Dark Legion Heavy Infantry and Cavalry are not balanced correctly

Hi, first take a look at the spreadsheet here:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0ArV4Zx5QVPN0dGVGWEYzTlhaWmtKUDl6VUxvcGJjemc&gid=1

Dark Legion heavies has 16 units with 1 hp each and only a few points above other heavies in other stats but this is not balancing their survivability at all, it's not enough.

Every impact damage cause casualties on these heavies too easily and +5 to endurance doesn't make the difference. They are less in numbers, 16 troops per unit, they should have 2 hp instead of 1 and cavalry 3 hp instead of 2.

I'm not talking about giving 4 hp to cavalry and 20 tropps to heavies like the average, it should be the way above in my opinion, otherwise they remain the weakest armored units in the game.

Dark Legion has not the same shooting power of other races in terms of archers and It's a nonsense giving their armored units an armored and strong portrait with those ridiculously low HP, DL is best at melee, and they should deserve the proper HP pool



==UPDATED==

I tried a solo Nightmare Mode and I fought against an AI dwarven army, I really don't understand why it's impossible to me to defeat dwarves in nightmare mode with my dark legion HI and cavalry, it's really frustrating, my armored units should last long in melee but they got slaughtered very fast.
If you really think dark legion is balanced this way I have tested it proving it is not. I'm having severely issues in melee with a race that is bad in range and bad in melee too...and I don't really want to reset and start all over again because dark legion is not balanced

Because half hp balances 50% the chance to avoid being damaged we now have to find a way to increase hp to balance the loss of 4 troops and the slower +1 reaction in the DL HI unit (16 troops per unit instead of 20)
===comparison between DL HI and Elf HI (closest to it)===

Considering the total power of each unit as the sum of all attributes multiplied for the total health (reaction modifier included) we have:
DL=3920
Elf=8480
double hp means we are gonna doubling the unit power so (2 hp)HI DL power = 3920 x 2 = 7840

2xDL<Elf this means that we can freely doubling DL heavies HP without overpowering this unit compared to Elf HI in terms of stats, infact sum(*base stats) multiplied for 32 (the new total unit hp) = 7840 that is less than Elf HI stats power.

*not including stats like movement (they are the same) and reaction (factorized as a modifier) in the calculations. The AP cost value is quite irrelevant, since both units have almost the same AP cost

Sorry if the math was very simplified, maybe too simplified, I tought it would be enough self explanatory

For cavalry instead 3 hit points would balance the lack of the overall race defense abilities, they seem quite balanced confronted to undead but if you look well at the comparisons the other races have something to eccell on, for example undeads unbreakable and more troops per unit, high hp chariots(20 total) with auto impact damage, high def and endurance tank (60 both making another 50% high survivability over DL cavalries and 2 hp more), faster reaction cavalry (humans) with auto impact damage.
12 total hp (=3 hp per dark knight)should not overpower the dark legion cavalry unit making it enough durable when running across arrows and artillery.

this 'too much difference' between DL with other races HP, high stats of DL wont cover any of this fatal weakness of lowest HP.

..which is why the Gods of Darkness are already on it. A "blessing" is not very far...

TY <3

('.'),b

Souless wrote:

===comparison between DL HI and Elf HI (closest to it)===

Considering the total power of each unit as the sum of all attributes multiplied for the total health (reaction modifier included) we have:
DL=3920
Elf=8480
double hp means we are gonna doubling the unit power so (2 hp)HI DL power = 3920 x 2 = 7840

This math makes bad assumptions to convey the point you want to make and to try and justify a huge buff for DL heavies. It would be great to be able to determine "effective health" for all units, but unless we know the combat formulas, we cannot use the kind of math you used here. Health should not be a multiplier against all the other stats because thats just not what we see empirically on the battlefield.

I used to assume that Health would be a straight multiplier to survivability too - until I saw high level DL heavies going toe-to-toe with other heavies and winning roughly as much as they lost in PvE even against rare+ geared units. They are very obviously not half as survivable as other heavies.

I agree they need improvements at low levels, but trying to say that they are only half as effective as other races because they have half the HP is a bad assumption. It certainly should not be used to base balance changes for DL HINFs. Survivability is a combination of Melee, Armor, Endurance, unit size and health. We do not know how those stats affect the concept of "effective health" otherwise it would be relatively easy to tweak the numbers to make them more in line with the other races.

From my experience seeing DL Heavy Infs with godlike gear and/or at lvl 10, if their HP was doubled without nerfs in other stats, they would be very overpowered at high gear/XP levels.

You can't compare a full godlike unit against naked ones, every unit in full godlikes becomes powerful, the balance starts at his roots on base stats, increasing health points doesn't increase at all the attack power of a unit, so DL HI would still remain powerful as they are at the moment in terms of attack.
I was more concerned on balancing them using some math, if you have better calculations pls post it here, because I can't assume you are right with your statements without real numbers on the field...

Also: "the power of a unit is equal to the sum of the power of every individual troop inside that unit" this is one of the most obvious rules in mathematics so it's more than right to use the total HP as a multiplier to find out how a unit can have increased health without overpowering it above other heavy infantries and the Elf HI was the closest comparison in terms of stats and ability

Not all stats are worth the same. Plus 1 of X stat will not give the same amount of benefit as plus 1 of Y stat. That is the key failure of your model.

Unfortunately only the devs know the formulas that would allow us to build any useful combat models. That said, I can still confidently say your model is incorrect because it simply does not match what we observe on the battlefield at high levels of gear/xp.

Light siders who have fought lvl 10 DL heavies will tell you that they certainly do not have half the survivability of light side heavies - even if the light side heavies have rare-epic gear to compensate for the extra stats that DL gets. Stat wise, that is a roughly equal comparison, yet in that situation DL heavies are not observed to have anything close to half survivability.


---
When I mentioned godlike geared units, I was referring to PvP matches that I watched when someone was streaming one afternoon. It was a DL pvper vs 2-3 different lightside players over the course of 6-7 battles.

His unit of DL heavies that were wearing a mix of Epic/Godlike gear defeated every other epic/godlike geared heavy in 1v1 situations.

I could not see the stats on any of the gear, but the gear rarities were nearly equal on both sides - or even in favor of the light side heavy inf for one of the lightside PvPers.

In my opinion stats difference between two units with the same items is the same as if they both were naked and I believe your insistence in replaying is misdirecting and a biased point of view, 1 more hp doesn't affect a unit performances, it makes the unit better at the start but the performance is the same on higher levels. If you really care about balance why don't you discussed about the advantage elven archers had on hitting heavies so easily when their strenght got buffed but missle was still set on 40? I had a valid point discussing openly about balance at least, and you are right, let the devs do the right adjustements, they know better than us how mechanics work.

As I said in another post, my first impression when I have chosen dark legion was a race inspired to Warrior of Chaos, but their stats do not reflect that model where the inspiration came, there may be something wrong because melee oriented armies can't have less health points than the average counterparts, it would be wrong, DL HI are not only the lowest HP heavies, they are also slow moving units with 8 reaction and it sounds unfair even for a kid of 2 years old, there's no need to be a genius to realize that unless you have a biased point of view and you only agree buffs to your favorite races...

Souless wrote:

Sorry if the math was very simplified, maybe too simplified, I tought it would be enough self explanatory

In my experience fighting PVE undead heavies everything seems fine as well.

You make it sound as though they crumple like archers.

And then say Hegorn is favouring a side.

Maybe instead of 2x HP they need 5 more armor.

As you said earlier, your math was greatly simplified (maybe even too simplified). Don't press Hegorn to bring numbers to the table when yours are admittedly flawed. Something not right there.

I disagree continuing this war, let the developers do their job

I dont have a problem with changes to DL. I agree that they have a growth curve that is much too different than other races.

What I have a problem with is your specific proposed buff and I have a problem with the bad math you used to try and justify it. Furthermore, I dont like when people call for buffs that are based on their own sensibilities of what "their" race should be - especially when they base those sensibilities on another game. This game is not Warhammer, it is not WoW, it is not any other game.

About balance - I simply wont play a game that I think is imbalanced or that I dont think has a future. I have a very low tolerance for games that do not hold equity for time/money/skill and overall balance. It is one of the big reasons why I research game mechanics as much as possible. I want interesting and balanced gameplay.

About the Elven Archer changes and then nerfs - I simply did not get a chance to play the game right after the global archer buff. I think I played 1 game during that patch before the subsequent Elf Nerf. The buff was very noticeable in that one game, but it was also only 1 game after several variables had been changed in the patch. I had no sense of what the new normal was after all those changes and I had no formulas to compare it to. Certainly not enough information to form a good opinion on the changes.

All that said, I mentioned in another thread why I understand the dev's desire to make archers do more on the battlefield. I fully agree that if mechanics like flanking play an increasingly greater role in combat, then archers need tweaks to find a more important role than they have right now. If that means that Elven archers have to lose 5 Missile to help create that balance, thats fine with me.

I dont think simply buffing archer damage will solve that problem, but thats a discussion for another thread.

Overall, I'm okay with specific units of each race being a bit better than the other races because I prefer a more wholistic philosophy on balance - i.e. any race's army will be balanced vs other race's armies of equal AP. Each individual unit archetype may not be balanced with all other races though.

The alternative is that each archetype of each race is balanced perfectly to each other. I know many people might think that is a better situation, but I think that would make for a boring game. If every race's archetypes play the same way, then every race will have the same exact strategies for each of those archetypes. The same army composition would be equally effective when used by Dark Legion as would be used by Dwarves. The same comps would play the same way regardless of what race was using them.

I agree that might be the easier method to balance, but I think that would detrimental to the depth of the game's strategy.

It is not easy to design good asymmetric balance - partly because there will always be the perception of imbalance. Anyone can toss around bad math to try and justify why X is so much worse than Y and needs A, B, C buffs.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree your trolling behaviour and your half truth posts make no sense for me, I only see in you someone that stubbornly tries to justify your opinion above all others like a universal truth...maybe you really need to know how mechanics really work and I hope you'll find all the information you need, now pls stop trolling in my 3D or I'll be forced to ask for a lock of the thread and some cleaning of posts, devs took the decision yet, no need for you to double posting or insisting stubbornly here, it's irritating and it turns this discussion on flames and trolling

Souless please stop calling people that don't agree with you trolls, it neither helps your case nor is it any fun to read.
Hegorn answered exactly on topic and he did point out some serious flaws in your math.

You want to prove that they need more health and to "prove" it you made health a multiplicator while everything else is additive. That's a perfect example for a bias. Especially if we take into consideration that the devs said that the difference in stats is what matters and not the total amount.
That means if the difference goes from 5 to 10 your hit chance will improve a lot (and if there wasn't a lower cap that would already make the unit twice as good and  not only 5*health*units "points" better)
Heck you even included reaction in your addition even though lower is better there. That you ignored damage since its the same for all non artillery units and speed is something I can accept but the rest of your calculation is not only over simplified its biased and misleading.

Well put chip.

As always Hegorn, great posts and valuable input.

Soul I'm sorry you feel you're being trolled, and that certainly doesn't appear to be anyones intention. I've seen your great posts, and hold you with no disregard. As you said, we should let the devs deal with it at this point since Rune has already said a plan is in place.

I'm wondering as to what the change is though...maybe a change in unit abilities to give them a stat boost proc?

Curious.

The spreadsheet you linked in your original post is one that I made to try and share as much information about the game as I could. It is a public, dolled-up version of my own spreadsheet that I put together when I first started doing research into the game mechanics.

I think a better informed playerbase makes for a better game, so I try to share as much good information as I can and I try to explain why incorrect information should not take root.

I actually tried to create models / formulas for things like effective health that would empirically fit what was observed on the battlefield. I initially overvalued health much like you did, but scrapped that model pretty early on based on the observations I've already mentioned in this thread. The value of the HP stat changes very noticeably based on the other defensive stats.

I stopped pursuing that endeavor when it became obvious that there were variables beyond the stats that were not visible to us players. With unknown variables and the randomness of combat, I realized I would have to do a lot more controlled testing to figure it out - more than I was willing to do.