[Suggestion/Balance] Stat Overhaul

So I've been thinking awhile, reading a bunch of forum posts and what not, and basically there are alot of problems with alot of things. Now I could write essays on each of the various issues I've found but for now I am just going to focus on the one that I find rather irritating is how units/heros/monsters/whatever work. So focusing on that I asked myself why are these things such a mess? The answer I came up with is their stats: how they interact and how (much) they change through leveling. Once I narrowed it down to this everything suddenly made sense. Units are a mess because their stats are a mess, and good god are their stats a mess... It's like someone decided to throw together D&D and disgaea stats and hoped it would all sort of stick togther somehow. In short, to whoever designed the stats if you were on drugs when you thought them up, where can I get some cause that shit must be awesome (this was fully intended to be silly/humorous and hopefully not too insulting).

Anyway, people are probably saying some version of "If you are such a smartass why don't you come up with something better". In which I will respond with "thats what I'm about to do". This is probably going to be long so bear with me...

3 main ideas for change:

First off what should happen is most of the more abstract stats like attack and defense should be tied directly to a base stat like strength and while I realize this is basically already in place I will clarify what I mean shortly.

Second there needs to be a seperate stat for damage. Including it as part of the attack rating was rather silly...

Third minimize the bonuses from everything. Basically for things like items reduce the increases they give to as low as you can while still making it obvious that a sword is an improvement over a club. As it is now there are huge differences between weapons/armor when there really isn't that much of a need for it.


Stats:

Now with those 3 ideas in mind comes the fun part. How the hell is this going to work/fix anything? Alright so let me first explain how I think stats should be tied together.

Strength should be tied to attack and damage obviously but how it should work is every 2 points of strength increases attack by 1 and every 5 points increases damage by 1. I'll explain a bit later how damage is the more valuable stat here and why it should be slower to increase.

Dexterity should be tied to dodge and initiative. For every 2 points of dexterity dodge increases by 1 and every 5 points initiative increases by 1.

Intelligence should be tied to accuracy and spell mastery. Basically same again 2 points of intelligence increases accuracy and spell mastery by 1. At this point people are probably asking why intelligence and accuracy when logically (haha logic in games...) it should be tied to dexterity? The reason is because if both accuracy and dodge are tied to the same stat that would putting too much power in one stat as if you somehow get really crazy dex you would be able to hit anyone while at the same time being difficult to hit.

That leaves Constitution to be tied to defense and hit points. Every point of constitution means the creature gets 1 hit point, every 2 points increases defense by 1. How this will work for multiple unit armies is to multiply the number of people in the army by its constitution so a 4 person army with 5 con will have 20 hp.

ok, so what about crit chance and spell resistance, why are they the bastard children here? Simply put the reason I would like them to be seperate from the rest is because other than maybe them increasing from levels I would rather leave them up to being affected purely by traits/items so that as such by taking a trait that increases them you can turn into something more useful than they are currently. Otherwise units have little access to it so this way those that do take a trait can have a unique if situational advantage over those that don't.

Items:

Items... possibly one of the biggest offenders in game balance currently. How do you bring them more in line with everything else? Simple really, minimize their bonus stats to bring them more in line with natural stat growth. As it is currently, items essentially define how powerful most heroes are and as it can be easy to acquire powerful items early on, heroes (especially melee focused ones) thus become more powerful and everything sort of snowballs from there. Now what do I mean by minimize their bonus? Basically a club gives +1 attack the next step up on the warfare tree might give +2-3 attack, the next step might give 3-4 attack with +1 damage and so on. Now with a damage stat you can have a little more variety in how weapons work so for example you can make hammers have moderate attack low accuracy but high damage and so on. Works similarly with armor.

What this all turns into:


Attack vs Defense and why there should be a Damage stat:
As you can likely guess attack and defense counter each other but where does damage come in? How I see it is if a creatures attack is equal to its opponents defense there should be a set number to base damage off of as right now if a 100 attack hits a 100 defense it still will do about 40-60(exaggeratted for effect) or something damage which pretty much makes defense close to meaningless the higher the two stats get. This leads to another problem which is with crazy damage units need even more ridiculous hp to survive it which is the cause of the insane hp growth units get. With a set damage stat it will be easier to balance damage to hp and will hopefully have less crazy and pointlessly large numbers flying around. So if attack and defence just cancel each other out whats the point of getting excessive attack or defense? Well to give them a little more meaning should one exceed the other lets say for example every 3 points of attack or defense in excess a unit has over its opponents it increases or decreases its damage range by 1. So if a unit with 25 attack and 5 damage hits a unit with 10 defense it will deal 5-10 damage. Or if it was 10 attack vs 25 defense it would deal 0-5 damage. As you can probably tell it is still similar to what is in place already but the main point is that with damage as a seperate stat you can compare hp to it directly instead of throwing around wild guesses about what would be a good number when dealing with attack ratings.

Dodge vs Accuracy:
Not much to change here really. How I would like it to be is that there is a base 60-70% chance to hit the opponent + or - 3% for each point of difference between the two stats. Thats pretty much it, move along.

Levels vs Everything:
Levels should no longer directly affect hp gain as hp now has a stat to directly oppose it. Instead for army units it should just increase each base stat(strength etc.) by one and for heroes it will have no other effect than giving them their next ability pick unless of course they have a +1/level ability which will proceed as normal. This sounds pretty simple but with how everything else is set up this is actually a major change. The main thing here is that army units will have their base stats increase slightly as the lvl up meaning that more experienced armies will have an actual if somewhat slight edge over new recruits other than massive hp differences.

Armies vs Heroes:
While biggest change to these two will be that level doesnt directly affect their hp this really does make a big difference in how they will work.
The advantage to using heroes will be potentially high stat growth as well as magic/abilities and items however those not focused on melee will likely turn out to be rather squishy.
The advantage to armies will be lots of hp and potentially high damage but very slow stat growth meaning they won't change too much which isn't much of a change really...
How does this change anything really? I'd like to think that this will make armies necessary in the mid to late game especially for clearing wildlands and such.


Wrap Up:

I'm getting tired of typing so lets summarize this shit. Basically the idea is to reduce everything to smaller numbers then match them to a direct opposite so they interact better thus making them easier to understand and balance against each other.

I realize while these ideas are likely not perfect and seem minor I'd like to think they can make a big difference. Also as I made no mention of a cap of any sort hopefully I can get better feedback to improve it than "caps suck because fuck you thats why".

32,545 views 13 replies +1 Loading…
Reply #1 Top

I agree that some kind of rebalance of stats is necessary. I don't agree with everything you wrote, but toning down the bonuses to realistic levels (?!) may make the game more balanced. 

 

It is odd to have my soldiers go up levels and gain fabulous amounts of hit points. 

The graphics for the tactical battles are already fabulous. The balance and 'rules' for combat need quite a bit of tuning before it would be balanced or fun.

Reply #2 Top

Your concepts here are good. I find the stats confusing, some unnecessary, and overall balance poor. Then again, that's what they expected to find in the beta and have taken some great steps to correct it already. Still, I'm hoping for a stats overhaul/improvement like you suggest. The game's mechanics are overly complex, missing UI elements to help it make sense and need a second look.

 

Reply #3 Top

Sorry what? Strength increases both attack -and- damage? Do you mean to say accuracy?

And intelligence increases accuracy? Because my mage needs to really hit with his staff?

Perhaps accuracy shouldn't be tied to level. It certainly makes the dodge mechanic sort of weird. Perhaps dodge shouldn't even be a stat in the game... The changes you are suggesting ... are you sure they are what you meant to say? They seem a little conflicting.

Reply #4 Top

Quoting CdrRogdan, reply 3
Sorry what? Strength increases both attack -and- damage? Do you mean to say accuracy?

And intelligence increases accuracy? Because my mage needs to really hit with his staff?

Perhaps accuracy shouldn't be tied to level. It certainly makes the dodge mechanic sort of weird. Perhaps dodge shouldn't even be a stat in the game... The changes you are suggesting ... are you sure they are what you meant to say? They seem a little conflicting.
End of CdrRogdan's quote

Ummm, you do know that attack and accuracy are already two different stats right? I'm not really sure how to clarify myself unless you rephrase your questions.

As for intellegence increasing accuracy it was simply to keep dexterity from becoming too powerful of a choice with my changes really.

Basically all I'm trying to do is get a easier to understand system using the stats that are already avalable so they don't have to gut what they already have to try and fix things.

Reply #5 Top

I my experience items are the biggest problem. The amount of goodie huts and defensive items you get from them is what makes you able to kill groups of deadly units with single heroes.

Reply #6 Top


About your thread: I was about to open one of my own on the same issue, so I truly believe this is a relevant one. For this reason, 1 karma for you J

I don’t know how the current system calculations actually work, so I won’t comment on how to change them. I believe you can achieve almost every result with any set of stats as long as you tweak with them enough, but certainly some make for a much easier and neater job than others.

My main point is that the current system creates too strong heroes and too weak units. So I've also been thinking awhile, reading many forums and watching several videos of the beta. I apologize upfront if some of the things I write below are incorrect since I am not playing the beta. All criticism are intended to be constructive, since I believe a lot in this game guys and I’d like it to be a great, great game. In what follows my objective number one and how to achieve it.

The objective

  • Heroes should be born weak but with the potential of becoming magnificent. Normal units should be relatively less strong than heroes as the game progresses, but always effective to deal with. I make two examples to give an idea of what I mean, though you may not agree on the details:
    • a single swordman (or any other decent melee base unit) should be weaker than a low-level hero, but the low-level hero should be no match for a group of 5 base swordsmen, even if he has some equip.
    • a single high level hero with extremely good equip should still have a very hard time against 6+ leveled high-end units with good weapons and armors.

Some ideas how to get there

  • per-level bonuses should not be dropped as someone suggests. Instead, they are indeed very useful  if we want heroes to progress from weak to magnificent through levels (in MoM this worked quite well). Since this may induce people to choose fixed bonuses early on and per-level bonuses later on as they level up, I’d suggest either:
    • that per-level bonuses, in the form of “path of the …”, are given only for the first 2-3 level up, to define the path of the hero, and never for subsequent level-up’s
    • that per-level means for each level after that the hero picked up the ability
  • every faction should have 1-2 units with ability that really make a difference, as Elven Lords or Griffin used to have in MoM (e.g. armor piercing+first strike). These abilities should be very rare even for heroes. This would help to make units an interesting piece to deal with even in end-game.

  • Heroes should not be immortal. I am the first who doesn’t like my hero to die, but I understand it’s part of the fun in a game. There are many ways one can make death a costly but avoidable consequence: allow heroes to flee, allow a Death ward spell – I am sure this was already in the game, and maybe it’s still there – or a building that can capture the soul of a dead hero together with a spell that can bring him back after x seasons… all of these should have a cost in terms of time and/or game resources (mana or others). But not immortality upfront with just a scar... cool idea, but with too little impact.

  • Recruiting a hero should not be cheap and easy and right at the beginning. Not all at once. I suggest it costs you more gold, or it requires more factions points that you don’t have at the beginning. This forces you to train regulars to deal with early aggressions – there should be early aggressions, i.e. monsters that come to knock your door asking for food: you.

  •  Imbuing a champion should come at a higher cost. Players like high cost for high rewards, and imbuing a champion is indeed an extremely good thing, so it sohuld not come cheap. Some ideas here:

    • Make cost scale up: first imbue 40, second imbue 120, third 360…
    • Make champions have a “magic propensity” trait that determines the cost of imbue, so that melee oriented heroes are much harder to endow with spells than wiz-oriented ones. On average imbue should be much more costly than now.
    • Make imbue costly in some other way (e.g. you must sacrifice a magic shard through a ritual…)

 

  • Not sure how dodge works, but this may be another factor in favor of heroes
  • Not sure how it is now, but heroes should not be able to equip all items they find. I hope even now that a chainmail cannot be used by all heroes, for instance – not a matter of realism but a matter of bigger diversity among heroes.

A last point is a good comment on the game (I have already a lot of good comments, but I think I am more useful if I point out weaknesses). In FE units do not retaliate when attacked. This makes number of units in an army an important factor since you inflict damage only when it’s your turn. This is already in the direction of making heroes slightly less powerful… which again, I adore, but in late game and after risk and long training, not too easily and without some risk.

Reply #7 Top


I sort of agree with most what you are saying about heroes, I don't think I really got into it in my post but personally I feel that their strength should come from their abilities as well as their stat growth and how you choose to focus it and not just have them automatically be as strong as or stronger than similarly equiped armies simply because they are slightly higher in level. I think I did mention however that part of why I suggested these changes is to separate armies into a unit that is there to basically take and deal heavy damage but not too much else which I think is a bit in line with your thoughts.

As for units that make a difference armies are a fairly customizable even if in a rather limited way. They do have special units, (as in not standard human armies) however, but these currently are very weak and are easily outclassed by standard armies as an army progresses in power with technology while the special side races do not. Personally I would like to see more effort put into this area but there are other things idea rather see worked out first.

Your ideas on hero imbuement I'm not sure are really necessary as the way it is now imbuement drains your mana per turn which I think is a sufficient offset. As for imbueing melee heroes this is largely pointless currently as as far as I have seen it is impossible for units that don't already have some skill in magic to learn it through leveling.

As for hero death with a chance for resurrection I fully support this idea as throwing the currently immortal heroes at problems till they go away seems just a bit ridiculous...

Dodge as it is now is largely meaningless as everyone's accuracy increases with levels but dodge doesn't so it is quickly rendered obsolete against everything except freshly trained units and even then its affects are minimal.

Sorry for it being out of order in regards to your ideas as I type what I think as it comes to me.

Reply #8 Top

Actually imbuement does not cost mana per turn, only a one-off cost of 25 mana.

Reply #9 Top

Quoting rillifane, reply 4
Quoting CdrRogdan, reply 3Sorry what? Strength increases both attack -and- damage? Do you mean to say accuracy?


Ummm, you do know that attack and accuracy are already two different stats right? I'm not really sure how to clarify myself unless you rephrase your questions.
End of rillifane's quote

.. 'Damage' is not a stat. You said attack and 'damage'. Did you mean attack and accuracy?

Edit: Nevermind I figured out what you meant. On a side note, this question would have been much easier answered by saying that you intended for attack to function completely seperate from the way it does now. I had to read your post a few times before I understood that.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting StevenAus, reply 8
Actually imbuement does not cost mana per turn, only a one-off cost of 25 mana.
End of StevenAus's quote

oh, nevermind then, guess I thought that idea carried over from WoM. In that case I do see some merit in the increasing mana cost though I'll have to play around a bit more with mage heroes before I can make any real commentary.

Quoting CdrRogdan, reply 9

.. 'Damage' is not a stat. You said attack and 'damage'. Did you mean attack and accuracy?

Edit: Nevermind I figured out what you meant. On a side note, this question would have been much easier answered by saying that you intended for attack to function completely seperate from the way it does now. I had to read your post a few times before I understood that.
End of CdrRogdan's quote

I said in the very begining that I wanted damage to be a seperate stat. Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough.

Reply #11 Top

While I finally have confirmation that the devs are not looking to change any mechanics, I hope you consider modding some of these characteristics for a coremod test. It is important to remember that you can create what you imagine. 

Reply #13 Top

Quoting seanw3, reply 11
While I finally have confirmation that the devs are not looking to change any mechanics, I hope you consider modding some of these characteristics for a coremod test. It is important to remember that you can create what you imagine. 
End of seanw3's quote

That is... a little disappointing actually. Its possible I'm overthinking things but alot of balancing issues seem to stem from how messy their current mechanics are. Oh well, if it comes to it I guess I will try to mod in some changes myself someday.