I just want to take this moment and thank the devs for doing this. I can't think of any game out there that actually asked the players what their view on balance is instead of just doing internal testing and ending up breaking balance terribly. Many hugs for you and your team. :3
On topic though, I'm a new player so I'm going based off of what I've read from other players and my personal experience in PVE.
I feel archers are underpowered. I asked a mod and they told me to play with it and I'll find how they're useful, but I just don't get it. I got part of it earlier today in a siege - they excel
at sniping siege weapons. But against infantry? hah. Saying they have terrible accuracy would be a compliment to them. I haven't done any recent tests, but in one of the main quests I had to attack an orc camp. The main camp had plenty and I mean plenty of enemies, and there was a small camp near it with only 2 groups of enemies. I had about eight level 10 Grand Masters and six level 6 Archers (They aren't killing enough to even level) and I had my archers initiate the battle by attacking the side camp with two groups of orcs and sent my hero in to tank them so they don't go after the archers. I then sent my Grand Masters into the main camp of about 10-20 orcs and told them to battle for Azlan. The Grand Masters had wiped out the entire camp before the six groups of archers were able to kill the two groups of orcs.
I've also heard that archers don't hit well at night. If that's the case, I would highly suggest you revert it. It may be realistic, but in this game you can't exactly determine the time you want to attack; not that I know of at least. A severe penalty such as this for something you can't even control is incredibly steep.
Also from my perspective, damage is out of control. Armor should be something you want, not something you need. What I mean by that, is I want to build units to be tanks. I feel like it's not just a bad idea, but it's just wrong that a group of ranged units (Dwarf rifleman people) can get 90 in all resistances. they're supposed to be fragile [I doubt they're wearing full plate armor] and always be at range so they're not attacked. They're not supposed to be able to go toe to toe with melee. I feel I'm getting off track here. Anyways, damage is too high, and thus it creates a need that every unit you have should be at max resist. It makes having resists feel like a necessity rather than a desire. You don't want
to build your grandmasters with 90% in all resists, you have
to. In the end this limits the diversity of troops. [Which unrelated, you guys did a great job in adding a diverse amount of stats to level up.]
You guys have the real numbers, but I would suggest lowering damage all across the board, increasing resistance (maybe), and then lowering the resist % gain per point to 3,4 or even 2%. That way being a full fledged tank will be a full fledged tank. You spend more points on armor, so you have less points to spend on attack, stamina or speed.
Lastly, siege weapons. Mostly the trebs, ballistas and whatever orcs have. Rams I feel do too little damage. I didn't actually time it, but it felt like a good 5 minutes at least before my treant was able to knock down the door; all the while he was being bombarded by archers. I would love to have attached him to a wall, but it was a dam type situation so the gate was the only way inside. Ranged siege I feel are too weak. Simply too weak overall. Siege are great in mass, but I think it's better to have more efficient weapons rather than throwaway weapons. (Which is what they pretty much are right now) I would suggest doubling/tripling the health, doubling/tripling damage and increasing their unit cost to 2. (Triple for a possible buff to siege units.) This will allow siege weapons to be more effective and more deadly. It should also lessen the server load just a bit since there are less units on the field.
Originally Posted by vicious666
regards str balancements i rebalanced all str values, but tbh we wanna do a new sytem for the levels becouse the units gain too much of their dmg/hp etc thrue leveles, we wanna cut how an units improve true levels since have major impact on unit effectiveness and augment basic effectiveness. so an unit lev 10 is not that underpowered compared to a lev 20. this will help who fight whit many low lev batallion ppl with less batallion but higher levels
Rebalancing? I like this talk
I hope I'm not annoying you with my suggestions. I'm bored and balancing things is just how my mind works. I'm a tactical thinker. Anyways, I believe it's the upgrade system here. Upgrades are powerful in this game, and I'm sure you know that. an 8% damage increase is a very large damage increase per point, and from 10-20, one can get a (without a cap) 240% damage increase over a level 10. I believe that you shouldn't nerf it too much, as levels /should/ be meaningful and a sign of strength to your army. In the end, a group of level 10s should never be fighting a group of level 20s. I would at most suggest nerfing it by 50%. 4% per point is still a good amount, adding up to 12% additional damage per level, or 15% extra health per level. I think this mixed in with the suggestion up above would be the way to rebalance combat.
In terms of army strength though, I've heard there are problems with it. I don't really know because I've only had one pvp match where we were relatively equal yet he completely obliterated my army with riflemen because of 90% in all resist with level 12 rifles against my level 5 units..
I don't know your algorithm for figuring army strength, but I do know it's a bit broken at the moment. I finished a siege and had 797 strength. I went to town, healed up and fully leveled my units and ended with 567 army strength. Same units except they were all fully leveled and didn't have points remaining. That was literally the only change; leveling up. Perhaps assigning each troop a specific number for its value and multiplying it by its level, then adding it all together would be a nice and simple way to get a power level. Siege would probably be Z value multiplied by average level of army. To prevent huge numbers like we all hate, take off two or three numbers. For example, I personally love Grand Masters and think they're amazing. I would give them a 1.5 value. Archers I would give a .01 value (Kidding; probably a 1.0), and give a Ballista a .3 (They are only effective against walls. Useful, but an army of ballista are not going to win anything. Using .7 as initially intended provided a very high 227.5 strength compared to the 10 grand masters' 105.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------a--------x-------b--------y--------n= number of groups. (a/a+b/b)
With those, having 7 level 10 GMs, 6 level 10 Archers and 5 level 1 Ballista, the army level would be ((7)(1.5)(10))+((6)(1.0)(10))+((5((ax+by)/n)*.3))=262.5
262.5 could be lowered to 26.25 to prevent high numbers; also it could be multiplied by 2 (or something) to be 52.5 to provide a higher number. for players to feel proud of.
Also, if you're hiring... I've got time and and desire. I love this game.