Buffing less used units.
Buffing less used units.
Was just thinking about how some units like the Halb, Dopp/Samurai or Grenadier could be adjusted to see more play. At the moment all of these just seem like not even situationally worth considering, but just a weight that you bind to your legs as soon as you create them. They might help you with that one thing and then they just become a drag as their use vanishes.
Would it help Halb and Dopp/Samurai, if they were not able to be snared? They are already slow units and difficult to maneuver and you are really unlikely to get your worth out of them as it is incredibly difficult to get them unto their target and keep them their. By the time you more often than not have lost most of them. It does not help it, that they get countered by Skirms, which already counter the more popular musk type units.
Looking at the Grenadier it seems really harsh to have them do only 30% of their damage to cavalry. That might be just one of the worst negative multipliers vs. a unit type and might just be why the unit sees no play at all. Maybe that could be not removed, but at least a bit softened? It also seems harmful, that something like the Grenadelauncher which seems intricate to the unit being viable to be gated behind a card. That is something preactically no other unit has to deal with. You have to jump through so many hoops to get to a unit that is really wonky in its strength and weaknesses.
Those are of course just some thoughts, but I would like to hear what you guys think of them. It would definitly spice up the game, if we would see some more differentiation in what the euro civs do. The release of DE made me hope for more, but it just seems like the devs are happy to leave so many things lying in the dust.
Would it help Halb and Dopp/Samurai, if they were not able to be snared? They are already slow units and difficult to maneuver and you are really unlikely to get your worth out of them as it is incredibly difficult to get them unto their target and keep them their. By the time you more often than not have lost most of them. It does not help it, that they get countered by Skirms, which already counter the more popular musk type units.
Looking at the Grenadier it seems really harsh to have them do only 30% of their damage to cavalry. That might be just one of the worst negative multipliers vs. a unit type and might just be why the unit sees no play at all. Maybe that could be not removed, but at least a bit softened? It also seems harmful, that something like the Grenadelauncher which seems intricate to the unit being viable to be gated behind a card. That is something preactically no other unit has to deal with. You have to jump through so many hoops to get to a unit that is really wonky in its strength and weaknesses.
Those are of course just some thoughts, but I would like to hear what you guys think of them. It would definitly spice up the game, if we would see some more differentiation in what the euro civs do. The release of DE made me hope for more, but it just seems like the devs are happy to leave so many things lying in the dust.
- princeofkabul
- Pro Player
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Feb 28, 2015
- ESO: Princeofkabul
- Location: In retirement home with Sam and Vic
Re: Buffing less used units.
unsnarable dops, what could go wrong?
Chairman of Washed Up clan
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
Leader of the Shady Swedes
Team Manager of the Blockhouse Boomers
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Buffing less used units.
Halb Dopp Sam - all are already very strong units in their own situations, it's just that those situations rarely coincide with meta play. I don't want these units to be buffed in any way.
Grens get to the same point if you can invest some cards in them. Mostly they are not viable simply due to the big investment of another military building. They should have their negative multi vs cav, otherwise they become uncounterable. They already counter the supposed counter unit of musk gren (which is skirm).
Grens get to the same point if you can invest some cards in them. Mostly they are not viable simply due to the big investment of another military building. They should have their negative multi vs cav, otherwise they become uncounterable. They already counter the supposed counter unit of musk gren (which is skirm).
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Oct 16, 2019
- ESO: LeHussardsurletoit
Re: Buffing less used units.
Do they really counter skirms though ? I don't see civs who lack a good skirm counter investing in grens...
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Buffing less used units.
They do as much damage to skirm as they do to HI (note that skirms have less HP than HI generally speaking) and they also have high ranged resistance. In a general sense they are a counter unit, and with upgrades or in a situation where enemy can't kite enough they do win convincingly.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
-
- Musketeer
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Mar 14, 2015
Re: Buffing less used units.
these units were already buffed compared to legacy
Re: Buffing less used units.
Halberds you can do with Holland, they are very strong and have many ups including that of speed and then with drummers op if micro well, samurai well you see them every now and then in 3v3 in late game, grenadiers there are various rushes, both you and 1v1 and in some situations they are good, the English ones The best but also the Russians can make a nice mess if they want, it counts that now almost all civilizations have a card in 3 ages that makes the grenadiers good but usually you always prefer to make cannons
Many people believe that a strategy is not feasible so that it is not made by the Pro, well the professionals themselves have created the strategies that were previously thought not to be feasible, everything is feasible as long as the strategy works
-
- Lancer
- Posts: 914
- Joined: Mar 1, 2015
Re: Buffing less used units.
Lets build grens from raxes.
Dead hunts cant walk....
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
BrookG - "There is a G in everyone"
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Buffing less used units.
This would be cool if it was a bonus from some card, perhaps the british grenadier siege card (II) and the russian ransack (III).Victor_swe wrote:Lets build grens from raxes.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
Re: Buffing less used units.
But is that not a contradiction? Of course, they were buffed, but at least Grens, Halbs (except the dutch), Samurai and to some point Dopps are not utilizied more often than before. So when they were changed, but the useability did not go up was it really a change? I am not saying that they should be over-powered units, but their use rate might just be under 5% (anecdotal of course) except for Dopps. And that might already be overestimating them.
Grens turly seem like a unit that belong into the line-up of the rax. It would really lower the bar of entry and make it easy to simply mix in some batches; aren't they counted as Heavy Infantry already? It is not like they would steal a niche and their absence would definitly not invalidate the artillery foundry as a building. Culverines and falcs carry that building alone.
Now I am not the best player, but you can't tell me that there is nothing wrong with the situation. A great bunch of units are at best edge cases and many far worse of than that. Why not take a little risk with those units? Changes can be reverted and wouldn't it be interesting to just see what could be done, if for example monks would suddenly cost like 50g? Hell, even then they might still be ignored.
Grens turly seem like a unit that belong into the line-up of the rax. It would really lower the bar of entry and make it easy to simply mix in some batches; aren't they counted as Heavy Infantry already? It is not like they would steal a niche and their absence would definitly not invalidate the artillery foundry as a building. Culverines and falcs carry that building alone.
Now I am not the best player, but you can't tell me that there is nothing wrong with the situation. A great bunch of units are at best edge cases and many far worse of than that. Why not take a little risk with those units? Changes can be reverted and wouldn't it be interesting to just see what could be done, if for example monks would suddenly cost like 50g? Hell, even then they might still be ignored.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Buffing less used units.
Yes, but you have to question what do you want to achieve with rebalance. Do you want to replace the old meta with new one, or do you want to make each unit do it's supposed specific job well (i.e. make sure it counters what it was designed to counter) and leave it at that?Derrien wrote:But is that not a contradiction? Of course, they were buffed, but at least Grens, Halbs (except the dutch), Samurai and to some point Dopps are not utilizied more often than before. So when they were changed, but the useability did not go up was it really a change? I am not saying that they should be over-powered units, but their use rate might just be under 5% (anecdotal of course) except for Dopps. And that might already be overestimating them.
Yes and no. It's the design and creative direction that was put into this unit. You can compare them to abus and leather cannons really, where you draw the line is subjective.Derrien wrote:Grens turly seem like a unit that belong into the line-up of the rax.
Check out aiz play russia, he makes 75g priests look very viable late game already. Personally I'd rather see these niche cheesy builds be left niche and cheesy, not mainstream.Derrien wrote:if for example monks would suddenly cost like 50g? Hell, even then they might still be ignored.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: Buffing less used units.
Units are less used for 3 reasons :
1) Balance issue. A unit could be very weak or bad and hence not used.
2) Player playstyles. Players have their comfort zones. Some like skirm goon, and if you ask then ti transition to skirm musk (assuming it is balanced) they may not be able to play good. Which is another reason why certain units and civs are less used. You could also call this design choice or issue. Some units also have very niche use and players might just skip them altogether in favor of more multipurpose units.
3) Game design. Game is set in certain historical era. It is neccessary for flavor and immersion to have certain things. Also for historical accuracy. You can't have pikemen winning against skirmisher or musketeer. These units will always have extremely limited and unique use. Of course you can throw historical accuracy out and balance them.
1) Balance issue. A unit could be very weak or bad and hence not used.
2) Player playstyles. Players have their comfort zones. Some like skirm goon, and if you ask then ti transition to skirm musk (assuming it is balanced) they may not be able to play good. Which is another reason why certain units and civs are less used. You could also call this design choice or issue. Some units also have very niche use and players might just skip them altogether in favor of more multipurpose units.
3) Game design. Game is set in certain historical era. It is neccessary for flavor and immersion to have certain things. Also for historical accuracy. You can't have pikemen winning against skirmisher or musketeer. These units will always have extremely limited and unique use. Of course you can throw historical accuracy out and balance them.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: Buffing less used units.
I still feel like halbs could do with a 4.25 speed, we could even revert the armour change from EP, their scare factor is a much more real thing when they can actually reach a mass of range infantry. when 10 skirms can safely kite 20 halbs it doesn't feel right.
Grens is a tough one, I still think they should be roughly ok given their range resist and animation change but its just so hard to mass and keep alive and also their cost and pop is maybe a bit too high. They also have grenade launcher now which can actually make them unstoppable in mass, they become like musk with with aoe damage.
Grens is a tough one, I still think they should be roughly ok given their range resist and animation change but its just so hard to mass and keep alive and also their cost and pop is maybe a bit too high. They also have grenade launcher now which can actually make them unstoppable in mass, they become like musk with with aoe damage.
- dutchdude117
- ESOC Community Team
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Apr 24, 2015
- ESO: Dutchdude117
- Location: USA California
Re: Buffing less used units.
Grenade launcher could easily be a tech research at arsenal rather than an entire shipment that essentially does nothing and has to compete with 2 Falcons for a shipment shot.
Re: Buffing less used units.
The reason they are not used well is because Skim+dra is so powerful. Also, units with a long range in AOE3 have great advantages. The wonderful revolutionaries in Peru are proof of that.
The text may be awkward using a translator, But I hope we can talk a lot about good things. GG
Re: Buffing less used units.
The grenade launcher card could maybe make grens trainable from rax/blockhouse?harcha wrote:This would be cool if it was a bonus from some card, perhaps the british grenadier siege card (II) and the russian ransack (III).Victor_swe wrote:Lets build grens from raxes.
Would make them more accessible at least. They don't need a buff, as such.
Re: Buffing less used units.
Derrien wrote:But is that not a contradiction? Of course, they were buffed, but at least Grens, Halbs (except the dutch), Samurai and to some point Dopps are not utilizied more often than before. So when they were changed, but the useability did not go up was it really a change? I am not saying that they should be over-powered units, but their use rate might just be under 5% (anecdotal of course) except for Dopps. And that might already be overestimating them.
I do not think, that we should really replace the meta with just another, but I would like to think, that extending what is currently the meta might just bring in a lot of diversity and new possibilities, that might spice things up (at that point we might actually talk about a "new" meta).harcha wrote:Yes, but you have to question what do you want to achieve with rebalance. Do you want to replace the old meta with new one, or do you want to make each unit do it's supposed specific job well (i.e. make sure it counters what it was designed to counter) and leave it at that?
The "Niche-Theory" might actually the biggest thing that hurt Gren, Halbs and Samurai. It pretends that there is a place for these units, where only they can perform which is just blatantly wrong. Their job gets done as good or just a slight bit worse by other units that are able to exist in various places (mainly the musketeer). Either the units have to buffed to be the true champions of their niche, other units nerfed to leave their niche or the units in question need to be able to also reach into other units space. That all by itself is an intense discussion by itself.
Derrien wrote:Grens truly seem like a unit that belong into the line-up of the rax.
Definitly agree with you there. I just think, that this might be an "easy" change to Grens that does not change the unit too much, but allows for them be mixed in with existing infantry comps to soften up enemy units. As it is now you have to jump through too many hoops for a unit that is not worth it by itself. This is why I think critically of gating change for these units behind cards. Ask yourself; do you send cards from the homecity that you slightly question to be of lesser value, than other cards of that age? Look at what kind of discussion happened around VC vs 3vil for the Brits.harcha wrote:Yes and no. It's the design and creative direction that was put into this unit. You can compare them to abus and leather cannons really, where you draw the line is subjective.
Derrien wrote:if for example monks would suddenly cost like 50g? Hell, even then they might still be ignored.
Didn't know about that, but I will definitly look into it. Wouldn't it be interesting though to see this is a broader context? The church at this moment feels like too much of an "optional" building. Maybe I am a bit too adapted too AoE2, but I would wish to see that most buildings in AoE3 would serve as much of a purpose.harcha wrote:Check out aiz play russia, he makes 75g priests look very viable late game already. Personally I'd rather see these niche cheesy builds be left niche and cheesy, not mainstream.
Re: Buffing less used units.
This! If a unit is already less desired, than established and beloved things, why does it have to fight for its existence against these powerhouses?dutchdude117 wrote:Grenade launcher could easily be a tech research at arsenal rather than an entire shipment that essentially does nothing and has to compete with 2 Falcons for a shipment shot.
Hell, wouldn't that make for a nice combination? It wouldn't compete for a slot in already very tight decks. Make Grenadelaunche a tech in the arsenal, or even in the rax (thematically not fitting, but still worth a thought, because it does not make you build an arsenal). It should be a tech that should cost maybe a combined value of 300. 100 ress under a fortress veteran tech as it is a colonial tech and it buffs the unit.The grenade launcher card could maybe make grens trainable from rax/blockhouse?
Would make them more accessible at least. They don't need a buff, as such.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Buffing less used units.
I think buffing underused units is very low on the huge list of priorities for DE
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
Re: Buffing less used units.
I feel like Grenade launcher is too permanent of a change for it to be a tech, it completely changes how grens operate, not just unlocks a new attack mode.dutchdude117 wrote:Grenade launcher could easily be a tech research at arsenal rather than an entire shipment that essentially does nothing and has to compete with 2 Falcons for a shipment shot.
The peru revolution shows the power of grens, the problem as always is that you need high mass before they can steamroll. The problem with grens is their cost and their 2 pop, it just makes them too costly to be viable in a normal age 2 game, where they could shine. Aussie Drongo tried it with british (ostensible the most OP grens with all the upgrade) but it just cost too much.
Re: Buffing less used units.
Very much agree there with you. I would also add that player prefernce might be a strong factor, but that people also are willing to go the way for something that is more powerful even if there are complicated hoops to jump through. That these hoops already exist and the gated units do not really show there worth can already be seen by their visible absence from regular non-memey play.princeofcarthage wrote:Units are less used for 3 reasons :
1) Balance issue. A unit could be very weak or bad and hence not used.
2) Player playstyles. Players have their comfort zones. Some like skirm goon, and if you ask then ti transition to skirm musk (assuming it is balanced) they may not be able to play good. Which is another reason why certain units and civs are less used. You could also call this design choice or issue. Some units also have very niche use and players might just skip them altogether in favor of more multipurpose units.
3) Game design. Game is set in certain historical era. It is neccessary for flavor and immersion to have certain things. Also for historical accuracy. You can't have pikemen winning against skirmisher or musketeer. These units will always have extremely limited and unique use. Of course you can throw historical accuracy out and balance them.
Wouldn't it help these cavalry counter units (Halb, Samurai and Dopp), if musks would get their ability to fight off cav slightly reduced? Like make it a x2 or x2,5 multiplier to incentivce players to shift into these units.
I guess? But does that invalidate anything of what is beings said? Does that make it a non-issue? And I actually doubt that this is a low priority; else we would not have this absolute mass of balance changes over the past past monthes. The changes to the dutch that effect the halb are a clear sign, that there is work being done by the devs. Shifting this topic to the back at a time where the developers are actually making changes just push them back another five years.Kaiserklein wrote:I think buffing underused units is very low on the huge list of priorities for DE
Re: Buffing less used units.
So you see what the problem is, but what could solve this cannot/should not be done? What kind of approach to problem solving is this? I think much could be achieved for the unit, if it is possible to simply mix in two batchs in colonial without having to build a foundry. The grenade launcher could be a 150w 150g tech accessible in colonial.helln00 wrote:I feel like Grenade launcher is too permanent of a change for it to be a tech, it completely changes how grens operate, not just unlocks a new attack mode.dutchdude117 wrote:Grenade launcher could easily be a tech research at arsenal rather than an entire shipment that essentially does nothing and has to compete with 2 Falcons for a shipment shot.
The peru revolution shows the power of grens, the problem as always is that you need high mass before they can steamroll. The problem with grens is their cost and their 2 pop, it just makes them too costly to be viable in a normal age 2 game, where they could shine. Aussie Drongo tried it with british (ostensible the most OP grens with all the upgrade) but it just cost too much.
- harcha
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5136
- Joined: Jul 2, 2015
- ESO: hatamoto_samurai
Re: Buffing less used units.
No approach, fine as is.
POC wrote:Also I most likely know a whole lot more than you.
POC wrote:Also as an objective third party, and near 100% accuracy of giving correct information, I would say my opinions are more reliable than yours.
-
- Pro Player
- Posts: 10278
- Joined: Jun 6, 2015
- Location: Paris
- GameRanger ID: 5529322
Re: Buffing less used units.
It doesn't invalidate everything that was said (though some of it is not valid to begin with, e.g dops don't need a buff). Discussing it is fine of course. We just really shouldn't be trying to get devs to care more about underused units, because there's a hundred issues more urgent than that atm. It's not a non-issue but it's by no means a big issue either.Derrien wrote:I guess? But does that invalidate anything of what is beings said? Does that make it a non-issue? And I actually doubt that this is a low priority; else we would not have this absolute mass of balance changes over the past past monthes. The changes to the dutch that effect the halb are a clear sign, that there is work being done by the devs. Shifting this topic to the back at a time where the developers are actually making changes just push them back another five years.Kaiserklein wrote:I think buffing underused units is very low on the huge list of priorities for DE
And yeah, I'm not saying it's super low priority from the devs point of view, since they changed some stuff about these units. I'm saying it should be low priority, because having a playable game overall just matters so much more than being able to win games with grenadiers. But as we all know, they don't really have their priorities straight anyway.
Also, most underused units were buffed already so they can possibly see some use in niche cases. Now, you need to realize that adding a really viable unit to a civ is dangerous. We don't really want to add more broken features in an already broken game.
For example, if grenadiers become good enough, it could buff brits a lot, as one of their main weaknesses is they currently don't have a proper anti-HI unit. Suddenly they'd be able to counter HI effectively, with an upgradable unit too, and do much better vs e.g india or sweden.
Same for these melee infantry units. It's clear there's a fine line between melee units being too good or too bad. From a unit that just gets kited down easily, they can turn into a cancer unit your opponent just z-moves on your face (which is what happens to some extent with changdaos and rods, or inca melee units, etc).
LoOk_tOm wrote:I have something in particular against Kaisar (GERMANY NOOB mercenary LAMME FOREVER) And the other people (noobs) like suck kaiser ... just this ..
-
- Howdah
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: Oct 16, 2019
- ESO: LeHussardsurletoit
Re: Buffing less used units.
I would only buff those underused units if it is needed to balance a specific MU/game situation. For example dopps could have their colonial stats buffed slightly in exchange for a nerf on their vet upgrade as part of a general policy to make German colonial play more viable. But buffing dopps in the abstract makes no sense.
ESOC : came for the game, stayed for the drama.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests