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

Enticity is wrong (buff vs damage spells)

SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,906
edited August 12 in Warhammer Battle Feedback
There's been a topic that's been bugging me for a while now, and Enticity posted a video on it, so I thought it's a nice way to illustrate my point without really doing any hard work, since he's done it for me, pretty much.



What the video shows is that pretty much in all cases, it is much more efficient to use damaging spells than buffing spells. And that is very wrong.

First of all, buff spells require an investment in units, obviously. You can't buff air. So, you invest in a mage and a spell and a unit, compared to damage spells where you only invest in a mage and a spell.

Secondly, with damage spells, you take into account positioning of your mage and an enemy unit. With buff spells, you need to take into account both those things as well, plus the position of your own unit.

Thirdly, it is most often easier for an opponent to deny you opportunity to gain value from a buff spell.

That doesn't really make sense, and I think it should be looked at.
Post edited by CA_Will on
«1

Comments

  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939
    give buff spells ability to increase capture weight hex spells ability to reduce capture weight instantly viable .

    calculator TW GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,450
    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    But no, enticity is not correct if he's suggesting buff/debuff spells are worse across the board. And his tests are a very limited method to trying to justify such an argument.

    Damage spells include direct damage spells, each of which have a particular target type and are relatively weaker vs other types, or wind spells, which are primarily good against bunched up infantry.

    Buffs/debuffs are strongest with low model count units and against things that aren't large number of infantry models. They're also more versatile.
  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 2,003
    Buff and debuff spells need a greater duration fully on board with that,

    It's always a lesser choice taking them over direct damage. It would be good for the game to have more options that are competitive rather than deliberately hamstringing yourself.

    Yes they are v useful in duels but the problem remains in most cases in a duel people can just run away when they see the buff/debuff start.

    With non single entities fighting that's harder to achieve and thus the buffs debuff have more use. But getting 3-5 attacks in for the duration of a buff debuff is a poor trade when dropping a vortex instead is so easy and rewarding.
  • BloodyStreamBloodyStream Registered Users Posts: 246
    You make fair points, but Enticity is just on a different level. He isn't affected by those limitations to the extent most of us are.
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,685
    saweendra said:

    give buff spells ability to increase capture weight hex spells ability to reduce capture weight instantly viable .

    calculator TW GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    lol, thank you


  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939
    Loupi_ said:

    saweendra said:

    give buff spells ability to increase capture weight hex spells ability to reduce capture weight instantly viable .

    calculator TW GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    lol, thank you
    i mean think about +/-10 capture weight for 60s in a dom match instantly block or swing a point to your favor . specially if its a AOE that hits multiple units
    instantly viable

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,910
    Buffs need buffs!
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,685
    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    But no, enticity is not correct if he's suggesting buff/debuff spells are worse across the board. And his tests are a very limited method to trying to justify such an argument.

    Damage spells include direct damage spells, each of which have a particular target type and are relatively weaker vs other types, or wind spells, which are primarily good against bunched up infantry.

    Buffs/debuffs are strongest with low model count units and against things that aren't large number of infantry models. They're also more versatile.

    yeah he tends to oversimplify a lot for the sake of views, and also has a tendency to view the game in a very black and white economics based way, where units simply trade value with each other. i think that misses a lot of the subtlety of buffs/debuff spells, especially the way that they can change the flow of battle, either by speeding up or slowing down engagments or by forcing things to simply not engage, which changes how other parts of the battle play out.


  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,450
    edited August 8

    Buff and debuff spells need a greater duration fully on board with that,

    It's always a lesser choice taking them over direct damage. It would be good for the game to have more options that are competitive rather than deliberately hamstringing yourself.

    Yes they are v useful in duels but the problem remains in most cases in a duel people can just run away when they see the buff/debuff start.

    With non single entities fighting that's harder to achieve and thus the buffs debuff have more use. But getting 3-5 attacks in for the duration of a buff debuff is a poor trade when dropping a vortex instead is so easy and rewarding.

    It's funny because I agree in general many buff spells deserve a longer duration.

    I just take issue with the inaccurate arguments. There are definitely cases and spells where buff spells are better than damage spells.

    you can compare for example death frost (14WoM) vs Frost blades (overcast 10WoM) in a war bear duel. Frost blades is at least as good for less cost. And of course death frost is a far more specialized spell in terms of what it can help you kill and has only half as much range.
  • Loupi#8512Loupi#8512 Registered Users Posts: 3,685
    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.


  • yst#1879yst#1879 Registered Users Posts: 9,909
    Been talked about to death, been saying from yearssssssssssssss since war 1 that buff spells have too stupid short duration, those garbage have like what 24s? some even have absurd 16s, where it should be at least 45s to 90s or so to make real difference.

    I would say min should be 60s at least, otherwise u simply wave it, direct dmg it or just pendulum or whatever burning head the lines
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,906
    Loupi_ said:

    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.

    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    Yeah, ok. If we go through all the spells in the game and brainstorm all situations they can be used in, we will find some instances were buffing spells are better.

    But, I'm talking about general principle - if casting a buff gives you roughly the same amount of damage as a damage spell, buff spells need to cost less because of all the other things involved. Or have some other perks.

  • OdTengriOdTengri Registered Users Posts: 10,096

    Loupi_ said:

    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.

    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    Yeah, ok. If we go through all the spells in the game and brainstorm all situations they can be used in, we will find some instances were buffing spells are better.

    But, I'm talking about general principle - if casting a buff gives you roughly the same amount of damage as a damage spell, buff spells need to cost less because of all the other things involved. Or have some other perks.
    Yeah... Enticity's premise is correct 90+% of the time. Everyone else here is just throwing shade and hasn't even come up with a single example that refutes his thesis.

    I'm sure you can probably find the weakest direct damage spell and compare it to the best buff in the game but still I think the general trend has always been Direct damage spells give the best conversion of WoM to Damage.

    I'd say that the notable exceptions would be Plague of Rust and Net Effects for debuffs and I cant think of a single buff spell, probably one of the new ones that gives damage reflection.
  • BastileanBastilean Registered Users Posts: 2,910
    edited August 9
    I would prefer reducing the cost of buffs in half, rounding up, across the board, so that we are encouraged to take them as well as to take damage spells.

    This would ensure we don't have to completely re-evaluate spells and abilities with buffs that last up to 45 seconds.
  • KhorneFlakesKhorneFlakes Registered Users Posts: 4,003
    yeah rather than a duration increase a cost reduction is much better.
    Other wise spell that buff MD/MA will become meta.if they last forever

  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 2,003
    edited August 9
    The problem with reducing the cost of them is that it is not that simple.


    By reducing cost you increase the amount they are cast, which means:

    Greater tripping of passives
    A snowballing of their AoE effects


    It means ethereal will effectively be useless again as magic damage will be everywhere far quicker than they can move around

    It means powerful passives like bone wood staff etc etc are almost always on.


    Cheapening wom cost comes with unforseen Consequenes/butterfly effect . Making them last longer does not
  • tank3487tank3487 Member Registered Users Posts: 2,482
    edited August 9
    It depend. Some buff/debuff spells are decent(mostly cheap ones or those that let you focus 1 enemy unit(plague of Rust and focus of enemy SEM/expensive unit with range have bigger value per WOM than many damage spells)). Some have too high cost for too short duration.

    But it is hard to compete vs Pit of Shades one shooting units.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,450

    Loupi_ said:

    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.

    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    Yeah, ok. If we go through all the spells in the game and brainstorm all situations they can be used in, we will find some instances were buffing spells are better.

    But, I'm talking about general principle - if casting a buff gives you roughly the same amount of damage as a damage spell, buff spells need to cost less because of all the other things involved. Or have some other perks.

    Except that premise is wrong or at least incomplete. Damage spells tend to have specific good targets and be useless vs other targets.
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,450
    OdTengri said:

    Loupi_ said:

    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.

    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    Yeah, ok. If we go through all the spells in the game and brainstorm all situations they can be used in, we will find some instances were buffing spells are better.

    But, I'm talking about general principle - if casting a buff gives you roughly the same amount of damage as a damage spell, buff spells need to cost less because of all the other things involved. Or have some other perks.
    Yeah... Enticity's premise is correct 90+% of the time. Everyone else here is just throwing shade and hasn't even come up with a single example that refutes his thesis.

    I'm sure you can probably find the weakest direct damage spell and compare it to the best buff in the game but still I think the general trend has always been Direct damage spells give the best conversion of WoM to Damage.

    I'd say that the notable exceptions would be Plague of Rust and Net Effects for debuffs and I cant think of a single buff spell, probably one of the new ones that gives damage reflection.
    I came up with and tested an example on my first try. With a standard buff spell and within the same lore. (See my comment earlier in this thread)

    I’m not the one making up general rules established by lazy testing.
  • SarmatiannsSarmatianns Registered Users Posts: 4,906
    edited August 9
    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.

    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    Yeah, ok. If we go through all the spells in the game and brainstorm all situations they can be used in, we will find some instances were buffing spells are better.

    But, I'm talking about general principle - if casting a buff gives you roughly the same amount of damage as a damage spell, buff spells need to cost less because of all the other things involved. Or have some other perks.

    Except that premise is wrong or at least incomplete. Damage spells tend to have specific good targets and be useless vs other targets.
    It is pretty much inconceivable that there will be no good targets for burning head. To be fair to Enticity, he was just comparing Flaming Sword to Burning Head. I expanded it to cover the entire category.

    In general, there should be sort of a loose hierarchy of spells, where unmissable direct damage spells should be least efficient per WoM. Missable direct damage spells should be a bit more effective. Debuffs should be a bit more efficient and buffs should be most efficient in this group.

    I mean, it doesn't have to be just WoM... there's duration, price, cooldown, even range. If you have casting range of, for example, Spirit Leech reduced to 30m, that's would make it far less popular and ubiquitous (not arguing for or against that right now, just giving an example).
  • eumaies#1128eumaies#1128 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 9,450

    eumaies said:

    Loupi_ said:

    there are some buff/debuff spells that need buffs, just as there are damage spells that need buffs, so videos like that are not very helpful imo.

    eumaies said:

    I would suggest you focus on specific buff/debuff spells, many of which are UP. They tend to to be too brief or to include too many extraneous impacts that you're paying for but unlikely to use.

    Yeah, ok. If we go through all the spells in the game and brainstorm all situations they can be used in, we will find some instances were buffing spells are better.

    But, I'm talking about general principle - if casting a buff gives you roughly the same amount of damage as a damage spell, buff spells need to cost less because of all the other things involved. Or have some other perks.

    Except that premise is wrong or at least incomplete. Damage spells tend to have specific good targets and be useless vs other targets.
    It is pretty much inconceivable that there will be no good targets for burning head. To be fair to Enticity, he was just comparing Flaming Sword to Burning Head. I expanded it to cover the entire category.

    In general, there should be sort of a loose hierarchy of spells, where unmissable direct damage spells should be least efficient per WoM. Missable direct damage spells should be a bit more effective. Debuffs should be a bit more efficient and buffs should be most efficient in this group.

    I mean, it doesn't have to be just WoM... there's duration, price, cooldown, even range. If you have casting range of, for example, Spirit Leech reduced to 30m, that's would make it far less popular and ubiquitous (not arguing for or against that right now, just giving an example).
    There is usually (not always) good targets for burning head given it’s a non ap spell and depending how you define good. Melting a few gnoblars isn’t an especially great return on that spell. And gnoblars may not be the unit you most need help with in a particular matchup.

    If your goal is to score a decisive engagement for a cav or monstrous unit the buffs/debuffs are other times better value and more important to winning the battle.

    As for your heirarchy buff/debuffs are very easy to cast and typically easy to do so in a scenario where the enemy can’t practically disengage. They also tend to be longer range.

    Anyway there is no shortage of buff/debuff spells that you could point to that are larded up with bad effects or overly short durations and I will be right there with you calling for improving those spells once you demonstrate that in a way that is more credible than enticits Apple to oranges comparison. Just like I’d be right there calling for a slight improvement to wind blast or a major buff to wind of death. But flaming sword or might of heaven and earth which enticity has both showcased are not weak spells even if he somehow can’t find examples of where they are advantaged and worth taking.

    But if what we’re talking about is hierarchies and principles I’d say your arguments are incomplete. Wind spells require setup and are situational in their own way and in their targets. Burning chaff is not always the priority for spells. Long range and versatility are relevant factors.

  • GloatingSwine#8098GloatingSwine#8098 Registered Users Posts: 2,319
    edited August 9
    saweendra said:

    Loupi_ said:

    saweendra said:

    give buff spells ability to increase capture weight hex spells ability to reduce capture weight instantly viable .

    calculator TW GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    lol, thank you
    i mean think about +/-10 capture weight for 60s in a dom match instantly block or swing a point to your favor . specially if its a AOE that hits multiple units
    instantly viable
    But not for the reason they're supposed to be. Which makes this a bad solution by itself.

    The issue with buff spells vs. damage spells is that in a very large number of situations both of them will have the same effect of reducing the ratio of damage done to enemy's hitpoints below the breakpoint where your unit needs one fewer hit to kill a model.

    But damage spells do that damage reliably and immediately whilst buff spells still need you to make the hits within the duration of the effect. Doing the damage immediately also means that the damage taken/recent damage leadership penalties stack up faster and in an otherwise close fight will swing the outcome faster.

    I think the answer is to give most offensive buff spells at least some level of +MA not just +WS so that they also help the unit score the hits, and increase their durations to at least 60 seconds (they should last a significant percentage of the length of an average engagement.)
  • ThibixMagnus#8300ThibixMagnus#8300 Registered Users Posts: 830
    edited August 9
    I don't know, ere we go and time warp seemed used regularly at high level. I'd be curious with testing also MA/MD spells (and as people mentioned, armor ones), which are both more common and more often used than damage buff spells. The scarce damage buff spells have structurally less occasions to shine, intuitively. Damage buffs are all % based, and usually only apply to one component of the damage, ap or not (I'm not even sure a damage buff applies to the charge bonus). MD/MA changes are flat, which with current proportions is much more impactful on units vs units with low amounts of it. Meanwhile, SEM vs SEM benefits much more from % damage buffs.

    But because SEMs can run away and wait for the buff to end, and units can't in many cases, it means damage buffs are overall less useful. While units usually can't dodge, so they benefit more from the buffs that already suit them better. In a cav vs cav fight, a bombardment spell sure can turn the tide but a fast dodge can turn it into friendly damage. Meanwhile fleeing from buff/debuff is worse than enduring it.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939

    saweendra said:

    Loupi_ said:

    saweendra said:

    give buff spells ability to increase capture weight hex spells ability to reduce capture weight instantly viable .

    calculator TW GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

    lol, thank you
    i mean think about +/-10 capture weight for 60s in a dom match instantly block or swing a point to your favor . specially if its a AOE that hits multiple units
    instantly viable
    But not for the reason they're supposed to be. Which makes this a bad solution by itself.

    The issue with buff spells vs. damage spells is that in a very large number of situations both of them will have the same effect of reducing the ratio of damage done to enemy's hitpoints below the breakpoint where your unit needs one fewer hit to kill a model.

    But damage spells do that damage reliably and immediately whilst buff spells still need you to make the hits within the duration of the effect. Doing the damage immediately also means that the damage taken/recent damage leadership penalties stack up faster and in an otherwise close fight will swing the outcome faster.

    I think the answer is to give most offensive buff spells at least some level of +MA not just +WS so that they also help the unit score the hits, and increase their durations to at least 60 seconds (they should last a significant percentage of the length of an average engagement.)
    I agree but this section is all about calculator tw.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • The_real_FAUSTThe_real_FAUST Registered Users Posts: 2,003
    Ere we go and time warp are good examples.

    Both have AoE and both have significant duration.
  • saweendra#3399saweendra#3399 Registered Users Posts: 18,939
    Ok non calculator tw comment


    I agree with rest the duration of buff spells need to be higher.


    But spell cooldown also need to be looked you don't need situation where a single buff can be perma applied for duration of actual battle which would be bad for over all balance of the game.

    #givemoreunitsforbrettonia, my bret dlc


  • NoSkill4U#6552NoSkill4U#6552 Registered Users Posts: 5,153
    edited August 9
    Duration is definitly part of the problem.

    But I think another part is the percentage basis of a lot of buffs, because that means you want to stack it only on units with already high stats, to get the most out of it.

    That makes many buff-spells significantly less useful on your basic units.

    There is a reason why things like MD,MA, speed and leadership aren t calculated on a percentage basis.

    why can t (some) spells have a fixed damage stat like + 10 ap and then +20% base weapon damage, that way you could use it on a lot wider array of units by buffing the one stat that is already high while putting a + on the weak side.


    Example: Flagellants have high WS, low AP. If both stats are buffed by percentage you don t get a large AP-increase.

    But if only the WS is percentage based and the AP is a fixed value (such as +10), THEN you have a significantly higher impact., at least on your basic units.
  • NoSkill4U#6552NoSkill4U#6552 Registered Users Posts: 5,153
    What also might help is making the AoE more impactful by reducing the requirement from half the unit in the circle to a quarter.

    That, with longer duration and cheaper spells might do the trick. It might also make bringing 2+ mages at once more viable.
  • Lotus_Moon#2452Lotus_Moon#2452 Registered Users Posts: 12,329
    His wrong because its case by case scenario and not even on spell by spell basis.

    Buffs/debufs care less about what unit type you are using it on, unlike damage spell who need specific unit type targets to be efficient, casting spirit leech on infantry is not same as on cav, votex also not same on kholek as it would be on chaosen etc etc

    than adding to this that a lot of buff/debufs can be aoe further more they can often be a direct counter to units such as magical attacks cast when in combat with PR units etc.

    Its so wrong to make that video in short format, this needs a detailed explanation on case by case basis.

    Overall he is wrong and he is using extreme cases for his example.
  • yst#1879yst#1879 Registered Users Posts: 9,909
    Come on, everyone knows hes right.

    Wth would anyone use sword of rhun when u got fireball.

    Like really do I even need to go further, why would anyone go soulblight when u have spirit leech

    This has been discussed to the death, frikking to hell to above and beyonds, since the very first days of warhammer 1 when ppl r still discussing about the magic system, overcast and miscast etc.

    From day one buff or debuff spells r simply inferior to direct dmg, projectiles or wave spells. It simply is, no buts, no other weak lame pathetic excuses, it simply is due to firstly the price of the spells follow by mana costs and duration.

    NOt even gonna try and go into details into it, have typed countless, countless of info about this already, CA can either fix it or let it rot for years to come, all ppl need is to have a brain to compare the list and its clear as day

    Why
    - soulblight over leech?
    - wysan over flock of doom?
    - thorn over awake woods?
    - okram over pendulum?
    - flaming sword over burning head?
    - midnight wind over wind blast?
    - pha protect over burn gaze?

    can go onnnnnnnn and onnnnnnnnn and onnnnnn
    ppl can come up with whatever lame justification they have about it its clear as day why ppl dont choose buff/debuff spells

    Even with double the duration, id still ppl dmg spells over buff, especially when some have better range, costs cheaper to bring and less mana, even with double duration some spells still arent even worth bringing.

    Trash spells like itchy nuisance and gork fix it, double duration those, still no one will bring them
    https://imgur.com/a/Cj4b9
    Top #3 Leaderboard on Warhammer Totalwar.
Sign In or Register to comment.