Zealots!?

[Radio Star]

Zealots are broken. They are the one "must have" unit. If your opponent has zealots and you do not, you're at a huge disadvantage. I'd like to see how vital these units are dropped.

To this end, I propose the following:

WoP damage dropped 10 points
Frail reduced to 115%
Fans to get modified Sea of Pain with 120% frail instead of morale spell.

The combination of the two spells would be slightly higher than zeals are at present, but it'd take MUCH longer and be far more expensive to see the full force brought to bear. No more zeals at 20 min smashing an enemy line that was holding fine 5 seconds earlier. This would also give fans a place in the overall scheme.



Thoughts?

[binnister]

Yes.

YES.

But, i would suggest keeping the 'splash' damage as is, for both WOP & SOP (or, adjusted down slightly...25-30 vs 40).

The reason being is that, although the Zealot is broken, it is one of the only things that make playing Nats desirable. Getting the 'new' Fanatic would only be reasonable when a Indy Nat town is found.

One thing to consider is that, if this change goes through, that along with a changed Macabre (115% frail), you'd have 3 units who's 'splash' damage & frails would all stack.

[The Gok]

i myself think fans are underrated. Their rage spell is very efficient on inf, and 3 or 4 fans will rout an army pretty damn fast.

[Grond]

WoP damage dropped 10 points

Dropped to 30? Then yes.

Frail reduced to 115%

Yes

Fans to get modified Sea of Pain with 120% frail instead of morale spell.

Yes

[Redgawk]

Personally, I hate any changes made to the zealots. As a nat player, they are the one thing that allows your game to work, and I dont think they even need a change. They are strong, so what? It allows for 4 compnies as a nat plauer seem like 6 or 7 which isnt a bad thing considering that cil or ceyah would have the 7 companies at the same time the nat player has the 4. If we nerf the zealot I think nats will lose a lot of their potential.

BTW, what are we trying to do in this patch, make games last longer? It seem that every change mentioned is to help get more units out or gives AV/DV/HP to a unit. I think an hour long a match game is already long enough, after the patch, games could last forever.

[yrotciV]

They are fine as they are, nats need a super-powered aoe frail support.

Fans/vokers may need some modifications though.

[FalenEngel]

Here's the problem:

We are now, with the discussions going on, fully into Mod territory. Even considering a major modification to a serious midgame unit like the Zealot is a major problem, because it will throw game balance out of whack instantly, and require a zillion other changes... each of which will cause more problems, etc. I myself think that pallies/dreads shouldn't be touched. The game is fine, let's add Sar Lashkar, fix Maus, maybe nerf Sebastian, throw the Roys a bone (maybe), and get back to actually playing Kohan.

Nats are good because of eco and zeals. Zeals are the ONLY reason that a Nat can stand up in lategame (with mass maels), and the major nat contribution, unit-wise, in midgame. A lot of the changes suggested recently are of the "Let's make all the factions more alike so they aren't 'broken'." variety, and I will continue to resist this trend.

I remember the good old days when Radio Star was the one saying "Hold on now..." rather than suggesting that we start a new "Darkwars" style mod-creation effort under the guise of a patch. If people want to do that, fine; if they think it will be more balanced, fine. Or you could go play Grond's version of Kohan, which he says is more "balanced".

But "balanced" is a silly word. Kohan isn't supposed to be "balanced", it's supposed to be in a dynamic equilibrium, with good ideas and bad ideas all over the place. If every unit is just as good as every other unit, why don't we just eliminate everything but sticks?

Alou.

[Nottoc]

why don't we just eliminate everything but sticks

That would be boring with the exception of the Kohan.....

Seriously, why does the Nat have to rely on one unit to be competitive?, its kind of silly. Isn't it possible to make the factions different enough in play style to make all of them interesting and viable choices competitively.

Zeals are the ONLY reason that a Nat can stand up in lategame

This statement alone poses a huge problem; why is a midgame unit such an integral part of the late game?- IMO, if this is true, then it should be remedied. Even a combo between the Fanatic and Zeal would be a more interesting niche for this faction. It's unfortunate we have to be comfortable with one unit defining this faction.

[Grond]

Whether it's a mod or a patch is irrelevent. The fact is it will be a mod regardless of what changes are made because it's not by TG and will be optional. What is relevent is that the vast majority are bored with a game where only 10% of the available company compositions are viable in a competitive game. The proposed change would be a slight decrease to Nats excessive midgame power and a boost to their weak late game. Toning down overpowered units and making useless units useful is in no way making all the factons the same. All the suggestions I've seen would enhance the counter system not neuter it which would mean more strategy. More strategy is a good thing.

[Republican Jew]

Yeah, the "patch" mod is just a mod. Small changes will only result in a small increase in fun if successful or a small decrease in fun if unsuccessful. Big changes will magnify the difference in fun either up or down depending on how successful it is.

[FalenEngel]

That in itself should come as no surprise to anyone. Nottoc however has a point, but I'll get to that. First, the majority of the people around still play Kohan (again, with the notable exception of Grond), and are therefore not bored with the game as is. As for available company compositions, 10% is a joke. Try 40-50%; and the whole point is that not all compositions SHOULD be viable. A game without stupid units is less interesting. I WANT there to be a unit out there that I can make when I've got a huge advantage that says "Go Home, I can beat you with this ridiculous BS."

Toning down "overpowered" units is just regression to the mean, it makes the game less interesting rather than more, because it reduces the necessity of actually countering anything. If Xbows are nerfed I can just make whatever I was going to before, and be ok. The fact that xbows are good, or zeals are good, forces me to actually make a counter rather than relying on the fact that my units are reasonable. Nerf Kohan = Simkohan, we just compare econs at 25:00 and whoever has more, wins.

In some cases, making "useless" units useful is reasonable - note that I haven't opposed some of these changes. The point though is not to make Paladins as effective as Clerics or Mages, but to give them a role. Once a unit is actually used with its current stats, we're done.

TBC.

Alou.

[FalenEngel]

The point is, many of the suggestions made so far (I single out nerfing Prophs, Necros, and Zeals), are very good examples of how to make unit composition irrelevant. There should be three kinds of units in a healthy game environment. "Good" units, made frequently and in numbers, "Special Purpose" units (Zeals, BP, Necro), which serve a role, and "Amusing" units (Discs, Fans), which aren't necessarily part of a competitive 4v4, but make the game interesting because they aren't technically "good".

Moving everything into a fourth category, "Balanced", would remove the necessity of paying attention to what your opponent has, and bleed the urgency out of strategy choices.

Obviously, even the changes Radio is suggesting wouldn't go quite that far, but I'm suggesting that we don't want to step in that direction; except for perhaps helping a few "amusing" units find their "Special Purpose".

As for Nottoc's point - which is good - that a necessity that zeals be made to stand up lategame is a problem... I don't think so. I think the comfortable econ of a lategame Nat, the ability to pass out any excess gold, etc., along with the Zeal/Mael combo, are enough to make Nats reasonable, and sufficient to make up for the weakest set of Elites. (Someone has to be weakest). That said, I've seen a lot of Fans recently, and not a few invokers, although I am not clear on why people made them.

Obviously, I agree with RJ's point, that it doesn't matter, and eventually whether the community even bothers with 1.3.9, gets scared off, or plays it is essentially exogenous to how we decide. My point is that we aren't going to be significantly adding to the community with this patch, and the more changes we make, the more people will leave.

I won't be one of them, I'll be sticking around for the "Everyone makes paladins" version of Kohan. But not everyone necessarily will, and people are pretty happy with 1.3.8.

Alou.

[Mistwraithe]

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

Toning down "overpowered" units is just regression to the mean, it makes the game less interesting rather than more, because it reduces the necessity of actually countering anything. If Xbows are nerfed I can just make whatever I was going to before, and be ok. The fact that xbows are good, or zeals are good, forces me to actually make a counter rather than relying on the fact that my units are reasonable. Nerf Kohan = Simkohan, we just compare econs at 25:00 and whoever has more, wins.

Ignoring for a moment the issue of whether the proposed changes would actually do this...

I am in complete agreement. There needs to be counters, weak units, strong units, units for particular purposes. Building the right army at the right time needs to be a major part of playing the game well. One of the things which Kohan does best is that a the game doesn't just come down to economy (although that is a big part obviously).

Of course it is very debateable which changes would take Kohan down this unhappy path...

[Grond]

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

First, the majority of the people around still play Kohan

How many people is this??? It was 50-100 people at a time before people got bored with the SOS.

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

10% is a joke. Try 40-50%

Well I said a competitive game. I'm not surprised if you make 50%.

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

Toning down "overpowered" units is just regression to the mean

Wrong again, its making a units usefulness related to its cost.

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

it makes the game less interesting rather than more

So having more options to counter with and more companies you have to counter is less interesting? Have you considered checkers?

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

The fact that xbows are good, or zeals are good, forces me to actually make a counter rather than relying on the fact that my units are reasonable. Nerf Kohan = Simkohan, we just compare econs at 25:00 and whoever has more, wins.

You just disproved your own point. Currently each faction makes their most overpowered unit and the side with the most wins. As it is now some factions don't even have a counter. How is a game with 100 counters decided more by econ than a game with 10 counters. You're much more likely to be able overcome an econ handicap by making the perfect counter if you have more choices, not less.

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

In some cases, making "useless" units useful is reasonable - note that I haven't opposed some of these changes. The point though is not to make Paladins as effective as Clerics or Mages, but to give them a role. Once a unit is actually used with its current stats, we're done.

Paladins should be substantially more effective vs Ceyah than Clerics or Mages, less effective vs Mareten.
In some cases?
Once a unit it used?

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

"Amusing" units which aren't necessarily part of a competitive 4v4, but make the game interesting because they aren't technically "good"

Why would I want amusing units in a game a lot of people consider to be the most strategic RTS. One of if not the biggest criticisms of KoW is the lack of unit choices per player.

Originally Posted by FalenEngel

Moving everything into a fourth category, "Balanced", would remove the necessity of paying attention to what your opponent has, and bleed the urgency out of strategy choices.

The suggestions have been nowhere near making all the factions the same and the whole goal is to give people more options on what to counter with instead of an automatic he made A so I have to make B. Maybe someone else can explain to me how more viable units equals less choices because I certainly don't see it. It sounds more like "let's keep the game simple so I don't have to think too hard" to me.

[Mistwraithe]

Originally Posted by Nottoc

This statement alone poses a huge problem; why is a midgame unit such an integral part of the late game?- IMO, if this is true, then it should be remedied. Even a combo between the Fanatic and Zeal would be a more interesting niche for this faction. It's unfortunate we have to be comfortable with one unit defining this faction.

I don't see this as a problem. The factions have different strengths. Eg,

Roy is strong early game, weak mid game and strong late game.
Cey is strong early, mid and late game but has specific counters which ruin it's day, week, year...
Cil is medium early, strong mid game and fairly strong late too.
Nat is weak early, strong mid game and medium late.

You might disagree with how I have categorised them (hell I couldn't make my mind up in Cil anyway ) but it is part of the flavour of Kohan. We don't want all factions equally balanced at all stages of the game IMO. Nor do we want any faction be so limited that they HAVE to aim for a win in one particular stage of the game.

Under 1.3.8 I think we have this sweet point - I am against changes in 1.3.9 which would go too far in either direction.