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

Is the current patch the best ever for viable build diversity?

1234579

Comments

  • RawSugarRawSugar Registered Users Posts: 1,642
    edited August 2021
    really wonder how you do your test- what i get dryad vs empire knight is dryads breaking after dealing less than 200 damage w knights dealing 250+
    swordmen do somewhat better...
    ata glance gord 2h absolutely should be beating forsaken, pr hold, pr unit im not sure
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,102
    edited August 2021
    RawSugar said:

    really wonder how you do your test- what i get dryad vs empire knight is dryads breaking after dealing less than 200 damage w knights dealing 250+
    swordmen do somewhat better...
    ata glance gord 2h absolutely should be beating forsaken, pr hold, pr unit im not sure

    with another person, with no mods, thinest formation on both unless noted different above, on MP crossroads, with both players pending same gold (so an idal unit one the side away from all combat) so balance of power does not interrupt.

    How do you do your ones? If you do vs AI, try doing it swapping armies and see if u get same tests, AI does weird things when testing vs it

    At first glace i disagree i think forsaken should be an anti gor unit seeing they beat wardancers (with no dances active), beating wardancers and downtrading to gors seems to be about numbers that hit during the charge.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USARegistered Users, Moderators, Knights Posts: 23,130
    Personal side conversation removed.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin/Mark Twain
    “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”–George Santayana, The Life of Reason, 1905.

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    edited September 2021

    Most metrics have flaws and won't paint a full picture. The best way is to know, see and think.

    Well I certainly hope you aren't approaching your contributions here in that order.
    No but seriously, having knowledge of the game, observe what is going on and then draw conclusions based on knowledge and observations gets you a long way.

    Whatever you choose for metric you must anyways base conclusions on assumptions of what is desirable. You end up just giving opinions at the end of the day anyways. Metrics are good for visualising change, but not much for proving what is good or bad.
    I do agree that what is desirable can't be determined via metrics and requires game design decisions from the Devs as well as feedback from the players. But if the metrics are widely accepted for years and then rapidly abandoned as soon as they don't support a very few build types based on a couple dozen players preferences, then something smells a bit fishy imo. Especially in a patch where there are far more significant bugs that also hurt player retention as well as a likely expected decline in interest in game 2 as it is known that game 3 is on the way (it would be interesting to see if player numbers are down in Campaign as well currently as a non-competitive environment where bugs are less impactful to the experience. It would also be interesting to see how these player rates trend once more WH3 news starts dropping).

    As for knowledge of the game, let's put some facts on the table then:

    1. If you compare factions with both infantry and cavalry, there are a total of 110 infantry units in the game and 68 cavalry units. I got this number by adding up the unit cards in each category (standard + RoRs) and in fringe cases I checked the descriptor on the unit card (for instance Feral Cold Ones are counted under Cavalry, Sepulchral Stalkers weren't). Only melee infantry/melee cavalry were include (I did this quickly based off TWWstats.com and how they breakdown units, which means Miners BC counted as infantry buy Skink Cohort Jav didn't, but it seems like a reasonable ballpark).
    2. If we include factions that don't have cavalry but do have infantry in the count, we get 158 infantry vs 68 cavalry.
    3. The only faction in the game with more cavalry than infantry is Bretonnia.
    4. Infantry is cheaper on average than Cavalry (often significantly cheaper) in every single faction.

    When you combine all the above information and factor in how price influences quantity demanded for a unit at a particular pricepoint, it makes perfect sense why more infantry is seen than cavalry. This isn't due to balance being worse, it is due to balance being better. Which brings us back to the value of using preexisting metrics (pick rates/Kills/damage value) to assess game balance in a way that doesn't prioritise one unit class over another.

    CA will have their vision for the game and maybe that vision does have a larger role to play for Cavalry than would be expected by just looking at pickrates and how they relate to pricepoints/performance. Or maybe they want Cavalry to be able to do more of the front-facing cycle charging regardless of relative statlines but will nerf cav in another way so that the relationship between price and powerlevel is maintained across unit types.

    But as functionally what is being asked here is to break the market for units in favour of incentivising cavalry (AKA subsidising cavalry picks) it is important to consider what the overall impact this will have on balance. Especially because 4 factions in the game don't have cavalry at all (Dwarfs/Skaven/Norsca/Coast) so while all others will at least see some benefit from the interaction change that has been proposed, I guess those 4 factions have just drawn the short-end of the stick?

    Imo the best approach is targeted buffs for cavalry that need it (perhaps start with -100 for both wild riders), as well as in some cases reviewing internal roster balancing for cav (Questing Knights are so cost-effective they completely outshine Grails most of the time which is the main thing hurting their pickrates).

    EDIT: you could also look for overperforming infantry units and nerf those as well. But they need to be shown as overperforming by traditional metrics as well as in the counter-charging scenario, otherwise we would end up with the same problem of cavalry being underpriced relative to infantry at the same pricepoint but from the other direction.
    Post edited by DaBoyzAreBackInTown on
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    I have not followed your argument with lotus in that great detail, but let me just say I don't buy into any kind of supply - demand logic when it comes to the number of unit cards.

    The number of unit cards is not supply, its variation, and the important metric in terms of army building is mainly the power level of the tools you have at your disposal. Which tools are you picking to perform a certain function in your army. If you look at vc for example, blood knights are not really competing with black knights in terms of function. The matchup will dictate which job needs to be done, then the power level of blood knights will dictate whether you use them or another tool to do the job you need to do. The supply of blood knights are controlled by unit caps and funds, not by the number is black knight cards who don't even do the same job is the roster. So looking at card counts will tell you nothing imo.

    My knowledge of the game will instead tell me that if the pick rate if fey has now increased even if she was not buffed, while high tier cav went down, then it is because she is now more important than ever in her mortis function to kill infantry. If the pick rate of volkmar increased, while the pick rate of demis went down its likely because his anti-infantry function has become more important than before, because of the alternative approaches to killing infantry are weaker. If the pick rate of spears went down in favour of gw it tells me that spears are less needed, etc etc. That's a bit of a side conversation though, I don't think there is any doubt cav is in a weak state and being picked less, especially in the role to kill infantry.

    All this, including this entire thread, I think is just a distraction though. This is not about the power level of cavalry really, it's about a fundamental function in combat resolution that was accidentally removed. Knocked down models ignoring being interrupted and applying their damage anyways is a big flaw of the engine. It makes it unable to tell the difference between a clean charge and a charge where your unit is being disrupted. It affects all interactions in the game involving large units and infantry. Not only does it affect all these hundreds of unit interactions combat outcomes, it also makes for example cavalry behave not like cavalry but like armored dogs instead, or very fast infantry. Mass and speed of impact no longer is recognized as factors affecting combat. Its so busted its not even funny.

    If it had been a case of the engine working as intended but the balance had been shifted between these unit types it would have been something else, then we could have discussed the ups and downs of this rational balance decision, but this is different. What we have here was the "stag-fix" accidentally causing the "infantry bug" which people started calling it. I think it's really strange that anyone can find it in themselves to argue against fixing this.

    The real worry is the silence from CA. It sends the impression they are not eager to spend the resources to clean up this mess.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 777
    Also we don't have a market, CA is the great central planner ^^
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167

    I have not followed your argument with lotus in that great detail, but let me just say I don't buy into any kind of supply - demand logic when it comes to the number of unit cards.

    Do you mean the number of unit cards in builds generally (as in 8/12/16/20 stacks), or the which unit cards end up in builds specifically (as in price plays no determining role in which units are used)?
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    edited September 2021

    Also we don't have a market, CA is the great central planner ^^

    The Pick Screen isn't a market for units? You have:

    - Product Selection (Units)
    - Rationing of Supply (Unit caps/no cross-faction unit picks)
    - Limited Resources (12400 funds, 20 card slots)
    - Buying/Selling Occurs (you trade gold for unit cards)

    The contents available in the "Pick Screen Market for units" are constrained and determined by CA in various ways, but it is definitely a market. Central Planners can still be engaged in markets it is just that they typically heavily restrict the entry of alternative suppliers INTO any markets (so CA does fit the description of a Central Planner in that sense).
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    I have not followed your argument with lotus in that great detail, but let me just say I don't buy into any kind of supply - demand logic when it comes to the number of unit cards.

    Do you mean the number of unit cards in builds generally (as in 8/12/16/20 stacks), or the which unit cards end up in builds specifically (as in price plays no determining role in which units are used)?
    No I mean the number of cavalry vs infantry card you counted, it doesn't really have anything to say at all. It's not a supply and demand situation. You can just look at any roster, there is very little overlap in function between different cavalry units, as well as between cavalry and infantry. Since unit cards are not in direct competition against each other, their expected pick rates are governed by completely different factors, not the unit card count available in the game.

    If you take Blood knights again, they don't compete with black knights to kill large, they compete with terrorgheist builds, or some other combination of vargulf/banshee/lord. If you look at blood knights ability to kill infantry, which is their secondary function if picked, they more compete with mortis effects, dragon breath, or attrition using more elite infantry or a combination of these. There is very little competition between cav cards in general I'd say.

    Cheaper cav more compete with dogs for backline pressure/disruption with more or less durability. More expensive cav have more of a dual function, where I'd say that the main function is to control the mobility game, but they also double back (or at least they used to, less now) as a unit with sufficient killing power to trade up against infantry if you win the mobility advantage.

    The game play effect of the infantry being undisruptable is mainly that the secondary role of elite cav is now inefficient, and also much less needed since the opponent is both expected to bring less elite cavalry and if he does it's no big deal since your infantry is self-sufficient against them anyways. So omitting elite cav is now much safer. You still need some mass against monsters and the broken chariots though, and you still need back line pressure/disruption, so even if you don't pick heavy cav as your tool to deal with infantry anymore, you still pick cavalry. In general that should reflect in cheaper cav being picked over elite cav more often now than before, that's the thing I'd look for if you want to find a metric that reflects the problem.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 777

    Also we don't have a market, CA is the great central planner ^^

    The Pick Screen isn't a market for units? You have:

    - Product Selection (Units)
    - Rationing of Supply (Unit caps/no cross-faction unit picks)
    - Limited Resources (12400 funds, 20 card slots)
    - Buying/Selling Occurs (you trade gold for unit cards)

    The contents available in the "Pick Screen Market for units" are constrained and determined by CA in various ways, but it is definitely a market. Central Planners can still be engaged in markets it is just that they typically heavily restrict the entry of alternative suppliers INTO any markets (so CA does fit the description of a Central Planner in that sense).
    It was more of a joke but I'm not sure about your market stuff really. Like I understand your vision of build diversity even if I don't share it. But here I don't really follow, eco stuff seems like unnecessary. CA introduced caps to avoid players picking only 6 super expensive monsters to begin with and call it a build, so the downward demand thing doesn't really work... and tournament rules forcefully restrict spamming elites too. Having cheap troops has much more to do with map control than economics imo. The reduction in expensive cavalry use has nothing to do with eco because eco was not introduced by the rakarth patch!! And I would't be surprised if supa dupa expensive double hypo sees increased use vs dawi since then.
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 893
    edited September 2021
    Gors 2H have always been pretty strong though it’s just again more noticeable now.

    I will mention RoR dryads having frenzy vs semi high armor seems to be less of issue for them it’s a little silly.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167

    I have not followed your argument with lotus in that great detail, but let me just say I don't buy into any kind of supply - demand logic when it comes to the number of unit cards.

    The number of unit cards is not supply, its variation, and the important metric in terms of army building is mainly the power level of the tools you have at your disposal. Which tools are you picking to perform a certain function in your army. If you look at vc for example, blood knights are not really competing with black knights in terms of function. The matchup will dictate which job needs to be done, then the power level of blood knights will dictate whether you use them or another tool to do the job you need to do. The supply of blood knights are controlled by unit caps and funds, not by the number is black knight cards who don't even do the same job is the roster. So looking at card counts will tell you nothing imo.

    My knowledge of the game will instead tell me that if the pick rate if fey has now increased even if she was not buffed, while high tier cav went down, then it is because she is now more important than ever in her mortis function to kill infantry. If the pick rate of volkmar increased, while the pick rate of demis went down its likely because his anti-infantry function has become more important than before, because of the alternative approaches to killing infantry are weaker. If the pick rate of spears went down in favour of gw it tells me that spears are less needed, etc etc. That's a bit of a side conversation though, I don't think there is any doubt cav is in a weak state and being picked less, especially in the role to kill infantry.

    All this, including this entire thread, I think is just a distraction though. This is not about the power level of cavalry really, it's about a fundamental function in combat resolution that was accidentally removed. Knocked down models ignoring being interrupted and applying their damage anyways is a big flaw of the engine. It makes it unable to tell the difference between a clean charge and a charge where your unit is being disrupted. It affects all interactions in the game involving large units and infantry. Not only does it affect all these hundreds of unit interactions combat outcomes, it also makes for example cavalry behave not like cavalry but like armored dogs instead, or very fast infantry. Mass and speed of impact no longer is recognized as factors affecting combat. Its so busted its not even funny.

    If it had been a case of the engine working as intended but the balance had been shifted between these unit types it would have been something else, then we could have discussed the ups and downs of this rational balance decision, but this is different. What we have here was the "stag-fix" accidentally causing the "infantry bug" which people started calling it. I think it's really strange that anyone can find it in themselves to argue against fixing this.

    The real worry is the silence from CA. It sends the impression they are not eager to spend the resources to clean up this mess.

    So I think the point I was trying to make with the Cavalry vs Infantry unit card count was unclear so let me clarify it. Because as you stated your point I don't disagree with any of it, it is just addressing something I wasn't saying.

    Let's list some things we know are true:

    1. Cheaper units are picked more often than expensive units (As price decreases, quantity demand increases)
    2. There are more infantry cards than Cavalry cards in the game
    3. Infantry cards are on average cheaper than Cavalry cards

    All these 3 points which are empirically true, mean that we should expect to see more infantry than cavalry at the low tier/mid tier/high tier. Because there are more of them to pick from, and they are cheaper at every tier level than their cavalry counterparts. I'm not commenting on whether or not this is a desirable outcome from a gameplay perspective, but if we consider players to be somewhat rational in their unit picks then the fact you get more infantry options at on average lower prices will drive infantry to be more commonly seen.

    But there is also another implication of these 3 points in regards to elite Cavalry. These conversations can get quite confused because we are talking about "Elite Infantry pick rates vs Elite Cavalry pick rates vs Elite Ranged pick rates vs Elite SEM pick rates" without clearly defining what "Elite" means. Does it mean $1000+ cost? Does it mean the highest tier available to a faction? We don't have a clear definition although I would say broadly speaking that colloquially it is accepted that being:

    1. Greater than 1000 gold in cost AND
    2. The highest tier unit in your category for a faction

    Makes the unit an "Elite". The problem arises when we have situations where players have broad requests such as wanting to see more "Elite Cavalry" compared to other "Elites", without factoring in the ACTUAL cost of the units in question. For example and to stick with VC, Black Coaches are 1100 and Terrorgheists are 2050. So with a 950 gold difference in price, balancing off a metric like "seeing an equal amount of elite chariots compared to elite flyers" doesn't make any sense. Because the PRICE is the relevant point of comparison, not the designation of being "Elite" which is a loose definition that can capture many different units across different price points, differ by faction etc. We really need to be discussing the actual prices of differing units in these types of discussions otherwise this can really confuse how balancing should be approached.

    To give another example that is especially clear due to pricing, we shouldn't expect to see Dragon Princes be picked at higher rates than Phoenix Guard. Even though they play very different roles in army compositions, as they are the same price (1400) the pick rate should be the same all other things being equal (for convenience I am ignoring how certain units in factions get "thematic discounts" but you see my point).

    Now to address the most likely response here and you noted this correctly, it is rare in this game for "All other things to be equal". Different units play different roles and so price is not the sole determiner of pickrates. We pick cards and combinations of cards to defeat specific portions of the enemy army, support other parts of your own army, or implement certain parts of overall battle plans. It doesn't matter how cheap Black Knights are when I need Blood Knights to kill large, gain battlefield control etc. And this is a good thing, it is a big part of what makes building armies in this game so fun, creating those unit synergies. And on top of that, for gameplay/spectacle reasons we WANT to see diverse armies with different unit types performing well. Cavalry & Chariots are cool units and very fun parts of the game.

    But the metric of unit card type count is relevant because with more card types come more options to fulfill different roles (like you noted with the Blood Knight vs Black Knight) and as you need different tools in this game to do different things, the fact you get both more variety with infantry AND on average cheaper prices means you are going to see more infantry. Especially when we already know by comparing unit cards that Cavalry pay a lot for their speed, but the current game setup is not particularly great at allowing players to capitalise on this speed, nor at allowing players to create their own opportunities to capitalise on speed.

    Which brings us back to using the traditional metrics used for balancing in assessing the current situation with cavalry/infantry or really with all units in general. I know you think this is solely about an interaction (and it partially is for game design/spectacle purposes) but we can't ignore that this interaction is occurring between 2 units and those units are embedded inside a game. Players aren't saying "the game is broken because the engine is yadda yadda yadda" they (some) are saying "the game is broken because cavalry is bad". So the devs can figure out the engine and the game design, I'm commenting on game balance.

    What changes that occur with cavalry need to factor in the actual current performance of cavalry based on the most important common metric we have for comparing balance between any 2 units, price. How much does a unit cost & how much value did a unit accrue? This allows for a distilled and direct comparison of any 2 units and is the most important starting point for assessing balance. Note I said balance here, and not game design. If the argument is that cavalry should be able to be used in a different way than it can be currently, then that is a completely fair opinion to hold but that is more about game design.

    But if we are trying to tell if balance is good we need to ask questions more like:

    - What are the pick rates/damage values like for cavalry @ 550 compared to infantry/ranged/SEM @ 550?
    - What are the pick rates/damage values like for cavalry @ 1200 compared to infantry/ranged/SEM @ 1200?
    - What are the pick rates/damage values like for cavalry @ 1400 compared to infantry/ranged/SEM @ 1400?
    - What are the pick rates/damage values like for cavalry @ 2000 compared to infantry/ranged/SEM @ 2000?

    We can't talk about abstract "Elites" as these are not well-defined categories. Price matters when comparing units pick rates and performance. And if by standard metrics elite cavalry is performing fine, then buffing (or fixing depending on your view) cavalry is not going to create a better balanced game it will just be making it so that 1 gold invested in cavalry can more reliably get a return than 1 gold invested in other units types, and that is NOT good game balance.

    The best thing we can do for balance going forward into game 3 is:

    - Wait for Domination mode before applying any sweeping changes to the interaction assuming the QB pick rates/damage value etc are consistent with similarly priced units
    - If any cavalry are underperforming strongly in this patch, buff in the normal ways (as there are definitely cav that are priced based on cav balance pre-infantry knockdown fixes. But there is nothing inherent to cav that means it needs to remain costed at current values, especially when SP/MP pricing are separate. Why shouldn't there be more alignment between cavalry and infantry prices where appropriate?)


    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167

    Also we don't have a market, CA is the great central planner ^^

    The Pick Screen isn't a market for units? You have:

    - Product Selection (Units)
    - Rationing of Supply (Unit caps/no cross-faction unit picks)
    - Limited Resources (12400 funds, 20 card slots)
    - Buying/Selling Occurs (you trade gold for unit cards)

    The contents available in the "Pick Screen Market for units" are constrained and determined by CA in various ways, but it is definitely a market. Central Planners can still be engaged in markets it is just that they typically heavily restrict the entry of alternative suppliers INTO any markets (so CA does fit the description of a Central Planner in that sense).
    It was more of a joke but I'm not sure about your market stuff really. Like I understand your vision of build diversity even if I don't share it. But here I don't really follow, eco stuff seems like unnecessary. CA introduced caps to avoid players picking only 6 super expensive monsters to begin with and call it a build, so the downward demand thing doesn't really work... and tournament rules forcefully restrict spamming elites too. Having cheap troops has much more to do with map control than economics imo. The reduction in expensive cavalry use has nothing to do with eco because eco was not introduced by the rakarth patch!! And I would't be surprised if supa dupa expensive double hypo sees increased use vs dawi since then.
    The vast majority of balancing in this game is done around these types of economic analyses, it is just people don't realise that is what it is.

    Take Greenskin Skirmish cav being too strong. The complaints were basically "they are too cheap and accrue value too easily against too many targets" which to formalise it could sound like "The expected gold return from investing funds in Greenskin skirmish cav is out of line with the expected value that other units at a similar price point can expect".

    Not all balancing is around this stuff, for instance poison changes were a different style of balancing. But anytime where the only balancing change is cost, it is basically informed by economics, market behaviour (player pick rates) and return on investment (how it performs).

    Unit Caps/Unit Limits/Tourney Limits are just another word for rationing (Artificial restriction of demand): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationing
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031
    @DaBoyzAreBackInTown I am not sure why we would want to theorycraft average pick rates of things based on cost in the first place, to me it's just distraction from the problem we're dealing with here. It's nothing I would spend too much energy on. The way I see it, as you also predicted, is that any picks have mostly to do with the job you need to get done. When it comes to the current wide cheap meta there are so many things in play so it's probably not really useful to try to pin it on one reason alone. Among the reasons I think are important are things like: High unit count is useful by its own right for map control. Infantry happens to be cheapest way to fill up to full unit count. Cheap units, ie chaff, also have the cheapest HP per gold, which is again something that is useful by its own right. So I don't know one could make out of it in terms of comparing pick rates of various classes or cost ranges.

    What I find important with regards to "diversity" is tactical diversity rather than unit card diversity. I mean who cares if a build uses 8 skaven slaves + 2 clan rats, or 5 clan rats, at the end of the day that's more or less the same build if the other components of the build was the same. It could have been an artillery based build, a drain SE blob build, or a rush build, or a wide weapons teams build and it could still use the same infantry-component. I wouldn't stare myself blind on pick rates but rather try to look at the whole picture and classify builds after how they play, how they counter different aspects of opponent builds and what the wincons are.

    I also need to comment on this last bit, which seems to be the whole reason for this thread:


    The best thing we can do for balance going forward into game 3 is:

    - Wait for Domination mode before applying any sweeping changes to the interaction assuming the QB pick rates/damage value etc are consistent with similarly priced units
    - If any cavalry are underperforming strongly in this patch, buff in the normal ways (as there are definitely cav that are priced based on cav balance pre-infantry knockdown fixes. But there is nothing inherent to cav that means it needs to remain costed at current values, especially when SP/MP pricing are separate. Why shouldn't there be more alignment between cavalry and infantry prices where appropriate?)

    This part is again arguing for letting the broken interaction stay broken. What you say there, don't do any sweeping changes now. Well, CA just made the big mother of sweeping fkup by messing up hundreds of interactions in the game and repairing that would be imperative if you wanted to not do sweeping changes before domination.

    The bottom line that we must never forget here is that the way the engine currently works according to the tests we have done, disruption from knockbacks no longer affect the combat outcome. It's like it never happened, resulting in that infantry deals the same damage if they get a clean charge onto cavalry as if they get counter-charged while they charge.

    In other words, cavalry now trade with infantry in the same way dogs, infantry or other low mass models do. Momentum/knockback has no significance for damage trading when disruptions no longer disrupt attacks. This is a fundamental issue that goes deeper than cav vs inf, it affects all high mass models trading into counter-charging infantry. It's even worse for chariots being counter-charged by infantry, or monstrous cav or monstrous infantry. Heavy melee chariots are actually pretty hard countered by ap infantry now as long as they counter-charge.

    If the current state would be truly desirable, then by all means they could always design it so that infantry counters chariots, but in that case it should be by rational design and not by accidentally breaking knockbacks influence on combat results when trying to get stags wonky animations to register damage.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • ThibixMagnusThibixMagnus Registered Users Posts: 777


    In other words, cavalry now trade with infantry in the same way dogs,...

    Not fair to dogs. Dogs are still much better against backward-moving loose infantry. It takes more than some common knightly rabble to be a glorious doggo.
  • TheShiroOfDaltonTheShiroOfDalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 34,001


    In other words, cavalry now trade with infantry in the same way dogs,...

    Not fair to dogs. Dogs are still much better against backward-moving loose infantry. It takes more than some common knightly rabble to be a glorious doggo.
    Any unit but dogs has severe trouble killing units moving away from them.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    edited September 2021


    @DaBoyzAreBackInTown I am not sure why we would want to theorycraft average pick rates of things based on cost in the first place, to me it's just distraction from the problem we're dealing with here. It's nothing I would spend too much energy on. The way I see it, as you also predicted, is that any picks have mostly to do with the job you need to get done. When it comes to the current wide cheap meta there are so many things in play so it's probably not really useful to try to pin it on one reason alone. Among the reasons I think are important are things like: High unit count is useful by its own right for map control. Infantry happens to be cheapest way to fill up to full unit count. Cheap units, ie chaff, also have the cheapest HP per gold, which is again something that is useful by its own right. So I don't know one could make out of it in terms of comparing pick rates of various classes or cost ranges.

    If you think ignoring one of the core balancing tools used in Multiplayer to balance both factions and units is "a distraction not worth spending energy on" then I would question why you discuss balance in the first place. Or what you are even aiming for when you talk about balance.

    Fundamentally, units need to have reasonably equal opportunity to return the gold invested in them. So for example if we take Wood Elves, we have 4 units that all cost 1200:

    - Bladesingers
    - Waywatchers
    - Wild Riders (Shields)
    - Sister of Thorn

    All of these units are different unit types with different roles they play in armies. They can all perform well in different circumstances, and we can't purely use the traditional balancing metrics to determine if they are balanced as for example Sisters of Thorn provide utility through their spells etc. But if these units are:

    - Performing in-game at a reasonable level based on Damage Value/Kills and comparably to other units at the same cost
    - Are being picked at rates consistent with other units at the same cost

    Then any changes to prioritise one of those 4 units over the others is just bias. There is no reason players should be any more able to take 4 Wild Riders (Shields) than 4 Bladesingers or 4 Sisters of the Thorn or 4 Waywatchers. Because a 1200 gold unit needs to perform like a 1200 gold unit regardless of type. There are of course various caveats here due to certain factions getting certain units relatively more cheaply due to thematic reasons, but you can't go too too far from the unit price in assessing performance.

    Which is why I keep highlighting that the key question here is "Are Cavarly etc actually underperforming currently based on the normal metrics?". Because what some seem to be saying is that ALL cavalry above $1000+ need to "have their interaction fixed" which will functionally play out as a buff. Which will then push up their cost-efficiency on the standard metrics used to assess balance so that they can regularly expect to get a return of value greater than units of different types that cost the same amount. And that is NOT balance, that is playing favourites.


    What I find important with regards to "diversity" is tactical diversity rather than unit card diversity. I mean who cares if a build uses 8 skaven slaves + 2 clan rats, or 5 clan rats, at the end of the day that's more or less the same build if the other components of the build was the same. It could have been an artillery based build, a drain SE blob build, or a rush build, or a wide weapons teams build and it could still use the same infantry-component. I wouldn't stare myself blind on pick rates but rather try to look at the whole picture and classify builds after how they play, how they counter different aspects of opponent builds and what the wincons are.

    The rest here about tactical diversity etc I all agree with. I am desperate for more tactical and strategic diversity in this game. But the best way to improve that is by expanding the tactical options of the game to allow more units to be in more situations where their unique combinations of stats allow them to perform. The way to allow more "tools" (Infantry/Cavalry/Chariots/Monsters/Ranged) to perform is to increase the number of situations where different tools have relative advantages.

    As an example let's say we have two tools, a hammer and a spanner. Both tools cost $50. Someone comes to us and says "I have a bunch of nails I need inserted into a wall, here is $50, please go and get a tool to do this job.". So naturally you go out and buy a hammer because that is the tool best suited for the job. Even if the spanner only cost $25, you will buy the hammer because that is the best tool for the job. Maybe at $5 you will buy the spanner and pocket the difference, but it will still be a much worse tool for the job. Whereas if someone comes to you with a job requiring a spanner, then that is the tool you will use for the job no matter how discounted hammers are.

    Basically what we have with the current QB game mode is a situation where a certain set of "tools" (Infantry/Ranged) are better suited for the job than other tools. But the answer isn't to keep making other tools cheaper (or overpowered at their pricepoint which effectively is the same thing) but to instead expand the range of "jobs" opponents are asked to perform in game so they need to pay for a more diverse set of tools to complete them. And we can't just ignore the normal metrics used to assess the efficacy of different units when they become inconvenient by not supporting our desired build types.

    As tactical requirements to win expand, room will open up for more units of more unit types to perform well and excel.

    The whole "the engine is broken stuff" I will let the devs decide on that one.

    As for my recommendations I base them on what I perceive to be most likely to lead to great longterm build diversity, great longterm unit diversity, and great longterm tactical diversity. I could be wrong about that, but that is where I am coming from here. The traditional metrics (+ ongoing good design decisions from CA) have helped lead to a vastly improved balance landscape for MP when compared to the start of game 2. So I don't really see any reason to abandon them now.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 893
    Currently infantry get more attacks off than animations allow vs large units I don’t know why this keeps being argued that it is somehow balanced so yes technically cavalry is underperforming at least vs infantry or if you want to argue for it the other way infantry is over performing(probably more accurate).
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    edited September 2021

    Currently infantry get more attacks off than animations allow vs large units I don’t know why this keeps being argued that it is somehow balanced so yes technically cavalry is underperforming at least vs infantry or if you want to argue for it the other way infantry is over performing(probably more accurate).

    How are you measuring unit underperfomance?

    For arguments sake, the animation can be broken AND the unit can still be performing at acceptable levels based on metrics. All that indicates is likely that they were overperforming previously.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,102

    Currently infantry get more attacks off than animations allow vs large units I don’t know why this keeps being argued that it is somehow balanced so yes technically cavalry is underperforming at least vs infantry or if you want to argue for it the other way infantry is over performing(probably more accurate).

    How are you measuring unit underperfomance?

    For arguments sake, the animation can be broken AND the unit can still be performing at acceptable levels based on metrics. All that indicates is likely that they were overperforming previously.
    Simple Compare the damage between patches along side CA stating its currently an unbalanced interaction/outcome.
  • littlenukelittlenuke Registered Users Posts: 855
    I dont think CA said that, CA hasn't said anything since the patch drop really...
    Karaz-A-Karak discord: https://discord.gg/UZV6F5N

  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    edited September 2021

    Currently infantry get more attacks off than animations allow vs large units I don’t know why this keeps being argued that it is somehow balanced so yes technically cavalry is underperforming at least vs infantry or if you want to argue for it the other way infantry is over performing(probably more accurate).

    How are you measuring unit underperfomance?

    For arguments sake, the animation can be broken AND the unit can still be performing at acceptable levels based on metrics. All that indicates is likely that they were overperforming previously.
    Simple Compare the damage between patches along side CA stating its currently an unbalanced interaction/outcome.
    It seems like Grom/GS skirmishers perform better in that patch too. Do they also get to be returned to their previous state?
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • Disposable HeroDisposable Hero Registered Users Posts: 7,031

    Currently infantry get more attacks off than animations allow vs large units I don’t know why this keeps being argued that it is somehow balanced so yes technically cavalry is underperforming at least vs infantry or if you want to argue for it the other way infantry is over performing(probably more accurate).

    How are you measuring unit underperfomance?

    For arguments sake, the animation can be broken AND the unit can still be performing at acceptable levels based on metrics. All that indicates is likely that they were overperforming previously.
    Simple Compare the damage between patches along side CA stating its currently an unbalanced interaction/outcome.
    It seems like Grom/GS skirmishers perform better in that patch too. Do they also get to be returned to their previous state?
    As with all units in this game, the mechanics needs to be repaired, and then units need to be balanced after how they perform in a working environment.
    Don't fear the knockdown. Control it. Embrace it. Love it! :smile:
  • BovineKingBovineKing Registered Users Posts: 893
    Doesn’t mater if it’s balanced from a interaction standpoint units not attacking shouldn’t be putting damage in that by itself is a imbalance.
  • Lotus_MoonLotus_Moon Registered Users Posts: 12,102
    Also i dont understand why a lot of people here are saying cav dont need a buff etc etc... THIS is not on cav's side its on infantry side, cav is doing the dmg it was doign previously nothing has changed in cav, its infantry that is doing more dmg to cav now.

    So there is nothing to fix on cav side rather its infantry that needs fixing in this interaction vs cav/chariots/monster units.

    Makes no sense also to say cav was overperfroming before and now is not since NOTHING changed on cav's side, it make more sense for people to try argue "infantry was underperforming" which i disagree with but at least that kind of stance makes logical sense seeing what was changed.

    If someone does not understand above it means that CAV's damage did not change, they are doing exactly same as before, its infantry dmg to those unit types that changed, so NO cav did not get nerfed they same as the patch before, its infantry that ended up getting bugged which makes it even more obvious it was unintentional since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.
  • steam_164403407233LcJQz69steam_164403407233LcJQz69 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,931
    edited September 2021


    since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    uhhhh yeah hard no on that one.

    That aside, I get what you're saying and that simply buffing cav would not restore the game to the design where cav trade the way that feels right to people vs high CB inf. But I do think some people don't mind the current design where cav are support units.

    Either way, cav need some buffs IMO. And I think the interaction is not ideal for the record. But yeah people don't all agree with that. It's not a crime.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    edited September 2021

    Doesn’t mater if it’s balanced from a interaction standpoint units not attacking shouldn’t be putting damage in that by itself is a imbalance.

    Except Disposable's whole hypothesis about what is occurring here has not been validated. Here is what Duck has actually said on the issue:
    CA_Duck said:

    So my hypothesis is that this increase in damage when infantry counter-charge against shock cavalry isn't caused by the knockdown changes. Rather it is caused by the fixes we did to charge damage going missing. Previously there were situations during charges where entities would make a successful attack and roll for damage, but the damage was never applied (better known as the Great Stag Knight charge bug). We did some work to ensure that attacks that hit also dealt their damage reliably as well. Looks like this then brings to light the interaction that infantry can easily get 2-3 times the number of attacks on the charge when compared to a cavalry unit.

    I still need to do some more investigation and tests to confirm that theory, but it is the ones that makes the most sense to me.

    Entities making a successful roll for damage certainly doesn't sound like "not attacking" to me. And that is a direct quote and the only dev input in the issue so far.

    But regardless there is a reason I keep saying "I will let the devs decide the interaction and if this is a bug/bug fix/etc". Trying to play backseat developer by charging units together and squinting at the models as they fight does not make your preferred explanation true, even if you would really like it to be so.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167

    Also i dont understand why a lot of people here are saying cav dont need a buff etc etc... THIS is not on cav's side its on infantry side, cav is doing the dmg it was doign previously nothing has changed in cav, its infantry that is doing more dmg to cav now.

    So there is nothing to fix on cav side rather its infantry that needs fixing in this interaction vs cav/chariots/monster units.

    Makes no sense also to say cav was overperfroming before and now is not since NOTHING changed on cav's side, it make more sense for people to try argue "infantry was underperforming" which i disagree with but at least that kind of stance makes logical sense seeing what was changed.

    If someone does not understand above it means that CAV's damage did not change, they are doing exactly same as before, its infantry dmg to those unit types that changed, so NO cav did not get nerfed they same as the patch before, its infantry that ended up getting bugged which makes it even more obvious it was unintentional since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    How are you measuring if cav was overperforming before? By what metrics?

    Because on paper cav isn't underperforming now, far from it. It is still fair to be unsatisfied with current performance of some cav and want a return to the previous situation, and definitely in some ways cav balance feels counter-intuitive in particular against GW weapon infantry that I'm not entirely satisfied with.

    But if the discussion is around "cav wasn't overperforming before" then let's see the numbers to support that (obviously we can't provide that but CA can check behind the scenes).

    Because even if you disagree with using damage value and pick rates to determine overall balance of the units (and I agree it isn't and shouldn't be the whole picture), it is a fair, consistent, and commonly accepted method for discussing balance that has been used to great effect in improving game balance so far. And those metrics show cav is performing fine compared to other units at the same price point. To just outright ignore those metrics as being meaningful or relevant at all in regards to discussing cav balance is a double standard.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
  • steam_164403407233LcJQz69steam_164403407233LcJQz69 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,931

    Also i dont understand why a lot of people here are saying cav dont need a buff etc etc... THIS is not on cav's side its on infantry side, cav is doing the dmg it was doign previously nothing has changed in cav, its infantry that is doing more dmg to cav now.

    So there is nothing to fix on cav side rather its infantry that needs fixing in this interaction vs cav/chariots/monster units.

    Makes no sense also to say cav was overperfroming before and now is not since NOTHING changed on cav's side, it make more sense for people to try argue "infantry was underperforming" which i disagree with but at least that kind of stance makes logical sense seeing what was changed.

    If someone does not understand above it means that CAV's damage did not change, they are doing exactly same as before, its infantry dmg to those unit types that changed, so NO cav did not get nerfed they same as the patch before, its infantry that ended up getting bugged which makes it even more obvious it was unintentional since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    How are you measuring if cav was overperforming before? By what metrics?

    Because on paper cav isn't underperforming now, far from it. It is still fair to be unsatisfied with current performance of some cav and want a return to the previous situation, and definitely in some ways cav balance feels counter-intuitive in particular against GW weapon infantry that I'm not entirely satisfied with.

    But if the discussion is around "cav wasn't overperforming before" then let's see the numbers to support that (obviously we can't provide that but CA can check behind the scenes).

    Because even if you disagree that using damage value and pick rates to determine overall balance of the units (and I agree it isn't and shouldn't be the whole picture), it is a fair, consistent, and commonly accepted method for discussing balance that has been used to great effect in improving game balance so far. And those metrics show cav is performing fine compared to other units at the same price point. To just outright ignore those metrics as being meaningful or relevant at all in regards to discussing cav balance is a double standard.
    we don't have the data (CA does) but i suspect that on average for cav over 700 points their kill value per game is lower than other units in terms of effiiciency/value for cost, but to a modest degree.

    There's no way for me to verify this. But I think that's the basic theory folks are working with. I don't buy that we have any better proxy evidence either way from pick rates.
  • DaBoyzAreBackInTownDaBoyzAreBackInTown Registered Users Posts: 1,167
    eumaies said:

    Also i dont understand why a lot of people here are saying cav dont need a buff etc etc... THIS is not on cav's side its on infantry side, cav is doing the dmg it was doign previously nothing has changed in cav, its infantry that is doing more dmg to cav now.

    So there is nothing to fix on cav side rather its infantry that needs fixing in this interaction vs cav/chariots/monster units.

    Makes no sense also to say cav was overperfroming before and now is not since NOTHING changed on cav's side, it make more sense for people to try argue "infantry was underperforming" which i disagree with but at least that kind of stance makes logical sense seeing what was changed.

    If someone does not understand above it means that CAV's damage did not change, they are doing exactly same as before, its infantry dmg to those unit types that changed, so NO cav did not get nerfed they same as the patch before, its infantry that ended up getting bugged which makes it even more obvious it was unintentional since noone was complaining about infantry dmg ever.

    How are you measuring if cav was overperforming before? By what metrics?

    Because on paper cav isn't underperforming now, far from it. It is still fair to be unsatisfied with current performance of some cav and want a return to the previous situation, and definitely in some ways cav balance feels counter-intuitive in particular against GW weapon infantry that I'm not entirely satisfied with.

    But if the discussion is around "cav wasn't overperforming before" then let's see the numbers to support that (obviously we can't provide that but CA can check behind the scenes).

    Because even if you disagree that using damage value and pick rates to determine overall balance of the units (and I agree it isn't and shouldn't be the whole picture), it is a fair, consistent, and commonly accepted method for discussing balance that has been used to great effect in improving game balance so far. And those metrics show cav is performing fine compared to other units at the same price point. To just outright ignore those metrics as being meaningful or relevant at all in regards to discussing cav balance is a double standard.
    we don't have the data (CA does) but i suspect that on average for cav over 700 points their kill value per game is lower than other units in terms of effiiciency/value for cost, but to a modest degree.

    There's no way for me to verify this. But I think that's the basic theory folks are working with. I don't buy that we have any better proxy evidence either way from pick rates.
    That's fair as a reasonable and testable position. I would have my doubts that is true at least on my own experiences and the games I watch, but at least with solid numbers it is easy enough to look at data and see if there is currently a discrepancy between unit type pickrate and performance at the same pricepoint in terms of being within an acceptable range.

    What I find disingenuous is to avoid discussion of cav balance currently altogether and try to frame it as a bug fix similar to the AOE bug or Boar Chariot bug. The cav/infantry situation is more of an unintended balance change but just because something is unintended doesn't necessarily imply it is actually worse for overall balance.
    Discord/Steam Name: Glorious Feeder
Sign In or Register to comment.