Troll Headhunter

[Sunrise Samurai]

Coming fresh with today's tirade from several people on multiplayer chat (some players never will take my advice and join the forum to make their posts) and including my personal observations over the past while, I'd say headhunters are a little unbalanced right now.

50% ranged dodge against range makes them harder to hit than fully upgraded elves, and with much higher life than any elf besides sentinel. Assuming you do hit, it has high enough pierce armor to ignore you anyway. It has enough range to avoid melee combat with ease, simply hiding behind any orc melee.

This wouldn't be as bad if it weren't a 3 action unit. I understand it is reduced by armor 3 times, but a master headhunter has the same power as a fully upgraded quick archer, and 1 more action. Add strengthen from an orc shaman? 11 power and 3 actions? Let's throw in group attack 3 from an orc king, plus group attack 1 from troll shaman. 15 power, 3 actions.

With some basic support like these, a master headhunter is a cheaper, sturdier version of a catapult. Alone, it removes all archers, 3 a turn, with no recourse besides hiding them in a tower.

Honestly I'm not sure what to suggest. It fills a vital role for orcs that we can't let go of, or else they won't compete with elves at all. The problem I'm seeing is that it has begun to be much more than a skirmisher. I'd rather use a master headhunter than 2 fully upgraded uruk archers, and it researches far more quickly.

[Alexander82]

Really, it doesn't makes more than what is meant to be. It is a 5 turns unit that is very specific. Against elves is the only way to make orcs viable (we have checked). The evasion is just right after both smith techs and dodge (you can't really save one without that). You just need to attack it with melee units so that the only thing it can do is to retreat leaving space to your archer or die against melee.

You really can't use it effectively against other kind of units. Orcs have way better options.

[Stratego (dev)]

We can nerf it if others also thing it is too kuch. I also experienced it is not beatable fully upgraded.

I would reduce hp maybe, to be more fragile.

[Sunrise Samurai]

Thought about it last night. I think in most cases, 30% dodge is sufficient for most units unless multiple upgrades and abilities are combined. Besides that, it's the ability to buff to absurdity that gives the biggest problem. Let's start the dodge at 10% and go up to 30% and make headhunters immune to strengthen. Between the two, that should do it without​ really nerfing it.

[Stratego (dev)]

ok, but lets see how others think, i think Alexander thinks it is fine, so we need some more opinions so we will see who is right.

[Alexander82]

I think it is ok as it is but i wouldn't nerf the dodge effect. It is right it can't be beaten by archers (i plan to do the same for the skirmisher). Also it is easy to kill him in melee. I don't see the problem but we might slightly lower hp as Daniel said.

[Sunrise Samurai]

Might work. I'm still thinking strengthen shouldn't affect it. Well, this begs the question. Should strengthen help any ranged units at all? It doesn't seem like a spell that would help anything outside of melee.

[Alexander82]

Why not? Bot archery and throwing require strength. A strong archer can use a bow that is harder to use or simply apply more strength in that. We think like archery requires no strength but it is false. Based on the bow you are using might require a greater strength to use it and the result is far more destructive (even rangr increases in reality)

[Puss_in_Boots]

No troll should have any dodging abilities. I'm pretty sure dodging isn't in an orc or troll's nature. With its shield it shouldn't deflect attacks more 10% of the time (just like human races). I think the health is fine because it can be killed by melee units fairly easy for a 5 turn build.

[Alexander82]

No troll should have any dodging abilities. I'm pretty sure dodging isn't in an orc or troll's nature. With its shield it shouldn't deflect attacks more 10% of the time (just like human races). I think the health is fine because it can be killed by melee units fairly easy for a 5 turn build.

Trolls are agile. The headhunter is made on the troll concept of d&d and warcraft. Lotr trolls are different instead since they are brute-like

[Alexander82]

Anyway the problem in game is related to balance. The headhunter is already perfect as it is since it is the only mean to make orcs act well against elves that have been extremely pumped up after both smithing and dodge techs. If we nerf the headhunter we must nerf both elf archers damage and melee elves evasion since now elves can easily fight both melee and ranged against orcs.

Headhunter was a mean to make elves go melee while evasion was a way to make melee elves worth being produced (they can really be the best tanks at the moment. It is cheap to build a first line of dodging 2 turns units). If you don't like the fact that orcs can handle ranged in a reasonable way i would bring things back as they were removing melee options for elves that are now great at both.

[Puss_in_Boots]

Another problem seems to be that the melee units cant even get close enough to it when they are behind many lines of orc units. Another solution could simply be range reduction as they are forced to get closer than to evade melee confrontation.

[Alexander82]

Range reduction is not a solution since it would make it useless. There is no problem at all. It is an effective units in its role so there is no point in complaining in a anti archer that is good against archers. If your enemy has an entire army between you and an headhunter the latter is not your problem.

Also elves will have soon a unit able to jump over enemies. Pretty convenient. And, of course, you can use dragons against the headhunter (just hide some in a 4 space parapet and you'll have a great result).

[Sunrise Samurai]

I don't think a range reduction would work at all. I definitely agree that headhunters are absolutely required for orcs to fight elves. At this point I can even agree that it should have a dodge chance, since all skirmishers will have the same edge. (although I do say this means elves and undead need skirmishers) I'd say the % for the dodge is up for debate, but the existence of a dodge chance is more than understandable. My biggest unsettled problem is the tripling of any buffs put on it.

A parapet that you mention to hide dragons or centaurs inside has 50 life, 2 pierce armor. Properly buffed, a master headhunter can achieve 15 attack, with 3 actions. 13 damage per hit, 3 hits, makes 39/50 damage without getting anything vulnerable near the parapet. With 11 life left, just about anything can finish it off, especially since the assumption of group attack 1 and 3 has already been made.

This guy is as good at killing fortifications as a catapult. And honestly, while orcs have better damage dealing options, most of those require getting close enough to take a few hits before they deal damage.

[Alexander82]

The problem is that every building should have a decent pierce armor. There is no way that you easily take down one with arrows. It should at least require some infantry. Arrows are the real siege units here.

[Stratego (dev)]

since all skirmishers will have the same edge

skirmishers have no dodge and i have not planned to extend dodge usability.
in general i think too much randomness is not good for the strategic side of the game.

[Constantin]

I think we just have to reduce the damage to 4-6, and increase the% damage on archers and dragons

[Stratego (dev)]

good idea, so the "against archers" thing can remain and maybe will not be that op.

i checked and i saw
- i has 3 attack action
- high hp
- high damage (for 3 action)
- high range
- fair armor
- high spell resistance
- dodge...

so it seems it has everything a girl wants

[Sunrise Samurai]

The problem is that every building should have a decent pierce armor. There is no way that you easily take down one with arrows. It should at least require some infantry. Arrows are the real siege units here.

You may have a point. I've been noticing that even human elite archers are getting a little too good at killing factories.

good idea, so the "against archers" thing can remain and maybe will not be that op.

i checked and i saw
- i has 3 attack action
- high hp
- high damage (for 3 action)
- high range
- fair armor
- high spell resistance
- dodge...

so it seems it has everything a girl wants

That's what I've been saying. It literally has everything. 3 actions in the same race as strengthen and group attack 3, really high health and good armor in the same race as 50% or 100% regeneration. Good stats that synergize with everything around it.

[Alexander82]

Yeah, I know its stats since I've made it. You see a unit's effectivness in game. There is no orc player that wins by just making headhunters but every orc player loose against ranged without it.

There is no point in nerfing it now. Balance is ok and the unit is specific enough (it is a 5 turns unit you can't compare it to a 2 turn skirmishers). Consider what orcs can produce in 5 turns...

[Sunrise Samurai]

We might want to open a new topic on increasing the pierce armor of all buildings to a minimum of 5 for factories, 8-10 for towers and walls. Let's see how that goes and come back to headhunters after that issue has been addressed. It might be that this would settle a good bit of my problem with headhunters without changing them.

[Alexander82]

I still don't understand your problem. If you charge with melee units you force headhunters to go back or you can easily kill them.

[Sunrise Samurai]

lol I know you don't understand. If you did, it wouldn't be a good debate like it is. Anyway, like I said, I think I'm going to drop it for now. If you could open a topic on pierce armor for buildings, that would be appreciated. Between that and this topic here
http://www.ageofstrategy.net/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=4390
I think we're already in the process of heavily adjusting balance, so we might settle my argument without even trying in the process.

[Stratego (dev)]

i suggest not dropping topic, we need to figure out how this mega-super unit should change, also being sure it will be still good against archers.

[Stratego (dev)]

i suggest a few tests:

2 troll headhunters vs 5 swordsmen (headhunters walking away from melee range but not hiding in any tower)

2 troll headhunters vs 2 knight + 1 swordsmen (headhunters walking away from melee range but not hiding in any tower)

1 shaman 2 troll headhunters vs 5 swordsmen + healer (casters make buffs, headhunters walking away from melee range but not hiding in any tower)

1 shaman 2 troll headhunters vs 2 knight + 1 swordsmen + healer (casters make buffs, headhunters walking away from melee range but not hiding in any tower)


anyone can run them?

[Alexander82]

Daniel you should test it with other orc units.

Human units have only 2 levels for now and you should also consider upgrades. The headhunter have no bonus from other techs (it only has is stats) while both human and elven stats are increased by smith tech and elves have also dodge techs.

Humans are less strong statwise but compensate with siege.

Comparing units from different races isn't easy since the race works as a whole and you need to consider many parameters, for example upgrading headhunters from the start means that you loose some production turns and/or the chance to upgrade something different like orc kings, uruks or wolf riders.

The real test must be made in normal versus game were the units are involved. I've played many games against Sunrise Samurai with orcs against both elves or humans and never won since the game is pretty balanced.

I'm really annoyed about all those problem around a single unit that is needed and has no need for being nerfed.

Since you are questioning my work (that I think is going in the right direction after the latest addiction) I will resign for my role of design leader.

[Stratego (dev)]

"Human units have only 2 levels for now and you should also consider upgrades."
I suggested the test without upgrades

"The headhunter have no bonus from other techs (it only has is stats)"
ok, we can have then considered in the test

"The real test must be made in normal versus game were the units are involved"
yes, but hard to get two players playing same way, eg. if you play the orcs you said you dont use spellcasters, while others do and that might cause imbalance.

"I'm really annoyed about all those problem around a single unit that is needed and has no need for being nerfed."
I think we can think things are in balance, but if we receive multiple notifications about something is "op" than it is ok we check if they are true or not, we can come up with any kind of tests, anyone can suggest any, but it is normal "lifecycle" of a game if some player says this or that is op, than we can have thos checked, and if they are right we can change them. I think it is ok.

"Since you are questioning my work"
Not at all - Your work is essential! i just said if someone say there is something, lets check how units work, maybe we missed something that others see.

"I will resign for my role of design leader"
I would be very sad, and i am sure no one else would be happy about it, you are heavily part of the game, and these little things will not change it ever.
also we would instantly re-elect you

[Alexander82]

Then let's try 5 ettins against 8 headhunters.

Try to test 3 swordsman against a sentinel

Test 4 swordsman against a ghost ship

Try a basic orc swordsman against an archer

All those tests make no sense if you don't consider the map structure, buildings involved, towers, other units that makes sinergies with those, strategies used by a player.

A good test are many games played wuth that race. A unit is imbalanced mostly when you can just win a game by building that regardless of what the enemy does.

Headhunter are great against archers but they aren't imbalanced since they can be outranged by most of archers in game. They mostly act as a deterrent for those place that use only a huge army of archers ignoring melee.

Maps aren't that big to allow them to escape forever so you can just make them escape and kill them with melee units. The upgraded versions are stronger but it is just normal.

[Alexander82]

The unit have already been nerfed. The first level was strong enough to kill non upgraded archers and levelling kept the thing as they were. It was Daniel's suggestion to reduce damage against archers but increase damage against other units. Also the cost was 4 and was raised to 5. I think it is pretty balanced as it is. In game is useful but certainly not strong as other orc units with similar cost...

[Midonik]

Alexander want it to be a strong anti-archer. Sunrise and others want to make it less strong aganist other units. Solution is obvious,Constantin said that: less damege,more bonus aganist archers.
I tried to kill a bit weaked (45-47 hp) meale centaur with master headhunter with group attack and strenghtgen and he did it easly. Centaur cost 8, 3 more than headhunter. I know that master is 3rd tier,but he should be weak aganist meale units.
So,we should make them not able to kill 6+ (2+ for 1st tier,4+ for 2nd) cost meale units in one turn and increase bonus aganist archers so they deal same amount of damege.
Also,I think we cloud decrease its hp.
Master headhunter cannot be killed by sword dancer in one turn. Sword dancer is a 4 cost meale unit. I think it should be able to take down anti-archer unit fast,right?
I suggest to make 3+ meale unit able to kill 3rd tier in one turn (1+ for 1st,2+ for 2nd) and mayby rise p armor so archers wont kill them faster than now.
Rising p armor if buldings sounds like good idea.
Im not trying to question your work,just saying what I think.