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

Ok you nerfed duration and capped at 4, now reduce the cost

NightOfTheDeadNightOfTheDead MemberPosts: 588Registered Users
Having a cap of 4 is quite a huge nerf. This could have been the only nerf all along, tbh.

Capped and nerfed the heal amount. Last patch it was also nerfed. I think a compensation is in order.


Reduce the cost of Nehek by -2 and Earth blood by -1, same with upgraded versions.




«1

Comments

  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 2,843Registered Users
    i don't think this is a huge nerf to anything but the blobiest of blobs.
  • Green0Green0 Posts: 3,536Registered Users
    I don't think you understand the idea of "we wanted to nerf healing". You propose to nerf it and counterbalance the nerf with buffs to offset the nerf. Yeah, not how it works.
  • NightOfTheDeadNightOfTheDead Member Posts: 588Registered Users
    Green0 said:

    I don't think you understand the idea of "we wanted to nerf healing". You propose to nerf it and counterbalance the nerf with buffs to offset the nerf. Yeah, not how it works.

    They did nerf the healing alright. Offsetting the cost does not mean the same as leaving the healing intact. It means, you have more WoM for other things.




  • EkonaiiEkonaii Posts: 24Registered Users

    Green0 said:

    I don't think you understand the idea of "we wanted to nerf healing". You propose to nerf it and counterbalance the nerf with buffs to offset the nerf. Yeah, not how it works.

    They did nerf the healing alright. Offsetting the cost does not mean the same as leaving the healing intact. It means, you have more WoM for other things.
    More WoM for other things.. Such as more healing to match the same WoM to healing ratio as it had previously.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 4,010Registered Users
    To good players healing was never an issue, there are many sources of Nehek still, a necromancer + lord so the nerf isn't ruining VC. Also there is Mortis Engine. But good players didn't use many Nehek so the change isn't bad. It's just not perfected. We just get things done the "male" way, well done dummies.
  • NightOfTheDeadNightOfTheDead Member Posts: 588Registered Users
    edited May 15
    Ekonaii said:

    Green0 said:

    I don't think you understand the idea of "we wanted to nerf healing". You propose to nerf it and counterbalance the nerf with buffs to offset the nerf. Yeah, not how it works.

    They did nerf the healing alright. Offsetting the cost does not mean the same as leaving the healing intact. It means, you have more WoM for other things.
    More WoM for other things.. Such as more healing to match the same WoM to healing ratio as it had previously.
    Sure, but there is a difference here. You don't get the healing in advance, only later. And you still have to commit a good chunk of WoM to heal again. So nerf is still in effect.




  • EkonaiiEkonaii Posts: 24Registered Users

    Ekonaii said:

    Green0 said:

    I don't think you understand the idea of "we wanted to nerf healing". You propose to nerf it and counterbalance the nerf with buffs to offset the nerf. Yeah, not how it works.

    They did nerf the healing alright. Offsetting the cost does not mean the same as leaving the healing intact. It means, you have more WoM for other things.
    More WoM for other things.. Such as more healing to match the same WoM to healing ratio as it had previously.
    Sure, but there is a difference here. You don't get the healing in advance, only later. And you still have to commit a good chunk of WoM to heal again. So nerf is still in effect.
    But casting the same healing spell more often but matching the same WoM to healing ratio also isn't factoring in the map-wide healing from Curse of Undeath or Life Bloom that is now being activated more often due to more spells being cast.
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 569Registered Users
    Both of these spells desperately needed a nerf, healing was way too much of an autopick before. Need to give it time to see how the changes shake out before providing compensatory buffs.
  • NightOfTheDeadNightOfTheDead Member Posts: 588Registered Users
    Ekonaii said:

    Ekonaii said:

    Green0 said:

    I don't think you understand the idea of "we wanted to nerf healing". You propose to nerf it and counterbalance the nerf with buffs to offset the nerf. Yeah, not how it works.

    They did nerf the healing alright. Offsetting the cost does not mean the same as leaving the healing intact. It means, you have more WoM for other things.
    More WoM for other things.. Such as more healing to match the same WoM to healing ratio as it had previously.
    Sure, but there is a difference here. You don't get the healing in advance, only later. And you still have to commit a good chunk of WoM to heal again. So nerf is still in effect.
    But casting the same healing spell more often but matching the same WoM to healing ratio also isn't factoring in the map-wide healing from Curse of Undeath or Life Bloom that is now being activated more often due to more spells being cast.
    That is if you factor, that you were healing maximum 4 units everytime before nerf, which is not true, because it was a variable, and there were times where you would heal more.

    You get get some of healing back in a prolonged fight with the offset, but the you get the benefits only in the end, but a lot of things can go wrong, your caster/lord can be killed for example.

    I am not against the nerfs, just against the funneling everything into mediocrity. Invocation had it coming no doubt, but this triple nerf on overcasted is kinda harsh.







  • SarmatiansSarmatians Posts: 2,843Registered Users
    You use spells to either get more HP for yourself or to take away HP from the enemy.

    Now, taking away HP from the enemy is pretty much the same as getting some back yourself, BUT, healing is still most direct investment of WoM to HP you can make.

    Buffs/debuffs require an aditional step, as you have to have something else to get effect of them.

    Direct damage spells are generaly specialized or expensive or random. Spirit Leech is one of the most popular damage dealing spells because it can hurt single entities and expensive cavalry or monstrous units. It is very far from most efficient in terms of WoM to HP ratio, but its versatility and ease of use make it one of the strongest and most popular.
    Vortices have random paths, can turn on your own units, have less effect on low model count units.

    Healing isn't specialized, you get value on everything the same way, there wasn't a cap on number of units, you're not relying on your opponent to bring specific units for it to be useful, you don't have to bait or trick the enemy, you just had to blob up and click.

    Limiting it to max 4 targets and nerfing it's duration very much makes sense.
  • FrookFrook Posts: 121Registered Users
    I said this in the patch notes thread and I'll say it here. This nerf was the wrong nerf. It makes the single entity blob playstyle most optimal way to play while disproportionately nerfing other ways to play vampire coast. It just reduced variety and specialises vampire coast towards using single entity units.
  • Nitros14Nitros14 Junior Member Posts: 1,524Registered Users
    edited May 15
    Frook said:

    I said this in the patch notes thread and I'll say it here. This nerf was the wrong nerf. It makes the single entity blob playstyle most optimal way to play while disproportionately nerfing other ways to play vampire coast. It just reduced variety and specialises vampire coast towards using single entity units.

    Agreed, they should've aimed the nerf at the healing on single entities and left it the same or better on infantry.
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 569Registered Users
    Frook said:

    I said this in the patch notes thread and I'll say it here. This nerf was the wrong nerf. It makes the single entity blob playstyle most optimal way to play while disproportionately nerfing other ways to play vampire coast. It just reduced variety and specialises vampire coast towards using single entity units.

    I saw your comments but I don't think you are looking at the full picture:

    1. This nerfs SE spam builds on QB, no ifs no buts. You can no longer heal all SE in a blob.
    2. This reduces the appeal of VC from blobbing using invocation. If you have a mosly dead zombie, a grave guard, a coprse cart, and a lord in a blob now you cant also charge in the blood knights, terroeghiest, vargulf etc and hit them all wihh a big heal. Target selection is more necessary. Do you want to risk Invocation not hitting your black coach and grave guard? Maybe you should opt for a non-overcast targeted heal then, and maybe curse of years to provide more damage reduction.
    3. You claim that this encourages more SE focus for heals but this isn't entirely true. Vargulfs and Terrorgheiats are both mobile units with regeneration. So there is also now an important opportunity cost to wasting a "heal slot" on a unit that already heals anyway, as the goal is to have as many units reach heal cap as possible, not just your SEs. The opportunity cost cuts both ways. E.g. Why would you want to blob and heal your regenerating SE's instead of grave guard, blood knights, hexwraiths etc?
    4. This increases the relative utility of corpse cart regen, master of the dead etc.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Posts: 6,043Registered Users
    Nehek could probably use +1 WOM and -1s heal to be in perfect spot balance wise.

    This change was really good, no more brainless blobing.
  • DandalusXVIIDandalusXVII Posts: 4,010Registered Users
    edited May 15
    Deleted.
    Post edited by DandalusXVII on
  • FrookFrook Posts: 121Registered Users
    OrkLads said:

    Frook said:

    I said this in the patch notes thread and I'll say it here. This nerf was the wrong nerf. It makes the single entity blob playstyle most optimal way to play while disproportionately nerfing other ways to play vampire coast. It just reduced variety and specialises vampire coast towards using single entity units.

    I saw your comments but I don't think you are looking at the full picture:

    1. This nerfs SE spam builds on QB, no ifs no buts. You can no longer heal all SE in a blob.
    2. This reduces the appeal of VC from blobbing using invocation. If you have a mosly dead zombie, a grave guard, a coprse cart, and a lord in a blob now you cant also charge in the blood knights, terroeghiest, vargulf etc and hit them all wihh a big heal. Target selection is more necessary. Do you want to risk Invocation not hitting your black coach and grave guard? Maybe you should opt for a non-overcast targeted heal then, and maybe curse of years to provide more damage reduction.
    3. You claim that this encourages more SE focus for heals but this isn't entirely true. Vargulfs and Terrorgheiats are both mobile units with regeneration. So there is also now an important opportunity cost to wasting a "heal slot" on a unit that already heals anyway, as the goal is to have as many units reach heal cap as possible, not just your SEs. The opportunity cost cuts both ways. E.g. Why would you want to blob and heal your regenerating SE's instead of grave guard, blood knights, hexwraiths etc?
    4. This increases the relative utility of corpse cart regen, master of the dead etc.
    1. I never said it does not nerf SE builds or SE spam.
    2. It is true that this discourages the VC (coast and counts both) from blobbing before using IoN. However that instead encourages blobbing together the SE instead, so you will want nothing but your SE in the IoN blob, discouraging usage of chaff that might steal that heal.
    3. It is because SE's disproportionately benefit from heal already, as they do not lose effectiveness from lost health, keeping them from start to finish of the battle gaining value is more important. Indeed, in general you'll see units like terrorgheists and vargulfs to be last units to die in the battlefield, regeneration alone is not enough to reach heal cap. This also still means you would heal some SE that takes more damage with single target IoN, now that it is relatively stronger due increased cost and the cap on upgraded one.
    4. This is true however I don't think it compensates for the disproportionate nerf wide builds received

    The matter of the fact is this only put a limit to how good the optimal build is (I.E usage of plenty of mobile SE) while disproportionately nerfed other playstyles that were not as problematic in the first place. We all knew that VC (coast and counts both, coast was a typo first time) SE were a problem. This just reduced power level of the builds that were being played and will not change the builds at all, while also due reduction of power level necessitating specialisation also increased the gap between optimal build and other builds.

    Healing 1 lord, 2 terrogheists and a vargulf was extremely good value, in fact you generally just needed 2 in the aoe for it to be good value, not even 4. This remains the same, except 15% less value. Healing 4 skeletons, zombies or even ethereal units? It was ok but not preferable. Now it is actively discouraged using IoN at anything but SE, it is at the moment a mistake to heal your regular troops if there are any SE that can be healed. While also making the amount of heal even worse on these troops where it wasn't as big of a deal. You won't mind for example healing 2 graveguard, 1 terrogheist and 1 vargulf, which also further discourages usage of lower tier troops, summons or any other unit that is cheaper and going wider.

    It is plainly obvious, that this change accomplished nothing but further reinforce the SE blobbing as the optimal way to play, reduced variety and diversity. It also goes completely against the theme of the faction.

    I predict that we'll just see exact same builds used by vampire count players, except using summons and chaff even less. Relying more on SE and graveguard than usual. Because the triple nerf of increase in WoM, reduction in healing amount and cap on amount of units healed all most significantly nerf using healing on regular troops. While the effect is only reduced 15%~ or so in using it on 2-4 SE, which was already the optimal and preferred way to use it, which it will remain so.
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 569Registered Users
    Frook said:

    OrkLads said:

    Frook said:

    I said this in the patch notes thread and I'll say it here. This nerf was the wrong nerf. It makes the single entity blob playstyle most optimal way to play while disproportionately nerfing other ways to play vampire coast. It just reduced variety and specialises vampire coast towards using single entity units.

    I saw your comments but I don't think you are looking at the full picture:

    1. This nerfs SE spam builds on QB, no ifs no buts. You can no longer heal all SE in a blob.
    2. This reduces the appeal of VC from blobbing using invocation. If you have a mosly dead zombie, a grave guard, a coprse cart, and a lord in a blob now you cant also charge in the blood knights, terroeghiest, vargulf etc and hit them all wihh a big heal. Target selection is more necessary. Do you want to risk Invocation not hitting your black coach and grave guard? Maybe you should opt for a non-overcast targeted heal then, and maybe curse of years to provide more damage reduction.
    3. You claim that this encourages more SE focus for heals but this isn't entirely true. Vargulfs and Terrorgheiats are both mobile units with regeneration. So there is also now an important opportunity cost to wasting a "heal slot" on a unit that already heals anyway, as the goal is to have as many units reach heal cap as possible, not just your SEs. The opportunity cost cuts both ways. E.g. Why would you want to blob and heal your regenerating SE's instead of grave guard, blood knights, hexwraiths etc?
    4. This increases the relative utility of corpse cart regen, master of the dead etc.
    1. I never said it does not nerf SE builds or SE spam.
    2. It is true that this discourages the VC (coast and counts both) from blobbing before using IoN. However that instead encourages blobbing together the SE instead, so you will want nothing but your SE in the IoN blob, discouraging usage of chaff that might steal that heal.
    3. It is because SE's disproportionately benefit from heal already, as they do not lose effectiveness from lost health, keeping them from start to finish of the battle gaining value is more important. Indeed, in general you'll see units like terrorgheists and vargulfs to be last units to die in the battlefield, regeneration alone is not enough to reach heal cap. This also still means you would heal some SE that takes more damage with single target IoN, now that it is relatively stronger due increased cost and the cap on upgraded one.
    4. This is true however I don't think it compensates for the disproportionate nerf wide builds received

    The matter of the fact is this only put a limit to how good the optimal build is (I.E usage of plenty of mobile SE) while disproportionately nerfed other playstyles that were not as problematic in the first place. We all knew that VC (coast and counts both, coast was a typo first time) SE were a problem. This just reduced power level of the builds that were being played and will not change the builds at all, while also due reduction of power level necessitating specialisation also increased the gap between optimal build and other builds.

    Healing 1 lord, 2 terrogheists and a vargulf was extremely good value, in fact you generally just needed 2 in the aoe for it to be good value, not even 4. This remains the same, except 15% less value. Healing 4 skeletons, zombies or even ethereal units? It was ok but not preferable. Now it is actively discouraged using IoN at anything but SE, it is at the moment a mistake to heal your regular troops if there are any SE that can be healed. While also making the amount of heal even worse on these troops where it wasn't as big of a deal. You won't mind for example healing 2 graveguard, 1 terrogheist and 1 vargulf, which also further discourages usage of lower tier troops, summons or any other unit that is cheaper and going wider.

    It is plainly obvious, that this change accomplished nothing but further reinforce the SE blobbing as the optimal way to play, reduced variety and diversity. It also goes completely against the theme of the faction.

    I predict that we'll just see exact same builds used by vampire count players, except using summons and chaff even less. Relying more on SE and graveguard than usual. Because the triple nerf of increase in WoM, reduction in healing amount and cap on amount of units healed all most significantly nerf using healing on regular troops. While the effect is only reduced 15%~ or so in using it on 2-4 SE, which was already the optimal and preferred way to use it, which it will remain so.
    1. Okay.
    2. This change still leaves conisderably more counterplay and will make the VC player suffer to do this. If you have the capacity to pull back all your SE (for argument's sake lets say Lord on Dragon, Vargulf, Terrorghiest, Black Coach) with all the micro involved in doing this, the units you leave fighting (any infantry, isolated cavalry, flyers etc) will suffer from pulling back such a significant amount of your army. The point is you can no longer goon squad into your infantry/cav and expect IoN to hit your desired targets.
    3. Tell that to Boris/Louen/Morghur/Luthor/etc. Even if you did as you say and heal only SE units ( including regenerating ones which is a bad tactic except in dire circumstances where absolutely necessary) you didn't address my point about that pulling healing away from Blood Knights/Hex Wraiths/Vargheists/Grave Guard/ etc. All units that don't have inbuilt regeneration. The relative extra strength of non-overcast now isn't relevant in question of who gets healing and why.
    Frook said:



    Healing 1 lord, 2 terrogheists and a vargulf was extremely good value, in fact you generally just needed 2 in the aoe for it to be good value, not even 4. This remains the same, except 15% less value. Healing 4 skeletons, zombies or even ethereal units? It was ok but not preferable. Now it is actively discouraged using IoN at anything but SE, it is at the moment a mistake to heal your regular troops if there are any SE that can be healed. While also making the amount of heal even worse on these troops where it wasn't as big of a deal. You won't mind for example healing 2 graveguard, 1 terrogheist and 1 vargulf, which also further discourages usage of lower tier troops, summons or any other unit that is cheaper and going wider.

    No it doesn't remain the same, this is a classic mistake you need to read Bastiat "The Seen and the Unseen" (http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html). It's not enough to look at the units that are benefiting from the heal (Terrorgheist/ Vargulf) you need to look at the units that aren't benefiting from the heal. The relative value of healing regenerating units has gone DOWN because they will heal anyway (multiple entity units that can recover models are an exception as that will restore killing power). Whereas units that won't heal (or can't recover models) are not utilising some of the benefits of Invocation of Nehek.

    Why on earth would it be better value to heal a vargulf that will regenerate anyway (all I need to trade for it is time & points on its healing cap both of which are ingame resources that are being used up anyway) rather than a Blood Knight which will NEVER heal unless I invest Time + WoM?

    The fundamental point which you don't seem to accept is that healing a regenerating SE with anything other than time is a waste. If you disagree on this fundamental point, we will never see eye to eye on this.
  • FrookFrook Posts: 121Registered Users
    edited May 16
    OrkLads said:



    The fundamental point which you don't seem to accept is that healing a regenerating SE with anything other than time is a waste. If you disagree on this fundamental point, we will never see eye to eye on this.

    I already spoke of opportunity cost in my other posts. So you do not need to elaborate what it is in a paragraph with "units that do not benefit from heal". That is exactly the point, because IoN became even less useful on other units than SE, the opportunity cost of not using it on SE also became greater.

    Time is not an infinite resource, any moment that a SE is not doing something is value lost. This is really not an argument at all and I am not sure why do you even say this. If you want to just fly around a terrogheist all battle be my guest. If regen of terrorgheists or vargulfs was enough, you would never see them getting healed. Except you see them being healed all the time.

    As for Boris, if Boris had IoN you would use it on him too. You pick Boris to not bring lore of life, completely different dynamic. There is no Vampire counts without lore of vampires.

    My preferred way of nerfing the SE would be to make IoN completely ineffectual on vampiric units. So that they would have to rely on hunger, regeneration and passive healing of other sorts more, which can then be balanced according to that fact. So that IoN can actually be then buffed to be used on regular troops and be actually valuable, as how it should be.

    Instead what is happening is, with every statistical nerf, IoN retains more of its usefulness on SE than anything else. Making it more and more suboptimal to use it on anything else. Making vampire counts less varied, different and thematic.

    Vampire coast builds will not change because of this, except maybe you might see wight king and banshee more. The only difference is now that the optimal build that everyone still will bring is 15% weaker.
  • friedchikinfriedchikin Posts: 46Registered Users
    Undead and High Elves should never get buffs. You're just a bad player if you're losing with the two most overpowered factions in the game. High Elves have literally never been below tier 1 in the meta.
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 569Registered Users
    Frook said:

    OrkLads said:



    The fundamental point which you don't seem to accept is that healing a regenerating SE with anything other than time is a waste. If you disagree on this fundamental point, we will never see eye to eye on this.


    Time is not an infinite resource, any moment that a SE is not doing something is value lost. This is really not an argument at all and I am not sure why do you even say this. If you want to just fly around a terrogheist all battle be my guest. If regen of terrorgheists or vargulfs was enough, you would never see them getting healed. Except you see them being healed all the time.

    No it is not, but it is one you pay for whether you want to or not. Whether the healing cap is hit at 1 min into a game vs 19 min into a game is irrelevant as long as it is hit. There are still situations where you may want to use a heal on a regenerating SE (to stop it from dying, to prevent crumbling which changes the situation somewhat) but it doesn't change the fact it is a bad trade and that trade just got made considerably worse by the fact that you can no longer expect to hit your non-regenerating units in an overcast IoN.
    Frook said:



    As for Boris, if Boris had IoN you would use it on him too. You pick Boris to not bring lore of life, completely different dynamic. There is no Vampire counts without lore of vampires.

    Speak for yourself. Why waste mana healing a regenerating unit (unless to save them from an imminent death)? Better to pull back, choose a different engagement, etc.
    Frook said:



    My preferred way of nerfing the SE would be to make IoN completely ineffectual on vampiric units. So that they would have to rely on hunger, regeneration and passive healing of other sorts more, which can then be balanced according to that fact. So that IoN can actually be then buffed to be used on regular troops and be actually valuable, as how it should be.

    This would still overly encourage blobbing. Will need more time to think this alternative change over though, however I see VC as the Regenerating Faction rather than the Invocation of Nehek faction. And there is a difference.
    Frook said:



    Instead what is happening is, with every statistical nerf, IoN retains more of its usefulness on SE than anything else. Making it more and more suboptimal to use it on anything else. Making vampire counts less varied, different and thematic.

    Vampire coast builds will not change because of this, except maybe you might see wight king and banshee more. The only difference is now that the optimal build that everyone still will bring is 15% weaker.

    This is false for any regenerating single entity (Terrorgheist, Vargulf, Mortis Engine), but remains true for Black Coach + Lords that don't regen. When the gap between a unit's native regeneration and invocation of nehek reduces, it becomes relatively more valuable to use it on non-regenerating units that can also recover models. You may still think it is a worthwhile trade to exclusively focus IoN on regenerating SEs (and in any specific battle it may be), but the terms of that trade have undeniably gotten worse in relation to another non-regenerating unit, even if that other unit is also single entity. i.e. It is better value to use IoN to heal a Black coach up to it's healing cap than a terrorgheist, because the terrorgheist will have part of the job done by their regen.
  • FrookFrook Posts: 121Registered Users
    edited May 16
    What you are saying now was true before the nerf too and this nerf, increase in WoM and reduction on heal even if ignoring the cap, only serves to make it even less useful on everything else. Reducing usefulness of IoN on SE relative to what it was doesn't compensate for the fact it was nerfed across the board. You'll see IoN not being picked and that WoM used for other spells before you will see it used on regular units when the nerf is static like this and you kept doing it.

    Even before the nerfs you only rarely used IoN cooldown and WoM being spent on regular troops, what makes you think that WoM will now be worthwhile on units that it was not before? If the nerf is absolute in effectiveness like this, then the opportunity cost transfers to other spells, not different targets. Because its relative effectiveness between units is the same and regeneration is still the same. So what is happening is, because the IoN was nerfed and regeneration is usually not enough to reach the heal cap on any unit unless battle goes for 20 minutes, then IoN only becomes more valuable to use on SE. Opportunity costs shift towards the SE, not away from them. As I said you might see non-regenerating SE more, but it will not make it more useful on normal units.
  • Wyvern2Wyvern2 Posts: 987Registered Users

    Undead and High Elves should never get buffs. You're just a bad player if you're losing with the two most overpowered factions in the game. High Elves have literally never been below tier 1 in the meta.

    High Elves have always been in the middling balanced tier except for maybe right after Q+C when Allarielle was busted OP. Right now, if Star of Averlorn got hit with a proper nerf, HE would basically be in the exact same spot as Empire and a model of what a balanced faction looks like.
    Regularly publish Total War: Warhammer 2 content on my YT channel

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCPI93p-X2T4YKD18O16bhPw
  • OrkLadsOrkLads Posts: 569Registered Users
    Frook said:

    What you are saying now was true before the nerf too and this nerf, increase in WoM and reduction on heal even if ignoring the cap, only serves to make it even less useful on everything else. Reducing usefulness of IoN on SE relative to what it was doesn't compensate for the fact it was nerfed across the board. You'll see IoN not being picked and that WoM used for other spells before you will see it used on regular units when the nerf is static like this and you kept doing it.

    It was too strong anyway (as in amount of HP healed per WoM spent) and I agree with this nerf to total healing output. So no disagreement, yes it will be less useful on everything else overall. I was more addressing your point saying it motivates SE blob playstyle, which it doesn't.

    Frook said:


    Even before the nerfs you only rarely used IoN cooldown and WoM being spent on regular troops, what makes you think that WoM will now be worthwhile on units that it was not before?

    What utter nonsense, AOE IoN would frequently catch multiple units of cav &/or infantry in it when cast even if the primary target was the SEs. The 4 cap means that when playing VC you will actually have to choose to have your cake or to eat it, what is the most valuable target to heal? Because despite how strong SEs are in this game, sometimes you would rather have more infantry/cav/ME flyers than them.
    Frook said:



    If the nerf is absolute in effectiveness like this, then the opportunity cost transfers to other spells, not different targets. Because its relative effectiveness between units is the same and regeneration is still the same.

    Yes, this may be the case. I would put money on still seeing IoN virtually every game though, it is still a very strong and versatile spell.
    Frook said:



    So what is happening is, because the IoN was nerfed and regeneration is usually not enough to reach the heal cap on any unit unless battle goes for 20 minutes, then IoN only becomes more valuable to use on SE. Opportunity costs shift towards the SE, not away from them. As I said you might see non-regenerating SE more, but it will not make it more useful on normal units.

    Absolutely not. IoN resurrects models which replenishes the killing power of Multiple entity units, as well as healing. The fact that SE's retain their full killing power on 100hp or 5000hp cuts both ways, any IoN healing that is used on an SE unnecessarily is a waste of resources. Whereas healing a unit with Multiple Entities in it will regenerate health and killing power. Your bang for your buck is greater. There is now a larger trade off to focusing your healing onto your SEs unnecessarily (especially if they could regenerate on their own with good play) as opposed to your other units.

    This applies even more so with IoN Overcast, which before could just heal everything with no problems. Now you might hit units that don't need it at that time (your SEs that retain their full killing power while alive), instead of your ME units (infantry/cav/Flyers which can do more damage with more models).



  • FrookFrook Posts: 121Registered Users
    edited May 16
    I don't disagree with your overall points here, they are not wrong but I think you are overestimating their effect. Especially in consideration of how much of a raw, absolute power level reduction the IoN nerf is. I also firmly think that this will not change the army compositions, even if it were to shift healing priorities around.

    So, it still doesn't change the fact that this was an inelegant and suboptimal solution to the problem at hand, making vampire counts less like what they should.
  • saellsaell Posts: 438Registered Users
    Is there a way to tell which units get affected by the heal if u have more then 4 damaged units in the area or is it random?
  • KayosivKayosiv Senior Member Posts: 2,608Registered Users
    We don't yet know. It might be lowest HP, it might be lowest % HP, it might just be random.
    Space Frontier is a sci-fi themed board game I've designed for 2-4 players. Please take a look and enjoy our free Print-and-Play at FreezeDriedGames.com

    If you have any questions about tactics or mechanics in Total War Warhammer multiplayer, feel free to PM me.
  • Elder_MolochElder_Moloch Posts: 1,455Registered Users
    edited May 16
    saell said:

    Is there a way to tell which units get affected by the heal if u have more then 4 damaged units in the area or is it random?

    As far as I understand it's random, but it slightly highlighted (though, if you won't get very close it may be problematic to see), so you kinda could see, which units would be healed.
    Best way is to select unit manually and in ideal situation not to blob with chaff and look what would be healed.

    Idk, how everyone feeling about this, but WoM changes for Summons+AoE IoN seem horrific to me with taking into account other nerfs in this area, but at the same time Cap is hard on its own.
    Just ran few tests - WoM disappear like nothing even with WoM tools support.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

  • MrRipper707MrRipper707 Posts: 74Registered Users
    what is the point of nerfing it to buff it again one second later. It was overpreforming, it was kinda cheesy. The point of nerfing it was to bring it in line preformance wise to other spells. So why would you even suggest that it needs to be buffed yet if we havent even seen if this nerf has brought it into the expected power levels.
  • Godefroy_de_BouillonGodefroy_de_Bouillon Posts: 1,490Registered Users

    saell said:

    Is there a way to tell which units get affected by the heal if u have more then 4 damaged units in the area or is it random?

    As far as I understand it's random, but it slightly highlighted (though, if you won't get very close it may be problematic to see), so you kinda could see, which units would be healed.
    Best way is to select unit manually and in ideal situation not to blob with chaff and look what would be healed.

    Idk, how everyone feeling about this, but WoM changes for Summons+AoE IoN seem horrific to me with taking into account other nerfs in this area, but at the same time Cap is hard on its own.
    Just ran few tests - WoM disappear like nothing even with WoM tools support.
    yes good less healing blob cheesing and more actual play. Let's see if it will be enough.
  • simo90simo90 Posts: 96Registered Users
    i'm still convinced that must be implemented index regulators, said in WTT1, and i still think the same after 3 years.
    Zombie do heal 200%, skelly 150%, Cav 70% and so on. Of course numbers have to be tweaked, but it's the best way to do it. But the problem is bigger: too many variables have to be taken into account: other spells are the first.

    There are no rules for magic, no weight index. There is no rule who says how much some effects should cost, related to their weight (whatever a weight could be, like damage, area, duration, AP dmg, ecc...).

    Something i always wondered is why the magic compartment seems so random. There are spells very strong, and spells totally useless. Spells that do the same things but cost differently. Vampiric lore is easier to fix, cause it's used by Vampire (2 factions). Lore of life is used by different factions, so how could you fix the cost efficiency of those spells?

    I only read some points been taken into account, but seem to be something like: "according to me, should be like this".
    Decide some indicators, put numbers into account, make some decisions: damaging effect should do more effect than healing spells; buff spells should be more cost-efficient than damaging spell, but damaging spells have to be more "high risk-high reward". Then you could find the right price. Same for WoM, how much 1 WoM costs in coin?

    Even after 10 patches and 1000 threads, nothing will probably change: there always be someone who sees a reason to complain about. Defining rules and applying them to the whole game is the only way to fix it.
    Difficult? Of course, but after you decide the rules, you will fix the rules to balance the game, not fixing single effect/ability/spell to fix the game, cause every time you change a single ability, you umbalance the rest, in a waterfall effect.

    In this total war, magic does exist. It's the main reason why should be touched carefully and with more love.
Sign In or Register to comment.