Algorithmic Balance Through Realm Traits

[gleaming shell]

Especially if you're going to force them to produce T1/T2/T3 units, all of which are in the cultural roster.

[steep aspen]

it doesn't matter how strong or weak something is, if there is a aggressive cost ramp in place, mono-stacking is not possible.

[gleaming shell]

And what makes you think the game feels better by limiting units to 2 or 3 on the entire map?

[pliant lintel]

What ? That would not work that way. You balance the opt in limitation with your evolved mod if necessary, but ramp up upkeep would not need that.

[gleaming shell]

Good job. You just killed the entire horde fantasy play style for a lot of people.

[steep aspen]

variety !

[green turret]

I oppose this because you're curing flu with cancer

[gleaming shell]

You want me to spend my free time, re-balancing an entire game and all new content it produces?

Because you don't want to make the default mode a better balance with opt-in to break the balance?

[green turret]

No, he wants you to shut up and sit in your corner

[gleaming shell]

https://tenor.com/view/的9-gif-15861633468404990584

[pliant lintel]

That's also nonsensical. Balancing units has sense and I defend it coming from the Mp community. Everybody needs it, especially for low tier. You're not making sense.

[gleaming shell]

Anything that breaks balance should always be an opt-in. Balance itself should be the default.
I can't believe I have to explain such things when AoW 4 already works in this way to begin with.

[steep aspen]

keep in mind other people will not necessarily agree with your definition of balance.
With a voluntary system you can balance the game for your tournaments, with no impact on base game.

[gleaming shell]

There are scenarios where you need anywhere between 18 and 36 units on the map.
How are you going to make an army of even 18 units with a limit of 2 or 3 copies?

[scenic blade]

I dont agree with some of choices he makes in balance mod but its leagues better then vanilla in terms of balance

[pliant lintel]

The copy limitation is only for t4-5. READ US.

[steep aspen]

by assimilating other cultures.

[gleaming shell]

Not how the game was designed to be played.

You can't just throw in a random change and hope it works.

Fully ignoring all the consequences that might spawn from it.

[steep aspen]

please show me the game design document.

[pliant lintel]

Random because it doesn't come for you ?

[gleaming shell]

That's easy. The game is designed to be played the way it is being played.
And until the developers restrict/remove something, it is free to be used.

[steep aspen]

none of these changes are random, they work because they are self-correcting mechanisms derived from mathematical principles.

[pliant lintel]

You're basically coming in here with your aura and saying we're stupid, why ?

[gleaming shell]

At least 3 other people already argued against you before I even reached the end of the conversation.

[steep aspen]

according to this logic, if you broke the game, it's designed to be played in the broken state ?

[gleaming shell]

Yes, it is.

[steep aspen]

that is seriously twisted.

[pliant lintel]

Right, but THEY had arguments.

[gleaming shell]

You gave me a Ferrari. Don't be surprised when I drive 300 km/h with it.

[steep aspen]

obviously the devs didn't intent that.

I gave you a ferrari and you put rocket fuel in it and complain it doesn't handle correctly at supersonic speed.

[pliant lintel]

That argument has already been discussed, you're maddening.

[gleaming shell]

Let me understand... This game puts 0 effort into going against mono stacking.
And you want us to find all kinds awkward of solutions because of poor design?
When we already have a previous game in the series showing it can be done.

[scenic blade]

There is nothing wrong with more options to limit certain things but its not going to be balance

[pliant lintel]

NO

We're not saying that

On the contrary

[gleaming shell]

And me and everyone else who plays MP are bad people for mono stacking and hero XP funneling.

Right? We are the source of all evil in the world for asking the developers to fix such things?

[indigo yarrow]

It is a bit annoying to argue against it because any actual criticism of the systems is kind of just responded with "it's optional so it doesn't matter"

[steep aspen]

what is more awkward, constant discord battles after every DLC, or soft caps ?

[scenic blade]

Mono stacking is mostly solved by verbal agreement no need for anything extra i dont care if you clear with 15 shield units when it comes to final combat you fight with 5 of them

[pliant lintel]

Either you're interested and start reading, or I'm out

[gleaming shell]

Your solution isn't a solution. You don't want anything to be solved by the game's developers.

You want us to police ourselves. All in the name of not hurting Little Timmy's gameplay.

[vast hamlet]

More like complaining bunch who thinks they way is better?

[steep aspen]

I want the devs give you the tools to make the balanced game you want, why are you arguing AGAINST it anyway ?

[gleaming shell]

Let me quote something that shows SP and balance easily go hand-in-hand.

[vast hamlet]

Is it so hard? Play the way you want and agree between each other what you want

[pliant lintel]

Right, because little Timmy made the game a capitalistic success, exactly, and I want it to remain that way.

[green turret]

Show me the proof your changes will help

[pliant lintel]

Because I want season 10.

[pliant lintel]

I know your Jordi quote

[steep aspen]

it works on the same mathematical principle as cruise controls in a car, and those things work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_feedback

oh yeah, our bodies do the same thing with glucose levels, when not diabetic.

diminishing return and feedback control are basic engineering principles.

[pliant lintel]

Really my point is : either accept monostacks in your settings, or find ways to stop it on your own, and stop venting. Because monostack is a byproduct of pleasing dear Timmy, and Timmy allowed for season 2, and I want season 10.

[steep aspen]

I also just did the calculation on the upkeep cost to show that monostack becomes physically impossible.

[vast hamlet]

I would be cautious here asking for season 10 or we might end in Stellaris situation...

[green turret]

And you solved monostack, yes. But you claim to also improve balance, yet your changes actively go against it. You change the environment, and meta will adapt. But without changing the builds' parameters, only few will survive in the new environment

[pliant lintel]

It's not that it doesn't matter, it's that it has the merit of trying to find solutions to people complaining. You can hate these solutions, well then find better ones that allow Timmy to continue to pile his balors as he wants.

[green turret]

That... I don't even... What?

[steep aspen]

so what are you trying to achieve by balancing ? kill monostack and increase build variety.

[gleaming shell]

These are just recent messages. You guys think this is my first rodeo discussing balance?
You think I don't regularly engage with game developers about their own game and goals?

[pliant lintel]

And new ones will emerge. Don't you want to do an all t4 animal build with only subpar units ? I doubt it will be that strong, but you can try.

[gleaming shell]

Like holy moly people. Stop trying to add all of these convoluted solutions and levers and knobs and math.

[vast hamlet]

We know it is not, neither your rather agressive approach...

[green turret]

Yes. And you killed the monostack and DECREASED the build variety. Is this really so complex to grasp?

[gleaming shell]

We want to stop mono stacking of units and that has 3 very simple core reasons for occurring:

• Enchantments/Transformations have no limits.
• Unit class counters don't work beyond early game.
• (most) Mythic units aren't designed to be anti-mono.

[steep aspen]

monostack can be killed by cost ramps. that is a sufficient condition.
build variety can be achieved just by making units and spell resource dependent. and it's also a sufficient condition.
Why are you arguing against these tools if you are really interested in achieving these goals.

[pliant lintel]

All right, authority argument, the most empty ever imagined.

[gleaming shell]

Now tell me how tackling any of these problems is going to hurt your game.

Let's go.

[steep aspen]

No I resolve the build variety issue with rules that tie units and spells to resources to make all tomes situational.

[pliant lintel]

Because for you mixed compositions can't be varied ? I don't get it.

[indigo yarrow]

This reminds of that time someone said that you just need to do random maps to get better balance, when it would probably just lead the meta being even more locked in because you would just pick stuff that worked in every map.

[steep aspen]

He thinks they will work out the one single composition of 18 unit that is most efficient on every map. but it doesn't work if what they can build depend on the map

[vast hamlet]

Ah and Jordi argument,... strangely somehow the OP dragon builds and other bonkers went through Q&A, where was the balance there? Just example

[steep aspen]

you can't because you literally can't build it if the resource isn't there.

[green turret]

Yeah. When we criticize something, we "can't know because we didn't try this". You are right because you "don't think so". Mhm

But I'll entertain you. Yes, a build that has five or so different T4s with little investment will vastly outperform the build with two, even better ones

[pliant lintel]

Timmy loves enchantment stacking. Don't you ear often about the all transformed pantheon ruler people like to have ?

[steep aspen]

good luck finding 10 copies of strategic resources to build 5 or so different T4s 🤣

[indigo yarrow]

(if I'm being completely honest the magic material idea is also dead in the water because fedual exists and will get tier 4s anyway)

[pliant lintel]

If the third point kills Timmy's dragon armies, that is a problem, if not, it's not.
The second point is fine.

[steep aspen]

so they will get a couple, sure 🙂

yes feudal can have their knights, all 4 of them.

the two rules work together and kill both monostacking and meta builds.

[indigo yarrow]

Wow that is 4 more tier 4s than anyone else.

Why would I not just pick fedual every game.

[steep aspen]

because I could just assimilate a feudal city and do the same ?

[pliant lintel]

Right. I'm not as sure as you are, but why not.
So, because of this edge case, let's experiment nothing and change the game for everyone in a way that's controversial, let's do it

[steep aspen]

the resource gating rule make every build map dependent.

if there is a feudal city there. that's the map.

[indigo yarrow]

Except fedual gets more tier 4s regardless. It's more consistent and easier to plan around that hoping for a random fedual free city.

Which everyone else will have to do because if they don't you have access to a tier 4 they just don't have.

[steep aspen]

but say if I prefer starblades or bolstering, I can gamble with the map, it's another option.

[vast hamlet]

Let be honest, magic material approach will never work too rng.

[pliant lintel]

I agree with that.

[indigo yarrow]

Too RNG, requires significantly more Dev work.

[gleaming shell]

But does Timmy need 15 T5 Dragons? Or can he play with 3-5 of them and Wyverns and Slithers and the transformation?

[pliant lintel]

But I don't agree that monostacks will be replaced by the same 18 army everywhere, it's just doesn't make sense.

[gleaming shell]

Or Calamity, Prosperity, Righteous Judge (it's a Dragon too).

[vast hamlet]

Increasing cost only to some extend, but if someone want monostack it is really hard to stop him from doing that.

[indigo yarrow]

Gamble and hope I win isn't something balance is built around.

[pliant lintel]

Oh, that's fine with me, as long as the dragon remains strong and does not become a support, totally fine with me.

[vast hamlet]

It is a bit like in Warhammer 2, some people just want to easily roll over everything else.

[pliant lintel]

Not some. Many people in many different situations want to feel the godlike feeling of rolling over AIs, that one of the appeals of the game.

[steep aspen]

why, Civ does it. If you can scout it and plan for it, it's strategy.

[gleaming shell]

My goal for Mythic units would be to have them act like Shrine of Smiting.
They are the capstone of their type and empower other units of that type.
This is problematic with the T4 units though, as it's more of a T5 unit vibe.

[pliant lintel]

My problem with that Is that it was the Pf take on high tier units, and I believe they got away from it for a reason.
Not obvious enough, you want your big dragon to be good at burning, not a utility buddy.

[vast hamlet]

So if someone want to monostack it is his choice but if he meets someone of the same approach we need balance so the other guy monostack is as strong as the first one. And then they can have their class of mono titans.

[gleaming shell]

My goal for the unit counters is for them to work as advertised on the box:

Image obtained via Jordi.

Because they do not work like this in any capacity outside of Polearms.

And enchantment/transformation stacking is very much at fault here, I'll explain why.
Let's say a T2 Polearm can fight a T3 Shock unit effectively. They match up equally.
Now I have 1 enchantment on my Shock unit. Your Polearm still has 0 enchantments.
GG. You can no longer keep up. The same applies to T3 vs T3 with 3 enchantments i.e.

Unit counters only work if they:

• Are massively OP (hard counters) to overcome the power gap
• Are equally as enchanted to keep up in power level
  And that second one just leads to even further mono stacking, it's literally a loop.

[pliant lintel]

This is obviouly fine, but out of topic ?

[gleaming shell]

Mythic and Counter balance are both key to fixing mono stacking.

Rather than trying to apply a mathematical upkeep formula.

[vast hamlet]

How?

[gleaming shell]

Because if I bring 15 Polearms, but you bring Shield+Ranged or Battle Mage. I should lose.
But in practice, I have 10 enchantments and you have like... 3 for each of those unit types.

I just win the battle through brute force. Literally having unbeatable numbers.

[pliant lintel]

I can understand the importance of counter, but still that could quickly become very punishing to new players, no?

[vast hamlet]

And I do not get the argument of unit enchanting. It is based on research speed and casting points. Someone will have more someone will have less.

[gleaming shell]

So if we cannot make the counters stronger (as they do work at a baseline level).
Then our only other option is to place a limit on unit power scaling. We're back again 🙂

[gleaming shell]

The entire game revolves around obtaining as many as possible, as quickly as possible.

[vast hamlet]

How often this really happens?

[gleaming shell]

Losing to 15 polearms?

[vast hamlet]

Exactly so what is your previous point?

[vast hamlet]

Yeah

[gleaming shell]

Happens all the time 😂

[steep aspen]

it's how technology progression is represented in this game, instead of spearman vs tank in civ, losing tech race result in no enchant vs units with 4 enchants.

[gleaming shell]

You're missing the point entirely, unfortunately

[steep aspen]

Only in MP.

[pliant lintel]

My problem is that none of this is viable. From my perspective, making T4-5 more utility oriented will just kill the fun of many people.
Limiting enchant as a baseline in the game will do the same.
After for the unit counters, if they're as strong as they are for T1 unit but start to scale normally, why not. But would that suffice to fix monostacking ?

[gleaming shell]

If my units can only have a maximum of 3 enchantments. I will change my approach.
I will no longer pick 9 tomes that offer 1-2 enchantments and transformations.
I will instead be incentivized to pick up a new unit one with a different class.

Because I cannot further increase my power, so I need to be diverse instead.

[vast hamlet]

No, someone will come with a new meta for MP.

[steep aspen]

Thank you, my solution is non-damaging to SP because it is voluntary.
@gleaming shell why are you arguing against it if you are interested in achieving the same goals.

[gleaming shell]

And when all players are bringing 2-3, or even 4 different unit types to battle...
Well, then unit counters will become more relevant, as will strategic play.
Units won't blow up in 2 hits and counters cannot be overpowerd anymore.

[steep aspen]

the same can be achieved just softcapping each unit type.

[gleaming shell]

Nope. That's completely the wrong approach.

[steep aspen]

why

[pliant lintel]

The problem with that is that, even if it would work, it would have lot of undesired side effects in the casual/RP community.

[gleaming shell]

Because you can't dictate for me that 3 units is a good amount.

Especially when playing on super large maps.

As compared to playing on very small maps.

[gleaming shell]

I'd really love to know the RP value in stacking 8 enchantments.

[pliant lintel]

Oooooh there is one, don't worry, these people love mutants

[steep aspen]

than build 4, it's a soft cap. upkeep will be 263 instead of 152 🤣

[steep aspen]

it doesn't happen 😆

[pliant lintel]

This proposes a slider, you adapt it to your map size

[gleaming shell]

Skirmish mod. Preset hero levels and unit tier restrictions. Also tome limits.

It literally proves that limits help foster diversity and create closer battles.

18-0 battles are extremely rare in this mode, unless there's a large skill gap.

[scenic blade]

Diversity exists also in team games

[pliant lintel]

No one denies that. You're completely out of the point

[gleaming shell]

That's bit of a fake diversity if we're being honest. 1 player stacking Ranged and 1 stacking Shield for example.

[gleaming shell]

No. I am trying to prove that the solutions we've discussed for 1-2 years have proven merit.

As opposed to Nekofugu trying to force arbitrary unit upkeep multipliers into the game.

[steep aspen]

has proven merit for MP.

[pliant lintel]

Right, for hardcore gamers that play skirmish, thanks. But That Is Not Timmy.

[gleaming shell]

My solutions have been tested. Have yours?

[pliant lintel]

What don't you understand with opt-in ?

[gleaming shell]

Did you miss the part where I said there's an opt-in to remove the limits?

[steep aspen]

No but I have the calculation to prove it works."

[gleaming shell]

What part of different map types and sizes require different unit amounts do you not understand?

[pliant lintel]

Why aren't they implemented then ? Oh you that have the devs ears, enlighten us.

[scenic blade]

Its still combat diversity

[pliant lintel]

Ah, that's the word slider, then ?

[gleaming shell]

Yeah. Uhm. I had a discussion with 2 people recently who believe math is a god or something. Don't even bother.

Unless your theoretical solutions are proven in practice they are nothing but theories and remain as such.

[steep aspen]

if anything, a new solution that works theoretically but hasn't been tested, is more deserving of a test than something that has been tested in a mod.

[gleaming shell]

Come back with tests and field research. Then we can talk.

[steep aspen]

is that an order, sir ?

[gleaming shell]

We're not going to have people do math and move a slider to figure out the optimal upkeep multiplier.

What a convoluted and extremely unpleasant solution.

[pliant lintel]

Yeah, respect is dead since he came in.

[pliant lintel]

Yours are equally unpleasant, Cody.

[gleaming shell]

Both NINJEW and Badok already argued enough with the both of you and you showed no respect.

You just continue on your merry way and learnt nothing from the discussion.

[steep aspen]

really, when someone ask a system to be tested, the answer was "test it yourself" wtf.

[pliant lintel]

You mean we didn't back down in front of their arguments of authority ?

[steep aspen]

yeah his solution is destructive to SP and new player experience.

[pliant lintel]

We tried to understand ? We conversed ?

[gleaming shell]

So I am showing no respect for not backing down on something I've discussed for 2 years? 🙃
Something I've discussed on the forums for 70 pages, on Discord and with the developers?

Clearly I don't know what I am doing. Not when the game copies my mod every update.

You know what. I think I'll just stop playing and being involved. I'm not improving anything.

[pliant lintel]

No. The way you're saying it is problematic, not what you're saying.

[gleaming shell]

With all due respect. Your solution is incorrect, kind sir.

[steep aspen]

neither of us have any interest in backing down TBH.
But why are you worried about devs testing this ? wouldn't it be better if they tested it if you think it wouldn't work. then you get all the cred to say "I told you so"

[gleaming shell]

Better?

[gleaming shell]

Because I am not going to spend hours to mod such a solution if I am not supportive of it.

[pliant lintel]

Sorry, but yes.

[gleaming shell]

You may mod it yourself and present the mod here for us to test it.

But don't ask me to invest time in proving your theory. That makes no sense.

I've spent enough time in proving my own theories to be valid.

[pliant lintel]

Nobody said that. But just because you have good ideas doesn't mean only your ideas are good, good sir

[steep aspen]

you don't have to do anything the devs can add it to the game as a test if they find the idea promising.

[gleaming shell]

You have my permission to ping me, DM me, or send a carrier pigeon the day that happens.

[steep aspen]

okay.

[gleaming shell]

And I wish you all the luck on your journey towards convincing the devs.

I am exiting now.

[steep aspen]

sure

[pliant lintel]

I almost as much expect to see your changes implemented, but the bet is on.

[pliant lintel]

How polite, good evening good sir.

[vast hamlet]

Because devs give me Ferrari and I drive at 300km/h?

[pliant lintel]

Oh, I love this one.

[vast hamlet]

So MP players CAN agree to some limitations in their games? If they want.

[vast hamlet]

There was respect just not agreement.

Always a fun to meet @gleaming shell at a thread. Just saying

[pliant lintel]

Oh until tonight I found him mostly interesting. But here he was so haughty and condescending, not even trying to understand our point of view.
I have no problem with him having another point of view and other solutions than us, but I just would have liked that he respected our solutions and points of view too.

[vast hamlet]

His point of view is not a problem at all. Rather his agressive way of "discussing".

[pliant lintel]

That's a way to put it.

[blissful linden]

To steer things in another direction, are the anti-balance folks currently happy with the way the game is developing?

[pliant lintel]

Okay. I am not anti balance, and never was.

[vast hamlet]

Anyway, as I wrote before, we will never resolve the balance issue since some drive their cars at 300km/h and some at 50km/h.

[blissful linden]

No problem, I wasn't specifically referring to you. Was just curious about the other perspective on the current game state

[pliant lintel]

I have nothing against the balance changes that have been made until now.

[vast hamlet]

Right now I heard mostly complaints about classes reworks?

But I do not follow current Beta very much tbh.

[pliant lintel]

To answer you question, I have nothing against the way the game is developping until now. Because the devs never forget Timmy, and give me new things to optimize, so that's fine by me.

[slim thunder]

It happens all the time. Stacking enchantments easily allows you to circumvent the entire mechanic of unit counters. Including in SP.

Enchantments don't just stop existing in SP.

[steep aspen]

8 enchantments ? on one unit ? list it please

[pliant lintel]

That is true. But it doesn't make untrue the fact that stacking enchant is a funny bit for new players. My first faction was one which stacked a lot of enchants and transformations. And the all-transformed ruler is still a classic.

[slim thunder]

You aren't serious if you don't understand that enchantments can be stacked. We have the AoW 4 github where you don't even have to be in game to experiment with stacking enchants on units.

[steep aspen]

me ? serious ? never.
Jokes aside list which 8 enchantment you would put on a unit.
it would mean going past tier 5 tome. You can usually end the game before then. unless it's large / very large maps with hard / brutal AI.

at that point, I can RP as a megalomaniac that watch their enemy explode into rainbow colored bits.
or just Princess Twilight Sparkle 😸
where is my equine form.

[pliant lintel]

Even if that is true, it doesn't mean that unit counters scale well into the game, while enchants really do.

[steep aspen]

that is true, but the discussion is what is the possible RP justification for stacking 8 enchantment.
It is only justified by the love of rainbow.

[pliant lintel]

That I get behind.

[steep aspen]

The edgelord version of this 😸

[slim thunder]

I can think of plenty of RP justifications. Like, I dunno, playing a leader who enchants their people. You know, like the game encourages you to do. Even if that weren't true, not everyone plays the game to RP. In MP or SP.

[pliant lintel]

Well, you agree then ?

[steep aspen]

I rarely do that because it involves playing for days on one map, and real time is a precious resource. but yelling "taste the rainbow !" at an enemy hero as they explode into 8 colored sparkles is therapeutic.

[indigo yarrow]

I do searing blades, compound def, bloodfury, flame blessed keeper's mark accursed/blessed armor pyre Templars sometimes, which is 8 with a culture enchantment (and would be 9 if you could give them legion of zeal)

[slim thunder]

Therapeutic as it may be, other people should be allowed to voice their concerns when a particular playstyle becomes so over-the-top that there's little reason to do anything else. And it's rather tasteless to look down at people who play multiplayer just because you don't.

[green turret]

Sigh. Really sad to see that even with initial good(ish) intentions, the hardcore vs hardcore discussion always devolves into circular, pointless banter

Neko I understand, but didn't expect L'ami to radicalize so much so quickly xD

[indigo yarrow]

(I think the main issue with enchantment limits is that they are a bit awkward with stuff like compounding defences that are very limited in what units they effect)

[pliant lintel]

What is your solution to enchant/transfo stacking then ? I can understand that you dislike that it becomes one of the main power scalings in the game, but how do you propose to fix that ?

[green turret]

Yep, fixing the enchantment issue would require a complete rebuild of the system

Not really something to fix at this point without significant dev effort

[pliant lintel]

Or a complete new game, depending what you want to do with it 🙂

[slim thunder]

I don't have a particular solution. I just play the game. The issue I take is the overall tone that MP players are drama queens and should just sit down and shut up.

[green turret]

^

While in reality it's hilariously akin to the woke crowd vs the antiwoke crowd

[pliant lintel]

I never said that. I radicalized when I got found one of the core ideas of Neko interesting and saw the condescention he faced.

[green turret]

Yes, and you completely ignore all arguments, coming from a place of experience, that show how unviable these core ideas are

I'm disappointed man

[pliant lintel]

Unviable maybe, but why thrash him for proposing them and trying to make them work.

[slim thunder]

When you call an entire player base drama queens, blame them for mechanics that are present in the game, respond to their valid concerns with rolling eyes emojis, call them salty, and generally insult them in every backhanded way possible in your opening post, you should expect a touch of blowback.

[steep aspen]

1 searing blades
2 compound def
3 bloodfury
4 flame blessed keeper's mark accursed
5 blessed armor
6 Culture

[green turret]

...did you not see how he presents these solutions?

The man is begging to be mocked

[indigo yarrow]

1 searing, 2 compound, 3 bloodfury 4 flame blessed 5 keepers 6 accursed 7 blessed 8 culture.

[pliant lintel]

Right. But that blowback became interesting, and evolved. And i got bothered that people kept coming back to his absence of diplomacy instead of focusing on what's interesting here. But well, that was maybe not the right place to want that, you're maybe right.

[green turret]

(to be fair, I think I dealt most of the rolling eyes in this thread )

[slim thunder]

Just be careful. Wouldn't want them to fall out of your noggin.

[green turret]

So you agree that his ideas are unviable ("maybe") AND that he lacks diplomacy. What is left there to defend?

[steep aspen]

I don't care about getting mocked, if people attack me personally it means they have no logical arguments.

[green turret]

Yeah, show me the spreadsheet again

[pliant lintel]

Opt-in ramping upkeep I find interesting. And I disliked the alternatives that were proposed by you or Cody, so I stayed.

[steep aspen]

as many times as you want 🤣

[pliant lintel]

Maybe. But I found some of his ideas new and interesting, so I got bothered.

[green turret]

Do you agree with the criticisms that the ramping upkeep would make the game more unbalanced, tending towards builds with either high incomes or high unit variety?

[scenic blade]

Currently best balance mod for live auto combat games we have is evolved. Although i like that dread is making pbem dedicated mod also as both game types need different balance

[steep aspen]

thanks, I get attacked by MP drama queens so you don't have to 🙂

[green turret]

Aye. Shame we have no combat cards, I'd gladly play pbem with mostly auto vs ai

[scenic blade]

Combat cards?

[pliant lintel]

Well, I don't get that. Eco is always a means to ramp up and dominate, and that's already the case, no ?
And isn't high unit variety what anti monostack people want ?
You get why I'm confused, I hope.

[green turret]

"Drama queens", he says. Meanwhile the OP 😂

[scenic blade]

I would be up for it any time as i commonly have less time to play long matches in one sitting

[indigo yarrow]

They were a planetfall thing I believe, you got one every so often to spend to do a manual combat. Could store up to 3 I believe.

[pliant lintel]

No diplomacy to be seen indeed.

[green turret]

In Planetfall we had a feature that limited manual combats that players could perform. There was a special pseudoresource with a cap and refresh rate configurable in the lobby.

It would be great here to enforce auto vs chaff (reducing time spent on boring battles) while allowing to clear wonders earlier than full auto vs ai would allow

[scenic blade]

Those seem abusable though i would prefer either full auto or full manual

[steep aspen]

look at how people respond on forums where replies are held accountable.

[green turret]

Sorry, I have no benefit of the doubt left to give, I'm in full mock mode

[steep aspen]

on discord anyone can make 100 replies with no argument to gaslight.

[scenic blade]

Because wonders give great rewards i wouldnt allow them to be manual too much reward for no risk

[steep aspen]

keep it up you are doing great

[pliant lintel]

Oh, I don't say your the only one and that's your first time. Still, you started this thread without diplomacy 🙂

Without

[green turret]

Yeah, but on the other hand clearing the wonders earlier leads to an earlier player clash. PBEM already has the problem of the long winded PvE phase, no point extending it

[slim thunder]

There's only one drama queen in this thread, and it's not the multiplayer enjoyers.

[scenic blade]

I personally had pbem games end before turn 30 because of how fast paced they were

[pliant lintel]

Too easy also. Read the middle of the afternoon conversation, you'll see.

[green turret]

They have low turn count thanks to being able to abuse combat AI, I mean that having to manual AI to minimize losses takes a lot of real time instead

[pliant lintel]

Victimizing is on both sides of this debate.

[steep aspen]

or the forum first week after each DLC.

[wooden cave]

PBEMs games are shorter since 1v1 maps in general are just small tbh

[scenic blade]

Combats vs AI after a while get pretty fast still how fast engagement is depends on map size

What i dont like is if you allow manual vs wonders then you will have people having progenitor golem spell on turn 10

[pliant lintel]

Uh. A new hijacking seems to be in progress, or I don't follow

Go ahead if you want, no one will read again this thread, it's far too long I believe

[steep aspen]

No big loss the details are on the forums anyway.

[green turret]

The difference is the, heh, math. You will usually recruit as many units as it's practical. When unit upkeep is static, a player with 2x stronger economy is unlikely to have 2x larger army because he doesn't really need it, better to use the economy elsewhere. They will also not likely have a stronger main army because you can reasonably afford a powerful 3stack of optimized units without trying too hard.

With exponential unit upkeep a player with 2x stronger economy will be able to field, let's say, 1.2x larger army than a player with 1x economy. Because the upkeep becomes prohibitive, the large economy player will have more high quality units (let's say 3 copies of each T4/T5 instead of 2), creating a significant advantage in the doomstack power level.

---

The same applies to nature beasts builds. They will have a variety of T4 units, so even with 2 copies each they will be able to field many more quality units than a non-nature, non-eco-optimizing opponent.

This means that the meta after implementing the exponential costs will promote playing nature, materium and astral. The other affinities will be less viable, leading to smaller pick rate, leading to a more stale meta and less balanced content.

On another layer, T3+ tomes that don't have units will be picked less, because players again are incentivized to max their power concentration and fewer kinds of T4+ units available means their doomstack will have less power.

You will indeed encourage builds that have more unit variety

But you will decrease the overall build variety

Leading to similar builds in every session and the game getting stale

[pliant lintel]

Do you mean that, right now, in Mp the research and eco optimization is not already a key part of who wins and who looses ?
And I mean, the person who has a better eco can already rush buildings and scale faster.

[green turret]

Yep

And this change will make it worse

Because not only is the other guy scaling faster, his power ceiling is also higher

[pliant lintel]

And the order affinity tree is already weaker in mp, and order tomes for instance still have some spis.

[steep aspen]

this assume that 1. there are enough economic tomes in the game that if you take them there will be no room for anything else. 2. There is some alternative to a strong economy , which is a option and not a must.

[green turret]

Is the argument "the balance is already poor so making it worse is not a problem"?

[steep aspen]

with a unit cost ramp, you will a lot of time take say dungeon, fertility or transmutation for economy, but those are t2 tomes anyone can take.

[pliant lintel]

No.
My question is, will it really be worse or just as bad as it already is ?

I can understand that you fear it.

But it's not obvious, to me, at least.

[steep aspen]

not necessarily, let's assume no resource requirement for units. unit cost ramps gives less incentive to enchant stacking, so you have more viable units overall.

[indigo yarrow]

The thing is that you would probably just get a unit that shares most enchantments with your main one.

[pliant lintel]

There are already tomes that are considered subpar, won't that just change which one is and which one isn't ?
I can be mistaken, but I don't feel it obvious.

[steep aspen]

put it this way, a player that focus on tomes that gives units and economy, they don't have as much to invest into enchantment, so their "good" units won't be as godlike. so the doomstacks strength would not be higher. your analysis predicate on enchant stacking meta, when you said yourself the meta will now be economy and unit diversity.

[green turret]

I'm certain it would be. To what extent, it's hard to say. If you limit the exponential effect to only T4/5 units it might not be that bad but it will still promote tomes with units at the cost of the tomes without, it will still promote gold and mana over other resources, pruning the paths to victory

There are definitely more "carroty" ways to limit monostacking, this here is quite a stick

[pliant lintel]

Hmmmm
I would limit it to t4-5.
Won't it just make research a less obvious goal, and wouldn't that be healthy ?
I'm not in the meta, and just asking.

[indigo yarrow]

It still would because you would need to research more units to keep up.

[pliant lintel]

That's true, but monostacks would become duostacks 😁

[wooden cave]

Genuine question here. If the AI becomes more competent and can effectively threaten the player in any stage, then these changes being proposed are hard fixes, and doesn't solve the issue of balancing. Do you really want to play against an AI with these lock-ons? Then AoW4 isn't really AoW4 is it?

In this case, would you not rather implement balancing on tome/units.

[pliant lintel]

Yes, but it would be harder to afford them, so you'd have to make choices, no ?

[steep aspen]

or you could research more enchant to whatever you already have. why are additional 4X T4 more valuable than an additional enchant for mixed T3 ?

[steep aspen]

first they are not hard fixes, they would be realm traits. second yes I would play them in SP occasionally for fun.

[indigo yarrow]

This is kind of the thing that seems on its face good, but if for example, exemplars and pyre Templars are mono stacked the two builds just kind of get merged into 1, as they share most enchantments anyway.

[pliant lintel]

I agree with balancing units. I just believe that T4-5 are inherently good with monostacking, and no amount of simple balance number-shifting would kill the monostacks.

[pliant lintel]

Yes, but still, monostacks are down. And with ramping upkeep, you'd need more than two differents t4 to do a 18 stack.
So with two t4s, it wouldn't be a monostack, but a mixed stack, goal achieved.

[green turret]

I don't think so. The research would still rule supreme because it would unlock more units and ways to earn cash. Still, it's hard to gauge the exact impact. There's no doubt that it would definitely be an entire different game

[indigo yarrow]

Basically you kind of just make the meta more "locked in" because now everyone needs to research more units, so they need to take certain tomes to get those units etc.

[wooden cave]

But you are not fixing the fundamental issue. If the AI can play similar to a human player, do you really think the tomes are balanced enough that you can win with anything? Just playing a realm trait and locking features behind is not a solution.

[green turret]

If the AI becomes more competent, the regular, MP-complainy balance issues will become more clearly apparent to the larger player base. The offending content would still need to be tweaked

[steep aspen]

depends on how good the AI get, if they are neural network AIs you won't be able to beat them with anything.

[wooden cave]

Calamity dragons were a great intro, but unfortunately that's probably the only mythic that you don't monostack

[pliant lintel]

As if the meta wasn't already locked. I mean, my hope is that with more limits, the meta will end up unlocking itself. If you need masses of mana to put 6 t4 in your armies, maybe you will take less enchants or research tomes that are locked in today.

[steep aspen]

given the amount of benefits AI receives, if it was actually competent it would be able to beat players with anything.

[wooden cave]

yeah, that's what I'm thinking. If you improve AI, it becomes a lot clearer for SP players too on what needs balance.

[wooden cave]

idk if you've played Civ 5, but modders made AI that actually were able to micromanage and battle. They then reduced the benefits they need

[green turret]

Well, let's take regular dragons for example. They get monostacked because they're chonky fat stacks of stats with burning on top. What if DoT status effects were reworked to stack lower, the dragon's stats/skills lowered and in exchange its fire breath guaranteed to inflict max burning? With most of the dragon's damage in the DoT, you wouldn't really be incentivised to keep more than two or three to keep the fire going and instead pick other units that provide different effects.

The unit doesn't have to be a defensive support to discourage stacking, it can be an offensive support. With a beat stick attached

[steep aspen]

it's still just a matter of making it the right level of hard. Neural networks are able to beat best DOTA and SC2 players in the world, so you have to define the level of competent here 🙂

[green turret]

Shucks, if only we could make a neural network based AI with difficulty levels that don't use all its capability

If only

[pliant lintel]

Yeah, but I don't believe it's what the Ai is aimed to do and what it's balanced around.
The Ai just needs to be a little challenging and then crushable, that is a big part of what the game is at the moment IMO.

[scenic blade]

Thing is dota and starcraft are real time strategies where computer can have massive advantage because it can do more tasks then human possibly could

We are very very far from computers being anywhere near the skill level of humans in turn based strategies

[indigo yarrow]

Yeah reaction time and apm is extremely important in those types of games, and computers have those in abundance.

[steep aspen]

imagine having a game that has a competent AI that isn't a completely different game 🤣

[wooden cave]

honestly rn if they want AI to be more challenging, just make it more aggressive/backstabbing. Obviously with AoW4 ruler personalities that might be counterintuitive to RP

[scenic blade]

You cant hit a computer with skill shot as it will know exactly where it can stand to avoid it

[pliant lintel]

Hm, I basically don't believe that making t5 supports is viable for the game. But in your precise exemple, if dragons still feel like they kick ass, that's fine by me.

[steep aspen]

they also beat world champion at go.

[scenic blade]

But again thats rts turn based are different

[steep aspen]

no go is a board game.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaGo_versus_Lee_Sedol

[scenic blade]

It took a long ass time for computers to be able to beat humans in chess

[green turret]

"intentionally obtuse"

[steep aspen]

yeah but they do it consistently once alpha-beta pruning and opening-closing database is developed.

[scenic blade]

Yes but there are so many choices in a game like aow4 and computers cant really process it that well

[pliant lintel]

I heard many complaints of player already finding the diplo AI backstabbing 😆
But I don't agree with them.
For me the Ai is mostly fine in SP, except for some obvious frustrating autobattle errors.

[scenic blade]

It could possibly learn it but it would require a massive massive processing power

[steep aspen]

LOL someone posed a gotcha scenario expecting a easy win, not a person who works in AI 🤣

[steep aspen]

attention mechanism can narrow it down.

[scenic blade]

You would have to make specific tailored AI to learn it and it would take a long ass times

[steep aspen]

neural networks are really powerful for tasks like this. we don't seem them deployed more often cause the expense and the need to connect to data center.,

[indigo yarrow]

Would also just have issues with how unlike chess and such, there is a random element to aow4 combat that isn't there in chess and such.

[scenic blade]

Just look at how chat gpt plays chess

[green turret]

Yeah, I don't mean the T5s to be LITERAL supports, just for them to have a combat effect that reaches further than themselves. Another good example is the Shrine of Smiting, it needs other units in combat to function properly. Or the Horned God, at some point flooding the map with vines and summons becomes suboptimal

On the other hand you have things like Golden Golems who are boring just boring beatsticks.

Please understand, I don't want to make high tier units bland. I want to give them unique effects that make you want to have a variety of them available

[scenic blade]

He doesnt seem capable of learning it

[steep aspen]

you fine tune from something that does adversarial search. GPT is not an adversarial engine.

[green turret]

Sorry massa, I forgot that your peepee is large and wide, you are of course correct

[steep aspen]

I am, now go sit in a corner.

[steep aspen]

not the right architecture. if does things like drawing by tacking on GAN.

[indigo yarrow]

It would kind of be like teaching a computer to be good at like Magic the Gathering. It could be pretty good at it, but it wouldn't get anywhere close to how good they are at like starcraft.

[scenic blade]

We are far away from computers being able to play you on level playing field in games like this there are just too many variables

[static ridge]

oh boy this is still going

[steep aspen]

this game isn't really that much more complex than go.

[scenic blade]

Computer is very good at finding some solutions that are pretty rigid without much chaos in it

[static ridge]

yeah planetfall t4 design was great. shame that it was so hard to actually justify using them in practical conditions, but the way that just having 1 or 2 around was a huge power boost was great

[steep aspen]

anyway, when it inevitably happens in a few years, people will move the goal post and say it can't beat dark souls on the first try, therefore it will never be good as humans

[scenic blade]

More order there is in it better it will do chess is a great example of it as it doesnt really have chaotic element that AI would need to adapt to

[green turret]

I helped!

[static ridge]

when a 4x ai can beat a mid-skill 4x player without cheating i will herald our new ai overlords

[steep aspen]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_poker_player
pretty good at poker too.

[pliant lintel]

I would agree with that if the shrine was precisely not a dragon.
I understand that, if i'm not mistaken, you want to make higher tier units dependent on lower tier units, and that's fine by me.
I just don't believe it will happen because a common power fantasy it to amass big dragons and watch them burn things to the ground. That's all I mean.

[green turret]

That from a certified AI specialist, it must be true

[static ridge]

these are games that are a lot easier to mathematically represent and solve than pretty much any strategy game

[scenic blade]

Yea i wouldnt trust things written on wikipedia much

[static ridge]

people have been cheating at poker by having the computer play for them via counting cards for ages

[scenic blade]

While there is great deal of mathematics in poker i dont think it would be able to beat humans as computer would also require to be cunning

[static ridge]

i bet a computer has a hell of a poker face when it's bluffing

[steep aspen]

Please look it up yourself, they are pretty good at all sort of gambling to the point they are typically banned.
Anyway. basically balance issues still wouldn't matter for SP if AI was genuinely good, because the problem is reverse,
there is no amount of bonus player can receive that would allow them to win

[static ridge]

what

[pliant lintel]

That what I fear will make the dragons not get the planetfall vibe. Not that it wouldn't be fun, but i really don't think it will happen, and i'm not sure it should, because we're only hardcore gamers quite liking the idea.

[static ridge]

if the ai was good balance would be critical to SP

what is the leadup to this bizarro statement

how did i end up here

[scenic blade]

I doubt it would be very good at bluffing

[green turret]

No, not exactly. It can go both ways. Some T5s can utilize lower tiers, others can boost them, others (horndog) can just be big supports. I just want effects that incentivize a variety over fielding the same thing. Because of this power concentration thingy, the only real way to achieve it is by gating a not-insignificant portion of the unit's power behind some kind of a synergy (or antisynergy in the example of multiple dragons not contributing much to the burning)

As a bonus, this would also spice up the tactical combat, as you may want to prioritize units providing certain effects to the rest of the army

[static ridge]

idk man i feel like "one big dragon blows away an army" is a much more iconic fantasy image than "an actual army of dragons"

they kinda obey the ninja law of conservation right

[scenic blade]

We currently have Balors Reapers and Shrines that are viable for t5 in vanilla

Rest are too weak

[static ridge]

shrines are viable now?

cool

[scenic blade]

Yea with pyre templars they slap

[static ridge]

oh that makes sense

[scenic blade]

As a monostack they suck ass

[static ridge]

piggybacking off the pyre templar build to sneak in there

[scenic blade]

But 3 shrines with army of pyres are nightmare to deal with

Especially with champion ruler

[indigo yarrow]

Makes sense, good single target damage, needs a frontline.

[static ridge]

also it's worth noting that not every planetfall t4 went with the "actually a support" deal? some of them were just super powerful in a particular niche that needed cover to do its job. like idk i guess i can't say i ever saw anyone attempt mass sonokarns but with a 10 damage basic attack and needing a turn to charge up their big stupid laser it seems intuitive that you'd want most of your army to be blockers for them,

[green turret]

Yes, because good ai would not be able to have difficulty levels

[static ridge]

herald of oblivion had "basically guaranteed 'just ok' damage against everyone" but was a nightmare to actually kill and had a ridiculously huge engagement range. they also costed population to produce

earth crushers were straight up beatsticks

[pliant lintel]

Even worse, if dragons are made to win 1v6 😁
Seriously though, both are nice fantasy image, but one is also a powertrip and therapeuthic, the other one less so.
But well, I won't continue debating that point, if you still want strong t4-5 that embody their tropes, that's fine by me.

[green turret]

Currently ranged heroes fill the niche of allpowerful units that want cover

[steep aspen]

yeah but the difficulty level will matter much more than balances.

[static ridge]

maybe finding a flavorful way to work in something like this would help

make the dragon able to eat an allied unit and gain stats depending on what tier of unit it ate

dragon can 1v6 if it brings 5 snacks

[green turret]

Bud, can you hold a single opinion for more than one post?

[scenic blade]

Yea eldrich is prime example of that

[static ridge]

i want to hear it explained how ai being good would make balance not matter, instead of mattering a ton, since then balance would directly affect the difficulty of the AI

when the AI can use an OP strat against you the fact that strat is OP is suddenly much more relevant to little timmy

[steep aspen]

can you not tell personal attacks are useless ? you reject an idea that you admit was valid, because you don't like me. what's there to talk about.

[green turret]

Can a good AI able to beat the best players not be limited to emulate a mid level or a beginner player? Why do bonuses even need to enter the equation in this world?

Then a well balanced game is crucial

[green turret]

Of course they're useless, because you are right and girthy and no amount of argumentation can change that

[pliant lintel]

You kill the Rp people with that. And me, I like my Dragons nice ! No killing my friendly toads !!!! 😁
That's probably why dragons are meatsacks that breath fire and deal damage : there's too many fantasies about them.

[static ridge]

they're like, always solitary creatures tho

[green turret]

You could still give them a devour ability with a %chance of success vs an enemy and guaranteed vs an ally 🤷‍♂️

[static ridge]

what a posterchild for "you should only be rewarded for having 1 or 2 of these in your army"

[scenic blade]

In any case dragons are just slaves to giants in this game

[pliant lintel]

That's not true in Mtg for instance, but often is.

[static ridge]

you can also alkways just engage in little timmy's favorite pasttime: making 18 dragons anyway despite it being a bad idea and winning because you selected normal ai to fight against

[green turret]

@steep aspen can you respond to this? Ninjew stated it more diplomatically

[pliant lintel]

Hm, but would that be hard to balance against an enemy ? Either too strong or too weak ?
But if its also viable not to sacrifice your own units, why not.

[static ridge]

i thought little timmy didn't need "viable"

kiddo does whatever he wants and gosh darn it, we gotta let him

certainly can't stop him

little timmy is more powerful than any of us could imagine

[pliant lintel]

It's precisely why I agree with it 🙂

[static ridge]

i thought you were arguing against the planetfall endgame unit design

[pliant lintel]

No, but if you make a change to make it interesting to hardcore players who want to rp (me), do it well 😁 😁 😁

[static ridge]

sure, any balance change should preserve the identity of what's being altered, or at the very least give it a compelling new identity

[indigo yarrow]

I think the issue with the dragon thing is more it doesn't really seem economically viable because you are basically killing probably 2-3 units every time you fight with a dragon.

[static ridge]

little timmy will find a way

he is too strong for us to contain him

[indigo yarrow]

I mean this is more about having them be good as a tier 5 unit, little Timmy will be fine.

[static ridge]

from an mp point of view, throwing away some units to win a critical battle is definitely worth it

[pliant lintel]

It's based on cosmite economy, that is very anti-timmy, and I got frustrated by the xeno t4 stacking that happened to be useless, while it seemed obvious that it had to be powerful in my eyes.
Planetfall t4 are not all instinctive.

[steep aspen]

anyway, on the "good AI" issue. if AI was good, it would need different balances for different difficulty levels, because they will be entirely different games.

[indigo yarrow]

The other way would be like adding that old leadership clash but for dragons which... Probably isn't happening given the response to it before.

[static ridge]

a battle has 3 outcomes:

1. you win overwhelmingly
2. someone has a phyrric victory, both sides are more or less wiped (the most fun tactical battles are these)
3. you lose overwhelmingly

in the cases of 2 and 3, being able to sacrifice units to turn that into a 1 is just all profit. if you are already heading towards 1, i'm not so worried about you taking a few more losses than you would otherwise in exchange.

[green turret]

This is a solved issue, Kharagh is a thing. You can kill it to retrieve your unit

[static ridge]

this is a wild statement, care to explain your reasoning behind why every difficulty of ai needs its own unique game balance state?

woah hold on

[pliant lintel]

You can retrieve only one unit. If the mechanic is about eating multiple units, it's different.

[static ridge]

this sounds like balance matters a complete assload

it matters so much that every ai difficulty needs its own unique balance state

that's really putting balance up on a pedastal, damn

[green turret]

Well if you let the dragon roam so long that its cooldown goes down multiple times, whose fault is that really?

[green turret]

I concur, little Badok loved turtling his Frostling cities to max and then roflstomping the AI with stacks of white wolves ❤️

[pliant lintel]

Ah no. I'm speaking of ninjew's idea inspired by the indentured mechanic. You'd need to eat multiple units to make it an anti-monostack mechanic.

[static ridge]

i want a t5 lich that gains power by draining the hp of all allied units

give me the vortex of souls

[green turret]

Oh, sure, that would need careful tweaking

Still a perfectly workable idea

[indigo yarrow]

Completely breaking the anti monostack idea by making an undead unit that gets stronger everytime you revive it.

[static ridge]

as long as it needs to be revived by a different unit

[pliant lintel]

But that would need ally eating to be optimized I guess, I'd probably prefer it on a demon or a lich.

[indigo yarrow]

It would be but now you just stack like 15 necromancers.

[pliant lintel]

Their weak t2 now, you might need other units too.

And against a pyre templar monostack that wouldn't work I guess too

[static ridge]

each type of dragon powers up in a different way. maybe your dragon eats 500 gold per power boost instead of people. maybe it consumes your CP. maybe it is powered by worship and gets small boosts for each t3 unit on the field (more like fueled by servitude, but probably more gradual)

i bet an actual game designer could come up with even cooler ideas!!!!!

[pliant lintel]

Hm. That does make the dragons more complex and probably engaging, but that doesn't solve mp monostacking problem, does it ?
Or yes it does with the extreme upkeep, but that's basically what I found interesting in Neko's proposal 🤷‍♂️

[green turret]

Care to explain why that is? A newbie player, an intermediate player and a hardcore ultra pro maxxor play on totally different levels, but they're playing the same game. Why would different AI difficulties - which are supposed to model different levels of challenge - need separate settings?

[static ridge]

each one of those ideas is basically unworkable with monostacking dragons

[pliant lintel]

Yeah right, if the requirements are high enough that's true.

[static ridge]

assuming the dragon needs to use its power boost to be powerful, what're you gonna do, pay 7500 gold to boost all 15 of your dragons one time? when it's designed to become super strong after several boosts?

i admit i don't know what a lategame aow4 economy looks like

but sounds like a hideous amount of gold, even in the "gold don't matter" phase of the game

[pliant lintel]

But that's mostly like Neko's idea of ramping upkeep, it's just intertwined with the lore of the game. I can understand you prefer it that way, but still.

[green turret]

Somehow people drown in gold and mana, we're talking +300-500 per turn. I could never emulate both at the same time xD

[static ridge]

i mean it's the same cost per unit per use, no ramping involved. it's also specific to this one unit instead of applied to everything?

[indigo yarrow]

I think a dragon that cared about tier 3 units would be fun just as like a thing to help grow other dragons.

[static ridge]

ok but what is the actual hoard size

could you actually afford burning 22,500 gold on one fight

[green turret]

A couple thousand usually. People quickbuy a lot

[static ridge]

ok sounds like the concept remains intact

good job picking an arbitrary number ninjew

[indigo yarrow]

I've had I think like 11,000 at one point before blowing half of it on double rally.

[static ridge]

thank you ninjew

you're welcome ninjew

[pliant lintel]

Right. But the price is so prohibitive that it's not that far.
Doing that work for every t4 and t5 is enormous, and even more unrealistic than Neko's sliders, no ?

[static ridge]

redesigning every t5 in the game? yeah it'd be a bit of work

[indigo yarrow]

To be fair I assume the default would be more like shrine of smiting.

[pliant lintel]

And t4

Because pyre monostack is t4 monostack

[static ridge]

just a little work

[green turret]

Oh yeah, this is a very difficult problem to solve. Don't fall for a trap of simple solutions

[indigo yarrow]

Basically you don't get their full output unless you actually have different units.

[green turret]

Game design is hard

[static ridge]

no badok, i can solve an issue caused by the confluence of multiple core game mechanics in one fell swoop, without needing the devs to do hardly any work

[green turret]

I doubt it, you are not ranked 5th in shogun

[static ridge]

i'm just that much smarter than triumph is

[static ridge]

damn... pwn'd

[green turret]

https://tenor.com/view/cowboy-gun-shooting-smoke-gif-5591465

[pliant lintel]

The question is : is it a too simple solution, or is the absence of other realistic solutions a bigger problem ?

I'm not sure I'm clear.

[indigo yarrow]

Just remove everything except the piglet.

[pliant lintel]

It's so big. Do we prefer not being able to hope for realistic solutions, or do we prefer to try weird solutions that might work ?

That's my only point.
Dev won't rework dozens of units one by one to avoid monostacking, or I would be very very surprised.

[static ridge]

i'm really disappointed i never got an explanation for this

[pliant lintel]

So, do we try to find ways to solve things, or do we just stop trying because the perfect solution won't probably happen ?

[pliant lintel]

I didn't follow this part of the thread sorry, I can't help.

[static ridge]

they might if they have other reasons to do it as well

realistically i do not predict that monostacking will be "solved" by aow4. it is caused by too many things that are too central to the game's design. enchantments. how tomes affect unit access distribution. the inherent value of power density. enchantments again. enchantments a third time for good measure.

[static ridge]

enchantments 1: lack of a cap
enchantments 2: availability of powerful general-purpose enchantments ("i get +2 damage") instead of enchantments that only provide power in niche or specific circumstances
enchantments 3: most tomes only offer enchants for a limited selection of unit types

[green turret]

It's hard not to fall back on the appeal to authority, but it's real here. We really do have a bunch of experience dealing with MP balance problems and can tell you with full certainty that the proposed changes as is would not help the issue, and would not make it easier for devs to develop the game better. The sliders will not solve the balance issues by letting people tweak settings, they will only create multiple balance environments with multiple balance equilibriums. Just like on water maps it's better to play experienced seafarers storm giant or pick Zeal on the realm of undeath.

Except unlike these traits that change very specific aspects of the game, changing the way upkeep works, or gutting heroes completely, or requiring extra resource for unit upkeep, would have very wide reaching, non-obvious ripple effects on the entire game's balance. Forcing the MP players to learn what's good in each - and they eventually will (or would, if this was in any way enticing to play).

It's far healthier to keep the core game somewhat balanced, keeping all the options more or less equally valuable on a standard scenario (a land medium map) and add optional variations from there

[green turret]

We did get large reworks before. If there's a collective community demand, there is a chance 🤷‍♂️

We got a hero rework, water remaster, underground remaster, siege rework (ugh) and some other things I can't remember now but are real

Oh, the rank rework

Which went in a stupid direction, but it did solve some problems

(we really need bonus recruit ranks for lategame units)

Who knows, maybe enchantments are next on the chopping block

[pliant lintel]

Right, but don't variety in the mp community's possible map settings that are equally unbalanced make for more fun mp ?
I mean, of course Neko's idea would at least be as unbalanced as the actual state of things, but at least you would easily be able to mp without monostack.

I personnally never said that it would solve balance, I just said It would add unit diversity in an already unbalanced meta.

[static ridge]

"pick a random balance state" really just means "player a figured out the meta before player b did, so player a wins"

[scenic blade]

Monostack if its an issue is better solved by verbal agreement

[static ridge]

trying to figure out the meta might be fun, but the result is going to be a crushing blowout

[pliant lintel]

That's fine by me too.

[indigo yarrow]

Yeah like my thoughts on the whole thing is that if some one breaks it then like why did they agree to play in the first place.

[static ridge]

that seems kinda hard to do when you'll only have access to a limited number of high tier units due to tomes only containing 1 or none units each. like i'm sure players would figure it out but it sounds like it'd be really build constraining around certain options

[scenic blade]

Well if somebody breaks it then then concede the game

[static ridge]

which i guess is to say, nature dominates because animals

[scenic blade]

I mean 5 of same unit type is not hard to pull off

[pliant lintel]

Reworks are possible, but I don't believe in a anti monostack enchantment and unit rework.
Because
Because
Tadada
Timmy is in the room.

[green turret]

MP people who want a weird map really don't need these settings to upend the meta. But the standard rules exist for a reason. A community has an agreed upon set of rules they want to play with and refine their skill in. They know what's good and what's not, and not good content is wasted, left unused. The default rules of the game act as this standard and this is what most players see most of the time - this is the environment we're trying to find balance in

[static ridge]

means you need 3 different unit types that are all optimized right? i guess if you're grabbing the t4s offered in t3 tomes it's a lot easier, but that's what i mean by build constraining. everyone gets an extra reason to grab pyre templars

[scenic blade]

For example vanilla insanity is well insane which is why its commonly banned in vanilla skirmishes or limited

[scenic blade]

Well pyre templars are ultimate time bomb currently if the game goes for long enough they win by default

[pliant lintel]

And i maintain my doubt and my absence of will to defend such a rework if it would go against Timmy's needs. And that's often what mp people venting against monostack basically ask for.

[pliant lintel]

All right, thanks for explaning.

[static ridge]

mp players who want weird settings can do what amikdara does, find 10 random content mods on the workshop and blindly add them to the game

[scenic blade]

I mean a lot of builds are viable in evolved multiplayer

Good portion of them are monostacked but team fights bring nice variety of units

[static ridge]

are there any viable mixed arms builds that don't rely on you and a teammate monostacking a different unit each

[scenic blade]

Yes but mythics are included

Like geomancers and golden golems

[static ridge]

oh sure, pyre templars + shrine of smiting was already mentioned

[scenic blade]

Mythics skip the whole enchants require ent to be useful

[static ridge]

that makes sense, mythics are separate from the enchantments forcing you to go for one unit type so you can afford to pick "off type"

[scenic blade]

Another good mixed build is bone dragons with umbral misstresses

[pliant lintel]

That's also what I do in Sp

[static ridge]

damn i guess buffing t5s really does solve monostacking.....

[pliant lintel]

Mythics are nice to add on top of an opti build.

[pliant lintel]

No, that even better : there is already no monostacking, it's duostacking !
So I don't see what people vent about.

[scenic blade]

Early mixed build would be fury with shield

[pliant lintel]

And why it becomes such an obvious subject of controversy for the aow players that even sp players started to try and find solutions to it.

[scenic blade]

Its the nature of the game if you dont want it ban enchants and mythic units and play like that

[pliant lintel]

Oh god, I though bone dragons were dead in mp, I happy to read this 🙂

[pliant lintel]

I love your view on house rules m0rgi, thanks for that.

[scenic blade]

Bone dragons are quite strong and good for timing attacks they are probably the most viable dragon in multiplayer

[green turret]

Let's be frank. Timmy doesn't give a quarter of a crap about what's balanced and what's not. He will take the available toys and go turtle in a castle whatever you do. Timmy will mass 15 shrines because it's what he wants to do and by god he will make that work because AI keeps throwing stacks of T2 units at him.

But when Timmy becomes a big boy, he will grow to appreciate the depth of the game and the power he can gain from replacing one stack of the shrines with faithful units. Then he will thank you for brainstorming a solution that doesn't require monostacking T5s to reach the maximum possible power

[scenic blade]

Oh remember the great times when shrines had killing momentum and couldnt be handled with single target attack

[pliant lintel]

Timmy doesn't care about balance, that is true. But Timmy likes to find in a game that is hard to learn for many (I got mauled many times in my first games), things that are easy to grasp and powerful. Enchantment stacking and dragons are just that.

If dragon become hard to make powerful against Ai, I would find it problematic.

[scenic blade]

When people try to get into multiplayer they should expect to get wrecked first couple of games no matter how good they were at single player. You cant really fight somebody that jas 2000 hours of multiplayer in game

[pliant lintel]

I spoke of sp.

[scenic blade]

I was speaking in general manner

[green turret]

Ninjew already mentioned that in AoW3 it was a problem that both sides bitched about

[pliant lintel]

I got mauled in sp because that was my first aow ever and I had only played HOMM3 a long time before.

[pliant lintel]

I don't ear people complain a lot about dragons right now. Except that they are overpriced, they seem mostly accepted.

[green turret]

Yeah, because they're the hardest T5 to monostack xD

[pliant lintel]

Right, but it is possible, and it works fine for Timmy.

[scenic blade]

Dragons in current meta sre in weird space t5 dragons are not built much. Barbarian dragon lord can be pretty scary, righteous judges are pretty good and bone dragons are good in pair with some pther summon

I would take monostack of t5 balors or reapers over dragons any time

[green turret]

And nothing I would propose will change that for Timmy. Whether I opt to move the dragon power to causing DoTs, or to buff their allies, or to be able to spend gold on pimping them out. I want them to be balanced and cool

[runic pewter]

make all dragons animals

[green turret]

I once had an idea to gate T5s behind SPIs. E.g. you'd need to build actual Dragon Lairs around your cities to be able to field dragons. How cool would that be?

[pliant lintel]

Right. All I'm saying is that complexity of use on emblematic units is not something that would be implemented, that is all.
You say that everybody ends up liking complexity, but that is only true for the people that don't stop playing.

[scenic blade]

I mean that would be good buff to them

[green turret]

Well, very cool and very problematic for balance, so that's not gonna happen

But still

[runic pewter]

someone who speaks my language

[green turret]

Can we also make animals dragons? They need the buff

[runic pewter]

just buff animal tag

or hell, fuse them

[pliant lintel]

Very cool indeed, I don't really see what that would change except delay them, but I like the flavour of it 🙂

[green turret]

...actually, giving dragons Animal and moving Draconic Fury (renamed) to the animal tag...

[scenic blade]

Dragon transformation is probably the strongest transformation in game

[runic pewter]

right now?

[green turret]

But that clashes with high/low maintenance

Needs work

[scenic blade]

Yea mainly because you keep the bonuses once it triggers

So you self harm your heroes to create them into monsters free 30% damage increase

[green turret]

I think you can also start with the bonus if you enter the battle with low hp?

[runic pewter]

yes

[pliant lintel]

This has become the absent aow4 balance thread

[scenic blade]

Self harm and heal

[pliant lintel]

😁

[scenic blade]

Its bit toxic

[runic pewter]

eh i like it

[green turret]

It would pit your high tier units against your economy. How many improvements do you sacrifice to get dragons? Could also become a part of the SPI tetris, when you can't have two adjacent lairs. There's a lot of fun to theorycraft there

[runic pewter]

except I believe most dont wanna SPI tetris

[green turret]

WHAT

BLASPHEMY

[runic pewter]

Ik. Weird ppl

[green turret]

Ugh, I tried to read Neko's forum post again

Can't get past the first section

Skimming is the best I can do

[runic pewter]

its ok, grandpa

[green turret]

Some of these ideas really have merit, but would require significant reworks

Presenting them as a simple solution is ridiculous

[green turret]

Be quiet and go play multiplayer, kid

[static ridge]

Does this include prosperity dragons

[green turret]

It will do you wonders

[pliant lintel]

Well. I'll go sleep people, thanks for the nice debating.
My very personal conclusion is : monostacking is an illusion, complaints about it are mostly venting, so why not make high tier units more engaging if you want, but nothing really drastic is really needed apparently that can't be solved by house rules for those that are really bothered.
And so there is no real Timmy vs Mp opposition, because both want strong t5 and can play with enchantment stacking. And both like units to be fun to play against and to play with, so both want some level of balance.

[indigo yarrow]

I like putting the farms everywhere and letting the farmers go to church and/or practise martial arts.

[scenic blade]

Prosperity is very powerful because they are battery for heroes

Calamity are trash though

[pliant lintel]

So Neko got bashed for wanting to solve a problem that isn't really one, and that's precisely why he got bashed.
Ah yes he also is a bit provocative on the edges, and is very bad at diplomacy. But still he tried to solve other peoples' problems because their venting took much space.

That's all for me, goodbye everyone.

[green turret]

That's a very charitable way to put this, but sure, let's go with that

[green turret]

That's a very room temperature conclusion, perfectly fit for this completely illusory conflict

[steep aspen]

Don't worry about it, I have every single multiplayer gigachad on my block list. I know what they want and how they operate.
Have a good night.

[green turret]

Then why the hell do you complain about MP players bitching about things when you have them blocked?

[slim thunder]

lol

[gleaming shell]

Because Planetfall was designed for (in the words of Jordi) "The core strategy audience".
It is actually a better game in many ways that could've been merged with AoW 4.
Instead, they deleted everything they'd built in favour of catering to Little Timmy.
And the backlash on this was apparent from the very start of AoW 4's life span actually.
People were immediately up in arms over how basic the design of everything was.
So the developers started adding more complex units, spells, effects, and such.
All of this information can be found and confirmed either on the forums or Discord.

As for the original post. Neko is trying to solve a problem he thinks exists in multiplayer.
While being a single player exclusive player and blocking all of the multiplayer people.
Then he also has 0 evidence of his solution possibly working in practice (like via a mod).
But bashes me for showing how Skirmish Mod's limits prove my theory in practice.
And entirely disrespects my 2 years of AoW 4 modding and multiplayer experience too.

Why should we ever trust that such a person has a valid theory and wants the best for us?

And don't worry, I'll go post this over on the forum just so more people see the hypocrisy.

[static ridge]

"make the game more complex in subsequent patches" was the lifecycle of 3 and planetfall too, tbf

but yes aow4 is simply a game with different objectives than pf had

[slim thunder]

Calling fans of AoW 4 and its format "little Timmy" is pretentious.

[gleaming shell]

The game has openly been said to be built for a casual audience.
This is a term often used to refer to such an audience.
If you take offense to it, then so be it. But it's not offensive in nature.

[runic pewter]

i mean, tbf, nothing is offensive in nature - its usually the context it is said

[wooden cave]

Honestly I don't think mainstream 4X are for "hardcore" audience either. Civ might've been, but there's more casuals now than anything

[gleaming shell]

I don't think there was a need to make Planetfall again, exactly in the same way.
But I find it very strange to drop all previous learnings entirely for this game.
There has already been a lot of backpedalling and updating to cover feedback.
I just feel that many things could've been avoided by looking back a little more.

[runic pewter]

Jordi did say they were experimenting to see what kind of audience they can have and still keep the lights on

[green turret]

Because MP bad, don't you get it? They're after your fun. You should hate them. They hate you, after all

[green turret]

Now that's dedication. I still can't parse this festival of self righteousness

[green turret]

There were always little Timmies in the AoW audience, playing for the wow cool things. Some Timmies grew to appreciate the depth of the games while others dropped it due to the cognitive investment needed. AoW4 is catering towards these Timmies more than the previous games through streamlining and simplification, both in the presentation and mechanics, that's an undeniable fact.

Calling the casual casuals little Timmies is not an insult, it's just an intuitively understandable descriptor. They buy the game, play a bit and either drop it or become big Timmies - but no matter the outcome, they're the lifeblood of the game

[static ridge]

referring to the abstract population of extremely low skill players as little timmy is one of my favorite parts of these discussions don't take it from me

to be clear though there is nothing wrong with being little timmy or, necessarily, catering to him

as i said before little timmy is extremely powerful, do not provoke his ire

[static ridge]

they literally repeated the crit roll accuracy issue from PF's release and had to fix it immediately just like PF's release lmao

[gleaming shell]

I just hate people. Don't take it personally though.

[green turret]

Which makes you a bit of a problematic standard bearer for the balance cause tbh xD

[gleaming shell]

It is pretty interesting to read through that entire forum post and see it claim to be a magical solution.
Suddenly nothing ever needs another buff or nerf. The developers can go wild with their imagination!
Every issue we've ever suffered from will cease to exist and we can all fix our own problems with ease.

[green turret]

At least we know you're objectively wrong because you aren't a top shogun player or working in AI

[gleaming shell]

Sorry, my best gaming achievement is being Grandmaster in TFT.

I guess I did hit Celestial in Marvel Rivals and Diamond in StarCraft II's 1v1 ladder back in season 1.
Which was before they implemented any ranks above that. So it was "the peak"for that moment.

[green turret]

Rofl xD

[gleaming shell]

Bow to me, mortals. For I am Sir Flexius Gigantus. Beware my large e-peen and cower in its shadow.

[green turret]

Ok, at least you're sort of self aware about it

But that was still exhibitionism

[gleaming shell]

Experience does matter though. As does being involved in the community and showing your knowledge.
When someone who openly dislikes multiplayer tries to give a magical solution, I can't help but be critical.

[green turret]

Yes, and that's where your balance modding and my MP playing experience come in. Flexing in completely unrelated areas is just that

...though if you think about it, starcraft is kind of relevant in a monostacking discussion 🤔

And actually so is total war

...well, non-skirmish total war at least xD

[indigo yarrow]

Yeah how easy it is to doom/mono stack is directly related to how good the economy is in the game.

[green turret]

Doom and mono stacks are two very different phenomenons, just for the record

[indigo yarrow]

I generally seem them used a bit interchangably, like I've seen doomstacks in total war just be monostacks of a high tier unit.

[green turret]

Hmm... Fair. I suppose monostacks are just super boring doomstacks xD

[gleaming shell]

The developers have shown themselves capable of taking feedback and improving the game.
They've done so on multiple occasions without causing huge disruptions to how we play.
There's always someone who gets upset. But the general consensus tends to be "good job".

They just seem to refuse to budge on solving the issue with unit enchantments for some reason.
Which is even weirder, considering they generally claim that "most people don't play that way".
So I have to ask the question, who is being hurt by changes that impact only a subset of people?

I still refer to a very old post that Lennart once made, regarding freedoms vs constraints:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/dev-diary-20-roadmap-2023.1591014/
This was before the Watcher Update, one of the best updates the game ever had.
And notably, the only update that was performed without any DLC association.

But somewhere along the line, after Watcher Update. They strayed from this plan.
We started receiving more and more game breaking options in every new DLC.
With the "clean-up crew" chasing them to fix things in free updates, from 2 DLCs ago.

[green turret]

Doomstack is an issue that stems from having to force as much power into a limited number of unit slots as possible.

Monostack is an issue that stems from the optimal way of forcing that power into limited number of unit slots being forcing as much power as possible into a single unit type

[indigo yarrow]

(generally for similar reasons in warhammer anyway, a leader/ faction buffs up one type of unit to an absurd degree that there not a whole lot of reason to train other units)

[gleaming shell]

Another thing of note is that Lennart was replaced as the Game Director by Tom Bird.
Granted, the man has been with the studio since the 1980s. He's probably gonna retire xD.

[green turret]

Yep. Why rock paper scissors when you can imrick dragonspam

[gleaming shell]

Silly Badok. Your scissors can't cut through my diamond plated paper!

[green turret]

But, but, my scissors have plus scwillion damage!

[static ridge]

I believe this happened in planetfall too

[green turret]

Well, the devs are constrained by the freedom of modular design. It's a hugely inconvenient yoke to try to make new content balanced it

[green turret]

Lennart was replaced in PF?

/jk I have zero knowledge or interest on the intrastudio politics

Hm, that doesn't sound right. When you construct this kind of a sentence, when you merge "knowledge on" and "interest in", which conjunction do you use? The first or the last?

[indigo yarrow]

Probably in, as you can have knowledge in something.

[green turret]

Hmm, true... But regardless I think the rule is to pick the conjunction of the last element of the list. Consider "I have no interest nor opinion on that topic"

So yeah, I should've used "in" either way

[runic pewter]

u aint letting that go, are you? (the shogun thing)

[runic pewter]

best kind of ism

[steep aspen]

FYI the thread looks like this to me
🤣

[gleaming shell]

Imagine being proud of that.

[green turret]

It truly is a gift that keeps on giving (https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/algorithmic-balance-through-realm-traits.1854159/post-30670598)

[gleaming shell]

Yeah, I only eXplore

[sterile bough]

i have to make a pop corn eating animation

Multiplayer comunity try to play the most efficient posible, non multiplayer comunity will not necesary do that but humans like to do thing the best they can and nobody want lose a game, at least not intentionally and so they will try to improve at playing the game and that improvement get them closer and closer to the efficient way of playing which is what multiplayer comunitty played, thats why multiplayer cant be ignore when balancing the game cause thats the finish line in the process of trying to play the game better. People by intention or just by playing the game a lot ,will improve and that get them closer to the efficiently of multiplayer.

[scenic blade]

Multiplayer still plays by specific set of rules so you will improve somewhat by playing singleplayer but once you get into multiplayer expect to lose few games till you get the hang of it

[gleaming shell]

None of the rules used in multiplayer have an impact on the baseline game design or balance though.
The only required rule is the rule of engagement, everything else could technically be removed entirely.

That is to say, balance is the same for single player and multiplayer. It's just a matter of skill and goals.

[scenic blade]

Not really as auto vs AI changes a lot in terms of balance

In auto vs AI summoning is incredibly powerful while in manual they are ok but not as good as in auto

[gleaming shell]

Manual only makes it easier. Meaning multiplayer would be harder by nature.
So any balance done based around manual is only on favour of single player.

Yet we frequently get people complaining about multiplayer balance requests.

[lapis dagger]

as someone who only plays single player i want to throw my two cents in
Balance is important in any type of game, a game being single player does not exclude it from having broken and overpowered strategies that affect the game overall health, i was one of the first to complain about the grace status from tome of prosperity i also complained about how stupid strong stormbringers were at their release, and tome of cleansing flame losing its global fire conversion was a good riddance
sometimes multiplayer may be a bit to repetitive with the balance discussion but thats just it

[gleaming shell]

It wouldn't be repetitive if the issues were addressed sooner than after 2 years

[steep aspen]

Mp also pushed for things like hero classes that were extremely controversial.

[gleaming shell]

MP never pushed for Hero Classes. We didn't even know they were being created.

[lapis dagger]

Stupid hero suggestions are not a MP exclusive thing tough just yesterday someone was screaming how polymorph was a stupid thing and not the same as a dnd druid and dindt match a druid concept

[indigo yarrow]

I think that was just a general ask to give a reason to actually make heroes that build different. Even the recent magic class changes was less out of MP asks and more because they didn't really have strong themes. (Especially ritualists whose overall theme could be summed up as "stuff supports do")

[steep aspen]

Some of the baseline stats can be tweaked, but they should be independently verified for SP.
Since it takes no effort to get things out in MP, late game units can be fairly strong because in general, if you get to the late game in SP, you already won, so it's okay to have some fun. in MP they can get almost any unit out in mass by 30-40 because economy is basically broken.

[steep aspen]

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/algorithmic-balance-through-realm-traits.1854159/
If you have a look at the entire solution on the forums, a lot of it has to do with preventing infinite economy, or allowing the game to be played (to some extent) under those conditions.

[gleaming shell]

Correct. We never had any input regarding the rework of Heroes or their classes.

The only input we gave was the same as everyone else, during the Open Beta.

[lapis dagger]

Overly complicated solution to something is not a real problem outside of a few that dont like balance discussions , that would take resources from the company that could be used devoliping actual real content

[steep aspen]

might save resources in the long run over the continuous adjustments.

[lapis dagger]

I would rather see the same people posting on the forums about the same broken startegy , them tirumph take their time from developing new classes, units tome etc to use said time implementing that suggestion, and also i find myself agreeing with most of the balance suggetions made by the dedicated multiplayer in this server more often them not

[steep aspen]

if they keep pressuring dev to fix they usually have react to it, and often it's just hammered into uselessness without adequate testing in SP context.

if they want to make it work for both they need to test it on both sides. so continuous effort is required.

[static ridge]

"It takes no effort to get things out in MP" is a hell of a statement lmfao

[gleaming shell]

Just because multiplayer makes it look easy, doesn't mean it actually is.
Something something hours of game experience breeds knowledge.

[green turret]

Don't you know MP skips 3Xes? Every MP game starts with 30k gold, mana and imperium

[static ridge]

if MP doesn't like monostacking, they should use their infinite tech to get 8 enchantments for every unit type. i can't believe those dummies never thought of that!

[green turret]

Btw I think he has us blocked on the forum too

Or is at least very good at ignoring inconvenient topics

[static ridge]

oh sure, i ain't posting for him

i'm posting for nobody but me

[green turret]

Yeah, yeah

But I would give a lot to see his explanation of the three exes

Like, a chocolate bar. Or a beer even

[green turret]

Oh my, that thread is still going

9 pages and counting

[gleaming shell]

It's a good showcase of how insane seperamos is.

He spent around 20 pages (if you tally them, probably) in the other thread doing the same.
We need to perform a poll on the populace in 3 different places and put together a thesis.

Only then might our suggestion have some merit and possibly be accepted into Valhalla.

[green turret]

Don't forget that you need to mathematically prove that your proposals are beneficial and count how many players bought the game because of them

Meanwhile the guy keeps puking up the exponential cost array as if it proves anything

[gleaming shell]

I'll get right on it.

[signal sierra]

not sure if age of wonders 4 is the game for it, but i do find the ideau of exponental price increases interesting as a pillar to ballance a 4x on

or something along the lines. honestly even linear increases is probably enough

[green turret]

Mayyybe if it was built into the game from the base design, but I'd still be skeptical. I'd need to see an example of a game that uses such a system.

What I expect most likely to happen is that with exponential costs the most optimal way to play would still be to find the most broken content (unit, spell, enchantment, whatever) and spam it. The only difference would be that only builds optimized for economy would be viable

If core content is not well balanced against each other, blanket exponential costs will just change the best build from "spamming X" to "breaking the economy and then spamming X" - resulting in less choice overall because builds with average economy will be outcompeted

[blissful linden]

Scaling costs are one of those things that just has to be really legible to the player. If I build unit x and y at the same turn in two different cities, then it feels really strange to see unit Y's cost go up when unit X hasn't even been built yet. The scaling logic then also becomes an optimization target, like Badok is referring to.

The real solve to the problem that we shouldn't skirt around is that a varied army should be the thing to optimize for.

Unit roles should have clear strengths and clear weaknesses. Obviously harder said than done, because that's obviously the target Triumph were going for

[gleaming shell]

That issue is caused by their own rule of limitless enchantments.

The one they refuse to break because of player freedom concerns.

[green turret]

Monostacking specifically? Yeah. It's part army size limit, part enchantment applying either to melee, ranged or magic, part unlimited enchantments, part small count of high tier units

After all, power concentration is the name of the game

If we had a variable army size limit (eg 10 slot stacks, but T3s take two slots and T4/5 three each - spitballing, don't hound the numbers specifically);
or each enchantment affecting every unit type in some way
or limited number of enchantments (this one is well liked because it also solves the problem of enchantments being bland individually)
or more units in high tier tomes (then we'd still have e.g. all melee, but at least it would be two or three kinds of melee)

Or any combination of the above, then the monostacking problem could be alleviated a bit

[gleaming shell]

"This one is well liked". The forum warriors say otherwise 😂

[slim thunder]

I find mana to be extremely easy to horde, even with stacking enchants. Maybe the key is just making enchantments cost more upkeep?

[green turret]

Tried that

Then you will keep them off and turn them on before key battles

[gleaming shell]

That's been brought up very often. It doesn't work. It was declined by the developers as well.

It also rewards strong economical cultures and traits very hard.

[slim thunder]

Well, shucks.

[blissful linden]

Isn't that fine, though? It means they're occupying space in your spellbook

[green turret]

Higher base cost could work if enchantments were applied (semi) individually on units, then you could have a pimped out main stack and auxiliary armies with just one enchant each... Nah, that would still have all enchantments stacked on the doomstack. Nevermind

[green turret]

It's a tradeoff, I guess. But one, banking enchants on the whole is seen as undesirable behaviour - at least by the devs, hence why spell slots are limited (which I agree with, it's stupid); and two: it rewards you disproportionately. If you keep a late game enchant banked, you essentially have the book slot saving you ~100 income in mixed gold and mana (and that's before the hypothetical price increase). This is a big deal that's worth investing in the channeling chamber (which you want anyway) and keeping two spell slots occupied by enchantments at all times

And you can pop it at any time, fight a key battle, dissolve the spell and charge it up again for the fraction of the upkeep cost

[blissful linden]

But wouldn't you have to re-pay the world map casting points and mana costs in order to do that? Feels like setting yourself on the back foot

[signal sierra]

if i were doing exponential costs and wanted to keep it readable, i would probably do buildings (or something) that turned (resources) into (melee token, which allowes you to maintain 1 melee unit) and then just make each building after the first in each city cost more and more.

or X tiers of melee units

[blissful linden]

Banking enchantments also feels weird, because it means you're less effective at clearing out armies which contributes to ranking up units more effectively and reliably

[signal sierra]

or whatever made sense for the game i was using it for

[green turret]

Correct. Again, it's a tradeoff, it's not for free - but the benefit massively outweighs the opportunity cost

[blissful linden]

Hmm, interesting anyway. Banking enchantments doesn't seem like the optimal move for me anyway, but you've said you've tried it

[green turret]

The idea is to keep only as many enchantments active as you need to clear efficiently and keep the rest stashed for major fights (players, dwellings, maybe late game gold spawners)

[signal sierra]

yeah, based on my pattern recognition from tabletop and other video games banking enchants would be optimal, (though might not be if you could be caught by supprise regulairly)

[green turret]

It used to be the go to tactic on release before we got limited spell slots (and I believe enchantments were more expensive back then, but not sure about that)

[signal sierra]

how predictable your fights are is a big factor too

[green turret]

Yup

And the game's design of "big fights tend to decide wars" lends to this behaviour

[blissful linden]

Yeah, my impression is that most MP groups tend to fight one big battle and then game over

Or at least competitive groups, my group has more skirmishes, though we also slow research and game pace way down since we like drawn out campaigns

[signal sierra]

though i suppose you could make enchantments expensive up front, and not by upkeep XD.....

which would make some odd play patterns i am sure

[green turret]

Which is a great shame, because half of it is psychological damage. A player is usually able to recover easily if they lose an army away from home.

And with a few tweaks (especially to the rank system, come on, give me bonus lategame ranks) it would be far less damaging to lose a single big battle

[gleaming shell]

When the game released we had no limit on spell slots. People would bank 10+ spells. Including echantments.

They would then cast most of their enchantments right before a big battle. Because they didn't need them sooner.

[steep aspen]

Yeah I think it's worth a test, instead of debating endlessly it might be easier just to put it in as an option and collect some data.

[signal sierra]

shrug. depends on how much work it is. i hear the sphaghetti code is barely hanging on as is, and certain things are... hard for interesting reasons.

[green turret]

There's also this little known bug/interaction that if you cast a maintained spell fully with this turn's CP, but cancel it later, you recover the full mana cost

It's inherited from PF, I don't think it was ever patched

[steep aspen]

don't think that would be how it works. unit Y's cost would go up the second X is done, even if Y is still in Queue.
if they were supposed to finish at the same time,they would not, because Y's cost just increased.

[signal sierra]

whats wrong with this?

[green turret]

Nothing, really, just a silly little bug that lets you cast an enchantment on turn start, benefit from it for whatever battles you have, and cancel it at the end to recover full mana cost 😛

[steep aspen]

it's a toggle for testing. no real harm unless it completely breaks the UI or something right 😆 .

[static ridge]

Nah there'd be some soft range of number of units that is optimal to build for, and then you'd make a different unit. The primary difference is you'd be finding your favorite 3 OP units instead of just 1. That is, strictly speaking, an improvement over monostacking but would still fall victim to "every single damn build uses pyre templars, and the other 2 units are just things that play well with pyre templar builds". In a balance sense it would still be susceptible to a meta forming and being warped around the most powerful options, but the difference in conditions would change behavior and if you are exclusively looking at monostacking that particular issue would be solved. the idea of it being a silver bullet for balance issues is beyond laughable though, the OP stuff would still be the primary determinant on what people's actions are, just a bit more obfuscated.

Personally I probably wouldn't find the result to be as fun to play mostly as a consequence of how heavy handed a means of forcing players into army diversity that is. It's like strapping yourself into the clockwork orange ludovico technique machine because you're having trouble staying awake - yes, I bet you will remain awake through a lecture now, but that doesn't make this a desirable solution.

[signal sierra]

well, there are always implementation costs. by intuition, "no underground" would just be flicking a switch. but apperently it was a major undertaking that only showed up after multiple dlc

[green turret]

...or was it actually the other way around? You pay the mana cost but recover cp? I don't remember anymore

[blissful linden]

That sounds worse, because you'd retroactively need to charge me more? What if I no longer had the money? My turns of wasted draft wouldn't be refunded

That's the reason the current build queue requires you to have up front gold before you can add a structure to your queue

[signal sierra]

ahh, yeah, thats a bit jank

yeah, i don't think you can do exponential build cost without an intermediary resouce of some kind? you can do exponential upkeep though.

[green turret]

Offtop, @runic pewter you got called out on the forum
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/algorithmic-balance-through-realm-traits.1854159/post-30676295

[static ridge]

lmfao

[runic pewter]

You're comparing me to Thiend and Cody's response to it?

[runic pewter]

ahhhh using the wrong term lol

was searching vectra or corgi

[gleaming shell]

Well, this is not a very stable individual posting.

I don't even know why he'd name you at all.

[runic pewter]

what the hell did i say that warranted that response???

closest thing i said was DEVELOPERS said an avg player has 2 minors and 1 major. Nvr mentioned enchants

[static ridge]

dude doesn't like you and threw on a "and screw that guy too" because he 's lumped you in with The Bad Crowd

[runic pewter]

now i gotta respond

[green turret]

https://tenor.com/view/bh187-austin-powers-dr-evil-coy-oh-really-gif-27480288

[signal sierra]

what the hell does that quote even mean... is jordi a proponent of 3 enchant stacking? or... is "jordi's boywife" expected to have different opinions?

[runic pewter]

Oh, u dont know

Do u see where it says "Corgi of Alexandra"?

[green turret]

^ he's the wife

[signal sierra]

im the wife?

[runic pewter]

No lol

look at my name

[green turret]

No lol

[runic pewter]

do u see where it says Corgi of Alexandra?

[signal sierra]

yeah

[runic pewter]

It used to say Jordi's Boywife

[signal sierra]

Ah, okay

so its just refering to you

[runic pewter]

yup

Which, I mean

we know WHY he referred to me by Jordi's Boywife. Lord Vectra isnt a hard name to remember

[green turret]

I can imagine how that was unclear, I meant to answer to Tree and point at Vectra

[runic pewter]

plot twist

TrembleTree is my alt acct

[signal sierra]

naw, i just homewrecked you

[runic pewter]

[green turret]

Gasp, Jordi's getting a reverse harem?

[signal sierra]

honestly, i do think in general there is.... something "wrong" (at least for me) to the general.... feel and texture of the game. compared to Aow 3 or plannet fall, i find myself mono stacking more (despite the fact that monostacking is plenty good in both those) so even on a "roleplay" level there is a.... faction texture problem... or something...

i would be willing to try enchantment limits or expo costs, or whatever else. but the issue is i don't think either of those "fix" it without more extensive context based changes that don't work as toggle options

[green turret]

Yeah, I know what you mean. I believe that in pursuit of the most modular approach possible the devs got a bit lost and, paradoxically, heavily restricted by the freeform format of the game.

If you want an average player to partake in the enchantment system, you need to make sure they stumble into at least one in their build path. So you put on average one enchantment per two tomes. But then you need to make sure a player who happens to pick a build path with one enchantment per tome to not be dramatically overpowered, so you can't design the enchantments to be too impactful or gamechanging

There's a bunch of related issues, this is a very interesting design conundrum

[signal sierra]

necromancy almost feels like the only proper "playstyle", its a good direction

it gives you additional considerations in resources and alternate troop production

(contained in the tomes)

the cultures have been getting better of late for providing an "experience"

which i am quite happy for

the fact that all research in a tome is flat is also intersting

like, orderless, non hirarchacle

[gleaming shell]

Right. But that is just solved by having a limit on enchantments, such as the 3 I brought up.
There's not a single tome path that can't muster up 3 enchantments by the end of it all.

Most of them have 5-8 in the current game, before even reaching T5.

[signal sierra]

yeah, i think 3 limit could be okay. i liked plannet falls mods system a lot

[gleaming shell]

I'm not saying enchantments themselves wouldn't need to be changed.

[signal sierra]

(more than enchants)

[gleaming shell]

Just that this is the best base solution to apply right now.

The developers need to stop being stubborn sobs about it.

[signal sierra]

the interesting thing is i remember the devs saying "dragon affinities being class limited is an intentional, thematic choice" but as far as i could see, the answer was "we don't have the ui for it" and then they got the ui for and changed how it worked

i don't get why they didn't just say "we don't have the ui for it yet"

[runic pewter]

bc that sounds like a promise

[signal sierra]

yeah. i guess so. still though, i don't actually belive anyone actually thought "yeah its cool that dragons are class limited like that"

maybe i am wrong

[runic pewter]

depends how deep that players believes in limitations

[green turret]

Sure, but then you run into the redundancy problem. The research is set in such a way that most old stuff remains usable and useful in specific scenarios (except units, lol).

If you can only keep 2 or 3 enchantments active, all previous ones will become obsolete and useless, a waste of research (which imo is acceptable, but there are some Ferrins that would disagree).

If you try and design the enchantments to be more or less equal on the power level/usefulness across tomes and only climbing in complexity, you could avoid this problem by giving you options, like "My melee guys set people on fire and can raise temporary obstacles. I now unlocked a regeneration enchantment for them - which two of the three do I want against enemy XYZ?"

Just limiting enchantments is not enough, you need to rethink the entire system from the ground up

[signal sierra]

i suppose such an individual could exist, but i am skeptical of how prevelent they are. i would say i near the max end of this playerbases belife in restrictions, and i don't get why you would do it.

(for design or theme reasons)

[gleaming shell]

There is nothing against having more enchantments in your pocket than you can cast yes.
It allows you to perhaps change them for different scenarios, you know.. Being strategic 😂
And it allows higher tier tome enchantments to be more "bombastic" like Planetfall mods.

Yeah it would require work. But it would at least solve the boring meta we have.

While also improving the quality of the game for the more casual audience who want "cool stuff".

[signal sierra]

yeah, i am kind of shocked that there was any amount of backlash against the hero change. the hero skills are specific and impactful now. like yeah i guess you can't combine anything with anything. but... eh?

i guess tome hero skills were cool.

[green turret]

Yeah, and I agree - but this is a large pain point for the theme/RP crowd. I don't want to lose my fiery blades when I pivot into, idk, order, I want my units' core identity to be fire wielders - but I feel bad when I could instead have a T4 enchantment that gives me more damage, but no fire

[gleaming shell]

But then you have people like seperamos who spew boatloads of nonsense, not even related to the suggestion.
Bro begins talking about affinity tome paths and quests and complaining about the item forge and hero reworks.

[green turret]

So you'd probably need to go the "all enchantments are more or less equally useful over the course of the game" direction and tackle all the design problems associated with it (e.g. how to not make early game enchantments OP?)

[gleaming shell]

Make a second, higher tier, fire blade enchantment 🤷

[green turret]

There are radicals in every group, fact of life

[gleaming shell]

Or something something realm trait that allows you to ignore the limit.

We already have one that removes affinity requirements for tomes btw.

I don't see how such a trait is any different from magical limits.

[signal sierra]

you could make tomes have researches which appear later than their tier. like once you hit tier 3 tomes the "upgraded fire blades" enchant becomes available if you have the t1

[green turret]

Cool, and now for every low level enchantment you need a secondary, higher tier replacement, with the associated vfx def cost. And where do you put them? Do they unlock automatically? Do you get an option to upgrade them? (how?) Are they in a separate tome of similar theme?

[gleaming shell]

We already have Fiery Arrows and Meteor Arrows.

There are other similar examples throughout the game.

But we also just have way too many enchantments tbh.

[signal sierra]

i mean, what i suggest has answers to this. no new vfx. no new name, no new tomes. they get mixed into the soup of your research options once you have a tome of X tier.

strict "mechanical upscale of previous effect" (if you want to make all enchant options more of an option for lategame in a limited enchant slot meta)

[green turret]

Yeah, that's one solution, but it would likely require a bit of a rework of the research system - we probably don't want upgrades to progress through the tome, else you're left with few toys if you choose to upgrade your old ones.

As for vfx - you could skip them, but that's shoddy mod approach. It would look much more serious if higher tiers of the same not only have the higher numbers, but also looks to match

I'm not saying this is unsolvable, just really, really complex

[static ridge]

i'm very interested to see them iterate on this concept

[signal sierra]

on... which concept?

[green turret]

The freeform "design your own tech tree" concept, I believe

Yeah, I'd love to listen in on the design discussions

[signal sierra]

man am i just failing my literacy skill checks today? (i guess i have covid, so that doesn't help XD) But... where in that text do you talk about designing your own tech tree XD

[green turret]

Hopefully they're not conducted in Dutch

[gleaming shell]

Regardless of what happens. Something needs to happen.

[signal sierra]

yeah. but people hate change, they just like "more"

[green turret]

The modular approach, I made a thought shortcut as we discussed the concept a lot before, sorry about that. I'm talking about how the tome system lets you pick and match your own tech tree and how the game designers have to ensure that whatever you do, you get access to all or at least most core mechanics

But then they need to account for the myriad of parameters that can be optimized for when you can pick your own techs and find ways to keep them in check

Like for example we used to be able to recruit champion level T4s with the right combination of tomes and faction traits

(which did btw make monostacking even worse xD)

And I btw agree that that game state was worse than the current one, but I would've gone the opposite route and made it easier to apply bonus ranks to a wide selection of units

[signal sierra]

i... agree yeah, probably. rank bonuses are good to be available

[green turret]

Poor Neko, missing such an interesting conversation

[runic pewter]

I have responded

[static ridge]

to be perfectly honest i don't think this is an existential crisis for a game that is, by all observable metrics, doing very well for itself

[green turret]

🔥

[signal sierra]

Eh. replace has to happen with "i would like to happen"

[static ridge]

i would like a pony

[signal sierra]

sure, and i support your right to tell me that XD

I have 0 bellife in the power of the conversations to enact change

they are strictly entertainment products

[green turret]

Is the original sentence "I have to pony"?

[signal sierra]

What color would you like your pony?

[static ridge]

an unworldly golden glow

[signal sierra]

nice choice

[gleaming shell]

If your entire goal is just a casual sandbox game, then I agree.

But to me, that is not what Age of Wonders has been up to now.

[signal sierra]

yeah, but its closer to what age 4 was at launch, and is a viable identity for it

its not the one i prefer, of course

[gleaming shell]

So if the game decides to go in that direction, it will lose old fans.
Will it gain more new ones? Probably. Corporate would be happy.

But I don't think player numbers would plummet if we had limits.
Not like some of the doomers over on the forums are claiming.

So long as enough attention is given to making the system fleshed out.

[signal sierra]

yeah, i agree with that. i also have the impression that removing limits are easier as mods than making sensible limits

[gleaming shell]

More importantly, it is easier for the developers to balance the base game experience around limits.
As compared to trying to balance it around a limitless environment.

[steep aspen]

what if units in queue get suspended instead of cancelled if there isn't enough gold due to the cost change ?

[runic pewter]

they clearly said they ere changing quite a lot bc they need a bigger playerbase

[gleaming shell]

I know. But they went (arbitrary numbers) 300% in that direction.
And then over the past 2 years they've pulled back to 200% instead.

[steep aspen]

that's something only devs would know.

[static ridge]

this is different form "something needs to happen" which kinda just isn't true. if triumph ignores the situation entirely and just completes content for their third DLC pass they will be perfectly fine. i believe the game would be significantly improved, but let's not get hyperbolic about the stakes of this issue.

[gleaming shell]

Player feedback after E&A was that stuff was mechanically boring. So they added more complex stuff.

They need to stop treating their players like drooling vegetables incapable of reading 😛

[runic pewter]

well ye, bc they need the feedback first. Jordi said they were throwing their hat into the void to see what they can catch

[gleaming shell]

Like that whole discussion we had about not taking a battle you would probably lose with MC.

[runic pewter]

hey now, drooling vegetables are lives too

[gleaming shell]

Basically, they went overboard in the "simplistic/casual" design of the game and pulled back.
And I think they can pull back a bit more and reach the best middle ground for this game.

[runic pewter]

sorry, what are we discussing here? Enchant limits, I presume or....?

[gleaming shell]

No, general design.

[runic pewter]

ah ok. I just forgot where we left off

[gleaming shell]

But limits in general make for more interesting gameplay choices, and the feeling your choices matter.
Imagine if form traits had no limit, that'd make no sense. Enchantments are the same thing for me.
The slight difference being that you do need some investment to actually get them unlocked.

Imagine if unit medals had no limit (like AoW III). Or if tomes weren't capped by affinity (realm trait btw).

[runic pewter]

Speaking on unit medals

[gleaming shell]

There are plenty examples of limits in the game, to keep the gameplay interesting.

[runic pewter]

I think I like @green turret's idea of less medals

[green turret]

Which one? Dropping rank count to 2 or 3 promotions?

[runic pewter]

yeah

[green turret]

Uhh now to recall what I proposed there

[runic pewter]

All u said, afaik, is make it so there are 3 medals instead of the current amount bc u said if one side loses legends and other wins, even if the legend-loser can create an army to make a comeback, the gap from sheer stats from medals would make it harder

[green turret]

Oh yeah, part of my musings about the ranks and comebacks. In a nutshell, I want players to be able to recruit high quality (ranked up) late game units to replace their high quality (exped up) they might have lost to diminish the phenomenon of players FFing after a single major loss.

Whether by reducing the power ceiling of the ranks (or flattening the curve at least) or by introducing ways of getting extra ranks in the late game (e.g. T4 TH improvement, end of the common empire tree branch, an SPI with a high upkeep, a city mode that halves draft gain in exchange for an extra medal, common research that unlocks with the first T4 tome) so that it's easy to eventually get at least a couple extra ranks, but hard to max them out (basically have them at the end of separate progression systems)

[runic pewter]

interesting idea

[static ridge]

eliminate xp

[green turret]

It's one of my peeves with the BM and Support rank rewards. You pretty much can't get these units to unlock their ability upgrades if you recruit them after the exploration phase is over

[green turret]

Would you like a realm trait with that?

[static ridge]

sigh it probably wouldn't convince me to play the game no

[runic pewter]

oooooh i didnt think about that

mod idea downloaded

[slim thunder]

I'm sure this has been brought up, but I'm curious as to what the perceived issue might be.

What if enchantments were treated as unlocking new equipment in Planetfall, and every unit had multiple slots for enchantments to create new production patterns? That way, enchantments can be limited by the slots a unit has.

[indigo yarrow]

People found that system to have a lot of micromanagement in planetfall.

Endless legend 1 had a similar system, you got (and researched) basic equipment for your heroes and units.

They mainly had an issue with every time you got a new mod/equipment set you then had to spend a pretty decent chunk of your turn updating units.

And then whenever you got a new unit you had to update them with the equipment/mods you had.

[slim thunder]

Fair enough. I still think it'd be an elegant solution that most 4x fans could cope with.

I really didn't like Planetfall. But I did think that feature was neat-o.

[indigo yarrow]

Yeah it's one of those systems that is actually pretty neat to get into but also can just kind of feel like doing chores a lot of the time.

[gleaming shell]

That was my original suggestion. 3 slots for enchantments like in Planetfall.
To avoid micro management, I'd make it 3 slots per unit class instead.

And that is still the suggestion I'd advocate the most for.

The basic idea is to have some kind of UI element like this.

But I have some forum warriors telling me how this will destroy the game 🙃

[indigo yarrow]

I do think it would still run into similar issues on learning one in PF and EL had, it would probably have less of an issue because it would be similar to updating EL units but with like 3 items instead of like 7 I think.

[gleaming shell]

This is the best compromise I can offer between "single unit enchantments" and "blanket enchantments".

The only other alternative I can personally come up with is to group echantments.
And then you have to make a limit of for example only 1 per group may be active.

But I don't like how that plays out. It removes a lot of the strategic aspect.

[green turret]

I mean, dividing enchantments into e.g. "Offensive", "Defensive" and "Utility" has some merit. You can even add a bit of a twist and give different classes different enchantment slots (e.g. Fighters have [Offensive, Defensive, Wildcard], shields [Defensive, Defensive, Offensive/Utility], Supports [Defensive, Utility, Offensive/Utility] and so on). This actually adds some depth to the system and further differentiates unit types

I started writing up design for a mod that would do just that, but then I saw how much work that is and stopped

[gleaming shell]

^ That's more of a combination of both of the above.

I meant just "You can have 1 enchantment of group X" for the global cast enthusiasts.

Even though I absolutely hate the fact that casting an enchantment is global.

[static ridge]

i've been saying more or less this same thing for a while now lol

the problem with PF's unit mods was that you had to apply them to every damn unit, and could have multiple of the same unit where each individual instance has different mods (and therefore different capabilities). this was really annoying to keep up with and keep track of, so streamlining that system to be empire-wide was a smart move in aow4. obviously, there's all these other issues i don't want to reiterate, so being able to customize per unit role brings the advantages of slot limitations without bogging the game down with per-unit micromanagement

[royal sandal]

I think they'd need to rework more than that to make an enchantment slot system work, don't want cultural enchantment having to compete with spell tempered shields.etc & you'd have the harsh inversion of the current balance where it'd feel really bad to go / where you could only have one of the many ranged enchantments on at a time.

hypothetically, for like AOW5 or PF2 though, I could see a "make your own enchantment" like how the item forge works, where you choose bonus damage types and additional effects for point costs maybe, with higher tiers unlocked by highest tome level or specific research)

(so you get some limitation, but can still get stronger over time, and retains customisation)

[gleaming shell]

Yeah. I really think my proposal offers the best of both games and both worlds.
It will lead to improvements without adding too much micro management.
And it won't instantly make all of your collected enchantments invalid either.

[gleaming shell]

To be fair, cultural enchantments should just be going the way of the dodo.
Feudal, and Mystic Summoning, don't have one. But now Architect does...

I'd prefer if they were just all removed and made baseline at this point.

Why am I researching and casting this? What's the point? I always want it.

[royal sandal]

I'd back that tbh. I just meant it wouldn't be as simple as /just/ limiting the enchantments by slot, a large review/rework of a lot of them would have to take place to make it actually functional & fun.

[static ridge]

an enchantment slot system would definitely also demand a different approach to enchantment design

part of why i don't think it's in the cards for 4, practically speaking

aow5 wishlist item

[gleaming shell]

Not with that attitude

You know they had one, in the alpha, right?

@static ridge

This was a per-unit version, basically from Planetfall.

Could've been easily modified to become per-class.

[runic pewter]

finally someone who doesnt run around with a defeatist attitude

[static ridge]

I wasn't aware of that specifically but I just don't think the tome and enchantment design as-is works great for slapping that limitation on top. That makes sense as something they experimented with in an early version of the game before things were as set in stone. I don't think it's reasonablr to expect them to do a whole design pass over every enchantment on top of implementing the slots.

[gleaming shell]

Well, if I don't keep complaining, any future game won't change it either.

They'll give us the same crap in the next entry and I'll just peace out.

[vast hamlet]

Just a question: how enchantment limit is to fix monostacking? I would expect that players will just find 3 that best fit for a given unit and go with that.
The only solution I would expect to work would be paper-rock-scissors approach. So monostack would loose to a mixed army of the same tier regardless of enchantments applied. But that would probably require a significant enchantment rework and fight system rework.

And are we sure that limit of 3 is the optimal number?

[gleaming shell]

Your rock loses to scissors enchanted with diamond blades that spew molten lava while cutting.

^ That's what enchantments with no limit do.

[gleaming shell]

Worked very well for Age of Wonders: Planetfall 🤷

[gleaming shell]

Tomes offer far more than 3 enchantments on the route towards T5.
You will naturally pick up multiple enchantments for other unit types.
Because your "primary" unit is capped, you are incentivized to pick other units.

Basically there will no longer be 1 specific unit that you buff insanely hard.

[static ridge]

monostacking stops being the optimal way to concentrate power through tech as you can only have 3 enchantments on a single unit, instead of "as many as you can pick up across your entire build path". this means that adding additional units to your army composition no longer comes at the expense of raw power, as once you have the 3 enchantments you want in your build path the rest of your build path can be devoted to other things (such as other units and associated enchantments), instead of "more enchantments for the mono unit"

the basic thing to understand about the monostacking phenomenon is this:

suppose i have 9 tomes in my build path, 2 of each tier + 1 t5 tome. for simplicity, let us assume that each tome provides one enchantment, and that these enchantments each only apply to a single unit type.

theoretically, a mixed army composition of half shocks and half shields should counter an army of only archers, both shocks and shields are intended counters to archers (shocks close distance rapidly, shields trivially provide lots of defense against archer attacks).

however, because shocks and shields do not share enchantments in this scenario, there are only 5 enchantments applied to the shocks and 4 enchantments applied to the shields. meanwhile, the archer army gets to apply all 9 enchantments to every one of its units. on a unit by unit basis, the archers have twice as many enchantments as their opponents do.

because the archers have twice as many enchantments, it no longer matters that the unit roles they are fighting theoretically counter them - 2 archers with 9 enchantments each kills 2 shields with 4 enchantments each, that's just the power of a 5 enchantment differential. the only way the shields can compete is to kick out the shocks and have the build take tomes that give shield enchantments instead of shock enchantments, so the shields can also have 9 enchantments.