You think a faction is overpowered? Come here!

Aethaeryn (User Page) · Post by **Aethaeryn** » January 17th, 2008, 11:12 pm

Vendanna wrote:
maxgamer wrote:i think that the undead faction is underpowered, sure theyre great against most units, but all you have to do is recruit some impact attackers and its game over for them. i suggest making a unit that can counter this, just to ward off heavy infantry and such. maybe im wrong and im missing something, but i just want to hear what you think.
The Necrophage (well the lvl 1) is resistant to impact so its a good way to counter it.

Paired with some cheap dark adepts and these guys will get fried fast, the HI is a rather poor counter against undead due to be very slow and expensive, it could come in handy on very small maps, but it can be countered.

If you have problems dealing with it, then you could get similar problems with the wose, that its a bit worse due to be easy on blade but it regens.

The lvl 1 is a ghoul.

JW · Post by JW » January 18th, 2008, 2:00 am

Vendanna wrote:
maxgamer wrote:i think that the undead faction is underpowered, sure theyre great against most units, but all you have to do is recruit some impact attackers and its game over for them. i suggest making a unit that can counter this, just to ward off heavy infantry and such. maybe im wrong and im missing something, but i just want to hear what you think.
The Necrophage (well the lvl 1) is resistant to impact so its a good way to counter it.

Paired with some cheap dark adepts and these guys will get fried fast, the HI is a rather poor counter against undead due to be very slow and expensive, it could come in handy on very small maps, but it can be countered.

If you have problems dealing with it, then you could get similar problems with the wose, that its a bit worse due to be easy on blade but it regens.

Adepts are the core of the Undead army. If you don't recruit enough of these it's easy to lose. For 16g you get 20 chaotic ranged cold magic, which is resisted at most by 20% outside of a mirror match, which they have arcane for.

Really, you must have 2+ of these guys at all times.

maxgamer · Post by **maxgamer** » January 18th, 2008, 8:53 pm

yea but its kind of useless makeing an army of adapts cuz they have no melee attack and last about 2 turns fighting almost any melee oriented army. they have their uses, but i think theyre more of a support unit then the undead armys main unit. if it was the main unit then what would be the point of having skelitans?

i propose having a new unit for undead that isnt vulnerable to impact n holy. just a living unit other than adept would turn undead into a usefull faction, a unit more melee orientated

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » January 18th, 2008, 9:42 pm

Two things:

1) If dark adepts aren't the backbone of your army then you are doing something wrong. If you are losing them too quickly then you are using them wrong. There is nothing wrong with the undead faction.

2) Your signature is really sick. And I don't mean it in a good way.

Post by **Dave** » January 18th, 2008, 9:48 pm

Samantha wrote: 2) Your signature is really sick. And I don't mean it in a good way.

Thank you for pointing this out.

maxgamer, I have removed your signature. If you choose a new signature for yourself, please make sure that it's family-friendly.

Thanks,

David

maxgamer · Post by **maxgamer** » January 18th, 2008, 9:56 pm

im really sorry, i guess it was a bad joke. i didnt mean to offend anyone

Mabuse · Post by **Mabuse** » January 20th, 2008, 10:50 pm

maxgamer wrote:yea but its kind of useless makeing an army of adapts

i think theyre more of a support unit then the undead armys main unit. if it was the main unit then what would be the point of having skelitans?

well its you who say undead is underpowered -

so there must be something wrong with your thoughts and conclusions, dont you think so ?

Mabuse · Post by **Mabuse** » January 20th, 2008, 10:53 pm

ProggerPete wrote:I think the northerners are overpowered.

notherners suck

nebula955 · Post by **nebula955** » January 21st, 2008, 4:25 am

skeletons are weak stuff you rarely use

JW · Post by JW » January 21st, 2008, 4:35 am

maxgamer wrote:yea but its kind of useless makeing an army of adapts cuz they have no melee attack and last about 2 turns fighting almost any melee oriented army. they have their uses, but i think theyre more of a support unit then the undead armys main unit. if it was the main unit then what would be the point of having skelitans?

You don't make an army of them. You have several to damage/kill things and then other units to guard the adepts/finish units. If you have no adepts it's highly unlikely you'll win. You cannot say this for any other unit in the faction.

i propose having a new unit for undead that isnt vulnerable to impact n holy. just a living unit other than adept would turn undead into a usefull faction, a unit more melee orientated

Jeez....upgrade to 1.3. There is no Holy. Look at the Ghoul.

Mabuse wrote:well its you who say undead is underpowered -

so there must be something wrong with your thoughts and conclusions, dont you think so ?

Agreed.

Sombra · Post by **Sombra** » January 21st, 2008, 1:53 pm

If you would ask me which faction is underpowered it would say knalgans right now. My reasoing is quite simple. Many of the other factions received small updates to address some weaknesses in their setup somehow only teh knalgans have benn left behind and not gained new powers.:

- Undead got the fearless walking dead , the improved living bat , improved DAs , the nice ghoul resistances.

- Drakes got the clasher with firststrike for example.

- Rebels got improved elfen sorceresses etc.

I cannot point out any special matchup where knalgans are in a disadvantage still they are my least favorite faction to play right now. On any bigger maps they really struggle due to the slow movements of their main battleunits. The other factions dont have so many obvious weaknesses anymore.

Samantha · Post by **Samantha** » January 21st, 2008, 8:33 pm

Yes, but the vampire bat just got nerfed again in .3.14, now they take almost twice as much exp to level.

As far as the Elvish Sorceress is concerned, she's not that useful in a multiplayer game anyway when compared to the druid.

And the Knalgans did get lvl 3 outlaws!

schedal · Post by **schedal** » February 11th, 2008, 2:09 pm

haha, what a funny thread! I don't think anyone/many realized the complete irony of the first 3 to 6 pages...

If you are going to keep this concept, personally I think the thread should be killed and remade so that everyone doesn't need to read through pages and pages of the pre [off topic] debate, it makes it all very heavy weighted, no one wants to read those first pages but has to to get to the actual topic at hand, and I think this thread doesn't really achieve what it is you are trying to accomplish.

In response to the off-topic, my take is:

1. if you want to prove faction balance, the server can track wins/losses for each faction automatically as a stat [and to please me, also if the win was from P1 or P2... hehe].

There are some issues with this, such as new players who often choose certain races over others (do new players have favorites?), and also if there are more new players playing matches than experienced ones (?) - to filter this, you could weigh stats only from tournaments and multiply it by their ranking etc and make it as simple or complex as you like...

But in any case, a general stats collection could be very helpful, it's also 'factual' and if you take enough of a sampling [say at least 100 games per faction-combo] it is quite scientific. This makes it also far easier to judge map disbalances, and would give far more weight to people who claim the game is, or isn't unbalanced. replays are far too context-dependent to prove something like faction power. Only sufficient stats collected from sufficient players on sufficient maps can really provide evidence for change.

2. By advertising such a sticky as this, you are will also draw in more posts than you would if you didn't have it as a sticky... it makes it a place to 'learn' rather than to 'resolve' perceived issues... a subtle but real distinction:

yearning to learn:

"yesterday i lost twice with elves... they must suck, oh look, here i can post to play against them and learn how to play them, cool!"

vs.
new player perceived imbalance:

"ive played rebels for ages and they always loose, or i always beat them with loyalists - man i must tell someone!"

Not sure if you realize that...

Instead you may want to allow different threads to persist, but have them all in one area [called /forum/play-balance] and then have it be policy that if you think the game is dis-balanced for one side that you post a challenge to play someone [as per concept of this thread]. The 'policy' can be an admin-sticky that you can't post to, a 'read-me' at the top of the forum-stub. Making it a non-postable sticky serves the purpose of making it into a policy. If you also start stats tracking [assuming that is not already done] then you can also inform the players that this is underway as hard-evidence.

3. the third solution is to expand the tactics section. It was really nice to have some info on playing the orcs + undead when i just started, and I think it would greatly benefit newbies by having also similar sections for all the factions. And at the end of each faction, a break down for common tactics/unit choices for each vs. faction. Some people may have different 'solutions' to each faction, and if so you can add more in after some kind of 'committee' review [not sure how you guys decide what goes on the wiki... so insert 'proper process']. I'm sure if you made a thread for each faction's tactics within a few days/week you would have enough material to copy-paste into a 'faction guide' with modest effort.

If you have such a tactics section, then you can refer people to it to read and hopefully that will increase new player knowledge [so they become good players] and also resolve a % of the mis-concepts.

The general tactics guide could also be expanded, at the moment its useful, but a bit too abstract instead of applied.

For example: practical tactics related to map sizes are missing [how many scouts are enough?], but tactics relating to using napoleon tactics of divide and conquer [which is very high-level abstract] are included...

Me1234 · Post by **Me1234** » February 29th, 2008, 2:08 am

i think that all of the factions are balanced. except for the drakes who have no resistance to peirce and cold. the saurians make up for this though.

Post by **megane** » February 29th, 2008, 9:04 am

Me1234 wrote:i think that all of the factions are balanced. except for the drakes who have no resistance to peirce and cold. the saurians make up for this though.

...so, what you're saying is, because 3 out of the 6 units in the faction do not have all three of astronomical hp, great attack power, AND resistances to everything, they're underpowered? Here's an idea, lets give the drakes a straight %60 resist to all elements, that'll balance em out. And while we're at it, it's annoying how the undead are weak to arcane, can't you guys do something about that? Jeez.