Author Topic: Reajustments of classical units  (Read 4797 times)

Kran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Reajustments of classical units
« on: June 01, 2009, 12:47:22 PM »
I think this unit is some of the oldest units in the game, maybe released in first version of leopold. But actually, the gold value of units has decreased. I mean that armyes are more powerfull than in times of leopold. Thats why some old units had reajustments to make it more powerfull, like the old cavalry, that received the overpower skill. Lets faced, the cavalry was quite balanced some years ago. Now it needed another skill. Allmost all units received a change or a update in the last years, but the tactician still like it was designed at first time. Tactician cost to much to simply give army +1 command. Sure we cant low it price, cuz its 50$, but we could maybe add it a diferent skill, not a powerfull one. Maybe 2 power in this unit would be nice, maybe could add +1 command in turn after its death. Maybe he could send enemyes in 1 range to its castle, costing 2 actions. Dont know, looks like people are usually prefering 6 or 7 commands, hardly i can see an army with 2 tactician anymore. Units like sergeants are far stronger than the tactician. Maybe 2 power in it is good. It would can kill at least a rider, and help damaging low-armoured units when they are close. The pikeman is also a bit undepowered. Not enought to people get frustated when they get it in random, but enought to make it very rare in Top-level contructed. I would suggest it 2 armour. Actually people dont use it cuz it is absolutaly easy shut down by archers. Another unit is the general. Quartermaster have -50 cost, +1 power and -1 actions. Also dont give commands, but its ability of healing are far stronger. Quartermaster + tactician is better than a general. The general can be used in combat, and is hard to kill, ok. But also have no strategical use in combat and people like killing it cuz will make enemy -1 commands.  Also footmans are not very strong, else than rushing a bit, countering elephants, it have only 2 actions, low power. Sure it have good life and power but a fanatic allways more usefull in tactics, as to shot down enemyes, as do a axeman. Strong enemyes will kill the footman and leave. Compare them to rogues with stun and block, scouts with poison and block, also return to castle. Maybe adding the footman -1 life and +1 power would be more fun to play. The summoner also could damn at range 3, and this unit also never got changes, exect when the demons become -1 power. Even with the longbowman, that makes imps a bit more usefull, summoner are a bit underpowered when compared with other mages. Other possible solution is to cancel stats over units when damn. Poisoned units still poisoned demons, same applyes to other things like no-armour. Even demons can be turned into imps again by a druid. :P

Kran

Lumen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 01:15:44 PM »
I disagree with some of your assessments of weak units that need a boost.

Tactician - Tacticians aren't really units to my eye... they're more a part of the system.  They don't have to be units with choices because the choice was to include them to make the army more sound or to include an offensive unit to make the army stronger.  I've never really thought "Hmm, I'd include a tactician, but X other 50 point unit is better."  I include tacs when I need them.  They're on a completely different scale from non-command units.

However, you're absolutely right about quartermaster+tac being almost entirely better than general.  The only way in which general has an advantage is on the first turn due to deployment spaces and that it's less commands to deploy a general than a quartermaster and a tac.  General could possibly use a little boost, I think.

Footman - This infuriating little unit is horrifying--HORRIFYING when used correctly.  Its ability to lock people into melee with itself is very powerful board control.  It's well worth the 50 points.  The only issue is that it doesn't usually agree with the general strategies of other decks.  Footman is a gem that needs to be considered when building the army, not as an afterthought.

I agree that pikeman and summoner really could use a boost.  Pikeman, I think +1 hp would do the trick.  Summoner needs a more meaningful change.

minime

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 123
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2009, 01:21:34 PM »
i think that all these units are just fine as they are now. even if they were a bit weaker than other units i dont think this is a that big problem that worth a change(maybe I'm a bit conservative with the changes in the game). oh and the tacticians is one of the best units in the game. it isn't too flashy but i'm always happy with the second tactician in random(and i'd prefer an other tactician instead of a quartermaster). It really worth 50 gold!

edit: the general is better in combat than the quartermaster. it isn't rare when it is a deciding factor in the end games in random. and i see it a lot in constructed too! maybe the quartermaster is clearly better in slower formats like coop or 2 vs 2. (the only problem is the second general, but the second quartermaster is an even bigger problem) and i never felt that the summoner is too weak in random either(i really like to have a summoner). both the imps and the demons are very strong combat units. they are much better then the zombies or the soldiers. maybe it isnt used that much in constructed formats, but im not sure if this is a that big problem if the unit is interesting and strong in random.

edit 2: maybe this whole topic is about the differences of the formats. maybe these units arent that useful in coop or 2 vs 2 for example. i just write here about random and a bit of constructed.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2009, 01:38:03 PM by minime »

glunkr

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 36
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #3 on: June 01, 2009, 01:24:24 PM »
I also think the tactician is fine at 50. No change needed.

The Summoner does seem to be weak, but maybe it's just me.

zatikon

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #4 on: June 01, 2009, 02:06:10 PM »
All the old unit generating units are up for review soon. Their mechanics are going to more closely resemble how the Doppelganger twins work.

The Tactician used to have an ability to grant +5 commands once per game. We're considering giving him a +4 version of that.

Giving the General +1 power is also an option.

Jezebeau

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #5 on: June 01, 2009, 02:22:43 PM »
No more unit screens? Booooo.

SLOTH

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 15
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #6 on: June 01, 2009, 02:54:22 PM »
I think the Tact is fine as is.

I prefer the general to a tac/quarter.  General has the ability to move two and attack, and as stated, the first turn play is important.

Depending on the army, the healing ability of the quartermaster is wasted.

BTW, the footsoldier IS scary.  I keep forgetting the ability and get tied down in hand-to-hand combat with the little pest!  :)

Kran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #7 on: June 01, 2009, 03:06:05 PM »
Well, footman ability is easy to forget. Also i think +4 commands once to much. Maybe +3, even 2.

Lumen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2009, 07:27:24 AM »
What about the command post?  I've always gone for the command post for when I've needed sudden bursts of commands in the game, but if you give that ability to tacticians, it will serve even less of a purpose than it does now.

mongolian

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2009, 01:05:12 PM »
Just remember, it's vital that not all units be the perfect worth for the dollar ammount.  If all units were perfectly even (impossable), then more stalemate scenarios and games going on forever would occur.

Some units that might need amped:
- General: +1 hp

- Tactician: fine as is, I don't mind him having some wierd power, like when dies gives +3 actions or something, but it's ok as is.

- Footman: maybe +1hp. Think it's ok as is.

- Pikeman: maybe +1 power if anything, or +1 hp.  Think it's ok as is.

- Summoner: Does NOT need to change.  It's imps are devestating in most armies.

- Necomancer: It's summons could be a little beefier. Maybe give +1 hp or +1 power

Kran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2009, 02:36:23 PM »
Agree ^^

Clodd

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #11 on: June 04, 2009, 02:24:46 PM »
Just remember, it's vital that not all units be the perfect worth for the dollar ammount.  If all units were perfectly even (impossable), then more stalemate scenarios and games going on forever would occur.

This doesn't make sense, unless you mean that if they were all balanced they'd all be the same. Even then, having the exactly the same army as the opponent doesn't guarantee a stalemate. Does chess often end in stalemates? Aren't those armies perfectly balanced, aside from white going first? Ever played Starcraft? Three completely different races to pick from and yet they are all balanced and players rarely stalemate.

Stalemate scenarios and unit balance both arise from unit stats. But stalemates are a completely *different* problem.

Say I have an invulnerable unit that has 99 power, range 6 and can attack 10 times a turn, but can't move. Anyone without this unit would be mad, it's horribly overpowered. By your logic, since it is imbalanced it should prevent stalemates. But all this unit does is generate stalemates because it makes it impossible to attack the castle, but it is incapable of attacking the castle itself.

What you need to avoid stalemates is not imbalanced units. What you need is to simply giving players the ability to show their skill and beat other players. Even with all the units perfectly balanced, not all army compositions would be useful, and so players could differentiate themselves both in army composition abilities and army execution abilities. If two players are almost equally skilled, then you just need to make the game difficult enough that the small difference between them matters.

That said, it can't be perfectly balanced, or even nearly so. Zatikon is like a fighting game. Fighting games tend to not be balanced because they usually have a ton of characters and there are just too many possible matchups. Zatikon's units obviously can't be fully balanced because it has as more units than there are characters in many fighting games. That said, when balance problems are obvious, why not fix them?

Bottom line:
If Zatikon has a problem with stalemating,  that is a flaw in the game, and you can't get rid of it simply by making unit X imbalanced.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 02:52:28 PM by Clodd »

Kran

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
    • View Profile
Re: Reajustments of classical units
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2009, 07:10:56 PM »
What mongolian means is that units will be allways be better than price or worse than price depending of the occasion. And draw happens OFTEN in chess, i mean about half times. That happens in 2/3 times with Chess Grandmasters. The problem is that completely balanced units truely means that all units will be the same. Even the unit considered the most balanced one, the geomancer, is not completely balanced. Cuz its impossible. Even chess pieces are not 100% balanced, and about 10% of games are simply won by white pieces becouse of first move. What he is trying to say is that not all games need to be winnable all the times, but just most of them. Simply cuz the great difference beetween top players of zatikon is of drawing in games where the army is a bit worse, and winning when the army is a bit better. Whats very hard to do. If ELO rating system get used in zatikon, i dont think the difference between the rating of rank 1 and the raiting of rank 20 could be grater than 60 points. And that tends to be less and less while time passes and game popularizes.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 07:28:13 PM by Kran »