games that I know. Take Starcraft for example - one of the races is easiest to score wins with on the low level play, but is hard to master and is roughly equal to others on a higher level. That's just the way it is.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 16:44
#26
I honestly think, the respawn token costing an AP and I have an idea, maybe Jarate can expire? Only last 2 moves before it wares off. So you can't really pre-jarate, as it may ware off. Makes players think wisely.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 17:07
#27
For reasons similar to what I said above, I think pre-Jarate is too important to give TF2 any defense against +3 hero units.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 18:38
#28
Tf2 is clearly the hardest to figure out. I editted the original post to reflect that we really have no consensus on anything, except that nerfts are needed.
The Tribe discussion is interesting, but in the final analysis I dont really care that much. If the Tribe isnt touched a hair, they will be ok if Tf2 and Dwarves get nerfs.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 19:31
#29
Tf2 is clearly the hardest to figure out. I editted the original post to reflect that we really have no consensus on anything, except that nerfts are needed.
Agreed. The problem here in theory is that making balance changes to only 1 player or item on TF2 only impacts 2 units out of many units but is hoped to restore balance to the entire team. Almost inherently If the nerfs are significant enough to balance the entire team, then they most likely would also de-balance that unit relative to the team rendering them useless. As such, a series of small subtle changes to multiple units might be the way to go for TF2.
Thu, 12/27/2012 - 19:34
#30
Tf2 is clearly the hardest to figure out. I editted the original post to reflect that we really have no consensus on anything, except that nerfts are needed.
The Tribe discussion is interesting, but in the final analysis I dont really care that much. If the Tribe isnt touched a hair, they will be ok if Tf2 and Dwarves get nerfs.
Agree 100%
I don't have any relevant play experience since Shaolin (although there weren't many meaningful balance changes to other races).
I agree with CL and DE being generally fine, although I still wish that particular matchup could be made better. Is it still one of the most lopsided? As a general matter, yeah, Wraith being slightly more usable would always be nice.
DW: First of all, even in a couple pub games, I can tell 5 move on the speed tile is bad. That puts a gunner into melee with a unit that spawned directly across from it and took one move forward. And it lets a Grenadier zone out most of the map. It's very, very hard to safely spawn an upgrade a unit, once DW is developed at all, without DW being able to assassinate it if they choose. Granted, this intense zoning is the whole point of the speed map, but +1 square shrinks the enemy safe area from small to almost nothing. Otherwise I don't really know the best way to bring DW down a little--Aura seems like a fine thing to focus on.
TR: Partially reversing the previous Tribe tweaks is probably fine. Interesting how we all thought that would be a net buff at the time (although new races also played a part). I'd like seeing the buff to CE to make it more interesting again, and nerf to Axe to reduce the rage/meat one-shot threshold just a bit--1025 has always been a little crazy for an unupgraded unit, esp. since DE essentially can't get above that. I definitely don't want to buff Typhoon. Typhoon is too prominent a mechanic as it is--mentally processing every possible Typhoon combo is already a bigger deal than anyone would really like.
If Tribe is at the right level now, scaling back the last tweak is probably fine. If they need to be brought up a tad, find some other buff, but not leaving the 1025 Axe Thrower or expanding Typhoon possibilities.
TF2: People have made the argument already, but Jarate nerf would be way too sensitive. If Jarate fails to reliably curtail the threat of a +3 megaunit, TF2 would just get massacred. Even as it stands, with some races (DE) it could be a viable strategy to make 3 +3 units and have one invincible Void Monk or something left over after two are Jarated down. And we still have yet to see what happens when a competitive Shaolin squad can protect units with Taoist.
Similarly, I don't like reducing any defensive capabilities on the TF2 side. They have two units in the whole game better than 800/0/0. Maybe 1000 Heavies wouldn't matter much but it doesn't seem like the right thing to focus on. They need an offensive nerf other than Jarate. Sniper seems like a fine candidate. Yes, he's not overpowered now (and the current version is almost exactly what I suggested back at TF2 launch), but if the squad has to come down a bit, there's no strong reason that he can't be nerfed. I'm not sure that will be enough for a noticeable change--maybe look at the offensive power of some other unit too (Heavy?).
Shaolin: this is all theorycraft now obviously. Mobility seems like the right place to start, because their whole system is based around bringing 2-3 attackers to bear on one target. We have to step back and think about how Shaolin is meant to get kills.
With most races, the "standard model" is one AP to move, 3 to KO by leveraging some bonus, one to stomp. Shaolin can work that way sometimes, but with no 300 base unit it obviously can't be threatened nearly as much as with the other races. So what about 2-combos? Well, now it's 2AP moving 2 units, 2 attacks + 200 damage, and 1 AP to stomp. Basically the problem is, if 1 unit couldn't kill in 4AP, 2 units aren't going kill the target (with a 200 bonus) in 2 AP.
More briefly--the combo system often doesn't amount to much unless a unit gets to start in range. But all races have an easy time killing a target when they can do that.
I think the only reason Shaolin has any offensive power at all is that 1) Poisoner is a good unit and amplifies the combo effect a good bit, 2) Monk pre-debuffs can help bring anything into killable range (either at the cost of a naked Monk or a ton of AP moving him in and out to apply the debuff). In fact really the "real" combo effect allowing kills isn't the CP system itself, but the Poisoner/Monk debuffs setting things up.
You have to ask yourself, if you have 2 unadorned Windblades, what should they be able to kill (i.e. how much damage should they be able to do) going move-move-shoot-shoot(CPbonus)-stomp. 600 is really not very compelling. 800 (so 400 from the 1CP) would probably be too high, but even that's not super obvious. Maybe the effort of advancing to units against a naked vanilla 800HP unit should let you drop it--this is the combo team after all.
My Hero Academy mechanics guide: http://iam.yellingontheinternet.com/2012/08/10/hero-academy-mechanics-gu...
I talk about games and many other things here: http://twitter.com/HamletEJ