Diamondius wrote:
I am not exactly sure about that but at the end game I think like all the weapons / armor created by the materials end up equal. Meaning tier 3 glassteel / titanium with the tier 2 of 5th era tech of the Adamantian / Palladian and tier 1 of the Hyperium / Mithrite actually give the same amount of stats as far as I noticed. They just give them on different stats in either flat values or percentages. So you can actually skip attack for other stats largely if you decide, especially damage. So if you have a unit lets say with 100 damage and 70 attack it would be quite propable to have an enemy with 140 defense making you miss or fumble most of the time making your damage useless.

I got the tier 3 adamantium / palladian weapons by a quest 1 hour ago. There are definitely at least one tier of better weapons than those you described.

Sure the new combat system needs some tweak but I think its main weakness is that this system is hard to understand because it is very badly explained in the game :



First time I try to upgrade my unit I saw the little sword "attack" in the stat (traditionaly the sword icon is for damage) and I try to improve the "attack" stat, unfortunatly the "real" damage level is the icon with the little star (previously critical) and I totally miss it.



So I was thinking I have a unit with good damage but instead I have better chance of critical, I've been raped by AI at first battle, I don't understand why and I feel cheated....



I can see 2 solution to solve this problem :

-In the unit création system change the icon and make them more clear (and put the damage stat in third or forth position not sixth)

-Write little comment under each stat so people really undertand what they are doing.

-Include a little sequence about unit upgrade in your tutorial.

Ouam wrote:
Sure the new combat system needs some tweak but I think its main weakness is that this system is hard to understand because it is very badly explained in the game :



First time I try to upgrade my unit I saw the little sword "attack" in the stat (traditionaly the sword icon is for damage) and I try to improve the "attack" stat, unfortunatly the "real" damage level is the icon with the little star (previously critical) and I totally miss it.



So I was thinking I have a unit with good damage but instead I have better chance of critical, I've been raped by AI at first battle, I don't understand why and I feel cheated....



I can see 2 solution to solve this problem :

-In the unit création system change the icon and make them more clear (and put the damage stat in third or forth position not sixth)

-Write little comment under each stat so people really undertand what they are doing.

-Include a little sequence about unit upgrade in your tutorial.

The underlying mechanic behind the combat system is flawed.

Nasarog wrote:
The underlying mechanic behind the combat system is flawed.

Care to elaborate a bit? What's flawed? The random element? The variety/effect of results? The probability of the results?

Nasarog wrote:
The underlying mechanic behind the combat system is flawed.

The only real flaw is what is worth 1 more point of damage and 1 more point of att/def. Nos' already explained it better than me. But it can be partially offset by the range of stats.

VieuxChat wrote:
The only real flaw is what is worth 1 more point of damage and 1 more point of att/def. Nos' already explained it better than me. But it can be partially offset by the range of stats.

Well, that and the attack/(attack+defense) linear mechanic always asymptotically approaching its maximum/minimum values, so that the linear behaving damage is always better by a large factor than attack or defense stats. You therefore need to inflate attack and defense to compensate, otherwise going straight for damage, only, is the way to go, if possible.

Or that terrain bonuses give multiplicators on defense and attack, that, as mentioned above, don't have a big influence, anyways.

Propbuddha wrote:
Care to elaborate a bit? What's flawed? The random element? The variety/effect of results? The probability of the results?

Sure. First of all, I'm playing 0.74 MAC release. There is no visible damage curve. It's either max or min damage. It's very rare that the damage dealt is somewhere in the middle. Some units hit so damned hard all the time, and other barely hit.

Nosferatiel wrote:
Well, that and the attack/(attack+defense) linear mechanic always asymptotically approaching its maximum/minimum values, so that the linear behaving damage is always better by a large factor than attack or defense stats. You therefore need to inflate attack and defense to compensate, otherwise going straight for damage, only, is the way to go, if possible.

Or that terrain bonuses give multiplicators on defense and attack, that, as mentioned above, don't have a big influence, anyways.

As you know, none of the units, items or combat effects are tuned for the new system in the current public build. Life values are obnoxiously high compared to damage. Weapons, armor and terrain give insignificant modifiers.

Nasarog wrote:
Sure. First of all, I'm playing 0.74 MAC release. There is no visible damage curve. It's either max or min damage. It's very rare that the damage dealt is somewhere in the middle. Some units hit so damned hard all the time, and other barely hit.

All I can say is it's a shame that the new system was released without tuning stats because all that it's led to is confusion and criticism.



P.S. Since you never played the previous versions, you don't know how bad the system used to be.

Propbuddha wrote:
As you know, none of the units, items or combat effects are tuned for the new system in the current public build.

I know they aren't. It's hard to do, as they aren't 1:1:1 comparable, at all. And both, the missing tuning and the difficulty of it, are worrying me.

Propbuddha wrote:




All I can say is it's a shame that the new system was released without tuning stats because all that it's led to is confusion and criticism.



P.S. Since you never played the previous versions, you don't know how bad the system used to be.

Very true. I was going by what I saw while watching Panzasu and by what he said during his LP's.



I'm not using the logic of "it's better than what it used to be". I'm going by "it's not bad, but boy it could get much better".



I'm trying to imagine the final product and what it would take for it to blow the competition away.

Matroska wrote:
I understand the last point, but surely giving the player a choice is not a bad thing? If the player wants the unit to standby and wait for a counter, yet the unit is ignored, then that was the risk of the choice the player made. If the player doesn't want the risk, he won't choose the option. If the unit will always attack regardless of the player's input then that's going to be frustrating to players that wanted it to standby. I mean, it's like "overwatch" in XCOM and similar games. Potentially it's a wasted turn but it's an extra layer of choice and strategy for the player.

That's exactly my thought Matroska. Because if you decide to receive the hit and nobody hits you, than you pay your own strategic decision.

One way to compensate without adding that layer, would be to directly give a "sweeping attack" instead of the "sweep strike back", because at least you'll be sure to profit from it. At the moment i think that if your unit has a high initiative, it has very low interest in the "sweep strike back".



Regarding the Vaulters' Titan unit it would be nice to precise that the aoe damage effect it generates when receiving damage only works with melee attacks.

It would be fun to have it working even with range damage and poison, and it could apply some friendly fire if the player is not attentive to the position of the unit on the battlefield.

Since this seems to be the combat balance thread I wanted to posit the following (semi-untested) points:



From my experience, 2 handed weapons with their extra attack and extra damage make the defensive benefit from the readily available shields a poor option.

Upgrading your units to two handed weapons ASAP is critical as the lower attack and damage from one handed weapons really limits any hope of being effective.



Putting tier 1 armor on the starting units would help mitigate the "the minor factions are OP" posts.

Meedoc wrote:

• As Propbuddha said, you can select the Advanced mode in the Advanced option to go back to the 3 phases battle.
• If you want to keep a unit to a specific position, you can choose to "hold position" (3rd strategy). Once the strategy is set, you can still order a movement, and if you do so, the unit will move and then stay in position.
  
  

Love that you can go back to 3 turns! I'm going to try that for our next multiplayer game (after next patch).



I had completely missed the "hold position" option, and looking at it now, it's actually well placed and pretty obvious (unlike some of my other UI gripes with the game, but this was my mistake).



I still think it's wrong to have a 0 damage miss (it just prolongs combat anyway, at least do 33% as someone suggested) and I still hope you will rename "targeting" to "targeting & movement".

I kinda welcome these new changes to combat. It plays out a lot more like pnp games, like blackguards and tbh tactical like spacehulk and xcom. Higher ttk(time to kill), more tactical approach and focus on balancing stats.



Of course I was quite taken aback when initially trying out this new combat, 4x turn base games don't usually utilize such mechanics and I also question the decision to implement pnp mechanics to a 4x game which has lesser focus on tactical combat adding to the fact that such mechanics aren't very well received by larger audience save for pnp fans. Face it, a lot of complains for xcom, blackguards, spacehulk hovers around the miss rate, glancing blows etc because players do not understand the underlying mechanics and importance of balancing stats.

I found another major problem imo.



How does I 1 hp army unit do max damage to another army at 50%. I can understand a hero doing that because they ARE heroes, but a regular army unit, even a high level one... unless it's a titan type unit.. this just doesn't make sense.



How I see things as being.. You roll hit/miss. Then roll how much damage and assign a max value to it. Then you adjust that max by whatever modifiers there are. Then the final number is adjusted by the % health left on this unit. Or how ever it works in the current combat scheme, but the % of remaining health has to have an impact on how much damage you do.

Nasarog wrote:
I found another major problem imo.



How does I 1 hp army unit do max damage to another army at 50%. I can understand a hero doing that because they ARE heroes, but a regular army unit, even a high level one... unless it's a titan type unit.. this just doesn't make sense.



How I see things as being.. You roll hit/miss. Then roll how much damage and assign a max value to it. Then you adjust that max by whatever modifiers there are. Then the final number is adjusted by the % health left on this unit. Or how ever it works in the current combat scheme, but the % of remaining health has to have an impact on how much damage you do.

The attacker's remaining Life has no bearing on the amount of Damage it does. This is a conscious design choice by the developers and has been discussed in the past. It is listed on the suggestions board -> /#/endless-legend/forum/6-game-design/thread/3570-g2g-endless-legend-s-list-of-community-feedback

Less pawns in battle do same damage



It is as designed, we separate pawns that are representation of overall unit and the unit itself which just loose life points

Propbuddha wrote:
The attacker's remaining Life has no bearing on the amount of Damage it does. This is a conscious design choice by the developers and has been discussed in the past. It is listed on the suggestions board -> /#/endless-legend/forum/6-game-design/thread/3570-g2g-endless-legend-s-list-of-community-feedback

Ugly mechanic. I lost two crucial units (@50%+ health) to a 1hp unit doing full damage. Makes little to no sense. I hope this can be changed.It is really bad. Now I am not talking about a hero, that could make sense, no, I'm talking about low level units.

Nasarog wrote:
Ugly mechanic. I lost two crucial units (@50%+ health) to a 1hp unit doing full damage. Makes little to no sense. I hope this can be changed.It is really bad.

On one hand, it is more "realistic".



One the other, it causes some "slippery slope" game play issues with combat. I hit your unit first, now you are closer to death, and do less damage. Article about this topic here



I'm not saying it's perfect but it is done for a reason.

Propbuddha wrote:
On one hand, it is more "realistic".



One the other, it causes some "slippery slope" game play issues with combat. I hit your unit first, now you are closer to death, and do less damage. Article about this topic here



I'm not saying it's perfect but it is done for a reason.

I can understand the "I hit you, and you died" so no return damage, but that "I hit you hard, and you almost died" and then through some sheer luck you wipe out two units... noooooooo, that doesn't work for me. A 1hp unit killing a healthy or half health unit/s only happens with WMD or explosives.. magic perhaps, but not an axe or a sword.

Nasarog wrote:
I can understand the "I hit you, and you died" so no return damage, but that "I hit you hard, and you almost died" and then through some sheer luck you wipe out two units... noooooooo, that doesn't work for me. A 1hp unit killing a healthy or half health unit/s only happens with WMD or explosives.. magic perhaps, but not an axe or a sword.

You do understand that this system is a turn, based model of a battle between many individulas and not one guy "hitting" another, then waiting to get hit back, then swinging, then getting hit, etc... Life is an abstraction, not 1HP = lying on the ground almost dead.



This mechanic is not unique to this game, A LOT of turn-based strategy games (board and computer) do this.