|
As a French person I feel like it's my duty to explain strikes to you. - AdrienIer |
|
CHAOS Realm
|
12 damage from Doom Bolt is good, but I fear dark elf warlocks would be over the top in the current version. Did you adjust something to compensate for their improved 1st turn attack?
Maybe 2-3 shots instead of 4, or -2 ranged points, or +30-40 cost +1upk ? 
Haven't had time to think about that yet. Considering it's a one time +2 damage, the most I could see reasonable would be about +20 cost. Warlocks aren't that great to begin with, better than magicians but still a very fragile, expensive unit that is dead as soon as it runs out of ammo.
Would need to play them at least once to tell how much difference it makes, likewise for Demon Lords. Haven't used any of those since we changed their stats either.
April 23rd, 2018, 15:04
(This post was last modified: April 23rd, 2018, 16:00 by teelaurila.)
Massed warlocks already make for a scary garrison, unless you can invis around them or have flame strike. It is very unique among normal units - supposedly by design.
And since the AI prefers dark elves on myrror, this is quite reliably what the myrran wizard has against arcanus players. I guess that's a good thing?
Honestly, I'm not worried about warlocks; the math shown works out, but the main thing is the hp of opposing units. Those warlocks still need just as many doom bolts to kill any units (aside from elite 1 hp 6 figure units, and non elite non bonus hp halberdiers/cavalary - all of which shouldn't be relevant against warlocks anyway), which means the AI (who are the one who primarily use them) won't actually see any increase. The only time warlocks will be much scarier is if you are using mass heroes and attacking the warlock garrison; but you didn't do that anyway, because they would already one shot your heroes.
As it is, magician garrisons are often actually worse than warlocks (even with the +2 damage on doombolt) because utility spells can actually be much stronger (such as repeated use of web while the ai wizard flame strikes you, or by mass resistance spells that make your attacking units unable to actually hurt the magicians).
I'm considering to remove the diplomacy penalty from Chaos Surge. Any objections?
It was kept around because it buffs monsters plus it might buff wizards that are enemies of the other wizard who doesn't have Chaos themselves, but these aren't particularly strong reasons for keeping it.
Is it just me or is Armageddon overkill on higher land settings?
In just 'fair' terrain, it creates 30+ power a turn (the equivalent of 3 wizard guilds), and in larger terrains it gets crazy. I would think the number of volcanos according to terrain could be less variable and maybe a tad smaller on the larger settings. Instead of 4-20 volcanos, maybe 7-15? I know the intention is to make Armageddon one of the best spells, but the combination of being so hard to disjunction (especially with 'specialist') and literally doubling your power in 1-2 yrs, it just seems so far beyond other globals, even without accounting the other benefits of the spells (volcanos damage land, unrest effect) Tiny:7 Small:9 Fair:11 Large:13 Huge:15
I somewhat agree. Although my problem isn't that it's too powerful, it's that, if I don't get Armageddon, I feel cheated. No other chaos very rare remotely compares to it.
Note, when compared to life force, it's actualky not that bad, IF it ends. Life force is actually much better, up front. Armageddon takes literally years to match life force, on any land size. But life force doesn't significantly grow, whereas Armageddon never stops. If someone gets Armageddon as their very first very rare (and pray that person NEVER has spell blast), it can grow to simply win on its own, in a way that no other very rare can match. (Somewhat like old Time Stop, but without nearly as much unfun game play.) What I think I'd want, is for volcano production to drastically shrink (say, half the rate) after 1 year of having Armageddon in play (regardless of how many times the wizard had to cast it.) The problem is that Nature completely counters it (and it very slowly counters itself especially if you do have it disjunctioned periodically), so ideally you'd want it to be based on how many volcanoes the wizard actually has from it not how many volcanoes it creates. The problem with THAT is that you don't ever want to include volcanoes cast via raise volcano, but as far as I know the game can't tell the difference. Which ends up meaning: play nature if you are afraid of Armageddon. Or don't let chaos get to the end game. And if you're me, don't play chaos so you can avoid the disappointment of not getting it.
The disappointment of not getting Armageddon is too great, I can't imagine playing mono-chaos with less than 10 books.
That being said, in my game (merely 'fair' land size), me and an opponent AI both cast Armageddon, we were so far ahead together it made me think the spell is too powerful even for 'fair'. Maybe Nelphine's idea is better - let the high rate of volcanos stay in the first 12-24 turns (maybe even increase the rate to a 8-11-14-17-20), but then drop the rate by roughly half. The idea of letting Armageddon essentially win you the game after 3 years and being so dependent on land size makes it a better spell cost-wise than SPELL OF MASTERY in at least 'fair' to 'huge'. |
