I'm sorry for retaking a thread for Beastlords, but I've tried some games with a Beastlord Sov, and the conclusions are evident.
What it seemed an easy way to create an early army, becomes a bit gamebreaking after Sov grows Spell Mastery, and can tame easily Ravenous Harridans and Hoarder Spiders (I even got the Spider Queen from the Spider Event). And with affinity and/or the suit of less spell cost, I could tame BB for a ridicuolus amount of mana.
Umberdroths and other beasts are easily tamed too. So, I sent my Sov alone, and came back with a full army (bears, wolves, spiders...). I gave it to the champ, and went alone again for a new army... Lots of fun the first time, but after that, the game might be broken, with deadly armies with 0 upkeep. My last game, I just researched Civ and Magic untill late game...
And when a beast is tamed, my army receives XP the same as it was killed (well, I find it interesting, but maybe the XP should be halved, or (sigh) removed).
So, to give a bit of balance, I think that tamed beasts should have some mana upkeep (from 1 to ... 10? ... depending on the level or the power).
A quick list: Low level: 1 mana. Mid level: 2-3 mana. High level: 5 or more mana.
If not mana enough for the upkeep...beasts should "untame" (lol?) and get free again.
(Edit) These suggestions by now:
-Leave it as it is. Most people find fun as it is, and we (are supposed to) live in a democracy. So this is the winner suggestion.
- Beasts are untamed if they leave the Sovs's army. I find this one interesting, as it puts a logical limit to the number of tamed beasts. The most balanced untill now (attach number of tamed beasts to army size...I find sense here), so I put it the second in the list.
- A nice alternative: beasts have no upkeep while in Sov's army (as he has direct control over them), but if they go out of the army, then require a certain mana upkeep. I find this very balanced, and make sense with what a beastlord is suposed to be.
- You need to attack the beast. There should be a HP threshold for the beast before being able to cast Tame. Suggested between 10 HP and ...25?. This way, low HP beast are easy to tame, but high HP beasts would require tactical strategics (and a proper army). This sounds good too.
- Not mana upkeep for low level beast, only for high level (hoarder, harrigans...)
- Influence upkeep for beasts with higher level than Sov
- Risk of rebellion each turn. It could be avoided by a sort of spell that require a upkeep.
- Increase resistance to tame for high level beasts. For example, use the HP difference as a % of more resistance. Maybe (HP difference /2)?
I really don't want this changed too much, its fun now, and it has taken work for it to become fun. 1 mana at most would be the limit, but I am fine as is. Instead of bring Beast lord down, lets build up the other options. You can achieve balance in 2 ways, by making every choice weak or making every choice strong. Making every choice a strong choice is a hell of a lot more fun than making everyone meaningless. Beastlord is a good choice, so are a few others. Instead of making the good ones not good, lets look at what we can do to the ones that are not fun to play and see what we can do to boost them.
I understand Beastlord provides a way to play that currently is legal and fun. But after some games, I found it far OP because:
- It seems AI can't use tame, at least, far from than player (maybe I'm wrong here)
- It allows to recruit armies with 0 upkeep. Adding low mana costs when Affinity or items, it becomes "almost" a free way to get deadly armies
Armies that, as follow the sov and the champ from the begining, will grow XP and HP to a point that is almost not necessary create other units. I will not say it is like cheating, as it is legal, worked and accepted, but, man, I got an impression of Very OP.
I don't pretend to nerf it, as I see many players like it (I liked it too at first), but a bit of sense might be implemented, and I think that having mana costs for units would give a bit of "false" balance.
Almost all beastlords will have attunement and will develop mana income quick to cast tames ASAP, so maybe the only thing is to look for a mana upkeep that everybody finds reasonable....and 1 mana for a wolf or spider is ok, but a Hoarder spider should have the same upkeep?
Ok, thinking more carefully I will say that 1 mana cost for every 50 or 100 HP of the beast could be reasonable?
Anyway, I created this post for your opinions, so please tell what you think
The AI probably can't use Tame, but to be fare, there are no AI sovs with Tame unless you make one and decide to play against it, so I don't think that's really an issue.
Recruiting armies with 0 upkeep and some of the monsters are pretty good. But, none of the monsters are as powerful as some of the things you can train. Most beast are not as good as an ogre, which is also 0 upkeep. Other than Great Wolves, I often have difficulty finding any really great monsters, certainly not in a large number. My best was 1 Hoarder and 2 umberdroths. That's pretty good, but it took a long look over a large map, and it can fail.
A small Mana cost might work, but I don't want it to be too prohibitive.
I want us to be very careful with changing this trait. One of the most fun a person can have with this game is playing as a beast lord and finding and taming a rare and powerful beast. Lets not take away the fun of that. I think we should be talking of ways to make other things, like the Bandit Lord or the Noble as fun to play as the beastlord.
I have to agree with Xia on this issue. Beastlord is great if you have the right start, but in my last game it took me 100 turns to tame anything more powerful than a normal bear. I suspect bandit lord might be the same. (will try next game).
Bandit lord actually is far less useful, Simply because there are no good bandit troops to get and it cost gold to get them. They need to broaden what a bandit is, to add Syndicate also.
i'd suggest keeping the unique flavor of the faction and adding a cumulative chance to enrage each combat. While enraged the animal cannot be tamed and converts to the opposite side.
Agreed. Tamed beasts should have a mana upkeep to keep them tamed. Makes a kind of sense that this realm operates in....and also brings some balance to the ability.
Also agree that Bandit Lord wears thin once bandits are no longer a threat. There should be some way of further upgrading the bandits you've bought over so that can remain competitive in the late game.
That would be a good idea, I was gonna try a custom sov with a bow and bandit lord ala Robin Hood and see how I did.
That would be cool, or it could just curl up in a ball for 3 rounds... unless you have the squeaky toy artifact to counter it , your beast won't attack
Instead of costing money to control the bandits, it should be the other way around. They should be a source of extra income. As for the OP, leave Beastlord alone. Please no more something is OP'ed posts.
All my games with a Beastlord, I found plenty of beasts, and some of them were big (a hoarder and some ravenous, wich are very good tanks and webbers).In a game, I had the Spider Event, so you can imagine...I tamed the Spider Queen. But well, if a game you can't find good beasts...thats as to play fire magician and not find fire shards...randomness.
But some mana upkeep is more than reasonable to keep a beast at your side...at least, for the bigger ones...thinking that way, I agree that a crappy bear, wolf or spider maybe would not be necessary, maybe yes, but for a big spider or great wolf...I sure pay a reasonable upkeep
I have not played Bandit Lord, so I don't know how to improve it. Bandits are weak units, so I don't feel them interesting option. And having to pay for bandits? Nope, this really needs a buff.
Instead of paying for them, I would make a "bribe" skill: only pay if it fails. So it means you are a real Lord of Bandits. Bribe or pay...or kill if you don't want to spend money... The wages should be half (I don't know if they are free, then free...beasts are free too isn't it? That is what I'm complaining). And the bandit camp should give free units too (or half wage). Mmm maybe to buff a bit more the bandits, each X normal bandits, there should be recruited a stronger one. MAybe something like a hechman, that you can give traits. And the bandit tech should be available sooner in the tech tree...I find all this is needed to make Bandit Lord an interesting option...so yes Lord Xia, Bandit Lords needs a lot of buff...
@Trojasmic: For my last games, I find Beastlord not OP, but very OP. At least in normal/challenging settings. Adding at least some mana upkeep to the tamed units, or to the greater ones, would smooth that sensation.
Beastlord is overpowered and I agree with the OP but not sure about how to fix it. And it is a hell of a lot of fun to play at the moment.
Perhaps the experience you would gain from killing the beast could be added to the spell resistance of the beast when you try to tame it. That way the large, more powerful beasts would be more risky and difficult to tame.
As it stands, you quickly get uber-strong armies at game start by just sending out your sov on his own and as the OP said, they return quickly with a very powerful menagerie.
Making everything strong eventually leads to power inflation, and that can be just as bad as nerfing everything.
One change: make beast lord independent of spell mastery, there seems to be a correlation.
I loved to play it, untill in my lasty game I realiced (just because I found quickly an AI, following a road...insta-roads!) that lvl 9 or so sov with a harridan easily took a city, and defended against AI counterattack with militia help. Other hero (level 8 or so) was with a hoarder, 2 bears, 2 corpses ad a great wolf, and found the other AI with 2 cities...I wanted to spend time to grow the empire, but temptation was too big...
I think too that as more spell mastery, the easiest the taming.
I found soon a suit of +2 spell mastery and -10%mana cost, and beasts resisted less...after that, I took Path of the Mage and Affinity, and almost no one resisted...
Now this is a really fun idea. Made me laugh out loud
Well, I agree that the BL is a little overpowered but mainly because rushing is to easy in early game.
In the long run the BL (with no military tech) not only might get problems finding new beasts (in my current ridiculous epic game I had no respawn in any of the mob camps for 250 turns) but is also restricted to units that have almost no armor (5 def at lvl 10+ is barly anything) and do only cutting dmg (and some poison but the immunity to poison seems to be the most popular resistance of all).
In a multiplayer game a beasts-only-BLs strength would be gone by mid-/early-end-game for sure and until than lots of Archers focusing on one target at a time should make a very good defense.
To reduce the early strength of this profession I would suggest to restict tame to beasts of a lower lvl than the BLs and make it cost additional influence for beasts of lvl5+ (could be sclaed.., lvl 5-9 = 10 inf, lvl 10+ = 20 inf) and of course no exp from taming for anyone. If that is not enough one could link the lvl of beasts that can be tamed to the civ techs that unlock champions of the same lvl.
Another idea would be to restrict the amount of beasts by not allowing them to leave the BLs side (army) or by "untaming" them if not in the BLs army at the end of turn (so you can replace a beast with a newly tamed one if army limit was reached).
An upkeep in mana would imho be to restrictive because even though my sov has to go the path of mage (spell mastery) I dont see a BL as a mage and I would hate be forced to build conclaves everywhere like a real mage (those that have more than one skill/spell). Influence on the other hand is used to build henchmen or recruit natives which is not that different from taming beasts.
PS: I am not sure if the AI can handle taming but I am sure that it is uncapable of keeping tamed beasts safe for long. (Ever seen a lvl 2 champ escorting 3 pioneers through a wildland filled with tones of medium/strong armies and a Stormdragon? )
Beastlord is not overpowered. If we are talking about overpowered, we have to deal with this armorer and dodge/armor stacking first because those are far more game-breaking than everything else.
for goosh gooly sakes dont change it. This game can be played a thousand different ways. I went through a whole game as a beast lord but founded no city, and did not even take one over until mid game. It was a blast. I wound up winning (kinda), but I went up a couple difficulties and got crushed.
Winning with some strategy does not in my mind make it OP. If the strategy worked then crank up the difficulty and start anew. See if it works again without saving and reloading.
Or if your really cool take your first two champs out on a hunting trip and let them get mulled before you tame the animal. One champ gets a broken leg, and the other gets dementia. Talk about a start they wont forget.
I think the game is designed so that if you can survive to late game you are overpowered. The ending conditions look like they were designed to be difficult in a race-to-the-win situation (midway through one research tree).
Please do not change, its fun. Last game i had 2 spiders and 2 great wolves all game - wasn't much, but helped a lot in the beginning. I babied those poor fragile great wolves till they were giving out +13 attack to all troops at the start of a battle.
beastlord isn't overpowered at all. The proposed mana costs are certainly far too high and would break the trait.
Most beasts aren't that great, or worth very much. Most of them have little or no defense, and they don't hit too hard either. There are some, like the Great Wolf, who are a bit much. but lesser creatures are meh. I don't know any beasts that have ranged attacks, or vast amounts of defense.
the problem is that earlygame rushing is too strong: https://forums.elementalgame.com/436563
everything else just feeds onto that. Most animals are only useful in the earlygame
I seldom lean towards nerfing a particular ability, mostly because in a single play game, whether you use it or not is up to you.
That said, I called for nerfing "Master scouts", and am very happy that it was done, because now I can use the part I enjoy (fast movement) without the part that took away from my enjoyment (invisibility to monsters)
I called for a nerf of dodging, and am very happy with its present effectiveness (less than half of what it used to be).
I also believe that the game would be better with a careful re-balancing of juggernauts and henchmen, because they are too effective right now, and I have found myself avoiding them on any difficulty below ridiculous. Thus, I am prevented from enjoying a particular game feature by its over-effectiveness.
Now back to beastlords. Do I think its too effective? Yes. I have never taken a beastlord past turn 50-70, because the two times I played one, I had an unstoppable horde very, very early. That to me is not enjoyable.
There are beasts that you can tame very early that raise your power by a degree of magnitude - silt skaths, umberdroths, hoarders. There is at least one beast that can turn newbies into dragon killers - the great wolf. As it is right now, taming is trivially easy, the initial costs manageable with a properly designed sovereign, and there are no ongoing costs nor a chance of rebellion.
I think that some of these need to be changed.
First, taming should have a massive penalty for health difference. No beast can be tamed by what it sees as a tasty morsel. Every single hit point the beast has on the tamer should be a few extra percents chance for failure.
Second, introduce a chance of going temporary hostile every time a beast takes damage, or have a chance for the beast to become untamed every turn. Have an enchantment that you can place on a beast to prevent any of the above. This way you can choose to either pay an ongoing cost, or risk a rebellion at a very inconvenient time.
Of course, this just my opinion. I can't enjoy something that makes the game too easy. If you can, have fun! I'll keep away from beastlords, and you can keep enjoying them. But if it were up to me, I would significantly reduce their power and ease of use.
Just how are you taming the umberdroths so easily? I have had a hell of a time getting them early game, most cases they resist and then I have a fight on my hands that I often lose.... Late game its not so much of an issue but getting one early game is a risky gamble.
i don't see how HP is a logical grounds for increasing the costs. This is what magic resistance is for.
I played a beastlord recently and i found the 40 mana per cast to be very costly early on, especially given the chance of failing. With no armor, my beasts tended to die in battle rather easily. I did get a silt skath, and those are good, but they're nothing special vs armored knights. i've only ever had an umberdroth once and it was from a quest.
The Great wolf is overpowered, we agree there. I'd say it's attack bonus should be scaled to something less effective. Instead of giving it's level in damage, it should maybe give 3 + half of it's level. And the bonuses from multiple wolves in the same army need to NOT stack.
I think this really hits a good point to why troops are so hard to make work for the longhaul of a game.
You need to build them eary. You then need to baby them to get them strong.
If you don't baby them, they're just weak troops sitting around waiting to be slaughtered. In many ways, babying troops is far more tedious and micromanaging than taking care of city queues.
My first 2 games with BL I had lots of fun. But I found that Spell Mastery increased a lot the chance of taming, so in my third game, I took POTM and affinity and got a deadly army (hoarders, harridans) with little mana cost, and no upkeep, Meanwhile AI were like babies. That removed the fun, and that is why I posted.
About your suggestions, I find the first one (more HP, less % of tame) fair, but not fun. I don't want to suggest removing fun for other players. The second one requieres a new spell, and the results is the same as without it: a sort of upkeep is necessary. Well in mana, well in influence (but influence would require to change the sov design).
The idea of having a risk of rebellion is pretty interesting too, but IDK how could it be implemented and/or avoided. I'll add it to OP.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
