Version 0.9 hero preview

[jetigig]

The Eagle is the only unit even remotely limited by that number since it starts at 22 (but the Eagle could change to base 15 strength and +20 AA).KGB

The reason I asked was because I didn't want the eagle to get ripped off.

The counter for anti-air has always been ground/sea units. I don't see any reason for that to change.

You're right, I agree completely.

[KGB]

Jetigig,

The Eagle is the only unit even remotely limited by that number since it starts at 22 (but the Eagle could change to base 15 strength and +20 AA).KGB

The reason I asked was because I didn't want the eagle to get ripped off.

If the Eagle is ripped off it will be because the group AA on the Ranger removes the need for Eagles. Not because the Eagle maxes out at 30 AA but because suddenly any unit can be boosted with group AA so that Gryphons get AA against other Gryphons etc. Right now that only happens with a couple of items that often aren't in play. But a Ranger with 10 AA will suddenly become very attainable reducing the need for Eagles to control enemy fliers.

KGB

[LPhillips]

As far as higher individual ambush on some units, lets worry about that when it happens (I think the current 70% cap and individual unit ambushes for the Medusa/Ghost/Wolfrider/Orc seem right other than the Orc probably needs to rise to 10 ambush and 10 strength). The game can always add a new unit with high individual warding (say 50) to balance that so you have another option besides Rangers.

...

Edit: KGB, There's also an increasing return for higher Warding skill. Especially when it is applied pre-cap, and especially if more strong Ambush units are ever to be present in the game. This also should go without saying. 70% Group Warding is over 100% more effective than 40% Group Warding. Being a big math guy, you'll appreciate that.

Isn't 70% exactly 100% more effective? Eg. 100% ambush X 70% ward = 30% ambush. 100% ambush X 40% ward = 60% ambush. 30 vs 60 = 100% more effective.

Again I claim 40% would be more than enough for 90% of the time in the game. You really only need higher than 40 against high level Assassin heroes or stacks of 6-8 Ghosts. I don't want L1 heroes having all the Warding they need.

KGB

I'm a bit late on this, pardon the semi-absence. We both know that how Group Warding is applied now will determine how Ambush units are introduced and balanced in the future. Best to set good ground work now, rather than "we'll cross that bridge later, when we've destroyed the road leading to it."

Moving on, I don't agree that 40% Warding is effective and all you'll want/need. If the enemy deploys true ambush stacks, you will still need to hire a specialized hero to take a few down piecemeal if she's even in the right area. You can't legitimately argue that one Ranger or even several can neutralize an Ambush-heavy strategy, even if they all have 70% Group Warding. But more on that in a moment.

It seems the crux of our argument may be how we are conceptualizing Group Warding. When I see 40% negated, I don't see 70%-30%=40%. Your 100% example is confusing, as it doesn't clarify one way or the other, but as I understand it the unit being countered has a value (currently as high as 135) which is multiplied by (1.0-0.70) for a maxed Group Warding hero. Otherwise we're talking apples-to-apples, 70 to 70, which wasn't what was really suggested and discussed earlier in the topic. It would, however, explain how you don't see an increasing return for higher Group Warding. With the multiplicative system (as suggested by the language earlier) instead of the additive system, a 70% Warding ability brings the Medusa+Assassin down to 40.5%, not 65%!

The trouble is that this multiplicative value is equally effective (or ineffective) against all amounts of Ambush, so that very low Group Warding as you suggested is not effective against any heroes, whatever level they may be. However, 40% is not particularly devastating to a true Ambush stack either; it's just an aid. This keeps Ambush in all of its current stature and glory, whereas the alternative is the ability to simply negate the Assassin completely, a gimp, a repeat of the Grand Archon caveat. In reinforcing the underwhelming power of (ambushvalue)*(1.0-0.4), it's important to point out that without 100% reduction of enemy Ambush, a Ranger with an equal stack is never stronger than an Assassin of any level, as the Ranger is merely negating a portion of the enemy's bonus and rarely capable of applying her own.

Now, I realize a Ranger can't stand on her own generally speaking. But it's absurd to force someone to spec 3 levels into Warding to become only moderately effective, not at combating the enemy even in some particular situations, but only at somewhat negating their ambush ability. I also stress that Group Warding needs to be applied multiplicatively, not additively. Otherwise this new Group Warding is a gauntlet in the face of the Ambush mechanic itself, and leaves Ambush useless unless a player goes all-in on it. Then you have a catch-22: do you make Group Warding start so low that you must predictively employ it and level it before seeing whether your opponent is even employing Ambush? Else, Ambush and Ambush-centered strategies become useless, if someone can purchase what is effectively a complete counter for Assassins level 3 and below at Ranger level 1 (as you suggest at 20 points).

[smursh]

I agree with the current low starting ward level. Arguing that a lvl 1 ranger should be able counter high ambush stacks effectively is like saying that a lvl 1 DN should be able to effectively counter high moral and leadership values. Yes, a lvl 10 assasin with 70% group ambush will roll over your lvl 1 ranger, but won't a lvl 10 paladin do the same to a lvl 1 DN? This shouldn't be a skill to allow low level heroes to neutralise high level heroes, at best you should effectively reduce the value of the stronger hero, the rest of your stack should have to take care of the balance.

[KGB]

LPhillips,

It seems the crux of our argument may be how we are conceptualizing Group Warding. When I see 40% negated, I don't see 70%-30%=40%. Your 100% example is confusing, as it doesn't clarify one way or the other, but as I understand it the unit being countered has a value (currently as high as 135) which is multiplied by (1.0-0.70) for a maxed Group Warding hero. Otherwise we're talking apples-to-apples, 70 to 70, which wasn't what was really suggested and discussed earlier in the topic. It would, however, explain how you don't see an increasing return for higher Group Warding. With the multiplicative system (as suggested by the language earlier) instead of the additive system, a 70% Warding ability brings the Medusa+Assassin down to 40.5%, not 65%!

Sorry for the confusion:
Medusa+Assassin = 135 vs 70% warding = 135*.3= 40.5 as you noted
Medusa+Assassin = 135 vs 40% warding = 135*.6= 81
81 is twice as much as 41.5 so 70% group warding is 100% more effective than 40%.

Moving on, I don't agree that 40% Warding is effective and all you'll want/need. If the enemy deploys true ambush stacks, you will still need to hire a specialized hero to take a few down piecemeal if she's even in the right area. You can't legitimately argue that one Ranger or even several can neutralize an Ambush-heavy strategy, even if they all have 70% Group Warding. But more on that in a moment.

True ambush stacks. Can you give me an example? 4 Ghost and 4 Eagles is nothing I'd fear. 8 Lt Calv would kill roughly 3-4 of those and 8 Elves would kill 4-5. Seems reasonable given 8 1 turn units vs a stack of 2 and 3 turners. Or are you talking about putting 2-3 Ghosts with a few Spiders/Pegasi stacks? That's probably not hard to kill either if you have a similar stack of just Spiders/Pegasi. In other words gobs of 1 turn units do nicely to take down ambush stacks wearing off 2-3 units per group of 8. Certainly no hero stack would ever have a problem with those if his stack had decent bonus's.

The *only* ambush stack a decent hero stack has to fear is a high level Assassin stack where the Assassin himself brings 50+ ambush so that the rest of the stack can be high level units to match the enemy hero. So to me the Ranger is only needed to counter a high level Assassin.

It's important to point out that without 100% reduction of enemy Ambush, a Ranger with an equal stack is never stronger than an Assassin of any level, as the Ranger is merely negating a portion of the enemy's bonus and rarely capable of applying her own.

It's also important to point out that Warding is infinite. In other words as long as the unit lives it continues to take it's warding on to the next unit it faces unlike Ambush which is a 1 shot deal. So having 40% warding means 40% vs EVERY unit you face, not just the first one. That means it must be a lot weaker by nature.

Now, I realize a Ranger can't stand on her own generally speaking. But it's absurd to force someone to spec 3 levels into Warding to become only moderately effective, not at combating the enemy even in some particular situations, but only at somewhat negating their ambush ability. I also stress that Group Warding needs to be applied multiplicatively, not additively. Otherwise this new Group Warding is a gauntlet in the face of the Ambush mechanic itself, and leaves Ambush useless unless a player goes all-in on it. Then you have a catch-22: do you make Group Warding start so low that you must predictively employ it and level it before seeing whether your opponent is even employing Ambush? Else, Ambush and Ambush-centered strategies become useless, if someone can purchase what is effectively a complete counter for Assassins level 3 and below at Ranger level 1 (as you suggest at 20 points).

As Smursh noted it's equally absurd for a L1 Ranger to be able to take down a L10 Assassin. Yet with 40% ambush it could happen if the Ranger catches the Assassin in the Woods/Swamp where with the +4 bonus and a potential AA bonus would swing a battle. Believe it or not, 8 Giants at 29 strength always beat 8 Giants at 25 strength so with otherwise equal bonus's the Ranger wins the combat part handily and only the Ambush could potentially save the Assassin. It gets worse if AA or higher levels of Leadership in woods/swamp come into play at L2-L4. I personally don't want L1 Rangers taking down L10 Assassins with equal forces in the woods/swamp.

KGB

[LPhillips]

Well, I suppose we'll see how it plays out in practice. It may be effective enough to curb the dominance of Ambush. Its main caveat after all is the use of high-powered heroes to hold small areas.

[jetigig]

Now that I think about it, Ambush has always been the best (but not widely known/used) counter to ambush. When two units have ambush and they both make their rolls, they cancel each other out. So if two high ambush stacks faced of and every unit made their ambush roll, then it would come down to just the Assassin on one side of the conflict. You lose your most of your stack but your enemy loses it all. (If you're lucky)

[Chazar]

And I would vote for 30 total anti-air cap (personal + group).

Leaving balancing aside for a moment, this would be a bad design:

Always capping group bonuses before adding individual bonus...

...would seem like a nice and easy-to-learn rule, which would be consistent with everything else thus far (as judging form the comments on Ambush & Warding in the beginning of the thread amd as it is now, e.g. ghost achieving over 70% personal ambush).

So is there really an urgent need to break with this for AntiAir?

[Gulgar]

Any talk about having quests for heros? Would be cool. Great job the game is awesome. Wish I knew those cheat codes some of you use though lol jk

[Moonknight]

So is there really an urgent need to break with this for AntiAir?

Depends if you want Elves and Eagles to be Strength 65+. If there are additional "land" armies added that are as strong (or stronger) as the Dragons and Demons of the universe, then maybe having Elves and Eagles take down Dragons/Demons/Archons with ease is fine.