The changes to poison

[Jozrael]

Are QUITE significant. I think they'll provide beneficial gameplay changes but I've yet to try them out. So in summary for those of you who haven't read the changelog:

The orcish assassin's line melee went down by 1. (7-1 and 9-2 respectively now).
Their ranged earned the marksman trait (!).

As a compensation against dwarves, arguably the most affected by poison, healthy now halves the damage dealt by poison (!). It was 6 previously if they did not fight (8-the 2 resting), I'm not sure whether this means it is now 4 (6-2) or TWO poison damage (4-2). Either way, it's still quite a beneficial change for them, but I think the latter would be far more significant and possibly OP. Since I don't play on the dev server much (from lack of activity) I was wondering if those of you who DO play with these new settings could provide some feedback?

[Daravel]

I don't know the exact % for a dwarf getting healthy, but I would estimate only a third of my units get it.

This sounds pretty overpowered on dwarves to my mind, instead of an assassin probably poisoning your dwarf (3 hits @60/70% def = 1 hit) but now it is standard that a dwarf will get hit and lose 8 health per turn. Surely assassins will just be used to go for those who aren't healthy.

[Akkarin345]

I don't know the exact % for a dwarf getting healthy, but I would estimate only a third of my units get it.

This sounds pretty overpowered on dwarves to my mind, instead of an assassin probably poisoning your dwarf (3 hits @60/70% def = 1 hit) but now it is standard that a dwarf will get hit and lose 8 health per turn. Surely assassins will just be used to go for those who aren't healthy.

I think that is called strategy

I guess though dwarves are slow moving so if they get poisined they do needs some way of the effects not being as bad. Also you have to decide do i poison this one for 8 hp lose or this one for 4hp.

I'd pick which ever one was the biggest threat.

[Velrei]

After how much poison i use playing orcs or undead against dwarves...especially orcs...I think the changes will probably be pretty useful considering how powerful poison is against dwarves.

I do find it odd that the assassins get marksman, but eh, I suspose it will help finishing off units. The lowered damage makes more sense when you look at it like that.

Personally, poison seems to be the dwarves biggest weakness, to the point of imbalancing with the lack of heal and slow move, but this change probably helps enough with it to consider it balanced, but still pretty useful.

I haven't played the dev much either, so I'm curious just how much damage this means healthy units take now also, although it probably is -2 to the poison, with the +2 healing from healthy trait being negated.

[Sapient]

I like the healthy idea from a thematic perspective, but I'm not sure how it will play out from a balance perspective.

With the other changes, though...
1) the meaning of the term marksman seems to be getting further diluted here, and
2) it's not like the assasin really needs it; his poison is the main point of the attack and it tends to land at least once already as it is.
3) he is getting some more ranged damage as a result, but personally I preferred the versatility and the retaliation aspect of that 8/9(strong) melee attack. I will seriously reconsider the idea of getting a slayer as a leader now. The melee nerf has turned this from a really cool all-around unit into a much more specialized unit.

[Daravel]

It's all very well having healthy dwarves not affected by poison, but I just ran a tiny experiment. recruited 20 fighters and had 9 with healthy. That suggests that roughly 50% of your dwarves will be healthy. with only 6-7 units who are not all dwarves, concievably, none.

It is essentialy a guaranteed hit on a dwarf whose main method of staying alive is his high def - which is rare enough as it is, now northerners have an even easier method of wiping them out. it takes 2 rounds max for poison and attacks to rewquire a dwarf seek healing, only provided by villages. How often can you afford to rotate a dwarf that quickly?

I just think you will end up with assassins only going for those dwarfs without the healthy trait, and destroying them.

[Wintermute]

It's all very well having healthy dwarves not affected by poison, but I just ran a tiny experiment. recruited 20 fighters and had 9 with healthy. That suggests that roughly 50% of your dwarves will be healthy. with only 6-7 units who are not all dwarves, concievably, none.

I just think you will end up with assassins only going for those dwarfs without the healthy trait, and destroying them.

Why settle for empirical probability (which in this case as in many proves somewhat off)? Chance for first trait to be not healthy: 0.8, chance for second trait to also not be healthy: 0.75. So 0.8*0.75= 0.6 will NOT be healthy, so 40% will be (theoretically).

In terms of assassins "destroying" dwarves...

[soapbox] what dwarves do they destroy exactly? I am always mystified when I read about so many people using poison (most especially in the form of an assassin-heavy army) to combat dwarves. Let's be clear: assassins are a support unit. One or two can be exactly what you need in a given situation, but let's keep in mind that they cost the same as a thunder (which if you are trying to poison me, I will have a lot of) and get absolutely trashed by them about 1/3 of the time they try that sneaky "destroying" attack of theirs. At what cost to the dwarf? half it's hp by the time it has killed the assassin and gone back to heal? Did I mention ulfs? Well... ULFS. They are like little laughing anti-assassins (only they are not annihilated in the ulf-assassin explosion ). [/soapbox]

[Sapient]

1) the meaning of the term marksman seems to be getting further diluted here, and

to clarify: I mean, why would an L1 orc be more accurate with thrown daggers than say... an L3 human master bowman?

[Daravel]

Why settle for empirical probability (which in this case as in many proves somewhat off)? Chance for first trait to be not healthy: 0.8, chance for second trait to also not be healthy: 0.75. So 0.8*0.75= 0.6 will NOT be healthy, so 40% will be (theoretically).

Better I run some form of test so that I at least have a rough estimate to back my arguments that a random number, and 9/20 = 45% so hardly a catastrophe.

A dwarf fighter with 45hp on his 60% defense hill vs an assassin and 2 grunts. The assassin scores 2 hits and both grunts miss (39hp). Your dwarf attacks assassin, no hits on you (31hp) One grunt hits you and assassin 2 hits (15hp). Your next go leaves you with 7hp.

That is 2 goes in which posion has signifcantly aided in having a full health dwarf have to seek to find a town (which could be 5-6 MP away), and if you're zoc'd? A dwarven defense isn't meant to cave that easily. Considering that northerners will easily have more units to do that same along the line. What about guardsman? losing 8 hp a turn guaranteed, and they are meant to stand there forever.

Ulf's, sure... If you can reach the assassin. However your ulf is 19 gold, and their assassin 17. 2 assassins are all they need, one turn for one dwarf, 2 turns = 4 dwarves. Never forgetting the poachers and footpads... They also rely on their high defense which is now instantly negated 9and they have lower hp).

Ever had assassins or ghouls used against you as drakes? I find the constant need for having 1-2 drakes in a town for healing, at night, means it's incredibly hard for you to hold any form of defense.

Of course I am by no means a high quality player and it's just my failings which highlight this as a bigger problem, but just my opinions.

[Yogibear]

Of course I am by no means a high quality player and it's just my failings which highlight this as a bigger problem, but just my opinions.

Hmm, if you are not a high quality player and if a high quality player like Wintermute does not see a problem at all, what does that tell us ?

Anyway, constructed situations like this, not even with a screenshot or map to look on are pretty pointless. Better show us a replay of what you mean and we can discuss about something real.

[Wintermute]

A dwarf fighter with 45hp on his 60% defense hill vs an assassin and 2 grunts. The assassin scores 2 hits and both grunts miss (39hp). Your dwarf attacks assassin, no hits on you (31hp) One grunt hits you and assassin 2 hits (15hp). Your next go leaves you with 7hp.

Anyway, constructed situations like this, not even with a screenshot or map to look on are pretty pointless. Better show us a replay of what you mean and we can discuss about something real.

I agree. In a situation where the knalgan player has a 16 gold unit, and the northerner player has 41 gold worth of units, I think it is safe to assume that (to quote the Bush Administration) "mistakes have been made". I'm not really sure what point your trying to make.

[IB]

A dwarf fighter with 45hp on his 60% defense hill vs an assassin and 2 grunts.

I agree, dwarf fighters should win 3 on 1.

[Radament]

As I haven't tried the 1.5.x branch yet, I don't really have an opinion on the changes, but boredom inspired me looking at probabilities:

- Previously Assasins had a 66% chance of poisoning a dwarf on a Mountain for 8hp
- Now they have a 93,5% chance of doing it, with roughly a third or half the dwarves taking only 4hp damage, so let's say for a total of 6hp poison damage on average

Lets take a simple model and say that 100 attacks are made per game. "Old" assasins would connect roughly 2/3's of their attacks, which generates (66 x 8 ) = 528 poison damage.
New assasins would do (93,5 x 6) = 561 poison damage, which is not really a big change.

Of course this model of mine is extremely simplistic, as it doesn't account multiple poisonings of the same unit or dwarves on plains and stuff like that, but i don't think that overall it's a big deal.

It's also good to have another viable option against rebels, who already have shamans and aren't as affected by occasional poisoning.

Btw, have the Dev's considered increasing the number of attacks of the assasin by one? Wonder what that'd do.

Edit: 66 x 8 in a bracket gives (66 x

[Daravel]

A dwarf fighter with 45hp on his 60% defense hill vs an assassin and 2 grunts. The assassin scores 2 hits and both grunts miss (39hp). Your dwarf attacks assassin, no hits on you (31hp) One grunt hits you and assassin 2 hits (15hp). Your next go leaves you with 7hp.

Anyway, constructed situations like this, not even with a screenshot or map to look on are pretty pointless. Better show us a replay of what you mean and we can discuss about something real.

I agree. In a situation where the knalgan player has a 16 gold unit, and the northerner player has 41 gold worth of units, I think it is safe to assume that (to quote the Bush Administration) "mistakes have been made". I'm not really sure what point your trying to make.

To reply to you both:

How is it pointless to look at this situation? 41 golds worth on units against 16 gold worth does not in anyway show that mistakes have been made, it shows that your opponent is attacking one unit with three (a pretty common occurance I should think?). Also, in my example, I showed how an assassin with 60% chance to hit each time hit you 4 times and 2 grunts missed 7/8 hits on you, which if my rough calculations are correct is actually a gross underestimation of the exptected damage done. My point was to illustrate how quickly a dwarf will be rendered useless (as in, almost dead and needs to heal or will die) in only 2 turns, more likely 1.

Maybe I have got it entirely wrong, but I'm sure it isn't possible to sustain that.

Poison has been buffed to overcome dwarves single greatest strength, and only 40% of dwarves have an adequate defence to it, and none of their human allies.

[Mabuse]

ah forget what i said here.

after thinking about it, i think its a pretty good idea. i always felt pity for assassins which never hit anyway, and i see this quite often.

marksman is also just active on offense, so my mages are not even affected when they take them out.

and ORCS were underpowered versus knalgan defense on mountains/hills (one of the reason i dont play northerners anymore), so this is the right way to go.

thres really nothign more frustrating than dwarf that sit with their fat asses on mountains and orcs cant do anything against it. assassins which try to poision them dont hit and get killed in return. luckily they hit now, before they get killed

the change is a good one.