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?

1234568

Comments

  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,555Registered Users
    0.75 is accuracy, not armor penetration. It's Max damage, then armor depends on target.
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users

    0.75 is accuracy, not armor penetration. It's Max damage, then armor depends on target.

    Ah I see, but you can't really apply accuracy like that since it's very contingent on the enemy hitbox.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,555Registered Users
    konosmgr said:

    0.75 is accuracy, not armor penetration. It's Max damage, then armor depends on target.

    Ah I see, but you can't really apply accuracy like that since it's very contingent on the enemy hitbox.
    Yeah, it's based on what I wrote in the first sentence to take the edge off, otherwise ppl would just complain about that too. :smile:

    But compared to the other spells you can dodge fb to some extent too so maybe just multiply all damage with 1.3 is fair vs fireball but the way it is vs sl.
  • 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 *(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.

    I hereby rest my case.





    *****This was double posted, sorry about that.
    Post edited by konosmgr on
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    You're assuming perfect conditions. That magic cost is specific to the aforementioned giant which is exactly the type of target is its meant to be optimized for. You're omitting miss-cast chance for OC. Your 95% accuracy claim is proven where? Your proposal of an alternative is where? Naming a problem is not solving a problem.



  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users

    You're assuming perfect conditions. That magic cost is specific to the aforementioned giant which is exactly the type of target is its meant to be optimized for. You're omitting miss-cast chance for OC. Your 95% accuracy claim is proven where? Your proposal of an alternative is where? Naming a problem is not solving a problem.



    It does over 1k damage to basically all SE's except the big gobbo spiders. It always finds good value.
  • ystyst Posts: 5,906Registered Users
    All it needs is scaling dmg per mana wise.

    When that is done, the bonus vs large is the niche of that spell and will always make it better vs any other spells of its kind, vs large.

    Dont expect any big changes, that would pretty much be dreaming. That is unless CA once again caves in, like they did most of the times.
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,568Registered Users
    edited January 13
    2 shot allariel on foot that was moving...working as intended lmao

    Such broken spell

    1 shot empire mage of life on horse lol and 3 shot flying franz in same game, LMAO nice spell
  • JoukeSeinstraJoukeSeinstra Posts: 275Registered Users
    yst said:

    All it needs is scaling dmg per mana wise.

    When that is done, the bonus vs large is the niche of that spell and will always make it better vs any other spells of its kind, vs large.

    Dont expect any big changes, that would pretty much be dreaming. That is unless CA once again caves in, like they did most of the times.

    You're being dishonest as much as I'm being pedantic. That being said, doesn't CA often balance facets of the game after controversy on the forums? We have these discussions in good faith that CA does listen and read as to what we discuss, and they have done so, correct? Your very statement is undermining what you're trying to accomplish. That's the definition of a fool. If you brush up on your language you could make an actual impact.


  • ystyst Posts: 5,906Registered Users
    Good to hear, well deserved with 15 armor
    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: 3,555Registered Users
    Well, I guess enough attention has been raised by now, now it's up to CA if they can fix GS in a good spot.

    If VG is not addressed, then a lot of factions will get caught between a rock and a hard place. Between a broken magic missile and the waagh. I mean all mobile options are large, most Mages are low armor. Everything that isn't both small and armored, or has a really big hp pool is very exposed to this from 250 m range. It's not too different from fireball abuse that also needs to be addressed somehow.

    I think vg needs to remain a reliable source of wom efficient damage, but at a much slower pace so that it is a soft counter and not a hard counter. If it is so hard that it forces you to use a foot general and a melee army you are forced to play into the waagh.... Which is another counter I think needs to be slightly softer to allow melee builds vs gs. The refresh timer abuse on the waagh mechanics needs to be removed as part of this.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,568Registered Users
    edited January 13
    This spell needs it damage reduced by a lot, probably about 30% minimum and needs to be able to dodge it. But leave it for now i'm enjoying 1 shoting mages in QB for now, to be fair its kind of fun to use just to see the rage in chat.
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users
    Another part of any rebalancing could be to transfer a lot more of the damage into the BvL - that way unarmoured foot characters will be safer (plus they can also hide among/behind units and gain more benefits from terrain.

    Even better would be an accuracy rebalance, so that is less accurate vs cavalry characters and better vs monsters, although I don't know how easy that would be to do reliably.

    Alpha can be reduced by removing the cooldown item from the shaman.

    Then with the AP OC change and -50 range, you have significantly lower damage vs small targets, so infantry mages will be a viable option. At 200m range, mounted mages will be able to hang back out of range more easily.

  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,568Registered Users
    Well this will 1 shot mages on horses still so i dont think its a solution, just reduce number of missiles from 5 to 3.
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users

    Well this will 1 shot mages on horses still so i dont think its a solution, just reduce number of missiles from 5 to 3.

    The problem with that is that it then becomes pretty awful against armoured flyers like dragons.

    It's tough to come up something that's a viable deterrent vs armoured flyers (even in the long game) without also being powerful against either horse mages or armoured horse characters.

    An accuracy change would be the best answer imo, so that it is reliable vs flyers and monsters, but less so vs ground cav.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,555Registered Users
    At the same time you can't expect to have one counter costing 228 gold that hard counters both dragons and generals and whatnot costing 10 times more. We need to be realistic. There has to be some risk reward here.

  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Posts: 20,243Registered Users
    So once VG's been packed back into the garbage bin, what are GS going to do about flying lords and sorcerors doing their usual untouchable cast and runs?

  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users

    At the same time you can't expect to have one counter costing 228 gold that hard counters both dragons and generals and whatnot costing 10 times more. We need to be realistic. There has to be some risk reward here.

    True, which is why all my suggestions aim to maintain current damage vs armoured dragons, as it is a sustained chunking that takes a long time to do damage if the alpha is removed. Currently, it's action is as a soft counter and zoning tool vs something like a princess or malekith having free reign. It's only vs low armour, low HP that it becomes broken.

    What needs fixing is the alpha and the OP performance vs unarmoured mages.

    What if the range was dropped to 150m, the overcast removed, and the AP ratio re-balanced to maintain performance vs star dragon, but to protect unarmoured targets. WoM can be increased to 5 if this seems justified.

    Lotus' 3 missile version will still be better against unarmoured mages than anything else, they will just be able to take another hit before they go down.
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Posts: 3,555Registered Users
    Frankly I am not convinced a gobbo spell alone should counter a dragon at all. Dragon has rather large hitbox and is slower, it is by no means immune to arrows, especially when slowed, poisoned, sundered, effigies etc. There are tools, glare should just add to them IMO, no need to wreck alone. Same goes for other targets really to a large extent.

    One synnergizing idea would be to add armor debuff to it on overcast.
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users
    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.
  • ExarchExarch Posts: 575Registered Users

    Frankly I am not convinced a gobbo spell alone should counter a dragon at all. Dragon has rather large hitbox and is slower, it is by no means immune to arrows, especially when slowed, poisoned, sundered, effigies etc. There are tools, glare should just add to them IMO, no need to wreck alone. Same goes for other targets really to a large extent.

    One synnergizing idea would be to add armor debuff to it on overcast.

    I don't believe it should "wreck" a dragon either. And it does not do that currently (at least the non-OC version on 1-2 casters, which is what I was proposing). Removing the OC halves the damage rate. Rebalancing the AP ratio and BvL mitigates the damage against unarmoured targets.

    It's an unfortunate fact though, that one of the go to kiting strategies people use against GS is to get a dragon mounted fireball ,spirit leech or bow lord to sit on the GS lord, as well flyby cooldown interrupts and spell attacks. There's only so much the short ranged GS archers can do, even with effigy. Most dragon factions have access to healing too, slow damage is not a massive threat to them either.

    An armour debuff on OC would be another nice way to nerf OC vs low armour, although it would synergise powerfully with the rusty arrers and maybe encourage caster spam all the more to take advantage of the armour debuff from the first OC.
    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    As long as it can still hit fast flyers at short ranges then I agree! OC would still need looking at for mounted mages though if most of the missiles still hit when stationary.
  • CA_DuckCA_Duck Posts: 1,440Registered Users, CA Staff
    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    Formal disclaimer: any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,568Registered Users
    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    non functional in this case than, well amber spear has random 50% chance of actually not going off so its really a non issue
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users
    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    Interesting, how potent is amber spear's homing compared to vindictive glare, ~25-40%?
  • CA_DuckCA_Duck Posts: 1,440Registered Users, CA Staff
    konosmgr said:

    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    Interesting, how potent is amber spear's homing compared to vindictive glare, ~25-40%?
    It is comparable to a Fireball's homing, but the faster projectile speed means that it has less time to correct course.
    Formal disclaimer: any views or opinions expressed here are those of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of The Creative Assembly or SEGA.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 7,568Registered Users
    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    Interesting, how potent is amber spear's homing compared to vindictive glare, ~25-40%?
    It is comparable to a Fireball's homing, but the faster projectile speed means that it has less time to correct course.
    VG is super fast yet it never misses.
  • konosmgrkonosmgr Posts: 161Registered Users
    edited January 14

    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    Interesting, how potent is amber spear's homing compared to vindictive glare, ~25-40%?
    It is comparable to a Fireball's homing, but the faster projectile speed means that it has less time to correct course.
    VG is super fast yet it never misses.


    it can even hit units behind a slight hill(4:35) , while on the other hand I've seen amber spear miss netted targets. VG is atm the spookiest thing in town.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Posts: 1,323Registered Users

    CA_Duck said:

    konosmgr said:

    This is all solved if they remove the homing ability, like the amber spear.

    Amber Spear also has homing.
    non functional in this case than, well amber spear has random 50% chance of actually not going off so its really a non issue
    Yeah, amber spears casting is garbage. A lot of the time your mage will sit on their ass twiddling their thumbs for a good 10 seconds or something after the spell should have already gone off, it's pretty ridiculous.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • ystyst Posts: 5,906Registered Users
    edited January 14
    -
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
    Unit stats compare courtesy of Seal62 https://total-war-unit-compare.herokuapp.com/
  • WitchbladeWitchblade Posts: 300Registered Users
    It's beyond me how some people are defending this spell. It was dubiously effective before the patch. The patch made it completely broken. It costs only 4 mana, it costs only 70 gold, it has 250 m range, it rarely ever misses and it can 1-shot a mage. 1 hit, literally, is enough to break many unarmored heroes. There is almost no reason ever not take this spell. A shaman with just this spell and mushrooms costs less than 400 gold and he has stalk, so you can't even prepare well for it (if it weren't for the fact the spell is so broken everyone takes it these days).

    You can get 2 casters for less than 800 gold. If you have 28 mana, you can then do a quadruple cast including 3 overcasts... the first 3 are already enough to take out Alarielle on an eagle nearly 100% of the time.

    As for the "it's weak against armor" defense, it's not. Overcast it still deals ~900 damage to a stardragon for 8 mana. That's more than a spirit leech with over twice the range.

    Suggested fix: undo the last patch to give people at least some chance of dodging it and make the overcast version make it 100% AP without increasing total damage. Greenskins struggle with armored monsters, so this change will make the spell retain its use for this purpose without being able to 1-shot enemy mages.

Sign In or Register to comment.