Making lvl matter more and equipment less

Hi everyone !

I wish to thanks the devs for the entertaining and addictive game they make. It's a great F2P experience that they have offered to us. And I beg your pardon for my english, it's not my native language.

I'm a bit concerned about something that could turn the game in a "pay to win", and that was also stated by Pug in an other thread related to pvp : it's the balance beetween stats gained through leveling units and stat gained by items (specialy for epic and godlike).

With the analysis made by Hegorn in his topic Comparison of Stat Gains. Items Vs Levels, we can easily understand that the exp gained by the unit is a negligible amount. I'm not comfortable with this. Specially when you know that you can pay real money to get godlike fragment. I know you need financial support, and I'm glad too give you some for such a great game, but the time spent to level a unit to reach level 10 should matter more. And it's also true for the tech research.

It feels really weird when a rookie unit in full epic / godlike just run without cover through the battlefield, taking no loss and crush enemy units, without trying to even make strategical placement, flanking or anything else.

---

TL:DR version :

• To double stats gained through leveling
  
• To double stats gained through researching
  
• To halve stats gained through items
  

---

About leveling :

My thoughts was to handle this by giving units 5 points per level instead of 3, and that the lvl 1 (Rookie) give stat too (randomly chosen when you recruit the unit). That's a flat 50 stats in total. Maybe let the player choose where to put this stat when using gems (at a slightly higher cost) can help the min-maxers too. It's also a kind of "pay to win" thing, I have too agree...

This raised stat would obviously result in a increased AP cost for units...

Increasing the stat per level also have the advantage to make enemies stronger in pve, giving more of a challenge.

---

About researching :

I find weird that the only statistics which get improvement are melee and armor. Maybe it can be extended to other combat stats. Something like giving alternate stat on each research.

Leather armor	Studded leather armor	Chainmail armor
+5 armor	+5 endurance	+10 armor
Reinforced armor	Platemail armor	Adamantium armor
+10 endurance	+15 armor	+15 endurance

Armor is mainly given by research... It wouldn't hurt that much if it stay the same. But for melee researches, having missile / strenght added to the research can make those stat less appealing on item, thus making melee feels less of a loss on weapons.

Fine weapons	Masterwork weapons	Steel weapons
+5 melee	+5 missile (archer) +5 strenght (melee unit)	+10 melee
Reinforced weapon	Forged weapons	Runed weapons
+10 missile (archer) +10 strenght (melee unit)	+15 melee	+15 missile (archer) +15 strenght (melee unit)

That would be a flat 60 stat increase instead of the 36 that actually give researches, helping to reduce furhtermore the equip bonus.

I have to check if a research improve the AP cost of a unit in game... If it doesn't actually... Well, it should be added (edit : I just checked it, and it seems that improving armor with research doesn't raise the AP cost of units. Really weird.)

---

About crafting :

According to Hegorn, a full set of godlike item give an average 256 combat stats, and can reach a max of 340. Even if it's only halved, it's still 128 on average and 170 for a full set of perfectly rolled items. With my suggestion, stats given by leveling and research give a total of 110 at max. That make a rookie unit with no tech in full godlike slighly more powerfull than a lvl 10 unit with no equipment, which seems fine to me.

I have imagined a reworking on how stats are distributed on item, by narrowing the stats distribution:

Rarity	Total number of stats	Number of combat stats	Number of non-combat stats	Stat low bound	Stat high bound
Godlike	4	2 - 3	1 - 2	13	15
Epic	3	2	1	10	12
Rare	2	1 - 2	0 - 1	7	9
Uncommon	1	1	0	6	8
Common	1	1	0	3	5

Combat stats are the one that are used in battle : melee / strenght / missile / range / endurance / armor / morale / movement (but it deserve a special treatment).
Non-combat stats are the one that improve exp gain, drop rate or item durability (and I suggest that they don't cost AP...)

Overall the goal is to make crafting less random and have a better prediction of the stat distribution on items.

It will still be good, but maybe won't deserve the "godlike" title anymore...
And certainly impact strategy (you can choose to have more units or unit's with better equip, or a mix of it. Things that are totally neglected by the actual state of godlike items).

Good Post Latex. As a side note, I considered morale to be a combat stat in addition to the others you mentioned.

I'll admit, my first gut instinct when comparing item stats vs leveling stats was similar to yours. Those numbers do make items look pretty strong. That said, how balance "feels" is important too. I havent personally had the chance to use godlike items, so I was reserving judgement until I had that opportunity.

I also think that with the AP per stat balance changes, godlike gear forces players to make a choice on how to build their armies and when to use godlike gear. Its not something they can throw on every unit of a large army. Its a definite trade-off from what I can tell.

I do agree that it "feels" like leveling doesnt really do a whole lot for the unit. It seems like it is just a side perk for managing your units well enough to keep them from dying in battle. To its credit, stats from leveling barely cost anything AP wise. It is basically free improvement to your army that doesnt take up much army space.

Latexlord wrote:

Non-combat stats are the one that improve exp gain, drop rate or item durability (and I suggest that they don't cost AP...)

I agree with this. Initially when I started looking at AP per stats, I thought that they did not cost AP. I'm much less sure about that now after looking at more items. I did find several items with the same AP and the same combat stats, but one item had some non-combat stats as well. Again, not conclusive, but at the very least indicates that non-combat stats are cheap AP wise.

About AP per Stat ratios -- I have hit a bit of a roadblock.

• Firstly, I dont have enough items to get very solid numbers.
  
• Next, the ratios of Stats per AP are varying a lot and are not converging with larger sample sizes. I suspect that there are factors that I cannot isolate that contribute to the AP valuation. Hidden stats like max item durability, or maybe even something worse like a small RNG doping.
  
• Maybe the devs are willing to give a list of stats/factors that affect AP values on items. Otherwise, isolating AP valuations for stats will require rather large sample sizes.

I dont mind entering a few items into my sheet here and there in between battles, but I'm not really willing to spend hours typing in the item stats from hundreds of items. At the point I got to, I will probably let the Devs reveal more info about AP / Stat ratios on their own time before I dig into it further.

Until then, I'm happy with sticking to just trying things out in combat and seeing if it "feels" right.

I try to figure how AP work for items too, but there is a lot of factors, that's true. And I don't have that much items either.

I was thinking of this when I fought with a player in co-op, he have half my number of units for the same AP, at low lvl (3 - 4) with a mix of rare / epic / godlike items and he didn't even try to hide from enemy archers. And when he reach melee range, he just stomp the enemies. That "feels" really clunky in a strategic game.

Even without a full set of item, just giving a good weapon for cav / light assault can boost there capacities a bit out of control. I like the idea to give the right item to fit the right purpose, and choosing if you give full set to raise a juggernaut unit, boost your troops basic advantage or try to balance their weakness... But epic / godlike seems a bit too powerfull right now.

Thanks for reminding me of morale, I totally forgot it

I think everyone knows I have an issue with the pay-to-win aspect of this game.
+1

pardonez moi, but how is the game currently "Pay-to-win"? To my knowledge all frags are gained in-game rather easily - I already have an epic item and a few rares just from playing for a week - and paying just gives you a slight speed boost in doing so.

AgentAAA wrote:

pardonez moi, but how is the game currently "Pay-to-win"? To my knowledge all frags are gained in-game rather easily - I already have an epic item and a few rares just from playing for a week - and paying just gives you a slight speed boost in doing so.

I think he meant "pay gold to win pvp", instead of "better strategy wins pvp", which I kinda of agree (having a single unit winning 1v4 fights after 2 flanks and 1 rear is dumb). This said, I also agree that level should mean more than equipment, or the AP value of equipments should be raised even further (or any other more creative solution).

Mephy wrote:

AgentAAA wrote:

pardonez moi, but how is the game currently "Pay-to-win"? To my knowledge all frags are gained in-game rather easily - I already have an epic item and a few rares just from playing for a week - and paying just gives you a slight speed boost in doing so.

I think he meant "pay gold to win pvp", instead of "better strategy wins pvp", which I kinda of agree (having a single unit winning 1v4 fights after 2 flanks and 1 rear is dumb). This said, I also agree that level should mean more than equipment, or the AP value of equipments should be raised even further (or any other more creative solution).

Ehhh, I've never seen equipment make that much of a change in the battle - is this something that's actually happened to you, or...?

Good posts all.

2 things you are forgetting:

PVE (Solo & CO-OP) and PvP are two totally different concepts.

a) In PVE the AI will NOT completely match the APs of the players' armies. You should have noticed that 99% of the times you are facing armies with the same number of units as your armies. If we changed it so AI APs match your APs then we would have had a much different AI army composition and I can already hear people saying "Ooohh it has become too difficult!" "Ohhhh what did the devs do and now I can't win anymore??"

b) The AI is not as "smart" as we would want it to be. It will receive an upgrade in the near future to act as a collective, rather than an army eager to finish the battle to go for beers with units rushing forwards as if there is no tomorrow.

c) As you well know, the game provides various tactical options. While a PVE battle is a head to head confrontation, due to the AI's behavior, a PvP battle is a battle of wits, tactical decisions, army compositions and fast decision making. Flanking can be devastating for a unit and if is done correctly and at the right time, it can turn the tide of a battle. Although a player can have Godlike items and his opponent just basic gear, the items cost APs and therefore when a player chooses top gear over sheer number of units will lead to him having a very small army against an army with a lot more units than him. If the opponent takes advantage of this, then with the right maneuvering (flanking, rearing, etc.) he could negate the Godlike bonuses of his opponent's. Remember that a single flanking can give a penalty of -10 to a unit's Melee and with 2 possible flankings the penalty is raised to -20. Rear is even worse -15 and in both cases the MOBA is reduced significantly which could lead to shivering effects. It is really up to the player how he will "build" his army.

d) P2W was never our intention and I don't believe there is any element of that in our game. All features are unlocked and nothing is only accessible to paying users. Also, even though a player could do things faster and easier by using premium items, in battle he will still be matched with an equal opponent and never be able to harass a "lower lvl" player. Therefore, since we don't give the option to attack players' cities and since the PVP matchmaking process MATCHES players according to their APs, we do not see any P2W element in Battle Conquest. (PvP Lobby is coming very soon and will make PvP match find A LOT easier...)

RuneSlayer wrote:

Good posts all.

2 things you are forgetting:

PVE (Solo & CO-OP) and PvP are two totally different concepts.

a) In PVE the AI will NOT completely match the APs of the players' armies. You should have noticed that 99% of the times you are facing armies with the same number of units as your armies. If we changed it so AI APs match your APs then we would have had a much different AI army composition and I can already hear people saying "Ooohh it has become too difficult!" "Ohhhh what did the devs do and now I can't win anymore??"

b) The AI is not as "smart" as we would want it to be. It will receive an upgrade in the near future to act as a collective, rather than an army eager to finish the battle to go for beers with units rushing forwards as if there is no tomorrow.

Totally agree, and I'm glad to know that you want to improve your AI for PvE. Triumph without peril brings no glory.

RuneSlayer wrote:

c) As you well know, the game provides various tactical options. While a PVE battle is a head to head confrontation, due to the AI's behavior, a PvP battle is a battle of wits, tactical decisions, army compositions and fast decision making. Flanking can be devastating for a unit and if is done correctly and at the right time, it can turn the tide of a battle. Although a player can have Godlike items and his opponent just basic gear, the items cost APs and therefore when a player chooses top gear over sheer number of units will lead to him having a very small army against an army with a lot more units than him. If the opponent takes advantage of this, then with the right maneuvering (flanking, rearing, etc.) he could negate the Godlike bonuses of his opponent's. Remember that a single flanking can give a penalty of -10 to a unit's Melee and with 2 possible flankings the penalty is raised to -20. Rear is even worse -15 and in both cases the MOBA is reduced significantly which could lead to shivering effects. It is really up to the player how he will "build" his army.

It's sometimes pretty hard to understand clearly all the battle mechanics. I had to test it more in real combat conditions. It could be difficult to lure an advanced player in a trap, and he can take advantage of terrain too. Afterall, both general are human players.

RuneSlayer wrote:

d) P2W was never our intention and I don't believe there is any element of that in our game. All features are unlocked and nothing is only accessible to paying users. Also, even though a player could do things faster and easier by using premium items, in battle he will still be matched with an equal opponent and never be able to harass a "lower lvl" player. Therefore, since we don't give the option to attack players' cities and since the PVP matchmaking process MATCHES players according to their APs, we do not see any P2W element in Battle Conquest. (PvP Lobby is coming very soon and will make PvP match find A LOT easier...)

And you manage well to avoid the P2W issue, in a way that with enough playtime, you can compete with player who just bought items / ressources. It's just longer to reach the endgame, but playing longer in more difficult conditions help you to master different strategies.

It's just a feeling of mine that some people get early unfair advantages. I don't really know how the situation is in endgame. About lvl vs items : it's also just my "feeling" of this thing. I always want exp to matter more than items power in every game I'm throwing ideas, and hope the resulting discussion can bring some interestnig thoughts.

btw : I'm excited about this pvp lobby

I must say, unlike MANY browser games, I have no sense of 'pay to win' from this game. Pay for speed or pay for convenience, sure--but that doesn't change the actual battles on the field any.


Also--I agree that leveling should be more important than units, leveling up past rank 6 or 7 takes a long time. Or I can just slap a couple rares on a unit and watch em go to town.

That, included with how items allow people to customize their unit growth, leveling is just a random shot in the dark. (I REALLY do -NOT- want this +9 morale on my dwarven heavies.... I've never seen ANY of my heavies run in ANY situation, even when flanked by 3 other heavies!)

What about heroes? I'd like to have actual archer heroes, dps heroes, and tank heroes... instead their stats are spread out all over the place! (also, what about +missile on hero items? Never seen it yet)

My first hero has +missile as his primary stat. I lvl up my units not to get extra stats but to unlock the skills. Some of the skills when fully unlocked are more useful than rare equipment.

Piktas wrote:

My first hero has +missile as his primary stat. I lvl up my units not to get extra stats but to unlock the skills. Some of the skills when fully unlocked are more useful than rare equipment.

About rare equip, I have to agree with you. Not sure about epic / godlike though...
+ stats skills don't scale well with equip, but the "special abilities" skill (like elves LI or dark gift) are surly better with good equip.

A question just pop in my mind about skills that can be related to this topic :

Does the stats given by skills (like the + XX strenght frome Rage) can raise the stat higher than the unit's maximum stat?

RuneSlayer wrote:

Remember that a single flanking can give a penalty of -10 to a unit's Melee and with 2 possible flankings the penalty is raised to -20. Rear is even worse -15 and in both cases the MOBA is reduced significantly which could lead to shivering effects. It is really up to the player how he will "build" his army.

Thanks for the info on rearing. Updated http://www.battleconforum.com/t142-new-player-help-understanding-stats-and-combat-mechanics#449.

What does the acronym MOBA stand for? Morale?

About P2W --

I dont think this game is P2W as long as it meets its ideals and goals set out by the devs. I think many players might be sensitive to the fact that there is the potential for BattleCon to be turned into a P2W game. Theyve seen a lot of FB games and F2P games that use the grind-centric P2W model and see the similarities in BattleCon as a risk factor for this game.

One reason behind this sensitivity is the unknown nature of the combat formulas. The lack of immediate transparency plus the overall "FB" feel of the game will be a turn-off to a segment of the market of savvy western gamers who have a lower tolerance for even the perception of sneaky monetization schemes. Arguably, those are the gamers who also have more disposable income to spend on games too.

This game has a lot going for it. It is rather unique on Kongregate. It is not nearly as twitchy as many multiplayer flash games and will attract an older crowd than the typical Kong gamer. It also isnt the fault of the game that bad F2P models used "FB" game components like manual collection and energy systems to limit frequency of access to certain content (command points in BattleCon).

These game components arent innately bad, but they can be bad if poorly implemented and have picked up a stigma due to all the bad F2P games that used them. I commend games that can use them *and* break the the preconceptions surrounding them by using them well. I'm sure I'm not the only one to find it refreshing to see a game that can use these game components without resorting to P2W.

And just to be very clear - I'm not saying the intention of the devs is to hide game mechanics because they are unfair or would reveal some slimy P2W scheme. I'm proposing that it does hurt the perception of the game as a non-P2W game.


---
About Godlike items --

Some people are looking at the long grinds required to acquire Godlike gear and comparing that to the ability to purchase that gear with real money as P2W. They will rightly point out that even if a PremiumUbarSword is accessible through grinding in game, if the grind is so out of reach for the average free player, or the droprate of the item is very low, it effectively makes that aspect of the game P2W.

I do feel like the accessibility of Godlike gear might be a bit low, but I still dont see this as P2W. The only reason purchasable Godlikes would become P2W is if Godlike gear adds significant combat power to an army. As long as it remains primarily a method to concentrate power into fewer units instead of increasing overall power of the army, it will not be P2W.

If the AP valuations are balanced so that the increases in combat power are on the same scale as the increases from unit leveling or from research, then Godlike gear would not feel like a P2W monetization scheme. Afterall, people do want to see some extra power for earning/using Godlike gear.

I cannot say if those numbers are balanced in that regard, and I dont have a good intuitive feel for it yet because I dont personally have a lot of experience with Godlike gear. At first glance, it does feel like it needs polishing/adjusting, but I think that is possibly a perception problem. If that is the case, the solution would likely require education / presentation changes.

I'd like to take this oppurtunity to say that I just ran a PvP, in full uncommons (plus 2 heroes with commons/uncommons) and got raped.


The other guy presumably had no gear...as the situation was: 3v6; 2LI 1 Cav vs 4 LI 2 HI...my 560ap to his 566.


In that particular situation, it seems to me that gear is UNDERPOWERED, as using it gets me in to 2v1 situations...and this is with the lesser gear, at that.


Once again, I must state as I did in another thread...gear seems to have no place in PvP. I understand that the matches need to balance and everyone hates P2W...


But I do believe that the AP scaling is off. If taking an army in uncommons halves my numbers, what does this bode for the higher tier gear which would have an even greater impact on the AP?


Using it GREATLY reduces my tactical options; as to match with the players asking in global, I could only take 3 units. (only so many tactics available when you're outnumbered 2-1 and your opponent huddles in a giant mass)


I mentioned in guild my disappointment at the effectiveness of the gear, and they're saying that the word is that it is better to take no gear at all to PvP. This was even more disappointing.


AND yes, small stats make a big difference; but it seems with the flanking/rearing revamps, and the AP scaled so that I get outnumbered 2-1, it seemsto have no point in taking the gear in the first place.


Maybe if there were more options besides 'retreat' for an aggravatingly long amount of time to disengage and reposition, then it would work....however if I engage the mass after luring the heavies away, and am unable to wipe out 2/3 of the enemy army before they get back, i get surrounded, or have to flee and take free casualties.


If I were to use a similar composition to the enemy, and replace my cav with a heavy, I would have been a whole 7 AP down, so that would hardly make the difference.


Perhaps I should run with no heroes AND no gear, so that my tactic can be to sit in an even BIGGER ball than the enemy and maybe read a book while I wait for him to attack me. Power in numbers, right? Not even being sarcastic, when I bother to PvP next, i'm sure it will be naked so that I don't simply lose by sheer numbers.


So no, I don't think there is an imbalancing between levels and gear, as gear just screws you anyways via AP points whereas (as Hegorn pointed out) the bonus from levelling hardly effects your AP.

Dobraine wrote:

The other guy presumably had no gear...as the situation was: 3v6; 2LI 1 Cav vs 4 LI 2 HI...my 560ap to his 566.

If I were to use a similar composition to the enemy, and replace my cav with a heavy, I sould have been a whole 7 AP down, so that would hardly make the difference.

Perhaps I should run with no heroes AND no gear, so that my tactic can be to sit in an even BIGGER ball than the enemy and maybe read a book while I wait for him to attack me. Power in numbers, right?

So no, I don't think there is an imbalancing between levels and gear, as gear just screws you anyways via AP points whereas (as Hegorn pointed out) the bonus from levelling hardly effects your AP.

I would argue that the AP valuations for hero gear is way to high. I think that was the primary cause of your troubles with matchmaking and getting a 2:1 situation. That alone would have bumped your AP up by 30-50%. I personally dont think the AP bump from hero items is worthwhile.

I think you also got counter-comped a bit there. With 1v1s and low AP PvP, it is too easy to countercomp. It turns into a lucky winner situation. Hopefully with a better PvP queue system, this wont happen as often.

About why I think you got counter-comped - I dont think cavalry have 5 attacks per side like other melee units have. Something feels off about that situation and I cant place my finger on it, but I'm guessing thats the reason. Cav just seem to do disproportionately badly in situations outside of 1v1s or flanks/rears compared to melee infantry.

Perhaps the base AP valuation for Cav units is too high for this reason. Or it might just be too high in small army situations vs large army situations.

Also, I've found that while a few points of stats will be noticeable, large stat differences seem to have exponential benefits on the battlefield. I would speculate that this is possibly due to non-linear TTL scaling of certain stats. Again, I dont have numbers to back up any of this.

I also think asymmetrically gearing for attack/defense on units is more useful than fully gearing or not gearing (some units have 1-2 strong attack items vs other units with strong defense). I've found fully gearing a unit to only be very useful on HINFs since they dont have the movement to change their role from defensive to offensive. The more movement a unit has (like cav) the more specialized I have can make it because I have a better chance of choosing how it engages in battle.

Another example -- I tried to determine if AP from items was better than AP from adding new ungeared archer units to my army. I found that I had better results with 3 archer units units fully geared than with 5 archer units ungeared - especially when they were under fire. I found 4 archers with 3 items each to be more effective than both setups. Basically my archers died too quickly when undergeared and that caused noticeable losses of offensive power.

Again, all anecdotal evidence here - so YMMV. The point is that I do think there are some sweet spots for item use vs unit use. Are they all perfectly balanced and valued? Probably not. Probably not ever either - hence the evolving metagame.

The point is: it is imbalanced. If the problem lies in hero AP, then so be it. I attempt to use the options before me to optimize for PvP action, and anytime I do i receive a kick in the nuts from one of several directions. I have gear, and I have heroes...yet to use them brings me down on what I feel is an imbalanced scale.

While i'm not going to delve like you Hegorn, I have always been a solid gamer. Never come across situations I can't handle with some thought and always start on hard mode...yadda yadda.

However in this instance I am attempting to use the game for its intended purpose using the resources I have acquired, and it puts me at a disadvantage. That should not be the case.

My thoughts on the matter.

Yea. I agree completely that refinement is needed for some of the AP values.

For others though, it may just be a matter of finding the right niche that makes them work well.

In the case of hero gear, I am very hard pressed to think of any army comp that would do better by spending AP on a fully geared hero vs spending the AP on some combination of unit gear or additional units. If this is true, then hero gear AP is completely over valued.

I would not want to see the situation where the power gains from items overwhelm the power gains from research or unit XP -- per AP.

There was a post from RuneSlayer saying they would evaluate hero item AP costs maybe a week or so ago.

Craft the right army from scratch is a good thing.

This game offer great possibilities to customise your army as you wish, and that's a really good point.

I'm at the point that I consider common and uncommon items just don't worth their AP, and it's even worth for heroes. Only rare begin to be interesting. I never said that the game is P2W. I only said that you can "purchase" epics / godlikes could "feel" like this. But as you said, Hegorn, with enough grind, you can have those items for free... So it is, as a matter of fact, balanced.

Only thing that bother me is : a player who bought those items can be a bit more powerfull than the one who don't purchase them and can negate the bonus you gain through leveling.

I really think that commons / uncommons need a little upgrade to be competitive, and epic / godlike a little nerf. That's why I suggest those modifications. But that's only my thoughts, and it needs more testing to be sure about that.

You don't need to worry about godlikes. they obliterate AP. make you damned near invincible to the point they give you TOO MANY stats. I can max caps on str/range on archers with 1 godlike banner.....and still get 4 movement speed and 18 morale to boost. 1 item. mind you, it costs 47 AP.

maybe cut stats down on all items by 30%...then the AP would go down with it, solving a few problems.

Dobraine wrote:

You don't need to worry about godlikes. they obliterate AP. make you damned near invincible to the point they give you TOO MANY stats. I can max caps on str/range on archers with 1 godlike banner.....and still get 4 movement speed and 18 morale to boost. 1 item. mind you, it costs 47 AP.

maybe cut stats down on all items by 30%...then the AP would go down with it, solving a few problems.

Wouldnt that in effect be the same thing as using epic gear instead of godlike?

That would not change any scaling. Youre basically asking for a scaled contraction which is the same thing as moving down along the power curve for items -- i.e. using epics instead of godlikes.

Latex's suggestion sounds like he would prefer a non-linear scaling of stats per AP -- i.e. actually changing the curve of item stats vs AP. Correct me if I misunderstood the suggestion, but in effect something along the lines of increasing the AP costs per +1 stat increase. Going from +1 to +2 might be +1ap, but going from 20>21 might be +2ap.

Conceptually and mathematically, it could provide the feel that Latex is talking about and also satisfy the goal I think Dobraine is going for.

Good posts all...

Quote :

Latex's suggestion sounds like he would prefer a non-linear scaling of stats per AP -- i.e. actually changing the curve of item stats vs AP. Correct me if I misunderstood the suggestion, but in effect something along the lines of increasing the AP costs per +1 stat increase. Going from +1 to +2 might be +1ap, but going from 20>21 might be +2ap.

I'm a bit dizzy due to a very long day, but I think that's how we do it anyways, though the other way around.

As for Dobraine's comments, I just wanted to add that equal APs do not ALWAYS provide balance. The army composition does i.e. what kind of units you include in your army. I find that 2 Lights + 1 Cavalry will have a BAD day against a more balanced army of 4 Lights + 2 Heavy Infantries.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Good posts all...

Quote :

Latex's suggestion sounds like he would prefer a non-linear scaling of stats per AP -- i.e. actually changing the curve of item stats vs AP. Correct me if I misunderstood the suggestion, but in effect something along the lines of increasing the AP costs per +1 stat increase. Going from +1 to +2 might be +1ap, but going from 20>21 might be +2ap.

I'm a bit dizzy due to a very long day, but I think that's how we do it anyways, though the other way around.

Thanks for the fun game. Hope you guys are enjoying the project.

The other way around? So I was correct before when I said that the AP cost per +1stats is cheaper for higher rarity items? From the small sample sizes I worked with, it wasnt a dramatic increase, but enough to notice a trend with n=10ish sample sizes.

Quote :

As for Dobraine's comments, I just wanted to add that equal APs do not ALWAYS provide balance. The army composition does i.e. what kind of units you include in your army. I find that 2 Lights + 1 Cavalry will have a BAD day against a more balanced army of 4 Lights + 2 Heavy Infantries.

Has the dev team considered scaling AP costs on a per unit archetype basis (archers vs cav)? Or even on a per unit type basis (crossbowmen vs goblin archers)?

Balancing AP costs per stat per unit archetype would be one solution to rebalance the hero item AP costs. It would also help reduce the potential for counter-comps to cause such wild swings in balance per AP.

Either way, I would be interested to hear some dev insights on how you guys weigh the AP costs of a stat that might be much better for 1 unit type, but not too attractive for a different unit type.

Hegorn wrote:

Has the dev team considered scaling AP costs on a per unit archetype basis (archers vs cav)? Or even on a per unit type basis (crossbowmen vs goblin archers)?

Balancing AP costs per stat per unit archetype would be one solution to rebalance the hero item AP costs. It would also help reduce the potential for counter-comps to cause such wild swings in balance per AP.

Either way, I would be interested to hear some dev insights on how you guys weigh the AP costs of a stat that might be much better for 1 unit type, but not too attractive for a different unit type.

I don't think balancing teamcomps is a great idea. It's part of the "metagame"... you either use a "safe" comp, that has an overall good win rate, or you use a comp trying to counter the most used comp, or even create something new expecting some kind of change (like using full archers expecting full assault units... don't know, just an example).
Its healthy in my opinion to have counter-comps. It works very well in successful games like MOBAs (League, DotA) and TCGs (Magic, Yu-Gi-Oh!), and many other games, including RTS (who never ran full artillery in Age of Empires or something like that, because the enemy had no cavalry?)