RE: CEO v0.54 [Balance Preview]

You are viewing a single comment's thread from:

CEO v0.54 [Balance Preview]

in hive-135459 •  4 years ago 

Oh lord that's a lot of changes! Uh, um, uh--

King-whateverers first I guess!

  • Most of the minion King-likes sat at 5, with the Champions sitting at 6-7 due to their various extra bonuses. If there was a champion whose moveset was exactly King (minus the castling), I would expect that to cost 5, and also expect that the required balancing should raise it up to 6, with the existing King-and-more pieces going up to 7-8.
  • Among minions: Transparency is apparently a net positive according to your logic. I dunno if transparency plus [+]-shaped swap attacks is worth a whole point, but I suppose it's good enough to leave be for time being.
    • The problem with putting RoyalGuard++ and Butterfly+++ at 6, though, is that then Ghost++ has to be 7, and I dunno if that's too expensive, especially compared to Tiger+++ which is now also 7.
  • Among champions: Base Chastity 5... well, Chastity has a powerful negative effect holding it back, so this seems almost fine-ish.
  • Since I don't see that you've nerfed any of the other cheap King-like champions (EarthElemental, Pride, WaterElemental new base, Siren+ after tiershift), setting Guardian base to 6 and dropping the movement range by 1 would be fair alongside those pieces, I think, since they all cost 6 as well. Whereas if you had raised them up to 7, then Guardian's moveset should remain the same at 7.

Changed minions:

  • Promoting Skeletons up to +++ is an interesting idea. I assume this would be a normal "reach the back row" promotion? This does make an interesting possible exploit with any tier Lich if you can get a clear shot at the back row, since you can then summon Skeletons for 4 morale and have them instantly promote up to +++ for a net gain of 2 morale. I dunno what kind of board position would really allow that which isn't already a won position, however.
    • Getting to promote lesser Skels up to +++ does make actually paying full price for the Skel+++ up front feel really bad though. Would a buff down to 5 cost make sense? (This would also ironically help with the Lich exploit because each summoned Skel is now only +1 morale instead of +2)
  • Who even runs Archer anyway? Tier shift up definitely helps, but it still feels inadequate. Maybe try something really radical for Archer+++ and give them diagonal attacks, at a cost of 4 or 5?
  • Tombstone might actually be playable now with the proposed changes. I'll have to get back to you on that later. Net 2 cost Skeletons (for a while) seems pretty good.
  • Salamander vs Basilisk is now firmly in Basilisk's favor. Apparently Petrify vs Destroy really is worth a whole point, which makes sense anyway since you need at least 1 extra move to kill a stoned unit, vs a Destroyed one being gone already.
    • Basilisk++ vs Salamander++... both cost 4 and have 2 speed, but destroy > petrify as discussed above, so maybe something should be done to help the higher Basilisks out more? Dragon++ vs FireEle++ isn't that big a difference in terms of what you get post-promotion...
  • Templar is one of those pieces that is probably priced correctly, but that I don't really know what kind of army wants the effect. Also it feels like it should promote to Paladin (it's obviously cut from the same cloth), but doesn't. Maybe sideways-oriented pieces are just not as good as up-and-down ones? (it'd be hard to argue for, but 2/3/5/6 or 2/4/5/6 would at least make the choice interesting)
  • Drake+ at 4 makes Skeleton+++ at 6 look pretty bad too.
  • The Swordsman vs Skeleton comparison has already been brought up, so I won't go over that here. If current Swordsman+++ at 4 is too oppressive, you could either bump it up to 5 cost (none of the other 5-cost king-like minions have a promote, so it's fair-ish), or else use one of the older designs by using the current sword++ template and adding 2-range move-only on forward and sideways directions.
  • Bat capture should be vampire drain for meme purposes and extra insult, since it's an extremely low likelihood event (remember original Shieldman?)
  • New Hoplite+++ ideas... i dunno how hard it would be to code this to work properly, but if the diagonal move-only squares can become "Move Only OR Block 1 Attack from this square", maybe that would work. Side armor would work too, but then it looks too similar to Duelist+++.
  • Phantasm is not on this list, but I've always thought it to be a terrible piece. It's fine that its moveset synergizes poorly with rook/bishop rushes (as if those armies need the help, lol), but what else can we do to make it work? Promote to Wisp?????? (lolno)
  • (LifeStone at flat [Lose 5 morale on death]?)
  • Random, wild, totally out-of-the-blue idea with no practicality whatsoever: What if Hostages died on turn 60 of the game if it goes that far? (for fairness, after Black's turn 60 both die at the same time, so that hostage vs hostage becomes a draw instead of White wins).

Champions:

  • Now that we have a way to cause transparency on other pieces (NullMage), maybe transparency should be denoted more visibly in some way (yellow glow, actual transparency on the piece, etc)? Otherwise it might be too easy to forget that a piece is now transparent and make a transparency-related blunder.
  • FireMage should be renamed "MeteorMage" - unless you think people will confuse it with Comet's freezing effects?
  • Harpy+++ nerf seems unnecessary. is 7 range vs 6 really that much more powerful that it costs 2 points instead of 1? (or is it because of the added teleswaps)
  • Finally a Prince buff! I've been hoping for this one for a while. There are ways of balancing prince beyond its up-front cost if necessary (see relevant thread on kong forum).
  • Champions not listed above:
    • Temperance wants to be a powerful forking piece to force trades but costs too much to be able to make those trades effectively. Maybe 7/9/11/13 or 8/10/12/14 would be a better cost sequence for the piece.
    • demon++/+++ back down to 15/17? no reason, although aquarius+++ is also 16 so one of those two pieces should probably cost less
    • stonemage is another one of those sideways-oriented pieces that i feel are difficult to use well
    • there should be a minion that promotes to demon or rook. we have spearman i suppose but berserker doesn't quite cut the mustard sometimes
    • there should be a champion with bishop + knight abilities like how demon is rook + knight (after a fashion). i suppose we have archbishop but that doesn't exactly count
    • wrath might be slightly too expensive right now vis-a-vis thundermage. gaining tempo from the king lightning is nice but thundermage gets king-like for cheaper AND has longer range thunders. if wrath is more of a "mix-it-up" type champion, which its ability seems to imply, then it should get better melee powers (or augmented 2 range passive, hue hue hue).

Good lord this is over 1,200 words. At this rate i might as well make the 100-word-per-piece guide somebody asked for

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Hm, I have some disagreements:

  • As Kingattack is on a lot of champions, comparisons between two kingattack units for balance doesn't work. Imagine that RoyalGuard++, Ghost++, Butterfly+++, and such currently costed 4, and everyone thought "kingmelee is priced at 4". If someone said "Ghost++ should cost 5" that change would put it out of play, but comparing between those units are flawed because ALL of them would actually be 'underpriced'. This is the situation happening now.

  • You said "If there was a champion whose moveset was exactly King (minus the castling), I would expect that to cost 5". ...but RoyalGuard++ costs 5 and has a slight bonus effect, same as Butterfly+++. So I think "King melee" is about 4.5 cost. (Maybe you meant that the costs of it are different between minions/champions? But I think a minion also has the advantage of being 1 row ahead.)

  • I believe Grand's original design for transparent units was that they both start out as intentionally expensive to try to put a cost on Bishop/Rook rushes. I think that didn't quite work because the army is a matchup-luck type (not really because of Ghost++). In particular, I think Phantasm is trying to fake-synergize with Bishop/Rook because it has a range 3 teleport (which usually doesn't threaten anything, honestly).

  • You said "Who even runs Archer anyway?". Yeah, I agree. Too easy to block/dodge.

  • You said "Maybe sideways-oriented pieces are just not as good as up-and-down ones?". Templar is basically a piece for defense, which I am very confident is the most objectively powerful army type (that nobody plays because their win condition is 100+ turn morale decay, so the games take hours). But defense armies already have Chastity which is much more powerful if they ever wanted a sideways unit.

  • You said "If current Swordsman+++ at 4 is too oppressive, you could either bump it up to 5 cost [...]". I think you are overvaluing promotes, especially on this unit, which moves one space forward at a time usually. It also doesn't have great back move or any back attacks which is quite important. (Basically, 5 cost compares a decent promote to losing 3 back attacks and 2 back moves, IMO)

  • You said "(LifeStone at flat [Lose 5 morale on death]?)". I don't think the unit is actually underpowered mostly. When you trigger a LifeStone you gain extra material value (a LifeStone reviving a Berserker = -9 morale, but +4 material since the LifeStone costed 4 but you got an 8-cost unit out of it). However, LifeStone is currently getting screwed over by ThunderMage.

  • You said "[...] maybe transparency should be denoted more visibly in some way (yellow glow, actual transparency on the piece, etc)? Otherwise it might be too easy to forget that a piece is now transparent and make a transparency-related blunder." I've had this (rarely) with void as well. Would like to be able to tell voided units apart.

  • You said "demon++/+++ back down to 15/17? no reason, although aquarius+++ is also 16 so one of those two pieces should probably cost less" I don't think Demon+++ was ever 17. There was just a change near the game's launch where Grand stealthily nerfed ++ to 16, probably as a precaution (look at Dragon+0 vs. Demon++, if you only count action squares and not the loss of kingattack/more attack directions, Demon++ is quite far ahead). Also I think it should be really worrying that you don't know which to change :P

    Currently I tried Aquarius+++ and found it pretty underpowered but that's only with regard to the current costs of kingattack. I think 16 is actually the right cost but only with all other kingattacks rising in cost. I think when you increase the cost of it, the sacrifice ability of Aquarius+++ loses value because it's like you spent even more to use it.

-main_gi

"...defense, which I am very confident is the most objectively powerful army type (that nobody plays because their win condition is 100+ turn morale decay, so the games take hours)"
If I could / knew how to win consistently, I would happily play such strategy / setup :) .

Also, ThunderMage screwing Lifestone - I think it is ok, static targets are significant part of TMs purpose, to kill or gain tempo on. Before TM, LS was always and again discussed for being OP, and how to deal with it or change it.

You get all my votes for showing statuses / effects on units (transparency, voiding, ...), and I would love if similarly all targeted abilities show threat squares (I gift too many envy, sylph, air elemental upgrades).

The suggestion for timeout on hostage - interesting. Would have to be carefull, as the lich buff is discussed, so it isn't too much of a buff for pure turtling. If I can let my own hostages drain the opponent, I don't need to use / push that skeleton body count into taking enemy morale to compensate the summoning costs.

Transparency is apparently a net positive according to your logic

just to be clear, I think this only in terms of high level army building, but in terms of new nullification effect using transparency as part of the attack, it is probably not going to be favorable very often (although it would be entirely possible to null an enemy unit and give them an advantage because of it)

transparency should be denoted more visibly in some way

(actual transparency on the piece)
I think this is how it will go, or some variant of this, but not sure yet if all the ghost-like units will do this by default or if it will be reserved for nulled units (since a ghost could also be nulled, it may provide more visual information to have the transparency be nullification indicator)

some cool ideas

some of the suggestions you made are interesting to think about. idk if they would shuffle their way into this particular update, but maybe some could be added eventually. A bishop+knight champion seems to be a blindspot to me, thinking about it now it seems obvious and not sure how I never made one.

unknown.png

;} -main_gi

Huh.

So the "missionary position" is actually the centre of the board?

Aaaaaanyway, looks like a good piece. +1