various things that need to be changed, many topics covered

RuneSlayer wrote:

7) CPs vary according to the number of units you send to a region. It is true that if you send 5 LIs at one time and then send 3 LIs and 2 HIs, you will still get the same CPs, but we are not "punishing" the players in any way, as they WILL gain more loot if they bring higher level units. Then again, think about it..You want to control a region and you send 5 LIs...You destroy the army so your Faction gains the advantage at that point. Then the same day, you march with 5 HIs and destroy an enemy army with higher value units, but with about the same number of units like yours. Why would that victory count as grander? Yes, you will receive more loot, as the enemy is of a higher value, but the advantage (Conquest Points) won for your Faction is about the same.

I still think this acts as a disincentive for research and city development in general. By fielding more advanced armies, all we are gaining is greater loot which allows us to further pointlessly expand our city and produce better units. To my mind, those dedicated players who've invested enough to field powerful armies should be able to exert greater influence over the war. After all, a player who can destroy 5 enemy HI has weakened the enemy more than a player who destroys a couple of LI units.

The best thing about Dwarf Heavies getting 13 speed is that if equipped with a +4-5 speed banner, they'll be able to overrun light infantry and archers. If they were 10 speed they'd still never be able to fully overrun them. So it'll be nice in the future. And since mithril is, ya know, lighter, and everyones armor slows them down so much... I bet those hammers are light weight mithril too huh ? And what with having shorter arms and quicker swings...XD


Still have concerns with the ironfortress in terms of AP scaling and stat scaling, since all cavalry have the same stat caps. For example, Give the human knights one piece of equip gear and their endurance/armor are equivalent or better than the iron fortresses, their total HP is also higher and since there are 4 of them they attack more (unless thats only a graphical thing having 2 units attacking) The Iron Fort however will never be a flanker/chaser no matter what it equips. Makes me wonder what the AP cost of an equipped Iron Fort is compared to a 2 man cavalry and a 4 man cavalry

Do bonus stats simply scale 2/4x as much for these other units ? Giving it some kind of utility/weapon would make it a role that cant be copied with gear

A light mithril hammer would actually do no damage. The whole point of blunt weapons is that they weigh a lot. If they're light you might as well be in a pillow fight.

If it has a spike on it, suddenly its an armor piercing death weapon even if its only a few pounds. I was just insinuating that they could have higher reaction too

Um couple things, since the most important balance is going to be between factions, how can each faction have completely different Siege mechanics ? I'd think at least 1 on each side would need access to the other? But it appears Light has all direct projectiles, while dark has all lobbed stuff. Dwarves 'could' technically have a Mortar though, in fact if it was a special unit it wouldnt need to replace the G.Cannon.

A lot of people say stuff like skeletons should be resistant to missiles/weak to bludgeoning and stuff, are there any plans to ever add resistance/damage types? These could add racial flavor and fill in balance gaps. Like i think all infantry right now have slashing weapons. but dwarven heavies have hammers, undead heavies have spears. Gunners deal bludgeoning damage while everyone else does piercing (as opposed to an arrow, a bullets force 'would' hurt a skeleton) Not everyone unit would need a weakness and nothing extreme like undead heavy's do big bonus VS cavalry because of spears.

With their new increase in speed if anything the dwarves should be getting is a reduction in reaction if all your suggestions would get implemented Khor then the only race worth playing would be dwarf. Think balance, mate .

Piktas wrote:

With their new increase in speed if anything the dwarves should be getting is a reduction in reaction if all your suggestions would get implemented Khor then the only race worth playing would be dwarf. Think balance, mate .

They DO have a reduction in reaction though XD Dwarves are already the only race WORTH playing, people play other races in spite of how awesome dwarves are. You see the logo up there? BATTLE CONQUEST, Who is locked in a staring contest with a fallen knight? Thats right, a Warsmith, a DWARF ! And you know what? The demons gonna blink first. ENDURE MIGHTY DWARF, ENDURE !

They have a reduction for a reason. All I see you doing in this forum is trying to mold the game into suiting your idea of what it should be and judging from your posts your idea is that dwarves should have no faults and only strengths. There needs to be a balance between all the races.

Ah so you cant detect sarcasm. Hell you just stated that since they are getting a speed buff they should take a damage nerf, they are getting buffed for a reason. You are a poor judge but you are good at exaggerating. People need air to survive.

I suppose you are incapable of posting anything that is not sarcastic because all your posts are the same "DWARVES DE BEST" <-- something in that manner. I'll know from now on not to take anything you say seriously

Gorlak wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:

7) CPs vary according to the number of units you send to a region. It is true that if you send 5 LIs at one time and then send 3 LIs and 2 HIs, you will still get the same CPs, but we are not "punishing" the players in any way, as they WILL gain more loot if they bring higher level units. Then again, think about it..You want to control a region and you send 5 LIs...You destroy the army so your Faction gains the advantage at that point. Then the same day, you march with 5 HIs and destroy an enemy army with higher value units, but with about the same number of units like yours. Why would that victory count as grander? Yes, you will receive more loot, as the enemy is of a higher value, but the advantage (Conquest Points) won for your Faction is about the same.

I still think this acts as a disincentive for research and city development in general. By fielding more advanced armies, all we are gaining is greater loot which allows us to further pointlessly expand our city and produce better units. To my mind, those dedicated players who've invested enough to field powerful armies should be able to exert greater influence over the war. After all, a player who can destroy 5 enemy HI has weakened the enemy more than a player who destroys a couple of LI units.

The devs may want regional warfare to feel accessible to new players. Upcoming content like guild warfare may swing in favor of veterans more. Future content like PvE "raid" type battles may favor vertical progression even more.

I'm speculating here, but even if the above is their intent, I do think that regional warfare should recognize vertical progression more than it does now.

Khor wrote:

The best thing about Dwarf Heavies getting 13 speed is that if equipped with a +4-5 speed banner, they'll be able to overrun light infantry and archers. If they were 10 speed they'd still never be able to fully overrun them. So it'll be nice in the future. And since mithril is, ya know, lighter, and everyones armor slows them down so much... I bet those hammers are light weight mithril too huh ? And what with having shorter arms and quicker swings...XD

There is probably a good reason why there are no +3-5movement speed items. Items with that much speed would push heavy units out of their archetype and obsolete other types of units completely.

I dont think items should allow one unit type to completely out-mode another type - or be powerful enough that everyone has to start using them to keep an even playing field.

Edit: Apparently there are godlike items with +4 movement on them.

Quote :

Still have concerns with the ironfortress in terms of AP scaling and stat scaling, since all cavalry have the same stat caps. For example, Give the human knights one piece of equip gear and their endurance/armor are equivalent or better than the iron fortresses, their total HP is also higher and since there are 4 of them they attack more (unless thats only a graphical thing having 2 units attacking) The Iron Fort however will never be a flanker/chaser no matter what it equips. Makes me wonder what the AP cost of an equipped Iron Fort is compared to a 2 man cavalry and a 4 man cavalry

Do bonus stats simply scale 2/4x as much for these other units ? Giving it some kind of utility/weapon would make it a role that cant be copied with gear

I think youre just comparing stats again without understanding the statistics behind what the formula do - and then using that to justify more dwarven buff mongering.

While we may not know those exact formulas, we can see that there is a random component to them and comparisons of HPs should be done with statistics in mind - specifically how often 1 HP will be removed from a unit. In the case of Ironforts, they are the most tanky unit on the battlefield and it takes a lot of damage rolls to remove those 10 HPs. You cannot just compare 10 hps vs 22 hps total for another cav unit.

That actually makes the dwarven cavalry extremely time and heal efficient. If an Ironfort goes into battle and finishes the battle with 1/10 hp, it is immediately and freely restored to 10/10 hp. No heal time, no heal costs and it is back to full effectiveness.

Also, having fewer units seems to maintain its 100% effectiveness while losing HPs on the battlefield, while units with only 1 HP each seem to lose effectiveness when they lose individual units.

These are huge advantages to dwarves who can use this tactic more effectively than any other race.

Hegorn wrote:

I dont think items should allow one unit type to completely out-mode another type - or be powerful enough that everyone has to start using them to keep an even playing field.

Which is why i brought up the point that any cavalry with a couple good items can match/exceed the fortress in durability with all of the speed, the formula for stats is irrelevant if they are the same, the iron fortress will never match them in speed. Whenever you have additive values, they scale poorly. 30 str vs 40 str is a big difference until both players wear +60 str gear, then its 90 vs 100. Formula doesnt matter, the gap is narrowed. Also i think +4 speed is the max at godlike, or just the max observed. But its only on banners right? The 'max speed' of cavalry is 40, so do artifacts also add speed to reach +10?

Thats also why i mentioned AP scaling, since a 2-4 squad cavalry gains stats on all the units, would the AP cost of the squad go up higher in proportion to the fortress? To compensate for being a single attacker it has higher attack speed, while we dont know if this is faster than 2 units striker at 7 or 8 speed, we do know that +30 strength on two units is more than +30 on one. If AP reflects this then it wouldnt be an issue, a geared ironfortress would be cheaper AP wise than a geared squad of knights.

We already know the unit needs a buff/tweak, i'm comparing it in this way because its the only unit in the game that is SOLO, while its alternatives are in a squad. I'm comparing values of stats based on how accessible they are to everyone. With a unique utility or ranged attack, it cannot be replaced with gear. Would also let a user customize its equipment since the unit could focus on its missile attack or melee.

Quote :

Thats also why i mentioned AP scaling...

AP scaling is being looked at by the Devs. Theyve said that more than once. I'll wait for their changes before delving into the fairness of AP valuations.

Quote :

Also i think +4 speed is the max at godlike, or just the max observed. But its only on banners right? The 'max speed' of cavalry is 40, so do artifacts also add speed to reach +10?

As far as I have seen, there is only itemization for +1 movement speed. There really shouldnt be itemization that gives more than +2 movement imo.

Khor wrote:

Still have concerns with the ironfortress in terms of AP scaling and stat scaling, since all cavalry have the same stat caps. For example, Give the human knights one piece of equip gear and their endurance/armor are equivalent or better than the iron fortresses, their total HP is also higher and since there are 4 of them they attack more (unless thats only a graphical thing having 2 units attacking) The Iron Fort however will never be a flanker/chaser no matter what it equips. Makes me wonder what the AP cost of an equipped Iron Fort is compared to a 2 man cavalry and a 4 man cavalry

Do bonus stats simply scale 2/4x as much for these other units ? Giving it some kind of utility/weapon would make it a role that cant be copied with gear

Khor wrote:

Which is why i brought up the point that any cavalry with a couple good items can match/exceed the fortress in durability with all of the speed, the formula for stats is irrelevant if they are the same, the iron fortress will never match them in speed.

The devs have acknowledged that dwarven cav is more like the archetype of an HINF. Comparing the Ironfort to other race's cav to justify buffs doesnt make sense. The devs made a lore decision to make dwarven cav slow. That could justify asking for a chase/flanking option for dwarves, but it does not justify incessant buff mongering for the Ironfort.

I just explained how Dwarven Cav have tactics that allow it to be extremely cost and time efficient in battle. It certainly has unique strengths to play to.

Your numbers are also stretched. You talk about "1 item" like its no big deal when you are really referring to godlike items. In order to get +25 to armor and endu, youre talking about a godlike item. It is not a fair comparison to pit an unequipped ironfort against human knights wearing a godlike item. A more reasonable and practical comparison: an Ironfort wearing green gear has similar survivability to a human knight wearing epic-godlike gear.

Even the above statement wouldnt really paint the full picture. Ironforts lose no offensive effectiveness as they lose HPs. I've seen all my units losing offensive capabilities as they drop in size. I'm very hard pressed to think about any 1v1 melee fight that an Ironfort would lose.

And this gets to the crux of my problem with your sensibilities of "balance" and your reasoning for perpetually calling for buffs to dwarves (and nerfs to races you dont like) -- you focus on 1 stat or one aspect of a unit without looking at the bigger picture. When you are introduced to that bigger picture, if it includes playstyles that you personally would not enjoy using, you try to justify why dwarven units should be rebalanced around not using that playstyle. If there are units or playstyles that are effective vs the playstyles you *want* to use, you call for nerfs or buffs to counter that.

And here is just one instance of you exemplifying this behavior:

Quote :

We already know the unit needs a buff/tweak, i'm comparing it in this way because its the only unit in the game that is SOLO, while its alternatives are in a squad. I'm comparing values of stats based on how accessible they are to everyone.

No, we dont "already know" that the Ironfort needs a buff. If youre comparing values of stats based on how accessible they are to everyone, every example of yours shouldnt use godlike items to justify your numbers.

It is clear that you want melee units that will win against any other melee unit in the game. I agree the ironfort could use a flavor tweak, but giving it more power on the battlefield is very iffy. It already has very obvious strengths over other HINFs. If dwarven HINF were staying at 10 speed, it could be argued that the Ironfort makes the Warsmiths obsolete - and we're talking about the Warsmiths here - easily the sturdiest HINFs on the battlefield.

So forgive me for calling this blatant and selfish buff mongering when youre asking for improvements to the Ironfort that will easily power creep them over possibly the best HINF in the game. When you do this sort of thing for every unit, it just devalues any feedback you give.

You have some good ideas, but youve already seen people entirely discrediting everything you say. Heh, you may even single-handedly popularize the lore that dwarves are the biggest whiners in BattleCon. That wouldnt be a good thing...

I didnt actually specifically state in any of my posts here what changes i'd like to see on the iron fort besides the already discussed range component, and ask for details on AP scaling so you seem to be getting just a bit paranoid towards me and increasingly juvenile about it. Its not like im making these changes, i provide information and outlook based on my experiences with a race drastically different to your own, you seem to be just getting petty at this point with the need to try and contradict me with more pseudo intellectual gibberish, the devs are perfectly capable of deciding on things without you. Any changes made, can be un-made. You do not need to get your knickers in a knot.

When im talking about how stats scale on a lone unit VS a squad of course im going to use Godlikes to compare, the higher the stat bonus the more drastic the change, it doesnt matter if i use godlikes as an example, or ranks, or research, or just a few rares. + stats x 4 = > + stats x 1. I'm comparing its futility to fulfill the role of cav, and its similarity to the role of heavy, to justify its own role as a hybrid.

Of course the iron fort shouldnt lose a 1v1 fight, its sacrificed all of its mobility for combat, if it could be defeated by high speed cavalry it'd be a joke. It can only engage what it catches, its not fast enough to support or flank, its incapable of retreat and its not even large like a squad of heavies to intercept multiple enemies. I'm not even sure if it could beat a squad of heavies and that'll be the first thing i test out when i get one. Its also (for now) more expensive AP wise than Heavies. I wouldnt be surprised if Heavies could beat it.

Metagame efficiency is irrelevant to combat balance, a line of archers and heavies are also extremely cost efficient since the a.i. has no access to range improvements, but its different in pvp, cant just waddle the tank behind a tree and wait. I'm sure in the future Artillery will be a cost efficient PvE weapon too.

Without giving it more speed, giving it ranged is just a solid solution to increasing its threat and ability to act on the field, without replacing the Gunners or Heavies.

Piktas wrote:

They have a reduction for a reason. All I see you doing in this forum is trying to mold the game into suiting your idea of what it should be and judging from your posts your idea is that dwarves should have no faults and only strengths. There needs to be a balance between all the races.

technically, isn't anyone posting in the suggestion forum trying to mold the game into what they think it should be?

Yes, but I see only one person suggesting improvements for a specific race almost exclusively and nerfs for the other races.

Well, actually, he's already noted something regarding undead heroes, which I'd actually initially discussed with him, so he's actually talked about undead buffs as well, and he has asked for nerfs not only to other races but to races even on his own team, which, yes, shows some bias, but consider the ideal that the bias comes from the fact he doesn't have much to compare except (Dwarf vs. X) so most of his opinions would be dwarf-based. Similar to how most of my opinions are undead-based - my own opinion being undead are ultimately underpowered but their mechanics are just unique enough that you can make them work tactically just as well as the other races by using their passives strategically.

He did suggest some good things. However, his suggestions are numerous and mostly one sided. You're supposed to try to improve the whole game not the race you're playing. I'm on the light side and I think if his suggestions would get implemented it would be a gross advantage and would completely throw off any balance there is. There's nothing wrong in wanting to make whatever you play stronger and cooler but within reasonable bounds and there's no need to get offended when other people point out that it is indeed one sided. Some people may enjoy dominating with little to no effort but that type of gameplay would destroy the game.

Khor wrote:

I didnt actually specifically state in any of my posts here what changes i'd like to see on the iron fort besides the already discussed range component

Khor wrote:

... so why ever get an Ironfortress ? Two ideas
1. Give it a gun, making it a medium-ranged behemoth, its speed wont be as much of an issue then, and it will become a threat that cant just be ignored by walking away. It will almost be an anti-flanker, very good at protecting, deadly in melee and ranged. This would seal dwarvs as universally 'slow and steady'

From a previous post you made on the topic. That would be you asking for a buff.

Quote :

you seem to be just getting petty at this point with the need to try and contradict me with more pseudo intellectual gibberish, the devs are perfectly capable of deciding on things without you. Any changes made, can be un-made. You do not need to get your knickers in a knot.

Moving beyond any insults, I dont have any paranoia against you specifically. I've complimented many of your ideas and even supported some of them like the warsmith speed buff. I've certainly tried to avoid micromanaging unit stats for the devs - which is something a lot of players have a lot of trouble doing.

I do point out where ideas may have holes in their logic or why they are just plain bad from a game design perspective. You've probably personally seen a lot of that from me largely because you have used every forum possible to say how bad dwarves are and how OP elves are. You do it with high frequency in game, in the kong chat, and on the forums. I just try to clarify any misinformation before it gets traction. It helps people play the game better.

Quote :

When im talking about how stats scale on a lone unit VS a squad of course im going to use Godlikes to compare, the higher the stat bonus the more drastic the change, it doesnt matter if i use godlikes as an example, or ranks, or research, or just a few rares. + stats x 4 = > + stats x 1. I'm comparing its futility to fulfill the role of cav, and its similarity to the role of heavy, to justify its own role as a hybrid.

Unfortunately, not everyone understands much of the game mechanics. Many will not understand:

• why +1 of a stat is NOT equal to +1 of the same stat on a different unit.
  
• why different stats scale differently on the same unit.
  
• why +1 stat at low levels is NOT equal to +1 stat at high levels.
  
• why HP cannot be compared 1:1 for any of the units.
  
• why RNG and statistical models pretty much mean we cannot say with certainty why any unit's stats are better than another's.

Most people wont think something is good until they see someone else do well with it. Its the driving force in the evolution of a lot of metagames in many MOBAs and RTS games. I cant wait for there to be a good dwarf general who uses their strengths well on the battlefield and shares it with the community.

Quote :

Metagame efficiency is irrelevant to combat balance

This is an example of a big picture balance issue that is a viable benefit to dwarves and adds a unique strength to that unit specifically - yet you want to say it is irrelevant for balancing that unit.

Just because you personally want to focus purely on combat effectiveness, that doesnt mean that your units have to be designed purely around combat strengths.

0 downtime with 0 repair costs with fast CP generation skews map balance and resource incomes. We havent seen guild warfare, but I suspect it will affect that as well. Thats not something to discount just because it doesnt give an in-combat benefit.

I dont think that every unit has to have the same combat effectiveness to balance the game. I'm certainly not against it and I do think that combat effectiveness needs to be balanced for core archetype units (the archetypes that the devs assume every player has access to). I see the benefit of hybrid/niche units that excel in specific areas of the metagame or in specific game types, but those units may not have perfect combat equivalency with other units.

no, you're just supposed to suggest on what you know and think could be a good idea. Playing against dwarves, I'd actually agree they're UP. they're what I pray for in PvP queue, because routing them makes it easy to pick them off. as for whether it's one-sided - that's fine. there's other people here who can sugges balance changes for orcs, undead, elves, etc. Korr's not arguing that his race should have no faults, he's just noting that certain tactics on the field have made the balance shift in other races favor.

Personally, I'd like to see a bit of a nerf to elves myself, as it feels like their speed, high morale, and good stats don't really have anything set in place to offset them in anyway, but I've also not really spent the time to formulate a complex argument on the subject.

That said, I don't really see these changes as making the dwarves dominate. currently they have little chase, a much harsher time against archers, really nasty drawbacks whenever their units do retreat, and don't really have too much counter-benefits to this, though the devs are fixing it.

And that's the other reason I'm a bit confused on your hostility - he's making suggestions in various manners to show different ideas that could help, not saying every single one should move into play. the Devs are going to do their best to keep the game as balanced as possible, and him suggesting a lot of things for one race doesn't mean they'll implement them in a way as to neglect others.


On the iron fortress in particular, if I might branch away from what I was speaking on before, I would like to see the iron fortress have a ranged weapon, for thematic reasons more than anything, in that I don't really quite see the point of them for right now. The point of the "cavalry" slot is basically chasing down fleeing enemies and archer harassment, and the Iron fortress can't do those. at most, it's more or less a good way to strengthen failing lines on the battlefield, but it would be nice to give it a bit more expanded role than that. Particularly, since the iron fortress looks cool and therefore I'd like to see more fielded against me so I can look at dem.

I'll repeat myself. Khor even if not intentionally is very one sided and there's a difference between suggesting things to improve the game and to improve the race you are playing. Take all the things Hegorn is suggesting. I could never say that Hegorn is one sided because his suggestions are all about balance. I'm sorry if i come off as hostile. I believe that all races need to have pros and cons to rely on each other in specific situations. I have nothing more to add.

AgentAAA wrote:

my own opinion being undead are ultimately underpowered but their mechanics are just unique enough that you can make them work tactically just as well as the other races by using their passives strategically.

A lot of the undead stats are lower overall than other units - partly because they have larger unit sizes.

Again, its impossible to say numerically if those lower numbers are justified because we dont know any formulas.

Morale is getting a rework and that should help undead too.

Overall, I tend to think that the informed gamer is a happy gamer. It helps them make choices they are happy with long term and reduces frustrations. Any game that has long-term progression will create really passionate players. These players have invested a lot of time into the game and they want to know that they are able to make as good of choices as they can to meaningfully affect their own enjoyment.

I understand the devs may not want to have players overly scrutinizing their formulas right now - especially to the point that they turn into perpetual firefighters who can never work on major game systems that will develop the foundation for a long-lasting, fun endgame. The reason I havent personally pushed hard for them to reveal formulas is because I trust that they have the long term viability of this game at heart.

Balance will need to be scrutinized heavily once more endgame content is available. Theyve shown that they listen to well-crafted arguments and evidence-based feedback. That said, I dont think they can wait too long to reveal more of the combat mechanics work. I hope once we see the blog posts rolling, we'll see more info.

Piktas wrote:

I'll repeat myself. Khor even if not intentionally is very one sided and there's a difference between suggesting things to improve the game and to improve the race you are playing. Take all the things Hegorn is suggesting. I could never say that Hegorn is one sided because his suggestions are all about balance. I'm sorry if i come off as hostile. I believe that all races need to have pros and cons to rely on each other in specific situations. I have nothing more to add.

but my point is, regardless of that, suggestions will improve the game, as the devs will never intentionally use enough suggestions, or use them to the point of, unbalancing the game. The reason Darkdain is posting regarding dwarves, and why if I post here on a specific topic it'll likely be undead, is because that's the race he knows and understands, so to post on others might be a bit off. What Hegorn posts on is generally a bit less regarding race balance and more overall mechanics - and we thank him for it, I think Hegorn's done more analysis and honest work on finding out more about battle conquest, in order to help the mods improve it, than anyone else who's posted in this forum to be fully honest.

Piktas, the main problem with your discussion is you're coming into it with the idea "Dwarves are slow, they're supposed to be and thus it should always be an issue for them" and then looking at the issues at hand with that in mind. This isn't actually entirely incorrect, nor has anyone ever stated it to be otherwise. the issue is that while they're slow, they still need a way to pull a win out despite that, even in another fashion, which is why most of Korr's suggestions involve making them a harder line to crack and tougher to flank. this is mainly due to the fact that, while slow, Dwarves, though again this is changing and I'll definitely be withholding my judgements till the new units come, didn't have many pros to go with that con. Elf archers are better and LI's are still decent despite having quick speed themselves, their LI's stats being close to the same and their passive being better in most places, for instance.

I'll also note I'm speaking mostly on Korr's changes regarding general mechanics of units, such as speed, not such things as combat stats. I don't like debating on the mechanics I don't visibly see on the battlefield as I don't know enough about them.

Hegorn wrote:

AgentAAA wrote:

my own opinion being undead are ultimately underpowered but their mechanics are just unique enough that you can make them work tactically just as well as the other races by using their passives strategically.

A lot of the undead stats are lower overall than other units - partly because they have larger unit sizes.

Again, its impossible to say numerically if those lower numbers are justified because we dont know any formulas.

Morale is getting a rework and that should help undead too.

Overall, I tend to think that the informed gamer is a happy gamer. It helps them make choices they are happy with long term and reduces frustrations. Any game that has long-term progression will create really passionate players. These players have invested a lot of time into the game and they want to know that they are able to make as good of choices as they can to meaningfully affect their own enjoyment.

I understand the devs may not want to have players overly scrutinizing their formulas right now - especially to the point that they turn into perpetual firefighters who can never work on major game systems that will develop the foundation for a long-lasting, fun endgame. The reason I havent personally pushed hard for them to reveal formulas is because I trust that they have the long term viability of this game at heart.

Balance will need to be scrutinized heavily once more endgame content is available. Theyve shown that they listen to well-crafted arguments and evidence-based feedback. That said, I dont think they can wait too long to reveal more of the combat mechanics work. I hope once we see the blog posts rolling, we'll see more info.

this is true of our LI's and our HI's, but last I checked our archers still have lower stats in most areas without a larger unit size. You normally have the stats on hand, so if I'm wrong, tell me, because I've tragically lost that reference that was going around the chat for unit statistics. If not, I've still noted my own archers losing in any projectile battle with a comparable unit of archers of about any race. Mind you, once they get their passive, they suddenly fill a good role in that they're excellent at taking down enemy infantry, but that was more or less my initial point - undead get by on the fact that once they rank up their passives do allow you to use them in a way that allows them to stand on even footing with other races, but from my own playing of this game so far, I've noted undead without at least their 2 stars have problems with comparable divisions from opponents - this doesn't really strike me as much of a concern, mind, because that's not too difficult to reach. It just makes them a bit less friendly to a new player.