Safe battles should be patched.

[Foofmonger]

Just want to say I like the system how it is. I don't know where people started thinking "Safe" = "Invincible. If you made all safe battles 100% chance you lose no units that would make this game much more dull and straightforward, no thanks.

Sometimes, you lose units guys, that is part of the game regardless of the power imbalance in the battle. If its really that big of a deal just reload the last autosave (always saves at the start of a turn) and manual battle. I do this all the time if I feel like the auto-combat didnt go the way I wanted it to. Sometimes you still lose the unit in manual combat, sometimes you don't. I do not want a feature (as a baseline, I don't care if they make a super easy mode option for you guys), that makes battles 100% easymode I always win with no chance to lose anything, that is super duper lame, and this game is already easy enough.

-my 2 cents.

 

[Garresh]

The reason: I do not want the devs to do an kneejerk patching and ruin my games against the AI. The current difficulty is fine as it is. What I won't mind is Devs adding in an toggle for online pvp matches only.

I DO NOT WANT RIDICULOUS NERFS HAPPENING IN PVE just because pvp players can't control themselves and exploit the game very hard.

1) I fucking hate the mortar turn 1 cooldown.
2) I fucking hate the flame tank turn 1 cooldown.
3) I fucking hate the ironclad mortar turn 1 cooldown.
4) I fucking hate the one time per battle only for engineer repair in battle, I went to all the trouble to reaching elite with such a fragile unit and it gets nerfed.
5) Musketmen nerfs.
6) Golem nerfs.
7) Healing spells for Theocrat that 25 hp heal that used to haev like 1-2 turn cooldown? Got nerfed to once per battle.

Yet, AOW3 Devs trot out their base and dish out one sided nerfs for exploits that I didn't do. All because of pvp players whining big time.

I want nerfing to the game for the sake to be limited to only online matches and I want your nerfs to fucking stay out of my pve against the AI.

I do not particpate in online matches. SO i don't understand why I have to suffer the unjust nerfs for the sake of fragile egos of pvp players. Hands off my offline games. No touchie.

In fact I dumped AOW3 after the final rounds of nerfs being handed out to dreadnought players. I got tired of taking unnatural actions of making my ironclads, flame tanks, juggernaughts flee on turn 1 so they can fire on turn 2. It gets old when it happens every single battle because I play on enormous maps with underground enabled.

Lol I'm pretty sure I got the musketeers nerfed because Dreadnought was my second favorite class. I was the one posting how insanely strong goblin dread muskets were... XD

You're welcome!

Edit: They're still really good!

 

[The Founder]

The reason: I do not want the devs to do an kneejerk patching and ruin my games against the AI. The current difficulty is fine as it is. What I won't mind is Devs adding in an toggle for online pvp matches only.

I DO NOT WANT RIDICULOUS NERFS HAPPENING IN PVE just because pvp players can't control themselves and exploit the game very hard.

Then do not toggle that option?
You know this was always about adding a option, right?

 

[Ethorin]

If a battle is safe you shouldn't lose any troops, would make single player and multiplayer a lot better and faster and make a lot of meaningless battles skippable, obviously you could still fight them single player if you want.
Low risk would be losing at least one or being safe but there's a risk.

Then do not toggle that option?
You know this was always about adding a option, right?

...I don't see any mention of "option" in the OP... can't say I recall it getting mentioned as "optional" in the discussion either.

 

[Ericridge]

Lol I'm pretty sure I got the musketeers nerfed because Dreadnought was my second favorite class. I was the one posting how insanely strong goblin dread muskets were... XD

You're welcome!

Edit: They're still really good!

Yes, Musketmen nerf in first release of aow3 vanilla was one of the nerfs I did agree with, they was kinda powerful. Conquered an old wizards tower with six of them + Life Mastery spells. Found it here. http://aow.triumph.net/forums/topic/battle-of-wizard-tower/

Then do not toggle that option?
You know this was always about adding a option, right?

Thread was initially an rant and then one of commenters later on said about adding it in as an option.

...I don't see any mention of "option" in the OP... can't say I recall it getting mentioned as "optional" in the discussion either.

You can find it here. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...tles-should-be-patched.1231953/#post-25736270


Anyways, asking the devs for an help tend to be sometimes an double edged sword. They could implement the change you wanted but not in a way we all wanted. So I'm making sure that devs notice that I do not want safe battle to be I win button forced upon me, it should stay as an toggleable option.

I'll attach an screenshot, this would be an perfect example on why safe battle becoming an I win button be optional toggle because if its forced upon me then I do not want my army to have resurgence unless I'm playing as the theocrat. Battles like that in screenshot would become zero risk. When I fought it in manual i screwed up and lost one laser tank by accident. Whoops. Because it denies the AI to try and bloodily you and smash up your army as much as possible for reinforcements to remove your invading army from their lands.

 

[XaaluFarun]

Well then I have an idea though, just make an Colosseum map where two can enter but only one can leave. Map must be symmetrical for both sides, no NPCs in the world. Just an empty map with equal number of nodes on both sides. 100% fair.

Mirror map for tournaments or quick deathmatches sure. But you're missing my point:

I want to play multiplayer games with more than one person in a possible PvP setting without dedicating several weeks to a game.

With ultrasafe or no death safe battles or some sort of toggle for that so everyone is happy will make PvP actually feasible.

Just because you enjoy the game one way doesn't mean you have to diminish or trash others enjoyment of it either. Maybe some people want ultrasafe autobattles for SP too. *shrugs*

 

[Ethorin]

Maybe some people want ultrasafe autobattles for SP too. *shrugs*

Ctrl+Alt+C iamgod Enter.

Done, ultrasafe autobattles provided. SP has the toggle already. I mean, it can't tell safe from not and it'll give you a flawless win with a runner vs literally anything but hey, that's cheats for ya. But if you only ever autobattle safe battles, congrats, toggle acquired.

 

[Sarmatian]

I'm very sorry, I see the light now. From now on i'll respectfully agree with you on what you want for aow planetfall, for you only matter not anyone else. I'll just go stand at the side and listen to your orders on what you think should be done.

From my limited knowledge of app planetfall game engine there is two possible ways to meet your requirements.

Plan A: implement an resurgence buff on your units everytime you wage an autobattle because your military genius has no equal under heaven.

Plan B: Delete safe battle rating, and put its rating under low risk battle rating.

For it to be utterly predictable, we'll need to remove random chance of crits from enemy units, and morale as well.

My master, which plan do you like the best? Plan A or Plan B? Please choose so I can pass your orders to triumph studios for you because I dont matter at all.

You don't have to agree with me. You just need to stop acting like you speak for SP players, when you speak for yourself.

Behaving less like a spoiled brat would be a plus, but I'd settle for just the one thing.

 

[MaitreBouh]

You don't have to agree with me. You just need to stop acting like you speak for SP players, when you speak for yourself.

Behaving less like a spoiled brat would be a plus, but I'd settle for just the one thing.

Very interesting message, because I could write the same.

I mean, someone complaining that the game told it was a safe battle but a unit died looks very much like a spoiled brat to me. And when you pretend its very bad to pvp balance you not only speak for many people who won't agree, but you're still speaking like a spoiled brat.

And when you speak with condescension you're not very respectful of those who disagree with you.

 

[Dreepa]

Very interesting message, because I could write the same.

I mean, someone complaining that the game told it was a safe battle but a unit died looks very much like a spoiled brat to me. And when you pretend its very bad to pvp balance you not only speak for many people who won't agree, but you're still speaking like a spoiled brat.

And when you speak with condescension you're not very respectful of those who disagree with you.

Looking at both threads (this and the one in the suggestions area) their were very good discussions on the different aspects of the topic.
The amount of respondands wishing for more reliability in their "no brainer" battles were quite high. So overall there seems to be merrit to the proposal.
Since the option for hero ressurgance is already available we can conclude that adding the discussed option should be leaving no one wanting on both sides of the discussion.

 

[beckermt]

Just want to say I like the system how it is. I don't know where people started thinking "Safe" = "Invincible. If you made all safe battles 100% chance you lose no units that would make this game much more dull and straightforward, no thanks.

Sometimes, you lose units guys, that is part of the game regardless of the power imbalance in the battle. If its really that big of a deal just reload the last autosave (always saves at the start of a turn) and manual battle. I do this all the time if I feel like the auto-combat didnt go the way I wanted it to. Sometimes you still lose the unit in manual combat, sometimes you don't. I do not want a feature (as a baseline, I don't care if they make a super easy mode option for you guys), that makes battles 100% easymode I always win with no chance to lose anything, that is super duper lame, and this game is already easy enough.

-my 2 cents.

The point isn't that you want to be invincible. The point is that it's simply tedious to lose a unit to autocombat that you would not have lost in manual combat. If autocombat exists, players do not want to be punished for using it. <Save, auto, fail?, reload, manual> is anti-fun.

 

[MaitreBouh]

The point isn't that you want to be invincible. The point is that it's simply tedious to lose a unit to autocombat that you would not have lost in manual combat. If autocombat exists, players do not want to be punished for using it. <Save, auto, fail?, reload, manual> is anti-fun.

Except that the proposed "solution" would turn you invincible in these fights and the cheat code will bring you to the exact same result.

And the point isn't that it's tedious, it's that there ways to not lose units in these battles. Making your armies invinciblewwould simply allow you to win a fight that you *shouldn't* reliably win in the first place.

And the problem is that you are trying to make the game changed just because you don't want to change the way you play.

And I don't mean you should manual battle each and every battle. I play and played simultaneous turn MP games, and in these the rules was often to *disallow* manual battles against AI. I know what it is to adapt to it, and I can tell you that it's easy as it can in planetfall, as in you have almost no adaptation to do. Yet you refuse to hear about it.

 

[beckermt]

Except that the proposed "solution" would turn you invincible in these fights and the cheat code will bring you to the exact same result.

No. The proposed rule would resurrect dead units after victory in a Safe battle with 1 HP. This is the resurgence mechanic. You seem to be willfully misunderstanding the intentions behind this proposed change.

With the proposed change, you could still even LOSE a Safe battle, because resurgence only triggers on victory.

Here is the choice that I am forced to make when playing single player:
Lose 3 - 5 units over the first 50 turns of the game.
OR
Play ~50 rather boring and time consuming battles.
OR
Save, autocombat, reload, and manual them if things go poorly.

None of those are good options. I don't care to learn how to exploit the autocombat AI to build armies to win Safe battles. I want to build interesting armies and fighting interesting battles.

 

[Sarmatian]

Very interesting message, because I could write the same.

I mean, someone complaining that the game told it was a safe battle but a unit died looks very much like a spoiled brat to me. And when you pretend its very bad to pvp balance you not only speak for many people who won't agree, but you're still speaking like a spoiled brat.

And when you speak with condescension you're not very respectful of those who disagree with you.

I just emphasized the severity of the problem for the MP community. Potentially adding minutes to turn times is a problem. That should take precedence over 'I'm against it on principle, because I didn't like the changes in a different game', or 'I play SP mostly and I don't like the idea, therefore no one who plays SP likes the idea'.

That is textbook bratty behaviour, and I will certainly afford no respect to anyone who acts that way.

Disagreeing with the idea is something less entirely.

Saying 'safe battles just mean you can't lose' is an argument, whether someone agrees or disagrees. Or saying 'I like the fact that there is potential to lose a unit every once in a while'.
I disagree with both those arguments, and don't find either of them holding much merit, but I can respect them because they are rational arguments.

 

[Foofmonger]

The point isn't that you want to be invincible. The point is that it's simply tedious to lose a unit to autocombat that you would not have lost in manual combat. If autocombat exists, players do not want to be punished for using it. <Save, auto, fail?, reload, manual> is anti-fun.

Welcome to RNG. You can view the auto battle and see what happened and why you lost the unit. There is no issue you just have a terminology problem. The issue is that you think safe means invincible. It does not, sorry.

Look if they want to put an option in for ezmode that's fine. I'm not arguing otherwise, but I think the entire premise of the arguments here made for safe battles being instawin with no casualty is completely fallacious. Safe and invincible are different words in the English language for a reason. Safe means you win the battle 100% of the time. It doesn't mean you win the battle because there is no risk and all your units are invincible.

Look I get it, you want an ezmode option. Maybe we can ask the devs for a very easy setting where all safe battles make your army invincible. That should help you out.

Tldr: you will lose units as you play the game, even in safe battles. This is 100% intended design and has to do with the combat actually still happening as it does in manual battles in auto battles. Auto battles are not cheat codes, and you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the purpose of safe battles are.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

The biggest problem I have with giving resurgence to units in safe battles is that the game cannot tell the difference between a safe battle where the player would not lose a unit in manual combat and one where the player would lose a unit in manual combat. The arbitrary military ratings are really, really, really bad for making such a huge balance call. You'd have to add a ton of small arbitrary rules to try and control for these things, like if both armies have at least 5 units it doesn't apply. If one army loses more than one unit it doesn't apply. It doesn't apply on landmarks. Etc. The more of these rules you add, the more likely a player is to accidentally break one and lose the protection, which can lead to some players having to tailor their playstyle either to game the system or to avoid falling prey to it. There is no simple or easy way to apply this without making it extremely abuseble, which is a huge issue for something intended primarily for pvp.

 

[XaaluFarun]

Ctrl+Alt+C iamgod Enter.

Done, ultrasafe autobattles provided. SP has the toggle already. I mean, it can't tell safe from not and it'll give you a flawless win with a runner vs literally anything but hey, that's cheats for ya. But if you only ever autobattle safe battles, congrats, toggle acquired.

I play on PS4. So that doesnt work, and no I don't want them for SP( i just manual all battles I dont care to lose units in).
Again I just want a toggle(option) for MP. Just pointing out some people might want it for SP too.

The biggest problem I have with giving resurgence to units in safe battles is that the game cannot tell the difference between a safe battle where the player would not lose a unit in manual combat and one where the player would lose a unit in manual combat. The arbitrary military ratings are really, really, really bad for making such a huge balance call. You'd have to add a ton of small arbitrary rules to try and control for these things, like if both armies have at least 5 units it doesn't apply. If one army loses more than one unit it doesn't apply. It doesn't apply on landmarks. Etc. The more of these rules you add, the more likely a player is to accidentally break one and lose the protection, which can lead to some players having to tailor their playstyle either to game the system or to avoid falling prey to it. There is no simple or easy way to apply this without making it extremely abuseble, which is a huge issue for something intended primarily for pvp.

Make it an option and make it based on army power differential. If my army power is double or greater auto win with -5hp to all units. Solved.

 

[MaitreBouh]

I played MP in AoW3 where battle were necessarily autobattles against the AI. And AoW3 was much crueler to your units in autocombat.

If you lose units in safe battles past turn 4, you deserved it and need to learn how to play this game. Because I don't. And I'm not lucky. I just mod my units.

MP is not an excuse for a change like this because it affects everyone equally. If your problem is randomness, then leave this game alone, because it's filled with it, in each and every battle, and even the map itself. And if you think the AI is taking the victory out of your hands, you are simply not as good as your opponent and you need to learn the game.

Call me an elitist if you must, but the question here is not about convenience, speed or luck, it's only about how bad one can be in this game.

The point related to *your* issue that would deserve a discussion is the pressure this put on the metagame. Obviously, as you need to adapt to the very early enemies, less strategies are efficients in the very beginning. The question is, does it matter past turn 20? I'd answer no, because the mod system allows for this flexibility. By turn 20 you can keep your core units modded or you can start to add more powerful units with them. No one solved the game yet anyway so any discussion on the balance of early game is quite premature.

 

[Wallain]

Honestly I think a lot of the people against "ultra-safe" auto-resolves are missing the point. A lot. It's not fun to play a game with excessive grinding and that is what a lot of battles turn out to be if you cannot safely auto-resolve. And no your units aren't bad if you can win it by yourself, that just means there's something wrong with the auto-resolve, not that the player should adopt his units to being good at auto-resolve instead of good at actual combat. Frankly if you overpower the enemy by a certain amount you should never lose a unit, and if you overpower them immensely then should auto-win in an auto-resolve.

If the auto-resolve forces people to always do manual combat then it is fundamentally broken as a mechanic. It exists to save time by not playing pointless battles. That's why it's there. Seriously if I can win a battle by slamming my head against the keyboard and the auto-resolve makes me lose several units then the auto-resolve doesn't work.

 

[MaitreBouh]

If you lose units, maybe you don't overpower your enemy as much as you think...