Posts from Balanced Units - A minimal balance mod for units Auto-translated

Are archers an underdog faction, if we ignore the overpowered alternative? I'm curious how. List the creatures that perform better. Or, more simply, which of the Tier 3 units is more unpleasant to fight as a guard (mob).

The statement is unclear. At long range, 8-9 against 5-8, at medium range, 8-9 against 10-16. 8.5 against 6.5 -- 13. It seems quite balanced.

It seems that way, but in reality, the damage at long range plays a primary role. According to my data, Direct Hit is approximately equivalent to +50% overall damage (or +60% ranged damage). Do you have different estimates?

I agree, but removing the ability that is the main "feature" of the creature is even worse, in my opinion.

So, let's define what the main feature is: either Direct Hit or Empowered Shot. I don't care what is removed. Also, you can leave everything as is, but remove the armor penetration from Empowered Shot (set it to 0% armor penetration).

Are archers underpowered, even considering their overpowered alternative? I'm curious how. List the creatures that perform better.

They are underpowered compared to the alternative, of course.

It just seems that way; in reality, ranged damage plays a primary role.
According to my data, direct hit is approximately equivalent to +50% total damage (or +60% ranged damage).
Do you have different estimates?

Okay, let's use a calculator.
8.5 * 1.6 = 13.6
6.5 * 2 = 13
These are quite comparable numbers, aren't they? The first one is slightly higher.

Yes, but there's also +1 attack/defense and 1.5x higher melee damage, which are minor things, but they contribute to the overall effect.
Perhaps a relatively balanced situation would be when:
-Archmage has 11 initiative (like Archers)
-Wood Elf Archers have their 50% armor penetration removed (but retain the chance to push the target back one square)
That is, not a complete removal of the enhanced arrow, but only its damage component.

Added 45 minutes ago


For comparison of approaches

Changes from the TE (Test Edition) for the specified tiers:

HUMANS
1. Crossbowmen: armor-piercing arrow range = 4 squares (was 3)
2. Archers: damage 2-7 (was 2-8), in previous versions it was 2-6

MAGIC
3. Rakshasa: given an enhanced arrow (35% armor penetration)

ELVES
4. Death Dancers: no changes
5. Archmages: a lot of messy stat changes
6. Wood Elf Archers: a lot of messy stat changes

GNOMES
7. Mountain Guards: no changes
8. Berserkers: a lot of messy stat changes
9. Warlords: fire immunity replaced with 50% fire resistance
10. Arcata Dragons: liquid fire damage 30 (was 10)

DEMONS
11. Fire Demons: no changes
12. Succubi: health 34 (was 30), Temptresses: health 27 (was 32)
13. Hellhounds: aura damage 7 (was 10)

UNDEAD
14. Bone Archers: no changes
15. All Vampires: growth 4 (was 5), 75% vampirism (was 50%), Vampire Princes: significantly reduced chance of stunning (by how much - not specified)

DARK
16. Hunters, Night Queens: a lot of messy stat and ability changes
17. Swift Riders: 75% chance to retaliate (was 25%)
18. Shadow Lords: shooting without penalty instead of whip attack, 16 mana, no scatter and beam
19. Red Dragons: no changes

ORCS
20. Nomadic Centaurs: a lot of messy stat changes
21. Orcish Warriors: health 14 (was 12), Warmongers: health 18 (was 20)
22. Sky Daughters: mana 16 (was 12)

NEUTRALS
23. Wolves: increased rating (Power), by how much - not specified

Changes from the RoA (Russian Official Edition) for the specified tiers:

HUMANS
1. Crossbowmen: armor-piercing arrow range = 4 squares (was 3), damage 2-7 (was 3-8), initiative 9 (was 8), health 12 (was 10)
2. Archers: damage 2-6 (was 2-8)

MAGIC
3. Rakshasa: initiative 10 (was 8), defense 27 (was 20)

ELVES
4. Death Dancers: health 14 (was 12), defense 8 (was 3)
5. Archmages: a lot of messy stat changes
6. Wood Elf Archers: 33% armor penetration (was 50%)

GNOMES
7. Mountain Guards: damage 2-2 (was 1-2), enhanced defensive position (from +5 to +10)
8. Berserkers: defense 13 (was 7)
9. Warlords: no changes
10. Arcata Dragons: liquid fire damage 15 (was 10)

DEMONS
11. Fire Demons: health 16 (was 13), speed 6 (was 5), explosion is almost not enhanced, but infinite number of times
12. Succubi: damage 9-13 (was 6-13), attack 9 (was 6), defense 7 (was 6), speed 5 (was 4); Temptresses: 25% reduced temptation (technically applicable only for RoA)
13. Nightmares: defense 21 (was 18)

UNDEAD
14. Bone Archers: damage 2-2 (was 1-2), health 6 (was 5)
15. Higher Vampires: speed 8 (was 7), initiative 12 (was 11), attack and defense 11 (were 9), Vampire Princes: stunning factor reduced from 3 to 1.5 (it is stated that the chance is reduced by half, but this is not the case)

DARK
16. Hunters: no changes (because there is no armor penetration)
17. Swift Riders: 75% chance to retaliate (was 25%), +1 damage, +6 defense; tier +5 defense
18. Shadow Lords, Night Queens: 30-35% increased damage for both
19. Red Dragons: no changes

ORCS
20. Nomadic Centaurs: initiative 11 (was 10), defense 4 (was 2)
21. Orcish Warriors: health 14 (was 12), Warmongers: health 18 (was 20)
22. Sky Daughters: initiative 13 (was 12)

NEUTRALS
23. Wolves: no changes, because they are not present

How so? They actually made them stronger: they increased the chance of their ability triggering.

Really? I only know that they removed the stun, but there's no mention of increasing the chance in the changelog. :eek:

Alternatively, you can leave everything as is, but remove the defense penetration from the enhanced arrow (set the penetration to 0%).

- Sounds good :)
IMO, it's probably better to remove the defense penetration – this way, the ability will only cause a knockback of one cell, meaning we achieve two things with one shot: firstly, this action weakens the Sylvan archer, so the Master Archer is approximately equal to him; secondly, we eliminate the absurd burn-up in melee combat (we can only hope that the knockback of one cell backward does not work in melee combat).

Can't you just reduce the damage of archers? Is it really necessary to nerf the ability?

The damage change seems more impactful than the ability nerf.
For example, something like this would likely be unpopular: 5-7 damage instead of 8-9.

But it's also more logical. Otherwise... well, the collection of unused abilities will just grow; is that a good thing, I guess?

as suggested above, instead of removing this ability altogether, you could remove its armor penetration effect (while increasing the chance of the knockback effect pushing the enemy back one tile).

Buffing an ability doesn't fit the concept of minimal changes; it's not the kind of thing where, to balance two creatures, you have to make edits in ten different places. And it's strange to buff an ability of a unit that is being weakened. Currently, the choice is between the following options:
1) remove the armor penetration, leaving only the knockback effect
2) reduce the damage from 8-9 to 5-7
Simultaneously increase the initiative of archmages to 11 (in both options).

I'm in favor of the second option. Although I'm not sure it's perfect:

7 Sylvan archers (1-week growth) shoot at emerald dragons, dealing 41-46 damage (without enhanced arrow, 27-30)
7 master archers shoot at emerald dragons, dealing 16-26 damage (32-52 at medium range)

Damage of master archers: 42
Damage of Sylvan archers: 43.5 * 0.7 (damage was nerfed by 30%) * 1.6 (from full range) = 49
So, these numbers are for shooting at a creature with a fairly high base defense; the difference will be smaller for weaker creatures. And master archers also have a stun... With these parameters, they clearly look better. On the other hand, if the enemy hero has high defense, Sylvan archers are still effective, so perhaps the balance lies here. Against neutrals, master archers; against the enemy, Sylvan archers. However, there's also the fact that not all factions invest in defense, so again...
In any case, it's worth trying.

I don't mind, both ways are concise enough, so let's go with this:
6. Forest Archers: damage 5-7 (instead of 8-9)

Regarding other debatable points:

2. Archers: damage 2-6 (was 2-8)

How many opinions against? How many for?
On one hand, this cuts the damage of the skill-less "everyone shoot" strat by 20%; on the other hand, in the context of increasing the armor-piercing range to 4 tiles for Crossbowmen, it strengthens an alternative, skill-based strat for targeted sniping of large melee units, which can provide much more profit than Archers.

3. Rakshasa Rajas: initiative 10 (was 8), +agility

It seems we agreed on raising the initiative to compensate for stats. Agility, meanwhile, compensates for the lack of no-retaliation before a whirlwind (an attack covering 6 tiles).
This is a debatable issue; I value no-retaliation as +25% survivability (only in melee, doesn't save from archers), and whirlwind as +60% melee damage.
Agility provides a significant increase in survivability up to +50%, but only at the start or with maximum momentum. When using charge, the Rakshasa stays in place and the bonus disappears immediately.
In RTA, a passive bonus of +7 defense is given instead of agility, which is even stronger.

9. Jarls: 100% fire strike (was 120%)

Without the Circle Rune, Jarls are almost always chosen because their ranged ability is an order of magnitude stronger than the Earls'. Jarls deal 120% damage and ignite, versus a weakened chain. If an Earl attacks, he deals 200% damage to the first target and 100% along the chain; when using the ability, he only deals 100% damage to the first target and then along the chain.
Personally, I don't see the point in giving increased damage to an ability that is already great (hitting any target without retaliation and without penalty, additionally with ignite - fire mark).
On the other hand, this is not such a significant nerf; it's quite possible that Earls won't become more popular. Perhaps this is my subjective opinion and Earls are in demand enough, so can we discard this change?

Currently, Earls have 20% more health but 10% less initiative than Jarls. Damage to the primary target is roughly the same. Then the Earls have a guaranteed chain versus the Jarls' random wave of fire. And the "shoot" chain ability (only) versus the "shoot for 120% damage with ignite" ability. Comparing damage, the chain is spread as 100% to each target, while the Jarls' damage is 240% to one target + ignite.

12. Demonesses: damage 9-13 (was 6-13)

Let it be so.

13. Hell Horses: aura damage 7 (was 10)

Any more opinions against?
As an alternative, in RTA they simply added +3 defense to the upgrade, but in my opinion, that's a "dirtier" solution, as changing an ability is perceived more easily than changing stats. Provided that the ability remains relevant, and damage of 7 is very relevant indeed.

15. High Vampires: damage 9-13 (was 7-11), Vampire Lords: stun factor 1 (was 3)

In all tournament mods, the stun factor was cut; there seems to be nothing to discuss here. However, regarding the buffing of High Vampires, we can talk.
Currently, the alt has: health 40, speed 8, stun; the upgrade has: health 35, speed 7, no-retaliation.
In my opinion, the lack of no-retaliation is fully compensated by stats (health, speed). Stun, however, gives a pure advantage. Hence the 22% damage increase for the upgrade.

16. Trappers, Mistresses of the Night: invisibility 2 rounds (instead of 3)

Any dissenters left?

17. Nimble Riders: 100% tailwind (was 25%), +agility

The alternative is 75% tailwind + agility; it's a matter of preference. 75% was used in RTA and TE, 100% in VGE. Let's hear your opinions.

and the vortex deals +60% melee damage

The enemy will position themselves in such a way that attacking multiple units becomes disadvantageous/impossible. I would rate it as +40%, or maybe +50% damage at most.

Are there any dissenters left?

I don't know. Applying invisibility also means automatically losing one turn. I think three turns was a good balance. Assassins just need to be made stronger. For example, remove the penalty to ranged attacks. Or give them armor-piercing, like archers, for close-range attacks.

An alternative is 75% chance to hit + agility; it's a matter of personal preference. 75% was used in RTA and TE, while 100% was used in WGE. Let's share our opinions.

100% chance to hit without agility. But you could give them counterattack, which would allow them to maneuver fearlessly in any way that is most advantageous, while still preserving the original concept of a "glass cannon" for this tier of TE.

The enemy will position themselves in a way that makes attacking multiple units inefficient or impossible. I would estimate this as a +40%, or at most, +50% damage increase.

It's easy to say, but harder to do, and for such arrangements, you have to sacrifice something. Whether it's 50% or 60% isn't that important; the goal isn't to perfectly balance the upgrades, but to make them comparable.

I don't know. Casting invisibility also means automatically losing one turn. I think three turns was fine. Assassins just need to be made stronger. Remove the penalty to ranged attacks, for example. Or give them armor-piercing, like crossbowmen, for close-range attacks.

The issue isn't in the endgame, where assassins are already good because of their ranged poison that ignores the defenses of higher-tier units. The problem is breaking through against hunters; it's too easy to bypass them with invisibility and chaos, and they are already being dealt 1.5 times more damage when the duration is reduced. There's no point in buffing assassins when hunters are clearly overpowered on their own.

100% chance to hit without dexterity. But you could give them retaliate; this would allow them to maneuver fearlessly in any way that is most advantageous, without destroying the original concept of a "glass cannon" for this tier of ranged units.

Without dexterity, they probably won't take the alternate upgrade. Retaliate is weaker, and I'm not sure it will be competitive.
Currently, we essentially have: alternate lizard units with 12 initiative against 11, chance to hit against accuracy.

Although, now that I've recalculated, it's possible that 100% chance to hit will be enough to make it competitive with accuracy, without retaliate or dexterity. It makes sense to try it out so as not to create new abilities or stats.

Without agility, Alts are unlikely to be picked. Counterattack is weaker, and I'm not sure it will be competitive.

With agility, Alts are overpowered and will always be picked, at least for breaking through defenses. Moreover, the bonus damage will no longer play a significant role. For example, you can look at Dancing with the Wind: no one ever picks Death Wish, even though it's an AoE skill.

Although, I recalculated, and it's possible that exactly 100% bonus damage will be enough to make it competitive with the current setup. Without Counterattack/Agility. It's worth trying to avoid creating new abilities/stats.

That would be great.