Posts from UNIT - Creature Balance + Visual Changes

Stats can be adjusted; this is just a prototype. I needed to get feedback on the abilities of the creatures and whether they make sense.
As for option 4, none of the units should be worse than the others, as that is the main goal: to eliminate inequality and situational dependence.
Archers receive consistent, accurate damage, which is approximately 60% of the possible damage of crossbowmen. If you like to take risks, choose crossbowmen; if you want stability, archers are your choice; neither is superior to the other.

Changes can be introduced in many ways; I choose the most rational one.

Perhaps your criticism is sometimes justified, but you are too fanatically defending your position, which creates the impression that you simply want to "force" your opinion (and, by the way, I observe this not only in your thread).

The fastest is not always the most correct. Other people's experience has a certain value, but I am following my own path...

Just in case, I will post a few more suggested options.

Option #5
Crossbowmen retain their original characteristics and abilities, but the range of the "Precise Shot" ability is increased to 6 cells.

Option #6
A complete analogue of the second option, only now the piercing shot does not damage friendly creatures.

Option #7
Crossbowmen receive 12 initiative; the other characteristics are no different from the original.
Attachments

Abilities are a matter of taste; other players may disagree with them, but I look at the numbers and point out what's wrong with them. In version 4, you simply increased the damage of the best upgrade (alt) by 20%, replacing one good ability with another (roughly equivalent).

Not at all, the most rational means based on someone's experience (not reinventing the wheel). I've already suggested that you familiarize yourself with TE and RTA; there are descriptions of these mods (changes).

Not at all, I don't care if you accept my position or stick to your own.

So, be prepared to spend a couple of years on this path (with such a volume of changes).

In schemes where it is proposed to compensate for direct damage with increased damage, it is also necessary to take into account that melee damage is also increased (therefore, an increase in total damage by 1.5 times already fully compensates for direct damage). Taking into account the old armor penetration of 3, we will get approximately equality when the damage is increased by 1.4 times: from 2-8 to 6-8 (which is a lot, but on par with the imbalanced alt)

Option 6, friendly creatures will not suffer unless they are next to the archers; moreover, this protection also applies to enemy shots from the same unit, i.e., it looks very strange.

Option 7 is good in principle, but there are objections to the logic (crossbows are usually associated with low initiative, not high). Also, instead of initiative 12, I can suggest 11 (after all, initiative is more important than damage).

Just in case, I'll post a few more suggested options.

Option #5
Crossbowmen retain their original characteristics and abilities, but the range of the "Precise Shot" ability is increased to 6 cells.

Option #6
A complete analogue of the second option, only now the piercing shot does not deal damage to friendly creatures.

Option #7
Crossbowmen receive an initiative of 12; the other characteristics are the same as the original.

All options are interesting. The 6th one turned out to be not as visually appealing due to a bug with the sound effect. By the way, in the 5th one, the DefaultStats.xdb file from version 3.0 was used, which is why in 3.1, the Knights of Isabel don't deal piercing damage, while the battle griffins perform a devastating dive attack immediately, without delay.

Well, if that's the case, then why are you so persistently trying to prove something to me, or rather, impose something? If you don't care, why not just leave the topic?

My main goal was to rid the Factions of "favorites" and useless creatures that, in most cases, no one hires.

Are you serious about melee damage right now?

Rationality, in many senses, is a subjective term; you understand it as "following a well-trodden path," while I understand it as the simplest and most effective way to achieve a goal.

I disagree about the equivalence of the ability. There's a big difference between 50% + knockback and 100%, besides the exorbitant damage of the second ability, it is also very situational, which is a big minus.

The 6th one turned out to be not as good in execution due to a bugged suppression effect.

I express my opinion because I have something to say. Consider it the opinion of an expert. Whether you follow this or that advice is entirely up to you. Where am I imposing anything? I'm just pointing out where the flaws are and why.

I am proceeding from:

and I don't see any connection with most of the proposed changes. Take the Cerberus, for example; were they not in demand with their old stats? Where did you get this information from?

90% of what you suggest is just creativity, not balance work.

Don't make things up. We both understand that rationality is the simplest and most effective way. For now, your method shows little effectiveness, like any undertaking from scratch, especially without sufficient experience in playing and balancing. Let's see how long it takes for you to give up on your mod :)

We were talking about the approximate equivalence of a direct hit and ignoring 50% of the defense.

I am generally against magic for Orcs. And this is not an isolated opinion. The Cloud of Thunder would be more suitable for the Daughters of the Sky.

You should at least read my comments on this. Cerberuses and Hell Hounds were buffed not because they are unpopular, but because they are too fragile, even excessively so, so the HP value was slightly increased. I remember you suggested increasing the weekly growth rate for this purpose, but that would also increase the unit's damage output...

I've told you a thousand times that we have ABSOLUTELY DIFFERENT VIEWS ON BALANCE, but while I've tried to understand your views, you simply ignore mine and stubbornly push your own agenda.
You can ignore the overpowered nature of the "Targeted Shot" ability and increase its range to almost the maximum, but then you worry about the melee attack of the archer, even adding a penalty in melee combat... I, in turn, cannot accept such changes because I consider them unacceptable, but I will not impose my opinion on you. You are free to do whatever you want in your mod, and I will not interfere with my "advice" because you have a completely different concept of balance, and my options would look rather strange in your mod. But you are trying to impose your opinion where it doesn't belong.

You are used to achieving your goal by following an easy, well-trodden path, and I have nothing against it, but I have chosen a different path.

If the "Targeted Shot" ability in the original game has a range of 3 cells, then I can still agree, but not 6...

1) Replace the "Blind" spell with "Punishing Strike" at the advanced level.

7 variants for crossbowmen were proposed (see page 6, towards the end); are there any opinions on this? Which of the options is better?

In my opinion, there's no point in changing the characteristics of the crossbowmen at all. It's a strong unit from the start. Yes, it can be strengthened, for example: +HP, +initiative, or +minimum damage, BUT WHY? They are already strong!

Added after 1 minute

Regarding "summon elementals" as a working spell, the idea is well suited for the RPE mod, where elementals are given out for a silence. The problem is that such functionality (elementals for silence) can only be implemented "fanatically," it's not just about changing a couple of numbers.

Friends, Frozensoull has actually taken on a very difficult task:
balance adjustments. These are truly complex calculations, so this person needs help. There's no point in constantly criticizing him – it's already difficult enough for him to figure everything out.