Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Channeling mechanic for direct dmg spells

ViktorTWWforumViktorTWWforum Registered Users Posts: 1,116
Hi everyone. Today I want to talk about such balance measure for direct dmg spells as channeling ( this idea was discussed many times before - I just want to see its popularity now ). In current meta you are pretty much save while spamming this type of spells and you dont need to think about aim angle or hard terrain. With mentioned change spellcaster will be forced to be in range during spell effect wich helps his opponent to punish this wis range or melee engagement. Of course it is more about such " infamous " spells as Fate of Bjuna, Spirit Leach, Liber Bubonicus and etc. I am not sure that , for example, Final Transmutation can be treated the same way due really high cost in terms of WoM. Also I want to know your thoughts about effective and balanced range for cast/channeling. What do you think ?

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,779
    Proposed the same several times before.

    As long as direct damage spells don't have a counterplay element they have no place in this game.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,009
    It's interesting and has always been IMO but its also a pretty big change in terms of balance. If you do this for damage spells, people will soon ask for the same for heals and buffs/debuffs.... I don't think it will happen, but I agree the magic system has room for improvements.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,009
    Above all I think it would be a huge nerf to mobile play style while infantry heavy defensive styles with a well protected foot mage and ranged or summons would be favored.
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,581

    Above all I think it would be a huge nerf to mobile play style while infantry heavy defensive styles with a well protected foot mage and ranged or summons would be favored.

    isn't this a good improvement for the game though? In most cases, infantry shows up to get massacred while cavalry is king and this doesn't reflect both physical reality where infantry often had a fair chance OR balancing.

    It's not uncommon for the game to be over once one player runs out of mobility while the other doesn't.

    Let's say infantry currently has 100 power level and cavalry around 150.

    A few changes won't suddenly bring cavalry to 50, probably more around 120 where it should be. Simply all kite and all-cavalry armies will no longer be a thing, promoting more care in choosing the n-th unit of Grail Knights, Dragon Princes, etc.

    I see 0 problems with such a change honestly, the fact that you're against it could possibly betray a slight preference for all-cav armies? Which I can respect as it's a preference but the game is admittedly very boring currently for infantry-heavy compositions.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,009
    It's a matter of taste, but would require all factions to be rebalanced and change the way the game plays. I don't think ca would take that risk when the gain is questionable. May very well be a net loss because it's easier to lose players than attract new ones for an old game.
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 458
    why would it penalize mobile playstyle ? Cavalry would more easily get out of range of the spell, wouldn't it ?
  • Green0Green0 Registered Users Posts: 5,581

    It's a matter of taste, but would require all factions to be rebalanced and change the way the game plays. I don't think ca would take that risk when the gain is questionable. May very well be a net loss because it's easier to lose players than attract new ones for an old game.

    or it could shake up the meta and retain players by changing mwta builds. Opposite but equivalent argument :D
  • TeNoSkillTeNoSkill Registered Users Posts: 2,845
    I could imagine direct dmg spells slowing the wizard down or locking him in place, so that you have to protect him.

    Then tho I´d imagine a buff to the direct dmg spells.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,009

    why would it penalize mobile playstyle ? Cavalry would more easily get out of range of the spell, wouldn't it ?

    That's assuming that also other types of spells would require channeling, like healing. I can't imagine that such a mechanic would only affect direct damage, that would cause serious imbalance among lores too. If so, then the only way to ensure efficient spell usage will be if your Mage can afford to stand still, so I am thinking foot mage with protection. Just guessing though, maybe mobile plays would still work, guess it would depend on how wom consumption on interrupted spells would be handled.

    In any case I think such big sweeping changes to fix something that not everyone think is broken would be only in game 3 if at all. It's interesting, but probably not on the table...
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 940
    Yeah this looks like it would make DD spells much less usable.

    1. You would only be able to use it on cav/mobile units that are already in combat, or else they will just run out of the cast range. Even then, you would still need to get close
    2. Using them on non-mobile armies would get you filled with projectiles, and mages arnt the tankiest unit. (imagine standing there and channeling a spell against dwarfs lol)
    3. Any mobile lord is going to massively outdamage the spell effect in melee. So spirit leaching someone on a mount is basically ensuring your own death.

    So it would maybe work into units that are already engaged in melee? Preferably with low mobility, and will likely get your mage killed. You could send them with a protective unit sure, but ultimately this seems like a lot of trouble to go through.

    I get that DD spells are obnoxious, but on one hand they are "relatively" balanced through meh damage, short range, and a pretty high mana cost (bjuna/Final transmute/unforging). Wacking them with a nerf this big without any compensation seems a bit unwarranted.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,779
    Cukie251 said:

    Yeah this looks like it would make DD spells much less usable.

    An absolute plus in my opinion. Direct damage is cheesy BS and needs to either have proper counters or be removed completely.

    It is not appropriate to allow a cheap transfer between WoM and damage.


  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 4,009
    Direct damage is really not that different from heals, summons or debuffs, they are all point and click abilities that transforms wom into added or reduced hit points on the board... So either all channels or none in my opinion.

    I agree the whole magic system could use a face lift, but in game three.
  • Cukie251Cukie251 Registered Users Posts: 940

    Cukie251 said:

    Yeah this looks like it would make DD spells much less usable.

    An absolute plus in my opinion. Direct damage is cheesy BS and needs to either have proper counters or be removed completely.

    It is not appropriate to allow a cheap transfer between WoM and damage.

    Thats not a solution. You either present a comprehensive rework that actually addresses the issue and leaves the magic usable or you don't do anything.

    Saying:
    "Well I don't find this fun to play against so it should get nerfed out of existence" isn't an argument. Especially when the magic currently isn't overtly broken. There's absolutely no reason to leave it in an unusable state.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Registered Users Posts: 1,411
    What if direct damage cost WoM for every tic/ of spell you get off as long as you stay in range. SL for example could require the mage to stay in range, but if the spell is interrupted prematurely by the mage falling out of range, you wouldnt lose the spells full WoM value, even thouh you'd have to wait on a new cooldown.

    That would make it more difficult to use DD spells without making them a crippling WoM risk/completely incapacitating the mage.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • HorseWithNoNameHorseWithNoName Registered Users Posts: 1,001
    What are the ways to interrrupt a cast OP is suggesting? Just by getting out of range (only really relevant for mobile units) or by attacking/damaging the caster as well? Also, what are the ways OP suggests to compensate for the nerf? Buff the dot-output of those spells or nerf the other spells?
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,779
    edited December 2018

    What are the ways to interrrupt a cast OP is suggesting? Just by getting out of range (only really relevant for mobile units) or by attacking/damaging the caster as well? Also, what are the ways OP suggests to compensate for the nerf? Buff the dot-output of those spells or nerf the other spells?

    No compensation whatsoever. This is an absolutely necessary nerf.

    In the last few patches for WH1 FoB and Spirit Leech were weakened to the point of uselessness.

    I frankly prefer this over the cheese they churn out here in WH2.

  • GeneralConfusionGeneralConfusion Registered Users Posts: 957

    What are the ways to interrrupt a cast OP is suggesting? Just by getting out of range (only really relevant for mobile units) or by attacking/damaging the caster as well? Also, what are the ways OP suggests to compensate for the nerf? Buff the dot-output of those spells or nerf the other spells?

    No compensation whatsoever. This is an absolutely necessary nerf.

    In the last few patches for WH1 FoB and Spirit Leech were weakened to the point of uselessness.

    I frankly prefer this over the cheese they churn out here in WH2.
    Are you this angry about cannons? Because they do a lot more damage than either SL or FoB, faster, at longer range, very reliably.
  • eumaieseumaies Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 4,923
    It should apply to all spells or none, since direct damage spells have been nerfed and are not especially strong.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 22,779
    edited December 2018

    What are the ways to interrrupt a cast OP is suggesting? Just by getting out of range (only really relevant for mobile units) or by attacking/damaging the caster as well? Also, what are the ways OP suggests to compensate for the nerf? Buff the dot-output of those spells or nerf the other spells?

    No compensation whatsoever. This is an absolutely necessary nerf.

    In the last few patches for WH1 FoB and Spirit Leech were weakened to the point of uselessness.

    I frankly prefer this over the cheese they churn out here in WH2.
    Are you this angry about cannons? Because they do a lot more damage than either SL or FoB, faster, at longer range, very reliably.
    Cannons can miss. They can be hindered by terrain (with many maps where they are simply useless). You can attack them. You can counter them with your own artillery. They force the enemy to divert troops to protect them and root the army somewhat in place. What can you do against someone pointing and clicking on your units? Nothing. Mannfred swoops in, FoBs your elite units into uselessness and swoops out, easily regenerating whatever damage you might have inflicted on him during this.
    eumaies said:

    It should apply to all spells or none, since direct damage spells have been nerfed and are not especially strong.

    No. 3500 drained HP for 20something WoM is still too good a trade and there's no defense whatsoever against it. Nearly all other spells require additional factors to be useful, be it units making use of buffs or debuffs or correct aiming. Point and click damage spells require no finesse.

    They and healing are the only spells that are in need of counterplay.

Sign In or Register to comment.