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

Vindictive glare far too cost effective?

1234579

Comments

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,762Registered Users
    Of course they are. Thanks for the acknowledgment.

    Dead Alarielle is best Alarielle.

  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users

    @JoukeSeinstra What is that? I can answer all your snarky little remarks with that when I post I assume a basic comprehension level of the reader. I also sometimes say things like "I don't give a flying f*ck" even though I am perfectly aware that f*cks don't fly.

    @Zeblasky I think I agree with most things you write there. I just have to add about stalked waywatchers that I do think their alpha is a bit too high too. There are a few details that offers more counterplay though compared to VG making it slightly better: 1) It also requires Prey from the Glady which has 100m range and not stalk nor vanguard, and 2) and perhaps most importantly, 4x WW + Glady costs 5000+ gold and that means that you can't throw it away. You can't make a max forward deploy, net and gank Tyrion from spawn, then you are likely to lose 5000+ gold to cav. With the Shaman though you can forward deploy him alone and immediately recover his value, sometimes x5, with one click. That's a big part of the brokenness right there.

    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,762Registered Users
    edited January 11
    It's pretty telling that after months of abusing flying lords, especially the pidgeon queen, a faction being given a tool to heavily punish this sort of play is being cried over so loudly. Maybe make VG a bit weaker, but there should be more of these tools available to more factions so people don't autopick mounts all the time and lords on foot become an actual alternative.

    On the TT putting your lord on a mount did increase the risk of him catching a cannonball with his face after all. Currently normal artillery simply doesn't serve this purpose due to being restricted by underwater physics and flying mounts especially being too mobile and agile. This needs to change.

  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users
    edited January 11



    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

    What on earth are you on about mate?
    Christ this is about the least productive discussion I had the displeasure of being a part of, we got half the GS mains here beating around the bush on a toxic spell that is blatantly and excessively overperforming on the vast majority of scenarios with minimal scope of counterplay.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users
    konosmgr said:



    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

    What on earth are you on about mate?
    Christ this is about the least productive discussion I had the displeasure of being a part of, we got half the GS mains here beating around the bush on a toxic spell that is blatantly and excessively overperforming on the vast majority of scenarios with minimal scope of counterplay.
    Heh, I think he's just trolling, or maybe he's into some kind of discussion philosophy or something. In both cases, best to ignore.
  • ParmigianoParmigiano Posts: 750Registered Users
    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    konosmgr said:



    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

    What on earth are you on about mate?
    Christ this is about the least productive discussion I had the displeasure of being a part of, we got half the GS mains here beating around the bush on a toxic spell that is blatantly and excessively overperforming on the vast majority of scenarios with minimal scope of counterplay.
    I'll try to speak your language.

    You mean it excessively over performs when you play meta? Doesn't that imply that the magic changes the meta and you can no longer meta pick a mounted lord because you know it will get sniped in under a minute. Perhaps you should see it as meta-defining rather than imbalanced. The Greenskins are back, deal with it.
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users

    konosmgr said:



    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

    What on earth are you on about mate?
    Christ this is about the least productive discussion I had the displeasure of being a part of, we got half the GS mains here beating around the bush on a toxic spell that is blatantly and excessively overperforming on the vast majority of scenarios with minimal scope of counterplay.
    I'll try to speak your language.

    You mean it excessively over performs when you play meta? Doesn't that imply that the magic changes the meta and you can no longer meta pick a mounted lord because you know it will get sniped in under a minute. Perhaps you should see it as meta-defining rather than imbalanced. The Greenskins are back, deal with it.
    How can someone speak so much but say so little?
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users
    konosmgr said:

    konosmgr said:



    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

    What on earth are you on about mate?
    Christ this is about the least productive discussion I had the displeasure of being a part of, we got half the GS mains here beating around the bush on a toxic spell that is blatantly and excessively overperforming on the vast majority of scenarios with minimal scope of counterplay.
    I'll try to speak your language.

    You mean it excessively over performs when you play meta? Doesn't that imply that the magic changes the meta and you can no longer meta pick a mounted lord because you know it will get sniped in under a minute. Perhaps you should see it as meta-defining rather than imbalanced. The Greenskins are back, deal with it.
    How can someone speak so much but say so little?
    Maybe we should ask to get back the meta-defining Hellebron from the DLC launch? :smiley: Or the meta-defining single entity chariot charge animation... or the meta-defining skaven summons without hitbox.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    konosmgr said:

    konosmgr said:



    Excusing yourself does not proof your competence. My personal disposition of being snarky is subjective to the argument regardless if I concede to that trait. It's fallacious as well. Also, I only criticized the major points I found severely lacking in critical thought.

    I'm not quite sure what you mean with your last sentence. I could say I lack basic comprehension, but that would be sarcastic and insincere.

    What on earth are you on about mate?
    Christ this is about the least productive discussion I had the displeasure of being a part of, we got half the GS mains here beating around the bush on a toxic spell that is blatantly and excessively overperforming on the vast majority of scenarios with minimal scope of counterplay.
    I'll try to speak your language.

    You mean it excessively over performs when you play meta? Doesn't that imply that the magic changes the meta and you can no longer meta pick a mounted lord because you know it will get sniped in under a minute. Perhaps you should see it as meta-defining rather than imbalanced. The Greenskins are back, deal with it.
    How can someone speak so much but say so little?
    You're likely used to making assumptions without confirming the validity leading inevitably to creating the illusion of knowledge.

    For example;

    we got half the GS mains here

    You speak without explicitly assessing the validity of your statement. Which would be referring to the illusion that you seem to know something and expecting other to have your rather poor standards of communication. You can't hold me responsible for your unscrupulous opinions.

    As an example, who are these GS mains? I suppose you're trying to imply conflict of interest in the sense that GS mains defending what you seem to think of an imbalanced spell should automatically be disqualified. Which is not an unreasonable view if that is what you're saying, but the problem is that you're assuming your premise to be true. All I do is question your statement. So If I appear to say little, it's because you speak of things you haven't proven therefore slowing down the discussion.

    Just because you think doesn't mean you should speak.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,762Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.
    Where is my skrolk delete button, I see him all the time? I refuse to use other tools and demand to be able to delete him from the game in the first minute without any effort. That's totally how we need to balance this game...
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,762Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.
    Where is my skrolk delete button, I see him all the time? I refuse to use other tools and demand to be able to delete him from the game in the first minute without any effort. That's totally how we need to balance this game...
    LoL, Skaven get lord-sniped all the time. Look how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot for once.

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.
    Where is my skrolk delete button, I see him all the time? I refuse to use other tools and demand to be able to delete him from the game in the first minute without any effort. That's totally how we need to balance this game...
    LoL, Skaven get lord-sniped all the time. Look how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot for once.
    If it was as hard, with as much counterplay and took as long to snipe alarielle as it does to goon out skrolk nobody would be complaining.

    With two shamans forward deployed you can shoot alarielle out of the sky in 10 seconds with a good hit, offering no counterplay. I understand it's hilarious if you hate elves but it's broken balance nonetheless.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.
    Where is my skrolk delete button, I see him all the time? I refuse to use other tools and demand to be able to delete him from the game in the first minute without any effort. That's totally how we need to balance this game...
    LoL, Skaven get lord-sniped all the time. Look how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot for once.
    If it was as hard, with as much counterplay and took as long to snipe alarielle as it does to goon out skrolk nobody would be complaining.

    With two shamans forward deployed you can shoot alarielle out of the sky in 10 seconds with a good hit, offering no counterplay. I understand it's hilarious if you hate elves but it's broken balance nonetheless.
    You're regurgitating your experience that is already familiar. What exactly are you pleading for? A nerf to damage, a nerf to caster cost, a nerf to range, a nerf to spell cost, a nerf to miss-cast chance?

    I'd be more interested in a creative solution such as.

    Lowered base chance: Every successful cast increases the damage of the spell whilst also increasing the likelihood of miss-casting thereby destroying the caster.

    Increasing the base miss-cast by 50% and base damage by 50% every OC applied to the magic rather than the caster. This would incentive bringing more casters but they all suffer from the same penalty lowering the cost efficiency.

    Yes, you can simply lowering the overall effectiveness. Isn't that rather bland design? I prefer to ramp up my alpha damage over a few casts. This way the damage is delayed yet remaining a threat. You have to deal with the casters before they reach their potential, or take the gamble and hope they fail. Since you want to deal with the shamans as soon as possible before they reach their dicey potential damage, this will make it easier for the WAAGH to see play. You either deal with GS magic or defend against their WAAGH without a lord.




  • turrehundturrehund Posts: 188Registered Users
    There is almost no way CA won't nerf Vindictive Glare in the next balancing patch. As it is now it is absurdly overtuned, the fact that its only comparison is 4x WW + Net gives you a hint as to how ridiculous the spell is on a Night Goblin shaman that costs 1/10 of what 4x WW does.

    However, even with significant nerfs it'll still be a nice way for Greenskins to counter flying lords. Normal cast will still be able to do a number on Alarielle even if it doesn't instagib her in the first seconds of the match. Make overcast AP and increase WoM cost.
  • ystyst Posts: 6,079Registered Users
    edited January 12
    Why in the world ppl still talk about ap dmg. They have anti large + high regular dmg since 2016

    Unless CA wants to change a core design they will stay low ap as is. They r never design to be more effective vs ap that other spells. Unlike leech that pretty much bypass
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users
    yst said:

    Why in the world ppl still talk about ap dmg. They have anti large + high regular dmg since 2016

    Unless CA wants to change a core design they will stay low ap as is. They r never design to be more effective vs ap that other spells. Unlike leech that pretty much bypass

    Because it's a way to allow the spell to remain strong in single cast without being broken in double over cast. Instead it gains versatility.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.
    Where is my skrolk delete button, I see him all the time? I refuse to use other tools and demand to be able to delete him from the game in the first minute without any effort. That's totally how we need to balance this game...
    LoL, Skaven get lord-sniped all the time. Look how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot for once.
    If it was as hard, with as much counterplay and took as long to snipe alarielle as it does to goon out skrolk nobody would be complaining.

    With two shamans forward deployed you can shoot alarielle out of the sky in 10 seconds with a good hit, offering no counterplay. I understand it's hilarious if you hate elves but it's broken balance nonetheless.
    You're regurgitating your experience that is already familiar. What exactly are you pleading for? A nerf to damage, a nerf to caster cost, a nerf to range, a nerf to spell cost, a nerf to miss-cast chance?

    I'd be more interested in a creative solution such as.

    Lowered base chance: Every successful cast increases the damage of the spell whilst also increasing the likelihood of miss-casting thereby destroying the caster.

    Increasing the base miss-cast by 50% and base damage by 50% every OC applied to the magic rather than the caster. This would incentive bringing more casters but they all suffer from the same penalty lowering the cost efficiency.

    Yes, you can simply lowering the overall effectiveness. Isn't that rather bland design? I prefer to ramp up my alpha damage over a few casts. This way the damage is delayed yet remaining a threat. You have to deal with the casters before they reach their potential, or take the gamble and hope they fail. Since you want to deal with the shamans as soon as possible before they reach their dicey potential damage, this will make it easier for the WAAGH to see play. You either deal with GS magic or defend against their WAAGH without a lord.




    I have made the same suggestion several times in this thread, did you miss the forest for all the trees?

    Add some AP damage to each missile on overcast instead of doubling the number of missiles. There, fixed. Single cast is still super cost effective but you can make a double overcast and instakill, you need to make two single casts instead. Still stupidly good actually, but it does open up for a little counterplay at least. Optimally I think the range would need to decrease too, but it could wait one iteration just to see what happens. The graphics needs a fix though, we can't have invisible nukes like that.
  • EkonaiiEkonaii Posts: 26Registered Users
    edited January 12





    Add some AP damage to each missile on overcast instead of doubling the number of missiles. There, fixed. Single cast is still super cost effective but you can make a double overcast and instakill, you need to make two single casts instead. Still stupidly good actually, but it does open up for a little counterplay at least. Optimally I think the range would need to decrease too, but it could wait one iteration just to see what happens. The graphics needs a fix though, we can't have invisible nukes like that.

    I think this is a great suggestion for changing the spell. Even if it remains too strong overall, it reduces the amount of burst damage that the spell does but keeps the same damage to WoM ratio. This prevents one shots from happening and makes it takes more time for the GS player to kill the units that they are using the spell on, but still gives them an efficient way of dealing with flyers and monsters.

    And of course, the spell should be visible at all times. I assume it's a bug that makes it unable to be seen sometimes.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users

    People are just trying to report a problem, the spell is game breaking. Less than half the time when I play against greenskins do they even bring it, most people are not 100% playing to win, they're just using what they want to use.
    So on their stats it won't show much so you have people bringing it up, showing the videos, and then they can't even rely on reports because of people saying it's fine.

    You can't break magic to help greenskins, some people are ok with that because it's to their convenience at the time. How is faction strength even a factor. It should do about 60% of the damage it currently does, that would be at least double before it was buffed.

    No, it's a valid counter to a problem caused by mounts having become an autopick.
    Where is my skrolk delete button, I see him all the time? I refuse to use other tools and demand to be able to delete him from the game in the first minute without any effort. That's totally how we need to balance this game...
    LoL, Skaven get lord-sniped all the time. Look how it feels when the shoe's on the other foot for once.
    If it was as hard, with as much counterplay and took as long to snipe alarielle as it does to goon out skrolk nobody would be complaining.

    With two shamans forward deployed you can shoot alarielle out of the sky in 10 seconds with a good hit, offering no counterplay. I understand it's hilarious if you hate elves but it's broken balance nonetheless.
    You're regurgitating your experience that is already familiar. What exactly are you pleading for? A nerf to damage, a nerf to caster cost, a nerf to range, a nerf to spell cost, a nerf to miss-cast chance?

    I'd be more interested in a creative solution such as.

    Lowered base chance: Every successful cast increases the damage of the spell whilst also increasing the likelihood of miss-casting thereby destroying the caster.

    Increasing the base miss-cast by 50% and base damage by 50% every OC applied to the magic rather than the caster. This would incentive bringing more casters but they all suffer from the same penalty lowering the cost efficiency.

    Yes, you can simply lowering the overall effectiveness. Isn't that rather bland design? I prefer to ramp up my alpha damage over a few casts. This way the damage is delayed yet remaining a threat. You have to deal with the casters before they reach their potential, or take the gamble and hope they fail. Since you want to deal with the shamans as soon as possible before they reach their dicey potential damage, this will make it easier for the WAAGH to see play. You either deal with GS magic or defend against their WAAGH without a lord.




    I have made the same suggestion several times in this thread, did you miss the forest for all the trees?

    Add some AP damage to each missile on overcast instead of doubling the number of missiles. There, fixed. Single cast is still super cost effective but you can make a double overcast and instakill, you need to make two single casts instead. Still stupidly good actually, but it does open up for a little counterplay at least. Optimally I think the range would need to decrease too, but it could wait one iteration just to see what happens. The graphics needs a fix though, we can't have invisible nukes like that.
    I fail to see how that's the same suggestion. Also, what's the difference between cost effectiveness and super cost effectiveness? What is a double overcast? Is that 4 times the base? Or do you mean 2 Shaman casting an OC version at the same time? Why is it optimal that the range decreases as well, in relation to what? It's probably easier dodge a long range snipe since they're stalking units they won't have a problem doing it from 150 meters. It would perhaps be better to look at the accuracy rather than range. Stalk is a rather weird trait to put on a mage, though that is my humble opinion.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users
    Let me write up a summary to clear things up.

    The hit chance appears to be wonky because vs Alarielle something like 70-80% of the projectiles hit, while vs Azhag in my tests something like 10% hit. I have had limited time, but it seems like good accuracy is the norm and that Azhag has strange hitbox. So let's assume 75% hit rate for now.

    Vindicative Glare
    WoM cost: 4
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*5*0.75 = 754 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189

    Vindicative Glare overcasted
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: 10 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*10*0.75 = 1508 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189


    For reference:

    Fireball
    WoM cost: 5
    Damage: 1 projectile homing, 475 + 200 dmg+AP = 675 damage per volley vs all
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 135

    Fireball overcast
    WoM cost: 9
    Damage: 1 projectile homing, 1148 + 0 dmg = 1148 damage per volley vs all
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 128

    Spirit leach
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: direct damage, 60% chance x6 times to take 121 AP dmg = average 436 damage
    Range: 100 meters
    Cooldown: 32 secs
    Damage / wom: 55

    Spirit leach overcast
    WoM cost: 11
    Damage: direct damage, 60% chance x6 times to take 121 AP dmg = average 436 damage
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 32 secs
    Damage / wom: 40



    So what I have suggested, and I think is pretty damn generous, is to keep the normal cast as is and change the overcast into additional AP.

    Vindicative Glare
    WoM cost: 4
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*5*0.75 = 754 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189

    Vindicative Glare overcast
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+95 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+95+66)*5*0.75 = 960 damage (50% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 120

    To be perfectly honest I don't think this is enough of a nerf, because of all these things coming together with range, stalk, cheap cost (making them expendable and recovering their cost with the first volley) and not least the power recharge item that allows to you cast 2 of these back to back. Unless you want to feed the opponent very wom and cost efficient damage to your lord/mage/hero/monster it will still more or less create a 500 meters diameter no-fly zone around wherever these stalked little green luminarks are hiding. Most support spells have 200 meter range and most offensive spells have 100-150 meter range, so it does grant pretty extreme zone control. I think dropping range to 200 meters would be advisable too, but let's see.

    Basically you could still bring 2x Shamans with power recharge item, both cast one VG, power recharge, cast another one and dish out the same 4000ish max damage. Now it would take some 10-15 seconds instead of 5 seconds just.
  • CanuoveaCanuovea Posts: 13,134Registered Users, Moderators
    Please remain on topic and avoid insults.
    -Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest
    -Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.
    -The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.
    -...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!
    -5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,789Registered Users
    edited January 13
    I'm starting to question how well do those defending the spell actually know how to use GS if you think flying is such a massive deal that it sounds like an auto loss.

    Here i give you an idea how to deal with flying units with archers.

    Take "gork'll fix it" and shoot it with poison arrows, it makes its speed super slow that you can nuke it with other missile units, missile cav is also great essentially if you add in spider rider archers.

    Can combine that with either spirit leech or....net if you really want, they defiantly got ways to deal with air units just need to know how to use them.

    Obviously the spell should still be effective and decent but its OP now.
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users


    To be perfectly honest I don't think this is enough of a nerf, because of all these things coming together with range, stalk, cheap cost (making them expendable and recovering their cost with the first volley) and not least the power recharge item that allows to you cast 2 of these back to back. Unless you want to feed the opponent very wom and cost efficient damage to your lord/mage/hero/monster it will still more or less create a 500 meters diameter no-fly zone around wherever these stalked little green luminarks are hiding. Most support spells have 200 meter range and most offensive spells have 100-150 meter range, so it does grant pretty extreme zone control. I think dropping range to 200 meters would be advisable too, but let's see.

    Basically you could still bring 2x Shamans with power recharge item, both cast one VG, power recharge, cast another one and dish out the same 4000ish max damage. Now it would take some 10-15 seconds instead of 5 seconds just.

    I'm still in favour of the AP swap OC. I think 200m range would be relatively fair too - it would also give more emphasis to GoM as the longer ranged (250/400OC) version of the spell with less total damage potential.

    The 4000 damage is still only vs completely optimal targets, so it's fine if taking unarmoured large flying is inadvisable vs GS (without gearing your strategy to taking out the shamans early), but the alpha is still reduced significantly. Also, remember 4 OC VG costs 32 WoM, which also limits the damage spike- at least at deployment, giving you a chance to hunt down the stalked shaman on the ground.
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users

    Let me write up a summary to clear things up.

    The hit chance appears to be wonky because vs Alarielle something like 70-80% of the projectiles hit, while vs Azhag in my tests something like 10% hit. I have had limited time, but it seems like good accuracy is the norm and that Azhag has strange hitbox. So let's assume 75% hit rate for now.

    Vindicative Glare
    WoM cost: 4
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*5*0.75 = 754 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189

    Vindicative Glare overcasted
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: 10 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*10*0.75 = 1508 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189


    For reference:

    Fireball
    WoM cost: 5
    Damage: 1 projectile homing, 475 + 200 dmg+AP = 675 damage per volley vs all
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 135

    Fireball overcast
    WoM cost: 9
    Damage: 1 projectile homing, 1148 + 0 dmg = 1148 damage per volley vs all
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 128

    Spirit leach
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: direct damage, 60% chance x6 times to take 121 AP dmg = average 436 damage
    Range: 100 meters
    Cooldown: 32 secs
    Damage / wom: 55

    Spirit leach overcast
    WoM cost: 11
    Damage: direct damage, 60% chance x6 times to take 121 AP dmg = average 436 damage
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 32 secs
    Damage / wom: 40



    So what I have suggested, and I think is pretty damn generous, is to keep the normal cast as is and change the overcast into additional AP.

    Vindicative Glare
    WoM cost: 4
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*5*0.75 = 754 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189

    Vindicative Glare overcast
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+95 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+95+66)*5*0.75 = 960 damage (50% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 120

    To be perfectly honest I don't think this is enough of a nerf, because of all these things coming together with range, stalk, cheap cost (making them expendable and recovering their cost with the first volley) and not least the power recharge item that allows to you cast 2 of these back to back. Unless you want to feed the opponent very wom and cost efficient damage to your lord/mage/hero/monster it will still more or less create a 500 meters diameter no-fly zone around wherever these stalked little green luminarks are hiding. Most support spells have 200 meter range and most offensive spells have 100-150 meter range, so it does grant pretty extreme zone control. I think dropping range to 200 meters would be advisable too, but let's see.

    Basically you could still bring 2x Shamans with power recharge item, both cast one VG, power recharge, cast another one and dish out the same 4000ish max damage. Now it would take some 10-15 seconds instead of 5 seconds just.

    Whoever published this data did the community a great service.

    In regards to that assuming the data holds true, spirit leech is observantly unlike fireball and vindictive glare as it's a damage-over-time and it's not a projectile leaving absolutely zero counter-play which reflects it's damage potential. The overcast version I believe has a base misscast chance of 35% which should be detracted for equity(for all spells).

    The accuracy is finicky as they're homing projectiles which has counter-play involved within a time-frame. A smaller than a large unit but still technically a large unit such as a pegasus or hellsteed compared to a terrorgheist or wyvern has a better angular velocity which seems to improve counter-play within the time-frame of a few seconds. Stalk wouldn't be as much of a problem if magic was clearly being signaled, though there are visual discrepancies by what we see and what we should see according to the description.

    Should counter-play be a function of micro or macro? I think that you either go with raw damage or high accuracy which would reflect risk and reward. The point as it stands now is that vindictive glare is over-performing in the observation that it both has good accuracy and raw damage.

    The performance is of the spell is also greatly improved by how many different factors are involved. Leading to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

    (Double)Stalk->Deceptive amount of missiles>Homing accuracy>Lack of angular velocity by a larger than large unit->Raw damage versus low armor rating

    If you want counter-play you should plead for clear visuals and change of the accuracy from the homing projectiles. Changing the damage potential will just undo it's overall usage and the GS are back where they were. In that sense it will be either a nerf or a buff rather than a balancing act. Changing the AR is too simplistic.

  • ystyst Posts: 6,079Registered Users
    That data totally ignored pierce. Go shoot a fireball, a spear on say an ironbreaker, swordmaster whatever, also a leech on cav. Gaze got 0 target, cept singular models or u can go find and kill a troll or two. Thats about it really.

    And wth arent ppl even looking at the anti large dmg, a damn average missile without it.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users
    edited January 13

    Let me write up a summary to clear things up.

    The hit chance appears to be wonky because vs Alarielle something like 70-80% of the projectiles hit, while vs Azhag in my tests something like 10% hit. I have had limited time, but it seems like good accuracy is the norm and that Azhag has strange hitbox. So let's assume 75% hit rate for now.

    Vindicative Glare
    WoM cost: 4
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*5*0.75 = 754 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189

    Vindicative Glare overcasted
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: 10 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*10*0.75 = 1508 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189


    For reference:

    Fireball
    WoM cost: 5
    Damage: 1 projectile homing, 475 + 200 dmg+AP = 675 damage per volley vs all
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 135

    Fireball overcast
    WoM cost: 9
    Damage: 1 projectile homing, 1148 + 0 dmg = 1148 damage per volley vs all
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 128

    Spirit leach
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: direct damage, 60% chance x6 times to take 121 AP dmg = average 436 damage
    Range: 100 meters
    Cooldown: 32 secs
    Damage / wom: 55

    Spirit leach overcast
    WoM cost: 11
    Damage: direct damage, 60% chance x6 times to take 121 AP dmg = average 436 damage
    Range: 300 meters
    Cooldown: 32 secs
    Damage / wom: 40



    So what I have suggested, and I think is pretty damn generous, is to keep the normal cast as is and change the overcast into additional AP.

    Vindicative Glare
    WoM cost: 4
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*5*0.75 = 754 damage (30% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 189

    Vindicative Glare overcast
    WoM cost: 8
    Damage: 5 projectiles, 95+95 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+95+66)*5*0.75 = 960 damage (50% AP) per volley vs large
    Range: 250 meters
    Cooldown: 29 secs
    Damage / wom: 120

    To be perfectly honest I don't think this is enough of a nerf, because of all these things coming together with range, stalk, cheap cost (making them expendable and recovering their cost with the first volley) and not least the power recharge item that allows to you cast 2 of these back to back. Unless you want to feed the opponent very wom and cost efficient damage to your lord/mage/hero/monster it will still more or less create a 500 meters diameter no-fly zone around wherever these stalked little green luminarks are hiding. Most support spells have 200 meter range and most offensive spells have 100-150 meter range, so it does grant pretty extreme zone control. I think dropping range to 200 meters would be advisable too, but let's see.

    Basically you could still bring 2x Shamans with power recharge item, both cast one VG, power recharge, cast another one and dish out the same 4000ish max damage. Now it would take some 10-15 seconds instead of 5 seconds just.



    If ap damage is included in this formula " 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*10*0.75", then you can't multiply by 0.75 as ap has doesn't get mitigated. The correct form should be:

    for non ap damage: Damage_non_ap0= 10*(95+66*95/(95+40))= 1414

    for ap damage: Damage_ap= 10*(40+66*40(95+40))= 595

    Apparently the spell has detonation damage of 150 (0 ap), I don't know how this works but I assume it's a one time only and not per missile

    so the total non ap damage is: Damage_non_ap1= 1414 +150=1564

    After applying armour: Total_damage= Damage_non_ap1 *0.75 + Damage_ap = 1564*(1-0.75*armour%) + 595
    (If armour>>100, it's a bit more complicated but this is a good approximation)

    That is the average damage if all missiles connect.

    For reference, vs the giant which has 30 armour, the average damage it does is: 1564*(1-22.5%)+595=1212+595= 1807
    This isn't an error, when I tested it the average damage against the giant was indeed about 1900.

    So 1807/8WoM=226 damage per WoM.
    ABSOLUTELY BALANCED AS ALL THINGS SHOULD BE

    This is miles head the competition in terms of WoM cost effectiveness, and is also 95% un-dodgable unlike the competition, and also comes in a stalked platform in a minimal 226g investment; again unlike the competition.

    I hereby rest my case.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,726Registered Users
    yst said:

    That data totally ignored pierce. Go shoot a fireball, a spear on say an ironbreaker, swordmaster whatever, also a leech on cav. Gaze got 0 target, cept singular models or u can go find and kill a troll or two. Thats about it really.

    And wth arent ppl even looking at the anti large dmg, a damn average missile without it.

    This is with regard to single target sniping. Iirc glare has some explosion but I have not been concerned with its performance vs units.

    And of course we consider bvl damage, otherwise should we buff all spears because they are damn average vs swords?
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users
    edited January 13
    "Mods please ignore the previous comments, it was an editing job gone bad""


    If ap damage is included in this formula " 95+40 dmg+AP, BvL 66 = (95+40+66)*10*0.75", then you can't multiply by 0.75 as ap has doesn't get mitigated. The correct form should be:

    for non ap damage: Damage_non_ap0= 10*(95+66*95/(95+40))= 1414

    for ap damage: Damage_ap= 10*(40+66*40(95+40))= 595

    Apparently the spell has detonation damage of 150 (0 ap), I don't know how this works but I assume it's a one time only and not per missile

    so the total non ap damage is: Damage_non_ap1= 1414 +150=1564

    After applying armour: Total_damage= Damage_non_ap1 *(1-0.75*armour%)+ Damage_ap = 1564*(1-0.75*armour%) + 595
    (If armour>>100, it's a bit more complicated but this is a good approximation)

    That is the average damage if all missiles connect.

    For reference, vs the giant which has 30 armour, the average damage it does is: 1564*(1-22.5%)+595=1212+595= 1807
    This isn't an error, when I tested it the average damage against the giant was indeed about 1.900.

    So 1807/8WoM=226 damage per WoM.

    Absolutely balanced, as all things should be.

    This is miles ahead the competition in terms of WoM cost effectiveness, and is also 95% un-dodgable unlike the competition, and also comes in a stalked platform in a minimal 226g investment; again unlike the competition.
Sign In or Register to comment.