Unnerf elf archers

Yep... this is me whining

Why did elf archers get nerfed?
It's our figurehead unit.
Why didn't dwarves get their heavies' armor reduced?
Why don't skeletons get their unit population reduced to match everyone else's?
Why didn't orc's strength get debuffed?

This.... combined with the CP/sign in bonus given to darkside for over a month, + the promised buffs to legion heavy/cav.... seems like lots of darkside preference.

should I whining about Dark Legion having very hard time to do small casualties battle against all kind of archers after late update? -__-

Quote :

Why didn't dwarves get their heavies' armor reduced?

If their armor reduced, they become the most weakest race on light side since they are too slow to do all things.

Quote :

Why don't skeletons get their unit population reduced to match everyone else's?

If they reduce their population, they become the most weakest race on dark side because their weak stats.

Well, at least you didn't start another "Boycott GEMS!!!!!!!!!!!" thread.

To your questions and concerns:

Archer wrote:

Why did elf archers get nerfed?
It's our figurehead unit.

The reason why Elf Archers got nerfed is because the recent changes to the Missile Strength turned them into an even deadlier unit than they were before.

But let us "talk" in numbers.

All races have max Missile stat 30 and the Elves had 40. With the recent change they now have 35, which means around 5% less accurate than before, but still 5% more accurate than the other races.

All races have missile units with Reaction 9, while the Elves have Reaction 8, which makes them around 30% faster in reloading/firing a volley of arrows.

All races have missile units with Range 45 -55, while the Elves have Range 60, which means that they can start shooting earlier, therefore inflicting casualties and reducing enemy's Morale sooner than the enemy and of course stay at a safe distance and rain death upon their enemies.

Therefore, taking into consideration all the above, we don't believe that the Elf Archers have been nerfed to a point that they are still not considered an Elite Missile unit.

Archer wrote:

Why didn't dwarves get their heavies' armor reduced?

I know several Dwarf players who would hunt you down for even saying that. Dwarfs are lacking speed and their armor is there to compensate that. They have no fast unit and their Cavalry is as slow as a Heavy Infantry. Do I have to say more..?

Archer wrote:

Why don't skeletons get their unit population reduced to match everyone else's?

Simple...Check their stats and then you will understand. Let me give you an example. While Elf Light Infantry has 30 Strength, 30 Endurance and 15 Armor, the Undead Light Infantry has 20 Strength, 25 Endurance and 10 Armor.

Archer wrote:

Why didn't orc's strength get debuffed?

Again...why? Check their stats and then you will understand. Allow me to present yet another example. While Elf Light Infantry has Reaction 8 and 70 Morale, Orc Light Infantry has Reaction 9 and 60 Morale.

In Battle Conquest, each race has distinctive stats and abilities. Each race is played differently on the battlefield. If we were to change the stats of all the races to be the same, then what would be the reason for having different races? The strength of a race, could be the weakness of another. It is up to the player to create an army which will cater to his playing style and will take advantage of the strengths of a race.

Archer wrote:

This.... combined with the CP/sign in bonus given to darkside for over a month, + the promised buffs to legion heavy/cav.... seems like lots of darkside preference.

I've personally made way too many posts on the population control, so please read the relevant posts about it in the Forums. As for the "promised buffs" to Dark Legion, I would suggest thinking about it a bit and then ask yourself whether there exists unfairness or not. Let me provide some food for thought. Dark Legion's units start with some impressive stats, compared to the units of other races. This is of course reflected in their resources cost, therefore healing cost, and of course in their AP value. HOWEVER, since there exist stat caps and gradually players start equipping their units with items, there will be cases when that "extra buff" for their units in the beginning becomes obsolete for the Dark Legion players, when at the same time the AP cost and resources cost is still a lot higher compared to other races.

Dwarves in many games and mainly in warhammer have slow speed, they are defensive tanks with a good ranged arsenal, you can play dwarves with some archers and artillery defended by heavies, dwarf archers can be played as light infantries because they are tougher and this tactic is the same one suggested in the universal warhammer tactics thread for dwarves.

Overally you can see light faction relies more on archers and artillery than dark faction races for the same reason as their original archetype come from warhammer.

Elves tactics is to start throwing arrows and hitting with bolt thrower at the enemy at max range finishing the rest off with melees, so you can see the problem is not 5 less points in missle from 40 to 35 but how you should play your army in battle.

The only anomalies in this game that don't reflect the original archetype of races is the lack of range on the ironfort, the total absense of the dwarven gyrocopter as a fast moving unit for dwarves and the lack of toughness on the dark legion units that should be all about melee (see Warriors of Chaos in warhammer fantasy) and surely they are the most expensive units in the game

Overall, I'm glad theyre making tweaks to stats to find balance. I do think archers in general did not have enough of a role - mostly because of how much emphasis was placed on flanking and routing units which makes the number of melee units you can field more important. Archers have no skillful way to affect those tactics, so especially in PvP, ranged units are undervalued vs melee.

So I understand why they tried to buff all archers - but that made Elven archers feel too strong, so they nerfed them a bit. All that said, the issue of unequal scaling and tactical importance of Fleeing is a problem that causes imbalances for races that are slow(Dwarves), races that do not flee (Undead), races that scale rather differently than others (DarkLegion). All those races have bigger imbalances than Elves imo.

RuneSlayer wrote:

All races have missile units with Reaction 9, while the Elves have Reaction 8, which makes them around 30% faster in reloading/firing a volley of arrows.

Are you saying that Reaction does not scale linearly?

If Reaction scales linearly, Reaction 8 vs Reaction 9 would only be 11-12% faster. Not 30% faster. Are you also factoring in the unit's Rapid Fire ability into that? If so, I just want to clarify this so that players do not misunderstand.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Dark Legion's units start with some impressive stats, compared to the units of other races. This is of course reflected in their resources cost, therefore healing cost, and of course in their AP value. HOWEVER, since there exist stat caps and gradually players start equipping their units with items, there will be cases when that "extra buff" for their units in the beginning becomes obsolete for the Dark Legion players, when at the same time the AP cost and resources cost is still a lot higher compared to other races.

This sounds like two different problems that need to be addressed separately.


1) Rewards and healing costs based on the unit costs of the army - that is one issue that needs examination.

• If rewards are purely based on what units you bring, then rewards never scale or encourage skillful play. I would say thats bad and doesnt encourage player growth.
  
• It makes sense that a portion of the rewards should target compensation for the units you bring (i.e. higher rewards for costlier units). It should not be the only basis for rewards though.
  
• A portion of the rewards should also be based on performance. It is much more motivating and helps focus the game towards skill-based play. This would be a way to reward people who have good weighted K/D performance. It would also allow for penalties for Friendly Fire.
  
• Considering equal skill/performance, net income per time should be roughly the same. This was discussed a lot and seems to have been resolved in this thread: http://www.battleconforum.com/t516-low-rewards
  

2) The way DL HINF and Cav scale vs stat caps is another issue entirely.

• If the logic behind buffs to DL units is that they hit caps easier and that makes them obsolete in the endgame, then the same logic would apply to any ability that pushes stats over caps as they would become obsolete too.
  
• Firstly, I would argue that DL HINFs and DL Cav cannot hit stat caps without using full sets of the very best Godlike items - a very unlikely situation to be in. If there is still a real option to gear around those stat caps, then there is no obsoleting of their "extra buff" from the start of the game.
  
• Secondly, abilities are affected by this problem more profoundly than DL units. In fact, DL units do not have abilities that push them over stat caps (Fear and Dark Gift) like other races' abilities do (Impact Damage, Rage, Mithril Armor).
  
• I agree that DL HINFs and Cav are likely at a disadvantage at low levels and with lesser gear due to their lower health. That said, effective health seems to scale better as defensive stat caps are approached - something DL units can do much better than other races. Survivability wise, they are definitely not 50% less capable than any other race's HINFs or Cav. Please explain if this is incorrect as I am basing it on observation - not real combat formulas.
  
• If the way DL units scale is too different than other race, that is an understandable problem. That doesnt mean that buffs are needed though. I would argue that adjustments are needed to change that scaling curve (i.e. buffs at low levels, but nerfs at high levels).
  

Souless wrote:

Dwarves in many games and mainly in warhammer have slow speed, they are defensive tanks with a good ranged arsenal, you can play dwarves with some archers and artillery defended by heavies, dwarf archers can be played as light infantries because they are tougher and this tactic is the same one suggested in the universal warhammer tactics thread for dwarves.

Overally you can see light faction relies more on archers and artillery than dark faction races for the same reason as their original archetype come from warhammer.

Elves tactics is to start throwing arrows and hitting with bolt thrower at the enemy at max range finishing the rest off with melees, so you can see the problem is not 5 less points in missle from 40 to 35 but how you should play your army in battle.

The only anomalies in this game that don't reflect the original archetype of races is the lack of range on the ironfort, the total absense of the dwarven gyrocopter as a fast moving unit for dwarves and the lack of toughness on the dark legion units that should be all about melee (see Warriors of Chaos in warhammer fantasy) and surely they are the most expensive units in the game

This game is not warhammer.

There is certainly inspiration drawn from WH, but that shouldnt be used as justification for changes in this game.

*Sorry for the off topic*
If you are looking for calculation I have edited my old post to avoid double posting, added comparisons and math in it

http://www.battleconforum.com/t496-dark-legion-heavy-infantry-and-cavalry-are-not-balanced-correctly

The first impression that this race gave to me was the opportunity to play something like Warriors of Chaos in an online game not a beastmen army with armored portraits

Hegorn wrote:

If Reaction scales linearly, Reaction 8 vs Reaction 9 would only be 11-12% faster. Not 30% faster. Are you also factoring in the unit's Rapid Fire ability into that? If so, I just want to clarify this so that players do not misunderstand.

Of course Rapid Fire is also taken into consideration.

Hegorn wrote:

1) Rewards and healing costs based on the unit costs of the army - that is one issue that needs examination.
If rewards are purely based on what units you bring, then rewards never scale or encourage skillful play. I would say thats bad and doesnt encourage player growth.
It makes sense that a portion of the rewards should target compensation for the units you bring (i.e. higher rewards for costlier units). It should not be the only basis for rewards though.
A portion of the rewards should also be based on performance. It is much more motivating and helps focus the game towards skill-based play. This would be a way to reward people who have good weighted K/D performance. It would also allow for penalties for Friendly Fire.
Considering equal skill/performance, net income per time should be roughly the same. This was discussed a lot and seems to have been resolved in this thread: http://www.battleconforum.com/t516-low-rewards

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to talk about that, as a change in the cost values of the units is imminent. This is related to kuba's post here: http://www.battleconforum.com/t516p15-low-rewards#2717  

As I explained in my previous post briefly, the initial design for the healing cost of units included wood, stone and iron. That means that gold was not the only resource used for the healing of units. Also, a while ago when a player was losing a unit in battle, it was lost for GOOD. Since the changes (removing wood,stone and iron and no permadeath of units) we haven't changed the cost values and therefore currently there exist some great imbalances. Right now, a Goblin Chariot has a gold value of 1265 while an Undead Cavalry's gold value is much much much lower. As cost values are used to determine healing costs and rewards, you can understand how "unfair" it currently is. Our intention is to create a universal table of cost values for all the units, with only very slight variations in order to balance things out among the races. We expect a lot of griefing, as the "Golden Days" of thousands of gold earned in a single battle will be part of the past very soon, but it is better to have an efficient system rather than a "broken" system. But hey, at least we provided 2 months of Golden Days!

Hegorn wrote:

2) The way DL HINF and Cav scale vs stat caps is another issue entirely.
If the logic behind buffs to DL units is that they hit caps easier and that makes them obsolete in the endgame, then the same logic would apply to any ability that pushes stats over caps as they would become obsolete too.
Firstly, I would argue that DL HINFs and DL Cav cannot hit stat caps without using full sets of the very best Godlike items - a very unlikely situation to be in. If there is still a real option to gear around those stat caps, then there is no obsoleting of their "extra buff" from the start of the game.
Secondly, abilities are affected by this problem more profoundly than DL units. In fact, DL units do not have abilities that push them over stat caps (Fear and Dark Gift) like other races' abilities do (Impact Damage, Rage, Mithril Armor).
I agree that DL HINFs and Cav are likely at a disadvantage at low levels and with lesser gear due to their lower health. That said, effective health seems to scale better as defensive stat caps are approached - something DL units can do much better than other races. Survivability wise, they are definitely not 50% less capable than any other race's HINFs or Cav. Please explain if this is incorrect as I am basing it on observation - not real combat formulas.
If the way DL units scale is too different than other race, that is an understandable problem. That doesnt mean that buffs are needed though. I would argue that adjustments are needed to change that scaling curve (i.e. buffs at low levels, but nerfs at high levels).

We have already said that the Dark Gods are preparing a special blessing for the Dark Legion. The Light Gods have been messing with their favorite race and THEY ARE PISSED!