Level 1 hammers give a 10% chance to stun for 2 turns, level 2, 20%, and level 3, 30%.



The problem is that this seemingly linear progression isn't really linear.



Think about it this way: 10% stun chance (for 2 turns) means that 20% of damage is avoided. 30% means that 60% of damage is avoided.



Avoiding 20% damage means that you last 1/0.8 times longer. That is, you last 25% longer. During that time, you do 25% more damage than you would have otherwise.



Avoiding 60% damage means that you last 1/0.4 times longer. Stun 3 translates into +150% damage during a unit's lifetime. (Stun 2, for the curious, translates into 67% stronger.)



With the other weapons, increasing tier provides diminishing returns. Tier 1/2/3 spears, for instance, give 30%/40%/50% increased damage against cavalry. Only hammers give accelerating returns from an increase in tier.



What would be appropriate numbers for a linearly more powerful stun? 17% would give +50% longevity to a unit; 21% would give +75% more longevity to a unit.

You mean that the benefits of ramping up a non-hammer weapon do not scale up with the cost of producing them, correct?

Or is it that hammer progression is too fast and needs to be nerfed?

(sorry, I just had to confirm)



Indeed stuns are very powerful. But remember that "Cavalry Slayer" and "Ranged Slayer" provide a damage bonus EVERY TIME you hit that type of enemy. Meanwhile, "Stun" has a CHANCE of affecting any unit. So the calculation of damage avoided you mentioned is not guaranteed every time, I think.



Also, equipping most Hammers (espcially 2-handed) will REDUCE your initiative compared to other weapons, which means a greater chance of being hit first (unless with Glassteel Hammer. These are VERY good weapons). So do we really need to nerf them?

KrimsonVagus wrote:
You mean that the benefits of ramping up a non-hammer weapon do not scale up with the cost of producing them, correct?

Or is it that hammer progression is too fast and needs to be nerfed?

I mean that the progression is too fast and needs to be nerfed. Stun 1 is fine. Stun 3 gives too large of a chance.

Indeed stuns are very powerful. But remember that "Cavalry Slayer" and "Ranged Slayer" provide a damage bonus EVERY TIME you hit that type of enemy. Meanwhile, "Stun" has a CHANCE of affecting any unit. So the calculation of damage avoided you mentioned is not guaranteed every time, I think.

No, if it was guaranteed, then stuns would block all incoming damage and be unstoppable. My calculation is of an average. I didn't take into account the target limitations of slayer capacities, as it's not the biggest issue-- the biggest issue is just the size of the benefit at tier 3 and higher.

Also, equipping most Hammers (espcially 2-handed) will REDUCE your initiative compared to other weapons.

That's true, but I'm not sure that it's enough of a drawback for Stun 3. It's not enough, in my experience, to encourage any players toward alternative weapons for their units that can equip hammers. The G2G balance document for Tenei Walkers, for instance, is full of players-- presumably, mostly WW players-- saying the stun is too powerful. They're not talking about the Walker, they're talking about the hammer.

natev wrote:


No, if it was guaranteed, then stuns would block all incoming damage and be unstoppable. My calculation is of an average. I didn't take into account the target limitations of slayer capacities, as it's not the biggest issue-- the biggest issue is just the size of the benefit at tier 3 and higher.

The number changes you suggested make sense. Another solution is to allow the enemy unit to counterattack the stun attack itself



Overall though, I agree.

Stun mechanics are overpowered in this game right now cuz they can't be resisted (except with hero skill?). Ardent Mages stun spell is another nasty one.

I've been doing a lot more testing. It's not as bad as the numbers would indicate for a couple of reasons:

• It doesn't appear possible to stun a stunned opponent.
• At least against higher initiative opponents, the stun only lasts 1 turn.
  
  

Some of this seems pretty silly-- the way that debuffs count-down on the turn rather than on a unit's action, for instance, is functionally an unnecessary buff for high initiative opponents.



But after more testing, I don't think stun 3 needs a nerf (maybe a slight one) so much as stun 1 needs a buff.



Glassteel hammers might be a different story, but since you need the quest-only tech to get a high initiative stun 3, I'm not sure how it plays out.

[QUOTEusername=natev;234469[...]



Think about it this way: 10% stun chance (for 2 turns) means that 20% of damage is avoided. 30% means that 60% of damage is avoided.



[...]

[/QUOTE]



Your numbers are off. You cannot multiply the %chance to avoid damage by the amount of turns to obtain the average. This is most easily seen from the fact that by doing so you would obtain an average of 150% of damage avoided for 5 turns, 30% stun chance - which is clearly nonsense. In fact, as damage adds up linearly, the percent numbers simply stay the same - it's 10% of damage avoided for level 1, 20% for level 2 and 30% for level 3 no matter the amount of turns.



Some numbers to illustrate my point: Assume 10 points of damage per turn.



After 1 turn: avoided 1/2/3 of 10 damage.

Next turn: avoid 1/2/3 of next 10 points of damage, total: 2/4/6 of 20 points - again 10%/20%/30%.

This simply continues.



This gives a progression of 1/.9, 1/.8 and 1/.7 for increased effectiveness - which is still increasing returns, but not nearly as problematic. It's only 11%/25%/43% "bonus damage", and in contrast to real bonus damage you still take longer to kill the enemy, so there's a higher chance the combat is not finished within 6 turns and drags on another round.



Still, I agree with your point that it's weird the effectiveness increases.

fragfish wrote:
Your numbers are off. You cannot multiply the %chance to avoid damage by the amount of turns to obtain the average.

Yeah, you're right. It doesn't work like that. (Additionally, two turns of stun is even less likely than this because of the factors I listed above.)

Still, I agree with your point that it's weird the effectiveness increases.

Yeah, it still doesn't go up linearly with increasing chance of stun-- best demonstrated by the hypothetical case of the unit with 100% stun, which is indestructible. (Sort of like some games I've played where the designers apparently considered x% reduction in attack animation speed to be equivalent to x% extra damage.)